Historicizing “Sin”

The Quaker City certainly seems highly concerned with sex and sin, and without contextualizing Lippard’s life and work, it could be read as a sort of conservative tale encouraging morality.  However, with a little background information–

http://citypaper.net/articles/2007/03/22/monks-devils-and-quakers

–one finds that Lippard was a labor organizer and an ardent social critic.  “Throughout the novel, no social injustice goes unaddressed. His motto as a penny-paper crusading journalist — ‘Have something to say and say it with all your might’— serves him well”(Pettit, above text).  Therefore, although I agree with the other posters that the text is concerned with the clandestine ‘sin’ of the monks, it is difficult to see their acts as unusual or fantastic as would be the norm in the Gothic genre.  Rather Lippard places this sect of libertines firmly at the heart of Philadelphia’s society.  “And the monks of Monk Hall-who are they?  Grim-faced personages in long black robes and drooping cowls?…Ah no, Ah no, from the eloquent, the learned-and don’t you laugh-from the pious of the Quaker City…”(331).  He continues on to list various positions held by those within the group; they are within the legal and business sectors, as well as the church.  Here is the crux of Lippard’s sin, the social injustice of post-Revolution, urban America, and those who control the system are hidden away–out of view from the new democracy.  Cloistered inside the decrepit aristocratic structure that is Monk Hall.  The text does not explicitly state that the mansion was constructed/owned by an aristocrat, one can assume thusly because it was built in the pre-Revolutionary period by a wealthy foreigner(323).  “Soon after the Revolution, fine brick buildings began to spring up…” around the mansion(325).   Thus signalling, at least a mild redistribution of wealth because of the burgeoning democracy.  However, once Abijah K. Jones begins to inhabit Monk Hall and presumably begin his clandestine meetings of the wealthy and powerful, the surrounding buildings “…about to commit suicide and fling themselves madly into the gutter…”(325).  The regression of social welfare already visible and I think, firmly placed in the hands of these “Monks” (oligarchs, capitalists and bureaucrats).  Therefore, I think this text shifts away from a religious view of sin and toward one more akin to what we might consider social injustice.

Dedications…

It’s worth noting that Lippard dedicated The Quaker City thusly:

“INSCRIBED TO THE MEMORY OF CHARLES BROCKDEN BROWN.”

Thoughts?

What Lippard would like to say to you, dear 21st-century reader

From the Preface to the 1849 edition:

“To the young man and young woman who may read this book when I am dead, I have a word to say:

Would to God that the evils recorded in these pages, were not based upon facts. Would to God that the experience of my life had not impressed me so vividly with the colossal vices and the terrible deformities, presented in the social system of this Large City, in the Nineteenth Century. You will read this work when the hand which pens this line is dust. If you discover one word in its pages, that has a tendency to develop one impure thought, I beseech you reject that word. If you discover a chapter, a page, or a line, that conflicts with the great idea of Human Brotherhood, promulgated by the Redeemer, I ask you with all my soul, reject that chapter, that passage, that line. At the same time remember the idea which impelled me to produce the book. Remember that my life from the age of sixteen up to twenty-five was one perpetual battle with hardship and difficulty, such as do not often fall to the lot of a young man–such as rarely is recorded in the experience of childhood or manhood. Take the book with all its faults and all its virtues. Judge it as you yourself would wish to be judged. Do not wrest a line from these pages, for the encouragement of a bad thought or a bad deed.”

Moral Chaos in the Mansion

Arghhh… what happens when he goes into the last room? Don’t make me assume… Is it Lorrimer with his lady? Does Byrnewood kill him? What about Devil-bug? How does it all end?! Damn it all, Lippard. Nevermind that I read the last two pages through my fingers, as if I were in some theater helplessly watching a post-apocalyptic drama like The Road. Covering my face. Reading through my fingers. And he goes through…a curtain. The end.

Ok. Despite the fact that I feel this story could have been extended past this last curtain, I thought it was a very captivating, humorous and blatant impression of the typical antebellum city and urban moral chaos. Published in 1844/45, it came out roughly 8 years before the Blithedale Romance (info a la Wikipedia). It is easy to see how Lippard conveys city-life as an aristocratic, self-helping, brewing hotbed of evil, but where to begin…

The story starts with a short introduction of what the mansion was like before unbanization swung in: “long before the Revolution, [the mansion] stood in the center of an extensive garden, surrounded by a brick wall, and encircled by a deep grove of horse-chestnut and beechen trees” (323). Back when it was protected and unthreatened by “civilization” it was a calm, tranquil edifice. Then we read of how terrible and looming the current mansion and surrounding city are for three more pages. I also noted how often characters were compared to or named after animals. Along with beetles, worms and mosquitos, the chandelier is shaped like a satyr (330), the President has the “mane of a horse” (332) and in the forest-themed bridal-room, the long curtains fall around the couch “like the wings of a bird guarding its resting place” (344). It all gave the feeling of a wild jungle full of morality-less beings, an impression that, to me, was further illustrated by the overall inebriated state of the party downstairs.

Something I kept noticing, but couldn’t quite figure out was the continued references to “the eye.” Multiple, multiple times the narrator refers to only one eye of a character. In many cases, they have only one… but in the others, very rarely does he attribute the action to both eyes.

And allegedly, this story is loosely based on the trial of one Singleton Mercer (again, see Wikipedia), a father who was accused of murdering a man that led Mercer’s 16-year-old daughter into a brothel and raped her. Mercer was found not-guilty, and I don’t think it is hard to see the connection between the murdered man and his violated daughter to Paul Western and Emily, respectively. I wonder if Lorrimer is supposed to represent yet another Paul Western. Where that puts poor, doomed and transfixed Byrnewood I don’t know, but the fact that he had anticipated a pure, innocent girl must say something about him: “…but if she is the innocent thing Lorrimer would have me believe, then better for her, to have slept in the foulest gutter of the streets, than to have lain for an instant in this woman-trap…” (345).

Discuss.

Monk-Hall= The Wilderness of the City

Hey everyone, so I am supposed to post for Monday but I will be gone Friday-Tuesday so I am posting now to make sure I get it up on time.

First of all, I thought The Quaker City was awesome! I mean, Devil-Bug, Musquito, and Glow-worm are the “policemen” of Monk-Hall?!? And the drunken society figures at the table. So great. However, I wanted to focus on the city in which the mansion exists and what its purpose is within that city. First of all, as we have discussed in class, the city is not a happy place to be in. Lippard affirms this notion as he depicts the buildings surrounding Monk-Hall. Opposite the mansion are “a mass of miserable frame houses [that seem] about to commit suicide and fling themselves madly into the gutter” (325). Beyond these houses are several other buildings of various uses “looming in broken perspective” (325). Lippard depicts the city as decrepit and disjointed as if the pieces don’t fit together to make it whole. Amongst the depressing stretch of buildings lies Monk-Hall. Surrounded by the dank city, I think that Monk-Hall represents the wilderness within an urban sphere. Rumors abound about wizards, devil worship, and “midnight orgies” (324). Not only does the mansion propel three stories above ground, but it also “descends” underground where the secret sinful meetings are held. This entire dramatic depiction of Monk-Hall brought Hawthorne to my mind several times. Since the mansion propels beneath the surface, thus getting closer and closer to the dominion of the Devil, Monk-Hall represents sin in a city brimming with suicidal buildings. It is feared and talked about because what goes on within its walls is unknown. The surrounding buildings are not feared for their aesthetic appeal. They are offices and houses, not a solitary old mansion with veiled figures wandering about at night. Often in the nineteenth century, that which was unknown was perceived as a threat; therefore, Monk-Hall is seen as a mysterious enigma housing massive drunken orgies and Satanic worship. It’s not hard to see why it is a great source of speculation and intrigue.

And the Puritans thought the actual wilderness was scary.