The Literature of Settlement

Uploaded by nyu on 18.09.2010

>> Alright let's get started.
I wanted to remind you of something that I mentioned
on the first day of the class.
We used last time the discussion of Moby Dick in some sense
to give you a sense of where we were going in the course
for the sense of where, to get you invested in some
of the issues now that are going to become important later on.
In the past students have wondered why it was
that we were slogging on a lot of the different,
you know puritan forms and what the payoff was and I wanted you
to see right away that some of the ideas
that the puritans bring to the new world
and that haunt them continue to haunt writers all the way
up through Herman Melville.
A writer like Emerson perhaps we'll see tries to swerve away
in the aftermath of enlightenment and the beginning
of romanticism away from this sense of puritan,
what Melville calls, "The sense of innate depravity",
right that Puritanic glue.
But writers like Hawthorne and Melville think
that the swerve away from these things, that Emerson,
perhaps Thoreau and Whitman take as quick perhaps,
a little too easy; that what we need to do is to contend
with whatever the residue of Puritanism has become
by the time we get to the middle of the 19th century.
So we're going to circle back now and think
about the very earliest moments of settlement and do a kind
of quick sketch of the way that settlement worked
and then specifically talk a little bit about Puritanism
to prepare you for your reading for the weekend.
So Christopher Columbus, 1492 is his first voyage.
That's drilled into us when we are growing up.
But I want to emphasize again a conjunction
that I mentioned the first day,
which is that the Guttenberg bible,
basically the first printed book
in Europe is the same area as Columbus right.
Columbus was born three years before the first Guttenberg
bible is printed.
In fact, it's probably in preparation in about 1450.
So they are contemporaries and I don't think that's an accident.
The creation of the printing press
so that manuscripts don't have to be copied
by hand anymore enables --
it's a brand new technology
that in some sense revolutionizes the flow
of information.
More people now have access to text
and it has an incredible ripple effect through western culture.
It makes writing crucial to the whole process of settlement.
So I think I mentioned the first day all
of these sailors are also writers.
They're constantly keeping track of things.
They're sending letters back to their patrons.
And what we will start to see is the growth of something
like a reading public in the year
that they are talking about.
So I want you to understand,
this is the great so-called age of discovery.
It's also the great age of text.
There's some who think we might be on some other great age
of something else; the transformation of print
to something else may herald the kind
of information revolution, that's possible.
We'll have to see how that plays out, although I'm interested
in conjunctions of digital medial and textuality.
Does the word iPad mean anything to anybody?
As of 1 o'clock it apparently exists and it's --
you know it's the latest cutting edge Apple device
and it is all about textuality.
It's about re-presenting text in a way that will enable it
in a way to be more modern
and give us a greater opportunity to interact with it.
People say that English professors are a bit worried
about the, whatever you want to call it, the Googlizaton
or the Kindelizaton of the world.
I don't think so.
I think there's going to be more need for people to study the way
that literature intends text because there's going
to be more people with access to text, and many different kinds
of text then there used to be.
So we're going to go back to the great age of the beginning
of textuality and this is one conjunction
that I wanted to remind you of.
Another conjunction is this one, Shakespeare right.
Shakespeare is writing say 100 or so years after this,
but the English are very slow to become involved in the business
of American colonization right.
So Shakespeare writes the Tempest from 1611, you know one
of his last plays, the last great romance,
and it's inspired the story of a [Sound effects] wreck
that actually took place in the Bermudas.
So that you might say the very end
of Shakespeare's career coincides with the start
of the age of colonization.
So that's another echo that we want to bear in mind.
Shakespeare in some sense also hovers our course.
For this reason and also because of what you see,
part of what Melville thinks he is doing in writing Moby Dick is
to bring a Shakespearean project finally to American culture,
a modern Shakespearean project.
Not one for the early 17th century but one
that befits the modern age in another words the middle
of the 19th century and therefore he's going
to use a new kind, a different literary kind
of technology, the novel.
And he's going to be thinking about the relationship
between the novel and drama as you will discover.
So I want us to keep this in mind as well.
The English as I said were slow to become involved
in the business of American colonization.
A couple of brothers named John and Sebastian Cabot had sailed
for English merchants in the reign of Henry the 7th
and Henry the 8th, but it didn't go well for them.
John was lost at sea in 1948 and Sebastian went to work
for Spain, they paid better I guess in 1512.
It was really until the 1570's
that there was real English interest in the new world
and again things didn't go very well.
Martin Frobisher, Humphrey Dilbert explored the north
of America with very little success.
Sir Walter Raleigh oversaw the famous colony of Roanoke in 1584
and Arthur Barlow who was one of the men
that Raleigh dispatched gave this account of what they found.
He said, "The 2nd of July we found Shoalwater,
where we smelled so sweet and so strong a smell as if we had been
in the midst of some delicate garden abounding with all kinds
of odoriferous flowers by which we were assured
that the land could not be far distant.
Now the Europeans bring things with them to the new world.
You know you've all heard -- disease would be one of them.
I suppose Christian ideology might be another,
but they also brought what we might think
of as rhetoric of wonder.
They had a kind of template in their mind
for what they were going to find.
Some of thought the might find the fountain of youth.
Some of them thought they might find the Garden of Eden,
but they expected to be amazed.
So, a lot of the discourse of settlement that you would find
in all of the different European traditions, partake some
of this discourse of wonder, the marvelous
and that's part of it right.
We get to Shoalwater, we can't quite see the land
but we smell this incredibly sweet smell,
so we think the new world must be nearby.
So Raleigh and Barlow take possession of Roanoke
for Elizabeth the first.
They spend about six weeks exploring the shore
and then they return to England.
The next year they come back and plant a colony.
It's Governor, Richard Genvalen has a way
of alienating the native inhabitants.
And there's an expedition famously to Roanoke that's led
by a man named John White in 1590.
What does he discover when he gets to Roanoke?
Did you study this in high -- yeah?
>> It's totally abandoned.
>> It's gone.
It's still a -- people say it's still a mystery exactly what
happened to them.
Among the missing people were White's own daughter
and her family and in fact, White wrote an account.
It used to be in the Norton, but I don't think it's there anymore
in which he describes his discovery of the ruined colony
and includes a kind of pointed account of finding three
of his own storage chests torn apart.
This was the Barlow quote.
I think I brought the White.
He says, "Many of my things laid spoiled and broken,
my books torn from the covers.
The frames of some my pictures and maps are rotten and spoiled
with rain and my armor almost eaten through with rust."
That's the biggest thing of this description.
And then he says this, "At my departure I willed them
that if they should happen to be distressed at any
of those places, then they should carve over the letters
or make a cross in this form, but we found no
such sign of distress.
It was kind of a mystery.
Having well considered this we passed towards the place
where they were left in sundry houses
but we found the houses taken down
and the place very strongly enclosed with a high palisade
of great posts, curtains and flankers",
which are defensive walls.
"Very fort like and one of the cheap trees or posts
at the right side of the entrance had the bark taken off.
And five feet from the ground in fair capital letters was graven,
Croatoan, without any cross or sign of distress.
Many of my things" and this is the passage I had just read
to you, "Laid spoiled and broken,
my books torn from their covers.
The frames of some my pictures and maps are rotten and spoiled
with rain and my armor almost eaten through with rust.
This could be nothing but the work of our enemies
at Dasa Moon Kapuk [Assumed spelling]
who must have watched the departure of our men to Croatoan
and soon as they were departed dug up any place
where they suspected anything was buried.
White searches around but the bad weather prevents him
from doing too much to look for his family and he never finds
out what actually happens to them.
In 1606 is a second Virginia colony which is set up
and then the first permanent settlement is established
at Jamestown in Virginia in 1607 and that becomes sort
of the start of that Virginia trajectory that was one
of the ones that Thomas Bender.
A later voyage in 1609 becomes famous
when its flagship the Sea Adventure is wrecked before
reaching Virginia and that is the voyage and the wreck
that inspires Shakespeare's Tempest okay.
So that's the story you might say of the English
in North America, but of course the colonization of the north
and south begins with Columbus.
And so I wanted to take a look at the writing
that we have for Columbus.
If you have your first volume of the Norton open it up and take
out to page 32, which is the letter to Luis De Sant Angel
on how -- regarding the first voyage.
So this is written basically back to his patron's agent.
De Sant Angel is a Spanish treasurer and Columbus wants
to impress him with the success of the voyage right.
So this is basically a report from his -- to his employer.
"Sir, as I know that you will be pleased with great victory
with which our lord has crowned my voyage I write this to you
from which you will learn how to in 33 days I pass
from the Canary Islands to the Indies with a fleet
with the most illustrious kind
and queen our sovereigns gave to me.
And there I found very many islands
with people too innumerable
and of them all I have taken possession for their heinouses
and proclamation made with the royal standard unfurled
and no opposition was offered to me.
And then he talks about naming.
What do you immediately notice about the language of this?
"As you know I will be pleased of the great victory."
What do we say about this?
I mean I'm calling this the literature of settlement.
Sound good to you.
What is the language that he is using here?
How would you characterize it if you had to?
>> Language of appeasement.
>> Language of appeasement.
How -- in what way appeasement?
>> It's a lot of like --
like you can kind of detect like pressure
under like the officials and stuff to like --
>> So he's sucking up a bit?
>> Yeah, basically.
>> Okay yeah he wants to --
again it's a letter to his employer
and he wants to impress him.
He is perhaps trying to appease his employers,
make sure that he has fulfilled his employer's wishes?
>> He's trying to like keep their wishes
but you can also sense sort of his responsibility.
He gets to the point where he's
like taken possession of their heinouses.
>> Okay.
>> Like he know his role there.
He knows what he needs to do.
>> Very good.
Very good.
He says he knows his role.
It's self-promoting right.
I have taken possession for their royal heinouses.
>> [Inaudible background question]
>> Right. That's good.
Anything else?
>> It describes a conquest but just with passive language.
>> Very good.
It's passive but you're right.
It's conquest.
It's marshal language.
At the first sentence, we're please at the great victory.
I went there.
I took possession.
I unfurled the royal standard and nobody made any opposition.
Let's try for a moment to think of it from the standpoint
of the people that are watching this happen.
You know a guy comes out, trudges.
He's dressed in a way they've never seen before.
He takes out this thing, sticks it on the beach, says some words
in a barbaric language.
[Laughter] The beginning of the end,
if they could only have seen what was going to happen,
they'd have killed him right there.
But that's not what happened.
Look what he sees.
He sees people innumerable okay.
And one of the things to say about Columbus's letters is
that he really is a -- portrays himself
as a primary kind of actor.
This is in some sense a drama of his discovery
and it's his discovery.
So you might -- there's a certain way he's substantiating
here a whole genre of personal narrative that we're going
to be seeing throughout the course.
It's going to finally culminate for us in Kalmi Ishmael.
Let's take look at the end of the passage and see --
well no next paragraph.
He says, "When I reached Juana, I followed its coast
to the westward and I found it to be so extensive
that I thought it must be the mainland,
the province of Kotaio."
And you can look at your footnote
and see what that means.
He thinks he's in Kafe or China.
They were looking for another way to get to China.
China had been discovered.
Marco Polo and others had brought things back to Europe
from China like spaghetti.
So they were looking for another way to get to China.
They had no idea at first that there was this continent.
There's a wonderful thing,
I should have brought a picture of it.
Maybe I'll do it next time.
It's called the Christopher Columbus Chart and it's --
I think it's in the [Inaudible] in Paris now.
But it's a weird hybrid thing of an actual --
we call it an actual sea chart,
something that would look recognizably to us like a map
on one side, and I think it's on the right side.
But then on the left side kind of joined
to it is what they call these portolan charts, which are kind
of much more about mythical places and they have kind
of sea beasts sort of there, the edge of the world kind of stuff.
And it's really interesting to look at it.
I'll definitely bring it see these things kind
of literally joined as a glued together to make this think.
It's not even regular in shape.
You can see that what they're on the verge of is a kind
of paradigm shift in the way
that they understand the world, not flat but round.
All the things you know of sun at the center
of the universe, not so much.
And early on people were burned at the stake
for thinking these things.
We're at the great age of discovery.
That doesn't only mean looking for land.
People are thinking of different things
and paradigms are shifting and that chart is a wonderful way
of thinking of Columbus as that sort of guy who's right
in the middle of a sort of shift in understanding
and conceiving the world, much more so actually
than he first understands here.
So he says, "Since there were neither towns nor villages
on the seashore but only small hamlets of the people
of which I could not have speech,
because they all fled immediately."
I mean what would you do?
I went forward on the same course thinking I should not
fail to find great cities and towns."
Again, he thinks he's in China.
"And at the end of many leagues, seeing that there was no change
and that the coast was bearing me northward, which I wished
to avoid since winter was already beginning and I proposed
to make for much of the south
and as moreover the wind was carrying me forward,
I determined not wait for the change in the weather
and retrace my path as far as a certain harbor known to me.
And from that point I sent to men inland to learn
if there were a king or great cities.
They traveled three days journey and found an infinity
of small hamlet's and people without number
but nothing of importance."
Okay that's too obvious.
What do we say about that?
What has he also brought with him from Europe,
what conception is clear here?
>> The idea of civilization that doesn't account
for anything that's not the western.
It doesn't account for anything.
It doesn't really make sense in this topic, so more western.
>> They thought they were going into the east.
>> So maybe he thinks he's in the east but yes.
>> This idea of European civilization.
It doesn't exist within that distinction.
It doesn't exist at all.
>> That's very good.
In other words he has a conception
of western civilization that he's brought with him.
To be civilized you can see some
of the things he's expected to find.
If you're a civilization you've got a king.
If you're a civilization you have to have great cities.
Presumably you have many of the other things
that are going along with that.
He has a certain amount of social organization
and writing will be one of the things
that Europeans are expecting to have if you're going
to call yourself a civilized person or civilized society.
Did you want to add something?
>> I was just going to add the ultimate area
of pride that's universal, like in the writings of Smith.
>> Yeah, yeah sure.
I mean all this people have a certain kind of hubris --
and Smith is even more Hubristic than most.
I mean he's really a self-promoter.
Columbus looks very humble compared to him,
but I think there's a Hubris that they don't even understand.
It's the moment that we would call it of first contact,
and they have no idea that the people
that they are encountering should count as people.
We called some people here -- people without number but not
of importance, not worth reckoning with.
>> Even from the very beginning when they have the early saga
of these people of their civilization --
about their civilization is that mean they are not important,
or they already see them as the same species,
and that becomes a big problem.
>> Yes, right.
It's almost like they don't see them as these people enumerable
as the same species and later on the subtext is
that he sees them as something else.
Let's gone on to the very end oh about --
he's starting to describe what it's like.
So let's go on to about the third paragraph
at the top of 33.
" -The island and all the others are very fertile
to a limitless degree and this island is extremely so."
So again, it's a kind of progress report.
He wants to prove that everything was worthwhile,
all the expense of sending these ships out there;
in it there are many harbors on the coast
of the sea beyond comparison with others, which I know
and christened them and many rivers good and large,
which is marvelous" right.
So he's using what he knows.
It's predictable that you would do this, christened them
as it was in your benchmark.
And you're going to compare what you find to that
and he thinks what he's found is better.
Again that word, marvelous, it's all marvelous.
"Again its lands are high and there are in many sierras
and many lofty mountains beyond comparison
with [Inaudible] All are beautiful of a thousand shapes
and all are accessible and filled with trees
of a thousand kinds and tall and they seem to touch the sky.
And I am told that they never lose their foliage
as I can understand for I saw them as green and lovely
as they are in Spain in May.
And some of them are flowering, some bearing fruit and some
in another stage according to their nature.
And a nightingale was singing and other birds
of a thousand kinds in November there where I went.
There are six or eight kinds of palm which are a wonder
to behold on account of their beautiful variety,
but so are the other trees and fruits and plants."
What's wrong with that account?
It says he hears a nightingale and it's wonderful.
>> Well I think that the map that you forgot to bring
in [Laughter] where it's just like the clash of kind of strict
like [Inaudible background discussion] I forgot my
question now.
I'm sorry.
>> I think that's an example of what goes around comes around.
[Laughter] Raise your hand when you think of it.
But I was asking what's wrong with that account?
In the back?
>> It's placing more importance on fruits
and animals and the people.
>> Well that's true.
That's really true, although we'll get to that
in slightly later sentences.
Is there anything else that's a little dodgy about this?
>> I got it.
>> You got it good.
Like the literature of wondering off,
like meaning the [Laughter] just like the practicality.
The rivers are really marvelous, yes because of their beauty
but also because there's kind of a sense of utility you know.
Like we'll be able to use these rivers.
>> That's very -- the point was worth waiting for.
Yes. [Laughter] He's looking at them all as commodities right.
This is resources we've discovered here.
It's amazing, it's better than what we have at home.
Now again I'm still looking for what's dodgy
about the account though, yeah?
>> [Inaudible background question]
>> Ah yeah, see they tricked you
because they stick the footnote a couple sentences later to talk
about the hummingbird.
But there's no nightingales.
That's one of the big we don't keeps, Ode of the Nightingale.
Ode to a Nightingale, everybody read that?
Do they still do that?
That's one way in a nutshell of talking about a problem
that we're going to encounter later on.
You know, how the hell are you supposed
to write a literature here in this continent
where there are no nightingales?
What the heck are we going to write about?
[Laughter] How are we going to have a gothic literature
when there's no castle, there's no ghosts and vampires
and things like that in the new world.
What are we supposed to do?
So Columbus doesn't actually notice that.
He figures it must be.
So I want you to sort of see a template
in place for understanding.
And part of that template is being used
to create a sense of awe and wonder.
This place is different.
It's unlike what we have,
but he's not attuned to the differences.
He's just saying it's different because it's more.
It's better.
We can use it.
And when he has an opportunity to note something,
it's got to be a different kind of bird, no.
A certain part of his brain just simply maps the old world
on to the new.
And one of the issues we're going to be discovering is
that can be a kind of dangerous thing to do,
that are certain ways --
how many of you have now seen the top grossing movie
in all of history -- Avatar?
None of you have seen Avatar?
Oh come on.
[Background sound effects] I should make it an assignment.
You go see Avatar.
You go see Avatar.
You think I'm joking.
You go see Avatar in 3D Imax.
You'll get a sense of wonder.
You'll get an understanding of Columbus by seeing that movie.
You go to a -- I mean what is that movie except for settlement
to discovery and dances with Smurfs.
[Laughter] Actually it was a cheap shot
because I loved that movie.
I think the movie is brilliant.
I have colleagues who think oh it's not progressive enough.
They should have done more to with like an echo this
and echo that and hybridity.
And I'm thinking for a piece
of popular art it's pretty progressive.
You know you go away thinking don't wreck the trees [Laughter]
you know be sympathetic to your animals.
I mean that's all pretty good stuff.
I mean who has seen it come on?
You've not come on, you mean you all just saw it
in the last minute?
[Laughter] You weren't willing to confess
because you didn't want to --
you clearly have not heard enough about me.
[Laughter] So those of you who have seen it --
I'm not going to spoil it for you for those of you haven't.
I'm serious that you should go see it though
because it partakes in the same discourse of wonder
and then it's wonder that if you don't understand it
in the right way it will kill you.
That's part of what they discover here,
you know that planet.
That tough Marine colonel who is Pandora, the place will kill ya!
The battle scar veteran right, the scars he got are
from this first day on the new world.
But the sense of wonder is captured in that film
where the crippled protagonist suddenly gets his Avatar body
and starts to run again.
And I think that's a --
just that whole sequence where he starts to understand the joy
of using his legs again, in this kind of new context.
That's part of this whole thing.
I mean the camera is actually drawing on the same discourse
of wonder that marks these texts and that's a -- for my vision --
for my money it's a better account of first contact
and finding or just the aftermath of first contact
and what it's like to be a new world.
And that really arty movie that was called the New World
that just went on about Pocahontas
and it just went on and on, okay.
That's my little editorializing.
Hey, but I like pop art.
I'm very serious though about going to see Avatar.
If were feeling like it was not worth your time or your 12
or 16 bucks or however it was just say,
"I'm going because it's my American Lit I assignment",
But take a look again and again the comparison is the go to --
and this is a joke -- they go -- it's a movies joke.
They go to this place to find some Magoffin resource that's
called unobtanium.
[Laughter] But you know they are unable
to see the wonder of that world.
Really what blocks them from truly understanding the wonder
of the world is that they see it really as resources,
many of the people -- the reason that they are there.
And that's what Columbus does to with this nightingales business,
with singing a thousand birds, their eight kinds of palm,
which are a wonder to behold on account
of their beautiful variety with several other trees and fruits
and plants and there are marvelous pine groves,
and there are very large tracks of cultivatable lands
and there is honey and there are birds of many kinds
of fruits of great diversity.
Did I say there were birds, like he says you know?
He's getting it across in the anterior of our mind
and the meadows and the population is without number.
Espanola, the last thing he mentions there is minds
of metals and of course we're going to need people
to get those mines of metals out, right.
So luckily there are people without number.
You know there's a kind of sinister side we say
to this document the drama of Columbus's life is
that he actually comes
to understand what you might say is the dark underside
of this conception of civilization.
The first voyage -- let me see did I bring the first voyage --
yes so he makes four voyages.
He raises money for a second voyage in 1493 but he's racked
with doubts when he discovers that the small settlement
that he's left back in this place that's been marveled is
a massacre.
His third voyage in 1498 is marked by his own in ill health
and by increasingly chaotic conditions back on Espanola.
In fact, at the end of this third voyage he is stripped
of all of his properties and sent back to Spain in chains.
I bet you didn't know that about the Columbus story.
He finally -- you know he finally gets his reputation back
and has a fourth voyage in 1602 that is
in fact a complete disaster and it sees him finally stranded
in Jamaica and that's where he writes this letter directly now
to the King Ferdinand
and Isabella regarding his fourth voyage
on the bottom of 33.
"Of Espanola, Paria and the other lands I never thing
without weeping", he writes.
"I believe that there example would have been
to the profit of others.
On the contrary they are in an exhausted state.
Although they are not dead,
the infirmity is incurable or very extensive."
Okay so how many years is this, eleven years later?
"Let him who brought them to this state come now
with a remedy if he can or if he knows it.
In destruction everyone is inept."
It was always a custom to give thanks and promotion
to him who is a person.
Now he is again his own situation.
He's talking about the injustice done to him.
But he's also talking about the cultural situation.
"It is not just that he who has been so hostile
to this undertaking should enjoy its fruits
or that his children should.
Those who left the Indies flying from toils and speaking
from evil of the matter in me have returned
with official employment.
So it has now been ordained in the case
of Oragua [Assumed spelling] is an ill-example
and without profit for the business and for the justice
of the world" and then he goes on.
So you can see that Columbus learns first hand
to see what it means to put your face in things like Kings
and great cities and there's a way
in which Columbus is emerging out of these letters
as the first of a kind of type, the first kind
of alienated American or the first American exile perhaps.
Now the guy who prepared a summary
of Columbus' first voyage it survives today as the diario
of Christopher Columbus was a sailor on the first voyage
who later became a monk and we might say the kind
of first new world activist on behalf of native Americans
and that's the next writer that's featured in the Norton,
Bartolome de las Casas.
And I ask you to take a look at this.
On the bottom of 36 you get his very brief relation
of the devastation of the Indies
and you can see you know how quickly Europeans have altered
the way the new world is.
This was the first land of the new world to be destroyed
and depopulated by the Christians.
And you've got to remember
by this time he's a monk right, he is a Christian.
"And here they began their subjection of the women
and children taking away --
taking them away from the Indians to use them
and ill-use them, eating the food they provided
with sweat and toil.
The Spaniards did not content themselves
with what the Indians gave them of their own free will according
to their ability, which was always too little
to satisfy enormous appetites.
For a Christian eats and consumes in one day the amount
of food that would suffice to feed three houses inhabited
by ten Indians for one month.
A bit of an exaggeration,
but you see the point he's trying to make.
"And they committed other acts of force and violence
and depression which made the Indians realize
that these men had not come from heaven.
Some of the Indians concealed their food while others
concealed their wives and children and still others fled
to the mountain to avoid their terrible transactions
with Christians and the Christians attacked them
with buffets and beatings until finally they laid their hands
on the nobles of the villages.
Then they behaved with such temerity and shamelessness
that the most powerful ruler of the islands had
to see his own wife raped by a Christian officer."
Alright so that gives you a sense of settlement
and discovery which really are misnomers perhaps for conquest.
And from this time on, from 1493 onward Europe maintains a
permanent presence in the West Indies.
Columbus finds the mainland of South America.
During the 1498 voyage he finds Central America.
During 1502 the Italian and Portuguese and at
that point we're exploring the coast of both South
and North America beginning in 1515
under the Charles the fifth, the grandson
of Charles and Isabella.
The Spanish enter Mexico, Florida, the Isthmus of Panama,
Cortez is conquering the Aztecs 20 years after this,
only 50 years after 1492 the Europeans have managed
to explore the east coast almost completely.
They've made major inroads into the continent
and they've defeated the most American civilizations
which were the ones in the south, the Aztecs and the Incas.
Fifty years after Columbus discovered first the new world
the Europeans are there to stay.
And in some sense the history
that we are now talking about begins.
Now part of the problem I've mentioned is
that the Indians weren't thought to have a civilization in part
because they didn't have writing.
They didn't have a written literature
but they did have an oral literature.
And I give you to read, I ask you take a look
at the two pieces that the Norton reprints for us,
the Iroquois Creation Story and the Pima Creation Story just
to give you the sense that there was something here before the
Europeans, and it was a culture.
There wasn't just a bunch of barbarians
who were better than animals, right.
They had a culture.
But the way they expressed their culture was oral.
And therefore the Europeans were unable
to understand as a culture.
Some anthologies of cultural America chose instead
to present you the gap.
They don't present any of these texts
because these texts are problematic.
For one thing anytime you get a written version of an oral text,
you're getting one performance of it.
So you've lost something about the essential nature,
the orality of the text,
only because you don't hear it spoken,
but because an oral text lives
with variations and it's passed on.
Any single rendering of it is just one performance,
as if you -- I mean I suppose we're used to doing
that as what a theater critic does.
He goes or she goes to one performance and makes a judgment
about the way the entire is play,
wondering whether it's a particularly good night
or a particularly bad night.
So we need to keep that with a grain of salt.
The other thing of course is that these are transcriptions
of oral presentations and therefore they are mediated.
There's somebody in between the oral presenter and the audience
who is the reader, even you might say
if that oral presenter is himself the writer
or transcriber.
Somebody who writes down an oral story is also mediating it
for us.
And I think the Norton introducer and I disagree
about the extent to which it seems likely that the second
of these Pima stories is actually mediated in that way.
There are ways in which you might say a European audience
would expect to see certain hallmarks of creation
in the creation story.
There should be a creator.
If you are a believer in the literal truth
of the bible you would say there would have to be a flood
so these things work their way in.
It's unclear whether there really were part of
or the extent to which they are part of the original story.
So what you might say is what you're getting
in some sense is a damaged, a very damaged version
of the original story that was here.
Nevertheless, I think for our purposes it's worth having even
that damaged version to call attention to the way
in which it's damaged to bring it out of chronology.
If we were going to read these in chronology in terms
of the time they were printed,
these are mid 19th century texts.
They don't belong at the beginning of the course.
But we have them here to again give us a sense
of the justice that's being done when we talk
about something as virgin land.
So I think it's important to remember
that these Native American creation stories we should
consider to be literary but they belong to an oral rather
than written literary tradition.
And that jester that Columbus has in his first letter
of naming, showing us the names that he's giving
to the island is actually an important thing.
I mean one of the things that you would say
that the Europeans do is they go and name everything
and take possession of it.
Sure you can stick a stand in the sand and unfurl your banner.
You can bring in soldiers but it's really when you start
to rename everything and bring in your culture
that you are actually taking possession of it.
And so, one of the things that we might say is
that this has become a kind
of understanding among many contemporary Native American
novelists and artists about the way that the conquest worked.
This is a wonderful novel, which if any of you
like 20th century literature I would imagine
that you should read this one.
It's one of the brilliant novels I think
of the late 20th century.
It's Leslie Mormon's Silk of Ceremony which is
about a Native American who has gone off to fight
in World War II and comes back kind of shell-shocked and tries
to reintegrate himself into his community.
It looks at first glance like a kind of wonderful,
modernist text but one of the things
that she is doing is trying to incorporate the oral tradition
of the Laguna Pueblo Indians into a kind
of western novelistic tradition.
This is one moment from that novel
and I think it's worth thinking about just for a second.
This is described in the Christianized Indian called --
she's the aunt of the protagonist
so she's called Auntie.
And the narrator tells us this,
"An old sensitivity had descended
in her surviving thousands of years from the oldest times
when the people shared a single clan name
and they told each other who they were.
They recounted the actions and words each of their clan
and taken and would take from before they were born
and long after they died.
The people shared the same consciousness.
The people had known with a simple certainty
of the world they saw how everything should be."
Pre-columbian, when people say pre-columbian
that means before Columbus' discovery.
So that's in some sense the pre-columbian vision,
the first four worlds.
But the fifth world had become entangled with European names.
The names of the rivers, the hills, the names of the animals
and plants, all creations suddenly had two names,
an Indian name and a white name.
Christianity separated the people from themselves.
They tried to crush the single clan name encouraging each
person to stand alone because Jesus Christ would save only the
individual soul.
Jesus Christ was not like the mother who loved and cared
for them as their children, as her family.
And you get a sense of that mother figure in one
of the stories, right.
In the Iroquois story, which is really very different
from the account of creation that we would get in Genesis,
and we get in Genesis right.
I mean the Pima story is a little more like that,
although again it's not quite certain why.
In the Iroquois story we sort of start in the middle.
There isn't like this moment of creation.
There's a greater emphasis on motherhood,
on process on collaboration, on community.
Again in contrast to the kind of radical individualism
that certainly from a Native American standpoint we would see
in Christianity and I think it's worth remembering this idea
of individualism because it will become important as we go
on for much of U.S. ideology is predicated on the idea
that that individualism is a good thing that's created many
good ideas like natural rights and other things like that
and we'll get to the flowering of it in Emerson and we'll talk
about self-reliance as the way
to develop not only a culture but a person.
So you might say that our liberal system is based
on the idea of individualism.
It's a strange idea from another cultural perspective.
Solko gets at that and I think some
of these stories will suggest that as well.
A different kind of culture another words is going to come
out of a creation story like the Iroquois then
out of a creation story like the one that we find in Genesis.
Compare the Iroquois mother of the world
in that story therefore to the you know male God figure
in the Christian tradition.
The monsters in the dark are not evil in the way that Satan later
on and his devils are evil.
They belong you might say to a different way of thinking
about the world and they come together
and they collaborate in the creation.
So when the good twin begins the work
of creation it can't be completed
until the bad twin is able to partake in that.
So I think that's a really quick of sketching you might say some
of the limits of the ideological tradition that comes along
to the new world with Christianity.
So I want you to look at those accounts and think
about the ways in which --
you know even the Pima account is different in certain ways.
Joworta Makai becomes a kind of trickster figure.
He makes mistakes, not
that there aren't mistakes that are made.
You know human beings aren't acting so well,
let's wipe everybody out except
for a single family and start again.
So there's some of that in the Christian tradition as well.
But you get the sense that there's more of a kind of trial
and error process, sort of the creator figure as a kind
of trickster even in the Pima account
and he makes the world four times until he is satisfied,
which scholars think corresponds to the emphasis that's placed
on the number four in many native cosmologies including the
Pima which would correspond say to the four directions as a kind
of significant number.
So I wanted just to put those out there for you as a way
of indicating something like this was here and a lot more
of it and we can't every really know what it was like.
That's what cultural theaters would call a situation
of cultural damage.
The cultural damage is profound.
Some tribes are completely wiped out.
You know the Puritans completely wipe out the Pequots later on.
That will become important to our friend Ishmael.
So again I want to just emphasize the contrast
between the oral and literary traditions.
Now I want to talk a little bit -- okay we'll do it this way.
I wanted to talk to you a little bit about the ways
in which the Puritans interpret the bible that will help you
to read some of the stuff -- to think about some of the stuff
that you've read already and to read the stuff that you're going
to start to read over the weekend,
which include John Winthrop's very famous sermon,
A Model of Christian Charity and then later on the account
of the captivity of Mary Rowlandson.
So one thing to understand is
that the Puritan's have a particular --
and you will have a piece
which you definitely should read carefully by Bruce Kuklick
which will go over the same material.
So I'm going to give it to you now, you can read it
and then it all -- you'll start to understand.
Because I think you will find in a way
that it's counter-intuitive or at least paradoxical.
One thing to understand about the Puritans I talked a lot
about cosmopolitanism in the first couple of classes.
The Puritans are what we would call counter-cosmopolitans.
They are fundamentalists and whatever it is you think
of fundamentalism you should think about the puritans.
I mean they are people who believe
that they have the one true way.
Do you remember a little bit
of your English history there's a whole big reformation that's
going on in Europe.
The English are a little bit late to the party
and it's not for the best reasons.
Henry the eighth decides he what needs a male heir.
He's tired of his catholic Spanish wife
so he decides to divorce her.
Slight problem with that, Catholics can't divorce.
So what's the solution?
Let's not be catholic anymore.
So Henry the 8th founds the Anglican church,
becomes the head of the church, grants himself his own divorce
and marries Ann Berlin and he keeps going
on until he finally gets a male heir who doesn't last very long
and is succeeded by his eldest daughter with Catherine
of Aragon, Mary the First.
She has another name, a nickname.
We drink it.
[Laughter] Some of us drink it.
>> Bloody Mary.
>> Bloody Mary.
Why is she called Bloody Mary?
Actually she should be called something like Roasty Mary,
because what she did was actually burn a lot
of Puritans at the stake.
And then Elizabeth who is a Protestant succeeds here
and then things switch around again.
But Elizabeth -- the Puritans don't
like Elizabeth much more either.
Elizabeth is a great politician so she is trying to mediate
between the different religious constituencies that she has.
So you have to imagine that in this period it's the Catholics
who are the right-wingers.
They represent the conservatives,
the long traditions of the church.
The Puritans are big left-wingers.
That's what I mean by counter-intuitive
because the way the cultural system is turned
around if you found a puritan in front
of you today you would think of them as right-wing in comparison
to our current ideological alignment.
And there are the lefties
and the Anglican's are somewhere in the center right.
Some people say that when Henry the eighth changed the church
around all he did was basically translate the liturgy
out of Latin and into English and left it there.
But you were still going to find a lot of incense and all kinds
of other rituals in high Episcopal services.
The Puritans don't line any of that.
They think it's all kind of graven images.
They think the church has become -- and rightly so -
they think it's become this bloated institution
which has gotten away from the true faith.
When was the church great, in the early years
of the first apostles and martyrs,
when the saints were walking among us.
They think of themselves as return to those days.
That's what they are trying to do.
They are trying to create small congregations that are going
to mirror the early church and luckily for them
in fact the have a Catholic persecuting monarch who's
creating new martyrs and new saints.
One of their revered books in this period is called Fox's Book
of Martyrs that talks about all this.
So Puritans come to create a theocracy, quite literally.
A separation of church and state,
they would find that idea ludicrous.
For them church is state, it's the only reason to have a state.
Now they bring with them a particular interpretation
of the old and new testaments and the relationship
between the old and new testaments
and you might say a part of this --
there's some key books for them.
Certainly Genesis and the Account
of the Fall are key books.
>> The Gospels.
>> The Gospels.
The -- Some of the Epistles of Saint Paul talk
about it a little bit with Winthrop,
because there's a certain kind --
certain part of Paul's message that they want to adopt
and a certain other part that they want to leave aside
and then the Book of Revelation.
Why the Book of Revelation?
Again think of the Puritans, the Berkovich article
on Puritan Vision of the New World is very good on this.
They have a different sense of history than we have.
We live in what they think
of as a secular history or debates history.
They live in the sense of sacred history and it's comforting
to live in sacred history in a certain way
because you know what, there's a roadmap in sacred history.
What is that roadmap?
Yeah it's the Bible.
It starts in Genesis, has a few bumps along the way
but eventually it leads to the day of judgment and they
like the day of judgment.
Why? Because they think they are living close to the end times
and they think they are God's chosen people re-created.
In fact, you could say they think they are really God's
chosen people.
The previous version of God's chosen people was just a warm-up
for them.
So they think of themselves as living in the end of days
and they're looking forward to that second coming of Christ
and all that comes with it.
So they go back, and under the influence
of John Calvin they start
to interpret the Bible in a certain way.
They think of the Bible as in Genesis establishing a covenant.
God establishes a covenant between himself and human kind,
between himself and Adam.
They regard this as the covenant.
It's called the Covenant of Works.
And it's a kind of a strange title
but what it basically means is that given the nature
of that covenant all of Adam's works were going to be good.
Adam didn't know the difference between good and evil.
There was no distinction between good and evil.
So, all of Adam's works were guaranteed to be good,
so long as Adam obeyed God.
And Adam pretty much said he could have all these beasts
and depending on which version you pay more attention to --
has anybody -- how many of you have actually read Genesis?
You ever notice that there is certain kinds
of repetition in Genesis.
It's like there's one creation of the world
in which Eve has a certain role and gets created
in a certain time and then somehow a few verses later
there's another one and she gets created out of the rib.
Have you ever read the story of Noah?
Everybody remember the story of the dove and Noah
and how many days, forty days and forty nights?
That's the one you remember?
Who remembers the raven in Noah?
There are two different versions of the Noah story and the Bible,
if you do sources studies of the Bible which they start to do
in the 19th century, you find that there are different sources
and there is thought to be an editor, a redactor figure
who brought these things together
and sometimes the seams show.
It's kind of a wonderful exercise.
It's kind of beyond the point here.
People who are in my Con West class may have seen it.
But if you're interested I'll put up a little piece
that you can read about this.
But the Noah story is wonderful
because you can almost pull them apart, almost perfectly
and read one entire account written by one source
that tells the story that features a dove.
An entire other account that works
in its own logic features a raven instead.
One of them has forty days and forty nights,
the other has a slightly different chronology.
The two of them however are intertwined
with one another in the actual text.
There have been in fact attempts to say
that they aren't separate, they go together and that
in fact you could make a kind
of chronological sense to all of this.
I would suggest that you just read it and take a look
and see what you think yourself.
In any case there was at least this one idea,
and at least one story was that Adam is basically supposed to go
and he's God's agent on the ground.
He's going to name things.
He's going to take possession and the world is created
for his dominion so long as he obeys one little rule,
"Do not touch the fruit of that tree over there."
That tree over there happens to be the --
>> Tree of knowledge.
>> Yeah it could go by the tree of knowledge
but it also has a longer name,
"The tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
Puritans, diehard Catholics would probably say,
"You know what, God could have picked any tree."
These are logical implications because you could say
if it's the tree of knowledge of good and evil
that God doesn't want to people to eat from is
because he specifically doesn't want them to know the difference
between good and evil so that there presumably wouldn't
be evil.
Others could say, "You know what,
the thing that's important is just God's commandment."
It could have been the tree of the recipe of how
to make sugar cookies [Laughter]
and he could have decided that was it.
So, basically it was obedience that was fundamentally at stake,
not the knowledge of good and evil.
Okay, either way Covenant of Works.
So you know the story right?
The serpent is that right, not exactly right.
Satan, but he's not the serpent yet,
he's some other form that we don't know.
He talks to Eve.
He had a little chat with her.
"This fruit really tastes pretty good.
It actually does, why don't you have it."
[Laughter] "It's good stuff."
So she has it and then she goes to her husband and either
because he's seen what she's done and he realizes
that he's got to take part in it or just because he's convinced
that it's good stuff, he eats it too.
What happens next?
>> They're chased from the garden.
>> Okay, before they're chased
from the garden what's the first thing they know?
>> What?
>> They realize they're naked.
>> They realize they're naked.
So they cover themselves.
[Laughter] I want you to remember that conjunction.
Especially when we get to The Scarlet Letter,
which I hope will look radically different to you with me
than it does -- by the time we get to it --
then it did in high school.
But there is something about --
look at the connection that is being made there.
If you assume that the knowledge of good
and evil is important the Puritans are going to say --
what's the first bit of knowledge that's evil
that they know, stuff about sex.
[Laughter] It's the woman's fault.
[Laughter] I mean just think about it.
The Catholic tradition -- I'm being a little irreverent
but not much -- the Catholic tradition reveres the
Virgin Mary.
There is no kind of feminist counter-weight,
equivalent in the Puritan tradition.
It's much more patriarchal, much more difficult.
And I think that will give you --
and if you keep that in mind you'll get a real sense
of the achievement of Mary Rowlandson
and Bradstreet as writers.
So we'll get to that next week and the week after.
But they know the knowledge, the have the knowledge of good
and evil and all of a sudden and it has everything to do
with good and evil; so sexuality and knowledge, very important.
And Hawthorne gets this and that's why he writes the story
that he does and when you get to it,
or if you've read it you'll remember
that she is being punished for a sexual sin
that she has been proven to have committed.
But in the course of what looks
like her penance she is sinning a lot more --
the sins of intellect.
And there's a connection that is being made
between those two things.
Okay so covenant of words broken, chased out of the garden
of evil, Satan takes the form of serpent and now
which is taking the form that we know it has, which it's forced
to wriggle on its belly
and it has an enemy forever with man and woman.
Human beings have to toil for their labor.
Instead of getting nice fruit of the tree you have to work,
you've got to plant stuff.
You've got to kill stuff.
Women [Sound effects] Child birth,
this doesn't mean anything to most of you.
I'll presume most of you yet.
But, child birth -- I've seen child birth way up close
and I haven't experienced it myself, but I've seen it.
Painful! [Laughter] I mean when you look at it you say,
"Who made up this system."
[Laughter] But then if you say, "Oh, but it was punishment."
But the thing about God though however --
the God of the Old Testament is a loving God.
He's very severe.
But the Israelites are always the chosen people
and he is chastising them, but he always cares about them.
That's one thing, even when they're
in captivity and prison you know.
They know that they are the chosen people
and that it will work out.
They have that promise.
So that's one of the things you've got to understand.
The New Testament is a different story.
From the Old Testament we get the doctorate of original sin.
The doctorate of original sin is a bit problematic
because why should all of human kind be punished
for one guy's mistake.
And you might say -- and I think I mentioned this --
that God knows, that whole bit about providence at the end
of the first chapter of Moby Dick.
God knows that I'm going to do this.
So was it really Adam's fault?
Didn't he kind of set up the situation.
Like using reverse psychology on my four year old.
"Don't eat the tricky fruit."
[Laughter] "Susie you can't possibly dress yourself before I
come into the room, can you?
I'm sure you can't."
So is it really -- I mean come on is it really Adam's fault?
Fine, and all that stuff that is going
on is happening pretty quick as far as we can tell.
So, Adam hasn't learned very much.
But God is merciful.
So the doctorate of original sin is really bad.
The doctorate of original sin means not only
that you have work and you have to bear life birth and all
that messy stuff, but you're also going
to hell at the end of that.
Yes, human beings are now eternally damned.
Really I mean it, the hot place.
You're going to hell.
That is the meaning of the doctorate of original sin.
It will have a name and it will be called total depravity.
But God is merciful.
Human beings deserve nothing, nothing.
But God does still love them.
So he creates a new deal.
The new deal is another covenant.
It's called by the Puritan's the covenant of grace.
Anybody have an idea who seals this bargain?
You've all heard it.
>> Jesus Christ.
>> Jesus Christ that's right, God's only begotten son comes
down to the world to extend God's mercy.
So what does Jesus do?
He sacrifices himself.
There's a certain way of which the Old Testament is still
partaking of a certain kind of old and logical sacrifice.
And remember Jesus is Jewish.
He found Christianity, but he's Jewish.
He sacrifices himself on the cross
as the supreme act of love.
That's the interpretation that they get from Paul.
Paul is the one.
If you think about why -- if you're skeptical of Christianity
for any reason you say why do Christians revere
that kind of bloody crucifix?
It's because they don't see it that way.
They see it a supreme symbol of love,
somebody that loved other people so much that he was willing
to undergo that and you might say that kind
of wipes out the books.
Human beings owed God more then they could possibly repay
because of the doctorate of original sin.
But Christ suffers so much that he wipes out the books.
[Sound effects] and that is the new covenant
and it's the covenant of grace.
And according to Puritan logic, the covenant
of grace is actually better.
The covenant of words is fine.
It's in the Garden of Eden.
It's scenery, good food, but is God above.
Covenant of grace, where did those who received grace get
to be -- Garden of Eden, no --
at God's right hand with the angels, up there.
It's better so there's a certain logic that's in place there.
This was good, and we broke it and we suffered
but we got back, which is better.
It's through suffering that we achieve something greater.
This mode of thinking is called typology.
And the larger mode of thinking is typological hermeneutic.
So hermeneutic -- hermeneutic is a way of interpreting
and hermeneutics pleural is you might say the science
of interpretations.
When you put it together it means a way
of interpreting through typology.
A typology -- and it's a way of interpreting first the Bible.
Now typology depends on the existence
of types and anti-types.
And they don't mean exactly what you think they're going to mean.
And type is the first thing.
When I don't know.
On the day of the iPad this seems radically inaccurate
to be saying this.
But it's like a font of type.
Maybe I should say like a stamp pad.
Maybe like the dye that you use to create,
maybe like a reverse image.
So you take your stamp pad, you ink it and what is that you care
about the stamp itself?
No you care about the image that you create.
The image is the anti-type.
The type is the kind of reversal of the anti-type.
The type prepares the way for the anti-type.
The type's meaning only comes clear
when you encounter the anti-type.
You don't care about the stamper.
You care about the image that's produced.
You don't care about the dye that produces the coin.
That's the relationship.
Now in the Puritan understanding the Old Testament is full
of types.
That's what they are.
Like the recurrence of forty, forty days and forty nights,
[Inaudible] at forty days all pre-figures Christ
out in the desert struggling with Satan and his conscious
for forty days and forty nights.
The meaning of forty days and forty nights only comes clear
through the life of Christ.
And you pick any number of things.
And if you actually go back and read the gospel according
to Saint Matthew especially you will see
that he's very concerned to show that some of things
that Christ does fulfills scripture.
Christ is the fulfillment of what has been predicted
or foreshadowed in the Old Testament.
And so it has that relationship.
It's a way of reading the Bible in other words that gives
of pride of place in the New Testament over the Old Testament
and it says that the Old Testament is kind
of like John the Baptist, it has a preparatory relationship
for the New Testament.
This all really comes out of their understanding,
comes out of Calvin's Institute of the Christian's religion.
The Puritans, so this is on the eve of the Bradford's
and the other Puritan's coming to the new world in 1620.
There's a big meeting of the church elders
in Holland called the Synod of Dort.
And they agree on a kind of official interpretation
of Calvin's Institute and that's the one that they start to put
into practice with the new world.
So this is the idea that comes out of original sin,
the total depravity of human kind.
And I mean total, right.
You're totally depraved right?
You're born.
You're going to hell.
However because God is mercifully
and there is a thing called unconditional election
that takes place.
It doesn't mean you vote.
This means that you become among the elect.
It means that you are saved and you receive grace.
It's unconditional because there's no strings attached
to it, not on God's end and not on yours.
There's nothing you can do to earn it.
This is the point that I have to stress.
For the Puritans there is no way to do enough good works
to balance -- to pay off your debt.
Only Christ can pay off your debt.
So there is no way that good works can earn your way
into heaven and if you think that's true
for them it's a heresy.
They call it the Arminian heresy
after the Dutch thinking Jacobus Arminius who propounded it.
So any chance good works getting you into heaven?
No, no, no, you could be the worst sinner in the world,
but if you're converted and you receive grace boom you're in.
The best person in the world, not received grace,
sorry the gates barred to you.
But there's another hitch I forgot to mention --
did I mention Christ died for not quite everybody's sins.
He died for those who were already going to be elect.
So Christ's atonement for these sins is limited.
Christ died for the chosen people
and who are the chosen people?
Funny how that works right?
The Puritans are the chosen people.
But good thing is there's -- grace is nice and irresistible.
I mean when you read accounts a little bit, which we will,
it's like receiving grace, whoa.
And guess what once you have it you always have it,
perseverance of the saints.
It's probably more correct to use the French theory
who say you always already had it.
Because God always already knew who was going
to receive grace and who wasn't.
So these are five principles
that I would like you to remember.
They will help you as read the Puritans.
Can anybody thing of a way?
No Con westies.
>> Yes, TULIP -- total hereditary depravity,
unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace
and perseverance of the saints, TULIP.
Are there any questions about it?
No [Laughter] we're not going to play that one yet.
We are almost as you can tell at the end.
But I want to know if there's any questions about it this?
>> [Inaudible background question]
>> Well we'll talk about this.
I mean the goal is the Puritans believed --
hope that all of them are going to have been saved.
But the goal is here in their theocracy here
in the new world is they want to try to create a church
that is close to what they will call the invisible church.
So it's actually God's church that is actually real and exists
in heaven and God's mind.
And they want to mirror that on earth.
So they really want only the chosen to be there.
Than there's a kind of an epistemologic kind of problem,
how do we know who's chosen and who isn't?
I mean it goes without saying that John Winthrop
or William Bradford, they're chosen right.
And what about their kids --
kids don't seem to have the greatest experience,
that proves to be a problem later on and they have to figure
out ways to deal with it.
So there's a kind of -- there's a couple weird paradoxes
that I want you to be thinking about.
One is if God has already chosen all of this, how can there
by anything like free will?
How can that work?
And we have an idea of providence
and what's called pre-destination
and also have free well at the same time.
Don't those constitute mutually exclusive ideas?
So that's one thing that the Puritans are going
to wrestle with.
And how do you know if you have the signs of grace?
And it's going to be really important if you're trying
to create a society or even a politics that's based on this.
You gotta now who's in and who's out.
But only God knows really who's in or who's out.
So you've to figure out ways of guessing.
That's one of the upshots of this, but what I want you
to see is the way in which what we have here is a kind
of haunted imagination.
Everything means something.
Nothing is neutral.
Typological hermeneutics starts as a way of reading the Bible
but becomes a way of history and their own daily experience.
In other words, if strictly speaking typological
hermeneutics is a way of reading the New Testament,
or reading the Old Testament in the light of the new or the way
of reading New Testament that says that's the fulfillment
of the Bible, for the Puritans typological hermeneutics starts
as that but it radically becomes something else.
It becomes a way of reading their own history and experience
and seeing the entire Bible as a type that they are fulfilling
or full of types which they are fulfilling.
They are they say, "The latter day Israelites."
That means the previous Israelites only mean something
with the appearance of the Puritans.
It's only with the appearance of the Puritans
who are the anti-type, the meaning of the Israelites
that it finally becomes clear and fulfilled.
That's you might say the ultimate hubris
of their way of thinking.
But it's comforting in a certain way because when things start
to get bad here in the new world,
and like Avatar the new world kills a lot of them,
they have comfort because they know it's for a purpose.
They know that God cares about them
and when things go really bad they blame themselves
and say God is punishing us.
But it's only because he wants us to get back
on the straight and narrow.
It's not unlike we break the covenant with them
and Winthrop will use this language of covenant
but we can always re-establish it just
because there's a precedent for that -- the covenant of words,
the covenant of grace.
We establish that we are still God's chosen people.
That's comforting for them.
But it means, go back under this point
under this point they're always trying to figure out ways
of understanding what things mean.
So the littlest thing can be read typologically
and these things are.
People look at the tiniest events
and try to understand them.
But understand, they've got this kind of template.
It's another template.
Columbus has the template of wonder;
these guys have the template of typological hermeneutics.
Let me give you one instance of this
and then we can be done for the day.
Take a look -- if you have it with you --
take a look at the piece that's called Mourt's relation
and you can see -- you've got this thing printed out,
which I hope you do, take that out and then at the same time go
to the first volume of the anthology and turn to page 116.
[ Sound effects ]
>> Now this Mourt's relation is a pamphlet.
It was published in England in 1622.
It's thought to have been written by William Bradford
and Edward Winslow in the colonies and brought back
by this guy named George Mourt to be printed.
And it's -- not unlike Columbus' letter it's kind
of like a pitch.
It's almost like prospectus for further colonization
and it's kind of a justification.
So when you read it you will see that in some sense it partakes
of that same kind of discourse of wonder.
Okay they get to --
"On Wednesday the 6th of September the wind,
coming east northeast, a fine small gale,
we lose from Plymouth.
Having been entertained kindly and courteously
by diverse friends we had their dwelling and many difficulties
in boisterous storms that landed by God's providence.
Upon the 9th of November, falling at the break of day,
we spied land upon which we deemed to be Cape Cod
and so afterward it proved.
And the appearance comforted us, especially feeling so goodly
at land and would it to the brink of the sea cause us
to rejoice together and praise God
that had given us once again to see land."
And what you -- if you read through it you see
that they just can't believe,
again like Columbus they're comparing it to what they know
and they can't believe how lush it is.
"And later on circle on the entrance which is
about four miles over from land to land,
compassed from the very sea with oaks, pines, junipers,
sassafras and other sweet wood.
It is a harbor with a thousand sail of ships, may safely ride."
Good to know for the future right,
if we wanted people to come here.
And then at the end they start exploring the shore a little
in the shallop, which is a little ship.
And the very last paragraph we have.
"As soon as we could we set ashore, 15 or 16 men,
well armed with some to fetch wood as we had none left so as
to see what the land was
and inhabitants they could meet with.
They found it to be a small neck of land and the side lay the bay
and the furthest side the sea and the ground or earth,
the sand hills much like the downs
in Holland, but much better.
The carse of the earth a spit's deep,
excellent back earth all wooded with oaks, pine, sassafras,
juniper, birch, holly, vines some ash, walnut.
The wood for the most part open and underwood,
fit either to go or ride in.
At night our people returned but found not any person."
Unlike Columbus they don't see anybody at first.
"Not any person nor habitation and laden their boat
with juniper that smelled very sweet and strong
and which we burned many of the time we laid there."
Alright again this pamphlet partakes
in the discourse of wonder.
Go ten years into the future
and you get Bradford writing the history now
of Plymouth Plantation.
And if you look on the bottom of page 116 at chapter 10,
you will see an interesting date.
"Being thus arrived at Cape Cod the 11th of November
and necessity calling them to look at a place for habitation
as well as the masters and mariners,
they having brought a large shallop
with the [Inaudible] stood on shores
of the ship they now got her out
and took their carpenters to trim her up.
But being much bruised in the ship
with foul weather they saw she would be long in mending."
Okay we've got the same dates.
This is another account of the same event and they talk
about -- he goes on and talks about all
of this stuff [Sound effects] that's going on here.
One of the things I want you to see is the way
in which Bradford is re-writing.
From the time that he gets Mourt's relation
to this he is re-writing.
And the way to understand how the re-writing works is
through typology.
Alright so what I want you to do over the weekend is
to go back right before the place
that I've just brought you, which is chapter 9,
which starts off September 6th, which is the same place
of the excerpt from Mourt's Relation.
And what I want you to think about is what is the difference
between this earlier account and the account
that we see in Mourt's Relation?
What has Bradford done to filter his account through the idea
of typological hermeneutics?
Where would you find moments of typological thinking?
You should be looking for moments
where he's comparing the Puritans
to the saints earlier on?
What is the logical of those comparisons?
Who had it worse, the apostles being shot at or these guys?
And remember this idea of the lush, wonderful wilderness
that they've come to in Mourt's relation,
how is it portrayed here?
Is it the same kind of wilderness
or is it something else?
And if it's something else, why portray it in that way?
One last thing and this you would find in the --
probably the single place to look at the exemplary place
to look at would probably be in the middle of 115.
He says that they didn't find anybody
but in the Plymouth Plantation he brings those people
that they didn't find into his account right here
in a particular way.
Why do that?
What's the point?
Okay, this is one of the earliest books we might say --
Plymouth Plantation is one of the earliest histories
of the Americas -- of North America.
And the think to understand is that at the moment you might say
that American history writing is being created.
It's revisionist history.
It's re-writing.
Why? That's where we'll start when we start next week.
[Background sound effects] Thank you.