The Maypole of Merry-Mount

Comparing the Writings of Bradford, Hawthorne and Morton

As every coin has two sides, there are always different perceptions to the same story.  In the case of the Maypole of Merry-mount, the American reader has three viewpoints; two of the tales are written contemporarily by participants in the tale, namely William Bradford and Thomas Morton, and the third version is by Nathaniel Hawthorne approximately two hundred years later (Perkins 64, 955).  By discussing the symbolic Maypole, the authors’ accounts of the merriments, and why they wrote about the Maypole, one may discern the differing perspectives.

                             

Taken from ancientlights.org

First of all, what was the Maypole?  While Bradford was the least descriptive in his writings, which is most likely due to his condemnation of the object, authors Morton and Hawthorne wrote at length about it.  Thomas Morton heralded the Maypole as a symbol of good English tradition and revelry, and he wrote that it was “[a] goodly pine tree of 80 foot long reared up, with a pair of buck’s horns nailed on somewhat near unto the top of it, where it stood as a fair sea mark for directions how to find out the way to mine Host of Ma-re Mount” (Perkins 68).  To compare, Nathaniel Hawthorne took the Maypole a step further in both the symbolism and the description of the Maypole by positioning the Maypole to stand for youth, idealistic dreams, self-deception, and perhaps even for the brevity of life and happiness (948).  There is also a substantial amount of detail, as Hawthorne pens,

“Never has the Maypole been so gayly decked as at sunset on midsummer eve.  This venerated emblem was a pine-tree, which has preserved the slender grace of youth, while it equaled the loftiest height of the old wood monarchs.  From its top streamed a silken banner, colored like the rainbow.  Down nearly to the ground the pole was dresses with birchen boughs, and others of the liveliest green, and some with silvery leaves, fastened by ribbons that fluttered in fantastic knots of twenty different colors, but no sad ones.  Garden flowers, and blossoms of the wilderness, laughed gladly forth amid the verdure, so fresh and dewy that they must have grown by magic on that happy pine-tree.  Where this green and flowery splendor terminated, the shaft of the Maypole was stained with the seven brilliant hues of the banner at its top.  On the lowest green bough hung an abundant wreath of roses, some that had been gathered in the sunniest spots of the forest, and others, of still richer blush, which the colonists had reared from English seed” (945-46).

Taken from wilsonsalmanac.com

                The accounts of what happened at the Maypole of Merry-Mount differentiate as well, for each writer acquires a contradictory tone in his retelling.  To begin with, Nathaniel Hawthorne discusses at length the festivities, and he makes many connotations to Greco-Roman mythology as well as compares the party-goers to animals (Perkins 946).  His ambiance  however, is the most ambiguous of the three, and when reading “The Maypole of Merry Mount,” one wonders if Hawthorne sees the good and bad in both groups.  To contrast, Thomas Morton has a definite, laissez-faire tone to his retelling of the story.  He assumes the air that the entire ordeal was for a little fun and just “harmless mirth made by young men” (69).  Perhaps by belittling their revelries and by establishing the Maypole as part of English tradition, Morton defended himself from other, more negative, accounts.  Indeed, the most disapproving writer of the Maypole was William Bradford, who looked forward to the end of Merry-Mount’s reign.  He wrote,

“They also set up a maypole, drinking and dancing about it many days together, inviting Indian women for their consorts, dancing and frisking together like so many fairies, or furies, rather; and worse practices.  As if they had anew revived and celebrated the feasts of the Roman goddess Flora, or the beastly practices of the mad Bacchanalians.  Morton likewise, to show his poetry composed sundry rhymes and verses, some tending to lasciviousness, and others to the detraction and scandal of some persons, which he affixed to this idle or idol maypole” (62).

Taken from rhapsodyinbooks.wordpress.com

Last but not least, the possible motivations for writing about the Maypole greatly affect each writer’s perspective.  Conceivably the easiest author to understand is Thomas Morton as he used the pen to defend himself from the accusations of the Puritans and uphold his (good?) reputation.  Both historical accounts and the very tone of Morton affirm this view, for this man was not very popular with the other folks in Plymouth.  Moving on to William Bradford, he is also somewhat simple to comprehend, for while Bradford disliked Morton and his followers for their business deals (i.e. giving weapons to the Indians) and their pagan, immoral behaviors, he primarily recorded the events as a historical evidence to the Puritans’ victory (Perkins 64).  Indeed, perhaps the mention of Morton and his evil actions, combined with the Puritan’s takeover of Merry-Mount, were all to inform and warn the later generations.  Finally, with Nathaniel Hawthorne, he primarily uses the Maypole as the scene for a tale, or a love story, which defines his entire view of the early colonists.  Hawthorne neither supports the Puritans nor Morton and his followers; instead, he finds a middle ground in between.  This is best said during the wedding dance as Hawthorne writes,

“Alas, for the young lovers!  No sooner has their hearts glowed with real passion than they were sensible of something vague and unsubstantial in their former pleasures, and felt a dreary presentiment of inevitable change.  From the moment that they truly loved, they had subjected themselves to the earth’s doom of care and sorrow, and troubled joy, and had no more a home at Merry Mount” (947). 

Cite:

Perkins, George B., and Barbara Perkins. The American Tradition in Literature. 12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.

Idolatry and the Absence of the Divine

“Ligeia” vs. “To My Dear and Loving Husband”

Can an author’s one obsession blot out another theme?  Or can two almost contradictory ideas, or persons, coincide in good writing?  The presence of the Divine in early American literature is nearly an unmovable force, yet some authors, say Anne Bradstreet and Edgar Allan Poe, threaten this sturdy pillar with some paltry writings of their beloveds.  By reviewing the fanaticism in the relationships and the presence (or lack of) God in these works, one can see if both the Divine and other idolatry can co-exist.

Taken from article.wn.com

Beginning with Anne Bradstreet and “To My Dear and Loving Husband,” the themes of intimacy, love, and a blessing of a heavenly future are expressed in such tones that were uncommon in Puritan society. Instead of valuing God and the Holy Scriptures, as her religion demanded at the time, Bradstreet revered her husband and her happiness with him.  This is most noticeable as Bradstreet rhymes, “Compare with me ye women if you can. / I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold, / Or all the riches that the east doth hold” (Perkins 103).  She does, however, squeeze religion and a mention of heaven at the end of the poem, yet this action all the more affirms her idolatry of her husband, as she pens, “The heavens reward thee manifold, I pray” (103).  Thus, though heaven is mentioned, Bradstreet replaces the traditional reverence and love of God with her husband, Simon Bradstreet.

Taken from show10.gdnm.org

To compare, in “Ligeia,” Edgar Allan Poe pens a supernatural horror where an idolatrous relationship is far too obvious between the opium-addicted narrator and Ligeia.  The narrator often goes on and on describing her beauty, grace, and intellect, and he obsesses over her eyes for hours at night (Perkins 863).  For example, Poe writes,

“I examined the contour of the lofty and pale forehead—it was faultless—how cold indeed that word when applied to a majesty so divine!—the skin rivaling the purest ivory, the commanding extent and repose the gentle prominence of the regions above the temples; and then the raven-black, the glossy, the luxuriant and naturally-curling tresses, setting forth the full force of the Homeric epithet, “hyacinthine!”” (862).

Likewise, Ligeia appears extremely devoted to him as she enlightens his eyes to forbidden wisdoms and knowledge as well as poured out her love to him, the narrator, near the end of her death (864-65).  The absence of God is strangely pronounced again in “Ligeia,” with supernatural ideas and events taking place instead; in this way, Poe nearly exterminates the previously unshakeable God-focused literature by telling stories of evil and psychological despair (868-72).

In short, at least in the writings of “To My Dear and Loving Husband” and “Ligeia,” the presence of the Divine and mortal obsessions cannot cohabit together.  This may be due to a variety of reasons, and while some may think that the two should never mix, perhaps the better reason is that adulation—either of another human or of God—is an all-consuming passion which obliterates all else.

Cite:

Perkins, George B., and Barbara Perkins. The American Tradition in Literature. 12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.

Olaudah Equaino and Benjamin Franklin

Courtesy of en.wikiedia.org

Courtesy of answers.com

While Olaudah Equiano (1745 - 1797) and Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790) both pen an autobiography of sorts, they differ greatly in the style or the theme of their writings.  To begin with, Benjamin Franklin is extremely proud and self-centered in The Autobiography.  He exceeds the normal limits of pride and “painting oneself as good,” and he shows himself as a wily, independent man who made himself up from nothing.  For example, when Franklin first arrived in Philadelphia, he recorded an almost inconceivable good deed, writing,

“Then I turned and went down Chestnut Street and part of Walnut Street, eating my roll all the way, and, coming round, found myself again at Market Street wharf, near the boat I came in, to which I went for a draught of river water; and, being filled with one of my rolls, gave the other two to a woman and her child that came down the river in the boat with us, and were waiting to go farther” (Perkins 293).

Another notable and independent act was Benjamin Franklin’s listing of good qualities that he wished to attain (Perkins 307-09).  Perhaps this would have been not so self-sufficient, if not for Franklin’s lack of Divine assistance in the section and throughout his autobiography.  He begins this with,

“It was about this time I conceived the bold and arduous project of arriving at moral perfection.  I wished to live without committing any fault any time; I would conquer all that either natural inclination, custom, or company might lead me into” (307).

To compare, Olaudah Equiano bears a more historic style, listing happens just as they were instead of pairing events with his philosophy or wisdom.  He does not have an independent or prideful air about him, as with Franklin, in his book of The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano.  One example of his writing is,

“One day they had taken a number of fishes, and when they had killed and satisfied themselves with as many as they though fit, to our astonishment who were on deck, rather than give any of them to use to eat, as we excepted, they tossed the remaining fish into the sea again, although we begged and prayed for some as well as we could, but in vain; and some of my countrymen, being pressed by hunger took an opportunity when they thought no one saw them of trying to get a little privately; but they were discovered, and the attempt procured them some very severe floggings” (Perkins 395).

However, near the end of his passages, Olaudah Equiano revels in what would be his highest quality; he worships God for his freedom and compares himself to a Biblical character, both which connect his writing deeper to the reader.  He writes,

“As I was leaving the house I called to mind the words of the Psalmist, in the 126th Psalm, and like him, “I glorified God in my heart, in whom I trusted” … All within my breast was tumult, wildness, and delirium!  My feet scarcely touched the ground, for they were winged with joy; and, like Elijah, as he rose to Heaven, they “were with lightening sped as I went on.”  Everyone I met I told of my happiness, and blazed about the virtue of my amiable master and captain” (Perkins 400).

Cite:

Perkins, George B., and Barbara Perkins. The American Tradition in Literature. 12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.

Tecumseh—The Unsuccessful Thomas Paine

Taken from: algerblog.blogspot.com

Taken from: en.wikipedia.org

The speech of Tecumseh, titled “The White Men Are Not Friends to the Indians,” bears an uncanny resemblance to the battle cries of Thomas Paine.  However, unlike the successful author of Common Sense, Tecumseh fails in his task of uniting his people and freeing them from the white men.  By briefly reviewing the main points of their works as well as their historical circumstances, one may discover why Tecumseh failed in his mission.

First of all, both authors share the same purposes of independence and ridding themselves of their enemies.  Additionally, they list several grievances; with Thomas Paine, he drew his animosity from the British’s occupation and financial over-burdening, especially from the recent taxation from the French and Indian Wars (Perkins 338-40). Tecumseh then mentions the sins of the Indians’ enemies, the white men, saying,

“The white people came among us feeble; and now we have made them strong, the wish to kill us, or drive us back, as they would wolves and panthers … The white men want more than our hunting grounds; they wish to kill our warriors; they would even kill our old men, women, and little ones … The white men despise and cheat the Indians; they abuse and insult them; they do not think the red men sufficiently good to live” (516-17).

Thomas Paine and Tecumseh both promise, or acknowledge, Divine assistance in their plans.  The model Thomas Paine expresses that his “opinion has ever been, and still is, that God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom can invent” (Perkins 345).  Likewise, Tecumseh ends his speech with,

“We must be united; we must smoke from the same pipe; we must fight each other’s battles; and more than all, we must love the Great Spirit: he is for us; he will destroy our enemies, and make all his red children happy” (517).

Then, while Thomas Paine employs optimistic future planning and stirring rhetoric as to why the oppressor is so evil, Tecumseh leaves such important sections out.  It may be easy to see for what reason Thomas Paine won America over with his details of government and legislation as well as his description of England’s continued rule as unnatural (Perkins 336, 340-44).  Conversely, as Tecumseh lacks such strong plans and reasoning, his speech of “The White Men Are Not Friends to the Indians” may have been doomed to fail.

Last but not least, the historical situations of Thomas Paine and Tecumseh greatly differ.  For one, while Paine was able to communicate quickly with a vast multitude of people through the printing press, Tecumseh was forced to travel the continent and make speeches (Perkins 515).  Then, the men had extremely different allies to assist them in their goals; Thomas Paine and the rest of the Americans were friends (and often immigrants from) all different countries of Europe, and they could rely on them for help.  Meanwhile, the Indians under Tecumseh had virtually no allies as they were rebelling from the white men, so that even the promised assistance from King George III seemed empty and counter-intuitive (517).  Indeed, with so many Indians relying on the white men’s goods, Tecumseh again seemed set up for failure, and even his great abilities as an orator would no longer help him (Ohio History Central).

Cite:

"Tecumseh's Confederation." Ohio History Central. Ohio Historical Society, 1 July 2005. Web. 06 Oct. 2012. <http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=637>.

Perkins, George B., and Barbara Perkins. The American Tradition in Literature. 12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.

Thomas Paine vs. Benjamin Franklin

Thomas Paine - Taken from www.thefederalistpapers.org

Benjamin Franklin - Taken from www.etc.usf.edu

Thomas Paine (1737 – 1809) and Benjamin Franklin (1706 – 1790) were both central figures in the American Revolutionary War and influential writers.  Though similar in their direct, propagandist writing style, these authors somewhat differed in the content of their works.   A brief comparison of Paine and Franklin’s works will demonstrate the beliefs of United States’ founding authors.

With subject matter, Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin are similar with little to no strong Christian faith in their writings, and instead they promote overall religious freedom (Perkins 311, 357).  Franklin also elates himself in many areas, which are traditionally religious or God-centered, rather than praising God.  For instance, when he wrote down admirable morals to keep, Franklin did not mention God or ask for his assistance at all (308).  He also hints universalism, a view that all religion led to the same path, as he writes of a church,

“Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher if any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit in his service” (311).

Thomas Paine held similar beliefs as well, and in his work The Age of Reason one notices that he rejects organized religion, views second and third retellings (i.e. the Bible) as hearsay and believed that creation was God’s primary method of revelation to man (Perkins 351-52, 354).  In addition, Paine appears almost blasphemous as he personally doubts the Virgin Birth and the Divine authorship of the Ten Commandments (352-53).   Paine’s filter of reason and support of religious freedom are quite evident in his summarizing words, “Adam, if ever there was such a man, was created a Deist; but in the meantime let every man follow, as he has a right to do, the religion and the worship he prefers” (357).

Then, both had a similar view of America, yet while Franklin’s antagonists are the indolent, Paine targets the cowards.  Beginning with Thomas Paine, he perceived the Tories, or the men still loyal to England, as the worst men, who are weak at heart, and undeserving of their blessings in life (Perkins 339).  Paine views these loyalists as such due to the fact that when injured by the British, they do not retaliate.  He writes,

“But if you have [been hurt by England], and can still shake hands with the murderers, then you are unworthy the name of husband, father, friend, or lover; and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant” (340).

To contrast, Benjamin Franklin critics laziness in his writings, since indolence is the very opposite of what he strove for in his life.  In his essay titled “Information to Those Who Would Remove to America,” he compares the idle gentlemen to a hog, writing that the lazy are “otherwise good for nothing, till by their death their estates, like the carcass of the Negro’s gentleman-hog, come to be cut up” (Perkins 329).

Finally, while Franklin left out political turmoil, Paine directly addressed it.  Benjamin Franklin never does mention the Revolutionary War or political tension in his letters, most likely because he is trying to display the good in America (Perkins 328-30).  However, for Thomas Paine, the potential war and tension are at the heart of what he is writing for, which is the independence of the American Colonies (343).  In his pamphlet Common Sense, Paine covers why America should separate from England and how they can thrive afterwards, creating the separation to be natural, practical and extremely logical (336-39).  For example, he writes,

“Small islands not capable of protecting themselves are the proper objects for government to take under their care; but there is something absurd in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island.  In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet; and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverse the common order of nature, it is evident that they belong to different systems.  England to Europe: America to itself” (340-41).

Cite:

Perkins, George B. and Barbara Perkins. The American Tradition in Literature. 12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.

"Thomas Paine Quotes." Thomas Paine. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2012. <http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founders/thomas-paine-quotes>.

"Benjamin Franklin." Educational Technology Clearinghouse. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2012. <http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/49700/49763/49763_ben_franklin.htm>.