1630: "A Model of Christian Charity" by John Winthrop

How to Survive in the Wilderness

I can understand how this was a written as a method of uniting Puritan settlers in order to survive; for one, Winthrop’s describes having faith in God as having enormous humility and generosity, not only asserting that “the rich and the mighty should not eat up the poor[,]”... but the traditional Christian philosophy of loving your neighbor as well. Stating that all men “might by all knit more nearly together in the bonds of brotherly affection[.]”

Compare with Declaration of Independence (cf. "All men are created equal")

Winthrop's Christian Charity is not in agreement with "The Declaration of Independence." Compare [Winthrop's] hard, cold fact that 'some must be rich, some poor' to the shocking sentence of the Declaration of Independence, written 146 years later: "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happines." By contrast, Winthrop writes: “GOD ALMIGHTY in his most holy and wise providence, hath soe disposed of the condition of mankind, as in all times some must be rich, some poore, some high and eminent in power and dignitie; others mean and in submission."

Diversity and Community

John Winthrop’s “A Model of Christian Charity” mainly concerns building a solid community. Attempting to reason with inequality, Winthrop writes, “Thirdly, that every man might have need of others, and from hence they might be all knitt more nearly together in the Bonds of brotherly affection.” God has created us unequally so that we must lean on one another. He explains that rather than isolating and fragmenting ourselves because of our differences, we must use our differences to complete the whole picture. Life’s inequalities allow us to love and care for one another.

Why are some rich and some poor and what is our responsibility to one another?

Answer 1: 

What annoyed me the most initially was the following quote; “From hence it appears plainly that noe man is made more honourable than another or more wealthy &c., out of any particular and singular respect to himselfe, but for the glory of his creator and the common good of the creature, man” (Winthrop). This to me, is not a comforting concept. The idea that certain people are given advantages or privileges over others in the plan of God under the idea that they use these advantages and privileges to benefit all of mankind doesn’t sit right with me. At that point, if God is the one who decides our success and advantages, why choose a specific set of people to prosper and another to suffer? Under the guise that one protects the other? It seems to me to be a poor argument attempting to acknowledge the disparity in how different classes of individuals are treated under “God’s plan” . . . Why should the poor depend upon the rich to survive when so often it is the rich disenfranchising the poor? It seems like a lazy explanation trying to slink out from under the question; “why does God intend our suffering while others receive benefits in mass? Why would he create us in such disparity?”

Answer 2:

First of all, as Winthrop sees it, diversity is glorious. A universe in which everyone and every creature was the same would be boring. In creating diversity of every kind, not just rich and poor, God was "delighted to show forth the glory of his wisdom in the variety and difference of the creatures."

Secondly, diversity gives every one a challenge and an opportunity to do God's work or, as Winthrop puts it, diversity gives us all the "occasion to manifest the work of his Spirit."

Thirdly, diversity means that we all need each other, just like a body needs all of its different parts and organs in order to survive. We all have different strengths and shortcoming so that "every man might have need of others, and from hence they might be all knitt more nearly together in the Bonds of brotherly affection."

Why and how much are Christians asked to give? How much is too much charity?

Winthrop urges Christians to help each other even beyond the point that seems reasonable because Christians should put their duty to God even above their duty to their family. To illustrate this point, he refers to the the prophet Elisha, who told the widoe of Sareptah to prioritize charity, saying she "must first give before shee must serve her owne family."

Winthrop says that if you know someone can’t pay you back, just give to them. Don’t make a loan.  As he puts it, "Thou must observe whether thy brother hath present or probable or possible means of repaying thee, if there be none of those, thou must give him according to his necessity, rather then lend him as he requires."

Winthrop opposes all kinds of selfishness, which he links to the mistakes made by Adam, "who rent himselfe from his Creator, rent all his posterity allsoe one from another; whence it comes that every man is borne with this principle in him to loue and seeke himselfe onely, and thus a man continueth till Christ comes and takes possession of the soule and infuseth another principle, loue to God and our brother."

As Winthrop sees it, Christians should be motivated to help each other "not for wages, or by constrainte, but out of [love]."

It could be argued that Winthrop advocates for a kind of proto-Communism, when he praises the practices of the first Christians, who "sold all, had all things in common, neither did any man say that which he possessed was his owne. Likewise in theire returne out of the captivity, because the worke was greate for the restoring of the church and the danger of enemies was common to all."

Why does Winthrop think we should pick up God's slack?

The following quote only serves to further confirm to me that it’s purpose was to shake responsibility of Christianity to explain such disparities between people and their lives and experiences; “Lastly, when there is no other means whereby our christian brother may be relieved in his distress, we must help him beyond our ability rather than tempt God in putting him upon help by miraculous or extraordinary meanes[.]” What? This literally states not to ask God to perform miracles to help those he has condemned to suffering by nature of their being and to instead exert ourselves past our capabilities in order to help disenfranchised people. This is actually bonkers and so clearly an example of religion attempting to use quasi-moralistic arguments to shield from the logic [that] actually underlies their religion. If God decided who will suffer and who will benefit, why is it our responsibility to assist in decreasing that suffering and to refrain from asking for his advice and help? Simply because? Because it’s more moralistic to help your fellow man than condemn his suffering to the absent hands and eyes above? It just really seems like a way to expense God from any accountability or even responsibility while still administering him as the [ultimate] power which makes legitimately no sense to me. It sounds like we are expected to pick up God’s slack.

Loving Those Like Us

Winthrop argues that love takes place when the likeness between yourself and another is acknowledged. When those who follow Christ acknowledge their likeness, they need to treat each other with love. I had this impression from the following, “This loue is as absolutely necessary to the being of the body of Christ, as the sinews and other ligaments of a naturall body are to the being of that body.” 

High Stakes:"A City on a Hill"

"For wee must consider that wee shall be as a citty upon a hill. The eies of all people are uppon us. Soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our God in this worke wee haue undertaken, and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. Wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of God, and all professors for God's sake. Wee shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause theire prayers to be turned into curses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land whither wee are a goeing."

In the Wordy Shipmates, Sarah Vowell argues  arguing that the community and solidarity that the Puritans exuded has been in many a missing component in the ideology of the “Modern America.” She uses former president, Ronald Reagan, as an example claiming that he misconstrued the Winthrop quote he loved to use so much about America being a "City on a Hill"; forgetting the foundations of solidarity and community Winthrop preached by leaving “thousands of poor kids who had to skip lunch and sleep in poisoned neighborhoods” (66).

1666: "The Author to Her Book," Anne Bradstreet

 

"Virgin and Child" (1670s) by Bartolome Murillo

"The Author to Her Book" (1666/1678)

Writing for the Public

"The Author to Her Book" [on] its face seems to be about how writers struggle with editing first drafts of their work. All first drafts are crap, and Bradstreet describes them as “unfit for light/Thy visage so irksome to my sight.” She then describes the editing process, where she tries to make the poems flow better by stretching “thy joints to make the even feet[,]” which implies that she struggled with revising the meter of her lines. She eventually has to send her work out into the world to be read by the public and by critics, and she struggles with letting her writing go, wondering if she did well enough

Mothering Eight Kids

She calls herself a mother multiple times in this poem and as early as the second line, where she claims that she gave “birth” to the poem. . . . This whole poem shows the reader how Bradstreet feels about her writing as well as being a mother. Every parent struggles with sending their kids out into the world, hoping that they did enough to raise competent children, but this had to have been especially hard for Bradstreet. We know that she had eight children, was sickly, and that her husband was absent. She must have felt like she raised the kids on her own, a sentiment that is present in her poetry, as she writes “if for they father asked, say thou hadst none.” She had to write her poetry and raise her children alone.

Trying to Be a Good Christian?
As the title suggest, Bradstreet is speaking directly to her own book. As a result, the relationship she has with it feels conflicted. She feels almost as though she is disappointed in her writing. This idea was reinforced with the following lines, “I wash’d thy face, but more defects I saw, And rubbing off a spot, still made a flaw” (Bradstreet). These lines gave me the impression that even though she has tried to correct her “defects”, all she could do was create another flaw. It feels like an endless spiral of correcting mistakes. 

"To My Dear Children" (1867)

• Contrary to popular opinion, the Puritans were not masochists who delighted in being punished; rather they knew that God is a loving Father who only ever does what is best for His children, including chastisement.  That is why Bradstreet urges her children to “take it as thankfully and joyfully as in greatest mercies.” She addresses atheism, bringing up a number of doubts and assurances until she wraps it up with a prayer, “‘Return, O my Soul, to thy rest, upon this rock Christ Jesus will I build my faith, and if I perish, I perish.’” 
• In her letter “To My Dear Children”, [Bradstreet] admits that “Satan troubled me concerning the verity of the Scriptures, many times.” Though she trusts the existence of God, she questions the various interpretations of Christianity; but, upon the “consideration of these things” she would resignedly revert to her “own religion again.”
• I saw a connection between what she writes about her experience with God and faith and that of Emily Dickinson’s work. It seems like Dickinson although she believes that a higher power exists she often found herself “with God like an untoward child.” Furthermore, she seems to have found yourself losing the battle of faith for a time, as she claims, “many times hath Satan troubled me concerning the verity of the Scriptures, many times by atheism how I could know whether there was a God.” However, she seems to be urging her children to look upon God as their anchor in hard times as she states, “that have brought you into the world, and with great pains, weakness, cares, and fears brought you to this, I now travail in birth again of you tell Christ be formed in you.” She seems to be asking her children to seek out her love through Jesus after she has gone.
• [Bradstreet] expressed that when she was a teenager and had given into more worldly things, God “laid his hand sore upon me and smote me with the smallpox.” This coincides with the idea that God brings hardships to believers when they stray from Him. Bradstreet expressed that these times of hardship were “the times when the Lord hath manifested the most love” in her life, bringing her back to Him. I think that this must have been a comforting letter for her children to read after they lost their mother.
• Bradstreet also wrote about times in which she questioned her faith and the credibility of the Bible. She “never saw any miracles” and the ones she read about could have been “feigned.” Bradstreet writing about her spiritual struggles humanized her and made her more relatable in a time when it seemed that believers wanted to project supreme piousness and righteousness.

1747: "The Speech of Miss Polly Baker" (1747)

"The Lost Portrait of Benjamin Franklin / Initiation" (2014) by Jordan Mendiola

The Speech of Miss Polly Baker (1747)

". . .I have hazarded the loss of the public Esteem, and frequenlty incurr'd public Disgrace and Punishment; and therefore ought, in my humble Opinion, instead of a Whipping, to have a statued erected in my Memory."

Ideology: Gender and Class

“The Speech of Miss Polly Baker” is a fictional work about a woman who struggles to have a fair trial.  It handles themes such as the equality of men and women under the law as well as some of Franklin’s religious thoughts.  Miss Polly Baker stands on trial for having children out of wedlock, and she says that this is the fifth time she has faced such charges.  She is poor, having “no Money to fee Lawyers to plead for me,” also adding a class aspect to the woman’s problem.  Baker talks about how she does not have any contempt for marriage, but even tried to be wed once, only to be abandoned with a child while the man continued on to be a magistrate.  She argues even further that she has worked for the good of society by reproducing, more so than the men who “leave unproduced” their posterity.  So it seems that Franklin is going against some of the Christian thoughts of the time to argue for a fair trial regardless of class or sex. 

Ideology: Church and State

. . . “The Speech of Miss Polly Baker” appeals for the acceptance of unmarried mothers, and abolishment of laws punishing adultery. One of the arguments made is that Ms. Baker, by being an unmarried mother of five children, has already, in their eyes, "offended Heaven, and must suffer eternal Fire” and asks “Will that not be sufficient?” If she has already been delivered spiritual reprisal, then why does she also deserve a legal one? In addition to this hypocrisy, another can be found that her former husband, an accomplice to her ‘crime,’ suffers no punishment at all, and has in fact found reward from the same system that apprehends her.

Ideology: What is Productivity?

One of the lines that I found thought-provoking was when Polly states "take into the consideration the growing number of bachelors, whom from fear of expense never honorably court a woman and live their lives unproduced. Is not theirs a greater offence to the public good”? It appears Ben Franklin is challenging the ideology of his time in a [satirical] way, pointing out the inequality faced by women. 

Ideology: A Woman's Voice

Something to point out too is that he wrote the story from the viewpoint of a woman, I presume he made this choice in an effort to give his argument more significance. Furthermore, it seems Franklin was perhaps wanting his male readers to look at the situation as if they were in a Polly’s shoes.

Aesthetics: Humor and SassFranklin seems to be using the argument of religion here, how God tells his people to be fruitful and multiply. Furthermore, Polly funnily states that she is determined, and her duty is one “of which nothing has ever been able to deter (her),” which to me sounds like she has been sexually active frequently and does not desire to stop. For her “duty,” she has “hazarded the Loss of the public Esteem.” Her continuous having children has led her to be estranged by society, and she feels that she is almost a martyr for it. I think this is funny, because it seems so dramatic. I do agree that she should not be punished for having sex or having children, but Polly seems like a very dramatic character in her sense of “duty.”

1784: "Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America" by Benjamin Franklin

"I" created the image above using the Midjourney server in Discord by typing these words: "forest landscape with Benjamin Franklin shooting a bow and arrow in the style of Thomas Cole."

Ideology: America vs. Book smarts

As the records smartly state, “different nations have different conceptions of things” (217). Where whites would need to know more math, science, and overall book smarts, Indians had to focus more on their physical capabilities to assure their survival within their tribes and maintain balance.

". . . if the gentlemen of Virginia will send us a dozen of their sons, we will take great care of their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them" (217).

Ideology: Imperialism, Cosmopolitanism, and Difference

• Franklin opens . . . by saying “Savages we call them, because their manners differ from ours, which we think the Perfection of Civility; they think the same of theirs.”  Establishing that both sides think themselves to be in the right, he continues on to discuss which ones are truly the more civilized.  He notes their politeness, hospitality, etc., all of which exceed that of the whites.  Franklin proved to be quite open-minded about a number of things as wonderfully shown in these treatises.
• . . .  when NativeAmericans are asked to respond to another group of people, they are determined “not to answer a public proposition the same day that it is made.” As Franklin mentions, this is a sign of respect towards the waiting party among the Native Americans. He uses this metaphor to liken the beliefs of the Native Americans to respecting differences among nations; furthermore, even the title appears to be a jab at those who are unable to understand this concept, with “Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America” playing up the exaggerated hatred towards North Americans.
• . . .  Native Americans that have been victimized by prejudice and labeled "savage," but are in fact infinitely more well-mannered and civilized in diplomatic nature than most adherents to industrial civilization. This can be seen in his writing when he states “The Indians hear with patience the truths of the Gospels explained to them, and give their usual tokens of assent approbation; you would think they were convinced. No such matter. It is mere civility.”
• My favorite line of the entire record Franklin preserved was when the leader of the Indian tribe said “‘You saw that we… believed all your stories; why do you refuse to believe ours.’” Something about this line was so raw and powerful to me. We’re always taught to believe in everything, yet also taught to shun anything that doesn’t fit in our ‘vision’ or teachings. The way he says this shows just how closed minded we are as a nation as we refuse to listen to other standpoints, which is very true for the generation we’re now seeing today.
• "My brother, it seems your friends have not done you justice in your education; they have not well instructed you in the rules of common civility. You saw that we, who understand and practice those rules, believed all your stories; why do you refuse to believe ours?"

1787: The Federalist, No. 1, by Alexander Hamilton, and No. 10, by James Madison

Lin-Manuel Miranda as "Alexander Hamilton" and Okieriete Onaodowan as "James Madison" in Hamilton: An American Musical (2015)

Ideology: America as Empire, Common Interest vs. Self-Interest
No. 1 of The Federalist Papers opens up with a discourse on the importance of the document and the reason for it. Hamilton writes in this section about the failure of the Articles of Confederation and “nothing less than the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world.” He sets up the discussion by categorizing those who opposed the new Constitution, and he says that it is these men who “resist all changes” who prove to be “the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter.”
Consider this Enlightenment question:  "whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forevere destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force" (362)

Consider the appeal of self-interest (self-reliance): "Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constituion will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every state to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the state of establishments--and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies, than from its union under one government" (362-363)

Ideology:  American Representative Democracy vs. Factionalism
No. 10 is the first of Madison’s writings in The Federalist Papers, and its primary theme is the new Union’s ability to “break and control the violence of faction.” One of the problems with the Articles of Confederation is that they did not provide a strong enough national government; one of the advantages of the new Constitution would be that it would not favor any one group, but it would be a strong central government which looks for the common good for all. “Pure democracy,” as Madison puts it, “can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.” Only a representative democracy allows for every voice to be heard instead of being drowned out by the masses.

I liked the way Hamilton described the intentions of those who hold beliefs that opposed one’s own beliefs. He said that people should “mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions” and believe that there is only good in their intentions. I think that if everyone had this point of view about the ideas of others, there would be a lot less conflict in politics especially, and more conversations about important issues would be had.

Consider cosmopolitanism:  "nothing could be more ill judged than that intolerant spritis, which has, at all times, characterized political parties" (363)

Consider the threat to cosmopolitanism:  "Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people" (368)

"The smaller the society . . . the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression" (369)

Ideology: Head and Heart, Restraint and Passion
What I found most interesting about The Federalist excerpts, particularly No. 1, was the humility and transparency the author implemented into their writing. Considering the passion behind those pushing for the ratification of the Constitution, the restraint seen in the writing is remarkable; for example, he describes endangering the rights of the people as “more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart,” a bold statement to make about government when trying to gain sympathy for your own government. When speaking about how government officials require honesty in their actions, he follows this by saying “my arguments will be open to all, and may be judged by all.” Clearly, this is an appeal to the hearts of the public, who are often distrustful of government officials. Especially looking at our own government today, the transparency and honesty in this argument is almost alien when reading this in modern America.

Consider the threat of passions:  ". . . as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. . . . they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations, and by the bitterness of their invectives" (363).

21A. "Moby Dick" (1851) by Herman Melville, Chs. 96-105

 

Known in the numismatic world as a "Moby Dick Coin," the Ecuadorian 8 Escudos doubloon, minted in Quito, Ecuador, between 1838 and 1843, is the one ounce of gold "sixteen dollar piece" Captain Ahab nails to the mast of the Pequod, promising it to the first man who "raises" Moby-Dick.. . . It is often confused for a "Spanish" doubloon, but this coin was not struck by the Spanish crown or endorsed by the Spanish government. The Moby Dick coin was minted in the Republic of Ecuador, at the Quito mint, many years after its independence from Spain

Doubloon = Moby-Dick = Moby Dick

• Chapter 99 is interesting because of its many different interpretations of the doubloon. For instance, Flask only views the coin as “a round thing made of gold[,]” which means that he only sees the coin for its monetary value["] (Chapter 99). However, Fedallah perceives the doubloon to be reverential as he is a “fire worshiper” (Chapter 99, 348). These various viewpoints demonstrate not only the characters and their beliefs but also how one item can generate many thoughts and discussions. This novel is like the doubloon, as many people have different theories for what Moby Dick symbolizes and how the novel should be interpreted. This point is further supported in the next chapter when Ahab meets Boomer, a captain who also lost a limb to Moby Dick. Even though the two men experienced similar trauma, Boomer has moved on with his life and believes Ahab to be “crazy” for hunting Moby Dick (Chapter 100, 354). The comparison of the two men proves how everyone views the world differently.

Chapter 99 of [Moby-Dick] provides a fascinating mental exercise that essentially encapsulates the concept of the entire book; more specifically, the gold doubloon Ishmael presents to the crew reflects the variety of meanings one can take away from not only this particular scene, but the entirety of [Moby-Dick] .

You are how you read?

• Many of their interpretations of the meaning of the coin reflect the many approaches to analyzing literature and art in general; for example, Ahab’s interpretation of the coin is expansive and broad, while Flask finds no meaning in the coin at all beyond monetary value. Stubb, on the other hand, initially struggles to find anything worthwhile looking at the coin but eventually finds beauty in his own reflection. Lastly, Quuqueg is simply amused by the coin’s resemblance to his tattoo. Each of these perspectives is a reflection of human nature and how not only we perceive literature, but the world around us.
• Chapter 99 serves to illustrate the differences between many of the characters aboard the Pequod. The characters analyze the gold coin that is nailed to the ship, with interpretations ranging from religious significance, self-reflection, prophecy, and “it’s literally a gold coin stop reading too much into it, you knobs[.]” . . .  But my biggest takeaway was that this is another example of how the Pequod is a microcosm. We already know that the crew is diverse in religious beliefs, race, and nationality, and this chapter shows how their backgrounds influence their interpretation of seemingly mundane things, such as currency. This idea is best summed up in the line “all sorts of men in one kind of world” (Ch. 99).
• Stubb:  "Book! you lie there; the fact is, you books must know your places. You'll do to give us the bare words and facts, but we come in to supply the thoughts" (Ch. 99).

Absence of Malice

• The whale-surgeon of the ship Samuel Enderby, referred to as Mr. Bunger, argued to the two whale-limbed captains that “the white whale’s malice is only his awkwardness[,]” and provides scientific proof that “the digestive organs of the whale are so inscrutably constructed by Divine Providence, that it is quite impossible for him to completely digest even a man’s arm” (Ch. 100). This [contributes] to the idea that the white whale is no malevolent creature, but simply acted in defense of itself or even possibly to provide heroic aid to “the pod of four of five whales” Captain Boomer had been harpooning for (Ch. 100). 
• The shocking thing about this account is that the people giving it do not hold ill will to Moby Dick, even though he swallowed the captain’s arm. Bunger tries to defend Moby Dick to Ahab, detailing how whale stomachs are not capable of digesting limbs, so if a whale bites them off it is because of his “awkwardness” or self-preservation. Bunger and the captain clearly do not see whales as monsters, just animals. It calls into question their reasoning for becoming whalers in the first place; we have to wonder if they feel bad for hunting whales or if they see hunting as such a necessity that any sympathy for the whales is outweighed by the demand for oil.
• There is a very obvious split between Boomer and Ahab, especially in regard to hunting the whale. Ahab was maimed by the whale and now has sworn to kill it for revenge, but Boomer is happy to be alive and no longer worries about the whale because he saw how dangerous it was. “No more White Whales for me,” said Boomer (Ch. 100). Ahab is surprised and annoyed that Boomer would give up one the whale, but he has his reasons. He further explains, “there would be great glory in killing him, I know that...but, hark ye, he is best left alone...” (Ch. 100). Boomer seems to understand that life is more valuable than seeking revenge on the whale, and he chooses not to bother himself with it anymore. He is cheerful about his life and enjoys what he does. On the contrary, Ahab cannot comprehend why he would give up on the White Whale and intends to never do so until it is dead. To Boomer’s previous statement, Ahab replied, “He is. But he will still be hunted for all that” (Ch. 100). Although he recognizes the whale is better left alone, he refuses to do so. He is very unhappy with his life and exacting his revenge on the whale gives him a sense of purpose it seems. The clear opposition of each character's way of life makes me think there may be a deeper meaning to it. I think that Ahab may hate his disability so much that he thinks killing the whale will make him feel less horrible, and he is unhappy because of it. On the contrary, Boomer is content with his disability because he recognizes there is no point in trying to change what he cannot, and he is happier because of it.

The Great Writing Challenge

• Ishmael muses that to write about his thoughts of whales makes him “faint with their outstretching comprehensiveness” and asks that he is given a “condor’s quill” and “Vesuvius’ crater for an inkstand” (Ch. 104). These requests and statement reflect the great lengths that Melville went to to describe various facts about whales and their anatomy and nature.

Ishmael is Black?

More evidence is also provided for Ishmael’s ethnicity in chapter 104. Ishmael states that he has worked as a “stone-mason, and also a great digger of ditches, canals and wells, wine-vaults, cellars, and cisterns” (Ch. 104). These are jobs, except possibly stone-mason, that were considered undesirable to many in the 1800s and would be taken up by people of color of those who were not qualified to work other jobs. This could be evidence that Ishmael truly is African American rather than Caucasian. 

Ishmael as Reader

Throughout chapter 103 and 104, Ishmael attempts to describe Sperm Whales from their skeletons alone. Ishmael even states that he was “struck anew” by the “majestic” build of Sperm Whales (Chapter 103). He goes on to say that trying to capture the “magnitude” of the creature is a “vain and foolish” act for a man that is “timid” and “untraveled” (Chapter 103). This implies that just as Ishmael cannot admire or “comprehend” Sperm Whales, the reader cannot fully understand what the novel symbolizes without looking at all its parts (Chapter 103). In order to grasp what Melville is trying to convey in Moby-Dick, the reader has to dissect every chapter and character, not just the areas that they enjoy.

1820: Irving, Sleepy Hollow

The painting above, by Christian Schussle, was completed in 1864, five years after the death of Washington Irving. It is titled "Washington Irving and his Literary Friends at Sunnyside." South of Tarrytown and Sleepy Hollow, Sunnyside was Irving's home on the banks of the Hudson River in New York between 1835 and his death in 1859. The painting demonstrates Irving's prominence in American literary history of the period. That's Irving sitting in the center with his legs crossed. The other writers portrayed are, from left to right, Henry T. Tuckerman, Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., William Gilmore Simms, Fitz-Greene Halleck, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Nathaniel Parker Willis, William H. Prescott, (Irving), James Kirke Paulding, Ralph Waldo Emerson, William Cullen Bryant, John Pendleton Kennedy, James Fenimore Cooper, and George Bancroft.

New York City

Irving published his first satirical essays on theatre and New York City society in 1802, when he was nineteen years old (Irving was born in New York City).

Poking Fun at Knickerbockers

Irving first achieved literary celebrity with a parodic work titled A History of New-York from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty, which made fun of a more serious history published by another author in 1807 (The Picture of New York by Samuel Lathen Mitchell). Irving's book was narrated by "Diedrick Knickerbocker." 

The Best-Known American Writer in Europe

Irving lived in Europe between 1815 and 1832. It was there that he wrote "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" in 1819.

The publication in 1820 of The Sketch Book of Sir Geoffrey Crayon, which included "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" and "Rip Van Winkle," helped establish Irving as "one of the 'inventors' of the modern short story" (Levine 511).

Irving was "the first American writers of the 19th century to achieve an international literary reputation"  and "the first American able to support himself solely through his writing" (Levine 511).

St. Christopher

In 1824, Irving moved to Spain, and four years later, he published a non-fiction history The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, "which became the basis for standard schoolroom accounts of Columbus during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries" (Levine 512).  The book was "stunningly inaccurate." For example, "The real Columbus studied Portuguese sailors’ maps, concluded that Southeast Asia lay just beyond the map edges, and set out to prove it. Irving’s Columbus sailed to prove that the world was round, thumbing his nose at European elites who insisted it was flat. Throughout the book, Columbus is valiant, intrepid, and eager to shed Old Europe—not coincidentally, exactly the qualities the United States saw in itself" (Burmila).

Oklahoma!

After returning to the States in 1832, he took a horseback journey into Oklahoma and subsequently published a book about his experiences (A Tour of the Prairies, 1835).

Over the course of a month, Irving's party crossed thorugh a dozen Oklahom counties. (Chronicles of Oklahoma / Oklahoma Historical Society)