November 23, 2009

            I originally searched for bigamy in the National Police Gazette because I thought it would be interesting to read about other instances of bigamy in light of Ann Carson, and because you really don’t hear about too many cases of bigamy now. First of all, this makes me wonder how prevalent bigamy was in the early republic. I can imagine that it was more common, and the two articles about bigamy that I pulled up provide pretty good reasons for bigamy at such a time. In one of these instances, the man forged divorce papers to show to his new wife (Article 10). I think this is an interesting example of bigamy because of what it says about the prevalence of counterfeiting in different forms. Just as we have seen in the texts we have read, early Americans did not only counterfeit bills, but also their identities. In a changing republic when everyone is just figuring out what it means to be an American, people can “counterfeit” practically anything to test both the boundaries of the law and their own will.

            I also think this example is interesting because it shows how we prove or believe in important facts or truths about ourselves. The idea of counterfeit divorce makes me wonder what it really means to different people to be married. You can be married but “separated” (without documentation), or you can be legally separated with a court order. It seems strange that a document or a court decides when a committed relationship is over. Wouldn’t it make sense that if one party in the marriage feels strongly enough to create forged documents of divorce that the divorce should be recognized? That marriage is more than likely over, no matter what the law says. The idea of declaring your own divorce reminds me of an instance on The Office when Michael wants to declare bankruptcy so he walks out into his office and yells, “I declare bankruptcy!” Then one of the accountants has to let him know that that is not how bankruptcy works. I am also reminded of how Brazil was made independent by a declaration of the Prince of Portugal one day out in the forests of Brazil. And how America’s independence was declared by a (I would imagine) illegal document… Really, if a country can declare its independence in a self-made document, why can’t a man claim independence in the same manner? There are other factors here (he wasn’t sending the divorce papers to his first wife but to his second), but the principles remain the same.

            The other incident of bigamy I thought was interesting because the woman, Margaret Hastings, had a husband who was a sailor (Article 5). The article does not mention how long her husband has been away, but I would imagine it has been a long time because she has been the housekeeper at her new husband’s house. This incident also questions the principles of marriage. How long do you remain married to someone you haven’t seen in years? Apparently, legally you stay married indefinitely. I also think that this instance of bigamy is interesting because it says that another man made the “complaint” about this bigamous marriage. I have always wondered why bigamy is a social or legal issue at all. How is it hurting anyone else to have more than one spouse? I’m not pro-bigamy by any means, but I’m just not sure how it is the government’s business. And this argument then makes me wonder about government involvement within marriage at all, which could obviously get into a controversial contemporary debate. That’s kind of a long digression, but I do think it points out that the issues of the early republic are still at the heart of issues we struggle with today.

            I also thought some of the language in this second article was interesting. The bigamist Margaret is described as “the fair Margaret.” The writer gives the opinion that Margaret is “fair” or attractive.  A journalist does not need to give such an opinion, and it is interesting that he would give a favorable opinion of a criminal. On the same page two robberies are described as “daring.” I wonder when journalists started to be more objective. This also might be an interesting discussion point- what do we learn about society’s views of crime and criminals from the rhetoric of journalism?

 

Works Cited:

Article 10-

The National Police Gazette (1845-1906).  New York:Jan 17, 1846.  Iss. 19,  p. 176  (1 pp.)

 

Article 5-

The National Police Gazette (1845-1906).  New York:Jan 31, 1846.  Vol. 1,  Iss. 21,  p. 189  (1 pp.)

November 16, 2009

            I enjoyed reading Mrs. Clarke’s portion of the Ann Carson memoirs this week. Throughout this course we have seen the highly questionable nature of authorship and authenticity in literature (if we even dare to call it literature- but that’s another post), but through Mrs. Clarke’s account we see an actual debate over the authorship of this work and what rights that entails. Mrs. Clarke does not begin her section with much authority. She writes, “Mrs. Carson ceases to be her own biographer, and Mrs. Clark now assumes the pen” (126). Mrs. Clarke gives Mrs. Carson much more authority over the text than was necessary by asserting that Mrs. Carson ever even was her “own biographer.” Through the rest of Mrs. Clarke’s writing, however, it becomes clear that Mrs. Carson was not her own “biographer” but a storyteller to Mrs. Clarke. There is also a very interesting exchange in the line, “Mrs. Clarke now assumes the pen.” These two lines are both passive on the part of Mrs. Carson. She does not willingly relinquish her biography to Mrs. Clarke, she merely “ceases” to have control. Mrs. Clarke, however, actively assumes the pen. By assuming the pen she assumes control, power, voice, and possibly even masculine authority (although really, I think people read too much into phallic symbols- sometimes a pen is just a pen). This exchange of values is especially interesting in light of the fate rhetoric that has been used in Carson’s memoir. Goods and values are the victims of fate just as people are, but here there seems to be an intentional exchange. It is not fate that led Mrs. Carson to give her biography over to Mrs. Clarke. I think that makes sense, though, because writing is not the result of fate. Writing is an active choice. Authors are not chanced upon, they are created.

            I really enjoyed the debate between Mrs. Carson and Mrs. Clarke over the changes Mr. D wishes them to make. Mrs. Carson refuses to change anything in the memoirs to please him, and says that Mr. D “dare not publish it without my permission” (161). Mrs. Clarke does not let Mrs. Carson delude herself any further about her supposed authorship and rights. She says, “you are mistaken, the book is mine, as I wrote it, and it shall be altered” (161). Mrs. Clarke does not allow her authorship to be questioned or run over by Mrs. Carson. I think this is especially fitting in light of Mrs. Carson’s budding counterfeiting career. She is unsuccessful in attempting to counterfeit authorship. It seems to me that Mrs. Carson is not really a true counterfeiter like perhaps Tufts and Burroughs were, however. Burroughs was clever, for example when he preached a sermon about a quite random and obscure verse in order to convince the Pelhamites that he really was a preacher, and Tufts was constantly tricking people through imitation. Mrs. Carson is not as successful. Even her money counterfeiting is not very successful. In this instance she does not use “confidence-man” techniques to win over Mrs. Clarke. She plays it straight pretending like it really is her book. I think Mrs. Carson is not truly a counterfeiter. She is perhaps a “fallen woman” who made some questionable decisions regarding men, marriage, and conspiracies, but counterfeiting is not a part of her nature like it is for Tufts and Burroughs. As I mentioned in my last post, the beginning of her story is a fairly average account of the love interests of a young woman. I am tempted to say that Mrs. Carson belongs to a different genre from Tufts and Burroughs. We have discussed the sentimental-novel aspects of her work, and perhaps she would fit better with that set. Removing Ann Carson’s memoirs from the group containing Tufts and Burroughs makes me wonder if there could truly be a confidence-woman. Could a woman have lived the life of Tufts and Burroughs? And what would her narrative be like? 

November 9, 2009

            As I have read more of Ann’s memoir, I have tried to compare the representation of her to that of Tufts and Burroughs. At first I am inclined to think that she is a careless rogue much like they are. Her behavior is wild, and her resistance to authority after the arrests of her and Smyth seems quite in line with the various jail-break attempts (and successes) of Tufts and Burroughs. She also seems quite careless of the opinion of society at times, also like Tufts and Burroughs. I was really struck by how she said that she laughed when she heard rumors about how her china was broken as a part of a trap for her various lovers. She appears quite callous and cold at times like this. She is also harsh when she is asked if she will forgive her enemies as a Christian should: “I was too well acquainted with the hypocrisy of many professed Christians not to question their sincerity” (367). Despite these instances, I think that Ms. Clarke does a better job of creating a possibly innocent and sympathetic character. The expressions on religion are somewhat contradictory. Ann also says, “I trust that God, who sees our most secret thoughts and intentions not only views the actions, but the motive from whence it originated” (284). Thus Ann does not attack religion throughout the text and create herself as quite the enemy of the church that Tufts does. Ann also does not profess serious monetary ambition like Tufts and Burroughs. She is not trying to have “a gentleman’s life.” If the memoirs are to be believed, she is really just trying to have a life, with maybe a few more men thrown in than the average post-colonial lady. For the first fifty pages or so, her memoirs are the account of a fairly normal life. Tufts and Burroughs, on the other hand, begin mischief from an early age. Ann’s crimes are also quite different from those of the men we have read. Her consistent crimes throughout her memoirs are relational and sexual. Tufts and Burroughs commit many sexual crimes, but these are secondary to their stealing and counterfeiting exploits. Ann’s main sin is really just the hobby of Tufts and Burroughs. She is therefore more sympathetic, and her insistence that her life is a result of fate is much more believable. At least, I find it more believable that relationships would just “happen” than horse-stealing.

            After reading the excerpts from Cathy Davidson’s Revolution and the Word, I am curious as to how Ann’s memoirs examines or adds to the crisis of authority. Ann resists authority on several occasions. She refuses to return to Captain Carson despite his demands and she refuses to be moved to a different cell in the jail. On a larger scale, however, how does this text question authority? It seems to purposefully irritate those who are afraid of male authority being lost by women reading privately. Ann says that she reads privately repeatedly, and her memoir is just the kind of thing that men would not want women to read privately. Although Tufts’ history is at times more blatantly scandalous, Ann Carson’s memoirs show a woman participating in scandalous activity. The writer of “Novel Reading, A Cause of Female Depravity” is obviously much more concerned about women’s behavior than men’s as he (or she I guess) calls for “pure and spotless CHASTITY.” This writer is not worried about the men that ruthlessly pursue women, but only about the “concealed bosoms” of the women those men might encounter. I would imagine that Ann’s memoirs would cause a great amount of concern regarding how it may question or cause others to question authority because it is written about a woman, by women.

            A side note, I realized about halfway through writing this that I referred to Tufts and Burroughs by their surnames, but I continued to use Ms. Carson’s Christian name. What does this say about my subconscious? Am I sexist? Is it because a woman’s last name changes and so I would rather stick with the name that doesn’t change? Ack, now I have to go examine my own subconscious…

November 2, 2009

So far my main response to Mrs. Ann Carson has been something like, "Oh the rhetoric!" Maybe that's a tad dramatic, but so is Mrs. Carson. She writes about liberty more times than Henry Tufts changed wives. Her discussion of liberty is interesting especially in light of the other authors we have read so far. She is, obviously, the first woman, and liberty means something different to her than it does to the men. She talks about the relative liberty she enjoys when her husband leaves on voyages. Really, she did have a much greater degree of liberty within her marriage than most women of her time. But her liberty is quite different from the liberty of Tufts or Burroughs. Tufts and Burroughs enjoyed the liberty to go anywhere and do anything. Liberty to them meant not being in jail and having the ability to eat and be merry. They also enjoyed their sexual liberty. Carson must defend herself against charges of any exercise of sexual liberty. I could be wrong, but I don't recall her using liberty at all in terms of her sexuality. I think it will be interesting to continue to look at Carson's discussion of liberty and her sexuality, since we know that she will develop more fully into America's notorious "fallen woman."

I was also struck by Carson's use of language that referenced fate and/or luck. She says on more than one occasion that "the die was cast." She uses fate rhetoric to describe relationships, such as, "the die was cast; I had drawn a blank in the matrimonial lottery" (83). I think it would interesting to look at the difference between male and female rhetoric of fate. Tufts describes women as witches that have entranced him, making him a passive participant in the relationship, but I think Carson's rhetoric is different. It seems that her relationships are part of a larger scale of fate and destiny that spans across her entire life. She alludes to the future that she is already experiencing frequently at the beginning of the narrative. Her foreshadowing creates more reality in her belief in destiny than Burroughs does with his philosophy.

Carson mentions reading frequently in her narrative. This detail is also quite different from Burroughs and Tufts, who pretend to be uneducated despite nearly constant classical references. Carson is not just a contributer to print culture, she is also a consumer of it. How does this affect her understanding of and response to publication? She is also not the immediate deviant and counterfeiter that Tufts and Burroughs are. Tufts and Burroughs admit to very early inclinations towards deviance and stealing, but Carson paints herself as a normal girl and young woman. Carson roots herself into accepted society before she participates in illegal activity more thoroughly than the males we have examined. I wonder how much of that may be because she is a woman. Women were dependent on men and society for day-to-day necessities much more than men, and thus it seems natural that a woman would be more inclined to attempt to be accepted by society. In addition to looking at how Carson's gender affects her rhetoric, I think it will be interesting to look at how her gender affects her deviance versus her desire for acceptance and stability.

October 26, 2009

I found the last three pages or so some of the most interesting in Tufts. He says on  p. 364, "I have worn no masks, no disguises, but have appeared in my every day dress." This remark is particularly interesting after all of the various forms of dress we have seen him wear. He has gone through several sets of clothes, some stolen and some bought, and has escaped from jail naked and made clothes from women's undergarments and pew pillows. If this is the every day dress of Henry Tufts, who is Henry Tufts? He most reminds me of an actor or a jester. His clothes are often ridiculous and comical, and they represent the outlandishness of his life. Since the two essential elements of disguise are performance and costume, it is fitting that his clothes should demonstrate his characteristics. As a counterfeiter, Tufts skillfully uses clothes to become whoever he needs to be. Two of his most memorable costumes represent two of his recurring personalities. He steals a church pew and makes underwear, which I think strikingly reflects his continual subversion of religion through his imitations of prayer and preaching and his reverence for superstition and fortune. He also attempts to make clothes out of women's undergarments, which illustrates his sensuality. His use of material that would be very close to a woman's skin exhibits his own constant desire for women.

I think it is also significant that the clothing market was vastly changing at this time. Mills and factories were just emerging in the American northeast and making a huge difference in communities. Clothes used to be a scarce commodity; they were the result of hard labor, and that probably by a woman within the family. With the introduction of factories and mills, clothing became literally distanced from people, even though once worn that distance was diminished. Eventually clothes also became cheaper. Instead of having a few items, Americans now have closets jammed with clothes. Clothes still play a significant part in self-representation, but they are vastly more interchangeable than they were in Tufts time. It is much easier for us to deceive others (and ourselves) through a quick costume change than it would have been for Tufts and his fellow rogues.

Another remark of Tufts that really struck me on these last Tufts was when he quoted Romans 6:23, "the wages of sin is death." He stops this verse just before the all-important "but"; "but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." Instead of finishing the verse, Tufts shares his own harsh view of judgment and religion. He writes, "the wages of a vicious, dissolute life is punishment" (365). He has seen a lot of punishment, but as is typical of Tufts and other counterfeiters, he feels his punishment his curse and not the natural result of deviant behavior. Tufts chooses to quote law over gospel. The gospel would set him free from sin and give him a new life and a new chance. Instead, he wallows in his punishments. He traps himself in a pattern of stealing and counterfeiting instead of finding a new start. His choice of the old testament (the law) over the new is especially interesting in light of his position within a new republic. Shouldn't the citizens of a new nation have hope for new beginnings? Instead, Tufts seems to damn himself. He resigns himself to the "certain doom" rather than trying to truly reinvent himself into the persona he has not yet tried- an honest man.

October 19, 2009

I am really enjoying reading Johnson along with Tufts' narrative because it opens up questions about how Tufts fits in with a forming nation. I am especially interested in the "neighboring" concept that Johnson discusses and how Tufts rebelled against that system. His stealing and the destruction of his own "credit" cut him off from his neighbors and the community at large. Tufts points out on several occasions that he could not really return to a normal life after a certain point because of his ruined reputation. By ruining trust he eliminated his ability to function in the neighboring economy. Stealing and cheating of course has negative and isolating effects in our society as well, but in an economy that was based on face to face recognition and trust, stealing was more like economic suicide. We now have numeric values to place on our credit that can be transmitted electronically. I give you my credit score, you sell me a car. The early Americans had to look someone in the eye who would judge them based on gossip, truth, and appearance. The distance provided by literal distance across a vast country and the internet allows buying, selling, and trust to become much less personal.

I think it is interesting to read Tufts as a figure rebelling against many different forms of community. Not only was he rebelling against an economic community, but also a community of friends and neighbors. He picks up a nomadic lifestyle that is partly a result of his criminal activities and that separates him from his family. He also determinedly rebels against marriage conventions and the familial community through his many affairs. He makes no spiritual mentions of God, and thus rebels against the religious community that surrounds him.

How important is community in the formation of a nation? I think that can depend partly on the rhetoric used to discuss the state. Is it a nation, a government, or a country? A government implies a ruling body that may or may not create a community. A nation, however, gives a sense of commonality amongst individuals. A government taxes and starts wars, but a nation competes in the Olympics. So what were all of these men trying to create in the formation of the United States? They discussed and tried to form an ideal "government," but while Washington had these debates, Johnson shows that the people in the countryside and the emerging cities like New York and Philadelphia were creating a nation and a people. Tufts shows the value of individual liberty in a nation made up of individuals. He tries to take liberty as far as it can go. Perhaps that is really how nations are created; through testing the limits.

Tufts also tests the boundaries of another word: fortune. Tufts is a fortune teller, a sufferer of misfortunes, and the constant receiver of fortune. I think that Tufts repetition of fortune is related to his test of liberty because it demonstrates a lack of personal responsibility. The all-mighty fortune can be blamed for every good or bad thing that happens to us or that we do to other people. Fortune is another exercise of liberty as it is really just an excuse. Providence, on the other hand, would demonstrate a total lack of liberty. Providence is based on a belief in a will outside of our own that has absolute control. When we speak of providence, we give credit for the good and trust for relief from the bad to a higher power. Fortune is more convenient than providence because it does not come from the will of a deity, but from a throw of the dice.

October(!) 5, 2009

The exclamation point means I really like October.

I also like Tufts. Why? I am not really sure. He certainly is worshipping at the altar of Venus more openly than Burroughs, and I feel like I should be offended by that, but I'm not. I'm intrigued by his notions of truth and the truth he wishes to convey in his narrative. He says in the preface, "concealment has become no longer useful, and the suppression of truth unnecessary" (iv-v). His story is built on his deeds of un-truth; both in literal lies and the deception of stealing and counterfeiting. But he claims to be truthful as he relates his narrative because there is no point in not telling the truth. This point reveals something in the nature of

Tufts, and perhaps in the nature of humanity in general. He tells the truth only as it is useful. To what degree do we all do this? To what degree are all of our utterances utilitarian? Are all of our words serving our own purposes, or do they serve their own purposes? Or the purposes of "truth"? I seem to be getting back to Bakhtin. I think I want to think that words work both independently and dependently. They serve our purposes, but they also dialogically interact and support greater, larger purposes. We never have complete control of our words, and they still hold allegiance to greater truths than we intend or are aware of.

Tufts goes on to say on that same page that, "truth, not fiction, [is] the object of my views." Tufts reveals something about the audience he expects for his narrative. They will not be picking up a "fiction" (a novel?), but a truth. He enriches the definition of the title his work is given, which on the cover page is narrative, not memoir. That is interesting because I would be more likely to associate truth and accuracy with a memoir than a narrative. He also says that he has at least some intention of amusing or entertaining his audience. He wonders at why "fable and romance have long amused the world ... [and] not plain truth and real fact" (vii). Why do we enjoy fiction? Surely people's own lives have consisted of romances and adventures enough to amuse society. Certainly real people's lives may provide more insight into the human condition, since they are literally formed from the human condition. But art often strives for truth made from un-truth. I read once that Van Gogh said he did not use the colors that he actually saw, but the colors that felt real* (this is a drastic paraphrase and interpretation, forgive me). Fiction uses the colors, the words, the characters, that feel more true than the truth often does.

Like this picture. I love this painting. I connect with it. It feels so true even though no one has ever been that blue. So in addition to what is literature, I think Tufts makes us ask, what is truth? What is fiction? And, what's important?

*"Instead of trying to reproduce exactly what I see before me, I make more arbitrary use of color to express myself more forcefully." 

[Letter to Theo van Gogh, 11 August 1888]- from http://painting.about.com/od/artandartistquotes/a/Quotes_Van_Gogh.htm