There's a striking moment of shared disapproval in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Mark Twain's Pudd'nhead Wilson. As far as disapproval goes, the reasons evoking the reaction aren't unorthodox. "Tom" is rebuked by his guardians for settling his dispute with "Count Luigi" with legal papers rather than fisticuffs, a fairly typical response given the strict honor codes governing interactions in the Antebellum South. What makes this disapproval interesting is the way it is expressed by the two disappointed parties, Roxy and Judge Driscoll.
Roxy, when she hears that her son has denied himself an opportunity to reclaim his honor from Luigi, immediately flies into a fury, blaming the "one part nigger" in him for his cowardly behavior before informing him that he has shamed his (supposed) ancestors, John Smith, Pocahontas and an African king (75). It is a bit strange that Roxy designates blackness as the root of Tom's cowardice while simultaneously pointing to it as a source of strength, an ambivalent take on race that illustrates the complexity and absurdity of racial conceptions / stereotypes in the slaveholding South.
Judge Driscoll, on the other hand, is affronted by Tom's failure to uphold the old Virginian traditions he and his forebears have used to guide their lives. This reaction also speaks to the dogmatic values present in the South, though this does not relate to slavery so much as it relates to the strict expectations for white men in high society. Indeed, Judge Driscoll is so rigid in his beliefs that he faints when a passing boatsmen informs him of his nephew's legal actions.
In these instances, Twain, as he is wont to do, highlights and caricatures the guidelines and expectations by which people lived (and live) their lives. He also seems to point out a certain lack of Southern masculine fortitude in "Tom," one that he might have thought supported by "Tom's" willingness to dress in women's clothing, an act that would have been outrageously taboo in Antebellum Southern society.
I like your point about the satire implied by the critique of notions of masculinity, which in the novel imply having to participate in duels, to fight, even to assassinate. I used to think this was over the top, but have read that Teddy Roosevelt, for instance, forced his sons to go to WWI as a display of their masculinity and honor--that a male sense of honor was very much bound up in notions of shooting, fighting, hunting, etc.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting point. I am interested to know more about the recurring instances of cross-dressing in this novel, and how they relate to the theme of gender.
ReplyDelete