Drugs and Insanity

There went my pharmacists, my former pharmacists. He was being laid to rest by six of his friends, or at least people who he claimed as friends, (I was not invited) slowly walked down an aisle of mourning townspeople. It was a small town, with a name bland as could be, Blanding. There was only one pharmacy, and now no pharmacist. What would happen, would the town dry up and disappear as so many do, without the aid of prescription drugs to keep the populace calm. Without a pharmacy misery would be inescapable. The thought of driving the 17 minutes to the next down is ridiculous, how can any town survive without the essential role of the pharmacist being fulfilled.

As the funeral continued, thoughts unregulated and out of control raced through my mind. Already I was low, so very low.

No one knew how this tragedy could have happened, he was found alone with a Y cut into his forehead. He was so invaluable in keeping depression from us, but who regulated his emotions? As evidenced by what happened, no one did.

With such a large supply of so many helping chemicals, the irony of his death is seen in its manor.

He had an uncontrollable gambling addiction, got in so deep with the Yakusa that their investment could never be returned, so they finished him off. The term uncontrollable addiction seems redundant yet fitting. Surely there is a drug to help, why couldn't he find it.

It makes no sense, Blanding is over a thousand miles from the ocean, and Japan is several thousand more, yet the Yakusa followed him here. My geography isn't at its best, I spent more time in school playing with small animals.

All I can conclude is life is unfair, now I will have a more difficult life, without a pharmacist.

Maybe this is the spark, the hint or message from life that I needed. It is time for me to make a change, a move. I've always wanted to see Japan, and now I have a reason.

Revenge will be my cause and my end, There will be few survivors.

The plane ride was nice, I had never been in a plane before.

Apparently the Yakusa is a large organization, as when I landed and asked directions to their headquarters no one seemed willing to help me.

I decided that those who wouldn't help me were as culpable as those who killed my dear pharmacist. I started to lay waste to those in my path, assuming that all roads would lead to my satisfaction. After my first victim (this time) the police caught me, and extradited me back to America. It turns out I had some skeletons in my closet that I didn't feel were related to this narrative.

Now I have a new pharmacist, and he makes sure I get my pills. The padded walls are nice as well...

The misery is gone, replaced with a blessed numbness.

During the trial I also learned the Yakusa didn't kill my former pharmacist, he was in a car accident coming home from a sports game, and merely painted a Y on his forehead, hindsight sure is nice.

This Blog is New

I just started this, and so far I have included several of my essays from the past several years.  I will add more. Let me know if you have any thoughts

Richard III Rhetorical Analysis

If heaven have any grievous plague in store

Exceeding those that I can wish upon thee,

O, let them keep it till thy sins be ripe

And then hurl down that indignation

On thee, the troubler of the poor world's peace!

The worm of conscience still begnaw thy soul!

Thy friends suspect for traitors while thou liv'st,

And take deep traitors for thy dearest friends!

No sleep close up that deadly eye of thine,

Unless it be while some tormenting dream

Affrights thee with a hell of ugly devils!

Thou elvish marked, abortive, rooting hog!

Thou that was seal'd in thy nativity

The slave of nature and the son of hell!

Thou slander of they heavy mothers womb!

Thou loathed issue of thy fathers loins!

Thou rag of honor!

(Richard III, I, iii, 216-232)

In Shakespeare's Richard III Queen Margaret is not cast as a great person. She has endured great personal tragedy and has not come through it unscathed. She does not blame her misfortune on the nature of war or kings, but on a single individual named Richard. Through cursing Richard Margaret becomes the living consequence of civil war between members of the same royal family. She is angry or bitter over the harm that has been done to her and she directs that vitriol towards a single individual. She wants vengeance for her pain to the extent that she wants to have precedence over God's punishment. She does not feel any responsibility for her current state in life, and does does see any way she could better her life but through the punishment of Richard, the apparent source of her pain. She feels justified in this response as she was the victim of his violence. No thought of forgiveness or acceptance seems to enter her mind. Her character is simple but powerful. She is a symbol of consequence or repercussion. She foreshadows what will happen as the civil war continues, more broken families will be left to hate their fellow survivors. Her curses are even predictive. She speaks of his conscience, which we learn has or will be pricked through some of his monologues. She speaks of his friends leaving him, and him dealing with his friends treacherously, both will happen. She speaks of his nightmares and he will be visited by the ghosts of those he murders.

Her anger and bitterness towards Richard is evident through the list of insults near the end of her curse (accumilatio and anaphora). These insults grow in potency and she keeps adding the list. It starts of calling him “elvish marked” (227), which implies a magical force had made him evil so it may not be entirely his fault. She also compares him to a “rooting hog” (227), an animal, again denying some aspect of intelligence or choice in his actions (metaphor). She continues this theme of his lack of choice saying he was “seal'd” (228) “the slave of nature and the son of hell” (229), he did not seal himself but was sealed. She almost seems to be excusing him, except this excuse is one more insult. He is not even capable of controlling his own life, that is how weak and powerless he really is. He is only a tool for others. She finishes this list of insults with very personal ones. She claims he is the “slander”, or that he slanders his mother, by coming from her “heavy womb” (230). His very existence remarks badly on his mother. She also calls him the “loathed issue” of his “fathers loins” (231) implying even his father did not love him. This list of increasingly personal insults evidences Margaret deep anger and bitterness towards Richard.

Margaret's great need for vengeance from Richard is shown the the language and nature of the actual curses she wishes upon him (ara). She begins her curses by saying “the worm of conscience” (Prosopopoeia) implying that she thinks some small piece of conscience is living deep in his soul. However she wishes it to “begnaw [his] soul” (221). She does not curse him to remember crime and become better, but to have his soul destroyed. She wants punishment not rehabilitation (emphasis). The structure of the next curse follows a chiasmus type pattern, as it begin and end with the same object. She curses his friends to be “suspect[ed] for traitors” by him (222) while he “take[s] deep traitors” (223) for his friends. She wants him to betray his friends and be betrayed by his friends. Again these are wishes of a vengeful person, she does not want him to change to be better but to be destroyed in his wickedness. The final curse that “no sleep close up that deadly eye” (224) because she does not want him to rest easily. She extends this to “unless . . . some tormenting dream / affrights thee” (225-226) where she allows for some sleep, as long as he has nightmares while sleeping. She finishes this with specifically calling for nightmares of a “hell of ugly devils” (226) (ominatio). These three curses are the curses of vengeance not justice. Margaret does not want life to be fair or for Richard to be forced to pay back society for his crimes. She wishes him misery and pain. She is a vengeful person.

Margaret has had many tragedies in her life and this has caused her to feel victimized. She does not feel any personal responsibility for her current life or more importantly her current attitude. She feels completely justified in her anger and desire for vengeance. As she begins her curse Margaret references heaven and its curses. She says “if heaven have any grievous plague” (216) implying that it obviously does, and it is “exceeding those that I can wish” (217) then “let them keep it till thy sins be ripe” (218) (metaphor). She wants her curses to take effect first. She claims precedence over heaven. She is the victim of Richards injustice and has first claim on his punishment. She hopes and wants heaven to punish him too, but only after she has completed her curses. Due to her status as a victim she feels justified in seeking personal vengeance before any other punishments might be administered to Richard.

Margaret is a simple character. She fits a type and is not an individual or well rounded character. She is introduced early in the play and is used to show the consequences of the action that happen before the play started, and the future of the characters actions in the play. She is Shakespeare’s judgment and critique of the civil war among this royal family. He added her into the story for this purpose. She shows both the characters of the play and the readers how easily vengeance comes for violence and how cyclical this pattern can become.  

Paying Homage

“Homage to a Government” is a poem written by Phillip Larkin. As a poem it is open to multiple interpretations due to questions in tone, style, and the meaning of references or allusions. Two major interpretations of the poem contradict in meaning but have strong evidence in the text for their argument. Understanding both these interpretations allows a reader to understand the conflicted nature of events being described and reevaluate personal thoughts and feelings about similar issues.

Knowing something about the literary climate of the author helps reinforce an interpretation that the poem is clear and means literally what it says. The “Movement” was a term used to describe poets who rejected the multilayered and experimental forms of the modernist movement, a return to a clearer diction and style. This poem starts, “Next year we are to bring the soldiers home / For lack of money, and it is all right” (1-2). This can mean exactly what it says, war is expensive and it is all right to stop paying for it. There is no need to know the specifics of where the soldiers are coming home from as there always seems to be violence somewhere in the world. He continues “Places they guarded, or kept orderly, / Must guard themselves, and keep themselves orderly” (3-4). This points out the unnecessary expense of these soldiers as it asks the question of why can not these places be guarded and protected by the people there. This sentence does not need any deep analysis of its possible implications to be a meaningful statement. The first stanza is clear in its endorsement of the Government bringing soldiers home to save money and leave people in the world to take care of themselves.

The second stanza continues this endorsement. “It's hard to say who wanted it to happen / But now it's been decided nobody minds” (7-8). In a democratic or republican governmental system it can be difficult to trace a policy to its origins. It could be a reaction to popular sentiment or a promise made during a campaign or an idea of someone in power. Regardless of its origins this troop recall has become policy and as such is accepted. He finishes this thought with the lines, “The soldiers there only made trouble happen. / Next year we shall be easier in our minds” (11-12). The troops were not solving any problems by being stationed so far from home and were costing the people at home monetarily and likely emotionally. When they get home life will be easier as there will be more money spent locally and less duress of separated families and direct involvement in a violent cause. Support for this new policy is clear to understand as it will allow people to feel more at ease in the world.

In the final stanza this clear support of the new policy continues. “The statues will be standing in the same / Tree-muffled squares, and look nearly the same” (15-16). The physical world is unchanged by the movement of the soldiers. The world where they were stationed and the world they are returning to will remain the same despite the change in locale. The world is not impacted at large by the policy of governments. He continues, “Our children will not know it's a different country” (17). Not only is the physical world not impacted, but the social world that children inherit, the traditions and customs of the rising generation likewise will remain unchanged. Children growing up will not realize their soldiers used to be involved in the situations of the world. He concludes, “All we can hope to leave them now is money” (18). This line might be pragmatic, but that does not deny its accuracy or meaning. Children do not really need to know their fathers are fighting throughout the world, they need the stability and physical things that money provides. The action of the government in recalling its troops is supported in this poem as it reflects on how the place they are in will be better, the lives at home will be easier, and the children will benefit.

This interpretation is clear and meaningful. It needs no special skill to understand or apply in the life of the reader. It resonates and elucidates thoughts that can be hard to articulate. However there is equal evidence that the poem means almost exactly the opposite. In seeing and understand the implications of many of the phrases and connections a more negative interpretation is reached.

Larkin uses repeated phrases to add more dire implications. The phrase “is all right” (2, 6, 10) is repeated three times throughout the poem. All three times it follows a statement that describes a morally debatable issue, “For lack of money” (2), “Instead of working” (6), and “The places are a long way off, not here” (10). The need to add the defense of these things being alright implies that they are not alright, or that their correctness is open to question. In line two he is not questioning the idea of bringing soldiers home, but he implies a question of the reason that the government is low on funds necessitates ending involvement in a foreign affair. In line six he is not disagreeing with the idea of having more money available at home, but implies a disagreement with having more money so that people do not have to work. In line ten he is not disputing that the conflict is somewhere removed from himself or the local world, but he implies a dispute in the idea that because it is far away it loses importance or meaning. This repeated phrase adds a layer of implication to the poem, in which a criticism of the planned action is found. He is not directly critical of the conclusion to bring the soldiers home, but definitely implies a criticism of the reasons for doing so.

In the second stanza he continues to use phrases to add a strong implication that the people are kept uninformed or mislead is made. He begins with “It's hard to say” (7) in reference to who wanted this. He implies that he nor no one he specifically knows thought of this idea. It is not something that people wanted, but as “it's been decided nobody minds” (8). This means that after the fact no one is willing to argue, however it also implies that it was decided that no one could mind. The decision was made, and the consensus forced. He continues with this implication, “from what we hear” (10) about the soldiers actions. There is an implication of no direct contact with these soldiers, the truth of their actions is not clear to him. All he knows is what he has been told. He has been told that they not accomplishing their mission and so they should come home. The conclusion to this implication lies in “Next year” (12) as this leads to the realization that for now people are not happy with this action, people do not support it, but as it has been made no argument can defeat it and time will force acceptance of it. Again Larkin uses phrases next to his positive statements to cast doubt on their validity.

He does not only use short phrases to connote these implications, but sometimes complimentary statements or sentences. The first two lines of the final stanza are written to imply a negative response to the governments actions. “Next year we shall be living in a country / The brought its soldiers home for lack of money” (13-14). This implies that the governments actions not only affect now, but the future, and that their reason for action is insufficient. The obvious tone and pedantic message carry this implication forcefully. He uses this same style in the final two lines and sentences of the poem. “Our children will not know it's a different country. / All we can hope to leave them now is money” (17-18). Here the implication matches the overarching implication of the entire poem. He is disparaging the idea that money should be an overriding factor in the decision making of what international policies a country should endorse, and what domestic ones they should support. The future children will not know how the world could be difference, they will only know the world they grow up in. It is not good when all a people can leave their next generation is money. Through implication Larkin is strongly opposed to the reasons the government has for recalling their soldiers.

Two contradictory interpretations have been elucidated. However in understanding both they work together for a fuller understanding of Larkin's message. He agrees with the idea of bringing the soldiers home and not being involved in the wars of the world. War is violent and destructive, and no matter the moral claims made on it still ends with chaos and tragedy. He disagrees with the reasons he has been given or that he lists for this end. Money should not be the reason to end their involvement. Whatever reason there was for beginning they are not sufficiently resolved by the loss of income. As a reader the question is forced, what conflicts is our society involved in, should we continue to stay involved, and do we have a better reason for being involved or ending involvement then money.

Work Cited:

Larkin, Phillip. “Homage to a Government.” The Norton Anthology: English Literature Eighth Edition Volume 2. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2006. 2571-2572. Print.

Tolerating Our Misfortune, Not Only Other Peoples Misfortunes

Maya Angelou in All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes records an integral aspect of human nature.

When her son is involved in a nearly fatal car accident she goes to his hospital bed daily and sits with him. 

While there the man who she felt was responsible for the accident comes to visit, who she describes as “[d]runk again, or, two months later, still drunk” (5). He expresses remorse: “I'm sorry, Sister Maya. So sorry. If only it could be me, there on that bed . . . Oh, if only it could be me. . .” (6). Maya's responds, nonverbally, “I agreed with him” and “[t]he slurred words made me hate him more” (6). Her son hears this interchange and seems to guess her thoughts. He asks her to come talk to him and says, “Didn't you mean all those sermons about tolerance? All that stuff about understanding? About before you criticize a man, you should walk a mile in his shoes?” (7). She again responds nonverbally, “Of course I meant it in theory, in conversation about the underprivileged, misunderstood and oppressed miscreants, but not about a brute who had endangered my son’s life” (7). This event occurs early in the narrative but overshadows much of what happens in her next few years. Maya uses her life to show us, the readers, the difficult challenge of not only being tolerant of people who hurt others, but people who hurt us individually.

Maya does not seem to completely learn this lesson from her son. Sometime later she is working and hears an exchange between some college professors. Maya felt insulted by their conversation, and as an intelligent and somewhat educated person she felt responsible to disagree with their derision of her people. However her anger made her yell and lose track of her argument. She leaves in a rage and is stopped by a steward who heard the whole conversation. He is calm and explains to her, “This in not their place, in time they will pass. Ghana was here when they came. When they go, Ghana will be here. They are like mice on an elephant's back. They will pass” (52). Her response, once again nonverbal, is, “In that second I was wounded. My mind struck a truth as an elbow can strike a table edge. A poor, uneducated servant in Africa was so secure he could ignore established White rudeness. No Black American I had ever known knew that security. Our tenure in the United States though long and very hard-earned, was always so shaky we had developed patience as a defense, but never as aggression” (52). This new truth she is stuck with echoes the truth her son presented to her. In both she is presented with an opportunity to take the ideals and theories she tries to live by and practice them in a real situation. In both events her anger and indignation cause her to see the situation in such a way that those ideals do not apply. In both events a third person, who manages to stay calm, causes her to recognize the truths of the situations, and rethink her response. The truth in both is the same. It is much more difficult to practice tolerance when the situation is one you are directly involved in.

In trying to better understand an afromystical context that Maya's work can be read in, the theme of healing seems to be of critical importance. Bridging the gap between the ideals of tolerance, and the reality of daily living a life of forgiveness seems definitely tied to the theme of healing. Applying the ideas of tolerance to the harsh realities of the daily lives of Black Americans is something that Maya did not see as true earlier in her life. She left the employ of Dr. King because he was preaching this truth. But it does seem to be a course of action she begins to make in the journey described in this book. This transformation is something that readers should be able to see through her life, and apply in their own.

On “The Rights of Woman”

Anna Barbauld's “The Rights of Woman” is a poem of many contradictions. The title starts plural, with “Rights” but the same clause ends singular with “Woman” which seems contradictory. The poem's message follows this pattern by beginning in support of a female revolution, but ending with a warning call about results of such a revolution. The phrasing of several of the lines continue this theme of contradiction, such as “Thou mayst command, but never canst be free” (20). The issue of feminism was and continues to be full of controversy and contradiction. It seems plausible that Barbauld was intentional in her poem to present her views carefully on this topic; however it is also plausible that such contradiction stem from her own internal conflicts on the subject. She may have enjoyed the popularity she had and not felt as strongly on the subject as other female authors did. In examining the internal conflicts of the poem it does not matter if this was intentional or not. From its title to overall thematic structure the internal conflicts resonant with the overarching divisive theme of man versus woman.

The poem begins with internal conflict in the first stanza, calling to “[w]oman” (1) not women, like the title. She continues with, “O born to rule in partial Law's despite, / Resume thy native empire o'er the breast!” (3-4) which shows a contradiction in implication. Ruling in law implies ruling in logic and intelligence, but then having empire over the breast implies ruling over emotion and matters of the heart. Which one is she calling for, she seems to lament that woman is born to rule over the mind, but implores that woman should resume ruling over the heart. She is presenting conflict in ideology over what exactly it is that women should rule over and she does not make it clear which is more important.

In the second stanza the internal conflicts continue as she commands, “Go forth arrayed in panoply divine” (5) implying beauty and ornamentation. She then adds, “[g]o, bid proud Man his boasted rule resign, / and kiss the golden sceptre of thy reign” (7-8). The contradiction here is calling men to resign their pride and boasts, while comparing woman to the divine. If men can not boast in their rule why can the woman proudly declare their likeness to divinity, again an implied conflict in her argument.

She also adds to the implied conflicts of ideology by comparing the tools of woman, “[b]lushes and fears” (12) to the tools of war, “artillery” (10) and “cannon” (11), implying a connection and conflict between the weapons of man's wars amongst each other and woman's war again men. She compares the rights of woman to be “[f]elt, not defined, and if debated, lost” (14) much like “sacred mysteries” (15) which “[s]hunning discussion, are revered the most” (16). She claims that the rights of women have been treated like the mysteries of the gospels, things that can not be talked about, because their power and import is lost if discussed. However this shows the difficulty she has in writing this poem, as it may devalue the very things she is trying to claim and prove. Each line and clause is filled with conflict in tone, meaning and content.

Despite these internal conflicts the first six stanzas do seem overall connected in theme. They all present a similar and complex argument. The time is right for woman to assert herself into society and have some sort of dominance. The major conflict of the poem in entirety happens with a shift in the theme in the last two stanzas. She argues that if all that she has wished for in the first six stanzas comes true, then: “hope not, courted idol of mankind, / On this proud eminence secure to stay” (25-26) and continues with, “[s]ubduing and subdued, thou soon shalt find / Thy coldness soften, and thy pride give way” (27-28). She concludes that even if women manage to gain dominance they can not hold it, they will soften their rule and let go of their pride. She is implying that to want to rule over men is something that only men want, that women do or should desire something else. Her final line ends, “separate rights are lost in mutual love” (32). She is showing that for women to desire rule over men is not natural and will not lost. The conflict is temporary and nature's will is not for women to rule. There are many good reasons for women to cast of the dominance of men, but if women try to rule in their place nature will not let it last long, woman’s love will overcome their pride and anger.

Nearly every clause, idea, and theme of this poem is in conflict. There are various contradictions present throughout the entire text. Whether this is intentional or it stems from the authors own internal conflicts does not matter. What matters is that a seemingly simple poem becomes a perfect microcosm for a complex issue. The subject of woman's rights versus male rights, or even the subject and natural genders and their characteristics is something that has been and will continue to be debated across a variety of mediums. Seeing the complexities in this poem and the conflicts in those complexities enables a reader to see a broader spectrum of ideas about causes and solutions to this issue.  

Something About Phillis Wheatly

'Twas mercy brought me from my pagan land,

Taught my benighted soul to understand

That there's a God, that there's a Savior too:

Once I redemption neither sought nor knew.

Some view our sable race with scornful eye.

“Their color is a diabolic dye.”

Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain,

May be refined, and join the angelic train.

In the poem “On being brought from Africa to America” Phillis Wheatly seems to be indicating a measure of gratitude for her and her people being brought to America as they can now find Christianity. She describes her enslavement as “mercy” (1) and her home as “pagan” (1) indicating she recognizes her new home (America) as a source of truth and better teachings. She indicates her nonchalance towards slavery with “some view. . . with scornful eye” (6) suggesting only a portion of slavers are bad and again reminds the reader that through this slavery “Negroes. . . May be refined,” (7-8). However by examining the words she chooses to use and how she employs those words in specific relations to each other other ideas may arise. Phillis actually condemns Christians who proliferate slavery through her use of nouns for her people. She decries the ideology that her people are being saved through slavery.

Phillis describes slaves in a variety of ways. She uses the word “pagan” (1), indicating polytheism and more particularly a delight in sensual pleasure and material goods. This seems to support the view that she approves of Christians taking slaves and teaching them the gospel. However the word pagan to describe her native people, who lived without the conveniences of Europe, may indicate that the slavers are being pagan as they are undertaking slavery for material reason. She then uses the word “benighted” (2) to describe her soul. This can show a contrast in that her words seem to indicate that her African culture lacked the light of Christianity but the travel from Africa the America, the middle passage, is historically seen as one of the most horrific sea voyages imaginable, done at the will of Christian slavers bringing her from the darkness of Africa to the light of America. She also uses the word “sable” (5) to describe her color. This word denotes the color black, evidently, however it also connotes the black worn while mourning. She is describing the color of her race as the color of mourning implying that Christianity has brought a knowledge of the afterlife to her people, but also a deep mourning for so many lost to slavery. This self description is contrasted in the next line where she quotes an anonymous speaker calling her race the color of “diabolic dye” (6) or colored by the devil. The same people who are using Christianity as a justification for slavery are calling the slaves devilish. By doing so she questions the motives of the supposed Christians thus engaged. She then uses a well known allusion, that of “Negroes, black as Cain,” (7) wherein people from Africa are linked to the first murderer of the Bible. This final phrase about her race is the most poignant. Only a Christian would know enough to make the claim, but any true Christian would not link an entire race millennium later to a biblical event as justification for perpetrating new sins on that people.

In her exploration of the flawed ideology of the slavers she uses phrases to communicate her ideas. Every line of her concise poem can be understood to establish the falseness of her Christian slavers ideals. “Twas mercy brought me from my pagan land.” As previously explained the word pagan connotes materialism. Her slavers consider it a mercy to be brought from Africa to America. They may have a variety of reasons to believe so. However if pagan (or the idea of materialism) is applied to the slavers, then the mercy can be as well. So the falseness of their belief is the claim they are bringing mercy to the Africans, when they are seeking mercy for European economic crisis. Plantation farming could be incredibly profitable but it needed a cheap labor resource. The enslavement of Africa was a mercy to the plantation owners looking for that labor. The second line is coupled with the first, and linked by the idea of mercy. However the third line completes the point of the second, somewhat breaking literary tradition. “[Mercy] Taught my benighted soul to understand / That there's a God, that there's a Savior too:” (2-3). These lines claim that mercy taught her dark soul about God. However understanding that the mercy is referring to the mercy that the slavers are enjoying results in a different comprehension. She seems to be pointing out the vast hypocrisy of the Christian slavery experience. The people who were enslaving her for their own benefit were claiming a belief in a greater being, not just a God but a Savior too. A personal example of excellence and moral correctness, obviously being ignored by the people teaching her. She closes this thought with the line “Once I redemption neither sought nor knew” (4). Redemption from sin was not something she considered before being enslaved, before seeing the sins of the Christians who taught her their better way.

The next lines leave the subtle condemnation for a more direct critique. “Some view our sable race with scornful eye. / 'Their color is a diabolic dye,'” (5-6) wherein she directly references to the slavers. They look at black people as devilish. As previously mentioned she uses the word sable indicating her feelings of mourning in this statement. The supposed statement made by some is that the color is a dye. This suggests something was done to them, that they are the same underneath the dye. The slavers by making this statement are acknowledging they are the same as their slaves, just with a different dye. They may not even conscientiously recognize this similarity but by their statement their true feelings are clear and another hypocrisy is made clear. They look at their slaves as devils but know that any devilishness is a result of an outside force and see the common humanity. In the line “Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain,” (7) the Christians are finely referenced. In this she alludes to the mark of Cain as a mark of darkness. Some Christians used this idea, that Negroes are descendents of Cain, as justification for ill treatment. They reasoned that God still wanted them to punish these descendents. However Phillis uses the phrase black as Cain, not black like Cain. Here she cast doubt on this idea, as there was little evidence to support it. The color similarity was at most coincidental and a weak justification. Her final line finishes this idea. She first compares Negroes to Cain, but finishes by comparing them to angels. “[Negroes] May be refined, and join the angelic train” (8). Here she asserts that her people, like white people, may be refined and find a place in heaven. She extends this to claiming a place among the angels, the highest servants of God. This honor and glory is something she know her white, Christian, slavers will never be extended.

Some readers reason that Phillis started the female literary tradition in America as well as the African-American literary tradition. By reading her work closely her skill is made evident. She writes poetry so that interpretation is possible and many meaning are made clear. The timelessness of her work gives credence to her work being influential enough to start a tradition. She was historically forgotten for a number of years, but she was remembered and has been a part of the cannon since that time. Her writing is fascinating and deserves to be read.