Locke vs. Johnson

In considering our discussion today, of Locke and Johnson and their receptions to reading, I wanted to continue the debate over who is more optimistic about the ability of mankind to reason and arrive at correct and truthful conclusions. First, let us consider Locke’s evidence concerning reading and readership: “Those who have read of every thing are thought to understand every thing too ; but it is not always so. Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking makes what we read ours. We are of the ruminating kind, and it is not enough to cram ourselves with a great load of collections; unless we chew them over again, they will not give us strength and nourishment.” Here, Locke claims that the mere act of reading does not necessarily improve one’s knowledge or one’s mind, as we can see through the example of Arabella. However, as Locke point outs, Arabella’s flaw is that she does not think about what she has read, she takes it at face value rather than seeing it as fiction or romance. However, Locke notes that we are of ‘ruminating kind’ who must chew things over in order to digest the meaning of a work. Locke does not say that all classes of people have the ability to do this, however, and considering his ‘tabula rasa,’ one needs the proper foundation to have any reason at all. 

Turning attention to Johnson, Rambler Number 4, let us consider his argument as well: “But the fear of not being approved as just copyers of human manners, is not the most important concern that an author of this sort ought to have before him. These books are written chiefly to the young, the ignorant, and the idle, to whom they serve as lectures of conduct, and introductions into life. They are the entertainment of minds unfurnished with ideas, and therefore easily susceptible of impressions; not fixed by principles, and therefore easily following the current of fancy; not informed by experience, and consequently open to every false suggestion and partial account.” Although on the surface this seems to be a negative critique, Johnson’s underlying meaning must be ascertained. Although saying that much of the masses are young, ignorant and idle who would take this literature as a realistic guide to life, such as Arabella does with her French Romances, he appeals to a much broader audience of people to be targeting.

 However, it seems that Johnson feels these minds are easily penetrated with ideas, he seems to feel that the mind is more malleable than Locke who believes the foundation is the key to arriving at the correct ‘truth.’ Johnson is much more concerned with the guidance a person can be given, despite age or social status. He does not see their prior learning, or lack thereof, to have ingrained principles into them, unlike Locke. His comment on the ‘current of fancy’ might seem to at first have a negative connotation but the ability to take in, process and choose is implied here, whereas Locke discounts it entirely if the foundation is not built or built correctly. From this, it seems that Johnson’s theory could lend just as usefully to examining Arabella as Ross’s assertion that Lockian theory does. Johnson’s ideas would even paint her in a more favorable light, that she could be changed and guided, which is what we as readers hope, versus Locke basically saying that she is a broken record for which there is no fix.

Object Vs. Subject

In considering our class discussion today, I wanted to continue the discussion of objectivity versus subjectivity. However, rather than continuing with the example of Arabella, I wanted to look more closely at other characters. First and foremost, as Lucy is the other prominent female within the novel, so far, it seems that her objectivity or subjectivity should come into consideration. In considering her role, she is a ladies’ maid of sorts to Arabella and does her bidding, despite what emotions she should have to the contrary. For example, she transcribes a response to Mr. Hervey but cannot remain impartial in a situation which is of little real concern to her, "This news put Lucy into a terrible fright: She told her Apprehensions to her brother; which being such as her Lady had put into her head, were now confirmed by Mr. Hervey's Illness..." (16). This passage alone, shows the complexity of Lucy's position. She is supposed to not only be the object of use to Arabella but also should remain impartial in Arbela’s affairs, but through her concern and seeming independent thought, she attempts to gain agency. However, this agency still puts her into an object role in that it is 'such as her Lady had put into her head.' Due to her inability to separate her own life from the life she has as Arabella's maid, the object vs. subject debate surrounding Lucy becomes incredibly complicated and murky. In addition, The Marquis as the raiser of and guardian to Arabella seems to be an important person in terms of object vs. subject. Due to his wealth and position, the Marquis has a great deal of agency, both with the manner in which Arabella has been raised and how she lives in addition to further promoting and provoking pursuit of Arabella. However, his initial proposal to Arabella concerning her marriage to him proves unsuccessful, “The Impropriety of receiving a Lover of a Father’s recommendation appeared in its strongest Light. What Lady in Romance ever married the Man that was chose for her?” (27). Although based in fantastical and unrealistic expectation of family, love and marriage, Arabella’s notions of what constitute her own ‘reality’ are what prevents her father from being a consistent subject with power over everyone, despite his status and wealth. It seems then that there are no clear definitions of someone who is entirely an object and entirely a subject within the novel so far. Although not overtly drawn to attention within the context of the novel itself, agency, especially for women in this time period is a huge issue. With so much attention on the debate over the ‘proper place’ for a woman cropping up in this century, through female novelists and through The Female Spectator, the presence of agency within the novel, especially knowing that this novel is a satire of the stories of Don Quixote, can help to shed light on both the realistic and fantastical ways that Arabella in particular, deals with the issue of female power.  

Rape of the Lock: Pope, Satire and Society

In considering our discussion of 'The Rape of the Lock' I wanted to focus on something that Katie brought up in class. On Friday, she discussed the effect of the lack of the suggested reform about high society values and the British class system. I think that even beyond the lack of reform, it could be taken to the larger context of what the effects of Pope's satire are. Obviously, first and foremost satire is meant to critique humanity's follies or vices which Pope has perfected to a tee with his critique of the triviality of the entire high class of the poem with its mock-heroic form and focus on minute and insignificant details. It is done in a humorous and light hearted fashion and focuses on the trivial nature of this class while also pointing out the constraints and limitations of existing within said class, harkening back to Horatian satire. Secondly,  although, as Katie noted, suggested reform is not included in Pope’s mock heroic, it seems that through the exaggerated, dramatic and over the top action of and reaction to the actual cutting of Belinda’s lock, Pope is playing around with this. Rather than taking Swift’s or Addison and Steele’s overt social, moral and religious commentary, Pope seems to overtly be using primarily the stylistic, rather than thematic, techniques of the work itself to emphasize the areas of improvement and reform within high class society. First, the mock-heroic form clues the reader in on the overtly satirical nature of the poem. In addition, the dichotomies of the Baron as a scoundrel without consequences and Belinda as the virginal angel, Pope seems critiquing the limitations and constraints of being born into a member of high class where appearances are EVERYTHING.  Men who have wealth, status and money will face no real consequences, socially or legally whereas women’s virtue and chastity is the one thing that makes a woman worth anything to both her family and to potential suitors. By playing out stereotypical roles for high society in 18^th century Britain, Pope also dichotomizes the constraints of the lower class, such as women who lose their chastity automatically becoming whores despite their circumstance.  Pope is able to simultaneously critique the class system as a whole through the simple technique of binary opposition rather than explicating a detailed proposal of what should be the proper concerns, morals and division of the class system. Another third effect of Pope’s satirical form and style is the hesitation between what is actually meant to be taken as satirical and what is meant to be seen seriously. This hesitation serves to not only make the reader question the very nature of societal constructs both in 18^th century Britain and today but also question appearances, motive, status and gender roles. This hesitation provokes both the satirical play on the society in which the characters inhabit, through the melodramatic action of the poem itself, while simultaneously calling into question how much of the poem was an actual reality for those of high society during this time period. Overall, it seems that the absence of reform, through the character’s actions or speech, rather than the presence, serves to strengthen Pope’s social, moral and societal critique.