Uncategorized – Page 7 – Literature and Law Spring 2020

Jefferson and Locke

When we were discussing the Enlightenment thinkers who inspired Jefferson in his penning of the Declaration of Independence one question stood out in my mind more than anything else: Why did Jefferson change Locke’s original quote of …”life, liberty, and property” to “…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? It could be argued that Jefferson was attempting to update Locke’s century-old ideas of government and its duty to the people and apply it to the unique dilemma which presented itself to the Continental Congress for the first time. The idea of a free nation, in which one could pursue their own personal happiness without having to bend under the weight of imperial rule is one that is uniquely American at the time.

I did some additional research into the topic expecting to find that this was the case, but as it turns out it is most likely a phrase borrowed once again from Locke. It is interesting that many of the ideas on which this nation was founded stem from the philosophies of English political thinkers. Despite the weight that the “American Experiment” held for England and the rest of the world, the ideas behind its foundation are surprisingly English.

Locke’s concept of the pursuit of happiness rises above the purely selfish or hedonistic ideas that many draw to mind and is described as “the foundation of liberty”. The freedom which Locke describes is one that stimulates the mind of the populace and frees them from the enslavement of their unfulfilled desires.

Just because the ideas contained within the Declaration of Independence may not be native to the U.S. doesn’t mean that they are any less American. The colonies’ decision to free themselves from British imperial rule was something that had never been attempted at the time, and the foundations of the nation were based on the individual freedoms that they felt were ignored under the rule of Britain. Although the ideas and writings of Locke were British, the actions that they inspired and continue to inspire are ones that have no border.

Presentation Versus Representation

In hindsight, the historical context from which I analyzed the US Declaration of Independence is quite lacking in comparison to the literary perspective. The most prominent thing that I kept coming back to was the emptiness of the wording used. Phrases such as “one people,” all men are created equal,” and “powers from the consent of the governed.” I see all of these as merely a presentation; they do not truly represent the “one people” of the US. These were written down to provide a sense of unification, equality, and shared power — in reality they are far from that. This entire document is put on as a sort of act to show power in writing rather than in action. While this document was written and published no actions were made to ensure what was said was enforced. This declaration presents representation where there is none to be found.

Going back to the second phrase I quoted, “all men are created equal,” there enslaved West Africans who would have disagreed. Calling upon the erasure poem “Declaration” by Tracy K. Smith, there is a line from this poem that reads “We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. –taked Captive — on the high Seas — to bear–” (Smith). The irony being that this is the exact words of the Declaration the founding fathers wrote. Yet they could not see that they too were the same as they they enslaved. In my opinion, it was an insult to write such a phrase as “all men are created equal” as a presentation to the world how just the US is, while in reality, when it comes time to represent what they wrote, such justice is merely spilled ink.

Smith, Tracy K. “Declaration.” Poetry Foundation, Graywolf Press, http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/147468/declaration-5b5a286052461.

Symbols of Ideals

The story of The Furies in the play we read in class ends on a very interesting note that raises many questions I don’t really know how to answer. In the end, Orestes is acquitted of the charge of matricide when the vote of the Athenian mortals is split evenly and Athena’s deciding vote falls in his favor. Orestes swears the everlasting devotion of himself and his people to Athena and Apollo and his friendship to the people of Athens, and then exits the stage.

Remaining for the conclusion of the play and the final act in the drama is the goddess Athena and The Furies. Their exchange is strange to me. Athena is the patron goddess of Athens. She represents culture, wisdom, strategic warfare, and the arts. In a symbolic sense, Athena IS Athens. She is the embodied spirit of the city and it’s people and the ideals they (literally) deify.

So the goddess, the spirit of the city conceptualized and embodied, has sat as high arbiter of the dispute and has ruled in favor of Orestes. And yet The Furies demand for their right of vengeance is something she cannot deny and instead must appease. Just as Athena symbolically represents the ideals of wisdom and culture/civilization, The Furies are the embodied representations of hatred, pain, and vengeance. Rather than rebuking and banishing The Furies, the play ends with Athena acknowledging their right and appeasing them by giving them a position of high honor in the city.

The play is carried out by these larger than life, mythological symbolical figures. So what does it mean that the embodied spirit of wisdom, the embodied spirit of the city itself, decides to acknowledge the right of vengeance and exalt it and honor it within the city?

Vengeance is in the end thwarted at the hands of Wisdom, but is given a high and honored position within the city in order to secure peace. I believe this is the theory of the play; the supposition it is making about the nature of justice. The play believes that vengeance is real and powerful and cannot be denied. It must be respected and honored if peace is to be secured, but it must always be ruled over by wisdom, and cannot always be indulged if the proper conditions for redemption and mercy have been met, as they were by the sacrifices of Orestes.

Welcome to our ENGL 340 class blog!

This is where you’ll publish your eight required blog posts, find out what your classmates are thinking about the reading, and do whatever else you feel like to create a vibrant online community to supplement our in-class time. We’ll do a WordPress tutorial in class next week.

The syllabus contains detailed information about what I’m looking for in your posts. A couple of technical instructions: Please do make use of the categories I’ve created, one for each major text or topic we’re covering; if you write a post about The Furies you should select the Furies category before you publish. This will make it easy for me and your classmates to search for all posts on a particular text or topic. Please also make use of tags to identify some keywords that might usefully be associated with what you’re writing about. So if you’re really focused on gender in The Furies, for example, you might create (or select, if it’s been created already) a “gender” tag for your post. Tags will help us draw connections across texts and contexts.

The idea of having you publish your writing on a blog rather than, say, just write me response papers or complete in-class quizzes is to encourage you to really engage your classmates – write for them and also read their writing to help enrich your experience with the material. I encourage (but do not require) you to regularly comment on each other’s posts.