The Afterlife

From the Romantic poems we've read so far, I've noticed that the afterlife has definitely been an important topic. In "Thanatopsis," Bryant discusses how after death, one "shalt lie down with patriarchs of the infant world." Thus, after death every person becomes equal, regardless of their economic or social class in life. Again, in Longfellow's "A Psalm of Life," the idea of the afterlife is introduced. In this poem, Longfellow urges the reader to recognize that death is not bad, but merely a transition into another life.
My question is, why were the Romantics so obsessed with the afterlife? Was there obsession with it simply a rejection of neoclassical rationalism? Or were they trying to embrace religion?

-Bryce C.

Crevecoeur and El Greco

In Spanish class, we've been perusing the artists of the Golden Age, and are currently watching a video on El Greco. He was a Spanish painter, but was born under a Greek name in Greece. In his early years, he studied Renaissance painters such as Rafael and Michelangelo, and attempted to mimic their styles rather than the Byzatine style of his native Greece. But after moving to Spain and living in Toledo for a number of years, historians say that he finally developed his true "El Greco" style. Interestingly, it was unlike the Renaissance painters' works that he had studied for so long, but was rather more similar to Byzantine works.

I found this to be an interesting parallel to Crevecoer. Crevecoer, though not a native of America, considered himself (somewhat) to be an American and seemed to find his personal identity here rather than in his native France. It seems as though both men "found" themselves and developed a true sense of identity outside of their native land. What do you guys think of this?

Does Crevecoeur Consider Himself an American?

This was an interesting question that was posed in class a few days ago, so I just wanted to extend the discussion. Personally, I feel that Crevocoeur does consider himself somewhat of an American, as evidenced by his use of the "we" device. However, at other times his pronoun usage is questionable which leaves me to wonder just how strongly he feels about his identity. What do you guys feel about this?

-Bryce C.

Crevecoeur's Definition of American

In class today, we discussed how St. John Crevecoeur defined an American, and whether or not he considered himself to be one. From what I have interpreted, I believe he defines an American based on the individual's desire to work hard in order to become successful, his or her desire for justice, and his or her pursuit for property.

Most importantly, however, I believe Crevecoeur claimed that anyone who decided to journey to America--no matter what nationality he or she was--had already cast aside his or her past ties and created a new one: that of a "new race of men," as he puts it. This "new race of men" was the welcoming of everyone from different races to America. Crevecoeur states that men from "all nations are melted into a new race" when his "labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world." Therefore, it is not the nationality of a man that makes him more or less an American, but rather his aspiration to be a hard-working, free man of the New World, and his achievements from such hard work and perseverance.

-Chloe Martianou

Is Franklin Too Bold?

After reading Franklin's "Rules by Which a Great Empire May Be Reduce to a Small One", I couldn't help but think that perhaps Franklin was being a bit too bold. If I were a British politician, I would feel that his incessant use of sarcasm is simply obnoxious. Does anyone else get a similar impression of his work? And if so, do you think this was Franklin's intent?

-Bryce Cody

Ben Franklin's Warrant

I had been meaing to ask in class today about Franklin's what the warrant of Franklin's letter was. His audiences were, as we stated in class, English officials, the English public, and the American colonists. But if we look at the letter as an argument through the Toulmin model, what would his warrant be for these audiences? Would it be the same for all or different for each? Does it have anything to do with the cake analogy?
-a confused emily

Translations

I remember a few months ago we discussed Chief Seattle's speech and how its legitimacy was questionable since it was translated first into a different Native American language and then into English. Well, over the past few months of translating Latin, I've come to the decision that Seattle's speech as we know it is all but useless in understanding what he actually meant. Why? Because even in translating from Latin to English, Western languages with the same alphabet and other large similarities, huge gaps in understanding emerge. (e.g. "Theseus himself chose to put forward his own body for the dear Athenians, rather than such deaths of Athenians not dead bodies be brought to Crete" -translated from Catullus 64) Half the time, I can barely understand what the translation means and the other half the time the translation is very awkwardly worded.

Now, if going from Latin to English creates this many misunderstandings, I can only wonder what going from a Native American language to English does to a work. And on top of this, Seattle's speech was also first translated to a different Native American language before being translated to English. So, in the end, I must admit that I've lost all faith in our English version of Chief Seattle's speech and that I feel it can hardly be treated as a trustworthy historical work.

-Bryce C.