John Stuart Mill was one of the most influential intellectuals in the Victorian Era. Mill grew up in a utilitarian household, which definitely shaped his views, however he tends to be more liberal than the average utilitarian. Utilitarianism is the idea that a moral decision is based solely on its contribution to the happiness of all the people in a community; with maximized goodness being the preference. Mills wrote On Liberty in 1859 describing the limits of power that the government can have over an individual. He supports the idea that people can do whatever they want up until that point in which their actions harm another individual.
Mill was a very radical thinker during this era. You have to remember that prior to his ideas, European countries had pretty much always had a form of hierarchical society in which you were born into nobility and/or the upper class or you were born into peasantry. Certain rights were given to the upper class and certain rights or lack thereof were reserved for the middle and lower classes. In On Liberty, Chapter 2: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, Mill proposes that, “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (p. 515). Even in our society today, where “all people have equal rights”, this is an extremely radical statement. For although we do give everyone equal rights, we rule through a majority and Mill’s proposition is certainly no majority. But, during the Victorian Era, where only a select few are given individual rights, this is beyond a radical statement, although an interesting one. For Mill states, “But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion, is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation…” (p. 515). As Mill goes onto explain throughout the rest of the chapter, only through hearing all opinions can we, as a society, gain knowledge. Even when the opinion is wrong, it will only help validate the truth; and if it is right we can exchange it with what he had previously thought the truth to be.
I think Mill makes a great point in that, “The majority of the eminent men of every past generation held many opinions now known to be erroneous, and did or approved numerous things which no one will now justify” (p. 515). The only way a society can advance is through radical and different ideas. If no one can think of something new and different then society will become stagnant. We see examples of this throughout history including Martin Luther King’s belief that black men should have the right to vote, Galileo and heliocentricism, or the idea that a black man could be the President of the United States. All these and many more opinions when first publicized were seen as absurd, ridiculous, outrageous, and probably false to the majority. What if the majority had silenced some of these great individuals with their one opinion? Their individual opinions were able to grow and flourish into accepted truths.
The last thing Mill discusses in the end of Chapter 2 is the idea of discussion and argument. Having opinions and expressing them to one another is essential, but it is not the end. In order for these opinions to be questioned, debated, and ultimately judged valid or false, one must enter into discussion or argument. Mill states, “Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument: but facts and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it” (p. 516). As previously stated, any opinion is helpful for society’s growth. If it is a wrong opinion it will only enhance and support the truth. If it is a true opinion, but goes against the preexisting truth, than it will probably result in debated argument, but will eventually produce a truth propelling society forward in a positive direction.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Role of a Victorian Lady!!!
As discussed in my blog about Aurora Leigh by Elizabeth Browning, a woman's role in society was a very hot topic in the mid 1800’s. Due to the economic prosperity of the Victorian era, many middle class men and women found themselves able to enter the ranks of the upper class. However, certain social distinctions like manners, birth, occupation, and leisure time were indicators of which social rank one belonged to. Ladies and gentlemen aspired to “conform” to their respective spheres of society. For women, this was a domestic sphere including responsibility over one’s family and home where as for men, this meant a very public sphere. As Tennyson stated in The Princess, “Man for the field and woman for the hearth:
Man for the sword and for the needle she:
Man with the head and woman with the heart:
Man to command and woman to obey:
All else confusion” (p. 555).
The woman’s job at this time was to take care of the household, in free time she would be expected to excel in sewing, music, or art, she should be a comforter and moral compass for her husband at home, and always be submissive.
The Victorian era was a time of change in England and with that came ideas contrary to the norm, ideas like women having rights of their own and the will to do what pleases them. I will use this blog to look at two women authors with two very different points of views; the first, Sarah Stickney Ellis, who was content with the traditional view of the domesticated woman and then Caroline Norton, who helped to publicize the injustice of womanhood. I would like to point out that there were women during this period who sided with Ellis in that they liked the role they played and had no interest pursuing more and there were many women like Norton who felt women were capable of much more and deserved to have their own rights.
Sarah Stickney Ellis wrote many guides for females including The Women of England: Their Social Duties and Domestic Habits, which advised women to simply accept their inferiority to men and embrace their duty to support the men in their lives. Although Ellis discourages women from having intellectual ambitions, she does give women credit for having a greater moral ability than men. “…Be of essential service in aiding the judgments of their husbands, brothers, or sons in those intricate affairs in which it is sometimes difficult to dissever worldly wisdom from religious duty” (p. 557). Ellis states that men have so many things to think about that being moral and Christ-like in their decisions may be the last thing on their mind, but it is something that women can aspire to help them with. Ellis later states that when men are tempted by the world around them, “he has thought of the humble monitress… and the remembrance of her character, clothed in moral beauty, has scattered the clouds before his mental vision, and sent him back to that beloved home, a wiser and better man” (p. 557). Although this description makes the woman seem needed and useful, I think it is a bit naive on Ellis’ part. I’m not sure most men at that time truly did think back to their wives at home to give them guidance on moral righteousness. Another point that Ellis makes is the type of education that is most effective in making a woman-- one that produces qualities and character traits that are most admired and beloved like “disinterested kindness” and “moral greatness”.
Caroline Norton wrote A Letter to the Queen in 1855 with a slightly different opinion on the role of women in society. Norton blatantly states, “A married woman in England has no legal existence: her being is absorbed in that of her husband” (p. 565). Basically, during the 19th century, it was not only custom, but actual law for a woman’s person and property to belong to her husband. “She has no possessions… cannot make a will…cannot legally claim her own earnings… not leave her husband’s house… take proceedings for a divorce… allowed to defend herself” (p. 566). As a child, a young girl’s parents have control over her and then once she is married her rights are simply transferred from her parents to her husband. Women in Europe never had rights or control of their own being. One point that Norton makes that I find interesting and possibly in rebuttal to Ellis, “Her being, on the other hand, of spotless character, and without reproach, gives her no advantage in law” (p. 566). I think this is a very good point for if women are to be held to such a high moral standards, then they should certainly be trusted to make their own decisions and do not need to be controlled by the men in their lives.
Man for the sword and for the needle she:
Man with the head and woman with the heart:
Man to command and woman to obey:
All else confusion” (p. 555).
The woman’s job at this time was to take care of the household, in free time she would be expected to excel in sewing, music, or art, she should be a comforter and moral compass for her husband at home, and always be submissive.
The Victorian era was a time of change in England and with that came ideas contrary to the norm, ideas like women having rights of their own and the will to do what pleases them. I will use this blog to look at two women authors with two very different points of views; the first, Sarah Stickney Ellis, who was content with the traditional view of the domesticated woman and then Caroline Norton, who helped to publicize the injustice of womanhood. I would like to point out that there were women during this period who sided with Ellis in that they liked the role they played and had no interest pursuing more and there were many women like Norton who felt women were capable of much more and deserved to have their own rights.
Sarah Stickney Ellis wrote many guides for females including The Women of England: Their Social Duties and Domestic Habits, which advised women to simply accept their inferiority to men and embrace their duty to support the men in their lives. Although Ellis discourages women from having intellectual ambitions, she does give women credit for having a greater moral ability than men. “…Be of essential service in aiding the judgments of their husbands, brothers, or sons in those intricate affairs in which it is sometimes difficult to dissever worldly wisdom from religious duty” (p. 557). Ellis states that men have so many things to think about that being moral and Christ-like in their decisions may be the last thing on their mind, but it is something that women can aspire to help them with. Ellis later states that when men are tempted by the world around them, “he has thought of the humble monitress… and the remembrance of her character, clothed in moral beauty, has scattered the clouds before his mental vision, and sent him back to that beloved home, a wiser and better man” (p. 557). Although this description makes the woman seem needed and useful, I think it is a bit naive on Ellis’ part. I’m not sure most men at that time truly did think back to their wives at home to give them guidance on moral righteousness. Another point that Ellis makes is the type of education that is most effective in making a woman-- one that produces qualities and character traits that are most admired and beloved like “disinterested kindness” and “moral greatness”.
Caroline Norton wrote A Letter to the Queen in 1855 with a slightly different opinion on the role of women in society. Norton blatantly states, “A married woman in England has no legal existence: her being is absorbed in that of her husband” (p. 565). Basically, during the 19th century, it was not only custom, but actual law for a woman’s person and property to belong to her husband. “She has no possessions… cannot make a will…cannot legally claim her own earnings… not leave her husband’s house… take proceedings for a divorce… allowed to defend herself” (p. 566). As a child, a young girl’s parents have control over her and then once she is married her rights are simply transferred from her parents to her husband. Women in Europe never had rights or control of their own being. One point that Norton makes that I find interesting and possibly in rebuttal to Ellis, “Her being, on the other hand, of spotless character, and without reproach, gives her no advantage in law” (p. 566). I think this is a very good point for if women are to be held to such a high moral standards, then they should certainly be trusted to make their own decisions and do not need to be controlled by the men in their lives.
Robert Browning--> My Last Duchess
Robert Browning, like his wife, came from a wealthy family and was self- educated. He was not as popular as Elizabeth and actually wrote a fan letter declaring his love for her and her poetry. She overshadowed him throughout their marriage, but after her death, his work became more popular. While Elizabeth tended to write poetry dealing with gender issues, Robert wrote much harsher prose about historical situations. One of the things that makes Robert’s work so unique is the way it leaves the reader with multiple conclusions and it is near impossible to tell what side he is on; his intentions or purpose for writing the work are rarely revealed. He liked the characters themselves to be the narrators and tends to catch them in a moment of emotional intensity in which they reveal their character though imagery, language, rhythm, and unintended ironies.
One of his more disturbing works, My Last Duchess, takes place during a meeting between a duke and the envoy of his future wife’s father. The envoy is meeting with the duke to make a decision for the father as to whether the two should be allowed to marry. As the footnote points out, the narrator and main character is modeled after Alfonso II, Duke of Ferrara, who married Lucrezia de Medici in 1558. His wife died three years later with suspicions of poisoning and in 1565 the duke married the daughter of Ferdinand I. Browning begins the poem by pointing out to the envoy, “That’s my last Duchess painted on the wall” (p. 663); “Sir, ‘twas not/ Her husband’s presence only, called that spot/ Of joy into the Duchess’ cheek…” (p. 664). At this point the reader probably begins to wonder what is going on. First, it seems as though the Duke is by no means sad that his last duchess has died. Secondly, the quote about her becoming joyful at other’s presence and the duke’s disdain about it, may imply his skepticism about her faithfulness to him. It is easy to wonder then whether he murdered her.
The first time I read the poem I sympathized with the duchess because she seemed to be such a kind and happy woman and the duke, a ruthless, jealous, easily angered man. However, upon the second and third readings, the following lines struck me differently, “She had/ A heart--how shall I say?--too soon made glad,/ Too easily impressed; she liked whate’er/ She looked on, and her looks went everywhere” (p. 664). This time around the last two lines gave me a feeling that the woman may have been unfaithful to her husband. But then a few lines down, “… as if she ranked/ My gift of a nine-hundred-years-old name/ With anybody’s gift…” (p. 664), the duke is characterized as arrogant and jealous; he apparently doesn’t feel very appreciated. Could this possibly be reason enough to murder her or have her murdered? “This grew; I gave commands;/ Then all smiles stopped together” (p. 664). This quote certainly leads the reader to the conclusion that the duke murdered his duchess out of jealousy and suspicions of unfaithfulness.
As we brought up in our chat session, one of the things that makes Robert Browning so intriguing is the multiple interpretations left available for the reader. Did the Duke think that the woman was unfaithful or simply overly happily? Was she unfaithful? Did he murder her? Did he have her murdered? Why was he going on and on to the envoy in that manner? Was it a slip? Was it a warning for his future duchess? Was he boasting? What does the envoy think? Not once do we get a peek at what the envoy is thinking through this time with the duke. Will he suggest the marriage to his employer? No matter the answers to any of these questions, My Last Duchess, is a very disturbing and thought provoking poem.
One of his more disturbing works, My Last Duchess, takes place during a meeting between a duke and the envoy of his future wife’s father. The envoy is meeting with the duke to make a decision for the father as to whether the two should be allowed to marry. As the footnote points out, the narrator and main character is modeled after Alfonso II, Duke of Ferrara, who married Lucrezia de Medici in 1558. His wife died three years later with suspicions of poisoning and in 1565 the duke married the daughter of Ferdinand I. Browning begins the poem by pointing out to the envoy, “That’s my last Duchess painted on the wall” (p. 663); “Sir, ‘twas not/ Her husband’s presence only, called that spot/ Of joy into the Duchess’ cheek…” (p. 664). At this point the reader probably begins to wonder what is going on. First, it seems as though the Duke is by no means sad that his last duchess has died. Secondly, the quote about her becoming joyful at other’s presence and the duke’s disdain about it, may imply his skepticism about her faithfulness to him. It is easy to wonder then whether he murdered her.
The first time I read the poem I sympathized with the duchess because she seemed to be such a kind and happy woman and the duke, a ruthless, jealous, easily angered man. However, upon the second and third readings, the following lines struck me differently, “She had/ A heart--how shall I say?--too soon made glad,/ Too easily impressed; she liked whate’er/ She looked on, and her looks went everywhere” (p. 664). This time around the last two lines gave me a feeling that the woman may have been unfaithful to her husband. But then a few lines down, “… as if she ranked/ My gift of a nine-hundred-years-old name/ With anybody’s gift…” (p. 664), the duke is characterized as arrogant and jealous; he apparently doesn’t feel very appreciated. Could this possibly be reason enough to murder her or have her murdered? “This grew; I gave commands;/ Then all smiles stopped together” (p. 664). This quote certainly leads the reader to the conclusion that the duke murdered his duchess out of jealousy and suspicions of unfaithfulness.
As we brought up in our chat session, one of the things that makes Robert Browning so intriguing is the multiple interpretations left available for the reader. Did the Duke think that the woman was unfaithful or simply overly happily? Was she unfaithful? Did he murder her? Did he have her murdered? Why was he going on and on to the envoy in that manner? Was it a slip? Was it a warning for his future duchess? Was he boasting? What does the envoy think? Not once do we get a peek at what the envoy is thinking through this time with the duke. Will he suggest the marriage to his employer? No matter the answers to any of these questions, My Last Duchess, is a very disturbing and thought provoking poem.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Aurora Leigh- Elizabeth Barrett Browning
Elizabeth Browning, raised in an upper class family, was well-educated and by the age of 35 was one of the most popular poets in England. She was much more popular than her husband, Robert Browning, however the two wrote about very different subjects. She focused a lot on gender issues, which was a very hot topic during the mid 1800’s. One of her longest and most ambitious poems as well as one of her most successful was Aurora Leigh, a blank-verse narrative. It centers around a young girl who has been orphaned and raised by her aunt. She is very independent and an aspiring writer; like Elizabeth, she finds herself struggling to balance work and love. These social norms Aurora Leigh fights to break mirror those which Elizabeth fought throughout her own life.
I will focus this blog on one section from Browning’s Aurora Leigh, Book 1 [AURORA'S EDUCATION]. As previously stated, Aurora’s mother dies and her father sends her to live with her aunt so she can be properly educated in womanly things. It doesn’t take very long for the reader to see how Aurora Leigh, as the narrator, feels about her aunt. “She had lived, we’ll say,/ A harmless life, she called a virtuous life,/ A quiet life, which was not life at all/ (But that, she had not lived enough to know)” and then later on line 304, “She had lived/ A sort of cage-bird life” (p. 536). I think it is fairly easy to understand that the aunt has probably lived the life of a typical woman in the mid 1800’s; doing what was expected without complaint. It is also pretty easy to see that Aurora Leigh does not agree that this is a good or right way to live life nor does she plan on living like her aunt. In line 309, Aurora Leigh describes herself as a “wild bird” as opposed to the cage bird that she described her aunt as earlier. Her father has brought her to become educated by her aunt, but Aurora Leigh quickly sees it as stifling and is not optimistic about it as seen in the following line, she was “brought to her [the aunt] cage” (p. 536). I am going to assume that Aurora feels as though she, being brought to her aunt’s cage, is going to be “tamed” so to speak, which she sees as a negative thing.
The next stanza goes on to describe the liberal education her aunt deemed necessary which included collects, catechisms, literature, French, German, a little algebra, some of the sciences, music, art, and dancing. To her aunt, this education was not necessary in order to expand Aurora’s intellect or further her literary gifts, but that she “may teach thinking (to a maiden aunt/ Or else the author)” or so that she can “comprehend husband’s talk/ When not too deep, and even of answering/ With pretty “may it please you,” or “so it is,”--” (p. 538). With these quotes, we can see that a woman during this era was not expected to have the education of a man nor was it desirable. Her education was simply to make her more “marriageable” meaning that she can carry on minimal conversation with her husband, but by no means should she be more knowledgeable than him in any of the fields besides perhaps music, art, and dancing. Additionally, in line 437, “And never say “no” when the world says “ay,”/ For that is fatal...” (p. 538). Basically, a woman should follow tradition and there is no reason for her to ever think outside the box or come up with an original thought.
Towards the end of this section, Aurora, or the narrator, becomes slightly sarcastic showing her disdain for the work women are expected to do in society. “The works of women are symbolical.
We sew, sew, prick our fingers, dull our sight,
Producing what? A pair of slippers…
a stool…
a cushion, where you lean
And sleep, and dream of something we are not
But would be for your sake…
This hurts most, this--that, after all, we are paid
the worth of our work, perhaps” (p. 538).
As previously stated, we see the way Aurora and probably, ultimately, how Elizabeth feels about the jobs of women in society. She feels the things that are expected of them like sewing are monotonous, boring, and worthless. Sarcastically, she says there is a reason why they’re not paid for their work, which is because it is worthless. I think her words are a bit harsh in that women of her time probably were very talented sewers and cross-stichers. However, she has a point in that women are capable of much more than society was allowing of them and in comparison to their ability, the majority of women were not living up to their full worth.
I will focus this blog on one section from Browning’s Aurora Leigh, Book 1 [AURORA'S EDUCATION]. As previously stated, Aurora’s mother dies and her father sends her to live with her aunt so she can be properly educated in womanly things. It doesn’t take very long for the reader to see how Aurora Leigh, as the narrator, feels about her aunt. “She had lived, we’ll say,/ A harmless life, she called a virtuous life,/ A quiet life, which was not life at all/ (But that, she had not lived enough to know)” and then later on line 304, “She had lived/ A sort of cage-bird life” (p. 536). I think it is fairly easy to understand that the aunt has probably lived the life of a typical woman in the mid 1800’s; doing what was expected without complaint. It is also pretty easy to see that Aurora Leigh does not agree that this is a good or right way to live life nor does she plan on living like her aunt. In line 309, Aurora Leigh describes herself as a “wild bird” as opposed to the cage bird that she described her aunt as earlier. Her father has brought her to become educated by her aunt, but Aurora Leigh quickly sees it as stifling and is not optimistic about it as seen in the following line, she was “brought to her [the aunt] cage” (p. 536). I am going to assume that Aurora feels as though she, being brought to her aunt’s cage, is going to be “tamed” so to speak, which she sees as a negative thing.
The next stanza goes on to describe the liberal education her aunt deemed necessary which included collects, catechisms, literature, French, German, a little algebra, some of the sciences, music, art, and dancing. To her aunt, this education was not necessary in order to expand Aurora’s intellect or further her literary gifts, but that she “may teach thinking (to a maiden aunt/ Or else the author)” or so that she can “comprehend husband’s talk/ When not too deep, and even of answering/ With pretty “may it please you,” or “so it is,”--” (p. 538). With these quotes, we can see that a woman during this era was not expected to have the education of a man nor was it desirable. Her education was simply to make her more “marriageable” meaning that she can carry on minimal conversation with her husband, but by no means should she be more knowledgeable than him in any of the fields besides perhaps music, art, and dancing. Additionally, in line 437, “And never say “no” when the world says “ay,”/ For that is fatal...” (p. 538). Basically, a woman should follow tradition and there is no reason for her to ever think outside the box or come up with an original thought.
Towards the end of this section, Aurora, or the narrator, becomes slightly sarcastic showing her disdain for the work women are expected to do in society. “The works of women are symbolical.
We sew, sew, prick our fingers, dull our sight,
Producing what? A pair of slippers…
a stool…
a cushion, where you lean
And sleep, and dream of something we are not
But would be for your sake…
This hurts most, this--that, after all, we are paid
the worth of our work, perhaps” (p. 538).
As previously stated, we see the way Aurora and probably, ultimately, how Elizabeth feels about the jobs of women in society. She feels the things that are expected of them like sewing are monotonous, boring, and worthless. Sarcastically, she says there is a reason why they’re not paid for their work, which is because it is worthless. I think her words are a bit harsh in that women of her time probably were very talented sewers and cross-stichers. However, she has a point in that women are capable of much more than society was allowing of them and in comparison to their ability, the majority of women were not living up to their full worth.
Alfred, Lord Tennyson--> The Lady of Shalott
Alfred, Lord Tennyson grew up in a very large family and was well educated. He was a known for writing short lyrics and blank verses. In 1833 he published The Lady of Shalott, which was criticized immensely. That same year, a close friend and advisor to Tennyson, Aurthur Hallam, died suddenly. Hallam was as a huge support system for Tennyson and his death was devastating, putting him into a deep depression where Tennyson did not publish for ten years. However, he spent that time writing several of his most renowned works as well he was able to improve upon some of his previous published works including Lady of Shalott, which was re- published in 1842. In 1850 he was named Poet Laureate. Tennyson was best known for his musical ear and his ability to put words together to give them a lyrical quality.
The Lady of a Shalott is about a woman who has been “cursed”. She is forced to stay in a tower and is only able to look down from her tower to the world by looking through a mirror. She weaves different images of what she sees down below her. As previously stated, Tennyson published two versions of The Lady of Shalott. Two distinct differences between the versions that Dr. Glance points out in his pod cast are the rhyming schemes and the alternative ending. In his first version, in the first stanza, Tennyson writes, “ They yellowleav’d water lily,/ The greensheath’d daffodilly,/ Tremble in the water chilly” verses the second version, “And up and down the people go,/ Gazing where the lilies blow/ Round an island there below”. I don’t think the change makes a difference in the meaning or interpretation of the poem, but because Tennyson had such a creative and lyrical ear, he probably reworked it so that the words would resonant verses constrict your throat when read aloud; therefore, the second publication had a more impressive rhyming scheme. The second major difference is the ending; in the first publication, the Lady of Shalott has the last word, but in the second publication, Lancelot ends the poem. We discussed Tennyson’s reasoning and the reader’s interpretations of the alternative endings in our chat session, so I do not plan on going into detail about that.
However, I am going to go out on a limb and point out a connection to Plato's Allegory of the Cave that I noticed while reading the poem. I am assuming that this was not Tennyson’s intention, however I think it is interesting and will spend my remaining blog on this topic. As Tennyson states, “Four gray walls, and four gray towers,/ Overlook a space of flowers,/ And the silent isle embowers/ The Lady of Shalott” (p. 589). So, we know that the Lady of Shalott lives in a tower overlooking the people of Camelot. Tennyson continues explaining the Lady’s situation, “A curse is on her if she stay/ To look down to Camelot./ She knows not what the curse may be,/ And so she weaveth steadily… And moving thro’ a mirror clear/ That hangs before her all the year,/ Shadows of the world appear” (p. 590). In Part 2, the reader is able to see that the Lady of Shalott is held prisoner up in a tower and forced to weave images or “shadows” of things that she sees down below her. If you remember is Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, there are a group of prisoners who have been chained and held captive in a cave since childhood, forced to stare at the wall of the cave. The wall has shadows cast onto it from free people outside the cave behind the prisoners. Plato’s Allegory has two main ideas about intellectual enlightenment including questioning one’s truth and reality as well as Plato explains the path to enlightenment for an individual. Although these are not directly things that Tennyson is probably pointing out, I do see an interesting comparison. The Lady of Shalott and the prisoners are both forced to stay in a place, the prisoners must "experience" life through the shadows of people who really are experiencing the world and the Lady of Shalott wakes up every day to see the world below her through a mirror and must live through the images she weaves.
In line 70, “Came two young lovers lately wed;/ “I am half sick of shadows,” said/ The Lady of Shalott” (p. 590). I think this shows that The Lady of Shalott realized that human’s were designed for love and she would never experience that from in her tower. Later in the poem, upon setting her eyes on Lancelot, “She left the web, she left the loom, She made three paces thro’ the room/…She look’d down to Camelot/… “The curse is come upon me” (p. 591). I think what makes this poem so intriguing is the question, was it worth it? The Lady of Shalott dies and she isn’t even able to spend time with her “lover”. But, even for a moment she was able to experience freedom and life. The prisoners were ignorant to the truth, but the fact that they experienced the shadows, they were better able to appreciate the true reality. I think its easy to look at what happens to the Lady of Shalott as a tragedy, but I choose to look at it differently. Due to the fact that she was forced into the darkness of her tower and withheld from true life with human interaction, even if just for a moment, once out of the tower, she was finally able to experience true life and that makes it completely worth it.
The Lady of a Shalott is about a woman who has been “cursed”. She is forced to stay in a tower and is only able to look down from her tower to the world by looking through a mirror. She weaves different images of what she sees down below her. As previously stated, Tennyson published two versions of The Lady of Shalott. Two distinct differences between the versions that Dr. Glance points out in his pod cast are the rhyming schemes and the alternative ending. In his first version, in the first stanza, Tennyson writes, “ They yellowleav’d water lily,/ The greensheath’d daffodilly,/ Tremble in the water chilly” verses the second version, “And up and down the people go,/ Gazing where the lilies blow/ Round an island there below”. I don’t think the change makes a difference in the meaning or interpretation of the poem, but because Tennyson had such a creative and lyrical ear, he probably reworked it so that the words would resonant verses constrict your throat when read aloud; therefore, the second publication had a more impressive rhyming scheme. The second major difference is the ending; in the first publication, the Lady of Shalott has the last word, but in the second publication, Lancelot ends the poem. We discussed Tennyson’s reasoning and the reader’s interpretations of the alternative endings in our chat session, so I do not plan on going into detail about that.
However, I am going to go out on a limb and point out a connection to Plato's Allegory of the Cave that I noticed while reading the poem. I am assuming that this was not Tennyson’s intention, however I think it is interesting and will spend my remaining blog on this topic. As Tennyson states, “Four gray walls, and four gray towers,/ Overlook a space of flowers,/ And the silent isle embowers/ The Lady of Shalott” (p. 589). So, we know that the Lady of Shalott lives in a tower overlooking the people of Camelot. Tennyson continues explaining the Lady’s situation, “A curse is on her if she stay/ To look down to Camelot./ She knows not what the curse may be,/ And so she weaveth steadily… And moving thro’ a mirror clear/ That hangs before her all the year,/ Shadows of the world appear” (p. 590). In Part 2, the reader is able to see that the Lady of Shalott is held prisoner up in a tower and forced to weave images or “shadows” of things that she sees down below her. If you remember is Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, there are a group of prisoners who have been chained and held captive in a cave since childhood, forced to stare at the wall of the cave. The wall has shadows cast onto it from free people outside the cave behind the prisoners. Plato’s Allegory has two main ideas about intellectual enlightenment including questioning one’s truth and reality as well as Plato explains the path to enlightenment for an individual. Although these are not directly things that Tennyson is probably pointing out, I do see an interesting comparison. The Lady of Shalott and the prisoners are both forced to stay in a place, the prisoners must "experience" life through the shadows of people who really are experiencing the world and the Lady of Shalott wakes up every day to see the world below her through a mirror and must live through the images she weaves.
In line 70, “Came two young lovers lately wed;/ “I am half sick of shadows,” said/ The Lady of Shalott” (p. 590). I think this shows that The Lady of Shalott realized that human’s were designed for love and she would never experience that from in her tower. Later in the poem, upon setting her eyes on Lancelot, “She left the web, she left the loom, She made three paces thro’ the room/…She look’d down to Camelot/… “The curse is come upon me” (p. 591). I think what makes this poem so intriguing is the question, was it worth it? The Lady of Shalott dies and she isn’t even able to spend time with her “lover”. But, even for a moment she was able to experience freedom and life. The prisoners were ignorant to the truth, but the fact that they experienced the shadows, they were better able to appreciate the true reality. I think its easy to look at what happens to the Lady of Shalott as a tragedy, but I choose to look at it differently. Due to the fact that she was forced into the darkness of her tower and withheld from true life with human interaction, even if just for a moment, once out of the tower, she was finally able to experience true life and that makes it completely worth it.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Industrialization Part II: evils!
As promised in my last blog, this one will be dedicated to exploring the negative aspects of the Industrial Revolution. As I stated in the last blog, the Industrial Revolution was a time of economic prosperity, technological advancements, and a period which gave the people great optimism for the future. However, as previously stated, there were many negative consequences to the industrialization occurring in England. Many writers of the Victorian Era including Dickenson, Engels, and Carlyle were very much against the evils of industrialization. In this blog, I will be focusing on Friedrich Engels’ position on the Industrial Revolution as seen in his work The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844.
Friedrich Engels was a German social scientist and philosopher. He came to England to study the cotton trade and textile mills, but while there he discovered the overcrowding in the major cities of London and Manchester. He was appalled by the horrible working and insufficient living conditions of the English factory workers. This disgust prompted the writing of his first book, The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. He would eventually become the father of the communist theory alongside of Karl Marx
Engels begins by admitting the fact that London has “multiplied a hundred- fold the economic strength of the two and half million inhabitants concentrated there… the commercial capital of the world (p. 500)”. He briefly describes England from an onlookers perspective as quite prosperous and great, but upon a closer inspection, one can see “the human suffering which has made all this possible (p. 500)”. Due to urbanization and the institution of the factory, many rural workers found themselves without a job and thus had to move into the cities. The major cities of London and Manchester found themselves overcrowded causing sanitation problems and probably discomfort to many families.
This overcrowding also led to an intense competition among the people of England for housing, jobs, and even food. I think Engels is pointing to that in the following statement, “Are they not all equally interested in the pursuit of happiness? And do they not all aim at happiness by following similar methods? The more Londoners are packed into a tiny space, the more repulsive and disgraceful becomes the brutal indifference with which they ignore their neighbors and selfishly concentrate upon their private affairs (p. 502)”. I think on one hand, this shows that the culture was changing in London during this era in that for the first time the middle class had the chance to rise up and make something for themselves. However, it also shows the brutal coldness that humans are capable of. I think our society today, as ugly as it seems, supports the competitive drive in people to be better than their neighbor because it promotes progress.
I think Engels would agree that generally this social struggle does promote progress, but “the strongest of all, a tiny group of capitalists, monopolise everything, while the weakest, who are in the vast majority, succumb to the most abject poverty (p. 502)”. It seems that what Engels detests most about this situation is the fact that those with wealth and power have no respect for those who are poor; they simply close their eyes to the way in which the poor are forced to live describing it as the “filth and dilapidation of a district which is quite unfit for human habitation (p. 507)” and that “It is only modern industry which permits these owners to take advantage of the poverty of the workers, to undermine the health of thousands to enrich themselves (p. 508)”.
The Industrial Age was such a bipolar time in that there were obvious positive enrichments that arose, but this progress came at the cost of suffering, hardship, and exploitation of an entire social class. Engels concludes his essay explaining the horrible cycle England found herself in in the middle of the 19th century, “Industry alone has been responsible for all this and yet this same industry could not flourish except by degrading and exploiting the workers (p. 508)”.
Friedrich Engels was a German social scientist and philosopher. He came to England to study the cotton trade and textile mills, but while there he discovered the overcrowding in the major cities of London and Manchester. He was appalled by the horrible working and insufficient living conditions of the English factory workers. This disgust prompted the writing of his first book, The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. He would eventually become the father of the communist theory alongside of Karl Marx
Engels begins by admitting the fact that London has “multiplied a hundred- fold the economic strength of the two and half million inhabitants concentrated there… the commercial capital of the world (p. 500)”. He briefly describes England from an onlookers perspective as quite prosperous and great, but upon a closer inspection, one can see “the human suffering which has made all this possible (p. 500)”. Due to urbanization and the institution of the factory, many rural workers found themselves without a job and thus had to move into the cities. The major cities of London and Manchester found themselves overcrowded causing sanitation problems and probably discomfort to many families.
This overcrowding also led to an intense competition among the people of England for housing, jobs, and even food. I think Engels is pointing to that in the following statement, “Are they not all equally interested in the pursuit of happiness? And do they not all aim at happiness by following similar methods? The more Londoners are packed into a tiny space, the more repulsive and disgraceful becomes the brutal indifference with which they ignore their neighbors and selfishly concentrate upon their private affairs (p. 502)”. I think on one hand, this shows that the culture was changing in London during this era in that for the first time the middle class had the chance to rise up and make something for themselves. However, it also shows the brutal coldness that humans are capable of. I think our society today, as ugly as it seems, supports the competitive drive in people to be better than their neighbor because it promotes progress.
I think Engels would agree that generally this social struggle does promote progress, but “the strongest of all, a tiny group of capitalists, monopolise everything, while the weakest, who are in the vast majority, succumb to the most abject poverty (p. 502)”. It seems that what Engels detests most about this situation is the fact that those with wealth and power have no respect for those who are poor; they simply close their eyes to the way in which the poor are forced to live describing it as the “filth and dilapidation of a district which is quite unfit for human habitation (p. 507)” and that “It is only modern industry which permits these owners to take advantage of the poverty of the workers, to undermine the health of thousands to enrich themselves (p. 508)”.
The Industrial Age was such a bipolar time in that there were obvious positive enrichments that arose, but this progress came at the cost of suffering, hardship, and exploitation of an entire social class. Engels concludes his essay explaining the horrible cycle England found herself in in the middle of the 19th century, “Industry alone has been responsible for all this and yet this same industry could not flourish except by degrading and exploiting the workers (p. 508)”.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Industrialization and the Victorian Era!
Our next set of readings fall under the “Victorian Era”, which as Dr. Glance pointed out in pod cast #9, was the period during the reign of Queen Victoria in England from 1837-1901. The Victorian Era coincided with what is known as the “Industrial Revolution”, which was a period of tremendous technological and economic progress in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Industrial Revolution resulted in major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and transportation that drastically effected the economic, social, and cultural conditions in England. All the technological improvements propelled Britain’s wealth and prosperity and gave people, especially the middle class, so many new opportunities. This progress induced so much excitement in the people of England and gave them a sense of pride and optimism.
Although the Industrial revolution was a time of progress and excitement, there were people who saw the many negative aspects of it. Due to the factory, many people in rural areas were out of jobs and had to move into the major cities. This created serious overcrowding and with that came sanitation problems and increased chances of devastating epidemics. The institution of the factory came with many injustices including harsh working conditions, ruthless child labor, as well as smog and pollution.
The poets and writers of the Victorian Era were mixed in their views on the Industrial Revolution. Some supported the progress it would enable, but many longed for the aesthetically pleasing nature of the Romantic age and frequently wrote about the evils of the Industrial Revolution. In this blog I will be focusing on two accounts including one from Kemble and another from Macaulay who both saw the progress as positive and were thus in support of industrialization. I plan on spending the next blog on two writers, Engels and Carlyle, who outwardly opposed industrialization.
Fanny Kemble was a popular actress in the 1800’s and we see her account of being the first woman to ride a steam locomotive. In Record of a Girlhood, she states, “You can’t imagine how strange it seemed to be journeying on thus, without any visible cause of progress other than the magical machine, with its flying white breath and rhythmical unvarying pace… I felt as if no fairy tale was ever half so wonderful as what I saw (p. 491)”.
We get a sense of how amazingly smooth the ride seemed to her when she says there were no “causes of progress” and how she describes the movement as “rhythmical unvarying”, which was probably a drastic change to the horse and carriage she was used to. I have a hard time imagining a train being so amazing, but the change for these people from bouncing up and down for hours to riding on a track must have felt so smooth as if riding on a cloud. Again she writes, “…the motion is as smooth as possible, too. I could either have read or written… this sensation of flying was quite delightful, and strange… I had a perfect sense of security (p. 491)”. This vast improvement in transportation must have created such a fervor in England. She talks about a sense of “security” probably due to the fact that the train rode so smoothly it probably seemed safer than the rough ride of a horse and buggy, however as Dr. Glance pointed out, was this sense of security misplaced? So many abrupt changes, is it possible for them all to be 100% good? As I’ll point out in the next blog, many writers would not agree with Kemble.
Another author who also felt an increased sense of security was Thomas Macaulay who attributes these improvements to the economical benefits of industrialization. In Review of Southey’s Colloquies, he writes, “History is full of the signs of this natural progress of society…We see the wealth of nations increasing, and all the arts of life approaching nearer and nearer to perfection (p. 492)”. Although I do not agree with this idea that as the economy does better, society moves closer to perfection, I do understand Macaulay’s point. He has seen the corruption and debt Britain has endured, but through industrialization he finally has hope “that in the year 1930 a population of fifty millions, better fed, clad, and lodged than the English of our time (p. 492)”. Although it had its downfalls, Industrialization gave the people of Britain a sense of hope and an optimistic future. This can be seen as he ends his review, “it is to the same prudence and the same energy that we now look with comfort and good hope (p. 493)”. No matter the negative consequences of Industrialization, no one can argue that the progress in technology was exciting. I can only imagine what it must have been like for these people to get their hands on some of the new inventions that made life easier. To an extent, this excitement must have brought the people of England together through a sense of pride and optimism.
Although the Industrial revolution was a time of progress and excitement, there were people who saw the many negative aspects of it. Due to the factory, many people in rural areas were out of jobs and had to move into the major cities. This created serious overcrowding and with that came sanitation problems and increased chances of devastating epidemics. The institution of the factory came with many injustices including harsh working conditions, ruthless child labor, as well as smog and pollution.
The poets and writers of the Victorian Era were mixed in their views on the Industrial Revolution. Some supported the progress it would enable, but many longed for the aesthetically pleasing nature of the Romantic age and frequently wrote about the evils of the Industrial Revolution. In this blog I will be focusing on two accounts including one from Kemble and another from Macaulay who both saw the progress as positive and were thus in support of industrialization. I plan on spending the next blog on two writers, Engels and Carlyle, who outwardly opposed industrialization.
Fanny Kemble was a popular actress in the 1800’s and we see her account of being the first woman to ride a steam locomotive. In Record of a Girlhood, she states, “You can’t imagine how strange it seemed to be journeying on thus, without any visible cause of progress other than the magical machine, with its flying white breath and rhythmical unvarying pace… I felt as if no fairy tale was ever half so wonderful as what I saw (p. 491)”.
We get a sense of how amazingly smooth the ride seemed to her when she says there were no “causes of progress” and how she describes the movement as “rhythmical unvarying”, which was probably a drastic change to the horse and carriage she was used to. I have a hard time imagining a train being so amazing, but the change for these people from bouncing up and down for hours to riding on a track must have felt so smooth as if riding on a cloud. Again she writes, “…the motion is as smooth as possible, too. I could either have read or written… this sensation of flying was quite delightful, and strange… I had a perfect sense of security (p. 491)”. This vast improvement in transportation must have created such a fervor in England. She talks about a sense of “security” probably due to the fact that the train rode so smoothly it probably seemed safer than the rough ride of a horse and buggy, however as Dr. Glance pointed out, was this sense of security misplaced? So many abrupt changes, is it possible for them all to be 100% good? As I’ll point out in the next blog, many writers would not agree with Kemble.
Another author who also felt an increased sense of security was Thomas Macaulay who attributes these improvements to the economical benefits of industrialization. In Review of Southey’s Colloquies, he writes, “History is full of the signs of this natural progress of society…We see the wealth of nations increasing, and all the arts of life approaching nearer and nearer to perfection (p. 492)”. Although I do not agree with this idea that as the economy does better, society moves closer to perfection, I do understand Macaulay’s point. He has seen the corruption and debt Britain has endured, but through industrialization he finally has hope “that in the year 1930 a population of fifty millions, better fed, clad, and lodged than the English of our time (p. 492)”. Although it had its downfalls, Industrialization gave the people of Britain a sense of hope and an optimistic future. This can be seen as he ends his review, “it is to the same prudence and the same energy that we now look with comfort and good hope (p. 493)”. No matter the negative consequences of Industrialization, no one can argue that the progress in technology was exciting. I can only imagine what it must have been like for these people to get their hands on some of the new inventions that made life easier. To an extent, this excitement must have brought the people of England together through a sense of pride and optimism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
