Mason and Dixon

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

I agree, and I think what confirms this view is the way in
which Wicks views the telling of this story: 

"family story perfected in the hellish Forge of Domestick
Recension,
generation 'pon generation, till what survives is the pure
truth, anneal'd to
Mercilessness, about each Figure, no matter how stretched,
nor how influenced
over the years by all the sentiments from unreflective love
to inflexible
Dislike." Where a little "Irresponsible Embellishment" on
the part of the
current tale teller is recognized as 'part of the common
Duty of Remembering"
and "sentiments-how we dream'd of, and were mistaken in,
each other" "count for
at least as much as our poor cold Chronologies."

rj wrote:

"It is only *our* (historical, factitious) hindsight which
strives in this way to balance,  or negate, Dixon's act as
futile."

As Wicks describes the responsibilities of the story teller,
historical hindsight, is accounted for. 

TF




rj wrote:
> 
> I agree with Thomas's posts in this thread. The inevitability of the
> slaves' recapture and punishment is not something Dixon could have
> known, nor is it ever an issue for Wicks and the kids. It is only *our*
> (historical, factitious) hindsight which strives in this way to balance,
> or negate, Dixon's act as futile. The "moral gist" of the legend remains
> intact within the text, even if the actuality of the occurrence is in
> doubt.
> 
> best
> 
> Thomas Eckhardt wrote:
> >
> > davemarc wrote:
> >
> > >I can accept it as family lore, recounting something that might or might
> > >not have happened.  It puts Dixon in a good light, though under scrutiny
> > >the story turns out to be not as simple as "One day, Dixon rebuked a
> > >slaveowner and saved slaves."  Within its context, the moral gist of the
> > >story seems balanced by the arguable futility of Dixon's gesture:  Dixon
> > >helps to set slaves "free" in a setting where they would not be able to
> > >escape recapture and punishment.  As a koan-like puzzler, perhaps it'd be
> > >something like "Can one set slaves free when they are bound to be enslaved
> > >again?"
> >
> > Hmm. Is that the impression the episode leaves on your mind? For me it is
> > more like "How nice to imagine that Dixon really did this" and thus I don't
> > think the moral gist is really balanced by the arguable futility of Dixon's
> > deed. But your reading is fine with me. I was just getting angry with all
> > those critics who claimed that Dixon's action is depicted as futile and
> > hopeless and nothing else. This view of things is exactly what M&D is up
> > against, I believe. I mean, I can enjoy a novel which expresses nothing but
> > utter hopelesness and despair as well as the next guy or girl, but this is
> > just not the case here.