MDDM "Another Slave-Colony"

[jbor]

The point I was making is that it must have come as a surprise or shock to
many readers - American readers especially - that the focus of the text,
ostensibly, and self-described as, "a Tale about America" (7.22), is on
Mason and Dixon themselves, and (so far, at least) *England*, and Englishmen
abroad, rather than on the actual Mason-Dixon Line, as it had long been
reported the novel *would* be about. What *isn't* narrated as 'background'
is the eighty years of boundary disputes between the Calverts and the Penns
that van Atta's article addresses - what is narrated are some of the
political and other intrigues and issues on the English and Continental side
of things. I think Pynchon's decision to gear the novel in this way is
significant. It's not simply an acknowledgement that the audience to whom
the work is directed will already know all the American history stuff -
clearly, they don't, and Pynchon has never merely written for a parochial
American readership anyway as, say, DeLillo sometimes does. But what he has
done in the novel is deliberately foreground the significance of one
particular set of circumstances - those prevailing in England - at the
expense of another - those within the American colonies - and this fact is
something that has not gone unnoticed either by Tenebrae, as evidenced by
her 'perplexity' and remark which open Ch. 25. It seems to me that,
empathising with Mason's and Dixon's points of view as the text does,
Pynchon is setting up to deal that myth of a noble and glorious (and
'independent') American heritage a bit of a mortal body-blow:

      "Not to mention the Americans...?"
      "Excuse me? They are at least British there,-- aren't they? The Place
    *is* but a Patch of England, at a Three-Thousand Mile Off-set. Isn't
    it? [ ... ] Dixon, hold, are you telling me, now, that Americans are
    *not* British?-- You've heard this somewhere?"
      "No more than the Cape Dutch are Dutch...? 'Tis said these people keep
    Slaves, as did our late Hosts,-- that they are likewise inclin'd to
    kill the People already living where they wish to settle.-- "
      "Another Slave-Colony...so have I heard as well. Christ." (248)

After 250 pages of this purportedly historical narrative - "a Tale about
America" - the corresponding prior *'American'* history is encapsulated, all
but dismissed, in these few lines, part of a conversation coming right after
Dixon's reminder of "all thah' French Jabber" that was heard, or intuited,
and then interpreted as being a lesson about the ethics and motives of
European imperialism ("France is not at war with the sciences" ... "The
Business of the World is Trade and Death"), when the *L'Grand* decided not
to finish off the *Seahorse* in the first attack at sea. (39-40) Why Chas
and Jere have agreed to go there, whatever redeeming qualities the place
might hold, can only be guessed at: "the Food, the Lasses?" Or, as Mason
cynically observes, "[t]he Pay,-- I suppose." Though, to be fair, Mason's
return, his death and burial in America, is also highlighted at the outset
of the text (8), so he certainly must have warmed to the place in the
interim.

The other Queen of England was Mary II, by the way, who ruled jointly with
her husband William of Orange (William III) from 1688-94. After her death
"Dutch William" was an unpopular sole monarch until 1702.

best


on 22/12/01 5:29 PM, Otto at o.sell at telda.net wrote:

 snip
 
> The indeterminacy plus the chance to bring to attention some more unknown
> facts of American history might be what has been interesting to Pynchon too.
> 
> I can understand that Van Atta misses Queen Anne (1702-14, M&D, Chap. 18,
> 189, 11 and 14), but who is the second queen? Seems as if my knowledge of
> British history is only rudimentary too. Maybe I should give A.L. Morton's
> "A People's History of England" another read. Sorrily I don't find the
> Mason-Dixon line in the index.
> 
> Otto
> 
> jbor:
> on 21/12/01 3:28 PM, Otto wrote:
>>> 
>>> 246.2 "This case ... languish'd in court for eighty years." The border
>>> dispute between Pennsylvania and Maryland?
>>> 
>> 
>> Of course:
>> "The boundary dispute dated as far back as 1681, generated by exploratory
>> titles or grants, inadequate maps, geographic errors, and carelessness of
>> English kings in making land grants."
>> http://www.gamber.net/gamber/mason-dx.htm
> 
> Thanks Otto. Here's a couple more links I stored up from a while back:
> 
> http://freespace.virgin.net/john.cletheroe/usa_can/usa/mas_dix.htm
> 
> http://rongo.ce.jhu.edu/mdcive/mason.htm
> 
> http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa041999.htm?iam=dpile&terms=%2B%2
> 2Charles+Mason+and+Jeremiah+Dixon%22
 
 snip