MDDM Washington & Gershom

[jbor]

on 10/7/02 12:45 PM, Doug Millison at millison at online-journalist.com wrote:

> The novel  shows Washington commanding  Gershom to cook for them, serve
> punch, step 'n' fetch the pipe and herb -- Washington exhibits the ability
> to control quite a few things that Gershom does.  Washington does it
> politely of course, but G moves quickly enough to obey,

I'm not convinced that Washington is actually "commanding" Gershom to do
anything. GW certainly asks Gersh politely ("if you will" 278.23) to fetch
the pipe and some more punch, and Gershom does bring these out on a tray,
but that's it. When George asks Gersh to "fry us some hog jowls" (279.15),
Gershom doesn't do it, doesn't seem to feel compelled to do it, and it
doesn't appear to be an actual command or even a serious request from George
that he should do it.

We also find out that Martha does at least some if not most or all of the
cooking (280), and that George himself is or has been expected to share some
of the cooking responsibilities as well (281.1).

There are enough instances where Gershom doesn't "obey", or doesn't seem to
feel the need to "obey", George. For example, when George tries to wave
Gersh back inside the house he sits down (279.36). George doesn't have him
whipped or abuse him or reprimand him or even seem surprised at this
apparent show of "disobedience". I'd say it's reasonable to conclude from
this that George doesn't expect Gersh to "obey". The sort of humorous and
self-effacing response from George, and the way he addresses Gershom by a
diminutive of his given name, after Gershom interjects with a wry remark
about the French ("Thankee, Gersh" 282.31), for me exemplifies the
relationship between the two men, which I find to be one of mutual affection
and loyalty. 

And, I think we do indeed get a fairly broad snapshot of Gershom's life at
Mt Vernon. As we've already noted, there's the dope "Aroma" coming from
inside the house (278.11), which would seem to indicate that Gershom is at
liberty to smoke pot inside George's home whenever he likes, and which is
quite probably why George knows that Gersh is within earshot (278.19). He
doesn't defer to George in taking the Pipe (279-280), or when joining in the
conversation (279-80, 281-2, 284-7). Gershom isn't "commanded" by George to
tell jokes, or to sing (284-5), and George doesn't "command" or ask him to
fetch the lead plate (286.34). In fact, when Gershom does fetch the lead
plate it seems to be against Martha's better judgement, if not her express
wishes. Gershom is at liberty to worship and express himself as a Jewish man
in George's home, and he is given the liberty to perform for local tourists
when he so chooses, to earn money from these performances, and to invest
that money as he decides. In Ch. 58 we find out that Gershom has even gone
into Williamsburg unbeknownst to George, and a valid argument can be and has
been made that the reason he is in Williamsburg is that he has followed
George to look out for his welfare, and that this is exactly what he does in
the scene Pynchon has composed.

best

p.s. If you're not trying to start up a flame war with me then how come a
good 25% of your argument in this post relies on trying to call me a
hypocrite?

> illustrating the
> remarkable level of control that Washington exercises over his slave,
> certainly more than I enjoy with a 15-year-old son who routinely ignores
> such requests despite being asked very politely.
> 
> The novel doesn't say anything about Washington considering Gershom an
> equal, although Washington does tell us that he is  Gershom's "master" and
> that Gershom is his "tithable"; I believe we can reasonably conclude from
> his use of this technical term that Washington perceives the legal and
> fiduciary rights and responsibilities that slave ownership entails. M&D
> doesn't spell out the extent of Gershom's "liberties" either,  showing only
> the narrowest slice of G's life, making it difficult to say with any
> certainty what Gershom is or isn't allowed to do. In fact,  the novel
> doesn't use the word "liberty" with regard to Gershom at all, that's a term
> that you've introduced in your leap to another conclusion about Washington
> and Gershom.
> 
> None of this is terribly important, of course.  But, for somebody who
> insists that others stick only to what's in the text, it's interesting to
> observe the way you routinely base your opinions on extratextual elements;
> applying one rule for others and a different rule for yourself could be
> said to illustrate hypocrisy in action.