I can't promise that this will be the sane version, but it shall at least be saner. I promise not to go off into a rant about Abraham Lincoln this time, I swear.
In other words, READ THIS ONE, not the other one, unless you want brutal honesty. This is the polite version.
Until Dr. Brewton tells me otherwise, I shall only write about those pieces of literature about which I can find something meaningful to say. So here goes. *deep breath*
Unfortunately, we did not make it around to discussing Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence today, which is rather curious and also disappointing. I think the class's opinions on it would have been interesting. (Class's? Class'? I always feel the extra 's' is advisable in order to emphasize the presence of the apostrophe. Plus, I pronounce it that way, anyway. Minor Grammar Nazi tangent.) In fact, I think we could have interesting opinions on a lot of things. That's why I liked literature discussions from last semester so much. We actually got to talk and debate things.
Anyway, I would like to say that, rereading the Declaration, I was astonished at the dignity, clarity, and proper formality of
the diction in it. I know we modern people think the way they used to write in
the late 1700's kind of stilted and funny (I was cracking myself up
inappropriately through half of Equiano's writings), but if you look past that
the Declaration is a true work of art. Today's mode of thinking has little grasp
of the sacred or of the important role formality and solemnity play in life, so
it was very nice seeing the solemnity of the Declaration.
And look at its organization! The first sentence tells you everything you need to know about it. It begins: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." The American colonists are going to separate from Britain. However, they're going to be fair and give all their reasons why. Firstly, though, they're going to explain why they have the right to do so, and they have recourse to Nature's God, the Creator Who endowed all men with Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. And then we go into a long, long list of abuses and usurpations.
Having listed all these, Thomas Jefferson then explains how they begged for these wrongs to be redressed, and how nothing came of it. Therefore, the delegates have no choice other than to separate from England.
When I was smaller, I found it hard to understand how the Declaration made us a separate country. Now that I am older and have put away (some) childish things, I understand better. When you speak a thing, when you write something, why else would you speak it or write it, if not to make it true? You want it to cause some kind of effect, certainly, unless you're just walking down the street singing "Doo-Wah-Diddy" for whatever reason. (That was the first song title that came to me. Don't blame me if it gets stuck in your head!)
Words have power. They are sacred. When those words were written, something... I won't say magical, but something definite occurred, and we were no longer Great Britain, but America. The English might not have acknowledged it for a while, but we knew who and what we were.
We just have to remember that now.
Perhaps the tradition of reading the Declaration every 4th of July should be renewed, now, should it not...
Moving along, we also discussed A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, by Mary Wollstonecraft. I must say, her last name looks very much like an Anglicized German surname. Or, at least, a Germanic-pattern name. I can't help it. I notice these things. That's what happens when you're of a linguistic bent.
I also could not help but be reminded of Jane Austen at her finest while reading the selection. It was in a good way, however. (When I had to read Pride and Prejudice in high school, I expected not to like it. I have an antagonistic relationship with many 'classical' works of literature. However, to my surprise, I really liked it! The movies, both the five-hour version and the more recent ones, are very beloved at our house.) I must confess, I heartily agree with Mrs. Wollstonecraft when she insists that women should be more than petty, pretty dollies who make frivolous conversation and embroider cushions to attract men. (What guy was ever attracted by embroidered cushions, if I may ask?) Women have intellects and wills, just like men- I mean, we're all Men (note the very important capital, feminists)-, and they need to be exercised, just like any muscle, lest they shrivel away.
I can't say for men, seeing as how I am not (obviously) a man and have never broached this discussion with any of that species (that would make for some very awkward conversations with male cousins during the holidays, and I really don't have any guy friends unless I am given the privilege of mentioning a few acquaintances in the honors program- I mean, at least, they've said hi occasionally...). But I would assume that men would prefer to have a wife who can think for herself rather than some silly idiot who is a slave to fashion and who tries her hardest to look attractive, only to fail with time.
Passion fades, looks decay, and what will you have left, then? That is why a husband and a wife need to respect each other, have a good, solid bond of friendship and mutual trust, and actually be people they can get along with. In fact, I'd say those three factors are more important than 'being in love' and should be considered BEFORE the wedding. Being in love is a stupid reason for getting married, if it's the only reason.
(Pardon me while I go destroy several Disney films. They are particularly egregious offenders in this case. I'd like to single out Mulan 2. ONE MONTH! They've only known each other ONE MONTH! You could have said 'one year' and it would have made NO DIFFERENCE to the plot! And what about those three soldiers and the princesses? THREE DAYS! *bangs head until unconsciousness is achieved*)
*deep breath* Okay. I can do this. I promised myself no more ranting.
The concept of women growing more masculine as they become more educated is frankly hilarious to me, so I'll just pass over it in a Ciceronian silence...
As for virtues that are traditionally masculine, I'll give that half a point. Virtues are universally recommended and universally available; after all, what is a virtue but a good habit, cemented by grace? Some virtures, such as compassion and pity, may come more easily to empathetic woman, while other virtues, such as fortitude, may come more easily to man. However, I've never been under the delusion that men can not (or should not) be compassionate and merciful- maybe it's because I've grown up with stories of the martyrs, or of the pity of Bilbo Baggins that saved Middle-earth, or St. Francis of Assisi, whom even the Protestants put statues of out in their gardens. (They do. You know they do. They also like St. Therese of Liseux. At least, they send chain e-mails with prayers to the Little Flower. I have yet to understand this, seeing as how she was a Carmelite nun, and Protestants generally aren't overly fond of nuns. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on this matter?)
I've also had the role models of St. Joan of Arc, St. Frances of Rome (one of the few women sants who wasn't a nun, but rather a wife and mother), St. Giana Beretta Molla, and the list goes on and on...
So, in short, I've always believed both men and women should be strong and virtuous. Perhaps it is because those who have gone before have paved the way for my thinking, and I am indebted to them while taking all their hard work for granted.
Tangent to this discussion is the fact, which Dr. Brewton brought up, that educated women tend to have fewer children, and that stopping to have children in one's 20's often can derail one's career. It is a sad fact, but it is even sadder that women wait so long to have children and then, when they do, they risk their children having some sort of defect. One of my relatives has two children with spina biffida. They are both so very precious and I can't imagine anyone not wanting them because of a congenital problem, but there you have it... Such children are often aborted. It's very, very sad. I guess people could say, "They'd have a hard life; it's better they not live," but at least they would be alive. You put crippled animals out of their misery, but you don't do that to people...
*sad face*
It doesn't help that modern society is told endlessly that children are expensive. Of course children are! I've seen the statistics. But do you know what they are? They are your investment in the future. Your children are your legacy. They carry you on into the future. One day, when you're old and frail, they'll help take care of you. (At least, they should.) They are souls that you have helped create and I can't see how anyone can put a price tag on them.
*sad face again* I need to stop; I'm tearing myself up here. And water is not good for the keyboard.
I'd also like to add this link, because I am tired of hearing about this concept: Overpopulation Is A Myth. I've heard about it in one too many classes here lately and before I snap I should do something constructive, like post a link that only one person will likely see (because he has to) and which no one will likely click on (because they don't want to be persuaded otherwise). I have many links. I am the queen of links. I keep Word documents with lists of links because I'm afraid I'll lose something I could be referencing.
And I still haven't figured out how to hotlink an image, Dr. Brewton. I should just google it, I know, but I never seem to think of it when I'm not in the middle of something... Here. I'll make myself a note, along with my thousands of other notes... Maaaaybe it'll get done.
I envy other people their blogs and their carefully organized and constructed literary critiques. Mine are always so ridiculously informal and I end up overly emotional. I also start addressing people who are not present. Is that a sign of madness?
Of course, madness is to genius near allied, as they say, or however the saying goes... It's not one I use often. I prefer to use: "This is madness, yet there is a method to it," which is actually from Hamlet, would you believe, where King Claudius is observing Hamlet's apparent insanity and thinking, hey, maybe he's just pretending to be nuts, let's ship him off to England and let them kill him there...
Bad idea, Claudius. Baaaaad idea.
In Pace Christi,
Elyse
No comments:
Post a Comment