Reading Journal 12

            The fact that
Hawthorne’s The Minister’s Black Veil is a parable, suggests his purpose for writing.  According to Webster’s dictionary, a parable is a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.  This is exactly what
Hawthorne is trying to accomplish.  The black veil that Pastor Hooper wears causes confusion and creates fear within his congregation, “But that piece of crape, to their imagination, seemed to hang down before his heart, the symbol of a fearful secret between him and them” (2271). 
Hawthorne’s purpose here is to use the black veil as a symbol of the sin that lies between every human and their relationships, whether it be with God or others.  For example, beginning on page 2268
Hawthorne writes, “The subject had reference to secret sin, and those sad mysteries which we hide from our nearest and dearest, and would fain conceal from our own consciousness, even forgetting that the Omniscient can detect them.”  This means that we all have our own sin, regardless of the extremity of it, and God knows about all of it because he can see everything that everyone has done wrong.  People hide their sin from others, and hide behind a mask that is better than who they truly are.  Hooper refuses to reveal his face until he leaves this world, knowing himself that his purpose is only to symbolize the wrongs of all humankind, “It is but a mortal veil – it is not for eternity!” (2272).  Finally, on his death bed, Pastor Hooper reveals his purpose, “Why do you tremble at me alone?  Tremble also at each other!  I look around me, and, lo! on every visage a Black Veil!” (2275).  Here he expresses that everyone wears a black veil, even if it may not consist of material.  Every mortal on Earth is a sinner, which prevents them from being pure.  Therefore,
Hawthorne is saying that people need to look at themselves, to see the sin in their own lives and the things that cloud the way in which they view the world. 

            I feel that
Hawthorne’s purpose was similar in Young Goodman Brown.  While Goodman Brown saw his own sin, through his experience in the woods and the ceremony, he saw the sin of all the other people in his town.  Both of these stories deal with hidden sin and the strain and sorrow it can cause.  Both characters, Brown and Hooper, lived sad and sorrowful lives, with knowledge that their fellow community members lived in as much sin as they did themselves. 

            I think that
Hawthorne is really taking a stab at American identity in both of the stories we read this week.  Perhaps he is pointing out some major flaws in American society, or perhaps at our past.  For example, many of the Puritan writers we read were in-tune with their religion and quick to point out the mistakes, flaws, and sins of others.  When I was doing the readings for this week, I could not help but to think of
Pella.  I don’t want to rip on my own hometown, but it does have the image of being a “perfect, religious, small-town.”  Many people are self-righteous and quick to judge, despite the fact that they too have their own sins, just as Goodman Brown discovered everyone in his community were sinners, and Pastor Hooper hid behind his “black veil.”  Many people that I encounter daily, even loved ones and myself, hide behind their own veil, as Hooper states on his death-bed.  Actions and sin during the week does not mean that getting up on Sunday morning can erase the past or get rid of the mask that so many wear.  I feel that this is
Hawthorne’s purpose for writing, and he really wants us to look past this and realize that we are all sinners, not that we are all evil, but that not one of us is better or worse than the next.  We each have our own mistakes and should not be so quick to judge others. 

Reading Journal 11

            Irving begins by giving us some background information on the research of Diedrich Knickerbocker and trying to convince the audience of the accuracy of the story.  He even refers to it as a “book of unquestionable authority” (2154).  I found this to be quite humorous because I have heard the story of Rip Van Winkle many times in my life and always considered it to be a myth.  It also seems comical that he would write an introduction like this to the story just as many others, such as Bradstreet, wrote to theirs.  The contrast is ironic because Bradstreet’s approach seemed much more serious, as if she felt the need excuse herself for her writing, and convince people of her humbleness.  In Irving’s introduction, however, I had a hard time deciding whether he was trying to be serious or simply humoring, and playing with his audience. 

            In Rip Van Winkle, there are many references to nature, which I found similar to some of the transcendental writers, Emerson and Thoreau.  For example, Rip often retires into the Catskill Mountains when he is tired and cannot deal with his wife’s bickering any longer.  The reader can clearly see evidence of the Hudson River Style here as well.  On page 2157, the panoramic view of the mountains is described,

From an opening between the trees he could overlook all the lower country for many a mile of rich woodland.  He saw at a distance the lordly Hudson, far, far below him, moving on its silent but majestic course, with the reflection of a purple cloud, or the sail of a lagging bark, here and there sleeping on its glassy bosom, and at last losing itself in the blue highlands.

Here the reader feels as if he/she is standing next to Rip overlooking the countryside.  The ability of Irving to create this image is very powerful. 

            I feel that another important aspect to this story is the question of American identity and the way in which Irving tries to get his readers to look at Americans.  At the beginning, he portrays the town as peaceful, and everyone knowing each other.  For example, everyone knew and loved Rip.  One of my favorite characters, although minor, is Nicholas Vedder, a patriarch and landlord who sat around all day saying nothing. He only displayed his emotions through the manner in which he smoked, if something “displeased him, he was observed to smoke his pipe vehemently, and to send forth short, frequent, and angry puffs; but when pleased, he would inhale the smoke slowly and tranquilly, and emit it in light and placid clouds” (2157).  I found this to be quite humorous.  This man comes across as having not too many worries, as well as being one of those old wise men you enjoy sitting near just to see what they will do.  However, by the end of the story, when Rip returns, much has changed in the town, “the country had thrown off the yoke of old England…instead of being a subject of his Majesty George the Third, he was now a free citizen of the United States” (2163).  Not only that but many things were strange to him, “matters which he could not understand: war – congress – Stony Point” (2162).  This part of Rip Van Winkle, really interested me.  Although I have heard the story before, as I stated earlier, I simply thought of it as a myth.  The fact that some much changed in the United States in such little time (Rip was asleep for twenty years) says a lot about the rapid growth and change in our country.  Before Rip left, he had no concern over these details, and still didn’t when he returned.  Even the ways of life had changed.  Instead of men like Vedder, he came back to a “busy, bustling, disputatious tone” (2161).  This says a lot about our way of life today and how it has changed from the past, including the fact that the people were so concerned about the election, despite the fact that a man had slept for twenty years and just returned.  The line on page 2163, “The company broke up and returned to the more important concerns of the election,” shows how wrapped up and involved Americans are with their own affairs and well-being.  I think this holds true today and maybe answers part of the question of American identity.  There is never a dull moment in our lives, with new technology, political affairs, and our own daily schedules, we do not have time to stop and think.  The hustle and bustle of our lives drives us forward, with stopping to regard things that may be miracles, just as the people in this story did not waste much time on Rip.     

Reading Journal 10

            In the biography section on Thoreau, we learn that he was influenced by “Emersonian Transcendentalism” (1736).  Thoreau clearly supports Emerson’s ideas on self-reliance and nonconformity.  It seems as though Thoreau may have taken Emerson’s idea, “He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time,” to a whole new level (1630).  Thoreau embraces the idea of living in peace with nature in his decision to retire to Walden Pond for two years, two months, and two days (1736).  His reasoning for this choice is quite clear, “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived” (1758).  The importance of nature and finding self-knowledge in this manner is a direct result of transcendentalist thinking.

            Thoreau also quotes other sources, many Hindu, stressing the importance of nature, “There are none happy in the world but beings who enjoy freely a vast horizon,” quoted from Damodara (1756).  Here Thoreau uses this quote to acknowledge the liberating feeling and gain of knowledge that can be acquired through experiencing nature.  He expresses the need for simplicity and living in harmony with nature, “For I found myself suddenly neighbor to the birds; not by having imprisoned one, but having cages myself near them” (1755).  This displays the importance of people simplifying and returning to a simpler lifestyle instead of trying to tame nature and bring it to themselves.  If Thoreau had read some Hindu teachings, I believe these enlightenment thinkers may have played a role in his “returning to simplicity” thoughts.

            Thoreau truly wants to make an impact and share his discoveries with others.  He wanted to let others in on his findings, “If it [nature] proved to be mean,  why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion” (1758).  The whole notion of seeking truth, such as Thoreau discovering truth, the sublime, and then sharing it with the public is another direct result of transcendentalism.

            However, one main problem I have with Thoreau’s thinking is simplifying life so much that we overlook world affairs.  For him to say, “If we read of one man robbed, or murdered…we never need read of another,” and to refer to news as “gossip,” is a bold statement (1760).  I believe Thoreau is overlooking a necessary role that people must maintain.  If we would not listen to the news or pay attention to world affairs, would Hitler have been allowed to exterminate all of the Jews?  It is absurd of Thoreau to request complete abstention from current events.  I too would like to think that if everyone minded their own business that the world could be peaceful, but right now we need to be aware of the realities of the world, that cruelty and hardship do exist.  It is ironic that I would use “reality” in referring to cruelty when Thoreau uses it in a completely different manner, “If men would steadily observe realities only, and not allow themselves to be deluded, life…would be like a fairy tale” (1760).  Is he suggesting that horrific events in the past are not reality?  Perhaps Thoreau is living out his own fairy tale and not considering “reality.”  I feel this is the weakest point of his argument.  Although his motives may be sincere and with good intention, I think he is being unrealistic in suggesting that society should only pay attention to its immediate surroundings.  It is impossible to retire and allow terrible things to occur if we know what cruelties are taking place.

Reading Journal 9

            Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, although written from the character Linda Brent’s point of view, is a clear reflection of Jacobs’ life experiences as a slave.  As a child, however, Brent has no idea that she is slave, “I was so fondly shielded that I never dreamed I was a piece of merchandise, trusted to them for safe keeping, and liable to be demanded of them at any moment” (2031).  After her mother died, Brent had a kind mistress who taught her to read and write and about religion.  At this point in her life, Jacobs paints a similar picture to that which we read from Wheatley.  She too was taught to read and write and also accepted Christianity.  Wheatley was shielded, as Brent expresses, from experiencing the harsh conditions of slavery herself.  However, this all changes for Brent when she enters adolescence and realizes she is simply property, “These God-breathing machines are no more, in the sight of their masters, than the cotton they plant, or the horses they tend” (2033).

            This is exactly how Mr. Flint, the parallel to Mr. Norcom in Jacobs’ life, treats Linda as he continually sexually harasses her.  Of course Mrs. Flint is outraged and questions Linda, making her swear of her innocence on the Bible.  However, Mrs. Flint does not fell any empathy for Linda she only “pitied herself as a martyr; but she was incapable of feeling for the condition of shame and misery in which her unfortunate, helpless slave was placed” (2035).  This does not surprise me because Mrs. Flint saw Linda as property, so she would not consider her emotions.  However, I wonder how the men could distinguish this when they slept with their slaves.  “He not only thinks it no disgrace to be the father of those little niggers, but he is not ashamed to call himself their master” (2037).  I think this line said by southern women clearly represents the confusion that was set up when slave owners had children with their slaves.

            Mr. Flint adds to this confusion by trying to be what he considers “nice” to Linda.  He never whips her, is going to build a house for her, and will not sell her.  This is hypocritical of him because he does these “kind” acts knowing his reputation is on the line.  On the other hand, this does not stop him from sexually harassing Linda.  This mirrors some of the hypocrisy of the colonists believing it was their religious duty to convert Native Americans to Christianity, yet not taking what the Indians wanted into consideration.  Although Mr. Flint may have thought he was helping Linda out, it was not what she wanted, just as many Indians did not want to accept Christianity.

            Linda truly wanted to remain pure since she could not marry the man that she wanted.  However she realized, “I was struggling alone in the powerful grasp of the demon Slavery” (2038).  She acknowledges the audience explaining her desperation and shame and that she knew what she did was wrong.  On the other hand, she could not bear to have the children of her master, “It seems less degrading to give one’s self, than to submit to compulsion” (2039).  Therefore, she has children with a white, unmarried man, the parallel of Samuel Tredwell Sawyer to Jacobs.  However, this still led to a loss of self-respect for Linda.

            The ironic part about this section is that Linda wants to remain pure, and virtuous, clearly as a result of her religious knowledge.  She also would rather give herself to an unmarried white man than commit adultery with her master.  I wonder is she had not been brought up with a kind, loving mistress and grandmother, and not had a religious background, if then she would have willingly submitted to her master’s wishes.

Reading Journal 8

            I found Thomas Paine’s writing from The Age of Reason to be extremely bold and blunt.  It is no wonder that after his return to America, the people saw him as a threat to Christianity and democracy (958).  From the beginning, Paine is very upfront with his position, “Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God” (971).  He supports this by sharing prophets, saints, and the religious books important to several religions.  From here, Paine moves on the revelation, meaning the word of God, communicated to one person only.  His argument then is no one else has to believe the revelation of anyone else.  I realize that people should search for their own beliefs, but here it seems he has taken reasoning to an extreme.  If you need proof and evidence for absolutely everything, believing in anything could be difficult. 

            Paine attributes the life of Jesus to mythology; that many believed in at that time.  Although he credits Jesus to being “virtuous and amiable,” he claims historians could have easily created the entire story and without evidence of the resurrection “the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given” (973).  Paine’s thinking is a direct result of enlightenment thinking.  He needs proof to support his belief.  Although I think he has taken his reasoning a little too far, he is a forward-thinker in his time.  His line that people have been “educated to believe it, and they would have believed anything else in the same manner” is a powerful statement (973).  This made me think about my own religion and question if I had not been born into a Christian family, would I still be a Christian?  Chances are great that answer would be “No.”

            Chapter VI, Of the True Theology, reminded me of the essay we read of John Locke’s.  Paine states our two types of thoughts: those we produce by reflection and those that bolt into our mind (974).  Locke claimed our ideas come from sensation and reflection (635).  Clearly, Paine was not alone in this enlightenment thinking.  This reasoning, however, created difficulty in making sense of religion.  On page 975, Paine shares his struggle with comprehending why a loving God would send his son to die, and concludes Christianity simply “cannot be a true system.”  Although Paine supports many of his claims, towards the end he begins to attack others’ beliefs.  He claims Christianity is “repugnant to reason” and “contradictory in itself” (975).  Paine also states on page 975, the theology of Christianity is based on nothing.  He closes by concluding that “the Bible and Testament are impositions and forgeries” (976).  I think the way Paine concludes, by claiming he has evidence that Christianity has no reliable evidence to sustain itself is absurd.  He simply threw out contradictory examples and began attacking religion, and called it evidence.  If Paine wanted to persuade people, he may have considered taking a different approach rather than throwing flaws of their religion in their face.  Perhaps Paine was simply an extreme personality, as his biography suggests.  This in itself makes me question his reliability.  It appears to me that Paine was a radical thinker but was never content.  He kept moving around, stirring up trouble and disagreeing simply to disagree. 

            Thomas Jefferson also believed in the questioning of faith, but in a much less dramatic manner stating, “Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error” (1008).  Jefferson felt the way to get rid of corruption ad error within religion was to question.  He even gives examples of great thinkers, Galileo and Descartes.  I agree with Jefferson’s view on religion especially, “Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion” (1008).  He acknowledges that people will have different ideas, and as a result we can strengthen our own faith by making sense of all of these factors.  He also, like Bradstreet in our earlier readings, acknowledges Christianity as one of a thousand religions.  These statements by Jefferson display a rationality and realistic view of religion.  In fact he attributes any religion to “preserving peace and order” (1009). 

            Jefferson does end, however, using freedom of religion as a fear factor.  He urges to embrace the change now before leaders become corrupt and rights are forgotten.  This outlook does not display much hope for freedom of the people in the future of America if they did not take the liberty to stand up for their rights.  I think Jefferson used this scare tactic to urge Americans not to hold back or they would lose religious freedom here as they had in Europe. 

Reading Journal 6

            In the biography section of Mary Rowlandson, the reader discovers that it took courage for her to publish because Puritans “repressed women’s public speaking and writing” (439).  Also shared here is the fact that Increase Mather, a congregational clergyman, is the assumed author of the preface to Rowlandson’s narrative.  In the preface Mather explains, “This Narrative was Penned by this Gentlewoman her self, to be to her a Memorandum of God’s dealing with her,” setting up the purpose for Mary’s writing (441).  Following this he writes on page 442, “I hope by this time none will cast any reflection upon this Gentlewoman, on the score of this publication of her Affliction and Deliverance,” along with, “Excuse her then if she come thus into the publick.”

            I found this preface to be ridiculous.  Why does a man need to write a preface to Rowlandson’s narrative?  It appears that alone, her writing would not be acceptable.  Therefore a religious man had to provide proof that she was truthful in her account.  Mather even goes so far as to ask people to forgive her for writing.  Honestly, the entire time I was reading the preface, I was extremely irritated about the way women were put down and subdued by such supposedly “religious” people.

            Also in the preface, Mather refers to the Indians as “atheistical, proud, wild, cruel, barbarous, brutish, etc.” (442). This outright attack and name-calling reminded me of the conflict between Morton and Bradford especially the techniques Bradford used to try to get people on his side.  So similarly, I question Mather’s reliability and motives for writing the preface which seems to portray Indians in such a negative light.

            Rowlandson begins her narrative describing the scene with Indians killing and burning everything in the colony referring to the Christians being scattered and slaughtered “like a company of Sheep torn by Wolves” (445).  This reference is very interesting because she is making a Biblical reference to the Christians being like sheep, God’s flock, and Indians being wolves, the evil predators.

            In the First Remove, Rowlandson speaks of the night after the Indian victory, “Oh the roaring, and singing and danceing, and yelling of those black creatures in the night, which made the place a resemblance of hell” (445).  The Indian celebration was obviously interpreted by Mary as something evil.  This displays the cultural differences and misinterpretations of practices between the Indians and colonists.

            The next few sections display conflicting actions of cruelty and kindness from the Indians.  First they let her child starve to death, yet bury it for her later.  They also let Rowlandson see her two other children at times.  When crossing the river, she did not get wet although many of the Indians did.  They also allowed her to ride on a horse when traveling.  Although she was given and allowed to read the Bible, the Indians did not let her honor the Sabbath.  This does not surprise me, however, because not working one day would be disrespectful to the Indian culture.  I find it ironic that Rowlandson does not comment on some of these acts of kindness or that she is not confused by it.  Instead, she simply attributes everything to God’s plan.  I do admire her strength, for she never loses faith.  In the Fourth Remove she quotes Jeremiah 31:16, “They shall come again from the land of the Enemy,” displaying her deep belief she would survive.

            It does seem odd to me that she never questions God.  Perhaps Rowlandson felt that she could not share the questioning of faith in her narrative because it might be looked down upon anyway because she was a woman.  This is a much different approach than that of Anne Bradstreet’s writing when she admits to questioning her faith.  For this reason I found Rowlandson less believable and more difficult to relate to than other authors we have read. 

Reading Journal 5

            In Bradstreet’s letter to her children, the reader can gain much insight into her work as a writer.  To me, this piece may very possibly be the most open and sincere work of Bradstreet’s because it is addressed to her children, to whom she has devoted so much of her time and love.  On page 410, Bradstreet explains why she writes, “I have not studied in this you read to show my skill, but to declare the truth, not to set forth myself, but the glory of God.”  This line describes that Anne’s sole purpose for writing is to spread her love and faith for God.  Faith and religion drove many of the authors that we have read so far this semester to write.  It even drove some to travel great lengths just to spread their beliefs.  For example, Cabeza de Vaca and Columbus journeyed to the New World to spread their religion, along with other motives, to the natives.  Although Bradstreet was not specifically trying to convert anyone, her letter to her children allows us to see how great of an impact religion had on her writing.

            Though her faith may appear to be strong, Anne does admit to questioning if there is a God, but she sees the “order of things” and realizes that there must be an eternal being (412).  The next part of this section, the questioning of faith, made me appreciate Anne Bradstreet’s honesty and openness greatly, something none of the other writers we have read displayed.  Anne writes, “Why may not the Popish religion be the right?  They have the same God, the same Christ, the same word.  They only enterpret it one way, we another” (412).  The fact that Bradstreet is willing to admit that she questioned her religion and was open enough to consider another faith to be correct was a bold suggestion for this time.  Not many people were willing to stand out and say something different from the crowd.  This also made it easy for me to relate to her.  I have often questioned my own faith, as I’m sure many others have, and wondered how one religion can completely reject the ideas of another, especially different sects of Christianity and Catholicism.  After all, as Bradstreet clearly states, they believe in the same God and the same word, the Bible. 

This also makes her more comparable to the bold actions taken my Mrs. Hutchinson because although Bradstreet did not clearly write in protest, she cleverly got her ideas across.  She knew that she was a good writer, and it is evident in this piece when she writes that she did not write to “show [her] skill” (410).  This suggests that she knew God had given her a talent and that she must use it wisely to have a positive and influential effect in society at that time. 

I see Bradstreet and Taylor being fairly similar in their attempts to serve God through their writing.  For example, Taylor compares himself to a “crumb of dust” in “Preparatory Meditations,” which shows his humbleness.  Line 14 reads, “To make my Pen unto thy Praise alone,” and starting on line 27, “To Prove thou art, and that thou art the best; And shew thy Properties to shine most bright.”  This displays that Taylor wishes for his writing to glorify the Lord and His works, in a similar manner to which Bradstreet describes the purpose she writes to her children. 

“Huswifery” is also a good example of this by Taylor.  This poem appears to be more like a prayer to God, comparing the process of God molding and using him to the process of spinning wool.  Here he is asking for God to mold and use him to spread His word and glory.  Line 16 reads, “My wayes with glory and thee glorify.”  Taylor clearly wants to be a messenger for God, to use his talents to spread his faith.

This common theme of using writing to glorify God is found in many of our readings.  However, Bradstreet and Taylor appear to use a more subtle approach of spreading their faith in this manner rather than by forcefully trying to convert others.  Perhaps this started a trend in literature, music, and other areas today as a means for people to express themselves.  Bradstreet and Taylor may have had a great impact on American identity in literature, and the way that we address issues through our writing today. 

Reading Journal 4

The differences in points of view and storytelling of the same occurrences between Bradford’s “Of Plymouth Plantation” and Morton’s “Of the Revells of New Canaan” were quite distinct. From the biography section on Bradford, the reader is told that he was a Puritan, who believed that the journey to the New World indicated a covenanted relationship with God. Bradford and fellow Puritans felt they were predestined for eternal salvation. From the biography on Thomas Morton, the audience learns that he was a Cavalier, one who supported the king and the Church of England, and viewed the Puritans as intolerant and lacking respect for those did not hold their beliefs. With this knowledge and background, it is no wonder Bradford found Morton’s actions appalling, and Morton thought that Bradford had misinterpreted his intentions with the Indians.

Both men create their own names and use a somewhat satirical approach to attack the other. On page 334, Bradford describes Thomas Morton as a crafty man, who used alcohol to convince the Indians to help him gain power. He also says that Morton became “Lord of Misrule” and maintained a “School of Atheism”. Not to mention that Bradford cleverly changes Morton’s “Ma-re Mount” to “Merrymount,” indicating the chaotic drunkenness that he wants his audience to believe took place. Morton, on the other hand, pokes fun at Miles Standish, the man who was sent from Plymouth to capture him, referring to him as “Captain Shrimp”. He also names himself the “Host of Ma-re Mount” on page 301, inferring that he was of great importance. The language usage and renaming of people and Ma-re Mount, show how each man tries to sway his reader to his side. Perhaps this is the most evidence that neither story is a truly accurate account of what actually took place.

The greatest differences between the two occur in the recollection of the celebration at Ma-re Mount. First, I will begin with Bradford’s account. Bradford shares with the reader that Morton gave the Indians alcohol and guns and taught them how to use them. “And these things have been done in the same times when some of their neighbors and friends are daily killed by the Indians, or are in danger thereof and live but at the Indian’s mercy” (335). Here Bradford is implying that Morton has given the Indians weapons which they are using to harm people of European descent in surrounding areas. His claim was, “colonies in these parts [will] be overthrown by these barbarous savages thus armed with their own weapons” (335). Bradford’s fear of Indians having control is evident here and leads me to question his reliability as a writer. He seems so intent on ensuring that his audience agrees that the maypole is used as an idol and that Morton is and “evil instrument,” that I wonder if it is an accurate description. His language is heated and appears as though he was simply writing to persuade rather than provide a true summary of the situation. He even says the men were so drunk when Puritans went to capture Morton, they could not defend themselves.

Morton, however, has a much different perspective on the occurrences at Ma-re Mount. Thomas claims the maypole was set up to celebrate the feast day of St. Philip and St. James. He evens describes bringing beer, drums, guns, and pistols for the celebration. Although Morton would like the reader to believe that these things were only present for the celebration, several lines in the song prove differently. A few lines from the song including, “Drinke and be merry, merry, merry boyes; Make greene garlons, bring bottles out, And fill sweet Nector freely about; To cure the hart opprest with griefe, And of good liquors is the cheife,” show just how the people of Ma-re Mount felt about alcohol. These few lines support drunkenness and forgetting problems by drinking away their sorrows. Although Morton can try to encourage his readers to believe he got along with the Indians and lived peacefully among them, after reading the words to the song, I believe he used alcohol and bribery as means to create and maintain a relationship with them. This way they were also dependent on him. Morton also tries to persuade his audience against the Puritans on page 303, by addressing the maypole as a trophy symbolizing the Lady of learning, instead of as a whore as the Puritans stated, and making the reader think Puritans were against learning. This generalization and blow to the Puritans suggest Morton’s anger against them.

This along with other subtle and not so subtle attacks on one other, lead me to believe that neither Bradford nor Morton are completely reliable sources of what took place in Ma-re Mount. Each man appears to have had his own agenda in mind when writing his account. Both try to undercut the other and take stabs by only sharing bits and pieces of the story with the audience. For example, Bradford never shares that the maypole is set up for a celebration, and Morton never describes being caught and sent back to England by the Puritans. This is proof that each man, while narrating his story, only allows the reader in on the events that he wants them to know of to help support and further drive home his view.

Reading Journal 3

            After reading “The Examination of Mrs. Anne Hutchinson” and looking back on several of the texts we have read, I realized that many of these texts portrayed women in a negative light.  In several instances, a woman is the cause for “the fall,” whether it be from God or another sacred being.  In Genesis, Eve causes “the fall” after picking fruit from the tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden.  Similarly, Feather-woman causes “the fall” in “The Story of Poia” after digging up the Great Turnip.  In both stories, the women are then punished for their sins.  Eve and all women would have difficulty with child-birth, and humans would now serve the ultimate punishment: death.  Feather-woman was banned from Sky-Country for disobeying. 

Perhaps these early stories, especially “the fall” in Genesis is the reason that men looked down upon women in the New World, blaming them for creating disturbance in the relationship with God.  Winthrop stated that the meetings Mrs. Hutchinson held were not “fitting for [her] sex” (1).  This statement clearly shows the view that men were superior and of greater power and religious standing than women.  The men during this period had firm beliefs against women being in power, possibly due to the fact that Eve in the Bible disobeyed God and brought punishment on Adam, herself, and all of humankind.  If women in the past had led them astray, Mrs. Hutchinson’s different views would do the same.  The men feared her ideas that challenged their own. 

            Mrs. Hutchinson touches on the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.  She disapproves of preaching the covenant of works for salvation.  “When they preach a covenant of works for salvation, that is not truth” (5).  She believes it is fine to preach of the covenant between God and Adam.  However, to be under that covenant means that it applies to everyone, which she obviously does not believe.  On page 7 she states, “To preach a covenant of works and to be under a covenant of works is another business.”  This makes me wonder if Mrs. Hutchinson believes in original sin because she appears not to believe herself to be under a covenant of works. 

            Mrs. Hutchinson firmly believes in a personal relationship with the Lord, which she does not feel that most of the ministers of her town have.  “Until they [have] received the witness of the Spirit they [can] not preach a covenant of grace so clearly” (8).  She speaks of a covenant of grace which is between God and Abraham.  On page 10, Hutchinson relates herself to Abraham, that she too had an immediate revelation from God.  The court has great difficulty fathoming that this revelation took place.  To me, it is ironic for a religious people to not believe that God could have contact with someone besides a minister.  However, this was difficult for the people to grasp because of their negative views of women during this time.  I thought it was ironically funny on page 11 when the court states that Mrs. Hutchinson should be “banished out of our liberties” because she was exercising her right of freedom, or what should have been her right to religious freedom, and was punished and banished because of it. 

            Mrs. Hutchinson was definitely an early feminist, and her views may have had a long lasting impact on religious groups to this day.  Today many evangelical churches believe and stress a personal relationship with God.  Many do also preach of “the fall” from Christ in Genesis and original sin.  However, the focus tends to be on building and strengthening individual relationships with the Lord.  The idea of personal revelations and God speaking to individuals is a direct branch of Hutchinson’s ideas. 

Reading Journal 2

            In the prologue of La Relacion, Cabeza de Vaca makes many references to serving the king as his main purpose of this expedition stating on page 141 that they may, “administer and carry out the mandates of Your Majesty” and “in your name might go to conquer those lands.”  The continual reference to “Your Majesty” sets the narrative up displaying an attitude of servitude, loyalty and sacrifice for the king during this expedition, but also with the intent to gain land and wealth for his country. 

Cabeza de Vaca is also a servant to his God in this narrative as he tries to convert the natives to Christianity.  At the same time, similar to Columbus’ journey, Cabeza de Vaca has a type of “holier than thou” mentality, using religion as a means for bettering the natives by planning to “bring them to knowledge of the true faith and the true Lord” (141).  Perhaps many of the missionary attitudes were a cover for the greedy, land-seeking expeditions.  This idea of servitude evolves through the narrative as Cabeza de Vaca puts his trust in his God’s will. 

In chapter eight, while traveling from Aute, many of the men become ill, and on page 144 there is talk by the healthy men to abandon the governor and the sick.  Cabeza de Vaca shares that he, along with others, convinced these few that desertion was not a good decision.  Once again he relies on his religion, “commending our course to God, our Lord, that he would direct it as should best serve Him” (144).  This shows Cabeza de Vaca’s strong belief in the will of God being done. 

Ironically, this is used against him in chapter ten when the governor makes the opposite choice, “each should do what he thought best to save his own life” (145).  To me, this part of the narrative is extremely disheartening.  Although Cabeza de Vaca had stood by the governor, he chose his own life over the group.  However, the governor’s decision at this point in the narrative is not much different than that of the norm in Indian culture.  “If any one chance to fall sick in the desert, and cannot keep up with the rest, the Indians leave him to perish” (147). 

While I was appalled by this behavior by the Indian peoples, I soon realized that this may have been the only choice they had.  It is quite obvious to me by the outcome and survival of the Indians compared to Cabeza de Vaca’s group, that the Indians knew how to make it in this environment.  If they had to stop and wait for healing every time someone became ill, the group as a whole would never survive.  In the end, survival of the group was of significant importance to the Indians.  The Indians knew of the necessity for every person to be strong, and their customs and practices reflected this even in the manner in which they raised their children.  Physical toughness was essential to survival. 

However, Cabeza de Vaca displays a different type of toughness and strength in his strongly based religious beliefs.  In every instance of hardship, he leans on his faith to get him through.  For example, in chapter twenty-one, he is lost and left wandering for days.  Yet he rejoices when finally he returns because of God’s mercy.  To me, there are obvious benefits to the physical toughness the Indians work to obtain and also to the religious, faith-based strength that Cabeza de Vaca displays.