Click here for an easy and free way to help protect endangered habitat at The Rainforest Site! Non-profit ad by Voyager
VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:31:28 02/22/09 Sun
Author: JessieR
Subject: Lines, Love, and Race in A Breath of Snow and Ashes

The following quote is from A Breath of Snow and Ashes, Chapter 47, “Bees and Switches”:

“'Because, Sassenach,’ he said, very dryly indeed, ‘when ye’re a man, a good bit of what ye have to do is to draw up lines and fight other folk who come over them. Your enemies, your tenants, your children—your wife. Ye canna always just strike them or take a strap to them, but when ye can, at least it’s clear to everyone who’s in charge…And if ye’re a man, you’re in charge. It’s you that keeps order, whether ye like it or not’” (414).

Jamie’s definition of what it means to be a man tells us he sees manhood as something not given but earned. It doesn’t automatically adhere to a person with the requisite male anatomy; it is something that must be asserted again and again by fighting, in one way or another, those who cross the boundaries a real man establishes in order to protect and control his property.

But how would Jamie’s paradigm apply to men who, simply because of their race, are property—the legal property of their owners? Is it possible to be “a slave and a man?” Ulysses, Jocasta’s butler and slave, cannot have tenants or own property, yet he can “draw up lines” and “fight other folk who come over them” more effectively than many white men in these novels. His power, however, is covert, and visible only to those enlightened enough to know that a black body can contain an intelligent mind.

Jamie recognizes this early on (Drums of Autumn), but by the end of A Breath of Snow and Ashes, he must deal with a Ulysses who is more than a behind-the-scenes powerbroker; he must deal with him as Jocasta’s confidant and lover, a man who has helped make a cuckold of Duncan Innes, and used diabolical means to suppress the affair. It is the transgressive nature of this relationship as both adulterous and interracial that is the focus of this month’s Broch Talk.

The Jocasta/Ulysses affair, as well as the relationship between Duncan and Phaedre, allows Diana Gabaldon to examine the corrosive nature of racism on the most intimate of human relationships. (Notice that Jocasta, Phaedre, and Duncan have names culled from tragic drama, and Ulysses bears the name of an epic hero who endured a 20-year separation from his wife). These four breach the color line that upheld assumptions of white physical and moral superiority, but their motives for doing so—love, compassion, and physical need—are blind to any lines, colored or otherwise.

Lines. Defending them can make the man, according to Jamie, but their very existence seems to invite someone to cross them. Gabaldon is at her best when situating characters in social contexts whose “lines” are out of sync with what they (and readers) know to be true. Watching these characters fight their way across and around them drives the plot. It’s easy to see this in time travelers like Claire, Bree, and Roger, but it also applies to forward thinking people like Jocasta and Ulysses who were simply born before liberal attitudes toward race and gender renovated the laws and customs of American society.

To explore the ramifications of the interracial and adulterous love affairs between Jocasta and Ulysses and Phaedre and Duncan, we ask the following questions:

1. Has anyone been wronged by these affairs? If so, where did the wrong originate—in the distorted social practices generated by slavery, or in the violation of the marriage vows taken by Jocasta and Duncan?

2. Was Jocasta justified in seeking a loving relationship with Ulysses, given that she married largely for "duty" and received little love? Do these books suggest that the marriage bond can be trumped if the marriage is a loveless one, even if one must break the law to do so? What are we to make of Jocasta’s willingness to risk crossing the racial barriers she upheld by being a slaveholder?

3. How does Ulysses's decision to sell Phaedre once he's aware of her sexual transgressions affect our opinion of him? What does this tell us about the power relations between slave men and women?

4. Phaedre is the product of an illicit relationship between Jocasta’s former husband, Hector Cameron, and Betty, the River Run slave. Since Jocasta believes Hector caused the death of her daughters, how might this have influenced her treatment of Phaedre and her attitude toward Duncan?

5. What was it about Phaedre that relieved Duncan of his chronic impotence? Was her race a factor? Did she intimidate him less because she was a slave, or was it her genuine sympathy for the man that made him respond? What other aspect of manhood does Phaedre provide for Duncan that Jamie makes no provisions for in his definition of the term?

Last edited by author: Mon February 23, 2009 12:13:44   Edited 1 time.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Replies:

[> Woo eee! That's a lotta questions. OK- Now, I'm not one to condone affairs but marriage in that age was so often loveless that I just find it hard to say that I expect any person to live their entire life without wanting/seeking love. And since it starts with Jo and Ulysseus, I would say that Hector's numerous affairs led to Jo's one passion. Was Ulysseus harmed by this? I don't think so. He had the best life he could have had at that time, in that place. If Jo had freed him, he would never have been able to gain a position with the respect and power that he enjoyed at River Run. He would be in danger of losing his freedom and ending up in a much worse situation. Besides, he loves Jo. Was Duncan harmed? I don't think so. He knew quite well, his was a marriage of convenience. Jo needed to keep away other powerful suitors.>>>> -- susiej, 12:53:03 02/23/09 Mon

Duncan couldn't love her physically, so I can't say Jo was cheating on him. And ofcourse I understand why she didn't tell him of her and Ulyssues.

As for Ulysseus selling Phoebe- terrible. Terribly unfair, too Phoebe and to Duncan.

It was that act that made Ulyssues lose any pity I might have felt for him. EVen if Phoebe had become pregnant, it wouldn't have been that much of an unheard of scandal. Obviously it had already happened and that was back when Jo was not an old woman. And most knew her marriage with Duncan was a business affair.

It seems I think the only "crime" done was the selling of Phoebe.

[ Edit | View ]




[> [> Now, as to why Duncan was "able" with Phoebe. That may have been the rub that really got to Jo- why with a slave but not with her? With a young girl but not an older woman. I can see why Jo's pride would be hurt even without the race issue, but I believe there is more to it. Duncan was a very shy private man. Jo was a succesful many times married woman- intimidating to everyone much less to a one armed fisherman who suddenly finds himself lord of the manor. But in time, as he became comfortable in that position, perhaps it gave him a confidance that he was able to share with Phoebe. But one also has to remember that she made the move (in Duncan's version of the story anyway). It was her breasts that were pressed against him. Maybe no one had done that before. -- susiej, 13:59:47 02/23/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Um, her name is Phaedre, not Phoebe :-) Not to nitpick or anything. -- Karen Henry, 14:39:59 02/23/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> oh, sorry! That's not nitpicking. Thanks for the reminder. Obviously I didn't do the rereading. (Too into Nicholas right now to read anything else.) -- susiej, 09:49:45 02/24/09 Tue


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Susie, I like this explanation of why Duncan was capable with Phaedre. Given Duncan's life, Phaedre was the first to fuss over him, feeding him (the way to a man's heart), maybe really listening to him. I wonder how much Jo respected or asked for his opinions on anything. Conversations goes a long way to cement relationships. -- Carol P, 16:10:47 02/23/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Bear in mind that Jocasta *did* free Ulysses, many years earlier. He had manumission papers, but refused to leave her. -- maddiej, 14:48:08 02/23/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> good point! They truly did care for each other. -- susiej, 10:00:42 02/24/09 Tue


[ Edit | View ]





[> Salaam, Jessie and Cathy, I'm doing Willoughby cartwheels in glee. For the uneducated among us, me and Claire *g*, explain the tragic dramas the names come from. The only one I know is Ulysses. I think Ulysses meets Jamie's definition of a man. He draws his lines and enforces them on those in his sphere of influence. He even drew a line with Jamie; remember he told Jamie about Jocasta's plans when he delivered the plaid and brooch. What confuses me about the lines is that they move, not according to the sin, but depending on who the sinner is. Jamie was all set to kill the *!$* that got Roger hanged, until he found out it was his cousin, then oops, the line moved. I don't like the idea of moving lines, but mine moved on reading questions 2 & 4. -- Carol P, 15:08:19 02/23/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]




[> [> Hi Carol—Salaam back! Two of the “tragic figures” are from Greek literature: Jocasta, mother/wife of Oedipus, and Phaedre, wife of Theseus, who fell in love with her stepson, Hippolytus. As you might expect, the lives of these women end badly, both through suicide. (There are several versions of the play, Phaedre, so there may be one where she lives—I don’t know for sure). >>>inside for the guys>>> -- JessieR, 19:10:29 02/23/09 Mon

Duncan is the Scottish king Macbeth kills (aided and abetted by Lady Macbeth). Calling Duncan a “tragic figure” in Macbeth is stretching things a bit, since Duncan is more of a victim. I know of one obscure literary connection between Macbeth and Phaedre: Macbeth gets the title “Thane of Cawdor” early in the play (Castle Cawdor belongs to Macbeth and is the site of the slaying), and Robinson Jeffers, the great 20thC American poet, wrote a narrative poem called “Cawdor” that is an adaptation of the story of Phaedre, with a little bit of Oedipus thrown in (some self-blinding goes on). The poem takes place in California, so I don’t want to push this connection too far, and I doubt DG had this in mind when she named her characters Duncan and Phaedre. It’s just one of those “six degrees of separation” things that happens every now and again in literature.

How does any of this relates to our quartet in ABOSAA? Women with names like “Jocasta” and “Phaedre” tend to have “man” problems, men named Duncan need to beware power-seeking women, and anyone named Ulysses will end up separated from the woman he loves for a long, long time.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Thanks, Jessie. After I finish smacking my forehead repeatedly on the floor in embarrassment, I'm going to marvel at the things I forgot. I plead 50 years passage since I read about Jocasta, but it's downright humiliating not to have placed Duncan; I was taken with bloody hands and ghosts instead of names. Phaedre is new to me, now I have something else to read. I raise a glass of Scotch to you while I giggle over your last sentence. -- Carol P, 20:19:19 02/23/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Interesting. I knew a little of this, but not in anywhere near this much detail. Thanks! -- Karen Henry, 05:28:54 02/24/09 Tue


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Yes, I see Jo as more of the Penelope trying to keep away suitors so she can stay true to Ulysses. -- susiej, 10:04:24 02/24/09 Tue


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> That's a very interesting insight! -- CatherineM., 10:06:36 02/24/09 Tue


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Good call! I might also add that the love felt by the Jocasta and Phaedre of Greek tragedy was taboo. It their case it was incest, but interracial sex in 18thC North Carolina would have been considered taboo as well. -- JessieR, 17:52:07 02/24/09 Tue


[ Edit | View ]





[> I think the greatest wrongs were committed by Jocasta, but I do understand why she entered a relationship with Ulysses in the first place. I hesitate to call Jocasta's affair one of love, at least on her part. MacKenzie-like, she used Ulysses for her own comfort and ends, without much regard for what was best for him. If she loved him, she should have insisted on his being a free man when Hector died. Then she used Duncan, taking vows she had no intention of honoring. I lost a lot of respect for Jocasta when we learned of Phaedre's background. Even if there was some affection and respect between the two, there was something manipulative and sleazy about Jocasta keeping P a slave. Even though J swore vows she was not free to make. Duncan was wrong to break his vow, doing so hurt himself, Jo and most of all Phaedre, almost costing her life. I give Ulysses and Phaedre a pass because, when push comes to shove, regardless of how the affairs started, neither one could refuse their owners. -- Carol P, 15:45:05 02/23/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]




[> [> Carol, we're posting at the same time . . . I'm not inclined to think sympathetically towards Jocasta either. -- KathleenM, 15:58:58 02/23/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Well, she can be a real b*#tch that's true, but if I'd lost all three of my children in such tragic circumstances and been tied to the man I blamed for most of it, I don't know what I would have done but she survived and lived to rule her own life by taking on some of Hector's ruthlessness. And to do it blind- well, I can't help but admire her strength. And she was never anything but kind to Duncan. And Phaedre was never ill treated. A house slave in a place such as River Run had better food, clothing and shelter than a lot of white people. She was not molested by any men as far as we know. Or beaten. I would have been unheard of for her to be recognized as Hector's child or heir. I didn't see her treatment of Phaedre as that bad. And Betty was allowed to live there and keep her child. -- susiej, 09:56:59 02/24/09 Tue

Last edited by author: Tue February 24, 2009 09:58:56   Edited 1 time.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> You make a good point about Jocasta's strength. Claire also ruminates on this characteristic after hearing the story of the Cameron's flight after Culloden and rather admires Jo for that strength. As for Phaedre not being ill treated, she was kept as an uneducated slave. I fear my sympathies lie more with the maroons described by Dr. Stern, something to the effect that there are always men who would rather live as animals than live in slavery. -- Carol P, 11:46:49 02/24/09 Tue


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> yes, that's true and especially if they had been bought by horrible people, but while living during the time of slaver, Phaedre's life was comparably "good." But the fact that Ulysses, a slave himself, would sell her-to protect his white mistress and self when she hadn't done anything wrong (in my eyes) well, that burns me up. She's suffering for Jo's safetly here. -- susiej, 12:31:18 02/24/09 Tue


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Yes, susie, I agree also that Jocasta's life was less than a walk in the park--as were most women's of that time. The arranged marriage, the loss of home and family, the loss of children, the indifference of her husband, etc. would take a great toll on a woman's life and attitude. Her ability to survive and maintain River Run is something to be admired and she is certainly not to be underestimated. But she also, like all of these characters, has a dark side and she exploits others repeatedly and mercilessly for her own benefit. Maybe she has had to for so long, she can hardly remember another way--or maybe, she's just a MacKenzie and this is her way. I don't feel particular sympathy for what eventually befalls her, but I do feel sorry for her as an old woman that it came to pass that way. Does that make sense? -- KathleenM, 19:45:00 02/24/09 Tue


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> I'd like to hear more of you all think about Jocasta's decision (though perhaps it was Hector's) to bring Phaedre up as her body slave in the first place. Yes, Phaedre's life was more comfortable in material ways than the lives of other slaves, but is her position there a consequence of Jocasta's altruism, or a sort of subtle revenge that Hector's "get" will never be free? -- CatherineM., 06:58:15 03/02/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Now that's an interesting speculation. We don't know when Jocasta found out about Hector and Betty. But from what we know about MacKenzie's and Hector Cameron, either or both scenerios make sense to me. And did it mean anything to Hector? That's one of the things I've never understood about the stories of half white babes on plantations. How does any man abide his children living in slavery? But apparently they all did, so maybe if you own slaves, the offspring somehow are not really your children? -- Carol P, 18:10:15 03/02/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> In another series of books that I like to read, one of the characters says "How can a man bear fruit one woman and call it an heir, and with another and call it a slave? As if the offspring were less than human. What pride did the man possess to spill his seed in the dam in the first place? They might as well lie with their livestock." It would seem men of that period didn't consider those offspring to be children or the women, they were only property...I am SO GLAD I didn't live with men who could feel that way about another human being. -- Jane, 19:46:26 03/05/09 Thu


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm with you, Jane, in being glad I don't have to associate with folk who could justify such injustice. But what is the other series you reference? -- Carol P, 18:42:29 03/06/09 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Series is Raised By Wolves, the first three volumes are Brethren, Matelots, and Treasure by W.A. Hoffman. You would like this character's take on slavery. After he gives a coin to his lawyer's slave, to take his too hot clothing back to the house after a party, the other's say something like "You don't understand about slavery, you don't have to pay them.". He replies that they are right, what he doesn't understand is "Why they don't kill you all in your sleep, I certainly would." I LOVE these books! I find the two main characters as appealing as Jamie (obviously not as moral, they are pirates after all, but deep thinking, educated, gifted with languages, passionate in their love for each other) They are both damaged by childhood abuses that drove them from their homes. The books are gay historical fiction, not for everyone. Not many of these men would have chosen men as their first choice and yet somehow they find love on those primitive ships in a very violent world. -- Jane, 08:03:05 03/07/09 Sat


[ Edit | View ]





[> wow, a lot to think about and as usual, the Broch Talk managers have done an outstanding job. I'm still formulating my opinions/musings, etc on this aspect of the Books but let me play Devil's Advocate here for a minute. I don't see Jocasta as some tragic heroine, kept from her true love by the laws against miscegenation. I wonder if she would have "seen" Ulysses as a man if she had been able to physically see and retain the power she enjoyed after Hector's death. Yes, I think she comes to rely on him, trust him and maybe even think of him as a man not a slave or even black or white but . . . I have my doubts as to whether this transformation would have occured without the loss of her sight and subsequent threat to her power. I don't trust her much to very humane--any threat to her position, whether by white or black, Scot or Brit, was met with a resolute action; murder included. -- KathleenM, 15:56:54 02/23/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]




[> [> Oh boy, Kathleen, I hadn't even thought of Jocasta's blindness as a factor. At the very least, that would keep the race issue from being much of a factor in her reaction to Ulysses as a man. The power over him was probably the big attraction to Jo. Then she goes on to accept another man she thinks she has power over. Yep, a real MacKenzie. -- Carol P, 16:24:54 02/23/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Kathleen and CarolP -- this blindness motif interests me! Sophocles's Jocasta (in Oedipus the King) is blind to the true nature of what she has done and when she sees the truth, commits suicide. Oedipus blinds himself (and banishes himself to a life of exile) as a sort of reparation, and the physical blinding is to be a permanent reminder of his own lack of spiritual insight earlier. But we also have a powerful symbol in western tradition of Justice being blind . . . I am wondering if DG is doing two different things here simultaneously: 1) Jocasta's blindness is an area of vulnerability through which she requires male aid (Ulysses, then Duncan, both men over whom and through whom she exercises power), but also 2) that justice, equality etc. require, in the larger American experience, a sort of color-blindness? As long as people gaze on Ulysses and see a black man, they are not seeing . . . a man. -- CatherineM., 07:11:41 03/02/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> And I thought it was a simple situation! Thanks for bringing in the symbol of justice. In human history, the lack of blindness has led to major injustices. But beyond Jocasta's blindness allowing her to see Ulysses' face as "light" (and there's another double meaning), does her blindness give her other insight or understanding? -- Carol P, 18:26:35 03/02/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]





[> Distasteful as it was, Ulysses had to sell Phaedre, a classic man's line to protect and keep order. He told Phaedre to stop the affair with Duncan. Maybe a little out of line, but probably trying to protect Jo. When Phaedre threatened to tell about Ulysses and Jo, it really became a matter of protection of Jo, River Run and his own life. At that point he had to get rid of her. Good thing he wasn't a Scot, he'd have cut her throat and dumped her in the river. -- Carol P, 16:01:19 02/23/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]




[> [> but considering what sort of life she might have faced if she hadn't been found by Bree and then Jamie - that may have been more merciful. -- susiej, 09:52:44 02/24/09 Tue


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> I agree, Carol. I don’t see how Ulysses would have done otherwise. His decision to deal harshly and promptly with Phaedre’s threat makes perfect sense given the societal norms of the time. It was cruel, but as you explain, revelation of the affair would have disgraced Jocasta and Duncan, undermined their authority in the community, and put an end to Ulysses’ position of power and authority at River Run. Just like manhood, assumptions of white superiority had to be constantly defended against boundary crossing, and one of the most firmly defined was the prohition of sex between whites and African American slaves. I just find it fascinating that DG created a situation where it’s in the interest of a slave to defend this boundary, too. -- JessieR, 18:12:08 02/24/09 Tue


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Jessie, just a quick comment and then I'm off to bed--I agree there was a strict prohibition of sex between white women and black slaves but I think there was a tacit agreement to look the other way if the two in question were a white man and black woman. In many ways, Duncan's "affair" with Phaedre would have been ignored had it been known by other men. Only Jocasta would never have tolereated this affront to her reputation and position. After all, River Run was hers and she was no longer in the position of having to tolerate it as she had been with Hector. -- KathleenM, 19:34:47 02/24/09 Tue


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Hi Kathleen—I agree with you. The sexual double standard was in full battle array at the time (no surprise there!), and illicit sex between white men and slave women received a wink and a nod, as you rightly suggest. But I think this is true only if covertly practiced. If made public, sex between a white man and slave woman was a scandalous affair because such behavior was an assault upon a white man’s honor, especially for upper-class men like Duncan (the titular head of River Run). Consider the case of Thomas Jefferson… -- JessieR, 09:37:03 02/25/09 Wed

In 1802, James T. Callender, a journalist and somewhat nefarious colleague of Thomas Jefferson, created a scandal when he claimed in a newspaper that our third president was involved in a lengthy “liaison” with a slave and had fathered several children by her. Callender had a tawdry track record, and he published the story out of revenge when Jefferson denied him a political appointment as postmaster. (Callender was a Scot, and a wily, libel-loving, blackmailing one at that. Perhaps Carol is right about how fortunate it was for Phaedre that Ulysses was not a Scot!).

But we now know that Callender was probably right, and that the “SALLY” he refers to in his article was most likely Sally Hemings. Jefferson did not respond publicly, and he never admitted to the affair in any of his written record. Still, the damage was done. Suspicions continued to circulate throughout Jefferson’s presidency, which undermined his authority, and they persisted for decades after his death and have been an object of historical investigation to this day. Jefferson’s daughter and grandchildren regularly denied the relationship, claiming their father was incapable of such an immoral act. It was Jefferson’s honor they sought to protect because proof that he had a sexual relationship with a slave evoked all kinds of associations with debasement and degradation, since so much of white society at the time equated blackness with immorality.

So while Duncan’s relationship with Phaedre would have been both common and tolerated “behind close doors,” the public exposure of it meant that the community would have to “deal with it” in some way. The community could have branded Duncan as immoral and degraded in order to reinforce their own “white” virtue. (Imagine the haughty gossip: “we don’t do that!”). Such behavior would have undercut his ability to act in public on Jocasta’s behalf, the very thing she needed him to do because her gender and blindness prevented her from doing so herself.

Two hundred-plus years later, we see the folly of such behavior and all the grief and harm done by it, as well as the gargantuan hypocrisy of the period. Interracial and cross-cultural sexual liaisons and long-term relationships were going on all over the place, regardless of class, so the lived reality of people differed markedly from what the public discourse upheld as acceptable behavior. But in public, the color line was firmly drawn and had to be enforced. Some white men even went to court to defend their honor when accused of having sex with a slave. There’s plenty to be disturbed about there: the exploitation of slave women and the overweening pride and duplicity of the white men.

Hard to imagine a kind and gentle man like Duncan doing something like that, but I wonder if Jocasta could have forced him into it if she felt it was necessary.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> You're right, Jessie, it is fascinating that Ulysses defended the race line. I wonder if that defense wasn't an unintended consequence. Maybe Ulysses acted because he really loved Jo. Kathleen makes a good point about the difference in practices depending on sex. I don't know the laws of the Carolinas and maybe I'm off-base projecting backwards in time, but having grown up in the south during the 50s and 60s when miscenegation laws were still enforced throughout the south, affairs between white men and black women were frowned on but tolerated but sex between black men and white women was rape. That concept galled me as a young woman for the underlying assumption that women were not capable of choosing such a thing. Still Jo would have suffered the icky reactions to a rape victim and Ulysses would have been hung a la the bloodshed law. Jo's reaction to Duncan's affair would be limited to private, jealous reactions.>>>>inside -- Carol P, 08:16:58 02/25/09 Wed

Jamie tells Claire "We made provision to safeguard her money when she wed-but not the property. Duncan is the owner of River Run-and all that goes with it." Ch 72, p 651

[ Edit | View ]





[> What I'm impressed with is DG's twining of the names of our characters with those of well-known (other) fictional ones. And not only their names but something of their tragedies as well. Does she do this purposely or by accident, do you/we think? *I'm* inclined to consider that the woman does very little 'by accident'! -- Gayle, 17:14:43 02/25/09 Wed


[ Edit | View ]




[> [> Gayle—it would be great to know how creative genius operates! I sometimes think that while writers may not intentionally embed these literary connections in their novels, they tiptoe in anyway. A writer like DG is so well read that I suspect all that free-floating knowledge in her subconscious just bubbles up into her writing, which gives her work an uncommon depth and richness. -- JessieR, 18:06:55 02/26/09 Thu


[ Edit | View ]





[> I am quite impressed that Jocasta kept Phaedre so well in her household, even though she was a product of an affair with Jo's husband. I think that says a lot about how Jocasta felt about her slaves. She could have so easily gotten rid of Phaedre, she not only kept her but made P her very close helper. I would think it would be very hard to have a constant reminder around of a wrong done to you. From the very beginning Jo made it clear she needed a man to run River Run not because she couldn't but because the men would not let her, and Duncan took this on with full knowledge of that. I think in many ways Jocasta is a woman out of her time, like Claire and Bree. She loved Ulysses knowing that it could never come to something that would be recognised by her friends but she kept it going anyway. I really think the person who most did wrong is Ulysses selling Phaedre, he felt his world threatened and he removed the threat with no regard to anyone but himself. Going long..... -- LisaW, 22:12:19 02/25/09 Wed

Ulysses had the most to loose with the knowledge of his and Jo's affair coming out. He would be banned or even killed, not Duncan or Jo or even Phaedre. In those times the black man had the most to loose.
I really think that Jocasta was truly sad that Phaedre was gone. When she shows Jamie and Claire the picture of Hector and Phaedre, she was telling them in a subtle way that she would never hurt P because he was Hector's daughter. And that was as close as she would ever come to having a daughter herself.

[ Edit | View ]




[> [> Hmm, that's an interesting take Lisa. I didn't quite see the sympathy as poignantly as you did, though I did feel that Jo was upset by Phaedre's going. For one thing, she truly depended on Phaedre as her eyes. And Phaedre was intelligent. Remember the scene where she describes Claire as a tiger? It ones of the best descriptions of Claire, to me. I sort of that she kept Phaedre as her slave as a way of saying- she is a slave! not anything else, but in the end I think perhaps, like you, she may have ended up caring for her. I just feel for Jo- she seemed to have a life of riches but they were only filling in for what she wanted- love. -- susiej, 12:28:24 02/26/09 Thu


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Lisa it is lovely that you want to credit Jocasta with having some motherly feelings for Phaedre. I feel she might very well have had some positive feelings for her in the end. Jocasta also must have been very angry when she found out Phaedre and Duncan were sleeping together, especially after having been betrayed by Hector with Betty. Phaedre must have been a constant reminder of that betrayal. I felt Jocasta was very resentful that Hector had another daughter after she'd lost all of her own daughters, partly because of him. Susie, I agree all the money and property could never take the place of all Jocasta had lost, in the end I also felt sorry for her. I hope in Echo we hear that she and Duncan find some happiness together in their new life and location. -- Jane, 20:06:18 03/05/09 Thu


[ Edit | View ]





[> This is very off topic - but in reading this excellent intro (thanks Jessie and Catherine) the crossing the line bit also reminded me of a line Claire tries not to cross: having as little as possible to do with slavery. River Run would have made a home full of creature comforts for her, and given Jamie a place to run in a Lallybroch type of manner, yet Claire just knows to stay away from the poisened fruit, so to speak. And maybe thats why I have a hard time with the 2 relationships we are discussing here. No matter how DG weaves in the love angle (Jocasta freeing Ulysses years before he leaves, etc) there was something about these plots that left me queasy. I'll admit my US history/slavery knowledge is weak, but the players are coming from such unlevel fields I have a hard time thinking that without freedom of choice on all sides, there could have been 'true' relationships. -- HollyC, 05:57:32 02/26/09 Thu


[ Edit | View ]




[> [> Bravo, Holly. And perhaps that's Jocasta's greatest wrong, she was a slave owner. I'll grant that a person can't change the society, but a person can, like Claire, refuse to participate in a great wrong. The queasiness you speak of was made real for me when Jamie explained to Claire why he couldn't take Jocasta's offer. He said he couldn't live knowing there was a man who thought of him as he had thought of those who owned Himself. -- Carol P, 11:09:31 02/26/09 Thu


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Carol—I go back and forth about Jocasta. She’s a slaveholder, which is repugnant, but she’s also a victimized woman who has fought back, albeit in ways not always honorable. I dislike her ethics, but I admire her guts. So, my question is this: would a woman like this be in a long-term sexual relationship with her manservant, and if so, why? What do we know about Jocasta prior to the revelation of this relationship that suggests her true companion in life would be Ulysses? Or is there something in the novel that indicates she chose him because she never again would be subordinate to a man? -- JessieR, 18:30:51 02/26/09 Thu


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> I can't think of anything conclusively stated to answer your questions, but I have trouble seeing subtle psychological clues. I fear my ideas about Jo are the result of my engaging in affective fallacy again. *g* I find it believable that Jo would have such a relationship. Like all people, Jo would want, and respond to, love. U was there all day every day, kind, considerate, helpful. I can see the relationship developing over time. Remembering Kathleen M's point about Jo's blindness, that might have been a big factor in removing the race question for both Jo and U. Remember the scene on the stair when Claire (or Bree?) came down the stairs all dressed up and surprised Ulysses giving her an unguarded stare of male appreciation? There's no indication ever that Jo was unkind to any of the slaves, so they both could have privately ignored the slavery issue. I doubt Jo deliberately chose U because she wouldn't be subordinate, but that certainly would be a plus factor she'd appreciate. -- Carol P, 09:24:55 02/27/09 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> CarolP -- about your insight that Jocasta's greatest wrong was that she was a slaveowner. I meant to reply last week, but it took me a while to remember why your observation was so meaningful to me, and now I realize that it has reactivated a debate from my earliest exposure to American lit. (I'm a Canadian, so I'm no expert!) Going long>>> -- CatherineM., 10:39:05 03/06/09 Fri

When I first encountered Twain's Huckleberry Finn, I remember a controversy among critics about the ending of the book -- the long-drawn out nonsense in Tom Sawyer's scheme to "rescue" Jim in a fanciful way, all derivative from his reading of things like the Count of Monte Cristo. The argument was that Twain bungled the ending. The silliness at the Phelpses' farm undermines the pattern established earlier, in which the episodes clearly imply stronger and stronger social criticism and a deeper preoccupation with the nature of and need for freedom, and it trivializes Huck and Jim's harrowing quest for liberty. It's a striking and persuasive argument, but so is the rebuttal -- that by placing Jim's capture at the Phelpses' farm, after the sequence of events that represents human nature (or at least American frontier society) as worse and worse (the Duke and Dauphin's frauds, the shooting of Old Boggs etc.) the further they go south, Twain is actually implying that the sins of the middle-class Bible-reading Phelpses (they actually do go down to read the Bible to Jim after imprisoning him) are even worse than those of their precursors in the narrative: the greatest obscenity is not the abuse of slaves, but the simple fact of owning slaves in the first place, even by kindly simpletons like the Phelpses. Like the Phelpses, Jocasta feeds and clothes her slaves well, and it is true that they have a materially more comfortable life that they might have had even if free, and yet it's clear, I think, that we are meant to share J and C's discomfort with the entire institution. And I'm still mystified by Jocasta's motives in having Phaedre as her own body servant.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Golly, it's been ages since I read or thought about Huck Finn. Having grown up in the segregated South, I knew lots of Phelpses. I'm tempted to say that kind of person is the worst when injustice walks the land, although that may be a bit harsh. Still, it's easy to recognize and fight the Simon Legrees. It's much harder to see and overcome apathy and rationalization. And it's hard for me to be impartial on the question of freedom since I just can't abide anyone telling me what to do. I wouldn't do well in a retirement home, the idea of someone deciding what I eat and when I eat it, what I do today, just infuriates me. So when I read of a real evil like slavery, my imagination fills in the details all too clearly. I too am mystified by Jocasta's motives in keeping Phaedre so close. Did she mean to pamper Phaedre or humiliate Betty? Either one gives me the willies. -- Carol P, 19:11:44 03/06/09 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Bear in mind that the simple fact of being a woman in the 18th century meant that you often didn't have freedom of choice. Jocasta didn't; she was bartered to the Camerons by her brothers, and didn't have any true freedom until her third husband died. Yet we don't assume on those grounds that it would be impossible for a man and woman to love each other. I think we should perhaps try not to impose modern concepts (like the notion that a relationship of honesty and emotion simply can't exist unless all parties have social parity; that would be patently ridiculous if we were talking about any situation *other* than slavery) on historical situations. JMHO, though. -- maddiej, 13:06:41 02/26/09 Thu


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> I understand what you are saying maddie, and for that reason I don't judge a character like Jocasta for going along with attitudes of the time. ( But, I'm curious - did outright slavery exist in Scotland in the 1700's? I didn't think so, but perhaps) Anyway, my point is more that I have trouble imagining what kind of love Ulysses could have for someone who held absolute life and death control over him. Maybe he stayed around because where else could he go and have the limited influence he had within the day to day running of River Run. There's a line in the last rereading chapter where Jamie asks him if he has any children, and Ulysses says words like 'not that I could claim'. This is an example of what has been taken from him by people like Jamie - imo those powerful wrongs are somehow glossed over in these subplots. I'm not criticizing, thats not what DG's book are about. inside>> -- HollyC, 14:22:30 02/26/09 Thu

I just think its not imposing modern sensibilities to imagine strong characters like Phaedre and Ulysses chafing under the control of Jocasta etc. I'd imagine any tender feelings they may have for her & Duncan are mixed with a much more complex stir of emotions like resentment and anger.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> An interesting point about the status of women in this period and the power that men had over them. In the “Bees and Switches” chapter of ABOSAA, the same chapter where Jamie proclaims his definition of manhood, Claire acknowledges that wives were the property of their husbands: “I was, for the most part, able to ignore the fact that I was legally [Jamie’s] property. That didn’t alter that fact that is was a fact—and he knew it” (412). The chapter ends with Jamie’s ruminations on “owning” Claire, but ends with his acknowledgement that she owns him, too. So despite the power that men had over women, couples were able to establish loving relationships based on mutual trust and respect. HollyC’s question, then, is whether a slave and his master could do the same. In “The Smell of Light” chapter, we finally get a glimpse of Jocasta and Ulysses’s take on their relationship. Do their accounts reveal affection genuinely given and received? -- JessieR, 17:46:08 02/26/09 Thu


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Love between unequals is possible. I think Ulysses loved Jo and Jo felt some kind of great affections for Ulysses, I just don't think her keeping him in slavery was loving behavior. One of the great delights of this whole series is how love and grand passion is so realistically mixed with aggravation, anger, disgust, disappointmet, etc. of one lover for the other. I too think Phaedre and Ulysses had to feel resentment, anger and a sense of fultility at times, even if, like Claire, they managed to ignore it some of the time. The difference in the slavery question here and Jamie owning Claire is that Jamie voluntarily relinquished that power. Remember the vow he gave her not to ever thrash her again? In private, Jamie doesn't act as an owner, he claims Claire as his property only to protect her from others (the witch trial, Wylie). In "The Smell of Light" chapter, I'm confused about why Ulysses made the decision to leave, especially without talking to Jo. Went long, inside>> -- Carol P, 19:25:49 02/26/09 Thu

Apparently he was going to Canada with Jo and Duncan, so why change his mind? Wouldn't he have been a free man in Canada, or is the time too early? I'm sure Jo could have prevailed on Duncan to let Ulysses travel with them and then give him new manumission papers so he would be free and safe.
I don't know how historically accurate it is, haven't had a chance to check, but in A Place Called Freedom by Ken Follett, 1760s, a Scots law is cited that a coal miner who worked for a mine owner for a year and a day was legally bound to that owner for the life of the miner and could not change jobs unless the mine owner agreed. The miner in the story thought that was slavery.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> But she *didn't* keep him in slavery. She freed him, and left him the choice whether to stay or go. He stayed, possibly because of his power and comfortable conditions, but also possibly because he loved her. I think that he didn't go to Canada because his relationship with her had been revealed, and Duncan would now know it. Imagine the dynamics of *that* little trio on the road! Also, he may have felt that with Duncan's decision to stay, Duncan had supplanted him as Jocasta's protector. -- maddiej, 03:37:46 02/27/09 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> I think he left after Jamie talked to him because he knew now, for certain, that Duncan would know about him and Jo, and also that he was the one who sold Phaedre. He no longer would have the respect or power he once had with Jo. Maybe the unequal part of the relationship was not with Jo as the slave owner, but with Ulysses over Jo because she was blind and needed U to carry out the workings of RR. -- LisaW, 07:09:20 02/27/09 Fri


[ Edit | View ]





[> Carol—I feel Jocasta voluntarily relinquished her power over Ulysses when she freed him twenty years before their relationship was revealed. But manumission didn’t protect Ulysses because it would have required him to “’leave the colony within ten days or risk being enslaved again’” (899). So he had to make a choice, and the choice, as he says, was his to make: “’I could choose Jo—or freedom. I chose her’” (899). That choice put him in an interesting position: he ended up a free (and powerful) man masquerading as a slave, a performance he carried off quite well, at least to most white folk. No doubt he endured many affronts in his role as “the butler,” but he must have laughed himself to sleep many a night knowing that he was the real master of River Run. As to why he chose to leave>>>> -- JessieR, 22:59:50 02/26/09 Thu

My guess is that once Ulysses saw Phaedre back at the Ridge, he knew she would have talked. It wasn’t just the revelation of his relationship with Jocasta that was going to be an issue; the knowledge that he sold Phaedre wasn’t going to sit well with Duncan, let alone Jamie and Claire. Even worse: his relationship with Jocasta could only continue in secret, and it was now secret no more. And then there was Jamie. Ulysses knew he would have to face Jocasta’s nephew, who as far as Ulysses knows, thinks like every other white man when it comes to a black man sharing a white woman’s bed: shoot first and ask questions later. Ulysses sees that his best move is to leave, and to leave quietly.

I suppose Ulysses goes to Virginia to fight in Lord Dunsmore’s army, but if he kept going north to Canada, it wouldn’t surprise me. Ulysses is an operator who’s good at deceptive tactics, and if he wants to reunite with Jo, I bet he’ll find a way.

[ Edit | View ]




[> [> Jessie, your analysis of why Ulysses left feels spot on to me. I think my strong response in regards to how could he truly care for her is based on some recent reading about the whole Jefferson/Hemings thing. Coincidentally, someone mentions a bit of that on QOTD today. Inside>>> -- HollyC, 06:01:49 02/27/09 Fri

In my comment on QOTD I mention the effect of the idea that Sally Hemings was Jefferson's wife's half-sister has on me. I can't wrap my brain around this because it just highlights the utter falseness of the whole institution of slavery that went on for so long. (never mind the absolutes of moral wrong!) Anyway, its probably influencing my perceptions of these fictional characters in ways that don't strictly go with the events of ABOSAA!

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> HollyC—I’m so glad you raised the issue of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson, and I was thrilled to see QOTD take up the same topic! That kind of synchronicity amplifies these discussions in marvelous ways. I think Jefferson is so relevant to our exploration here, which is why I raised his example above in discussing how the public revelation of an interracial affair could be so damaging to a white man. I blabbed on so long in that post that I thought I’d best shut up and decline discussing the familial connections involving Sally, but they, too, are relevant. I’d also like to give a nod to Annette Gordon-Reed’s well-received book, The Hemingses of Monticello, that Joyce Mc mentioned on QOTD. It’s a substantive and scholarly investigation of the Wayles-Jefferson-Hemings family connections.>>> went way too long, inside>>> -- JessieR, 08:38:24 02/27/09 Fri

I should qualify all my comments by saying that there is no definitive DNA evidence that proves Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings’s children, nor is there categorical proof that John Wayles, the father of Jefferson’s beloved wife, Martha, was the father of Sally Hemings. The DNA evidence proves that a Jefferson fathered Sally’s children, but it could have been Thomas Jefferson’s brother. As for Wayles, there isn’t enough factual evidence to prove he fathered Sally. But the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, including first-hand accounts that these white men “stamped their get,” to borrow DG’s phrasing, and most historians today believe Jefferson fathered several children with Sally Hemings, and that Sally was the half-sister of Martha Wayles Jefferson.

The intriguing, thing, then, and the point I think you find disturbing, is the possibility that Jefferson saw an “echo” of his wife in the face of Sally Hemings, and that he sought to satisfy his physical needs with a woman who couldn’t turn him down. As Joyce Mc notes over on QOTD, Sally was described as beautiful, and Jefferson, proclaimed widower that he was, had an eye for beautiful women. (Maria Cosway, anyone?). Sally was described as having long, straight hair, which was code for “white looking,” and Jefferson clearly states in his writings that white beauty is preferable to any other. (He made particular note of “flowing hair” in white women as an indicator of beauty).

So, was Jefferson predatory in his affair with Sally? Was it rape, since she did not consent to being enslaved in the first place? Was she receptive to his advances, only because it would benefit her situation? Or was there true affection between them, as there was between Jocasta and Ulysses? There is insufficient historical record to answer these questions, but we do know that Jefferson treated the children of this relationship differently, and far better, than other slave children at Monticello, and that he trained them to be free people rather than slaves. Was this his way of returning affection? Given the times, perhaps it was.

What may be really “creepy” about the Jefferson/Hemings liaison is that Jefferson, the Enlightenment scientist that he was, may have seen it as an experiment in social and biological engineering. Jefferson’s writings support the idea that the intermingling of whites with African Americans would create a kind of racial uplift that would improve the intellect of African Americans while making them more attractive, simply because they had more white racial characteristics. Perhaps he felt his relationship with Sally was one way to test his theory, and given that he trained their children to become tradesmen rather than slaves, and that several of these children could pass as white, he may have felt satisfied that his instincts were correct. But the fact that he never wrote about his relationship with Sally tells us this was not an experiment he wished to record as part of his intellectual legacy.

I tend to go on and on about Jefferson because he fascinates me no end. He was not only a man of gigantic contradictions, he was also a man who was keenly aware of them. Here is a guy who said that “commerce between master and slave is despotism,” but who depended upon slave labor to run Monticello. His writings are full of ideas for emancipation, but he freed very few slaves upon his death. His intellectual struggle to reconcile the sin of slavery with its economic benefits tells us that he was aware of how exploitive his behavior truly was, but like so many men of the period, he was unable to make the hard choices to stop it.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> That's exactly it -the idea of an 'echo' of his wife's face - that I keep turning over in my mind. Who can ever know the real emotional dynamics of the situation, but like you I find the contradictions in Jefferson's thoughts and actions fascinating. I had an easier time reconciling the economic reasons he held on to slavery although it clashed with his ideals - as Carol P says its so easy to justify something that benefits you. But throw Sally into the mix and its mind boggling. So in the Phaedre as Hector's daughter subplot , frankly I don't care how Jo would feel *g*, I'm more focused on the injustice for Phaedre, And please 'go long' whenever you want, it was so interesting! -- HollyC, 14:04:03 02/27/09 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> HollyC—I agree! Phaedre was the most defenseless of this foursome, and you rightly point out the sexual vulnerability that slave women faced. I think this explains why Sally Hemings can grip one’s imagination, especially since she is one of the few slave women with an identity known far beyond that of the plantation on which she lived. She has a name and a story! In fact, her name and “story” have appeared and reappeared in the historical record since 1799. And yet, for all that has been said and written about her, there is no record of her own words. Maybe she was illiterate; maybe not. Either way, she is the silent figure in this controversy, and what a deafening silence that is. -- JessieR, 07:17:22 02/28/09 Sat


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> The idea that Jefferson had so much more power over a black "echo" of his own wif is indeed disturbig and fascinating . . I came of age in the civil rights and feminist era and I know that the two movements look simultaneous, but aren't quite. All of us women owe a huge debt to the black women fighting for racial equality alongside their brothers and husbands and fathers who then asked the hard questions about gender equality when they realized that so many of their men were not keen to see their wives and sisters and daughters as equals to themselves. The pattern in here of having to make choices between racial and gender issues is really interesting. -- CatherineM., 07:41:35 03/02/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> It is fascinating how the womans/black movements influenced each other. It's my understanding that a forceful female suffrage movement in the early to mid 1800s was deliberately put on the back burner and turned to an abolition movement because many of the ladies thought slavery the bigger evil. Your point about the black men wanting the subservience of their women makes me realize people are a lot more alike than they are different. I remember white men with the same ideas. Are the ideas of inequality the result of requirements to survive in a particular time, or maybe just a shared human desire to control other people? Maybe that's a trait we all still have, though we've found other ways to express it (I'm thinking of our politicians). Do we just like bossing others? -- Carol P, 18:49:39 03/02/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> HollyC, Jessie, your information on the Jefferson/Hemings situation is fascinating! Another subject I need to investigate. I assume that part of the problem faced by the founding fathers/signers of the Constitution was the same one faced by Claire when she found herself a slave owner, how do you fix it? The end of slavery certainly wasn't an unalloyed benefit to blacks. As susiej explained about Phaedre, it was possible for slaves to live materially better in slavery. Jessie said " His intellectual struggle to reconcile the sin of slavery with its economic benefits tells us that he was aware of how exploitive his behavior truly was, but like so many men of the period, he was unable to make the hard choices to stop it." I was middle age before I learned, and was appalled by the knowledge, that most people are perfectly capable of holding two contradictory ideas at the same time. Ah, the power of the rationalization that if it's good for me now, it must be okay. -- Carol P, 10:30:12 02/27/09 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> “Ah, the power of the rationalization that if it’s good for me now, it must be okay.” Bravo, Carol! Well said. Such thoughts have powered so many of my own shortcomings, which may explain why I can’t stay on a diet and am a consummate procrastinator. But I would also add that as a nation, your comment made me think about what happened to the American investment banking industry these past few years. All that fiscal shell game stuff must have seemed good at the time, but geez, look at it now. -- JessieR, 07:43:01 02/28/09 Sat


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Maybe what we're talking about is The Human Condition. Claire tells Roger something like we can't ever act with complete and sure knowledge of the final results of our actions, but we have to act anyway. That's a big part of the genius of these books, the characters and situations are complex enough that, like real people, many times there is no clear, right action and, as readers. we can try on other's actions and agree or disagree with them. -- Carol P, 16:31:01 03/01/09 Sun


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Thanks, maddiej, Lisa and Jessie for you clarifications of Ulysses's leaving. Your comments have removed the huh? reaction I harbored, now Ulysses's sneaking off makes sense. For all the reasons you stated, Ulysses couldn't stay with Jo and Duncan, but . . . If Jamie could change his mind about murdering Wm. Buccleigh MacKenzie because of who Buck was, then Jamie/Jo/Duncan could still have seen Ulysses set up as a free man someplace. But maybe his leaving just happened so fast, no one had time to think things through. I feel sorry for Ulysses if he has to risk his life in war to gain his freedom. -- Carol P, 10:00:53 02/27/09 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Buck MacKenzie was blood to both Jamie *and* Roger. Ulysses was not only an adulterer but a murderer as well, or am I not recalling rightly that he murdered Dr. Rawlings? I don't think Jamie would recognize any obligation to "set him up in life", and is in fact being very generous in letting him leave. -- maddiej, 11:48:56 02/27/09 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> I think Hector killed Dr. Rawlings. Ulysses may have killed Lt. Wolff, but our friends covered that up. I'll grant that it's my 20 C attitudes that say if unknown Buck MacKenzie gets a pass because of some blood kinship, then Ulysses ought get a little help in recognition of decades of love and service. After all, these books are full of our heroes performing vile, shameful or unethical acts that are then accepted, if not forgiven, by other heroes. *BG* -- Carol P, 17:24:36 02/27/09 Fri


[ Edit | View ]





[> crossing race barrier -- kelly, 07:00:47 02/27/09 Fri

While it is true that a public relationship between Duncan and Phaedra would have been frowned upon but whose to say it would have been a public relationship. Who was to tell Jo or Ulysses? Both of them had too much to loose. Let us not forget that Phaedra is the product of an illicit relationship between Hector and a slave and publicly no one was the wiser. If Phaedra came up pregnant everyone would have assumed it was a slave's child. Hide the child out of site as much as possible, probably the same way they did Phaedra herself.
Do be reminded also that the property became Duncan's with the wedding only the money remains Jocasta's. Ulysses in essence stole from Duncan when he sold Phaedra. He was covering himself because if Duncan was underneath a ruthless Scot (which he wasn't of course) he would have had Ulysses killed, removed to the fields, or sold to a horrible situation.

[ Edit | View ]








[> marriage answers -- Kelly, 06:43:04 02/27/09 Fri -- LisaW, 08:19:23 02/27/09 Fri

marriage answers -- Kelly, 06:43:04 02/27/09 Fri
Jocasta was the first person wronged by the extra marital affairs. Phaedra is her late husband Hector's daughter. After losing her 3 children, mainly do to his ruthlessness, she then has to deal with knowing he is having an affair which produces another child for him. I don't think she hated Phaedra from the way she treated her but she had to always have some resentment because of it.
I don't think anyone was hurt from the relationship between Jocasta and Duncan. There were no romantic feelings there. Duncan believing himself incapable never ventured to extend himself in a physical way to Jocasta. She of course did not mind because she had Ulysses. Ulysses would have been her first choice as a husband if it were not for the demeaning laws of the time. In fact had it not been for those laws Jocasta would not have been compelled to take another husband at all. She was more than capable of handling the estate on her own.
The relationship between Phaedra and Duncan may have hurt Jocasta's pride because Duncan never considered extending himself to her even once he was aware that he could. Jo gave him a whole knew life and a greater position in society and he never wanted her physically.
If Ulysses had not taken it upon himself to rule every aspect of the other slaves' lives, they could have lived quite in peace. Now Duncan and Jocasta only have one another and if they never find physical happiness with one another they will forever be without it.

Ulysses treatment of Phaedra expresses his needed to assert himself as a man as defined by Jamie. The boundaries of the slaves are the only ones he can control and because of this he over asserts himself. His actions regarding Phaedra really diminishes my opinion of him. Maybe in the beginning he thought that Phaedra and Duncan's relationship was just physical and Phaedra trying to manipulate Duncan but Duncan shows great love for Phaedra and because of that Ulysses contrives to send her further away, which puts her in a very horrible situation.

I do not think Phaedra's physical characteristics or Jocasta's over assertiveness had any thing to do with Duncan's abilities to perform. Duncan had rarely every tried after his accident. He was very shy and self concious which would make it harder if he had been trying. The first time he had a physical reaction with Phaedra he had just woken and was not really thinking about it. She was sensitive and receptive to the reaction and that made it easier for future endeavors. I think Phaedra was drawn to him because she did not like the relationship between Ulysses and Jo and the contrast between there personalities.

[ Edit | View ]




[> [> Kelly I moved your post down here, I'm assuming you ment to post under the BT mini re-read. -- LisaW, 08:20:56 02/27/09 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> LisaW thanks for moving my post. I'm new and not sure how to make this work yet. -- Kelly, 20:40:19 02/28/09 Sat

I agree with you about Duncan's character and his reasons for not going to Jocasta but I don't think Jo saw it that way. She knew of D's problem and being sensitive to it would not venture to make him anymore uncomfortable. Maybe once she knew of the affair she could have gone to D or maybe now since everyone else is eliminated they will have what they should have had in the beginning. Many slave owners would have put out an inquiry for a runaway or missing slave and maybe a small reward if the slave was valuable but D was anguished and went to extensive lengths to find P. I dont think that was just because she was a slave.
D and P's affection for one another did not have anything to do with U selling her in the beginning but D's reactions and continued searching was the reason U went back to the man and asked him to send her further away.

U's original reason for selling her was to save his relationship but why was it so wrong in his eyes for her to have the same type of affair he was having?

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> That's a very insightful analysis, Kelly, especially about Jo's pride taking a hit because Duncan didn't approach her when he found himself capable. But I'm not sure he didn't find Jo attractive. Duncan is a very shy man and he is abundantly aware that Jo is way above his station in life. Maybe he just doesn't have the nerve to make a pass at her. If Jo would make the first move, they may yet have a good relationship. I don't see how Duncan shows a great love for Phaedre. He does feel responsible for her and her safety though. But I don't think Duncan's or Phaedre's affection for each other had anything to do with Ulysses's sending her away. When Phadre threatened to make the Jo/Ulysses affair public, Ulysses had only two choices to literally save his own life: run away or keep Phaedre from talking. -- Carol P, 10:51:46 02/27/09 Fri


[ Edit | View ]





[> Carol raised a good point above: the heroes in these books are capable of unethical acts, & the thoughtful analyses above point to all kinds of acts, unethical & otherwise, engaged in by Jocasta, Ulysses, Phaedre, & Duncan, all of them adulterers, yet each of them uniquely heroic. I would like to round out this discussion, however, by asking how you judge the reactions of Jamie and Claire to these interracial/adulterous relationships. When I reread the chapters for this topic, I noticed that Jamie is more tolerant of Duncan & Phaedre’s adultery than that of Ulysses & Jocasta, not just in the actions he takes but also in the words he uses. Claire, while gentle in telling Jocasta she thinks her behavior was unkind and unfair, still lets the old woman know she crossed the line, something she does not say to D & P. Why is Jamie sympathetic to Duncan but harsher with Ulysses? Why isn’t Claire more eager to condemn D & P? How might J & C’s “crowded” marriages have influenced their reactions? -- JessieR, 09:54:10 02/28/09 Sat


[ Edit | View ]




[> [> Jessie that is a great question. Thinking about this I found that, in myself, when there is a behavior that I do that I don't like, I often times find myself being very hard on others when I see the same behavior in them. I think that Claire never got over her feeling of guilt towards "cheating" on Frank and when she sees J & U's long term relationship, I think Claire is reminded of her feelings, and it makes her very uncomfortable. I think both Claire and Jamie view D & P's relationship as just a fleeting affair that has help Duncan to get back to his "manhood" so to speak. -- LisaW, 12:14:44 02/28/09 Sat


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Great point, LisaW. It’s the idea that Duncan gets a pass because Phaedre helped him regain his manhood that is the interesting issue here. I understand that Jocasta and Ulysses committed more than adultery; they colluded to get rid of Phaedre, and Jamie and Claire rightly see this as the reprehensible act it is. But Claire feels Jocasta’s adulterous deception of Duncan was “hardly fair,” even though she knew Duncan had deceived Jocasta, too. Duncan’s infidelity, however, came with “hooks” that make him a more sympathetic figure: he’s lost the only woman who was able to remedy his impotence. Claire even says that she felt “terribly sorry for him, regardless of the morality of the situation.” But does that alone justify the “pass” they give him? Or does he get the pass because he’s not a real man? >>>inside>>> -- JessieR, 09:45:44 03/01/09 Sun

Jamie has clear ideas of what it takes to be a man, and I don’t think Duncan fit the bill, recovered sexual potency or not. Why? Because Duncan couldn’t “draw up lines and fight other folk who come over them.” Had he been able to do so, he would have protected Phaedre and controlled Jocasta. As Kelly rightly notes, Jamie and Claire knew Duncan to be a good person who would never harm Jo, or most anyone else, for that matter. But I wonder if in the figure of Duncan DG has given us a good human being, but not a man, at least not in Jamie’s definition of the term. Jamie can and will pray for Duncan and loves him as a loyal friend and fellow Ardsmuir survivor, but he also pities him. Jamie is not one to treat people he pities with heavy-handedness.

Ulysses, however, is a man. He can make the tough choices, even the unethical ones, to fight anyone who crosses the lines he draws. That he did this as a black man makes his accomplishment all the more impressive, given the era and place in which he lived. Jamie may not like his motives, but I think he admires his guts. I never got the sense that he pitied the man or treated him in any paternalistic sort of way. His treatment of Ulysses, though harsh, is delivered with respect. After all, Ulysses was about to steal Jamie’s horse; it’s a wonder he didn’t kill him on the spot.

I might even argue that Jamie sees a great deal of himself in Ulysses, at least in terms of being a disenfranchised person who still found a way to take the lead and exert power where he felt necessary. Ulysses takes the consequences of his action with a steely reserve: no pleading his case or begging for mercy. It would be beneath him. It’s how such a man could earn respect in a world that sought to deny it to him simply because of his faith, ethnicity, or race, and I think Jamie recognizes this aspect of manhood in Ulysses and respects him for it. Such respect strips Jamie’s behavior toward Ulysses of the taint of racism, which to me, at least, is the real achievement here. I might not like the sexist overtones in Jamie’s definition of manhood, but I applaud his ability to move beyond the socio-political constructs of racism and hold Ulysses accountable as a man, not a slave.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Yes, yes, yes. I think you are spot on here too -- Jamie must see something of himself in Ulysses; and as you pointed out several days ago, the literary Ulysses, exiled against his will from home, must rely on trickery to survive. Jamie and Ulysses do resemble each other and also, in shadowy ways, their literary antecedent. They are both disenfranchised indeed, and in a situation of confusing political and social flux . . . -- CatherineM., 07:50:09 03/02/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> CarolP -- Kelly, 21:00:19 02/28/09 Sat

Perhaps Jamie is more tolerant of Duncan and Phaedra because he sees Duncan as being victimized by Jocasta.By placing Duncan at River Run he placed Jo in a position where she did not have to get re-married and she was able to run her estate profitably. Jo in a way took advantage of Duncan. She knew she would never commit anything to the marriage and his disability gave her reason to not consumate her marriage. I also think Jamie was more tolerant of Duncan because he knew Duncan's character and knew he would not have set out to wrong Jo or P. The same could not be said of Jo's character.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> In addition to Claire's "cheating" on Frank mentioned by LisaW, Claire also vividly remembers the pain Frank's cheating caused her and the damage it did to their marriage. Maybe Claire is also thinking about the affairs of Jo and Hector during their marriage. One of Claire's attributes that I've been trying to copy is her remarkable non-judgementalism of others. Outside of preaching diet and hygiene, she doesn't tell others how to live. The surprising thing to me wasn't that she didn't judge Duncan, Phaedre or Ulysses, but that she did say something to Jo. Do we know Jo colluded with Ulysses to get rid of Phaedre? I had the feeling that Ulysses did that without Jo's knowledge or consent. Jamie may not treat those he pities with a heavy hand, but, like most of us, he loses a little respect for those he pities. I agree with Jessie that Jamie has respect in abundance for Ulysses as a man, he understands why U acts as he does. <<>> -- Carol P, 11:36:42 03/01/09 Sun

Jamie and Claire seem more tolerant toward Duncan and Phaedre's affair because it was short-lived and because Duncan and Phaedre are below Jo in importance to the Frasers. Maybe it's analagous to Jamie's tolerance of the angel-makers in Paris when we find out with Bree that Jamie has a real abhorrence to abortion. He understands the motivation of the ladies in Paris, but he doesn't (can't?) bring that understanding to someone close to him.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> I don't know that Jamie can't bring the same understanding to someone close to him. I think it's that he sees that the women in Paris are poor and without protection; for them to have an illegitimate baby (or even a legitimate one that they can't feed) would be disaster. But to his mind, that's not at all the case with Bree, because he would always be sure that she and the child were taken care of. So I don't think he sees the situations as being the same at all. -- maddiej, 14:40:05 03/01/09 Sun


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> maddiej--I think you’re right about how Jamie sees the practical considerations of bringing a child into the world, but what about the moral implications of abortion that would have been a part of his Catholic faith? I’m uncertain about how a Catholic like Jamie justifies the morality of abortion, even with the angel-makers. Does his position on the angel-makers mean he can set aside the moral issue of abortion in cases where the child would be at risk once born? -- JessieR, 15:08:17 03/01/09 Sun


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> The Catholic church didn't oppose abortion before "quickening" (before the child was perceived to move in the womb, sometime after the third month of pregnancy). The notion that life begins at conception is much more recent than the 18th century. The "angel-makers," after all, are doing some of their work in the convent hospital. -- maddiej, 01:41:08 03/02/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> maddiej—The Church’s position on the morality of abortion has always been that it is a sin (the moral law). It’s the penalty for that sin that has shifted over time (the canon law). So while the Church did not view abortion before “ensoulment” (quickening) as murder in the 18thC (and therefore did not exact the penalty of excommunication), Catholic theological tradition has always taught that that abortion is immoral. -- JessieR, 07:02:29 03/02/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Carol—Great call about Jamie and the angel-makers. I don’t know if this is situational ethics or not, but I’m intrigued by this kind of thinking, in part because I often find myself with such fractured positions on controversial issues. You’re also right to question whether Jocasta acted with Ulysses in selling Phaedre. The text tells us for certain only that Ulysses was involved, and we get that news directly from Phaedre. But in the “Betrayals” chapter, there is a strong suggestion that Jocasta may have colluded with Ulysses, although there is nothing definitive. It’s more a tour de force of DG’s skill at intimation. >>>inside>>> -- JessieR, 14:57:25 03/01/09 Sun

In the ”Betrayals” chapter, Jamie reminds Claire that “the MacKenzies of Leoch are proud as Lucifer…and black jealous with it,” and that they have the gift to beguile & betray. They even contemplate Jocasta’s capacity to kill Phaedre, but only if Jocasta “had her sight.” But realizing a moment afterward that Ulysses “was not only Jocasta’s eyes, but her hands as well,” they put two and two together, and at least admit it’s a possibility that these two were involved, especially if there was an affair between Duncan and Phaedre, something they go on to confirm.

When Jamie & Claire take leave of Jocasta, she’s embroidering a table runner with images of the Garden of Eden, replete with images of “[b]lack-eyed serpents, coiling slyly, slithering, green and scaly…one gaped to show its fangs, guarding scattered red fruit.” Jamie then lets her know that he knows about Duncan & Phaedre, & that she’d better safeguard Duncan’s health or suffer the consequences. Jocasta responds “as though turned to salt…sitting like a statue, face as white as the linen.” None of this is categorical proof that Jocasta told Ulysses to get rid of Phaedre. Maybe Jocasta’s face went white with the shock of having her suspicions confirmed, although the coiling serpents suggest she already knew. If she did, this chapter hints strongly that the matron of River Run knew more about Phaedre’s disappearance than she let on to Jamie and Claire, and that Jamie believes she has the will and the capacity to hurt people close to her.

What Jamie and Claire don’t know at this time is that Jocasta had a greater motive for getting rid of Phaedre than vengeance for the affair (if the affair with Duncan was even a motive): the fear that Jocasta’s own illicit relationship with Ulysses might be exposed

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> I wasn't clear about what I was thinking about the angel-makers. We assume tolerance from Jamie in Paris because he indicates sympathy with the plight of the women to make that decision. We get further information in the discussion about Bree, we find out that Jamie does think abortion is absolutely morally wrong and not to be condoned. I don't think he sets aside the moral issue in Paris so much as he recognizes he has no control over the situation so ranting about the immorality would accomplish nothing, so maybe not a case of situational ethics. Also, as a Catholic, Jamie knows that evil exists so he wipes it out where he can but he doesn't expect to wipe all evil out of the world. Thanks, Jessie, for clarifying the signs of Jo's collusion. I read the same descriptions, plus the description of Jo at the beginning of the "Betryals" chapter, as indications that she didn't know what happened to Phaedre. But I'm a sucker for a good actor, or maybe I'm just too gullible. << inside >> -- Carol P, 17:19:41 03/01/09 Sun

I dismissed Jamie and Claire's ruminations, six books in I've learned Fraser speculations are off-base or skewed almost as many times as they are right. *g* Now that you've explained it, I can see how the same information could mean something different.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> I'm not sure Jamie *does* see abortion as absolutely morally wrong. I think he objects so strongly to the idea that Bree might abort her child because (as he says, I think), he may not know who the father is, but he knows who its grandfather is. That is, it's his grandchild, and no one cares more about blood and family than Jamie does. -- maddiej, 01:45:25 03/02/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> maddiej--You’re right about the importance Jamie places on family, & that his ability to care for Bree’s child makes her case different from that of the angel-makers. But his position on the angel-makers still poses questions for me. To say that those women had no choice because they couldn’t protect & feed their children was to ignore the possibility of child abandonment, which was a frequent practice in the 18thC, & many cities had provisions for accepting such children. Jamie & Claire’s experience in Paris would have exposed them to this because the receivers of abandoned infants were often convent hospitals like the one in which Claire worked. Granted, institutionalization of these (mostly) illegitimate children created harsh conditions, but the practice would not have fallen into disfavor until much later in the 18thC, and would have morphed into some kind of social welfare program run by religious and community organizations by the early 19th. >>>inside>>> -- JessieR, 07:16:37 03/02/09 Mon

Jamie does see abortion as murder, however, because when he asks Claire in DOA if she’s ever performed one, he’s relieved to learn she has not: “’I knew ye couldna do murder.’” He must see abortion as immoral, but I don’t think he sees the angel-makers as murderers. Is this because they abort pre-quickening? The text doesn’t suggest he’s thinking along those lines, although you are right that the Church would have agreed with him if he were. He seems more concerned with what would happen to the angel-makers’ children once they were born. I’m just not sure why he takes this position given the alternative of abandonment that existed at the time. Abandonment wasn’t a great life, but it was life, and as he cautions Claire in DOA: “’Ye think it’s yours alone to say? That life and death is yours?’”

Last edited by author: Mon March 02, 2009 07:22:28   Edited 1 time.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> This is indeed a murky question, and I am wondering (though this would be a discussion for another day and has alrady come up from time to time here) about the recurring issue of mercy-killing in the books. -- CatherineM., 07:56:29 03/02/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe Jamie hadn't quite thought the issue through in Paris? He was young and in the throes of his love and marriage. Could we read his tolerance of the angel-makers more as an immediate sympathy for the plight of the women like Louise rather than a definitive stand on the abortion question? I remember having such flawed reactions to moral questions when I was young. It was easy to see the immediate situation, but it took me longer to see less visible consequences. Then again, Jamie has committed murder (the guard at Ft. Williams when he rescued Claire), so maybe he empathizes with how people can do evil and remain worthy people. -- Carol P, 19:10:29 03/02/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]





[> Thanks, one and all! Jessie and I welcome suggestions for upcoming mini-reads. Youy gave us several good ones some months ago, but we would be happy to have more. Let us know what you'd like to see discussed! -- CatherineM., 08:54:40 03/10/09 Tue


[ Edit | View ]




[> [> Hi Catherine and Jessie and everyone! I haven't been around for about two years, but have recently read every single Broch Talk I missed in the mean time, and am mightily impressed [as usual]. Awesome! I hope you are all well, and look forward to chatting about the books [etc.] with you again soon. I don't know how I could stay away from here for so long. Best wishes, fiona j -- fiona j, 17:46:12 06/09/09 Tue


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Fiona! How are ye, lass? So verra, verra, good to see a message from ye! I've missed ye more than I can say! -- CatherineM., 21:57:45 08/22/09 Sat


[ Edit | View ]










[ Contact Forum Admin ]





Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2012 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.