Feeds:
Posts
Comments

All cultures that know them have found serpents fascinating. Indeed serpents are said to ‘‘fascinate’’ their prey, cast a spell on them with a look; human cultures seem to have fallen under their sway. Snakes can be extremely dangerous, being both venomous and ‘‘subtle’’ or sneaky; they strike without warning from grass or coverts; they can look beautiful in their glittering multi-colored skin; they creep on their bellies but can rear up; they shed their skin and seem rejuvenated; they sidle or meander; and in legend at least some can fly, some swallow their own tails, and some have a head at each end. The symbolic possibilities are rich and often ambiguous.

 The most important serpent for western literature, of course, is the one in the garden of Eden, who persuaded Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and thus brought about the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden and the advent of death. He was ‘‘more subtil than any beast of the field’’ and simple Eve was no match for him (Gen. 3.1–7). St. Paul worries that ‘‘as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty,’’ the minds of Christians might be ‘‘corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ’’ (2 Cor. 11.3). The serpent was thus connected with knowledge or wisdom, though a false or even fatal knowledge, and with human mortality. Behind these connections may lie the notion that serpents are themselves immortal because they shed their skins; their wisdom might be due to their great age or to their intimate relation with the earth (they even look wise). In the Sumerian/Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, a snake denies Gilgamesh the plant of immortality by snatching it, eating it, and then shedding its skin; a structuralist would call this a variant of the Eden story. As for wisdom, despite the serpent’s evil connotations, Christ calls on his followers to be ‘‘wise as serpents’’ (Matt. 10.16).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 In the Christian scheme the serpent of Eden became ‘‘the great dragon,’’ ‘‘that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world’’ (Rev. 12.9); ‘‘Oure firste foo, the serpent Sathanas,’’ in Chaucer’s phrase (Prioress’s Tale 1748); ‘‘The infernal Serpent’’ of Milton (PL 1.34). Goethe’s devil Mephistopheles invokes ‘‘my aunt, the famous snake’’ (Faust I 335). The ‘‘dreadful Dragon’’ that Spenser’s Redcrosse Knight vanquishes after a terrible battle (FQ 1.11.4–55) is the dragon of Revelation, and the Knight reenacts the victory of Michael and the angels (Rev. 12.7).

The older belief that serpents are wise, and not just subtle or cunning, was revived in the gnostic sects of snake-worshippers, known as the Naasenes (from Hebrew nahas, ‘‘serpent’’) and Ophites (from Greek ophis, ‘‘serpent’’). They seem to have believed that the serpent in the garden was trying to bring true wisdom and divinity to Adam and Eve, who were trapped in the fallen world by a wicked creator god; as the embodiment of gnosis or wisdom the serpent descends again as Christ. Something of this inversion of Christian symbols may be found in Shelley, who stages an elaborate allegorical contest between ‘‘An Eagle and a Serpent wreathed in flight’’: the Serpent, ‘‘the great Spirit of Good did creep among / The nations of mankind, and every tongue / Cursed and blasphemed him as he passed; for none / Knew good from evil’’ (Laon and Cythna 193, 373–76). Keats’s poem Lamia might be taken as another swerve from orthodoxy, for the lovely serpent-woman whom Lycius loves is defeated by a cold skeptical philosopher; the wisdom of this serpent is imagination and love.

Another biblical serpent is the one Moses made out of brass at God’s command, the sight of which cured the Israelites of snakebite (Num. 21.8–9). Much later this piece of magical homeopathy did not sit well with Hezekiah, who destroyed it (2 Kgs 18.4). Nonetheless John cites it as a type of Christ crucified, faith in whom cures us of all ills (John 3.14–15).

‘‘Serpent’’ comes from Latin serpens, serpent-, from a root meaning ‘‘crawl’’ or ‘‘creep.’’ A meandering river could be called ‘‘a serpent river’’ (Jonson, ‘‘To Robert Wroth’’ 18) without evoking Satan. The river in London’s Hyde Park is called The Serpentine, as several Greek rivers were called Ophis or Drakon. When Milton describes the early rivers of creation ‘‘With serpent error wandering’’ (PL 7.302), however, it is hard to rule out suggestions of the Fall. If to sin is to wander in error (Latin errare means ‘‘wander’’), a snake’s sidling, meandering motion seconds its evil associations.

 In Homer snakes are often omens. The Greeks recall a ‘‘great sign’’: a snake (drakon) devours eight sparrow nestlings and their mother, and the seer interprets it to mean that nine years must pass before they sack Troy (Iliad 2.301–30); it is as if the snake symbolizes time, or eternity, which swallows the bird-years. Another omen is the appearance of the eagle with a serpent in its talons; the serpent stings the bird, who lets it drop; the Trojan seer takes the portent to mean they will not drive the Greeks away (12.200–29).

A similar image grips Orestes in Aeschylus’ Choephoroe. He sees himself and his sister as fledglings of eagle-Agamemnon, who was killed by a deadly viper (echidna), Clytemnestra (246–59). The imagery continues in the play: the viper stands for underhand domestic treachery, as it does in Sophocles’ Antigone, where Creon denounces Ismene as ‘‘a viper lurking in the house’’ (531). Close to this sense of betrayal is Aesop’s fable of ‘‘The Snake and the Rustic’’: the peasant rescues a frozen snake by placing it in his bosom, but when it thaws out it bites him. ‘‘You are nourishing a viper in your bosom’’ (Petronius, Satyricon 77) became proverbial: ‘‘O familier foo, . . . // Lyk to the naddre [adder] in bosom sly untrewe’’ (Chaucer, Merchant’s Tale 1784–86); ‘‘O villains, vipers, . . . // Snakes, in my heart-blood warmed, that sting my heart!’’ (Shakespeare, R2 3.2.129–31). Racine’s Oreste warns Pyrrhus against raising the son of Hector in his home ‘‘lest this serpent reared in your bosom / Punish you one day for having saved him’’ (Andromaque 1.2.167–68). Dryden’s Antony accuses Cleopatra and Dolabella of being ‘‘serpents / Whom I have in my kindly bosom warmed, / Till I am stung to death’’ (All for Love 4.1.464–66). This snake thus becomes the emblem of ingratitude. ‘‘How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is,’’ Lear cries, ‘‘To have a thankless child’’ (1.4.288–89).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 The snake in the bosom grew more internal and metaphorical until it could represent an entirely mental pain or poison. In Envy’s bosom, according to Spenser, ‘‘secretly there lay / An hatefull Snake’’ (FQ 1.4.31), while Malbecco, followed by jealousy and scorn, was ‘‘So shamefully forlorne of womankynd, / That, as a Snake, still lurked in his wounded mynd’’ (3.10.55). Cowper seems to echo Milton on rivers as he begins his ‘‘Progress of Error’’ by asking the Muse to sing how ‘‘The serpent error twines round human hearts’’ (4). ‘‘Every mortal,’’ says Chénier, ‘‘hides in his heart, even from his own eyes, / Ambition, the insidious serpent’’ (‘‘Le Jeu de Paume’’ st. 15).

The most common snake in the mind or heart since the Romantics, at least, is remorse or guilt. Coleridge addresses a dissolute man who gaily laughs during nightly orgies ‘‘while thy remembered Home / Gnaws like a viper at thy secret heart!’’ (‘‘Religious Musings’’ 285–86); later he dismisses his own ‘‘viper thoughts’’ of remorse in ‘‘Dejection’’ (94). Wordsworth writes of a man suffering from ‘‘the stings of viperous remorse’’ (1850 Prelude 9.576). Shelley imagines a bloated vice-ridden king trying to sleep, but ‘‘conscience, that undying serpent, calls / Her venomous brood to their nocturnal task’’ (Queen Mab 3.61–62). Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin is ‘‘gnawed by the snake of memory and repentance’’ (1.46); Pushkin himself, in the darkness, feels ‘‘the bite of all the burning serpents of remorse’’ (‘‘Remembrance’’).

 Homer compares Paris’ sudden fear at the sight of Menelaus to that of a man who comes upon a snake and suddenly steps back ‘‘and the shivers come over his body, / and he draws back and away, cheeks seized with green pallor’’ (Iliad 3.33–35, trans. Lattimore; see Virgil, Aeneid 2.379–81). Half a line of Virgil’s, ‘‘a cold snake lurks in the grass’’ (Eclogues 3.93), has led to a proverbial phrase. Fortuna, according to Dante’s Virgil (who quotes himself), shifts the world’s goods about according to her judgment, ‘‘which is hidden like a snake in grass’’ (Inferno 7.84). Spenser’s Despair comes ‘‘creeping close, as Snake in hidden weedes’’ (1.9.28). This image merges with the biblical account of the subtle serpent in the garden, and with the traitor cherished in one’s home, to yield the symbolism of King Hamlet’s murder. The Ghost tells his son ‘‘ ‘Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard, / A serpent stung me’’ (1.5.35–36); young Hamlet has already felt that the world is ‘‘an unweeded garden / That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature / Possess it merely’’ (1.2.135–37); the serpent turns out to be the king’s brother.

Work Cited: Ferber – A Dictionary of Allusions and Symbols

Anthem for Doomed Youth

 is one of the best-known and most popular of Wilfred Owen’s poems. It employs the traditional form of a sonnet. Much of the imagery suggests Christian funeral rituals and the poem moves from infernal noise to mournful silence.

It was written in 1917, when Owen was a patient at Craiglockhart War Hospital in Edinburgh, recovering from shell shock. The poem itself is a lament for young soldiers whose lives were unnecessarily lost in World War I. Owen met and became close friends with another poet at the hospital, Siegfried Sassoon, and asked for his assistance in polishing his rough drafts. It was Sassoon who named it ‘Anthem’, and who substituted ‘Doomed’ for ‘Dead’; the famous epithet of “patient minds” is also a correction of his. The amended manuscript copy, in both men’s handwriting, still exists, and may be found at the Wilfred Owen Manuscript Archive online.

What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
    —Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
    Only the stuttering rifles’ rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons.
No mockeries now for them; no prayers nor bells,
Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs,—
The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells;
And bugles calling for them from sad shires.

What candles may be held to speed them all?
      Not in the hands of boys, but in their eyes
  Shall shine the holy glimmers of goodbyes.
      The pallor of girls’ brows shall be their pall;
  Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,
  And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds.

cited from:en.wikisource.org

Futher readings on ‘ The War-Prayer ‘

Articles linked form Journal of  Transnational American Studies

website : http://repositories.cdlib.org/acgcc/jtas/

Makoto Nagawara
A Comment on the War-Prayer: Mark Twain ‘Never Ceased to Grow’ http://repositories.cdlib.org/acgcc/jtas/vol1/iss1/art19

Edward J. Blum
God’s Imperialism: Mark Twain and the Religious War between Imperialists and Anti-Imperialists http://repositories.cdlib.org/acgcc/jtas/vol1/iss1/art21

Helen Lock
Twain’s Rhetoric of Irony in ‘the War-Prayer’ http://repositories.cdlib.org/acgcc/jtas/vol1/iss1/art32

…And you may find many articles on the topic,there.

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety’s sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

 Sunday morning came – next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams – visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation

God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!

 Then came the “long” prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory –

remind you something?

remind you something?

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher’s side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, “Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!”

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside – which the startled minister did – and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:

“I come from the Throne – bearing a message from Almighty God!” The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. “He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import – that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of – except he pause and think.

“God’s servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two – one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this – keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor’s crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it. “You have heard your servant’s prayer – the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it – that part which the pastor – and also you in your hearts – fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: ‘Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!’ That is sufficient. the whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory – must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

“O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle – be Thou near them! With them – in spirit – we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(After a pause.) “Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!”

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

“THE RAVEN”

Edgar Allan Poe’s (1809–1849) “The Raven” (1845) is a repetitive poem about repetition. And as Poe’s most famous poem, perhaps the most famous poem in American literature, it has been endlessly repeated— reprinted, rewritten, rehearsed, and recited, the image of the raven recycled as an emblem of gothic horror and Baltimorean civic pride. Even in Poe’s lifetime the poem was widely parodied—in at least fifteen different published works between 1845 and 1849, the year of Poe’s death (Poe, Complete Poems, p. 352)—and “The Raven” has come to more or less define Poe’s image in popular culture, from The Simpsons to the lyrics of Lou Reed. Students often wonder what the raven (and therefore “The Raven”) means, but any attempt to answer that question must also address the question of what all that repetition means.

Within the poem, the repetition means simply that the speaker is obsessed with “the lost Lenore.” Once he realizes that the raven will reliably repeat “nevermore” in response to anything he says to it, he turns the encounter into a perverse game in which the word “nevermore” reminds him of the grief, what Poe called “Mournful and Never-ending Remembrance,” that will occupy him forever. The narrator transforms the bird into both an instrument of self-torture and a symbol of his personal mourning. The poem performs those functions as well through repetition. It is impossible to escape the insistent rhymes—internal, external,they are everywhere—the thudding trochaic octameter (lines of eight stressed/unstressed “beats”: ONCE uPON a MIDnight DREARy, WHILE i PONdered WEAK and WEARy)the simple verbal repetition (”followed fast and faster”[1:64];”Is there-is there balm in Gilead?-tell me-tell me,I implore!”[1;89]) or the aliteration (this grim,ungainly,ghastly,gaunt and omnious bird of yore![1;71])all of which like the ecstatic pain of grief,both exicites and torments the reader.

MOURNING, REPETITION AND IMITATION

While the fame of  ”The Raven” is largely result of its uniqueness,an awareness of what makes the poem typical might help the reader better understand the poem’s place in nineteenth-century American culture. Specifically the performance of grief as a repetition compulsion is firmly rooted in mid-nineteenthcentury mourning ritual. As Ann Douglas and Karen Halttunen have shown, the rural cemetery movement, the appearance of mourning guidebooks, the unwritten codes involving dress and comportment, and an outpouring of sentimental poems about loss marked a new set of expectations for bereavement. Halttunen quotes one mourning manual that delivers its message in the form of a catechism: “Why is that mother robed in mourning? It is the outward token of a mourning which the heart alone can feel” (p. 136). Paradoxically the unique experience of grief had to be shown through formal devices such as special clothing, tokens such as wreaths woven from the hair of the deceased, and graveyard visits—repeated by individual mourners and imitated by other mourners. The repetitious raven, likewise, is an objective correlative—a symbol that perfectly evokes the emotion it represents—for grief and the poem, with its insistence on the speaker’s sincerity and solitude, struck the right note within a culture of sincerity that insisted on stereotyped outward signs of “inner” experience.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once referred to Poe as “the jingle man,” alluding to what many have regarded as the cheap musicality of Poe’s poetry. But “The Raven’s” theme is equally the stuff of pop music. The poet Dave Smith, analyzing the poem’s appeal, makes a fundamental point: “We have loved and lost, felt heartbreak, felt ourselves abandoned. This is a basic country-western song and it sells more than we may want to think about” (p. 8). In fact thinking about it will only get the reader so far. The poem probably owed much of its popularity to the fact that most people who read and heard it knew they did not have to think about it in order to “get” it. Like any good pop song, the power of “The Raven” comes through its manipulation of—not its defiance of—conventions, both stylistic and thematic. Poe’s later explanation that the death of a beautiful woman is “unquestionably, the most poetical topic in the world” (Essays and Reviews, p. 19) puts a sexist spin on a tenet that his contemporaries seem to have shared: that bereavement begets poetry and that writing and reading such poetry is itself a ritual of mourning. The Poetical Works of Alice and Phoebe Cary (1865), for instance, contains twenty poems by Alice (1820–1871) and nine by Phoebe (1824–1871) under the heading “Poems of Grief and Consolation,” and many other poems in the collection deal with death and loss as well. Mary Louise Kete identifies the “three signal concerns of the sentimental mode” as “lost homes, lost families, and broken bonds” (p. 17), an assertion supported by her reading of a mid-nineteenth-century manuscript book alongside the more celebrated poems of Lydia Sigourney and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. One striking convention of nineteenth-century mourning poems is the focus on an image that, like the raven, triggers memories of the deceased or an awareness of the mourner’s loss (a portrait in Alice Cary’s “Lost Lilies”; a “cross of snow” in a Longfellow poem by that name). Poe’s black bird, arriving like a mourner to the speaker’s never-ending wake, does not merely trigger but participates in the scene of mourning with its uncanny “speaking” ability, pushing this convention to the limit (and for many later readers, beyond the limit) at which it can be taken seriously. Alice Cary’s poem “Most Beloved,” for instance, also catalogs natural images that she associates with an unnamed lost beloved, concluding:

”All things, my darling, all things seem

In some strange way to speak of thee;

Nothing is half so much a dream,

Nothing so much reality.”

(Ll. 37–40)

The speaker of her poem “A Wintry Waste” expresses hope that her son will return:

”But fancy only half deceives

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

boughs go over the window-pane

And drag on the lonely eaves, in vain,—

That waste is all I see.”

(Ll. 20, 27–29)

These poems reinforce the point that although Poe was ringing changes—effectively, to be sure—on a conventional theme, not even the fact that his poem ends in despair rather than consolation is particularly unusual.

In his variorum edition of Poe’s poems, Thomas Ollive Mabbott noted direct sources for “The Raven,”the most significant of which is Elizabeth Barrett’s (1806–1861) “Lady Geraldine’s Courtship” (1844), also written in trochaic octameter and featuring a refrain that includes the word “evermore.” As Eliza Richards has argued, Poe’s poetic voice in “The Raven” and elsewhere draws heavily and self-consciously from Barrett and other women poets he knew, read, and reviewed, even as he seeks to displace the woman author: “Rather than rejecting the feminine, Poe becomes an expert in the field, out-feminizing the feminine in a masculine rendition that inverts female poetic practice and thus exoticizes the banal performativity of the female poet” (p. 8). In fact when “The Raven” appeared in the American Review in February 1845,an introduction (possibly written by Poe) apologized for the poem’s “deep quaint strain of the sentiment” before praising the technical skill of the author, identified as “Quarles.” The same headnote points to “the curious introduction of some ludicrous touches amidst the serious and impressive, as was doubtless intended by the author” (Poe, Complete Poems, p. 360). Poe, then, is tweaking and (if the American Review is correct) deliberately exaggerating well-established conventions of sentimental verse, responding not only to Barrett, one of his favorite poets, but also to a set of expectations associated with popular women writers (but employed by both women and men). Poe had hinted in a review of Barrett that she had imitated Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s “Locksley Hall” (1842) in writing “Lady Geraldine’s Courtship.” The resemblance between those two poems is no stronger than the resemblance between “Lady Geraldine’s Courtship” and “The Raven,” suggesting to Mabbott that Poe was “acknowledging his debt to Barrett” in calling attention to her poem’s debt to Tennyson. Like his more extended discussions of plagiarism, though, this reference to the imitation by one of his favorite poets of another of his favorite poets conveys Poe’s skepticism of claims to literary originality generally and his awareness of the value of emulation, a term that suggests admiring, as opposed to exploitative, imitation. “Of course,” Poe would write the following year, “I pretend to no originality in either the rhythm or the metre of the ‘Raven’” (Essays and Reviews, p. 21).

LITERARY PRODUCTION AND REPRODUCTION

For all its reliance on a culture of mourning generally and “Lady Geraldine’s Courtship” specifically, “The Raven” is nonetheless a striking, memorable poem, and it enjoyed immediate popularity. A few days before it appeared in the American Review, to whom he had sold it, Poe arranged with his friend Nathaniel Parker Willis (1806–1867) to publish the poem, revealing the name of its author, in the New York Evening Mirror to boost its circulation and interest. In contrast with the academic tone of the American Review’s headnote, Willis’s introduction promised a blockbuster, “the most effective single example of ‘fugitive poetry’ ever published in this country, and unsurpassed in English poetry for subtle conception, masterly ingenuity of versification, and consistent sustaining of imaginative lift and ‘pokerishness.’ [spookiness]. . . It will stick to the memory of everybody who reads it” (Poe, Complete Poems, p. 361). Willis not only correctly predicted the poem’s popularity but also spurred it on, initiating, even before it had been printed once, the career of “The Raven” as one of the most widely reprinted poems of its time. Mabbott lists twenty variant texts over which Poe had some control; these represent only a fraction of the reprintings, most unauthorized, in periodicals. Meredith McGill has termed the publishing environment in which “The Raven” flourished a “culture of reprinting,” emphasizing the ways writers such as Poe used the lack of copyright protection to their benefit even as they rallied in print for legislation protecting intellectual property. Poe neither expected nor received direct payments for the “countless” (according to Mabbott) reprintings of “The Raven”; as a magazine editor, he was in the habit of reprinting other poets’ works, as well as his own, freely.

Not so much despite but because of the unwritten rules of reprint culture, Poe enjoyed a huge (albeit unsustained) career boost from “The Raven”: by the end of 1845 he had published his first collection of poetry in fourteen years as well as a new collection of tales and found himself a desirable guest at New York literary salons. Poe wanted the poem to be reprinted freely in order to spread his fame: “‘The Raven’ has had a great ‘run,’” he boasted, “but I wrote it for the express purpose of running—just as I did ‘The Gold- Bug.’ . . . the bird beat the bug, though, all hollow” (Letters 2:287). The bird also drew audiences in parlors, literary salons and lecture halls, where Poe performed the poem—repeatedly, like a human jukebox—as he sought literary respectability, subscribers for his neverrealized magazine project, and after Virgina Clemm Poe’s death in 1847, a new wife.

While Poe could not possibly regulate the reproduction of “The Raven,” its success held out the promise of control over his own career not only because it brought him fame but also because it demonstrated his writerly discipline. As his review of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Twice-Told Tales (1837) and his own analysis of “The Raven” in “The Philosophy of Composition” (1846) make clear, Poe’s aesthetics are grounded in the principle of authorial control: the reason poems and tales should be brief and conceptually unified is to ensure that readers remain under the spell of the writer. “The Philosophy of Composition” particularly trades inspiration (which is unpredictable)for method and the control that comes with it. And Poe saw signs of the “control revolution” (James Beniger’s term) all around him: publishing was central to the transformation of everyday life brought about by mass production and consumer culture. Machinemade paper, stereotyped plates, and steam presses made possible an explosion of print, which in turn disseminated the information and ideas that drove the new economy. The rapid increase in the importance of publishing is reflected in P. T. Barnum’s statement that“there was only one liquid that a man could use in excessive quantities without being swallowed up by it,and that was printer’s ink” (Harris, p. 195).

In stories and sketches, such as “The Man That Was Used Up” (1850), “The Business-Man” (1843), and “Some Words with a Mummy” (1845), Poe satirizes believers in “the rapid march of mechanical invention” (as the man who was used up refers to it) and other forms of progress (which, the mummy tells us, never progresses). At the same time, though, he wanted to show that he could play the modern literary publishing game as well as—or better than—anyone, that he could produce a “Raven” or a “Gold-Bug” at will. Like train schedules, assembly line tasks, and advertising slogans, Poe’s pseudo-aesthetic in “The Philosophy of Composition” depends—as does “The Raven”—on a kind of predictable, repeatable set of questions of answers. Although Poe never did repeat the success of “The Raven,” he did apparently write the poem “for the purpose of running,” which is to say reproducing itself in print. The repetition of the raven (and “The Raven”) mirrors that strategy of neverending republication, recitation, and parody.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Works

Cary, Alice, and Phoebe Cary. The Poetical Works of Alice and Phoebe Cary. 1865. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1882.

Poe, Edgar Allan. Complete Poems. Edited by Thomas Ollive Mabbott. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000.

Poe, Edgar Allan. Essays and Reviews. Edited by G. R. Thompson. New York: Library of America, 1984.

Poe, Edgar Allan. The Letters of Edgar Allan Poe. 2 vols.Edited by John Ward Ostrom. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press, 1966.

Secondary Works

Beniger, James R. The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986.

Douglas, Ann. The Feminization of American Culture. New York: Knopf, 1977.

Eddings, Dennis W. “Theme and Parody in ‘The Raven.’ ”In Poe and His Times: The Artist and His Milieu, edited by Benjamin F. Fisher IV, pp. 209–217. Baltimore:Edgar Allan Poe Society, 1990.

Halttunen, Karen. Confidence Men and Painted Women: A Study of Middle-Class Culture in America, 1830–1870.New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982.

Harris, Neil. Humbug: The Art of P. T. Barnum. 1973.Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press,1981.

Ingram, John H. Literary and Historical Commentary on “The Raven,” by Edgar Allan Poe. 1885. New York:Haskell House, 1972.

Kete, Mary Louise. Sentimental Collaboration: Mourning and Middle-Class Identity in Nineteenth-Century America. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2000.

McGill, Meredith L. American Literature and the Culture of Reprinting, 1834–1853. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003.

[...]

Scott  Peeples

Work Cited: Gale American Gistory Through the Literature

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of someone gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
” ‘Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at my chamber door;
Only this, and nothing more.”

Ah, distinctly I remember, it was in the bleak December,
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrow; vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow, sorrow for the lost Lenore,.
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore,
Nameless here forevermore.

And the silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain
Thrilled me—filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;
So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating,
” ‘Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door,
Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door.
This it is, and nothing more.”

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
“Sir,” said I, “or madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;
But the fact is, I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you.” Here I opened wide the door;—
Darkness there, and nothing more.

Deep into the darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing
Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortals ever dared to dream before;
But the silence was unbroken, and the stillness gave no token,
And the only word there spoken was the whispered word,
Lenore?, This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word,
“Lenore!” Merely this, and nothing more.

Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a tapping, something louder than before,
“Surely,” said I, “surely, that is something at my window lattice.
Let me see, then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore.
Let my heart be still a moment, and this mystery explore.
” ‘Tis the wind, and nothing more.”

Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped a stately raven, of the saintly days of yore.
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door.
Perched upon a bust of Pallas, just above my chamber door,
Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,
“Though thy crest be shorn and shaven thou,” I said, “art sure no craven,
Ghastly, grim, and ancient raven, wandering from the nightly shore.
Tell me what the lordly name is on the Night’s Plutonian shore.”
Quoth the raven, “Nevermore.”

Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,
Though its answer little meaning, little relevancy bore;
For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being
Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door,
Bird or beast upon the sculptured bust above his chamber door,
With such name as “Nevermore.”

But the raven, sitting lonely on that placid bust, spoke only
That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.
Nothing further then he uttered; not a feather then he fluttered;
Till I scarcely more than muttered, “Other friends have flown before;
On the morrow he will leave me, as my hopes have flown before.”
Then the bird said, “Nevermore.”

Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,
“Doubtless,” said I, “what it utters is its only stock and store,
Caught from some unhappy master, whom unmerciful disaster
Followed fast and followed faster, till his songs one burden bore,—
Till the dirges of his hope that melancholy burden bore
Of “Never—nevermore.”

But the raven still beguiling all my sad soul into smiling,
Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird, and bust and door;
Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking
Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore –
What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking “Nevermore.”

Thus I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the fowl, whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom’s core;
This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining
On the cushion’s velvet lining that the lamplight gloated o’er,
But whose velvet violet lining with the lamplight gloating o’er
She shall press, ah, nevermore!

Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer
Swung by seraphim whose footfalls tinkled on the tufted floor.
“Wretch,” I cried, “thy God hath lent thee — by these angels he hath
Sent thee respite—respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore!
Quaff, O quaff this kind nepenthe, and forget this lost Lenore!”
Quoth the raven, “Nevermore!”

“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil!–prophet still, if bird or devil!
Whether tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Desolate, yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted–
On this home by horror haunted–tell me truly, I implore:
Is there–is there balm in Gilead?–tell me–tell me I implore!”
Quoth the raven, “Nevermore.”

“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil–prophet still, if bird or devil!
By that heaven that bends above us–by that God we both adore–
Tell this soul with sorrow laden, if, within the distant Aidenn,
It shall clasp a sainted maiden, whom the angels name Lenore—
Clasp a rare and radiant maiden, whom the angels name Lenore?
Quoth the raven, “Nevermore.”

“Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!” I shrieked, upstarting–
“Get thee back into the tempest and the Night’s Plutonian shore!
Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!
Leave my loneliness unbroken! — quit the bust above my door!
Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!”
Quoth the raven, “Nevermore.”

And the raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming.
And the lamplight o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted—nevermore!

 

Italy’s film industry during the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini (1883–1945) in the 1920s and 1930s was intended to create statist, nationalist, and imperialist propaganda, as Mussolini noted when he paraphrased Russian Communist leader V. I. Lenin (1870–1924):‘‘For us cinema is the strongest weapon’’ (quoted in Nowell-Smith 1996, p. 354). In fact, however, official,‘‘fascist’’ films constituted only a small percentage of Italian productions between 1930 and 1943. Fascist filmmakers,however,did produce movies about Italy’s ‘‘African mission’’ with Squadron, dir. Augusto Genina, 1936) and bronzo The great costume drama and epic Squadrone bianco (White Squadron, dir. Augusto Genina, 1936) and Sentinelle di bronzo (Bronze Sentries, dir. Romolo Marcellini, 1937).The great costume drama and epic Scipione l’Africano (Scipio the African, dir. Carmine Gallone, 1937)
reminded Italian audiences that Italian (Roman) soldiers had conquered Africa before and would do so again.

 The Nazi state in Germany through the Ministry of Propaganda made many more films than the Italian fascist state, but there was little interest in overseas imperialism.Of the more than one thousand feature films produced in Germany between 1933 and 1945, few dealt with subjects other than Germany. La Habanera (dir. Douglas Sirk, 1937) and Germanin (dir. Max Kimmich, 1943), about Latin America and Africa respectively, focused on fever, sickness, and premature death.

 The Soviet Union, officially anti-imperialist, made internationally recognized avant-garde films in the 1920s, but under Joseph Stalin (1879–1953) in the 1930s and 1940s production declined, as did quality. During World War II and the buildup to the war, Soviet cinema fell back on Russian imperial themes to promote nationalism and support for the state. Kutuzov (dir. Vladimir Petrov, 1944) presented Mikhail Kutuzov (1745–1813), the general who saved Russia from the Napoleonic invasion, as a loyal Russian and brilliant strategist. The great Soviet filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein (1898–1948) in Ivan grozny (Ivan the Terrible, part 1, 1945) depicted the sixteenthcentury czar as a troubled character but great national hero. The film was begun on Stalin’s request, but the dictator viewed it as a critique as his own autocracy and banned it. During the Stalin years, the Soviet republics were permitted to make their own film epics about national heroes (Bogdan Khmelnitsky [dir. Igor Savchenko, 1941] in Ukraine, for example), but the Soviet censors made sure that these were heroes who had never fought against Russian oppressors.

 By 1929 over 80 percent of the world’s feature films came from the United States, and most of those from Hollywood, California. The United States had long viewed itself as an anti-imperialist nation, despite its expansion across the transcontinental West, its seizure of Native American lands and Mexican provinces, and its late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century adventures in overseas acquisitions of Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and the Panama Canal Zone. American filmmakers, and apparently American audiences, were not interested in any American ‘‘empire’’ other than the ‘‘Wild West’’ and cowboys and Indians.

 The ‘western’ dominated American cinema from the silent period through the 1950s. Not unlike French and British colonial films, American westerns contrasted white civilization and Indian ‘‘savagery,’’ as well as the conflicts within newly settled colonial societies. Many American western films, beginning with The Battle at Elderbush Gulch (1913) directed by D. W. Griffith (1875–1948), present the advance of the frontier as a triumph of character and heroism. Not all westerns before the 1960s and 1970s, however, were vehicles for anti-Indian propaganda. Hundreds of early silent films were based on the popular Wild West shows of Buffalo Bill, Broncho Billy, Tom Mix, and others that had genuine Indian performers who provided the attraction of an exotic and cliche´d past. A number of feature films, from Griffith’s The Squaw’s Love (1911) to Howard Hawks’s Broken Arrow (1950) and John Ford’s The Searchers (1956), presented sympathetic portraits of Indian life and relations with whites, and complex observations on the nature of American racism. The famed ‘‘Cavalry Trilogy’’ directed by John Ford (1895–1973)— Fort Apache (1948), She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949), and Rio Grande (1950)—was scathing in its portrayal of U.S. Indian agents, cavalry officers, and other whites who took advantage of the Apaches or misunderstood them.

  Americans were as interested in the adventure and romance of the British and French overseas empires as the British and French were themselves, although American films set in the French and British empires were often more attuned to non-European sensibilities. In 1916 Hollywood made Anatole France’s novel Thaı¨s (1890) into The Garden of Allah (dir. Colin Campbell). This story about very little, a man and a women abandoning their religion and seeking their selves in the North African desert, was remade in 1927 (by Rex Ingram) and in 1936 (by Richard Boleslawski) in the United States, apparently because  of the popularity of the exoticism and romance of the desert.

 The Sheik (1921), the film that made the Italianborn actor Rudolph Valentino (1895–1926) a star,involves a London socialite traveling across the Sahara,where she is attacked by bandits. She is rescued by Sheik Ahmed Ben Hassan (Valentino), and the English lady and the Arab sheik fall in love. North Africa also served as the setting for Beau Geste, an adaptation of a British story about three English Geste brothers and the French Foreign Legion. This story, set in French North Africa, highlighted the virtues of English and French manliness and brotherhood in the context of relentless Arab attacks.

 The 1930s became the golden age of British colonialism in Hollywood and the classic action-adventure spectacular. Henry Hathaway’s The Lives of a Bengal Lancer (1934), a blockbuster success in America and Britain, is a melodrama about three British officers stationed in northwest India. This film set the civilized British soldiers against the ruthless and treacherous Afghan rebel Mohammed Khan, who tortured well-bred Englishmen. The success of Bengal Lancer brought more films like it: Clive of India (dir. Richard Boleslawski, 1935), Storm over Bengal (dir. Sidney Salkow, 1938), The Sun Never Sets (dir. Rowland Lee, 1939), Gunga Din (dir. George Stevens, 1939), and Stanley and Livingston (dir. Henry King, 1939).

                                                                                                                

The 1930s became the golden age of British colonialism in Hollywood and the classic action-adventure spectacular. Henry Hathaway’s The Lives of a Bengal Lancer (1934), a blockbuster success in America and Britain, is a melodrama about three British officers stationed in northwest India. This film set the civilized British soldiers against the ruthless and treacherous Afghan rebel Mohammed Khan, who tortured well-bred Englishmen. The success of Bengal Lancer brought more films like it: Clive of India (dir. Richard Boleslawski, 1935), Storm over Bengal (dir. Sidney Salkow, 1938), The Sun Never Sets (dir. Rowland Lee, 1939), Gunga Din (dir. George Stevens, 1939), and Stanley and Livingston (dir. Henry King, 1939).

 Gunga Din, George Stevens’s (1904–1875) take on the British author Rudyard Kipling’s (1865–1936) smug commemoration of a loyal Indian water-bearer, naturally portrays the British soldiers as brave and heroic. However, the anti-British enemy is noted to be lovers of ‘‘Mother India’’ and therefore not mindless fanatics but believers in a worthy cause. Kipling’s multicultural theme, and the one often pushed by liberal American filmmakers, was found in the story of Gunga Din, who was a nobody and who in the end sounded his bugle, warned the troops, rescued his friends, and saved the day.

 Prior to World War II, French, British, and American films rarely deviated from the accepted values and norms of their times regarding the framework of colonialism. Filmmakers took the dichotomy of civilized settlers and primitive natives for granted. However, not all films on colonial subjects followed these rules. The disintegration and liberation of the European colonial empires in the decades following 1945 transformed the way the West understood colonialism and therefore changed cinema’s view of colonialism. This change did not happen immediately. King Solomon’s Mines (dirs. Compton Bennett and Andrew Marton, 1950, a remake of the 1937 British film), Storm over Africa (dir. Lesley Selander, 1953), West of Zanzibar (dir. Harry Watt, 1954), Zulu (dir. Cy Endfield, 1963), and Khartoum (dirs. Basil Dearden and Eliot Elisofon, 1966) continued to portray the British colonial soldier or adventurer as the noble agent of ‘‘civilization.’’ The story of how Muhammad Ahmad, the Mahdi, an Islamic mystic, organized an army and drove the British out of the Sudan in 1885 is told in Khartoum. British General George Gordon (1833–1885), martyred in the campaign, was played by the handsome and heroic American actor Charlton Heston. The British actor Laurence Olivier, as the Mahdi, on the other hand, presented a lunatic religious fanatic, an Islamic stereotype that was reinforced in later movies from time to time.

  By the 1960s, with the demise of most of the European empires, Western filmmakers had begun their passage into cinematic collective guilt, cultural self-condemnation,and moral instruction. La bataille d’Alger (The Battle of Algiers, 1966), an Italian film directed by Gillo Pontecorvo (b. 1919) about the anticolonial uprising against French colonialism in the capital of Algeria from 1955 to 1957, brought the bitter history of colonialism and anticolonialism to life in French cinemas and everywhere else. This documentary-style film won awards in Venice, London, and Acapulco largely because of its obvious political perspective, a defense and justification of the National Liberal Front (FLN), the Algerian insurrectionary organization. Bosley Crowther, writing the review for the New York Times, observed that Pontecorvo’s film was essentially about valor, ‘‘the valor of people who fight for liberation from economic and political oppression. And this being so, one may sense a relation in what goes on in this picture to what has happened in the Negro ghettos of some of our American cities more recently’’ (Crowther 1967/2004, p. 82).

COLONIALISM AT THE MOVIES
Since the beginning of the motion picture industry, Western colonialism has been one of the themes, and at times one of the popular themes, of European and American movies. Cinema continued the nineteenthcentury western European and American trend of telling romantic, exotic, and patriotic stories of expansion, conquest, and—increasingly—mission, or bringing the benefits of ‘‘civilization’’ to the ‘‘inferior races.’’ Such stories had earlier been told in paintings, popular books, museums, illustrated journals, juvenile literature, and comics. Over the decades of the twentieth century, films with ‘‘imperial’’ and ‘‘colonial’’ themes celebrated and glorified imperial adventures and colonial triumphs and crises. Popular movies projected more myth than reality regarding the nature of colonialism, particularly as experienced from the indigenous African and Asian perspectives.
After World War II (1939–1945), and particularly by the 1970s and 1980s, Western filmmakers began to portray colonial encounters in more complex and nuanced ways. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, cinema around the world, from the perspective of both filmmakers and audiences, remained drawn to the themes of Western colonialism and, particularly, the difficult issues and problems created by the colonial encounters between Europeans and non-Europeans. Colonialism at the movies began at the dawn of the motion picture industry in the late 1900s. A fifty-second reel about the French colony of Annam (central Vietnam) in Indochina was made by Gabriel Veyre (1871–1936), a collaborator of the Lumie`re Brothers (Auguste [1862–1954] and Louis Jean [1864–1948] Lumie`re, the inventors of cinema in Europe) in 1897. This short, entitled Enfants annamites ramassant des sape`-ques devant la pagode des dames, shows two French women giving money to a group of Vietnamese children who scramble and fight for every coin. Only a small fraction of French films made in the 1920s and 1930s were colonial in subject or made in exotic locations. The Franco-Moroccan films of the 1920s respected local Berber customs, and the best ‘‘colonial’’ French films of the era, Le Sang d’Allah (The Blood of Allah, dir. Luitz Morat, 1922), Itto (dir. Jean Benoıˆt-Le´vy, 1934), and Pe´pe´ le Moko (dir. Julien Duvivier,1937) provided realistic and ethnographically informed representations of North Africans. Pe´pe´ le Moko was popular in the United States. It was remade by Hollywood as Algiers (dir. John Cromwell, 1938). These films helped establish the exotic casbah in the imagination of Americans and contributed to the success of Michael Curtiz’s Casablanca (1942). The American cartoonist Chuck Jones (1912–2002), who joined Warner Brothers in 1938, apparently was inspired by Pe´pe´ le Moko when he created his character Pepe Le Pew, who was debonair in a skunklike way. French film critics constantly praised French filmmakers for their attention to actualite´s—not unlike nineteenth-century art critics who praised the North African paintings of French artist Euge`ne Delacroix (1798–1863) for their authenticity and transparency. French film critics, of course, reacted against the American and British ‘‘French Foreign Legion’’ films of the era, such as The Sheik (dir. George Melford, 1921), Son of the Sheik (dir. George Fitzmaurice, 1926), The Spahi (1928), and Beau Geste (dir. Herbert Brenon, 1926; and William Wellman’s 1939 remake). French filmmakers, however, made their share of colonial adventure stories that shored up the idea of empire and idealized the Foreign Legion as the ‘‘thin white line’’ defending civilization from the Arabs. David Henry Slavin counts fifty such films set in North Africa in the 1920s and 1930s that ‘‘legitimated the racial privileges of European workers, diverted attention from their own exploitation, and disabled impulses to solidarity with women and colonial peoples’’ (2001, p. 3).

 

The British, with an empire upon which the sun never set, had uncounted colonial topics and stories that provided themes for popular feature films from before World War I (1914–1918) to the 1950s. The British and Colonial Kinematograph Company began the production of films in 1908 and produced a number of movies in colonial locales. The British Board of Film Censors, beginning in 1912, insured that ‘‘controversial’’ issues were avoided and only ‘‘wholesome imperial sentiments’’— as the dominion premiers agreed in 1926— would be disseminated in the three thousand cinemas operating in Britain in the late 1920s (MacKenzie 1999, p. 226). In the mid-1930s the Hungarian-born British producer Alexander Korda (1893–1956) produced his ‘‘Empire Trilogy,’’ three popular films directed by his brother Zoltan Korda (1895–1961) that glorified the British Empire: Sanders of the River (1935), The Drum (1938), and The Four Feathers (1939). Sanders of the River, about a British district commander allied with an African chief played by the American actor Paul Robeson, so offended Robeson’s sense of racial stereotyping that he attempted unsuccessfully to buy the rights to the film and all prints to prevent its distribution. The Drum, about a native Indian prince who gave assistance to a Scottish army regiment to overcome a rebel tyrant,triggered Hindu-Muslim riots in Bombay in 1938. One of the favorite colonial stories, a 1902 novel by the British author A. E. W. Mason (1865–1948) about the courage of a former British soldier during the Sudan campaign of 1898, The Four Feathers was first made into a film during World War I and was remade by Zoltan Korda in 1939. The 1939 film presented the Sudanese enemy, the Arab dervishes, and the African ‘‘Fuzzy Wuzzies’’ as mindless warriors in the service of a madman. These and other British films with colonial themes of the 1930s offered little justification for empire other than, writes Jeffrey Richards, ‘‘the apparent moral superiority of the British, demonstrated by their adherence to the code of gentlemanly conduct and the maintenance of a disinterested system of law and justice’’ (quoted in Nowell-Smith 1996, p. 364). (Mason’s 1902 novel has appeared on film seven times, including a 2002 version by the Indian director Shekhar Kapur. Kapur’s film,unlike the previous ones, injected a dose of anti-imperialism in its double perspective of how British imperialism affected the subordinate native people and the British and native soldiers who enforce foreign rule.)

Quakers:Part 3

QUAKERS IN LITERATURE

Portraits of Quakers in AmWalt Whitman (1819–1892), reminiscing some sixty years later, wrote of hearing the resonant preaching of Elias Hicks, whom he admired for his attacks on evangelical doctrines. Whitman appreciated the inwardness of Hicks’s thought, which would submit to no outward creed, scripture, or theology of blood atonement. Hicks would have been surprised by some of Whitman’s praise: “Always E[lias] H[icks] gives the service of pointing to the fountain of all naked theology,all religion, . . . namely yourself and your inherent relations. . . . This he incessantly labors to kindle,nourish, educate, bring forward and strengthen. He is the most democratic of the religionists” (2:627).erican literature from 1820 to 1870 range from the unsympathetic to the idealized.Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804–1864) was not especially appreciative of seventeenth-century Quakers, but then his literary works do not reveal much appreciation for any religion in that era. In “The Gentle Boy,” from Twice-Told Tales, as “unbridled fanaticism” (1:104) and an “enthusiasm heightened almost to madness” that “abstractly considered, well deserved the moderate chastisement of the rod” (1:86). Yet the Quakers in this tale are chiefly a vehicle for comparison with the cold brutality of the Puritans who persecuted and martyred them. Quakers appear as victims of persecution in Hawthorne describes early QuakerismThe Scarlet Letter (chapter 6), and in “Young Goodman Brown” the devil informs the protagonist that Brown’s grandfather, who persecuted Quakers, was the devil’s partner in so doing. In “Main Street” the narrator suggests a more positive regard, noting that the itinerant Quaker preachers in Salem had “the gift of a new idea” (3:461)

Herman Melville’s (1819–1891) Moby-Dick includes Quakers, since Nantucket was a whaling as well as a Quaker community. Peleg and Bildad, the ship owners, seem more like caricatures, the former being the Quaker by culture who wears a plain coat but has no real use for religion and the latter a pious but hypocritical tightwad who will not pay Ishmael a decent wage if he can get away with it. Both of them Melville calls “fighting Quakers” (p. 71) who profess pacifism against humans but have no quarrel with the brutal killing of the noble monsters of the deep. Starbuck, the virtuous but cautious first mate, also a Quaker, is courageous enough to face any natural danger and to stand up to Ahab, only to give in ultimately.He ponders but then resists the urge to save the crew by killing Ahab. Melville’s point may be that Starbuck’s weakness is that, in spite of knowing good from evil, he cannot summon the strength to act decisively.Near the end Starbuck questions the justice of it all if his life of devotion leads only to a watery grave. 
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882) held a genuine appreciation for Quakers, including Lucretia Mott, whom he knew personally. He wrote that much of the best thought of his day had been anticipated by early Friends. In his essay “Natural Religion,” Emerson praised Friends for their likeness to the earliest Christians’ ideals: “The sect of Quakers in their best representatives appear to me to come nearer to the sublime history and genius of Christ than any other of the sects. They have kept the traditions perhaps for a longer time, kept the early purity” (p. 57). 
Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811–1896) has numerous Quaker characters in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, some (as mentioned above) perhaps inspired by Levi and Catherine Coffin. Through them she pictured a religious life without ostentatious self-righteousness or racial bigotry. Her Quakers are idealized, as were Whitman’s memories of Elias Hicks, but genuine Quakers would have recognized the ideas as their own.
only Quaker of literary renown in this period was the poet John Greenleaf Whittier (1807–1892). He was an ardent abolitionist and a friend of William Lloyd Garrison, with whom he faced mob violence from opponents of abolition. Later the two came to differ over the issue of political involvement, when Whittier became an enthusiastic supporter of the antislavery Liberty Party. Whittier once aspired to a life in politics and was elected to the state legislature in Massachusetts, but frail health and his outspoken abolitionist views put an end to his hopes for election to Congress. He worked as an editor for abolitionist newspapers and composed antislavery poems, such a “The Christian Slave,” “The Hunters of Men,” and “Ichabod,” and lived on the edge of poverty until the publication of Snow-Bound (1866) and “The Tent on the Beach” (1868) brought him popular fame. These collections of poetry captured the spirit of the age and spoke to the inner needs of a society struggling to recover from the trauma of a civil war. Late in his life he achieved such popularity that his birthday was a school holiday in his native Massachusetts. Whittier was a friend of the poets James Russell Lowell, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Ralph Waldo Emerson. In his poetry, as in his life, Whittier sought to integrate the inward life of quiet receptivity to the divine presence with a devoted effort to better human society. In this he reflected the ideals of Quakerism.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Works

Coffin, Levi. Reminiscences of Levi Coffin. Cincinnati: Robert Clark, 1876.

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Uncollected Lectures by Ralph Waldo Emerson; Reports of Lectures on American Life and Natural Religion, Reprinted from the Commonwealth. Edited by Clarence L. F. Gohdes. New York: W. E. Rudge, 1932.

Hawthorne, Nathaniel. Complete Works of Nathaniel Hawthorne.13 vols. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1882–1883.

Melville, Herman. Moby-Dick; or, The Whale. 1851. New York: Norton, 1967.

Mott, Lucretia. Lucretia Mott: Her Complete Speeches and Sermons. Edited by Dana Greene. New York: Edward Mellen Press, 1980.

Whitman, Walt. Walt Whitman: Prose Works 1892. 2 vols. Edited by Floyd Stovall. New York: New York University Press, 1964.
 
Whittier, John Greenleaf. The Complete Poetical Works of John Greenleaf Whittier. Edited by Horace E. Scudder. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1894.

Secondary Works

Bacon, Margaret Hope. Valiant Friend: The Life of Lucretia Mott. New York: Walker, 1980.

Barbour, Hugh, and J. William Frost. The Quakers. Richmond,Ind.: Friends United Press, 1994.
 
Hamm, Thomas D. The Transformation of American Quakerism: Orthodox Friends, 1800–1907. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988.

Ingle, H. Larry. Quakers in Conflict: The Hicksite Reformation.Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1986 Jones,

Rufus M. Later Periods of Quakerism. 2 vols. London:Macmillan, 1921.
                                                                                               Michael L. Birkel 

Work Cited: Gale American History Throught Literature 2

Quakers:Part 2

QUAKERS AND SOCIAL REFORM MOVEMENTS
 

Quakers in the nineteenth century were perhaps best known for their antislavery work, and among Quaker abolitionists perhaps the best known was Levi Coffin (1798–1877). He had migrated from North Carolina to Indiana, as did many southern Friends, to leave behind the land where slavery was legal and to take up life in territories where it was prohibited. He became a leader in the Underground Railroad, the clandestine movement of escaped slaves on their way to Canada. Coffin’s activities were controversial among some Quakers. In earlier days Friends had broken the law— for example, to continue to hold Quaker worship when it was illegal in England—but they had done so publicly, despite the threat of persecution. Now their defiance of the law endangered not themselves but those whom they were attempting to help, so Coffin and others were comfortable acting in secret so as not to endanger the safety of the refugees. Fidelity to the Quaker commitment to equality led to careful reflection on Quaker devotion to moral integrity, when the traditional Quaker practice of honesty could threaten the lives and liberty of the escapees.
 
 
 
Levi Coffin’s Reminiscences (1876) relates many tales of his work with the Underground Railroad and reveal his considerable skills as a raconteur. Among his stories is an account of his houseguest Eliza Harris, the historical figure who inspired her namesake in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) Eliza Harris, escaping from Kentucky, crossed the Ohio River near Ripley on drifting broken ice with her child in her arm. Readers of Uncle Tom’s Cabin from Levi Coffin’s day to the early twenty-first century have speculated that Simeon and Rachel Halliday are Levi and Catherine Coffin in thin disguise. After some twenty years in Newport (now Fountain City), Indiana, where they assisted thousands of refugees from slavery, the Coffins moved to Cincinnati, where they continued in the Underground Railroad. Coffin also became a leader in the free-labor movement. Another form of protest against slavery, this movement bought and sold only goods produced without the exploitation of slaves. After the Civil War, Coffin worked with freed slaves in Arkansas. He traveled to England, where he raised $100,000 to support the work with freedmen. Other Friends recognized for their antislavery work in this period include the abolitionist Thomas Garrett (1789–1871) and the Grimké sisters Sarah (1792–1873) and Angelina (1805–1879). Some used journalism to promote antislavery work, as did John Greenleaf Whittier (1807–1892), who worked for several newspapers; Benjamin Lundy (1789–1839) in his newspaper the Genius of Universal Emancipation; and Elisha Bates (1781–1861), whose Moral Advocate also protested against capital punishment and war and promoted temperance and prison reform. American Quakers engaged in prison reform also included Stephen Grellet (1773–1855)—who made his home in New York but reported to the tsar, the pope, the sultan, and various European monarchs on the sorry conditions of their prisons—and Charles (1823–1916) and Rhoda (1826–1909) Coffin, relatives of Levi. Elizabeth Comstock (1815–1891) promoted prison reform and also worked in the Underground Railroad before the Civil War and with freedman’s concerns thereafter as well as temperance and women’s equality. Elizabeth Howland (1827–1929) shared these last three concerns. If a single person can represent the breadth of Quaker commitment to social reform in the nineteenth century, Lucretia Coffin Mott (1793–1880, also related to Levi through common Nantucket Quaker ancestry) may be the best candidate. A liberal Friend committed to freedom and progress, she acquired her antislavery views early in life. In 1830 she and her husband, James, befriended the renowned abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. They supported the Anti-Slavery Society in America, though only James could join because women were not admitted into membership. In response, Lucretia Mott and other Quaker women, along with free blacks, formed the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society. Mott was not satisfied to call for the end of slavery in the South: she also protested the racism of the North. She defied the segregationist customs of her day, offering hospitality to African Americans in her home and preaching in black churches. Lucretia and James Mott were appointed delegates to the first World Anti-Slavery Convention in London in 1840, but as a woman she was not seated as a delegate but only invited to sit politely in the ladies’ gallery. Quite a stir followed as she and others held for the recognition of women as official delegates. At that conference she befriended the young Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Upon their return to the United States, they committed themselves to laboring for women’s rights. The outcome of their (and others’) resolve was the conference at Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848 and its famous Declaration of Sentiments, which led the way to the women’s suffrage movement. Mott also worked with peace societies, the Nonresistance Society, anti- Sabbath groups, Native American concerns, and on education, including women’s medical education. Bold and unshakable in her ethical passions, Mott was nearly pushed out of Quakerism by more conservative voices. She stood her ground, and by her later years Hicksite Friends considered her as their spiritual leader.

Older Posts »