Why be Romantic When You Can be Victorian?

While Victorian writers displayed immense knowledge of the English language (and how to manipulate it to evoke emotion), they did not display the whimsical creativity that the Romantics had only a generation before. Writing about places like Kubla Khan, a 'lady in the meads', or personifying clouds like William Wadsworth Longfellow seemed more of a luxury than a necessity. What seemed to concern the Victorian poets were social issues of the day.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning's "The Cry of the Children" is a poem that summarizes child labor taking place in coal mines and factories. The conditions the children had to endure were horrific, ultimately leading to a death they knew was soon to come: "'True' say the children, 'it may happen That we die before our time," (Greenblatt et al, 2006). Each child would lead a short and brutal life in the poem, not even being allotted a proper funeral for their troubles: "Her grave is shapen like a snowball, in the rime," (Greenblatt et al, 2006).

Rudyard Kipling had strong feelings about imperialism and why he thought it was needed, and he let those feelings be known in his poem, "The White Man's Burden". "Fill full the mouth of famine/ And bid the sickness cease," (Greenblatt et al, 2006); Kipling had noble intentions about the savage countries he thought to be filled with "sullen peoples/ Half-devil and half-child," (Greenblatt et al, 2006). From a more objective view, his poem was more patronizing and oppressive than it was an ode to aide the needy impoverished.

The Victorian poets were creative, but they used their creativity in different ways compared to the Romantics. Victorians did not merely want to bring art and beauty to the world via prose; they wanted to change the world. It was an understandable perspective, considering the world around the Victorians was changing greatly. Technology was helping to reshape the world, making it a smaller and less mysterious place, and one worthy of critique.

Greenblatt, S., et al. (Eds.) (2006). The Norton anthology of English literature (8th ed., Vol.2). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Better Government through the Eyes of Thoreau and Douglass

The United States has always been the ideal for a better life and the sought-after ‘all-American dream’. Thanks in large part to the founding fathers with their inspirational words and declarations, freedom of choice is available for each and every United States citizen: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,”. While these words convey a sense of a just government coupled with equality for all, neither of those concepts were always implemented or accepted as the status quo. Before the Civil War, two great men had similar thoughts about what was wrong with the United States government: Henry David Thoreau and Frederick Douglass. Both of these men had entirely different backgrounds, but Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience and Douglass’ What to the Slave is the Fourth of July have much in common concerning the legitimacy of the laws at the time.

Civil Disobedience speaks of the fallacies of ‘big’ government. In fact, Thoreau believed in the idea of no government at all, claiming in his essay that when man was ready for it, they would govern themselves, (McMichael & Leonard, 2011). His ideas may have been rooted in common sense, but at the time they were radical. Radical was also the describing word for Douglass’ What to the Slave is the Fourth of July. He began by complimenting the founding fathers and their sacrifices, leading into a lamentation of slave’s oppressions in comparison with the ideas of freedom sustained only 76 years prior. Douglass explained quite eloquently how the Fourth of July was not a holiday to be enjoyed by all, because it was a celebration of freedom earned only for the white man. Slaves were in chains, at times literally, therefore the Fourth of July for a slave was a holiday that was a pantomime of freedom and equality. The arguments brought forth by Douglass and Thoreau appeared on the surface to be vastly different, but there are some common threads that bond them.

Essentially, Douglass and Thoreau both desired a better government. Thoreau demonstrated this in Civil Disobedience, “But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government,” (McMichael & Leonard, 2011). Douglass also displayed his will for an improved government in What to the Slave is the Fourth of July, “[…] nations number their years by thousands. According to this fact, you are[the United States], even now, only in the beginning of your national career, still lingering in the period of childhood. I repeat, I am glad this is so. There is hope in the thought, and hope is much needed, under the dark clouds which lower above the horizon,” (McMichael & Leonard, 2011). 

Civil Disobedience was not exactly an anti-slavery piece, but it called for men to use their conscience above all else, a sentiment which Douglass would have wholeheartedly agreed with, “Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience,” (McMichael & Leonard, 2011). Given Thoreau’s words, it can be safely assumed that he believed slavery to be an act unjustifiable, to be rectified by men with morals and a conscience.

The United States has had decades to evolve and learn from society’s many mistakes. However, over a hundred and fifty years ago, Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience and Frederick Douglass’ What to the Slave is the Fourth of July were two intelligent literary pieces that shared similar thoughts about the faults of the United States government and how to better it. Both men saw beyond themselves, differentiating what was truly important from the everyday monotonous tasks of human life. It takes a unique soul to recognize injustice, and an even braver soul to speak out against it. Thankfully, unique and brave men like Thoreau and Douglass paved the way for a better American way of living.

McMichael, G. & Leonard, J. S. (2011). Concise anthology of american literature. (Eds.).

New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.

Short Stories and Social Commentary

Nathaniel Hawthorne and Herman Melville wrote stories that had deeper meanings in relation to the societies that they were a part of. Specifically, "Young Goodman Brown" and "Bartleby, the Scrivener" have interesting social commentaries. Both of those stories also share relations to other authors, such as Franklin, Irving, and Edwards.

Hawthorne's short story "Young Goodman Brown" is a story of a man who's curiosity takes him to strange depths, inadvertently stripping him of his religious faith. He intends to merely take a small part in a clandestine meeting in the woods with unsavory characters. On the way, he sees more than just unsavory characters taking part in the meeting; the deacon of the church and even his wife are at the meeting over which presumably a demon resides. Upon the cessation of the meeting, Brown is not sure if the meeting was real or if it was only a dream. Either way, he is a deeply shaken and cynical man for the remainder of his life, never getting over his meeting the woods with the devil. Part of the social commentary made in this story would be a loss of innocence. Brown was sure of the morality of the people he cared for and respected, most importantly his wife, but he did not know what to think when confronted with their 'other' side, "There is no good on Earth; and sin is but a name. Come, devil; for to thee is this world given," (McMichael & Leonard, 2011). As a devout Puritan, the concept of black, white, and grey was beyond Brown; for him, there was only black and white. After his enlightenment in the woods about the duality of human nature, Brown saw only black.

Hawthorne's story has similar tones to the The Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving. Both stories have a dark, ominous tone that creates a sense with the reader that there is no happy ending to be had, only a series of interesting (if unfortunate) events.

In Melville's "Bartleby, the Scrivener", the narrator tells the story of 'the oddest man he's ever met'. The narrator hires Bartleby out of necessity, but is soon very sorry that he ever did so. Bartleby is by nature a depressed individual, but his work ethic is not in question until the day he utters the line "I would prefer not to". That becomes his mantra whenever any task is asked of him, until the day comes that he ceases to do anything at all. Even after his laziness hits its peak, he does not leave. Eventually, the narrator chooses to move his business rather than throw Bartleby out. Even with new tenants in the building, Bartleby does not leave.

He is jailed for his incessant loitering, later dying in jail because he 'preferred not to' eat the food that is offered. In reflection, Bartleby's choices may have not been the right ones because they led to his death, but from an objective point of view, Bartleby was able to do whatever he wanted. He could shun his boss, friends (not that he had any), and his jailers in favor of maintaining his free will. Jonathan Edwards wrote a story with a similar note about free will, "Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will", (Emery, 1976, p. 170). However, Melville's story could also be highlighting the fact that slovenly behavior could lead to a dire end.

Emery, A., M. (1976). The alternatives of melville's bartleby. Nineteenth-Century Fiction. Retrieved on October 21, 2010, from the JSTOR Database.

McMichael, G. & Leonard, J. S. (2011). Concise anthology of american literature. (Eds.). New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.