On the Dangers of Power

            Have you heard about the Stanford prison experiment? It is an important experiment for the fields of psychology and sociology, and took place in the summer of 1971 by Dr. Zimbardo. While reading Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, I can’t help but think about the experiment while I am trying to fathom the horrific acts of the masters and overseers in the story. I ask myself, “How is it possible for people to be so cruel?” and find my answer in psychology.

            If you aren’t familiar with the experiment, I will give you a brief overview. In 1971 Dr. Phillip Zimbardo conducted an experiment in which 18 college age men, all psychologically healthy and free of criminal records, were randomly assigned to the role of prisoner or guard, and participated in a six-day-long simulated prison experience. The experiment was originally to run for two weeks, but “the simulation became so real, and the guards became so abusive, that the experiment had to be shut down after only 6 days” (Zimbardo). The guards took advantage of the power given to them in the experiment and acted incredibly cruel to the prisoners, even though they knew in reality that the prisoners had no criminal record. From this experiment we can see that when people are given power and authority, even if it is only perceived power, over others, they can and will do terrible things with it. The guards were not bad people, they were just like us. If after only 6 days they were abusing their “prisoners” simply because they were told to maintain order and structure, then we have to realize that under the influence of authority we also have the chance of doing terrible things.

            I find this experiment salient in understanding the behavior of those who were given power during the time of slavery. It is almost unfathomable that a man could “at times seem to take great pleasure in whipping a slave” upon her “naked back till she was literally covered with blood” (Douglass 51). Yet, things like this happened every day. We could simply say that these slave owners and overseers are cruel horrible people who have no similarities to us, but that would be discounting one of the main messages we still have to learn from stories like Douglass’ Narrative. It is not reasonable to say that all the men and women given positions of power over slaves were terrible people, just like it is not reasonable to say that all people who were enslaved were docile and subordinate. No one is born a slave, and no one is born a master- circumstances form them to be that way. Looking at the role of master and realizing that we, too, could be driven to do bad things at the hands of power, gives us two important lessons from this book: humility, and the dangers of power. These lessons are still incredibly important for today’s readers.

            I know no one wants to think they are similar to the masters in this book, and I am not saying that we are just like them. What I am saying is that everyone has the capacity to be cruel when given false senses of power and superiority. We must remain humble and realize that we have something to learn from the various masters in this story, which is how far humanity can be pushed towards cruelty when we put up lines falsely distinguishing between subordinate and insubordinate.

Works Cited

Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. New

           York: Penguin, 1982. Print.

 Zimbardo, Phillip G. "Stanford Prison Experiment." The Stanford Prison Experiment: A

           Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment. Phillip G. Zimbardo, n.d. Web. 21
           Feb. 2013.

Are We Ever Free?

Dehumanization is a key theme throughout Fredrick Douglass’ life. What makes his story different is how he was able to reconstruct himself back into a functioning society. How does this happen? In “Narative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass” by Fredrick Douglass he goes into depth about feelings and emotions he felt as both a slave and a “free” man. I do not believe that I could possibly go from being treated like filth to equal, in a sense, in a place with the people who formally oppressed me. It takes such patience and such will to not treat those who controlled, beat, and tortured you the same way once you have the opportunity. Fredrick’s story is one of the truly most amazing ones ever because he over cam adversity and suicidal thoughts and truly morphed from slave to a man. Once he was introduced to living in a society, he was still viewed as a black man.  The white owners who treated him lower than an animal went from oppressors to peers. Douglass spoke to his true feelings when he wrote, “The truth was, I felt myself a slave, and the idea of speaking to white people weighed me down” (98 Douglass). Further illustrating that his peers were still in power. He had to abide by the laws of living in a city where money was the way to living comfortably. He still had to gain employment and work grueling hours while still receiving less pay.

The Nazi’s played a similar role to the slave owners in World War II. A leader told them that the Jewish culture was ruining everyday life and that the Jews were to blame for all the hardships that have fallen upon the German people. In turn the Jews were treated like dirt, corralled and went from normal people in society to the ultimate enemy. There were various stages before the Jews ended up in the internment camps. There were made to wear Hebrew Star patches, live in the low income ghettos, and ultimately purged from the streets by German authority. Once in the interment camps, they were malnourished to the point of emaciation and treated like a common street rat. This was the ultimate dehumanization. Left in the cold to starve, freeze, and basically rot because one leader has turned you into an enemy. They were taken down to the level that Douglass described but were left stagnant sitting in these camps left to ultimately die. These people had survivors and like Fredrick had gone through the transformation from a man made a prisoner to a prisoner made a man. Once reintroduced back into the normal population, they still maintained the feeling of being less than the average citizen.

The hardest thing I feel that these two very different examples pose is their reintegration back into society. Going from these awful situations back to functioning day to day, as a free person must be so different. Living once again free with the people that dehumanized and degraded you as a person, who treated you like garbage because you were just another person that society deemed unsuitable to live free. These people will to move back into society while still being viewed as a lower class than people of their same stature. Will their opportunity allow them to achieve as much as the oppressors that held them back for so many years? It depends on what they opt to do and how they live their lives.

What causes these changes in society? How can people treat others like this? I believe in the case of slaves, that it was so engrained in society people did not believe that they were wrong.  They were brought up having slaves and figured why not own them myself. But with the oppression of the Jewish people there is no answer for that. They previously had a place in society right next to the German’s who now would not stand to let them live. It goes to show what society will do in times of serious trouble. They will look to one leader, such as Hitler, and follow his every whim to get them out of the place and time of hardship. Someone with authority and power over the people with a negative connotation is never a positive thing. These feelings did not leave that generation and people are still feeling the effects today. Discrimination is one of the biggest problems in modern society that is run by wealth and affluence. In Douglass’ case, he never received the opportunities that we are given in the present day, but those opportunities are in themselves not free. How does one truly feel free in a society that projects freedom but in a structured manor? I can not go and do whatever I want because there are laws that restrict me. So am I free? Well I am free to make my own choices but those choices must follow the laws of society. 

Images vs. Reality

Going off of the discussion about Aunt Hester, I feel like this scene is important because it frames the role of a colored woman during that time, and how different it is compared to white women. There was obviously a big difference between men and women in that time period, but there was an even bigger difference between colored women and white women. The scenes the women were in didn’t seem to be full scenes. It was more like flashes, because the time frame that they were mentioned in was so short. This is ironic to me because that’s how it was in reality. They were never really around unless they were used as “breeders” or if they were being beaten or abused.  An example is when we are first introduced to aunt Hester, we discover “...the warm, red blood came dripping to the floor. I was so terrified and horror- stricken at the sight, that I hid myself in a closet, and it dared not to venture out until long after the bloody transaction was over” (Douglass 53). Just reading this makes me shudder just as Douglass did. It was all by force, and the women would get punished for absurd reasons.

I feel like women were only mentioned while getting beaten for whatever reason because it is meant to portray the pain, and for the reader to actually see and feel what colored women had to go through at one point in time.

Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986.

An Unintentionally Persuasive Perspective

            Point of view is particularly significant in any piece of literature. The perspective from which the story is told will indeed determine the interpretation made by the reader. Our conclusions of specific readings become a subconscious result of the beliefs of the writer; the author is, after all, the individual that is planting the idea in our minds. In his Narrative, Frederick Douglass relays his experience as a man held captive by slavery. He does not pity himself, or even repent his life as a slave. Because Douglass does not write of his life as an attempt to achieve sympathy, his writing consequently leads the reader to feel sympathy for the situation of a slave. Therefore, the writing style of Douglass is indeed quite brilliant. Through relaying his story point blank, without the unnecessary explanations and additional emotional turmoil, Douglass narrates his life in a way that wins over his readers.

            As his narration begins, Douglass explains, “I received my first impressions of slavery on this plantation, I will give some description of it, and of slavery as it there existed” (53). Douglass’ initial introduction to his portrayal of slavery is a direct and rather blunt telling; he does not sugar coat what he intends to say. As he proceeds with his story, Douglass relays the experience of the slaves as they happened, void of any attempt to gain pity from the reader. “Mr. Gore then, without consultation or deliberation with any one … raised his musket to his face … and Demby was no more” (67) and, indeed, Douglass could not have relayed this more plainly. However, it is exactly this form of telling that gains the sympathy of the readers. Because it appears to the reader that in Douglass’ perspective this behavior and its resulting actions were a natural part of slavery, it makes the brutal killing that much more vile.

            Clearly, Douglass was not searching to win anyone over; he did not write his narrative with the objective of gaining anything. It appears, however, that he was working to challenge his readers’ perspectives on the ongoing issue of slavery. Because his writing style, author tone, and first person point of view were exceptionally blunt, Douglass certainly achieves a level of oneness with his reader. Though he does not seek sympathy, he attains it through honesty and direct storytelling. A determined leader of America, on a pursuit to achieve freedom, Frederick Douglass not only made an amazing and significant impact on our country’s history of slavery, but also on a minor individual that picked up his story.

Villain or Hero?

Villain or Hero?

Revolution is the culmination of mistreatment, hatred, and oppression. It has been present in human nature since the beginning of time. Is revolution necessarily a bad thing though? It has created nations, saved people from unjust rulers, and given people the hope and will for a better life. In Herman Melville’s novella, “Benito Cerino”, revolution gave the slaves hope and salvation from the institution of slavery. The slaves are turned from the oppressed to the oppressor and run the ship while not giving the whites much freedom. When does the revolt turn from being an act of terror to a valiant fight for ones rights? The most notable and prolific example to us as Americans is the United States’ annexation from Great Brittan.

The United States of America was formed through revolution. A revolution against the British who unfairly taxed, mistreated, and attempted to control the new world while not even present. What we consider our founding fathers were mere traitors against the crown who would not put up with the torment any longer. These men went against any authority that was in front of them to save the people who put trust them. The British thought that they controlled the land by wielding the bigger stick, but with the colonization of the East Coast, far underestimated the army that the colonists could provide. It is truly amazing what common hatred and oppression will cause people to do. From public humiliation to brutal taxation, the American Colonists felt they had suffered enough and joined together to create their own force. But is this a force from villains or were these men heroes?

In Melville’s story, Babo is much like those that founded our nation. He led the oppressed people out of harms way and into a position of power. Slaves although considered to be the lowest of the low, were still people who maintained feelings as well as the ability to rise above their oppressors. Due to their social status and what the slaves had been brought up believing, the Spanish crew believed they could control them even being outnumbered six to one. Given hope and a purpose, from their leader, the slaves rose together and over took the ship. Where these slaves who took control of the ship villains or were they heroes?

Personally I believe that these men were heroes, doing whatever they could to protect the people that received brutally unfair treatments while under command of these leaders. The only part that I sincerely believe should be considered villainous was the retaliation and mistreatment the revolt leaders instilled on those that oppressed them. Once they were in a position of power they wanted revenge for the pain and suffering that caused the revolution. People will always find a way to make right in situations of complete oppression. But what do you think, are these examples heroes or villains?

Gordian Knot

            Have you heard the myth of the Gordian knot? It is an important allusion to know in order to understand and analyze the scene around page 202 in Benito Cereno. Author Herman Melville depicts a scene here in which Captain Delano observes an old Spanish sailor constructing an intricate knot out of ropes. He explains that “the old man looked like an Egyptian priest, making Gordian knots for the temple of Ammon” (Melville 202). Why does he use this allusion? Surely Melville wanted us to understand the story of the Gordian knot in order to understand the implications of this scene.

            The story shows us that in the ancient world there was a country called Phrygia, which existed happily for some time without the guidance of a ruler. Eventually chaos began to ensue, and the wise men of the country realized that it could not continue to function well without a leader. Unable to decide who should become king, they looked to the God Apollo for guidance. Apollo’s sign indicated that a hard-working man named Gordius should be king, and he proved to be a great ruler of the country. On the day that he was appointed king, Gordius tied together the pole of his wagon and the yolk from his ox with such an intricate knot that no one who tried could ever undo it. The wagon and yolk were located in a temple, and the oracle of the temple said that the man who undid the knot would become ruler of the world. The knot remained intact inside the temple several years after the death of Gordius, despite the numerous attempts made by great men to undo it. Eventually a young king named Alexander came to try his hand at undoing the knot. After looking it over, Alexander pulled out his sword and sliced through the knot, causing it to fall to the floor. Using atypical methods he was able to undo the knot which had posed as a problem to great men for many years before him. He then set out on his quest to conquer the world, and will forever be known as Alexander the Great (Baldwin).

            Benito Cereno has many parallels to the story of the Gordian knot, which makes this a great allusion for this point in the story. They both contain: wise men who recognize issues that need to be solved, seemingly impossible situations, and outsiders who get introduced before the stories can be resolved. The old sailor who made the knot says that it is “’for someone else to undo,’” and, after throwing the knot to Delano, says in English “’undo it, cut it, quick’” (202). The knot represents the seemingly impossible “problem” on the ship, which started out in a “peaceful” state, but escalated into chaos just like in the story of the knot. From the Spanish sailor’s perspective, the “order” of master and slave that was originally present on the ship had been ruined by the overtaking of power by the black men, and he was sending a plea to Delano to restore order by asking him to undo the knot. No one on the ship was able to fix the “problem” of the black men taking over, and the sailor was hoping Delano could understand his pleas and become the heroic outsider.

            It may seem like I am assuming the old sailor knows and understands more than he actually does, but there is textual evidence showing that he is wise and has things figured out. First, he is the only man on the ship who Delano has heard speak English, and being multilingual is a sign of literacy and intelligence. Also his plea to Delano to undo the knot in English “was said lowly, but with such condensation of rapidity, that the long, slow words in Spanish, which had preceded and followed, almost operated as covers to the brief English between” (202). He was trying to get his message across to Delano, who also speaks English, without raising the suspicions of the other men on the ship. He was smart in using his knowledge of the Gordian knot and of English to nonchalantly beg for Delano’s help, but Delano did not pick up on it. His message was that things were not as they seemed, and that Delano needed to “undo the knot”, or solve the “problem,” because no one else could. An older black man came over after seeing the exchange between the sailor and Delano, and, “with a good-natured, knowing wink” told Delano that the sailor was “simple-witted but harmless; often playing his odd tricks” (203). The black man then takes the knot and, after trying to undo it, throws it with frustration into the ocean. To me, this act shows that he is in fact the simple-minded one, not the old sailor. He tries to undermine the credibility of the old man, and unfortunately Delano doesn’t see through the plot. Melville uses irony in his overly-positive description of the man, which I believe plays up Delano’s misinterpretation of the scene.

            As you can see there is a lot of important information contained within this short scene that helps us interpret and understand the story. There are a lot of different directions the analysis of the story could go using evidence from this scene, but I believe that understanding the importance of the Gordian knot is integral to understanding the scene. The Spanish sailor used a smart allusion to try to get Delano to undo the disorder that had taken place, but unfortunately Delano did not understand his implications and pick up on what the man was trying to tell him. The Gordian knot is a symbol that people all over the world would recognize, and Melville was smart including it here in his story.

Works Cited

Baldwin, James. "The Gordion Knot." Thirty More Famous Stories Retold. The Baldwin Project,

         2012. Web. 13 Feb. 2013.
Melville, Herman. Billy Budd and Other Stories. New York: Penguin Group, 1986. Print.

Realization

After Douglass learns how to read, I felt like he almost regretted it. I know what you're thinking, crazy right? But in a way, it makes sense. Before he learned how to read, he was still ignorant, which means he had no idea what potential life had, or in this case the potential him and the slaves could have.

Once he was slightly educated, the thought that got to him the most was the fact that he realized that this isn't how life is supposed to be. He learned that his lifestyle wasn't just. In chapter seven, he comes to realization when he helps the two fishermen that this will is how the remainder of his life was destined to be, and that thought haunted him. Something he mentions in chapter seven really grabbed my attention, Douglass states, “I often found myself regretting my own existence, and wishing myself dead; and but for the hope of being free, I have no doubt but that I should have killed myself, or done something for which I should have been killed,” wishing to be dead is a powerful feeling, and he wouldn't have known that being free could have been an option if he was never educated.

Him getting some education can be perceived as “bitter sweet.” It's bitter in a sense that he keeps having all of these negative thoughts about how he will never be free, but it sounded almost impossible. Sweet comes into play because now that he learned how to read and is now starting to learn how to write, he can fully understand the issue and actually do something about it. Slave owners were right in a sense that the slaves would rebel if they had an education, and that is exactly what Douglass plans on doing. 

A Shave of Deception

            Over time, stereotypes and assumptions upon humanity have certainly thrived, varying from race to gender to religion to occupation. Although stereotypes are occasionally a genuine reflection of a particular group of people, they often are mistaken and flawed. In Herman Melville’s "Benito Cereno", the stereotypical roles of authority not only are flawed, but also completely reversed. Through the surfaced eyes of Delano, it appears that Cereno is in control of the ship, with Babo as his servant. However, throughout the novella, Melville foreshadows that perhaps these depicted roles are reversed, specifically in the shaving scene.

            In our country’s past, it was declared that Caucasians were superior to individuals of African American descent, on the simple basis of skin color. Therefore, in Melville’s novella, we accept that Benito Cereno is the captain of the peculiar ship and Babo is merely a servant, without question. However, in the shaving scene, Melville foreshadows that perhaps it is just the opposite. As Babo shaves Cereno’s neck, “the razor drew blood, spots of which stained the creamy lather under the throat” (Melville, 215). Although in Delano’s perspective it appears that Babo made a nervous mistake, we may come to the conclusion that this particular scene is rather curious. Because Babo apologized to Cereno in a “half-humorous sorrow” (Melville, 215), did not flinch at the sight of blood, and is a supposedly experienced barber, we may come to the conclusion that this perceived mistake was done as a malicious threat. Indeed, Babo ignited fear in his assumed master, as panic and distress obviously overcame Cereno (Melville, 217). Naturally, Babo took this action to prompt apprehension in Cereno, to make sure that the secret of the ship would be kept safe. Through this scene, Melville shows us that Babo is not only the captain of the ship, but also the puppet master of the ship, deciding and making Cereno’s every move, as a matter of life and death. Babo’s capability to draw blood from Cereno’s throat in a mere moment represents his frightening potential to take Cereno’s life, as well. Therefore, Babo has ultimate control and the stereotypical roles have been reversed, ultimately proving that stereotypes are often flawed.

            Although issues of trust certainly surface from day to day and individual to individual, humanity tends to believe and follow the common notions of society, with little question. Indeed, the stereotypes of race, gender, and occupation have come to consume us, until finally there is little left for us to question. We trust what is in front of us and believe what we see simply because we can see it. Melville demonstrates this concept throughout "Benito Cereno", using Delano’s character to prove that we are blinded to the reality of society. Although countless encounters proved otherwise, Delano ceaselessly believed that the ship was run by Cereno, that the African American's were mere slaves. He, like us, did not question. We often neglect to question particular things because they are presented in a manner so believable that we simply cannot deny them. However, it is certainly important for humanity to recognize that the many stereotypes of groups of individuals are often misleading and flawed.

Does Media Fuel Perfection

In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s, “The Birthmark”, the main character Aylmer embodies modern society and their views of perfection/imperfection. Throughout the short story Aylmer could not bring himself to look past his wife’s birthmark, a birthmark that was widely perceived as beautiful. He slowly begins to obsess about it ultimately turning to science to fix it. Aylmer initially hints to the removal of the birthmark when he says, “Georgiana, has it never occurred to you that the mark upon your cheek might be removed?” (Hawthorne 84). This slowly turns into the sole focus of Aylmer’s thoughts and the demise of Georgiana’s happiness.

            In modern day society people strive for perfection in many different ways. From surgeries to supplements the perception of beauty is constructed through the media. There are complex industries that are formed and become successful for the sole reason of perfecting someone’s body. Plastic surgery although a different form of science than Aylmer, removes peoples “imperfections” and allows people to be “beautiful”. But is this really beauty? It is people that strive to be perfect who have the ultimate imperfections and although may be externally beautiful remain tarnished underneath. The extreme cost and risk alone should deter people from partaking in these actions but the feeling of looking beautiful far supersedes the risk.

            Although not all want to participate in these dramatic surgeries they still feel the ultimate sense of dissatisfaction internally. This is seen predominantly seen in females who a plagued with magazines of what appear to be the “perfect” women. This creates problems such a depression, anorexia, or even bulimia in order to appear more like the models and actresses seen in the magazines. This is comparable to Georgiana being constantly told by her husband she needs to be changed. If someone you care about is persistently telling you there is something wrong with your body eventually one will take that personally and to heart. These are what magazines girls trust and feel not normal if looking different. I am not saying this only happens in females but they give the most accurate comparison to Georgiana.

            Aylmer ultimately realizes that he should have just embraced Georgiana’s birthmark and that he was the truly unhappy one. He failed to look past her imperfection, “The momentary circumstance was too strong for him; he failed to look beyond the shadowy scope of time” (99). Once someone has altered their body will they truly be happy? Or will they realize that they have given into societies perception of perfect and not appreciate that each imperfection we have been given makes us an individual, which is truly perfect.

Appearance vs. Reality

Herman Melville proposes a point that things are not always what they seem. There are a plethora of examples that follow through with this statement, and his novela “Benito Cereno” falls into that category. With stories like this, the reader suspects one thing, but is caught off guard by another. Symbolism plays an important part in this idea.

So, a point that really stood out to me was how Melville practically screamed “death” throughout the whole story. A prime example was the San Dominick itself. If you read closely, you could tell that it symbolizes decay. For instance,“Her keel seemed laid, her ribs put together, and she launched, from Ezekiel’s Valley of Dry Bones… Battered and moldy, the castellated forecastle seemed some ancient turret long ago taken by assault, and then left to decay…” (146- 47). The description of the ship plays an important role, merely because it foreshadows the truth that the readers find out towards the end. It also hints the reader as to what happened to Aranda's body. When a word is being repeated a copious amount of times within one paragraph, then it must mean it is important. When the ship was first discovered, the scenery was described as “grey.” For instance in the third paragraph, “The morning was one peculiar to that coast. Everything was mute and calm; everything grey. The sea, though undulated into long roods of swells, seemed fixed, and was sleeked at the surface like waved lead that has cooled and set in the smelter’s mould. The sky seemed a grey mantle. Flights of troubled grey fowl, kith and kin with flights of troubled grey vapours among which they were mixed, skimmed low and fitfully over the waters, as swallows over meadows before storms. Shadows present, foreshadowing deeper shadows to come.” But these two pieces aren't the only things that can be seen as “grey.” Just in the beginning of the novela when we are introduced to Benito Cereno, his complexion can be seen as grey because nothing seems to make sense about him, especially to Delano. Benito Cereno has mental breakdowns, which has no happy medium. This is similar to the color grey because it is a combination of black and white. Cereno's fits go from one end of the spectrum, to another. For example, “'my poor, poor master!” wringing one hand, and with the other wiping the mouth. “But be patient, Senor,” again turning to Captain Delano, “these fits do not last long; master will soon be himself.” Don Benito reviving, went on; but as this portion of the story was very brokenly delivered, the substance only will here be set down” (58). Although I perceived “grey” as having a negative connotation throughout the story, I felt it was interesting that it also tied in with race, and that is the key to the story. The book was published right before the civil war, which means that the fight over slavery was a huge issue. I thought it was interesting that since the colored and the whites were interacting, it uplifted the “greyness” a little more.

One thing I found extremely interesting was the big reveal of Aranda's bones. I felt it was ironic how his body was hung over the “follow your leader” statement that the readers were notified was apart of the San Dominick. The irony comes into play for the obvious reasons, because Aranda was the leader of all of the slaves. Another thing I found ironic was how Melville put emphasis on the color white right before Aranda's body was revealed, “whipped away the canvas shroud about the beak, suddenly revealing, as the bleached hull swung round toward the open ocean, death for the figurehead, in a human skeleton; chalky comment on the chalked words below, “Follow your leader,” and it's intriguing because there is this whole racial issue and Aranda was white aboard a slave ship, and everything just ties in so perfectly.

All of the symbolism used ties in the whole theme that not everything is always what it seems. The repetition of grey ties in with the theme in a sense that the reader will not know what to expect since grey is such a neutral color. The death and decay foreshadowed the skeleton of Aranda, which is another example of the reader unexpected the outcome. All in all the novela caught the reader by surprise.

Melville, Herman. Benito Cereno. New York, New York: Penguin Group, 1986. Print.

Who is ultimately responsible for the deaths of Catherine and her children?

            I completely agree with the argument that Wieland is physically responsible for the deaths of his wife and children in Wieland by Charles Brockden Brown, and I think the book leaves no question as to who physically committed the crimes. However, I believe the important question is who is morally responsible for these deaths, and I believe the answer is Carwin. Wieland says in his confession, “they were slain by me; they all perished by my hand” (Brockden Brown 186). It is obvious that Wieland committed the crime, but it is because Carwin impersonated God and convinced him to do so, and so Carwin is ultimately to blame.

From our in-class debate there seemed to be a consensus that Carwin created the voice that told Wieland to murder his family, though no one really addressed the issue directly. I believe evidence that it was Carwin’s voice lies in the three accounts of what happened that night from Clara, Wieland, and Carwin. In Carwin’s account, he said of Clara that she “saw me in the very act of utterance,” meaning she caught Carwin in the act of ventriloquism (244). In Clara’s account of the exact same part of the night she recalls seeing a mysterious being which resembled Carwin, though she did not think that it was him. She said that the face’s “eyes emitted sparks, which, no doubt, if I had been unattended by a light, would have illuminated like the coruscations of a meteor” (168). These two accounts taken together show that Carwin takes on a different, illuminated appearance while doing ventriloquism; and when combined with Wieland’s account of the event they show that it was Carwin telling Wieland to kill his family. Wieland says that when he encountered the being which he assumed to be God telling him to kill his family, “Nothing but a fiery stream was at first visible; but, anon, a shrill voice from behind called upon me to attend” (190). These three quotes combine showing that Clara’s and Wieland’s descriptions are of the same person, and that that person is Carwin. It was him who told Wieland to murder his wife and children.

            You may say that even though it was Carwin talking to Wieland, words aren’t what killed his family and so it was truly Wieland’s fault. I think the problem with this argument is that it does not take into account Wieland’s deeply rooted faith. If the voice were God’s, as Wieland truly believes it is, would it not be his duty to obey? If the one thing that gave you meaning and purpose in your life- the thing you hold divine and true above all else- gave you instructions to prove your devotion, would you not need to follow those instructions? Wieland has strong faith, and says “that God is the object of my supreme passion…I have thirsted for knowledge of his will. I have burnt with ardour to approve my faith and my obedience” (187). Carwin knew that Wieland wanted to please God, and he took horrible advantage of it.

             I don’t think Carwin is an inherently bad person who was seeking to cause harm, but he let his power overtake him and wreak havoc in the lives of the Wieland community. Carwin admits he “rashly set in motion a machine, over whose progress I had no control” in reference to how he misused his gift (246). He let his actions get out of control, and is ultimately responsible for the untimely deaths of Catherine and her children.
 

Works Cited

Brockden Brown, Charles. Wieland. New York: Penguin Books, 1991. Print.