Thankless
05-19-2012, 10:18 AM
Dear all,
"There is something in this song which ever calls forth my affections. The manly virtue of courage, that fortitude which steels the heart against the keenest misfortunes, which interweaves the laurel of glory amidst the instruments of torture and death, displays something so noble, so exalted, that in despite of the prejudices of education I cannot but admire it, even in a savage." (II, i)
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/554/pg554.html
This is part of a monologue from Royall Tyler's The Contrast. My question presupposes no previous konwledge of the play or of early American theater. I simply want to find out if my reading is shared with any of you, or if it completely misses the mark.
So, I will prsent my reading and you can then tell me whether you find it in line with the logic of the text or whether it is flawed. If you do find it flawed, any reasons you can provide would be much appreciated.
I cannot consider the "prejudices of education" to be against courage as a concept for two reasons. First, courage is described as "noble" and "exalted". Second, the play itself was written only five years after the Paris Peace Treaty which formalized the independence of the US from Britain. It is hard to think of any educational system that could prejudice its students against courage, harder still, in a country that had just recently fought a war of independence. The only other interpretation left (as far as I can see), is that they are directed against "savages". Therefore, the prejudices teach that savages cannot be courageous, so (presumably), any 'courageous' behaviour they display is plain savagery. This leads to the conclusion that courage, at least as a concept, is contingent on the practitioner.
Finally, allow me to apologize for my writing and to thank the organizers of this community.
"There is something in this song which ever calls forth my affections. The manly virtue of courage, that fortitude which steels the heart against the keenest misfortunes, which interweaves the laurel of glory amidst the instruments of torture and death, displays something so noble, so exalted, that in despite of the prejudices of education I cannot but admire it, even in a savage." (II, i)
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/554/pg554.html
This is part of a monologue from Royall Tyler's The Contrast. My question presupposes no previous konwledge of the play or of early American theater. I simply want to find out if my reading is shared with any of you, or if it completely misses the mark.
So, I will prsent my reading and you can then tell me whether you find it in line with the logic of the text or whether it is flawed. If you do find it flawed, any reasons you can provide would be much appreciated.
I cannot consider the "prejudices of education" to be against courage as a concept for two reasons. First, courage is described as "noble" and "exalted". Second, the play itself was written only five years after the Paris Peace Treaty which formalized the independence of the US from Britain. It is hard to think of any educational system that could prejudice its students against courage, harder still, in a country that had just recently fought a war of independence. The only other interpretation left (as far as I can see), is that they are directed against "savages". Therefore, the prejudices teach that savages cannot be courageous, so (presumably), any 'courageous' behaviour they display is plain savagery. This leads to the conclusion that courage, at least as a concept, is contingent on the practitioner.
Finally, allow me to apologize for my writing and to thank the organizers of this community.