It's All 18th Century to Me

A commonplace book blog where I can vent my feelings over the 18th century (But it will probably mostly just be me getting angsty over Pamela – She does the darnedest things!)

[itsall18thcenturytome]

How Americans Got Red Meat Wrong

Early diets in the country weren't as plant-based as you might think.

I found this article about the large popularity of meat in United States cuisine when researching for my presentation this week. My favorite quote is, “Meanwhile, also contrary to our common impression, early Americans appeared to eat few vegetables. Leafy greens had short growing seasons and were ultimately considered not worth the effort.” Of course, I was aware that meat was a large staple of this time period, but it is interesting that America ate even more meat that England, which we discussed also had an aspect of nationalism to it. The article also notes that this large consumption of meat in America was one of the reasons moving there seemed appealing to the English. Basically, this article proved to me that the food that is consumed and popular in a specific area says a lot about the culture, and at this point, America and England were both big believers in the possibly accurate, according to the article, curative powers of beef. 

[itsall18thcenturytome]

What Women Want

“Women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness of temper, outward obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile king of property, will obtain for them the protection of man; and should they be beautiful, everything else is needless, for, at least, twenty years of their lives.” 

-Mary Wollstonecraft A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

Throughout Wollstonecraft’s famous proto-feminist essay, she is constantly using her words to demonstrate the value of women to English society and the many ways that they have been overlooked. She does that in this quote as well by arguing that women have always used tact in order to navigate their own status. Therefore, Wollstonecraft is implying that women do not lack brain power or finesse, rather, they lack the option to use it in the way that men do. While men are given the chance routinely to write essays, rules nations, and travel the world, women are given the chance to find the best husband by using her brain, looks, and wit. It is clear that while Wollstonecraft prefers male pursuits, she understands that women are already expelling their mental capacities equally when they are courting a man. 

This passage stuck out to me because of Wollstonecraft’s ability to simultaneously be extremely feminist while also being extremely not. For example, she argues and proves fairly effectively that society has wronged the female population in two ways: 1) by believing that their day-to-day activities are not difficult and 2) taking that as a sign that they are weak. This is very feminist because it argues that what women do is valuable, hard, and demands a second look. However, she is also implying, in both this moment and the entire essay, that women should be doing something more important that the frivolous pursuits that women have the opportunity to do now. 

She brings this point home with her emphasis on women’s “outward obedience,” implying that all women who marry and bear children are secretly wishing for more. Of course, some women are happy to live in this system, but these are not the women that Wollstonecraft is trying to liberate. These women are the women that, starting in this essay and going on throughout history, feminism has always had the hardest time accomodating into the movement, and we see the beginnings of this conflict in this passage. While Wollstonecraft is making a femiinist argument in principle, she is mostly just reaffirming the values of the enlightenment and the men we have read. She wants the chance to create meaning through writing, travel, and rule. To her, mothering is only something that women pretend to want. 

[itsall18thcenturytome]

One of my favorite moments of Marie Antoinette has always been this easter egg. While the titular character is trying on shoes, there is this pair of high top Converse sneakers in a lovely, and very French, powder blue. Sofia Coppola, the director, has stated that she put those shoes there in an attempt to show us, the viewer, that Marie was just an average teenager girl. It is a fascinating film technique, the update of an older time in order to demonstrate the striking similarities between then and now, and now that I have taken this class, I have begun to realize that before I was even studying the 18th century I was already interested and relating to it. Weirdly enough, I didn’t even remember this connection until we watched the famous shoe trying on scene in class on Friday. Apparently, I have always been interested in the 18th century through my love of converse and Marie Antoinette at the age of 12. (Even if I didn’t make the connection until 10 years later!) 

[itsall18thcenturytome]

Mum’s the Word

“I own I am shocked at the purchase of slaves, And fear those who buy them and sell them are knaves; What I hear of their hardships, their tortures, and groans Is almost enough to draw pity from stones. I pity them greatly, but I must be mum, For how could we do without sugar and rum? Especially sugar, so needful we see; What, give up our desserts, our coffee, and tea?”

-Pity for Poor Africans by William Cowper (1-8) 

The beginning of William Cowper’s look at the sugar trade and the ethical side effects thereof maintain the same silent and condescending tone that has been present in The Journals of Captain Cook, Hannah More’s “Slavery,” and Robinson Crusoe.  This condescension is only further informed by the fact that it seems to have the exact attitude that the political cartoon that we looked at in class today was satirizing, a completely blind and privileged one. However, Cowper takes this poem in a new direction which is alluded to here. Instead of arguing that slavery is awful, Cowper argues that if we, meaning the English, were not the colonizer someone else would do it. An important aspect of this argument is that the thing they are stealing is worthwhile. Later on, he illustrates this through an apple metaphor, but even in this segment, he alludes to this attitude with his argument that he wouldn’t know what to do without sugar or rum. 

The really interesting aspect of Cowper’s privilege in this moment is that with the phrase “but I must be mum” he seems to feel that he is taking up a great mantle. He basically says the 18th-century version of, “It’s hard to say this but someone someone has to” before saying something terribly racist or uninformed. Much like many aspects of the 18th century that I enjoy, this section has some aspects of our modern, particularly the implicit racism, but also the complete lack of understanding he has when it comes to the effects of slavery. He basically argues throughout the poem and in this passage that sugar is just so good, that it is worth the neccessary evil. Our culture has the same opinions when it comes to the cheap clothes available from Forever 21. We understand that a terrible amount of labor has to go into this, but we also don’t care because we want our comfortable modern day convenience. Sadly, while Cowper is putting on display the hideousness conveniences of our lives, he is also ultimately arguing that in his world-view, at least, it is okay because sugar is just so damn good. 

[itsall18thcenturytome]

About 35 minutes into this podcast, which is not about the 18th century, the host and guest began to talk about the enlightenment in a way that is slightly different than how we discuss it in class. They basically said that the enlightenment was the first time that society decided to push away from religion and began to understand the importance of achieving happiness in this world, instead of the afterlife. It really intrigued me, and it gave me a bit of a new perspective on the century that we study every day in class. Definitely worth a bit of a listen!

[itsall18thcenturytome]

We’re All Scientists Here...

“The superabundance of the iron particles, which are present in all human blood, and which are precipitated in the reticular substance through evaporation of the acids of phosphorus (which make all Negroes stink) cause the blackness that shines through the superficial skin; and the high iron content of the blood seems also necessary in order to forestall a slackening of all parts. The oil of the skin which weakens the nutrient mucus that is requisite for hair growth, has permitted hardly even the production of a woolly covering for the head. Besides all this, damp heat promotes strong growth in animals in general; in short, the Negro is produced, well suited to his climate; that is, strong, fleshy, supple, but in the midst of the bountiful provision of his motherland lazy, soft and dawdling.” 

-On the Different Races of Man by Immanuel Kant (p. 46) 

Kant’s attempt to rationalize and define the races hits on two of the themes we have discussed at the most length in our class: reckless ethnocentrism and relentless categorization. However, this passage also alludes to a new theme that we have not discussed, the usage of science and jargon to marginalize. Kant demonstrates this tension between factual and biased in the very first section of this passage when he cuts through terms like “superabundance,” “iron particles,” “reticular substance,” and “acids of phosphorus” with this side comment: “which make all Negroes stink.” The sentence begins firmly situated in the world of scientific inquiry with the usage of these terms but is ultimately discredited by Kant’s overgeneralizing and racist side note. 

This shift points towards the way that the categorization and ethnocentrism that we have discussed in class converged into, for lack of a better word, patriarchal oppression under the guise of science. This attitude is present in more than just that first sentence continuing, in weirdly the same format, in the second sentence. Kant begins with scientific jargon like “nutrient mucus” and arguments based on climates before falling back on the fact that the “Negro” is “lazy, soft, and dawdling” in “his motherland.” The consistency in form in both of these sentences also points toward the way that science is used to justify racist thoughts and arguments instead of based upon any real fundamental evidence. It is almost a formula, ironically. Load an argument or definition with evidence up front in order to justify the thought they hold as true. Kant clearly believes that Negroes are a certain way, so he begins each sentence with observations that he believes will support his claims. 

Therefore, scientific writing is in many ways no different, especially during the enlightenment, from Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. They are both lists upon lists of facts that are all being used to prove and present a specific point. Basically, Kant’s argument on race is about as true as Robinson’s assertion that he was being stalked by cannibals on a deserted island. 

[itsall18thcenturytome]

Posts about 18th century marriage written by raileia316

I have found myself very interested in the implications and logistics of marriage during the 18th century when reading Pamela recently, and I found this blog post, which goes into a large amount of detail. The writer “raileia316″ argues that marriage was a very sticky subject for any woman to undertake at the time and that courtship was the most joyous part of any relationship. Even though I hate to admit it, I must say that weirdly enough I have always found the “courtship” section of Pamela to be the most fun aspect of the entire book. In fact, when watching or reading any book with a hint of romance, I have always found the courtship section to be the most exciting and entertaining. This is just another way that I seem to see the 18th century every day in my sensibilities and those around me. 

In addition, this post made me wonder, once again, if we have even truly let go of the harassment aspect of courtship. For example, in 10 Things I Hate About You, one of my favorite romantic comedies, Kat is constantly telling her love interest to leave her alone, which only makes him try harder to please her because he finds her funny and also can’t seem to help respecting her for her dismissal of him. While I find myself slowly coming around to Heath Ledger, much like Kat does, I seem to find myself questioning if I should ever like him at all. I shouldn’t be charmed by his inability to understand that he should leave Kat alone, and, yet, I am still charmed. 

[itsall18thcenturytome]

You shall be Mistress of my Person and Fortune, as much as if the foolish Ceremony had passed. All my Servants shall be yours; and you shall chuse any two Persons to attend yourself, either Male or Female, without any Controul of mine; and if your Conduct be such that I have Reason to be satisfied with it. I know not  (but will not engage for this) that I may, after a Twelve-month's Cohabitation, marry you; for if my Love increases for you, as it has done for many Months past, it will be impossible for me to deny you any thing.

Pamela by Samuel Richardson (p. 191)

There is a lot of interest in this passage, but what interests me most is that, much like the rest of Pamela, it seems to be arguing two completely contradictory points at the exact same time. The first point is that marriage is foolish. As Mr. B states, there are, at least in his mind, two real reasons to get married: 1) to have sex and 2) to accumulate wealth. Mr. B has come up what he thinks is a clever scenario in which he gets to do both of these things without the “foolish ceremony.” It is quite a modern friends-with-benefits concept. He gets to have sex and Pamela gets to have the money that will help her live comfortably for the rest of her life. 

However, Mr. B negates this when he ends the proposal and passage by saying that perhaps after a year of this arrangement he will cave and finally marry Pamela. Instead of holding to his belief and argument that marriage is meaningless, he reaffirms its power by saying that he will gift this ceremony to her as a yearly bonus for her good behavior during their first year. This implies that within the 18th century, marriage was much more powerful in concept than just the trappings awarded because of it: wealth and sex. Therefore, status was not simply won through money and success, but also through the legitimacy of a marriage contract. 

This is the reason why Pamela ultimately refuses this deal as well. She understands that money doesn’t make a legitimate and good life. Contractually written obligations are what makes something real. This oddly reaffirms what we have noted as one of the many important themes of the 18th century: meticulous documentation and categorization. Without the marriage contract, Pamela doesn’t exist as a legitimate partner to Mr. B. Instead, she is an illegitimate side thought. With the contract, however, she is a real wife with all the power that having that title allows. She exists.  

[itsall18thcenturytome]

I believe I receiv'd [my gifts] very awkwardly; for he smile'd at my Awkwardness; and said, Don't blush, Pamela: Dost think I don't know pretty Maids wear Shoes and Stockens? I was so confounded at these Words, you might have beat me down with a Feather. For, you must think, there was no Answer to be mad to this: So, like a Fool, I was ready to cry; and went away curcheeing and blushing, I am sure, up to the Ears, for, tho' there was no Harm in what he said, yet I did not know how to take it.

Pamela by Samuel Richardson (p. 19)

This passage is one of the first instances in the book of Pamela behaving in a way that is very difficult to interpret. The confusion is due to my own difficulty identifying whether Pamela is in love or terrified. For example, Pamela says that she responded awkwardly to his gifts and that she felt like a fool. This could simply be the behavior of a nervous 15-year-old girl who is unsure of how to respond to a man that she likes who seems to be taking an interest in her. However, when Pamela says that she is about to cry and ran away, it makes the scene feel much more uncomfortable and threatening. 

This points to a double standard within the 18th century that we still have today: women in love look frighteningly similar to women in pain in media. As noted above, when a woman is in love, she tends to be depicted as feeling embarrassed and nervous; therefore, Pamela seems to be interested in Mr. B, but at the same time Pamela is clearly uncomfortable and runs away. This double standard continues throughout the novel and is one of the reason’s why Mr. B continues to pursue her. The more she resists, the more irresistible she becomes. Interestingly enough, Pamela is almost treated like an undiscovered land. She is fresh and pure. She has not been touched by the European man, and much like the many lands the English felt the imperative to discover in the 18th century, Pamela is another experience that needs to be conquered. She is new and fascinating like an elusive pineapple with the added ability to run away. 

[itsall18thcenturytome]

It is also a very remarkable fact that although many animals show more skill in some of their actions than we correspondingly do, it is nonetheless clear than the same animals show none at all in many others, so that what they can do better than us does not prove that they have any mental power, for it would follow from this that they have mental powers, for it would follow from this that they would have more intelligence than any of us, and would surpass us in everything. Rather, it shows that they have no mental powers whatsoever, and that it is nature which acts in them, according to the disposition fo their organs; just as we see that a clock consisting only of ropes and springs can count the hours and measure time more accurately than we can in spite of all of our wisdom.

Rene Descartes in A Discourse on the Method of Correctly Conducting One’s Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences (p. 48) 

Rene Descartes has stumbled into the same philosophical territory that many philosophers of the 18th century did by asking the question: what defines us as human beings? Interestingly enough, for the entriety of this entry, Descartes attempts to prove this by placing human beings in direct comparison with animals, eventually deciding that humans have an indescribable but very real soul. There seems to be some wisdom and solid back up for this argument, he even finishes the passage above with a similarly convincing flourish through the clock example (People are definitely smarter than clocks), but he accidentally discredits his argument by falling into the 18th-century trap of selfishness. 

For example, when he is arguing that humans have a special and smarter capacity than animals he says that it must be true because if animals are smarter than us “it would follow that they have mental powers...and would surpass us in everything.” Much like Robinson Crusoe and many other works before him, Descartes has fallen into the trap of ethnocentrism that was so prevalent during this time period. He can only define items and people, even animals, through the values and capacities of the European world. To Descartes, the only clear way to know if a horse is smarter or at least as smart as him is to see him excel in all of the finer things: work, family, and art. If a horse does not surpass him all of these categories than it is not possible for her or him to have a soul or any form of intelligence. (Disclaimer: I am not arguing that horses are smarter than us). 

This ethnocentricism is not only present in this moment but is the cornerstone of Descartes’ entire argument. Earlier on in this essay, he even uses dissections of animals and compares them to human beings in order to show the beauty and design of our creator. While Descartes may have taken a different approach to proving the existence of a soul than the previous philosophers and authors we have read, he still manages to define everything in terms of 18th-century Europe without thinking to compare what defines intelligence and development to standards outside of it. How refreshing. 

[itsall18thcenturytome]

Classy Pineapple Shorts

Yesterday, I bought a pair of shorts with pineapples on them from what I would call a fairly classy and nice establishment, although I would like to note that I got them for 50% off. 

I was struck once again by this peculiar fruit and its impact on the 18th century. When I say its impact on the 18th century, however, I mostly was interested in the impact that century had on our 21st culture and, in this instance, fashion. We discussed in class about a month or so ago, how the pineapple has become a little tacky within our modern culture. Well, I would like to upgrade that descriptor with a new modifier, basic. Compiling from a few different definitions on Urban Dictionary, basic is a slang term defined as: “an adjective used to describe any person, place, activity involving obscenely obvious behavior, dress, action; unsophisticated; transparent motives.” 

To be basic isn’t quite on the same level as being tacky, but it does come from the same base understanding that an item, in this case a print of pineapples, has been overdone to a certain point. It lacks originality and novelty. It is tired. I think this explains why people in the 18th century love pineapples so much, while we look at them as tacky. They no longer have that air of exoticism, newness, and exclusively. Instead, they are everywhere, overdone, and tired. They are truly basic. 

[itsall18thcenturytome]

The Moral of the Story is...

“Be fam’d in War, yet live in Ease,

Without great Vices, is a vain

EUTOPIA seated in the Brain.

Fraud, Luxury, and Pride must live,

While we the Benefits receive: 

Hunger’s a dreadful Plague, no doubt,

Yet who digests or thrives without?

Do we not owe the Growth of Wine

To the dry shabby crooked Vine?”

-The Fable of the Bees by Bernard Mandeville

After reading Alexander Pope’s Essay on Man, it is fairly clear that Alexander Mandeville seems to hold to many of the same ideals. Particularly the idea that there is a perfect way to live life, which is to embrace the negatives in life and turn them into positives. After seeing this attitude critiqued to such a large extent in Candide, however, it’s hard not to feel that the entire poem, or story, rings a little bit hollow (So hollow that Mandeville felt the need to spell out the moral). 

Reading through it for a second time, it is odd that the poem seems to exhibit two different spaces. On one side, it argues that there are all types of people and occurances in life. It almost takes a circle of life appraoch in that sense. “Some valiant Gen’rals fought the Foe;/Others took Bribes to let them go,” is one of Mandeville’s philosophical treatises in the peom. This statement has a level of acceptance in it. Some people are sinners, and some are saviors. And that is okay. However, the other side of the poem involves judgements and the brand of blind faith that Voltaire was so fond of critiquing. Halfway through the poem, Mandeville states that “every part was full of Vice/Yet the whole Mass a Paradise.” This begins the thread of thought that leads to the moral of the above quote. An odd numbness begins to become involved in the philosophy that wasn’t present initially in the circle of life philosophy. Instead of saying that all things have their place, it reaches a point where Mandeville seems to be arguing for the bad. (The bad is good to him ironically). The argument is very similar to another popular argument: how would you understand happiness without pain? It is still widely debated to this day, but it seems that Mandevill doesn’t just believe that you need broccoli (bad) to appreciate chocolate (good), but that without brocolli, chocolate would have no meaning. 

[itsall18thcenturytome]

The Sinister History of How England Fell in Love With Gin (Video)

Gin and England go together like, well, gin and tonic. But how did a Dutch beverage become the national drink of England? To learn more, watch this ani ...

Since we were going to discuss gin tomorrow, I thought I would do a little research into its history. Thankfully, I came across this extremely interesting video about how the novelty of Gin turned into a British obsession. I found it fairly interesting that the video said the gin trend began to die down as those who found it novel died off. It reminds me of other trendy alcoholic drinks, particularly Four Loko, and shows that people will probably never outgrow loving getting drunk to forget about their problems even if they’ve outgrown the cheap dangerous ways they used to do it cause it was “cool.”

[itsall18thcenturytome]

And They All Lived Happily Ever

“’I Should like to know which is worse: to be raped a hundred times by negro pirates, and have a buttock cut off, and run the gauntlet of the bulgars, and be flogged and hanged in an auto-da-fé, and be dissected, and have to row in a galley – in short, to undergo all the miseries we have each of us suffered – or simply to sit here and do nothing?’ – ‘That is a hard question,’ said Candide.” 

-Candide by Voltaire (p. 91)

In the final chapter of Candide, Voltaire is plagued with creating some moral for his characters. After pages of trials, tribulations, and mocking, these characters have to settle somewhere. This passage is the beginning of that end, and it takes a very interesting turn. While the entire novel has been about how life is not as great as Pangloss’ philosophy says, here Voltaire presents the sad fact that if people try to avoid these things they will cease to encounter anything at all. They will be bored, and isn’t that awful as well? 

What complicates this passage, and the end of the book in general, is that it becomes harder to tell what Voltaire is critiquing. Does he believe that a life lived sheltered without taking into account the travesties of the world is boring and awful? Or does he believe that the 18th century was a time in which people thought that being bored was so annoying that they would do almost anything to get away from it? Even if that meant having to endure the worst? Does Voltaire believe that boredom is awful or does he believe that people who hate boredom are awful? Much like our disagreement in class over whether the ending was happy or sad, it seems that Voltaire also can’t seem to decide which side he is one when it comes to boredom. Virtue or vice? Voltaire doesn’t make it clear. 

[itsall18thcenturytome]

I found this song from the musical adaption of Candide, or Optimism, and I thought it was fairly insightful considering our conversation about Cunegonde last class. Mostly because this song seems to put on display exactly what it meant to be a woman in the 18th century, be pretty, fair, and that’s about it. It is also interesting that this is the way that the women get to sing together in the stage adaption considering how they both talk about being mistreated but remaining virtuous in the book. Instead, this song puts on display their obsession with being beautiful, and how their worth is derived from that. In response to our conversation about Cunegonde as a subversion feminist figure, this song paints her as the opposite. Her worth, and the old woman’s, come from the fact that men cannot resist their feminine beauty. Their irresistible nature to men is their worth. They could still be trying to play the system, but this song makes it seem a little less likely. 

[itsall18thcenturytome]

Silly Little Foreigners

“The little urchins immediately abandoned their game, leaving the quoits and other playthings on the ground. Candide gathered those up, ran to the tutor, and respectfully handed them to him, giving him to understand by signs that Their Royal Highnesses had forgotten their gold and their precious stones. The village schoolmaster smiled and dropped them back on the ground, looked into Candie’s face for a moment with great puzzlement and continued on his way.” 

Page 44 of Candide, or Optimism by Voltaire

During the 18th century, Europeans loved to explore exotic lands. In addition to exploring them, they also loved to write about them in a log of some type. These observations tended to include awkward encounters where the Europeans were attempting to mime some typical European action to the native people with them misinterpreting it. This was used as an indication that they were, sometimes laughably so, less advanced. However, Voltaire in this humorous interaction flips that on its head. Here we see Candide and his companions as the fools, and the citizens of El Dorado as civilized. They are above obsession with jewels and money, but Candide and Cacambo are fools that continue to hand them what they believe to be dirt. 

This is not only funny because Candide and Cacambo look foolish but also because it shows how little Europeans truly know about life and civilization. Of course, a school teacher is the one who they hand the jewels to. He is a representation of knowledge in this society, and he looks at them as though they are complete fools, much like how Voltaire is writing this entire book, looking at Europeans, and laughing. 

[itsall18thcenturytome]

Public figures: the invention of celebrity in the eighteenth century

In his Lever de Voltaire of 1772 Jean Huber depicted the philosophe getting dressed in a somewhat awkward position. The picture was a great success: it was engraved in Paris and in London, reproduc…

After our conversations in the last couple of classes about celebrities, I decided to do a little more digging into some other examples from that time period. I came across this blog post while doing such a search. I was particularly interested in this statement, “I argue, however, that this specific form of public visibility emerged in the eighteenth century, and was different from both the traditional glory of heroes and great men and from merereputation. Celebrity was a radically new form of renown, characterized by a wide and largely uncontrolled circulation of the name and image of an individual, far beyond the networks of reputation and the judgement of peers. Celebrity did not remain confined to a specific social space, but instead reached a broad, often anonymous audience.” In the context of both Robinson Crusoe and the concepts we have been discussing, this statement interested me because a large aspect of celebrity is dependent upon large groups of people getting to see images of an individual. 

One of the images that the author focuses on is a painting of Voltaire getting dressed that was extremely popular. This popularity was in part due to the fact that it was a “behind-the-scenes” image of Voltaire. Much like people were obsessed with learning everything they could about the world through categorization and study, they were also obsessed with pulling back the curtain on people. Basically, it makes sense that a fascination with celebrities would emerge at the same time as a growing fixation on exploring and categorization. Celebrities and their interior lives were just another frontier that was untapped and ripe for complete exploration.