Our Previous Samples

"Reader, I married him," proclaims Jane in the first line of Bronte's famous conclusion to her masterpiece, Jane Eyre (552). The reader, in turn, responds to this powerful line by preparing for what will surely be a satisfying ending: the fairy-tale culmination of a Cinderella-esque novel. Thankfully, Bronte does not disappoint in this regard, as both Jane and, consequently, her readers are swept up in a cloud of matrimonial bliss and unparalleled happiness. "I know what it is to live entirely for and with what I love best on earth," declares Jane of her dear Rochester (554). Emotion and passion abound in the first few pages of the conclusion. Love, it seems, is everywhere, and sweet fulfillment is granted to both Jane and her faithful readers. Indeed, only one thing can distract the reader from this final note of happiness; only one person can possibly shift the reader's focus from the pervasive sense of joy. Indeed, only St. John himself can mar the last couple of pages.

In the last two pages of the novel, the story of Jane and Rochester is interrupted by the appearance of the frigid St. John. This sudden disruption leaves readers surprised, disappointed, and perhaps even a bit annoyed. Why did Bronte end her passionate love story with the appearance of St. John and a revelation from the Bible? Likewise, if conclusions exist in order to aid readers in their interpretation of the rest of the novel, why does Bronte conclude by saying of St. John, "Amen, even so come, Lord Jesus!"? These questions loom over the reader like a dark cloud intent on ruining a sunny day. A satisfying reading of the classic novel can be garnered only after one grapples with the role of the final two pages in the novel as a whole.

Upon closing the book, the reader's mind immediately begins to cycle around the notion of religion in the text, and what the closing lines may or may not say about the importance of spirituality. Indeed, the reinforcement of religion in the novel's ending could be Bronte's way of indicating that religion is a main theme, and should not be overlooked. If this is true, we must consider whether the ending portrays religion in a positive or a negative manner. On the other hand, perhaps the notion of fate is the resounding message, one that has far more to do with the fulfillment of individual destiny than with religion as a whole. All possibilities must be examined before any sort of a conclusion can be reached.

Before jumping to the end, we must briefly examine the ways in which religion is presented throughout the novel. Bronte weaves religion throughout the text, infusing spirituality into the characters of Helen Burns, Mr. Brocklehurst and, of course, St. John Rivers. Each character represents a different aspect of religion, a different way for Jane to view the paradoxical (and often patriarchal) Christian faith of the time. Helen Burns is influential thanks to her extreme Christian views, which espouse tolerance and forgiveness at all costs. "The Bible bids us return good for evil," states Helen to Jane (117). While Jane rejects this form of Christianity as overly passive, she nonetheless absorbs its lessons and takes from it what she pleases.

The second glimpse of religion is offered to Jane in the form of Mr. Brocklehurst. While Jane considers some of Helen's views, she seems to wholeheartedly reject Brocklehurst's evangelic hypocrisy and self-righteous speeches. As head of Lowood, he preaches about the value of sacrifice and deprivation while simultaneously enjoying a rich lifestyle: "my mission is to mortify in these girls the lusts of the flesh" (127). Though this view of Christianity is outwardly rejected by Jane, she quietly accepts the plain way of living at Lowood. These two early impressions of religion resurface time and time again and remain in the reader's mind throughout the novel.

While Helen and Mr. Brocklehurst influence Jane as a child, St. John Rivers is the dominant Christian model in her adult life. Rather than being passive like Helen's beliefs or hypocritical like Mr. Brocklehurst's views, St. John's brand of religion is rejected by Jane on the grounds that it is too detached from the passions of life. Often compared to ice, St. John is devoted to Christianity at the expense of every worldly pleasure, including his one true love: "A missionary's wife you must shall be," states St. John to Jane. "You shall be mine: I claim you not for my pleasure, but for my Sovereign's service" (501). St. John rejects pleasure and prizes Jane "as a soldier would a good weapon" (504). Jane is forced to choose between divine love and human love, a division which seems both arbitrary and unnecessary. Recognizing that she cannot deny the passion within her, Jane proclaims, "If I join St. John, I abandon half myself: if I do to India, I go to a premature death" (503). Jane rejects St. John's notion of complete religious devotion, opting instead to follow her own heart and spirituality.

With these three different versions of Christianity permeating the text, the last two pages on the life of St. John stand out as more than a mere summary of what has happened thus far. Indeed, Bronte appears to intend the conclusion of the novel to be read as a final comment on religion. "Firm, faithful, and devoted; full of energy, and zeal, and truth, he labours for his race," states Jane of St. John, "he clears their painful way to improvement" (555). She goes on to praise him as "chosen" and a "good and faithful servant": qualities that uplift him, his work, and his undying devotion to religion. In this sense, bringing St. John back in the end of the novel creates a sense of praise, a celebration of those who give everything that they have to religion. Just as Jane admires Helen Burns, she apeears to admire the devout nature of St. John. Similarly, St. John seems to embody a "true" sense of religion, particularly in comparison to Mr. Brocklehurst, since he actually lives his life as he says he will and suggests that others follow his example. While Jane is happy in love, relegating St. John to the conclusion of the novel seems to suggest that his divine love stands on a more elevated level, a level that most people - including Jane - can only strive for. Indeed, while Jane and Rochester will someday have to face judgment, "no fear of death will darken" St. John's last hour, as "his mind will be unclouded; his heart will be undaunted; his hope will be sure; his heart steadfast" (556). If the reader chooses to leave the novel with these thoughts in mind, the ending can be read as portraying St. John as an ideal religious figure, and Jane as merely too weak to follow him.

A different reading of the ending can lead readers to a far different conclusion, one in which religion does not fare quite so well. In one light, the ending portrays Jane and Rochester as a happy couple, complete with children and a home, while St. John lies alone on his deathbed. Both St. John's assumed death and Helen Burns' actual death are associated with suffering and isolation from the outside world. "St. John is unmarried: he never will marry now," states Jane. "Himself has hitherto sufficed to the toil; and the toil draws near its close" (556). The somber tone of the last few paragraphs has the potential to leave readers with a negative, almost sacrificial view of religion. Jane, choosing her own spirituality and human love over the structure and sacrifice of devout Christianity, ends the novel happy and in love. The religious characters, in contrast, fare poorly throughout the novel, and the end can be seen as a mere extension of their sad fate. Helen, of course, dies of consumption at the depressing Lowood boarding school. Brocklehurst is "discharged of his duties by gentlemen of rather more enlarged and sympathetic minds," leaving the hypocritical evangelist without a high position. St. John presumably dies alone in a foreign country, distant from the pleasures and realities of the human world. In this sense, the end can be viewed as a critique of structured religion, favoring individuals like Jane who strike a balance between this life and the next over those who, like St. John, give all that they have to God.

While one can see both the positive and negative interpretations of religion offered by the ending, neither analysis is wholly satisfying. The novel, after all, is the story of Jane Eyre and her search for spirituality and fulfillment, not a definitive judgment on religion. Viewing the ending as offering a concrete stance on religion leaves readers unsatisfied, as the great love of Jane and Rochester seems almost diminished by the appearance of the religious St. John and his Biblical wisdom. Indeed, one could argue that a truly satisfying interpretation of the novel can be achieved only when the role of destiny - both human and divine - is placed above the importance of the novel's religious theme.

"God has given us, in a measure, the power to make our own fate," proclaims St. John to Jane long before he tries to persuade her to accept a life of servitude (457). The line echoes throughout the novel, becoming a main theme in the text. Although Jane rejects the three dominant representations of religion, she never abandons her faith in God and spirituality. Jane's personal faith in both God and in herself guides her actions, and it is this combined fate that ultimately leads her to where she is meant to be. Whenever Jane is faced with a moral or physical challenge, she looks to God for strength and guidance. For example, she turns to God for the strength to leave Rochester after finding out about the disgraceful situation he has put her in: "I did what human beings do instinctively when they are driven to utter extremity looked for aid to one higher power than man: the words 'God help me!' burst involuntarily from my lips" (394). Likewise, when Jane finds herself poor and starving after she has left Rochester, she comments that she feels "the might and strength of God" (416). Jane uses her unique relationship with God to curb her overwhelming passions, rather than to deny them altogether like St. John. Ultimately, she is able to garner courage through her faith.

On a similar level, she sees that she must leave Rochester once she realizes that he has become a god to her, blurring the balance between the human and the divine. "My future husband was becoming to me my whole world; and more than the world: almost my hope of heaven," proclaims Jane. "He stood between me and every thought of religion, as an eclipse intervenes between man and the broad sun. I could not, in those days, see God for his creature: of whom I had made an idol" (361). This idea that Jane needs both the divine help of God and the powerful force of human love is integral both to her spirituality and to her character as a whole. While Jane knows that she cannot deny her love for Rochester, she appreciates the fact that she cannot happily exist without doing what is right and moral in the eyes of God. This sense of living morally drives her away from Thornfield, but in the end her passions bring her back after the moral stain - Bertha - is removed from the equation, allowing Jane to live both morally and passionately with her beloved.

God's work and destiny seem to go hand in hand in this novel, as the characters attribute the end results of their lives to divine destiny. Jane, for example, believes that God led her in the right direction after she left Rochester: "I feel now that I was right when I adhered to principle and law, and scorned and crushed the insane promptings of a frenzied moment. God directed me to a correct choice: I thank His providence for the guidance" (455). While she is the one who made the decision to leave, she still credits God with the outcome of her decision. Even Rochester attributes Jane's return to him at the close of the novel to an act of God: "Now, I thank God!...Yes, I thank God" (551). Similarly, St. John's decision to devote his entire life to God is portrayed as God's will, evident in the fact that St. John sees himself as "chosen." "I know my leader," claims St. John, "that He is just as well as mighty; and He has chosen a feeble instrument to perform a great task" (501). This notion of God dictating the actions of men can also be witnessed in the fact that each volume of the novel ends on a religious note, suggesting that it is God who is directing the lives of each character towards a good and just end. Thus, the book can be read as a reinforcement of faith and morality, rather than as a judgment on religion as a whole.

The reader can view the conclusion as a fulfillment of individual destiny: the workings of God and man allow each person a hand in choosing his or her own fate. Just as Rochester and Jane fulfill their destiny by becoming a married couple, St. John fulfills his fate to be a missionary for a God he cannot deny. Looking at the novel in this way, the question of whether the religious characters have happy endings to their lives is irrelevant, as each character makes decisions guided by a desire to follow their own destiny - a destiny shaped by both human and Divine workings. Arguably, reading the ending in this manner makes for a more satisfying experience than reading it from a typical, religious viewpoint. Rather than an endorsement of one way of life or one form of religion, the ending indicates Bronte's belief that each person - St. John included - receives the life he or she has prayed for. Indeed, the novel ends with the line, "Amen; even so come, Lord Jesus!" as a means of praising God for watching over the lives of Helen, Jane, and St. John, for guiding them through life to their ultimate destiny (556).

Works Cited

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Bronte, Charlotte. Jane Eyre. Ontario: Broadview Press, 2002.

In 1532, a divisive pamphlet was published which established the foundation of modern political science while merging classical pagan philosophy with Renaissance humanism. (Fry) The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli, was condemned immediately after publication by Pope Clement VIII (Lin) to due Machiavelli's disdain for the socially acceptable morals of his time. The book was dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici, the head of the ruling family of Machiavelli's native city Florentine, and within its pages Machiavelli illustrated the political tract a "prince" --- or ruler --- should follow to retain complete power over those they rule. He advocated maintaining absolute dominance by employing any means necessary to justify a worthwhile end. Since its publication, The Prince has been attacked as a "book inspired by the devil," (Kreeft) an evil and immoral untruth. The reception of The Prince has been so adverse across the centuries that the negative connotation "Machiavellian" has entered into the English vocabulary, meaning one of "subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty." (Pearson) However, Machiavelli was by no means an evil man, and is wholly undeserving of the disparagement his name is subject to on a daily basis. Unbeknownst to many, the man behind Machiavellianism was a great philosopher, historian and patriot; he realized the human condition and dealt in reality, not idealism, shedding a light on the obscured functions of hypocrisy and propaganda in politics.

To the preceding political thinkers of Machiavelli's time, the ultimate goal was to lead a moral life of virtue; however, Machiavelli believed that "the ideal should be judged from the actual, rather than the actual from the ideal". The Renaissance's "utopian" ideas had manifested themselves by defining a good society as one in which its people were good. Machiavelli's manly prowess --- "virt" --- is radically different from the virtues advocated by such philosophers as Plato and Aristotle; indeed, it was a blantant stab against Christianity and the Catholic church. (Cave) Until Machiavelli, there was no greater ambition than individual and social goodness; however, he alleged that politics was not the art of the good, but the art of the possible. (Kreeft) His influence upon this point became enormous, and most major succeeding political and social philosophers subsequently rejected the idea of "virtue" over that of reality and human nature. Machiavelli successfully argued that traditional Catholic morality was beautiful, yet unattainable. Humanity must procure its behavior from what man and societies actually do, not what they ought to do. An ideal is good only if it is practical. For example, one of The Prince's most criticized ideas is that "the end justifies the means" --- any means that will work. However, to Machiavelli, the means even justify the end, yet only if the means are practical enough to engage the end. (Kreeft) In this way, Machiavelli seems to be a forefather of common sense and the bearer of reality. In The Prince, he abolished the accepted moral standards, and saw morality as a barrier to success; therefore, he wrote that "a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good." (Machiavelli 42) Due to these brazen opinions, the critics of Machiavelli's time saw The Prince as evil, yet modern scholars are apt to believe that his views are drawn from a type of observational science. They believe that Machiavelli did not write about "denying morality," but rather about what "is," instead of what "ought to be." (Keeft)

Machiavelli's disregard for a strict moral code has brought damaging nuances to the legacy of his name; conversely, it has also earned his praise from contemporary philosophers for his lack of hypocrisy. They imply that moralism leads to hypocrisy, (Keeft) because morals are based upon the efforts of imperfect mankind, who is destined to always fall short of "God's glory". (Wilch) In The Prince, Machiavelli advocated that it is necessary for a prince to "be a great liar and hypocrite," (Machiavelli 48), although he was never one himself. There is a common and modern misunderstanding that hypocrisy is "not practicing what you preach," meaning that all men are hypocrites unless they refrain from preaching. Machiavelli was able to overcome the human tendency toward hypocrisy by "not by raising practice to the level of preaching but of lowering preaching to the level of practice." (Keeft) He was able to conform to the ideal of reality, rather than attempt to change reality to coincide with an ideal.

Machiavelli also understood that hypocrisy was a means of propaganda: men spoke of things they did not believe, in essence, preaching things they did not practice. Machiavelli hoped to "convert the whole world through propaganda." (Keeft) He was able to view his life as a war against the Catholic Church, and the propaganda it produced; in fact, he believed religion to be propaganda in itself, and advocated its use in The Prince as one of the "admirable qualities" that princes should "seem to have". (Machiavelli 48) Machiavelli conceived two powerful weapons that were necessary to control the behavior and history of men: the pen --- propaganda --- and the sword. (Keeft) With these weapons, the minds and bodies of men could be dominated; however, one could not be useful without the other. He alleged that dependence upon personal energy was vital to making use of force, and that "armed prophets always win and unarmed prophets lose." (Machiavelli 17) With The Prince, Machiavelli had set out to conquer the imagination by means of intellectual arms and use of propaganda as his weapon. (Keeft)

Many generations have been consequently appalled by what they perceive as ruthless brutality within the pages of The Prince; in spite of his crude blatancy and disregard for Christian morality, Machiavelli was above all a devoted republican and Italian patriot. When writing The Prince in 1513, Machiavelli focused solely on monarchies and principalities as a means of generating favor with the ruling family of Florence, the Medicis. Due to his republicanism, he had been tortured and exiled from his native city when the Spanish reinstated the Medicis to power earlier that year. Within The Prince, Machiavelli focused solely on monarchies in order to produce approval with the ruling Medicis, because he wanted to return to an influential position in Florentine politics. In the beginning of his book, he "set aside republics," because it would not have been appropriate to examine republics when writing to gain favor with a monarch. (Machiavelli 4) While The Prince is Machiavelli's best known work --- and the one from which the connotation "Machiavellian" was derived --- his other works, such as the Discourses, justify republicanism (Cave), and portray the most about him as a political philosopher. In true defense of the man behind Machiavellianism, he believed in the superiority of a democratic republic and the critical necessity of public approval. (Lerner 10) Machiavelli was a proud native Florentine from a republican family. He was very concerned with reinstating the Florentine republic, and worked to form a militia to protect it. However, within the pages of The Prince, Machiavelli represented himself in a distinctly different way --- as a supporter of corrupt totalitarian rule --- solely with the hope of reinstating himself in a government position to have influence within Florence. He had high aspirations for Italy, and longed for the day when Italy would reach its full potential. He understood the chaotic situations of the Italian city-states, and had observed the corruption and deceitfulness of politics. (Cave) Yet, he was the first to actually analyze the unpleasant means and methods of efficient dictators, and was able to understand the political and personal interactions that kept tyrants in power. By setting down his ideas in The Prince, Machiavelli hoped to help the Medicis rule more effectively, therefore assisting Italy in achieving greatness. (Fry) At the end of The Prince, he asks the prince to "behold how [Italy] implores God to send someone to free her from the cruel insolence of the barbarians; see how ready and eager she is to follow a banner joyously, if only someone will raise it up." (Machiavelli 70)

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Truly, Machiavelli never had great faith in morality, believing that the human condition hindered the idea of true goodness, both on an individual and as a society. This theory, which was one of the points by which he was most condemned, is useful to understand why a term like "Machiavellian" could become so commonplace in a culture that lacks the knowledge and understanding of who the real Niccolo Machiavelli was. The ideas that derived the association of his name with negatives are also those which defend him from its use: humanity is imperfect, and measures must be taken to guard against that imperfection. He was not advocating corrupt, immoral totalitarian rule but a powerful ruler to give Italy stability and security. He did not believe in ideals but rather lived in reality. He was a man before his time, when his philosophies were too radical for his society. He dissected the functions of tyranny and exposed hypocrisy and propaganda, but he was not "deceptive" or "dishonest". In truth, Machiavelli was not Machiavellian. He was simply a philosopher, whose ideas will serve as a vital resource in the political world for years to come.

In Walt Witman's “Leaves of Grass” section 32, he speaks of turning and living with animals. I find his work very intriguing, like reading a good novel, with loads of hidden meaning. He speaks of the animals, by saying they have no worries or emotions. They are; a what you see is what you get, with showing no greed, not having to prove themselves, or bow down to anyone. This caught my attention, and I thought it was a very power point he was trying to show in his poem. Witman’s work for me is easily understandable and doesn’t require a lot of deep reading. This is why I have chosen Emily Dickinson, “Because I could not stop for Death—” her work is very mysterious and quite frankly hard to interpret. I feel as if you need to use deep reading to get a full grasp on the message in her poetry.

In Emily Dickinson’s time there wasn’t many poets, the few famous ones that were known was men. In that era being a woman poet was almost unheard of, women were expected to be cultured, and if anything, just read the poetry. “Education and literary talent was only for the men.” (Emily Dickinson: A Concise Biography .” Films Media Group, 2005, fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=96659&xtid=43964. Accessed 26 Aug. 2018.) I find it intriguing that a handful of Dickinson’s work was ever published while she was alive, and most of her family never knew of her amazing gift/talent she had. For 26 years, she sheltered herself from life itself and rarely seen anyone except for immediate family and friends. This explains why you have to dig deep in her poetry to uncover the mystery behind her work, like decoding a riddle word by word and line by line.

Each of her poems depicts a message and shows how sincere she was while writing her poetry. “Coming from a close knit and highly educated family, her father played a big role in her life. At one point she fell in love with a man, but her father didn’t approve because he felt as if the young man wasn’t good enough for Emily. This left her heartbroken, and I believe this is who she talks about in some of her poems.” Dickinson wanted her work destroyed after her death, but instead it was published, and she became the most famous female poet to exist in my opinion. All of the years withdrawing herself from the public life she developed her own individual voice not troubled by society. She embraced the wonderful world around us in which she lived and based her work off of just that.

This poem I have chosen is one of her most credited work that she done, with some of her most famous lines. When she describes how she could not stop for death, but he kindly stops for me, and how the carriage held but just themselves and immortality. She is speaking of the irony and the kindness of death, that he stops for her. Being so caught up in life, most forget to stop and look around, but in all reality, death will always make time. She is telling a story of the souls’ journey into the afterlife. Time and death have the power to make everything you have seem meaningless once death calls on you. You can’t take your money and belongings to the grave with you. She speaks of slowly driving and putting away her labor and leisure too for his civility. Dickinson in my deep reading of this is that death is civilized and sophisticated, and we the people are the ones who are the vulgar ones. She is saying that we are so caught up in a world trying to make a living and focusing on how much we have, we don’t take time out to realize anything else that is around us.

My favorite part in her poem that caught my attention was her describing passing a school, where children strove. I had to re-read that part multiple times to catch onto the word “strove”. She wasn’t referring the children playing, instead she was focusing on the struggle of the children finding their way through life. There were many parts of this poem that I really liked, but this for some reason stood out to me. The last stanza of her poem talks about how death is an ongoing thing, it is eternity. Being gone and moving on into the afterlife, and time no longer plays a role in freeness. She talks about how the idea of eternity is something that last forever but doesn’t mean it feels like forever. Death is doing us a favor by coming for us and taking us on a ride to eternity. I feel it is revealed the ride with death she is talking about seemed to be centuries ago but in her eyes feels like it’s in present time. We have no control when death will take us, with or without our consent.

Emily wrote many of her poems about death, she seemed fearless of this topic. Most people avoid the subject of death or anything pertaining to it. Dickinson on the other hand had a kind soul, was very empathetic, and had a deep understanding of death. In today’s time reading her poetry, some may say her work for the most part is morbid. If you take a step back and think in her time people died of illness and accidents more rapidly than in today’s era, because the lack of medicine and technology needed to treat diseases and much more. In the poem I chose, Emily writes these thought and feelings that came directly from her heart. We do not have control of everything, death decides when it is coming. Time and death have the final say in how or when our mortal lives will close. Dickinson has a deep understanding of this, and faces it head on instead of fearing death, she seems to patiently wait for her turn.

Table of contents

1. Discussion
2. Slavery as a Constitutional Right
3. Conclusion

Intrastate conflicts and conflicts between states many times are complicated matters and arise as a result of multiple grievances which have accumulated over years, decades and even centuries. The American Civil War is not a single issue conflict, but a conflict that was simmering for almost 60 years over a number of issues: slavery, tariffs, states rights in the Union, enlargement of the Union, inbalance and inaction of Congress, clash between the unitarism of the North and regionalism of the South. The American Civil War was a conflict between the Northern and Southern states, with the North fighting for the preservation of the Union, the South fighting for their right to own slaves and preserve their decision to leave the Union.

Discussion

The causes of a conflict can be many and varying as there are many tensions and issues that go unresolved over a period of time between the opposing sides. It is sometimes very hard to distinguish what are the crucial issues that made the conflict possible in the first place. In the case of the American Civil War (1861-1865) two separate sides existed in the North and the South. The growing disparity between the Northern and Southern states in terms of wealth and development, with the North having a large manufacturing industry which was protected by high import duty tariffs. This allowed the North unfretted access to domestic markets, and allowed the accumulation of wealth. The South on the other hand was highly dependent on agriculture, and the backbone of the South’s agricultural economy were slaves. Trading and manufacturing consisted of a small proportion of the South’s economy, and the South also depended on the banks from the North and the manufactured goods from the North. The South was also a promoter of free trade in the Union and opposed the protectionist tariffs which made the goods from the North expensive to purchase. The economies of the North and South were not in direct competition, but were complementary and co-dependent.

Slavery was allowed under the Constitution of the United States , and in order to provide certainty with the Southern States, the Congress reached the so called “Missouri compromise”which had a dividing line where new free states are allowed and where new non-free states were allowed. The Missouri compromise kept a balance in the number of slave and non-slave (free) states at equilibrium and which became void after addition of new free states South from the Missouri line. With the addition of the new states of Kansas and Nebraska, the Northern and Southern states entered into a new conflict on how the states should be ordered (free, non-free) and a proxy armed conflict erupted between abolitionist and proslavery groups. To resolve this conflict the US Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) allowing new territories to decide on slavery through popular sovereignty (referendum), bypassing the Missouri compromise. This created uproar with abolitionists who were not satisfied with the deal that was reached with the South The Kansas-Nebraska Act did not reduce the level of conflict in the new states, as the abolitionist and proslavery groups waged guerilla warfare up until 1861.

Slavery as a Constitutional Right

The Northern American states gradually abolished slavery in a period between 1774 and 1804. Slavery was not a widespread practice in the North nor was the North highly dependent on their labour. In 1806 Congress also banned the importation of new slaves from Africa, thus limiting slaves to be sourced only from existing slave populations found in the United States. There was hope by many in the Union that over time slavery would be phased out and abolished over time. The differing view on how society should be organised between the North and the South on the issue of slavery divided the Union into two camps. The South insisted that slavery was a way of life in the South, where as the Northern states claimed that slavery had no place in the Union. This issue became a heated matter when abolitionists (anti-slavery) movement in the North starting from 1830 went in direct confrontation with the southern states by actively interfering the the matters of state and property by supporting the smuggling (liberating) slaves and transporting them to the North through the so called Underground Railroad which helped 40,00-100,000 slaves to reach freedom, causing losses to slave owners in the South.

The abolitionists were also involved in violent and armed confrontation (guerilla warfare) with pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers in Kansas and Nebraska through 1851-1861. The failed attempt by John Brown to instigate a slave uprising at Harper’s Ferry in 1859, only galvanised the Southern states against the Northern States and their interference in their matters. Slavery was upheld many times by Congress and by the Supreme Court as a constitutional, like in the Dred Scott Decision when a slave owner was able to assert his right of owning a slave in a free state. In a speech made by Abraham Lincoln during his inauguration speech on the 4th of March 1861 affirmed his position towards slavery in the Union:

“I declare that – I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Speech, 4th of March 1861

With the passing of Thirteenth Amendment towards the end of the Civil War in 1865 after a considerable effort from president Lincoln , only shows that slavery was not the primary cause of the war, and if that was the fact then the Thirteenth Amendment would have been passed much earlier if this was the unifying matter of the war.

Establishment of the Republican party in 1854 and the Election of Abraham Lincoln as President in 1860

The passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 caused a split in the Democratic Party along the issue of slavery in the Union. The split in the Democratic Party paved the way to the creation of the Republican Party which had a strong unitarist view of the role of the Union and that of Congress. It also espoused the abolishment of slavery throughout the Union as well. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, who was a staunch republican, raised fear with the Southern States that during his mandate the Congress would abolish slavery.

Difference of opinion on the role of the Union in the affairs of the states between the North and the South.

Over time the North and the South developed differently economically and socially placing the North and the South in direct confrontation with each other. One would have thought that the abolishment of slavery on a Federal level was possible through Congress, however, there was no political will to impose the will of the majority over the minority of the Southern States. In the same inauguration speech Lincoln explained the split in the Union on the matter of slavery:

“One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended.”

- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

The Southern States promoted self rule with the least amount of interference from Congress as possible. The Southern states were also for free-trade and low tariffs for manufactured goods, whereas the North was in favour of a strong tariff regime which favoured their manufacturing industries. The Northern states favoured a strong Union and a single view of what the values of the Union were without room for local or regional flavours of social hierarchies.

The perpetuity of the Union and the illegality of secession of the Southern States.

In his inauguration speech, Lincoln condemned the unlawful act of secession of the Southern States from the Union:

“We find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was 'to form a more perfect Union.' Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Speech, 4th of March 1861.

This position of the unlawfulness of secession was affirmed in Lincoln's message to Congress held in a special session on the 4th of July, 1861:

“The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this they can only do so against law and by revolution.”

Lincoln in many of his addresses, letters and speeches was more concerned with the unilateral declaration of secession by the Southern States which went against the Articles of Association of 1774 which made the Union unresolvable unless all states agreed. As the Northern states did not agree with declaration of the Southern States in the eyes of the Articles of Association and the law this was an illegal act and outside the law.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Conclusion

The eruption of the American Civil War created a contest between two sides, one the North fighting for the preservation of the Union and fighting against slavery, and the other (South) fighting for the preservation of slavery and rights of the states to conduct their own affairs without the interference from Congress. It would be simplistic to view that slavery as main cause of the American Civil War, as it would not capture the many other facets of contention between the North and the South, after the abolishment of slavery in the Northern states in 1804. It was from this point that the Union diverged in terms of social, political and economic structure creating a stronger chasm with each passing year. The North possessed a strong unitaritic view on how the Union should operate and their view of the future of society and the Union, whereas the South believed in more loose Union which allowed larger regional differences and freedom of choice which would not be governed from Congress. Lincoln’s drive to preserve the Union was the primary driver of the Civil War, not the need to abolish slavery across all of the states.

The Indianapolis began it’s story in July, 1945. At that time the heavy cruiser was having intense repairs in San Francisco Bay. Under the command of Captain McVay the ship had sustained damage from a Japanese Kamikaze near Okinawa in March 31st the suicide bomber had killed 9 people in the stern of the ship.

Before limping home. Unexpectedly, McVay received orders in July to assemble his crew and prepare to sail to a island near the Japanese mainland. On board the Indianapolis was a highly classified cargo: the parts for the atomic bombs to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki later that summer. Neither McVay nor his crew knew the importance of the cargo they carried; they only knew that their mission was top secret the freight had its own guards in the marine core that only job was to protect the secret cargo and that there were some unlikely seaman on board, two Army officers who were in reality specialists in top-secret weapons.

On July 26, the ship delivered its mysterious cargo to Tinian, a small island in the Pacific. Within six hours, the Indianapolis was on its way to Guam, and then off to the Philippines. The ship was to travel unescorted without a destroyer escort that specialized in seeking out enemy submarines. McVay accepted without question after being told that the Navy considered his route safe. However, only a few days earlier, a Navy vessel had been sunk in nearby waters by a manned suicide torpedo called a kaiten launched by a submarine. Navy intelligence indicated that there was a group of submarines operating in an area the ship would cross. Neither of these important bits of information was given to McVay was ordered to zigzag the reason for this was, that a moving target is much harder to hit. Due to bad weather McVay ceased to zigzag until better weather.

The enemy sub that later sunk the Indianapolis was called the I-58 under the command of Lt.Cdr. Hashimoto had never sank a enemy ship in the entire war which was bad luck. An imperial navy sonar operator had heard something dishes clanking. Lt.Cdr. Hashimoto then got on the periscope, but could not see anything but a dot so the enemy sub began to track the ship. Some of the fog began to clear up Hashimoto could now see a triangle enough to make a target Hashimoto fired.

The Indianapolis was only at sea for a few days when two torpedoes slammed into its sides the first torpedo made a 60 foot hole and the 2nd torpedo made a 40 foot hole water began filling in the ship by the tons.

Within twelve minutes the cruiser had sunk, tossing some nine hundred young crewmen into the open ocean. The remaining three hundred members of the crew were killed by the torpedo or trapped and unable to escape the sinking ship. Stanton (the author) describes the sinking from the perspective of the survivors: “The boys watched with horrified fascination as the ship finally stood straight on end and paused, trembling—the stern pointed directly at the sky—then began to sink, slowly at first, then picking up speed, drawn suddenly into the deep by the nose.”For the boys as Stanton refers to them, who made it to the water the ordeal had scarcely begun. Many of the boys had been sleeping at the time of the attack and were either naked or clothed only in underwear. In addition, the speed with which the ship sank made it impossible to gather provisions or to properly launch lifeboats and rafts. Indeed, many boys found themselves in the water without even a life vest.

They had been able to get off a quick SOS before sinking and all believed, including McVay, that the ship would be quickly missed when it failed to arrive in Leyte. They firmly believed that a rescue mission would be launched swiftly. Navy command did not know about the ship's sinking until survivors were spotted three and a half days later. At 10:25 on 2 August, a PV-1 Ventura (a medium bomber) flown by Lieutenant Wilbur Gwinn and copilot LT Warren Colwell spotted the men adrift while on a routine patrol flight. All air and surface units capable of rescue operations were dispatched to the scene at once. The crew survivors suffered from lack of food and water leading to dehydration and hypernatremia some found rations, such as Spam and crackers, amongst the debris exposure to the elements leading to hypothermia and severe desquamation and shark attacks, while some killed themselves or other survivors in various states of delirium and hallucinations. Of the 1,196 crew only 317 had survived. This had been the biggest tragedy of the navy in WWII. Captain Charles B. McVay III who had commanded Indianapolis since November 1944 survived the sinking and was among those rescued days later.

In November 1945 he was court-martialed and convicted of ""hazarding his ship by failing to zigzag"". Several things about the court-martial were controversial. Mochitsura Hashimoto, commander of I-58, testified that zigzagging would have made no difference. McVay was the only captain to be court martialed in WW2. Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz remitted McVay's sentence and restored him to active duty. McVay retired in 1949 as a rear admiral. In 1968 with the guilt of having so many deaths on the Captains shoulders he could not bare it. At 70 years old McVay had committed suicide with his navy issued revolver in one hand and a toy sailor given to him by his father. In 1996 McVay's record had been cleared for exoneration of the loss of the Indy. In 2001 McVay had been cleared of all wrong doings.

Slavery started in 1619, when a Dutch ship brought 20 African slaves ashore in the British colony of Jamestown, Virginia. Throughout the 17th century, European settlers in North America turned to African slaves as a cheaper, more plentiful labor source than indentured servants, who were mostly poor Europeans. After the American Revolution, many colonists — particularly in the North, where slavery was relatively unimportant to the agricultural economy — began to link the oppression of black slaves to their own oppression by the British, and to call for slavery’s abolition. More wrote Slavery, A Poem in hope of the abolition of slavery. She also wrote the poem in hope of influencing the others’ to join the abolition campaign and stand against slavery.

Hannah More’s poem “A Slavery” is one of the works that brought insight at the issue of slavery and called for the abolition of it; with the help of others as it requests for people to realize that racism and discrimination based on the color of a skin is absurd. Hannah More is an educator, writer and social reformer. She is also known for her writings on abolition of slavery and for encouraging people to join her and stand against slavery. More contributed to the abolition movement through her writings which helped spread awareness about the movement. More wasn’t always an activist nor was she a part of the abolition movement at first. In 1788, she met William Wilberforce and she learned about his abolition movement. She then joined William Wilberforce’s campaign with the goal of bringing awareness about the movement, and the goal of the abolishing of slavery. As a result, her poem “Slavery” came to life. The poem dramatically describes mistreated, enslaved African Americans separated from their family and it questions Britain's role in the Slave Trade. More clearly criticizes it along with those who are inferior of slavery. She attempts to persuade her readers and listeners to adopt an anti-slavery position. Not only that, More wants others to realize that Africans are just as the same as Whites. More refers to this later on in the poem and I am going to explain in the following lines. In her poem, More begins by telling us that this poem is like no other. This is going to be real life event and nit fictional. This is brilliant by More as she grabs our attention and from the very first line. She gives a reference to the work of Aphra Behn that wrote Oroonoko; More says: “For millions feel what Oroonoko felt”. More also adds to her credibility as she clearly conveys the horrible way these slaves are captured. Moreover, in this line More mentions the struggles of Oroonoko and how millions at the time are going through what he went through. Oroonoko is the story of an African prince that suffers from enslavement. Here More uses the present tense continues to emphasize that these slaves are suffering what Oroonoko suffered but they are still suffering. This does not fail in getting the readers’ attention to comprehend the great deal of injustices and suffering Africans experience. These two lines not only deliver the true state of the living standards these slaves have but they grant More a great sense of credibility.

I also love how More tackles this complicated issue. The topic of slavery, especially at the time was a heavy topic to discuss. However, More managed to discuss this issue with brilliantly. More uses several tactics to appeal to her readers’ logic and morals. More does so by directing questions. The questions were simple and More knew the answers to them; in matter of fact, she answers them in the next lines with examples. If we want to know why More asks these questions that she already knows the answers to we have to ask ourselves an important question. To whom is these questions directed at? The answer is to the public of Britain in particular and to the world in general. These questions challenge and move the logic in peoples’ minds in hopes that the answers will make the British community see for themselves that there is no difference between them and the Africans they continue to enslave and oppress. More asks: “Does then th’ immortal principle within, Change with the casual color of the skin?” She replies that “…No. They have heads to think, and hearts to feel, And souls…”. Later on , More briefly refers to the sad fate and life of the generation to come after their parents’ / grandparents’ enslavement. More says: “I see, by more than fancy’s mirror shown, The burning village and the blazing town: See the dire victim torn from social life … dragged by hostile hands, To distant tyrants sold … The sole sad heritage her child obtains!”. The author illiterates and repeats the same idea throughout the poem. She emphasizes that these slaves are not different than us and that they deserve to be treated accordingly not differently.

I have noticed a pattern that More follows as a strategy. She first grabbed our attention by telling us that what she was going to tell us in the poem is not fictional but rather real life. Then she talked about how slaves suffer, then she compared Africans with The Whites showing the British community that they are not different from each other. After that, More incorporates religion into her persuasion of the abolition of slavery. Not to mention, the way More argues that ending the slave trade will benefit the country as well. Thus, she makes it about the morals and religious factors.

These slaves helped Britain prosper as Britain was suffering from poverty and they had no food to grow. These slaves worked very hard for years and they managed to make Britain great again. The slaves didn’t only help with Britain’s agriculture. D. N. Ghosh, author of, Representation of Slavery in English Literature, talks about a 25 page survey by author W A Speck that catches the attention of readers. Ghosh explains that the growing of Britain's commercial prosperity was when they would sail they ships loaded with a cargo of manufactured goods in which they would exchange it in the next stop (on the Caribbean plantation) with the profit they make of that they sell 'Negros' with more profit. Moreover, he says;

‘there is not a brick in the city but what is cemented with the blood of a slave...mansions, the luxurious living and wealth was made from the trade of slaves and their suffering...no reader of English literature will ever understand the human misery and agony of slave trade’. 

After that, these slaves still long for their stolen rights with little to no regards to the suffering they experience. In addition, the article by Eltis, David, and Stanley L. Engerman, entitled “The Importance of Slavery and the Slave Trade to Industrializing Britain.” It answers an important question of the real importance that the slave systems of the Americas had to the economic development of Europe, and the development of that in Britain in specific. The article explores the time in 1788 when the initial attack on the British slave trade occurred. This attack led the Parliament to hold hearings on and collected information about all aspects of the trade in Africa, the West In- dies, and Great Britain. Needless to say this initiative from the parliament received backlash from slave traders as they try to end the abolition movement. Eltis, David, and Stanley L. Engerman explain the extent that these slave traders go to save their business. This is not surprising due to the fact that at the time slaves had a positive effect on the British economy. As per the authors, the British Caribbean was a part of the British domestic economy because almost all its trade was with British buyers and sellers. As a result, it should not be a surprise that this caused a new assessment of the importance of the eighteenth century slave systems to the British industrialization. The slave trade helped British economy blossom. There were several profitable ways in which Britain made a fortune at the expense of these slaves. This happened by exporting manufactured British goods to Africa and then further profits accrued from imported slave products such as sugar, which became prevalent within the British community. As the slave trade became profitable and a huge reason for the wider economy; financial, commercial, legal and insurance institutions all emerged to support and keep the slave trade. In addition, some traders became bankers and many new businesses were financed by profits made from slave trading. The slave trade played an important role in providing British industry with access to raw materials. This contributed to the increased production of manufactured goods.

Lastly, More attacks those in favor of slavery by saying: “scorning narrow views of time and place, Bids all be free in earth’s extended space”. She refers to the supporters of slavery as those with “narrow views.” Not to mention, More’s attack of Britain. More claims that if Britain wants to remain being a place “where the soul of Freedom reigns” then the abolition of slavery will suffice as everyone is going to be free. By doing so, More points out the hypocrisy of Britain’s stance on the slavery issue. More does not stop there, she goes on to beg Heavens to stop slavery. More says: “…Shall Britain, where the soul of Freedom reigns, Forge chains for others she herself disdains? Forbid it, Heaven! O let the nations know, The liberty she tastes she will bestow…”.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

All in all, I have talked about how Hannah More uses her writings to help abolish Slavery. I have also analyzed several parts of the poem. In support of my points, I have presented two studies to back my arguments. Despite the repetitive nature of the poem, More managed to convey her thoughts and stance on slavery to her readers brilliantly.  

Art Spiegelman’s ‘The Complete Maus’ explores the devastating impact of the Holocaust on survivors and their families. Through the lens of his father Vladek Spiegelman’s past experiences and their present day relationship, Spiegelman highlights the obsessive behaviour and depression that splinter the lives of Holocaust survivors. By including a remarkably candid self-portrayal, Spiegelman additionally suggests that the children of those who endured the Holocaust are haunted by its impact, left alienated from their parents and experiencing survivor’s guilt. Including an element of hope, Vladek and Art’s complex post-holocaust relationship reveals the capacity for stories to become vessels of healing, which strengthen the bonds between survivors and their loved ones, alleviating their suffering.

Through ‘The Complete Maus’ Spiegelman demonstrates that survivors of the Holocaust such as Vladek are left mentally and emotionally damaged as a result of their experiences. Through Art’s visits to his father Vladek, set in the 1970s and 1980s, Spiegelman reveals the harmful consequences of Vladek’s wartime ordeal on his new life in post-war America. Vladek describes having been forced to continually rely on his wits and pragmatism for survival in the Holocaust, such as through saving cigarettes to trade for food while a POW, trading on the black market while in Sosnowiec and exchanging a piece of bread for a spare lice-free shirt, in order to ensure he received a daily meal ration only given to the clean prisoners of Dachau. This need to be constantly resourceful during the Holocaust overwhelms other less material approaches to life in its aftermath, leaving Mala and Art to accuse Vladek of being “cheap” and “more attached to things than people!”

Vladek’s frugality, extreme to the point of being neurotic, is exemplified by his hoarding of items that range from pieces of telephone wire he picks up on the street, to nails, as well as his insistence on constantly leaving the gas burner running during Art’s stay with him in the Catskills in order to save on matches. Spiegelman emphasizes the panic Vladek feels when he sees Art simply lighting a match, by drawing the lightning fast movement of his head as he turns to Art to admonish him. Vladek’s now irrational personality is also shown through his often obsessive behavior, such as his insistence on finding a mistake of “less than a buck” in Art and Francoise’s calculation of his bank balance, so that it is exactly “so as on the statement.” Vladek’s intensity is further emphasized by his furious riding of his ‘exercycle’, recurrently depicted by Spiegelman as an activity that causes him exhaustion. By juxtaposing the tenacious, confident and courageous Vladek of the 1930s and 1940s with the depiction of his now mentally frail father, Spiegelman exposes the long term implications of the trauma of the Holocaust.

Spiegelman additionally conveys that those who endure the Holocaust experience perpetual depression in their lives following the ordeal. Vladek describes how Anja was “nervous”, even after the Holocaust and through Spiegelman’s inclusion of ‘Prisoner on the Hell Planet’, the reader learns that Anja was eventually driven to commit suicide, leaving no note. Spiegelman highlights the key role of the Holocaust in her depression, with the bolded words “Hitler did it!” and “Menopausal depression” separating confronting images of Anja’s body in the bath and a pile of emaciated corpses, surrounded by Swastikas. Spiegelman also draws the reader’s attention to his mother’s loneliness following the deaths of almost all her family in the Holocaust, by including the depiction of her “tightening the umbilical cord” to desperately ask young Artie if he loves her. Vladek articulates the impact of the loss of Anja’s last remaining family member, her brother Herman who died in a hit and run accident in 1964, describing how his death caused Anja to “also die a little.” Furthermore, Spiegelman emphasizes the depression Vladek suffers as a result of the horrors he and Anja lived through in WWII. As Vladek himself tells Art and the reader, “it can’t be everything okay!” with Vladek’s “life now”.

In the ‘Prisoner on the Hell Planet” cartoon, Spiegelman depicts his father’s grief following Anja’s suicide. Vladek is drawn by Spiegelman as a grotesquely skeletal figure, who had “completely fallen apart.” This depiction conveys the inward ‘death’ Vladek suffers as a result of Anja’s suicide, which left him without his beloved wife and the one person who could completely understand and empathize with his Holocaust experiences. Spiegelman conveys that the loss of Anja undermined Vladek’s later relationship with Mala, leaving him resentful of his second wife, simply as she could never be Anja. Mala complains Vladek has a “shrine” of photos of Anja on his desk, which Spiegelman corroborates by including Anja’s photo in several panels depicting Art and Vladek’s conversations, suggesting that Vladek is still grieving his first wife, unable to move forward with Mala. Vladek’s poor treatment of Mala also makes her life miserable and she describes feeling as if she’s “in prison!” to Art. By illustrating the inescapable depression experienced by both his parents and its negative impact on Mala, Spiegelman suggests unhappiness is an inevitable reality for Holocaust survivors.

In addition to highlighting the prolonged suffering of holocaust survivors, Spiegelman suggests that the impact of the Holocaust is intergenerational, as the children of survivors also suffer. Through a remarkably candid self-portrayal, Spiegelman reveals the second hand trauma he endured during his childhood and his experience of being constantly tied to his parents’ memories of WWII. This is reflected in the very first few pages of the novel, as Vladek denies his son sympathy after he falls over, instead reflecting on the brutal lessons he learned while in Auschwitz. Vladek’s attempt to teach Art what he views as a crucial life lesson – not to count on the kindness of others, exemplifies the negative impact of his Holocaust memories on his son. Spiegelman’s attempt to elicit sympathy from the reader by including this passage highlights his feelings of neglect and need to have his suffering recognized. Without fully revealing the causes of his depression, Spiegelman conveys that as a young man, he suffered mental problems so severe he had a stay in the “state mental hospital.” These issues are evidently compounded by his mother’s suicide, driven by her own depression, which causes Art enormous grief.

Drawing himself in prisoner’s garb in the comic “Prisoner on the Hell Planet”, Art describes feeling “murdered” by his mother and “nauseous” with guilt following her death. Through this negative depiction, Spiegelman conveys he was utterly destroyed by his mother’s death and struggling to cope with his emotions. The inclusion of a drawing of himself as a literal prisoner behind bars, reinforces the suggestion that Art felt incarcerated by his parent’s suffering and his own loss. Spiegelman also emphasizes the impact of his father’s holocaust memories and his own research on his life as an adult. Depicting himself creating “Maus II”, Art is surrounded by flies that also hover around a pile of emaciated corpses at his feet. Spiegelman underscores his being haunted by the Holocaust by juxtaposing the revelation that in “May 1987 Francoise and he are expecting a baby” with the statistic, “between May 16th 1944 and May 24th 1944, over 100 000 Hungarian Jews were gassed in Auschwitz.” While Art is neither resentful nor self-pitying in these frames, he conveys that his life is forever intertwined with the events of the Holocaust. This is reinforced by Spiegelman’s inclusion of the comment he was getting “eaten alive” by the ‘time flies’ even while holidaying in the Catskills with Vladek and Francoise. Through the intermittent inclusion of the horrors of the Holocaust in the depiction of his life in post-war America, Spiegelman demonstrates that the Holocaust pervades the lives of the children of survivors, as well as the lives of survivors themselves.

While exposing the destructive impact of the Holocaust on survivors and their families, Spiegelman conveys that hope stems from the healing process of sharing these experiences with others. Early in ‘Maus’, Spiegelman highlights his fraught relationship with his father, whom at the start of the novel he hadn’t visited “in almost two years.” Vladek’s experiences of the Holocaust form a seemingly indestructible wall between father and son, leaving Art feeling survivor’s guilt “about having had an easier life than Vladek and Anja did”. Art also feels inferior as a result of not sharing Vladek’s extreme experiences of endurance, reflecting “No matter what I accomplish, it doesn’t seem like much compared to surviving Auschwitz”. Having lived through a childhood where his struggles and successes were of little importance, when compared to the magnitude of the Holocaust, Art is at times selfish as an adult and inconsiderate of his father’s suffering. While telling Artie about Richieu, Vladek becomes visibly upset and his story begins to be unclear.

However rather than being sympathetic, Artie harshly says “Wait! Please Dad, if you don’t keep your story chronological, I’ll never get it straight”. At this moment Artie shows that he is only concerned with getting the story; his father’s grief is insignificant. However, through the cathartic process of creating ‘The Complete Maus’, Spiegelman demonstrates he is able to better understand and empathize with Vladek, strengthening their relationship. While listening to his conversations with Vladek on tape, Art hears himself yell “Enough! Tell me about Auschwitz!” at his father. Spiegelman depicts himself literally shrinking with shame as he hears himself treating his father so harshly. Furthermore, after listening to Vladek’s tales of extraordinary suffering, such as the gassing of “hundreds of thousands of Hungarians” to which Vladek was “an eyewitness”, Art is able to reflect on his father’s current psyche and realize “in some ways his father didn’t survive” the Holocaust. Art’s reflections on his father’s extreme wartime experiences make him a far more sympathetic son, as exemplified by his comment “I’m sorry for snapping at you before” to Vladek, following an argument later in the novel. Art is even able to finally acknowledge that his father’s health should be a greater priority than ‘Maus’, saying to Vladek, “I’m sorry I made you talk so much, Pop.” Spiegelman’s novel ultimately serves as a tribute to Vladek’s triumphs and suffering, as well as the deepened bond between father and son.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Art Spiegelman’s ‘The Complete Maus’ reveals the perpetual trauma endured by generations of Jews following the Holocaust. Highlighting the psychological degradation caused by Vladek’s post-traumatic stress disorder, Spiegelman exposes the long term suffering of Holocaust survivors. This is reinforced through Spiegelman’s brutally honest depiction of the depression faced by both his parents. Moreover, by including himself as a character in ‘‘Maus’ Spiegelman depicts the trauma experienced by the children of Holocaust survivors, who are left alienated from their parents and experiencing survivor’s guilt. However, through elements of meta-narrative and the depiction of his evolving relationship with his father, Spiegelman suggests that by sharing Vladek’s stories, the father and son form a stronger, more empathetic relationship.

References

1. Geis, D. R. (Ed.). (2003). Considering Maus: Approaches to Art Spiegelman's" Survivor's Tale" of the Holocaust. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. (https://api.dmd.uconn.edu/files/4667271-considering-maus-approaches-to-art-spiegelman-s-su-pdf)
2. Gavril?, A. M. (2017). Holocaust Representation and Graphical Strangeness in Art Spiegelman’s Maus: A Survivor’s Tale:“Funny Animals,” Constellations, and Traumatic Memory. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Communicatio, (4), 61-75. (https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=834992)
3. Costello, L. A. (2006). History and Memory in a Dialogic of" Performative Memorialization" in Art Spiegelman's" Maus: A Survivor's Tale". The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, 39(2), 22-42. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20464185)
4. Kohli, P. (2012). The memory and legacy of trauma in Art Spiegelman's Maus. Prandium: The Journal of Historical Studies at U of T Mississauga, 1(1). (https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/prandium/article/view/16285)
5. De Leon, D. (2020). ‘My Father Bleeds History’: Survivor’s Guilt and Filial Inadequacy in Art Spiegelman’s Maus: A Survivor’s Tale and EL Doctorow’s The Book of Daniel. (https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/69145)

Survival in Auschwitz is a memoir written by Primo Levi, an Italian Jewish survivor of the Holocaust who was sent to and worked in the Auschwitz-Monowitz labor camp during the later years of World War II. Levi’s memoir is significant for its contributions to the historical record of the Holocaust, as well as providing a profound personal account through his memories of life in Auschwitz. While the memoir is successful in documenting part of the Holocaust’s history and Levi’s memories, it is evident that Levi’s memoir tells us more about the memory of the Holocaust due to the gaps within the memoir’s historical contribution, memory’s effect on Levi’s writing process, as well as the memoir’s impact on memory communities.

When attempting to reconstruct the past, there are two means through which this can be achieved: History and memory. The former refers to structured learning about the past by using facts and evidence-supported documentation, most commonly through primary sources which are written or produced by people who were present at the time of the historical event in question. Conversely, memory refers to reliving or understanding historical events by means of others’ recollections and personal experiences, which are passed down and transmitted through memory communities into collective memory. This is acknowledged by Eviatar Zerubavel in “Social Memories: Steps to a Sociology of the Past”. As memory is shared within various social groups known as “mnemonic communities” (Zerubavel 289) and stored within physical and virtual locations known as “social sites of memory” (Zerubavel 291), our memory would thus extend much further than what we personally have experienced, allowing us to learn more about history through the memories of others. Examples of this, in terms of learning about the events of the Holocaust, are historical poetry such as Levi’s “Epitaph” (Levi 11) and testimonies from survivors from what Annette Wieviorka calls “the era of the witness” (Wieviorka XV). This includes the works of Elie Wiesel, who writes because he believes he “owes the dead [his] memory” (Wiesel 16), and Levi’s Survival in Auschwitz.

With regards to the memoir’s historical contribution, it is undeniable that Levi’s accounts provide an in-depth view of life as both a prisoner and labor camp worker in Auschwitz. Every chapter explains a different aspect of how he eventually managed to survive living in camp Monowitz, ranging from his deportation and arrival to living under the prison hierarchy, the inner workings of the black market, as well as surviving selection multiple times, before finally getting liberated by the Soviet Army. All of such are experiences unique to him, but still serve as first-hand documentation for the historical record of the Holocaust. As Doris Bergen mentions in War & Genocide, Levi’s testimonies on the Holocaust were “some of the most insightful reflections on that event ever written” (Bergen 180). This is true based on how Levi’s words match up with the factual evidence of occurrences during the final years of World War II, such as how he had begun his memoir by describing his “good fortune” (Levi 9) to have been deported to Auschwitz in 1944, and Bergen states in War & Genocide that the Germans had personally deported the Italian Jewish population “beginning in 1943” (Bergen 180).

However, Bergen then follows up with the fact that “most of the Italian Jews murdered in the Holocaust died in 1944 or early 1945” (Bergen 180). This already shows a gap within Levi’s accounts as he clearly was not part of the majority who died, whether it was in the gas chambers or otherwise, like the “women … children … old men” (Levi 20) from the freight trains whom he never saw again. In addition to this, Levi’s experiences in relation to the Holocaust as documented through his memoir do not begin until 1944, while anti-Jewish aggression from the Reich Government takes place long before Levi is deported and involves experiences other than being sent to concentration camps, like the various pogroms that occur across Eastern Europe and the ghettoization of Polish Jews from “late 1939 to early 1949” (Bergen 111). Despite its historical accuracy and detailed accounts of life in Auschwitz, Levi’s experiences are not representative of the fate that most Holocaust victims faced, as such victims faced a wide range of outcomes that did not necessarily result in being sent to Auschwitz, let alone surviving life there. Thus, his memoir leaves more gaps than it fills in terms of our historical knowledge of the Holocaust, and is therefore comparably more telling of his memory of it than its history.

Similarly, Survival in Auschwitz can be viewed as more memory-based due to the impact of Levi’s memory on the writing of his memoir. Having been part of the surviving minority of Holocaust prisoners and having written this memoir “following his return to Italy in the autumn of 1945” (Thomson 142), Levi is fully aware of the outcome of World War II and feels “oppressed by shame” (Levi 150) and guilt for having survived. As opposed to other similarly autobiographical primary sources that may have been produced by other concentration camp prisoners, Levi uses his memoir to relive his experiences in Auschwitz, equipped with the knowledge that he survives the entire ordeal and lives to tell the tale. Content-wise, his memoir would then be vastly different from an account that was written as the events of the Holocaust were unfolding, thus altering how he would have viewed and reflected on his experiences rather than capturing his immediate, unknowing responses. Wieviorka also explains in the introductory chapter of The Era of the Witness that historians treat testimonies “with considerable mistrust” (Wieviorka XIII), only very occasionally using them to build a historical narrative as such accounts are rarely unbiased or impartial (Wieviorka XIV). With this in mind, in addition to Levi’s awareness of the outcome of World War II and feelings of remorse towards his own fate, Survival in Auschwitz hence cannot be used as factual historical evidence, as it primarily documents Levi’s memories of Auschwitz and lacks neutrality or objectivity in the expressed opinions.

Furthermore, Levi’s motivations for writing his memoir discredit it as a historical source as well. Wiesel, also a Holocaust survivor who feels guilty for having lived on, writes to honor the dead, because “he owes nothing to the living, but everything to the dead” (Wiesel 16). His shame towards being able to enjoy a post-Holocaust future while many innocent people—old and young—perished is echoed by Levi, who chose to write for the sake of his “interior liberation” (Levi 9) in a near-therapeutic approach to coping with his experiences. What’s more is his acknowledgement that his memoir “adds nothing” (Levi 9) to what readers already know about the Holocaust’s history, its purpose is to formulate a study of the human mind instead from a sociological perspective. Though Levi raises an astute comparison between the Lager and “a gigantic biological and social experiment” (Levi 87), documenting history relies on facts, rather than aiming at understanding it from other social aspects, or “having fun in writing and at amusing [his] prospective readers” (Roth 183).

Another way in which memory impacted Levi’s writing process is his decision to “write his book backwards” (Thomson 147), “in order of urgency” (Levi 10). By deciding to write whichever chapter he considered more or most important, Levi is able to develop more careful, proselike descriptions and turn his memoir into a “teeming, intensely literary work of great complexity” (Thomson 148), which is another feature rarely found in other historical sources. Within the fragmented order in which Survival in Auschwitz was written, Levi also makes a number of allusions to famous works of Italian literature, namely the chapter entitled “The Canto of Ulysses” in which he attempts to recite from Dante’s “The Divine Comedy”. This reference to Inferno and Dante’s journey through Hell eventually becomes representative of Levi’s own journey in Auschwitz, showing how he viewed his experiences through a literary scope. Therefore, Survival in Auschwitz tells us more about the memory of the Holocaust based on Levi’s unique takes on the psychological significance of this historical event, none of which aid historians in rebuilding its historical narrative.

Finally, the impact of Levi’s memoir on the collective memory of the Holocaust plays an immense role in Holocaust remembrance. As he brings up in the Chapter 5 dream sequence of Survival in Auschwitz, his sister and her friend are just two of the numerous listeners who have gathered to listen to the story he’s telling, this dream that is also his friend Alberto’s “and the dream of many others, perhaps of everyone” (Levi 60). This shows his intent to share his story to those beyond the sphere of other survivors, allowing him to tell his story first to strangers on the Milan-Turin express train, then to his sister, before finally reaching the general public (Thomson 144-45), successfully expanding the collective memory with his words alone. While his storytelling skills were applauded by his listeners, he did not encounter such warm reactions when he put his words to print. In his search for a publisher, he faced multiple rejections from both American and Italian publishing houses (Thomson 155-57), halting his hopes of reaching a wider international audience with his memoir. He was even rejected by a Jewish-Protestant publishing business as “the moment was not right” (Thomson 157). During his interview with Daniel Toaff on Italian State TV, Levi recalls speaking with a Polish lawyer who translated his answers for the passers-by around them. Levi’s answer regarding his identity was altered, so he was a newly-freed political prisoner instead of being an Italian Jew. When asked, the lawyer reasoned that “ it [was] best for [him]; Poland is a sad country” (Back to Auschwitz).

From this, it is clear that Levi’s prepublished story was capable of contributing to collective memory on a small scale, only reaching a global scale once it was officially published. However, even so, the memoir’s original title of If This Is a Man was changed to Survival in Auschwitz for the American release (Roth 181), so as to promote a new message of strength and survival rather than maintain its psychological implications. Subsequently, Levi became a “national monument” (Thomson 141) in Italy, a member in the public eye who received opportunities for both written (Roth; Thomson) and televised (Back to Auschwitz) interviews, valued for the experiences he had and shared. Hence, despite the challenges Levi faced and the compromises he had to go through in order to bring his story to the public eye, the great influence of Survival in Auschwitz is still highly evident and allowed more people worldwide to share in his memories of the Holocaust.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

In conclusion, Levi’s interpretation of the Holocaust implies a deeper meaning behind its events, one that’s more rooted in the recesses of the human mind. As Thompson points out, “no other work conveys the unique horror of the Nazy genocide more directly and profoundly, or interrogates our recent moral history so incisively” (Thompson 142). Rather than simply looking at his experiences in Auschwitz from a shallower, more literal point of view, Levi suggests studying it with a basis of psychology and morality, and to take it “as a sinister alarm-signal” (Levi 9). Thus, he would disagree with Wiesel’s statement that the Holocaust cannot be understood and to write about it is to “warn the reader that he will not understand either” (Wiesel 18), taking on the opposite viewpoint instead. Chapters 8 and 9 in Levi’s memoir, in which he discusses the Lager’s black market and the two main categories of men—the drowned and the saved, are indicative of his “intense wish to understand” (Roth 180) and his view that the Holocaust was a social experiment conducted to determine “how much of our ordinary moral world could survive” (Levi 86) in the face of dehumanization and the struggle to stay alive. “Auschwitz was the catalyst that turned Levi into a writer” (Thomson 159), and it is because of this that Levi wrote a memoir as potent as Survival in Auschwitz and, while he could not provide all the answers to this question on the strength and longevity of human morality, it is through his memories that he invites us to form our own psychological judgement of this event and develop our own memory of the Holocaust as well.

As with many poems, an initial read-through of Gertrude Stein's Preciosilla may leave many readers bewildered as to what her intent or message may be. From a technical perspective, it is difficult to make sense of the language because the entire poem consists of unrelated words that are constantly juxtaposed, and Stein does not adhere to traditional grammatical rules in her text. It is this distinct, albeit seemingly obscure writing style, however, that allows for the true meaning of the poem to come through. Preciosilla, though not easily deciphered at the start, is about sexuality in all its intricate glory. To truly explain this, Stein focuses less on content and more on linguistic form in order to construct sexuality as a multifaceted concept.

The Cubist influence

Stein, influenced by the Cubist movement that occurred during the time of her writings, applies this style of art to Preciosilla by emphasizing the structure of sexuality, rather than merely a description of it. Cubist painters created a distinguishing form of art by attempting to express objects and ideas from multiple points of view all at the same time. In the same way, Stein depicts sexuality from various perspectives. At one place in the poem, she says "...shut shut is life" (line 5), suggesting an end to life and negative imagery. On the other hand, in another place she mentions, "This is so pink so pink in stammer" (line 11). Here readers are given the imagery of sex as something light and positive. Throughout the entire poem Stein incorporates these various views, conveying the idea that sexuality is only made real because of conflicting beliefs about it.

Just as is done in Cubism, Stein presents sexuality as though it were fragmented rather than consistent and complete, but still as a whole. Cubist painters generally employed the use of geometric shapes in their works of art to indicate the numerous sides of what they were painting. Stein does this as well by rejecting any particular one-sided view. Instead, she combines these "fragments" to create a unified whole. Almost none of the sentences in the poem have a clear, comprehensible meaning to them. It is almost as though these strings of words are fragments themselves, pieces of various sentences or phrases put together to create an entirely different whole. This is already evident from the first sentence of the poem: "In the win all the band beagles which have cousin lime sign and arrange a weeding match to presume a certain point to exstate to exstate a certain pass lint to exstate a lean sap prime lo and shut shut is life" (lines 2-5).

Metaphorical Language

Stein also portrays sexuality by means of metaphors, further presenting it as a complex concept. The meaning and interpretation of many of the words in the poem are initially lost due to the juxtaposition of apparently dissimilar words. Such examples would include "sleep sleep knot" (line 15), and "nobles are bleeding bleeding two seats two seats on end" (lines 16-17). What Stein does in many of these phrases is use metaphorical imagery, having one thing represent another. The "knot" may be an image of two lovers entwined during intercourse, while the "two seats" very likely refers to the anatomy of two female lovers.

One consistently recurring example of a metaphor is Stein's use of the word "lily." Its constant appearance throughout the poem indicates that it is a symbol of female genitalia. "Lily" evokes images of a delicate flower, comparable to a woman's vagina. The flower is often white and is used to indicate purity, which is how many people ideally perceive a woman to be, sexually pure and innocent. Another word that continually appears in the poem is the word "diamonds." The image of diamonds brings to mind something clear and sparkling, and is often used to describe a person's eyes. Stein may be taking a different approach to sexuality by focusing on a lover's eyes, something that is more often addressed in romantic love than in sexual love. It is not by coincidence that a diamond is cut in such a way so as to have many facets to it, thus mirroring the many facets that sexuality has also.

Visual Effects

Moving beyond imagery, Stein also uses the visibility of the poem itself to give a different perspective of sexuality. A reader's initial impression of Preciosilla is that it is a piece of prose rather than a poem. It is written in the format of a short story or text instead of in the traditional break down of lines in a poem. The reason for this could be to show that poetry can take on various forms, and by doing so she projects this idea to sexuality as well. Another noticeable quality to the poem is the constant repetition of certain words. Other than "lily" and "diamonds," Stein repeats various additional words: "Bait, bait, tore, tore her clothes, toward it, toward a bit" (lines 6-7), and "Please be please be get, please get wet, wet naturally, naturally in weather" (lines 20-21). The repetition ultimately creates a transformation of the words, so that in the end they mean something entirely different than what the reader initially thought them to be. These terms, as they are constantly used over and over again, slowly progress to define what sexuality is.

Preciosilla is a poem that can only be understood by looking at it in its entirety, at all the various features of sexuality as several parts that make up a whole. A reader looking at any individual paragraph would not be able to make sense of it. Only be stepping back and seeing the poem as a whole can the reader understand how the poem itself is constructed, and consequently how it constructs sexuality.

Conclusion

Gertrude Stein's Preciosilla attempts to "paint" a "verbal portrait" of sexuality. Just as Cubist artists use paint to depict objects and ideas from several viewpoints, Stein uses words to describe sex in such a way that she takes it above and beyond description. She communicates the idea that sexuality is not merely just a concept or activity that can be illustrated by means of describing something in the traditional sense. Instead, she shows that it can only be properly addressed through the use of form, by way of fragmentation, metaphors, and visibility.

Stein makes Preciosilla unique in that it takes readers beyond the mere content of the poem. If a reader were to focus solely on content and the literal meanings of the words in the poem, it would be impossible to comprehend the message. Stein forces readers to look beyond that and to see the entire picture, paralleling the very thing she discusses in her poem: sexuality. Just as poetry can be complex and viewed from multiple standpoints, she shows that sexuality embodies these characteristics as well.

Regardless of what role Sylvia Plath was playing at any given time--student, poet, teacher, wife--her feverish perfectionism was a constant factor. During her tumultuous years at Smith College, her concern over the defects she perceived in her character led her to commence a process that would fascinate future readers and biographers alike--the journey to create her own identity and curate a perfect self. However, despite having a clear idea of her intended destination, she found herself unable to do more than mask the reality of her personality with a veneer of perfection. An honest assimilation of her constructed identity still eluded her. Nowhere is this theme more clearly represented in her poetry than in "In Plaster," in which she assumes the role of the "old yellow" self desperately trying to reconcile her dependence on the "new absolutely white person" with her fear of being usurped by a stronger and more perfect personality.

When the poem begins, the yellow self is certain that her newer counterpart is superior, and rebels against her. However, both halves begin to warm up to the other, realizing that the latter cannot exist without the former, and the former can grow stronger with the latter's help. However, as the new self takes over a caregiver role, a newfound confidence and vitality causes her to become more self-reliant and less willing to devote herself to the well-being of the speaker. Finally, the two selves, resenting their codependent relationship, become disconnected and resign themselves to wishing for the other's death.

"In Plaster" originally characterizes the two conflicting selves through color metaphor. The older self is yellow, signifying her imperfection, and the newer self is white, meaning she is stainless and good. In fact, this second self is so perfect that she doesn't need food, is unbreakable, and is cold to the touch--in short, the perfect self isn't even a living person. As such, she lacks all of the human failings that the original self suffers from. Her physical state is much better, and she takes over the role of attentive nurse to the first self's role as invalid, "holding [her] bones in place so they would mend properly." When she becomes less conscientious in her care, the first self begins to realise how much she depends upon the second self for safety when her skin begins to flake away--without someone to take care of her, the first self is literally deteriorating. The second self also avoids the same mental instability that the first self exhibits, particularly in the early stanzas of the poem. Whereas the latter is instantly terrified and resentful of the new self, hitting her and eventually taking advantage of her "slave mentality," the former is a serene pacifist, "one of the real saints."

Originally, the old self believes the new one to be clearly superior. However, once she had placed her trust in the other person and been neglected by her, she no longer thinks that her counterpart's inhuman perfection is an advantage. Scornfully she tells us, "Then I saw what the trouble was: she thought she was immortal." Here, another stark contrast is drawn between the two selves--the second self is dying, the white self is becoming more alive. This theme of death is continued through the poem, particularly when the two selves begin to conflict more frequently. The yellow self begins to feel as if she is "living with [her] own coffin," now that the white self, formerly a life-giving force, now means assured destruction for her weaker counterpart. This conflict between the idealized and real selves makes it impossible for the woman they comprise to be whole--although the two selves stay together out of necessity, their state of simultaneous co-dependence and war make it impossible for them to be reconciled healthily. However, in the last stanza, the old self reflects upon her plan to eventually gather her strength and break free of the new self's influence, letting her "perish with emptiness." This is an important reversal because it implies that although the old self needs protection and is weakened by the second self's precedes, the latter is a mere empty mask without a stable core, unable to ever triumph completely. If the old self can succeed in regaining her strength, she would once again be a complete and stable person.

In order to describe the relationship between the dual selves, Plath uses the metaphor of a mask. During the brief period where the two attempt to support each other, the yellow self was able to mask her imperfections with the white self, while still flourishing and allowing her true character to show. However, as she becomes more weak, she realizes what a terrible choice it was. Now, she says she is terrified that the new self will let her die and "wear [her] painted face the way a mummy-case wears the face of a pharaoh." If this happens, she will have lost her identity to someone who will corrupt it and make it false.

Ultimately, the poems leads to the reader to conclude that contrasting inner and outer selves cannot coexist in a stable manner, especially not if one is prioritized. This is made clear by the self-hatred exhibited by the old self throughout the poem--her first reaction to the new self was to be "scared because [the new self] was shaped just the way [she] was." Furthermore, when she says that her impression that "it was a kind of marriage, being so close" was incorrect, she reveals that there is no love between the two selves, only resentment. Although she was originally able to depend on a falsely perfect self for strength, as soon as that self began to resent the original's imperfect nature, the woman herself was split between two warring halves and weakened. In order to save herself, she must allow the true imperfect self to become strong from within, instead of drawing strength from a falsified shell. In order to build a better identity, one must avoid attempting to obscure the old self with a constructed new one, which can warp the truth and weaken a person's core. A gradual shift occurring as a result of genuine growth is the only chance for a stable improvement in personality.