U niverzita Karlova v Praze

Filozoficka fakulta

Department of English and American Studies

Diplomova prace

The Emersonian Pynchon (Emersonsky Pynchon)

Vedoucf diplomove prace: Autor: Prof. David Robbins Safwan Naser "Prohlasuji, ze jsem diplomovou praci vypracoval samostatne a ze jsem uvedl vsechny pouzite prameny a literaturu". Obsah:

Introduction ...... 1-5 The Individual...... 5-35 Government ...... 36-53 Conclusion...... 53-59 Bihliography...... 60

Resume

Ralph Waldo Emerson ajeho postmodernf kolega Thomas Pynchon ... zdanlive neslucitelne spojenf. Tato dimplomova prace si klade za cH prozkoumat neobvykle spojeni mezi temito autory a poukazat na znacny vliv, ktery Ralph Waldo Emerson bezpochyby mel nejen na autory, ktere od nej nedelila takova casova propast, ale i autora naprosto soucasneho, ktery by se podle vetsiny definic toho, co je v literature povazovano za postmodemi mel zcela oprostit od vlivu autora devatemicteho stoleti. Tento spletitY vztah bude prokazan hlavne na nejnovejsim dile Thomase Pynchona, Mason and Dixon, ktere odrazi mnoho aspektU toho, co bylo pro Emersona naprosto kllcove. Za zakladni tema prostupujfci celym dilem Mason and Dixon lze povazovat stanovovani hranic, a to jak v doslovnem, tak velmi abtsraktnim smyslu. Sam Emerson se zab)'val timto tematem velmi podobrobne a je patme, ze Pynchon ma s Emersonem z tohoto hlediska mnoho spolecneho, a to do takove miry, ze samotna hranice mezi postmodernim a romantick)'m cell znacnemu tlaku prehodnoceni, coz je stezejni myslenka, kterou oba auton sdileji.

Resume

Ralph Waldo Emerson and his postmodemist colleague Thomas Pynchon ... a seemingly incongruous connection. The aim of this thesis is to explore the unusual relationship between these prominent authors and advert to the great influence which Ralph Waldo Emerson unquestionably had not only on authors who were not separated from him by such a noticeable temporal abysm, but also a most recent author who, according to the vast majority of the definitions of the postmodern, should be entirely free of any Emersonian influence. This intricate relationship will be assessed mainly through Mason and Dixon, the most recent novel by Thomas Pynchon which reflects many aspects of what Emerson found absolutely central. The summation of what seems to be propounded throughout the entire novel is represented by the idea of determining boundaries, in both the literal and the abstract sense. Emerson himself devoted much attention to this subject matter and it is clear that Pynchon and Emerson have much in common from this perspective, which holds true to such an extent that the boundary between the postmodem and romantic is itself facing the pressure of redefinition, which is in turn a fundamental concept which both authors share. Introduction

There are undoubtedly many authors who can be considered postmodern regardless of the

particular definition which one may ascribe to this focalized synonym of "contemporary".

Since contemporary writing phases endlessly into the past as time flows, "postmodern" may

be regarded as a modification of the meaning of "contemporary" in that it localizes the

beginning as posterior to modem writing. However, even this improvised definition obviously

is not very accurate, for there still remains a boundary to be set at the opposite end of the

temporal spectrum, there is as yet no compelling definition of what comes after "postmodern"

and thereby defines the boundary of the postmodern in terms of its definition. It is therefore

most apropos that Thomas Pynchon's novel Mason & Dixon be assessed in terms of this

"boundaryless" definition of the postmodern. Since "contemporary" cannot function as the

"successor" of "postmodern" for too long, we are truly only left with a concept which does

not predefine the essence of Thomas Pynchon's novel and as the blurring of definitions and

the reconceptualizing of interpretation are essential elements of Pynchon' s oeuvre, it is quite

sufficient to circumvent the attempt to establish a flawless definition of the postmodern and

content oneself with the carefree constatation that Mason & Dixon is, among other things, a

postmodern novel. However, there is yet another "complication" which will be examined in

greater detail. Ralph Waldo Emerson lived and wrote in the nineteenth century, which would

not entitle him to being a postmodernist by some latter-day standards. Nonetheless, as shall be

attested in this thesis, there are many intrinsic similarities which link the works of Thomas

Pynchon and Ralph Waldo Emerson, ostensibly two very different authors. This is related to the fact that even a simplified definition of the postmodern cannot overlook the influence of

Romanticism and Modernism, the boundaries being highly permeable and extremely difficult to define in an all-encompassing manner. While it is quite possible that there is much of the

1 transcendental in Pynchon's work in terms of the centrality of the process of consciousness, it

is the possibility of the postmodernist Emerson which disturbs any conceivable definition of

the postmodern. It is indeed most difficult to validly refute the significance of the romantic as

an inseparable constituent of the postmodern, just as it is virtually impossible to clearly

separate the modern from the postmodern.

Although there are several means of scrutinizing the connection between Pynchon and

Emerson, the most appropriate one for the purpose of this thesis consists of a twofold assessment. The separate sections will not constitute entirely independent concepts, for their overlapping is inevitable and in point of fact proves the depth of interconnectedness of the mindsets of the two authors. Furthermore, it would not be consistent with the assertions that shall be provided on the subject of boundaries regarding their significance in Thomas

Pynchon's Mason & Dixon to establish completely separate and unrelated categories when there exists an unquestionable connection between the individual sections.

The first section will address the issue of individuality and the significance of individual consciousness. There is no doubt that individualism is of critical importance to both Emerson and Pynchon and it is one of the notions which is capable of harboring the accolated 1 perspectives of both Pynchon and Emerson. It is tempting to claim that Pynchon was deeply influenced by Emerson purely due to the sequence in time in which the two authors produced their work, but although Emerson had the advantage of a "head start", he lived in entirely different times, whilst Pynchon on the other hand had the benefit of "more to work with" at the very start. Whether Emerson inspired Pynchon or whether Pynchon only elaborated on

1 Numismatics - two conjoined portraits facing in the same direction on an escutcheon, coin, or medal.

2 Emerson's ideas through the work of those closely linked to Emerson in terms of the same modus of thinking, the same mental universe (namely Hawthome and Melville) cannot be fully proved nor disproved and it therefore is not necessary to dwell on this issue beyond the point of stating its existence.

Be that as it may, the two authors arrived at the same conclusions and although they did not express their thoughts on the subject of individualism in an identical manner, there is indeed little difference between the final concepts which they both seem to promulgate. The individual is arguably central in almost all of Thomas Pynchon's novels, the most revealing instances of this significance would obviously include V, The Crying ofLot 49, and Mason &

Dixon. The order of these novels is also quite emblematic because it reflects a certain development of the same notion from different perspectives. To put it quite simply for the purpose of this argument, the underlying notion of The Crying ofLot 49 is a heroine who is in search of answers with the presupposed conception of omnipresent interconnectedness of meaning, whereas V is about a heroine who apparently is the answer with the presupposed

2 conception of omnipresent interconnectedness of meaning , and Mason & Dixon is, among other things, about subjective meaning, the construction of meaning by individuals.3

If one were to presume the audacity to further develop this dense simplification of the essence of these three novels, it could be said that whilst V and The Crying of Lot 49 are about the search for unambiguous connections and undisputable meaning, Mason & Dixon is founded on reconceptualizing meaning by making use of its inherent ambiguity and based on the individuality of perception. While V and The Crying of Lot 49 are about a centripetal meaning, Mason & Dixon is about a centrifugal meaning. In the first two novels mentioned,

Pynchon is creating the illusion that meaning will ultimately converge to a single point of perfect interconnectedness, everything is connected to everything and with enough time and

2 V is supposedly connected to all the catastrophes of twentieth century European history. 3 About the meaning of boundaries, individuality, government, history, religion, freedom etc.

3 effort, one can unveil these bonds. In Mason & Dixon, Pynchon abandons this illusion, having

already submitted the reader to the notion of all-encompassing interconnectedness, he founds

Mason & Dixon on the story of two individuals who supposedly install order by creating a

boundary, when in fact the opposite is true. Meaning dissipates from Mason and Dixon as the

reverberations of there unpronounced power to divide emanate throughout the novel. Pynchon

to a certain extent thus remains faithful to the theme which he initiates in both V and The

Crying ofLot 49 and continues to address to a certain extent in all his novels up to Mason &

Dixon, where he fully develops the theme and reveals its true potential.

The second and final section will concentrate on the significance of government and its

various forms. Both Pynchon and Emerson share an obvious distrust towards government in its conventional form of a political institution, yet both authors likewise ponder the

consequences of a more abstract definition of government and the manifestation of thus defined government which range from a stabilizing, fossilizing, organizing force to the direct enemy of individualism, independence, and freedom.

As is already obvious at this stage, the two sections will inexorably overlap and complete one another, which is entirely in line with what was mentioned previously about meaning and

Pynchon's interpretation thereof

The use of language also factors inexorably into both sections, yet constantly taking this fact into consideration in appropriate detail would result in a very lengthy and rather confusing thesis. Let us just consider briefly and purely illustratively the possibilities of the title of

Pynchon's Mason and Dixon. It is itself an ambiguous message, a redefinition of language, for it cannot go unnoticed that such a seminal novel is given such a simple title.

4 The initials are certainly most intriguing, for they can offer a very reasonable explanation, one

of many approaches. From this perspective, M&D could either be reminiscent of Melville's

influential Moby Dick, which certainly has much in common with both Emerson and

Pynchon, or it could be an allusion to Pynchon's Maxwell's Demon, the modus of

stratification, the creator of boundaries.

As is obvious by now, neither of the abovementioned possibilities can be chosen over the

other as being entirely valid. This conclusion would apply to any similar analysis ofthe use of language, which would obviously make matters disproportionately complicated.

The Individual

Although it might seem that Emerson and Pynchon are advocates of an egotistical anarchy, such a conclusion would be far from the truth. Although anarchy is a very helpful term in regard to the abeyance of government, it is not the destructive aspect of the abrogation of the institution which encloses the major significance of the rejection of government as expressed by both Emerson and Pynchon.

If one were to undertake the complex task of encapsulating Emerson's perspective on this

"anarchy" (which Pynchon draws on heavily), it could be said initially that the key elements of this anarchy do not lie in the disorder and chaos of the nonexistence of governmental control. It is more an anarchy within the consciousness of each individual which Emerson and

Pynchon believe in. In terms of the anarchy within individual consciousness, it is important to understand the anarchy as a rebellion of an imprisoned intellect, a consciousness overwhelmed by motionless boundaries and stabilization. It is not merely a case of breaking mental boundaries, a mere going beyond, but rethinking them altogether, dilapidating them by disregarding the concept which they represent, detracting significance from them in favor of

5 what becomes when they are not. Although freedom is the ultimate result of this process, it is

4 the process, the becoming which is essential, as true freedom is unattainable •

In addition to that, Emerson does not exalt the idea of voluntary associations of individuals and groups as the ideal counterpoint of government control in terms of the principal mode of organizing society. Although Emerson's understanding of voluntary associations is closely linked to the main subject matter of this section, it will be dealt with in greater detail in the last section of this thesis. There is no compelling reason for including Emerson's understanding of voluntary associations in the section about government, it is a matter of pure expediency, nothing more, as it could be assessed in this section just as well, for individual consciousness and government are ever intertwined.

To contemplate the significance of the anarchy of individual consciousness, it is also necessary to establish the connection between freedom and government, which will prove useful for the considerations on government in the final section. Given the context of

Pynchon's Mason & Dixon, it seems only fit to borrow astronomical terminology to explain the relationship between government and freedom with regard to individual consciousness. In that respect, individual consciousness can be considered a patient of governmental occultationS, being made invisible by the presence of government which shadows freedom.

Consequently, when government ceases to be in perspective, freedom suddenly appears as a frightening and unfamiliar nightmare, when in fact it was government which cast shadow and freedom was a source of eternal illumination engulfed by it. It is now clear that Emerson and

Pynchon are advocating the idea of the nonexistence of government and the egression6 of freedom which ensues, rather than advocating the disorder and disenchantment that transpire.

4 According to Emerson, we are conservative beings, not willing to give up anything and everything in favor of indefinite motion. S One celestial body hidden by the passage of another in front of it. Often applied to the relationship between the observer, the moon and another star or planet. 6 Emergence of a heavenly body from a transit, an eclipse, or an occultation.

6 It is not that the absence of government results in disorder and disenchantment, but disorder

and disenchantment transpire because they have been covered up by the illusion of

government, the illusion of order, the illusion of complete categorization, of clearly defined

and stabilized boundaries. As Emerson states in his essay Fate, "If the air come to our lungs,

we breathe and live; if not, we die. If the light come to our eyes, we see; else not. And if truth

come to our mind, we suddenly expand to its dimensions, as if we grew to worlds.,,7 Freedom

is when "we grow to worlds", but it must begin with redefining the boundaries of our own

world, our own consciousness.

Furthermore, the notion of an unrestricted and unbound union with Nature is integrated into

the concept of the nonexistence of government by both Emerson and Pynchon. This is

obviously not surprising in Emerson's case, as he regarded Nature with the utmost reverence

and found refuge in its guiding greatness when in doubts about Christianity (he resigned from his pulpit in 1832 after having assumed the pastorate of a Boston church in 1829).8

According to Emerson,

The element running through entire nature, which we popularly call Fate, is known to

us as limitation. Whatever limits us, we call Fate. If we are brute and barbarous, the

fate takes a brute and dreadful shape. As we refine, our checks become finer. If we rise

to spiritual culture, the antagonism takes a spiritual form ... And, last of all, high over

thought, in the world of morals, Fate appears as vindicator, levelling the high, lifting

the low, requiring justice in man, and always striking soon or late, when justice is not

done. What is useful will last; what is hurtful will sink.9

7 The Complete Works ofRalph Waldo Emerson - Volume VI - Conduct of Life (1860) 8 September 2007 8 - Ralph Waldo Emerson Biography, 8 September 2007 9 - Emerson, Conduct ofLife, Fate 8 September 2007

7 Although this particular passage might seem subjectivist, indeed a definition of limitation within limitations, the antagonism takes up a fonn directly proportional to individual consciousness. "If we are brute and barbarous, the fate takes a brute and dreadful shape ... If we rise to spiritual culture, the antagonism takes a spiritual fonn"lO However, Emerson proceeds to explain, in an individual-consciousness-experience transcendentalist manner:

But Fate has its lord ... For, though Fate is immense, so is power, which is the other

fact in the dual world, immense. If Fate follows and limits power, power attends and

antagonizes Fate. We must respect Fate as natural history, but there is more than

natural history. For who and what is this criticism that pries into the matter? Man is

not order of nature .. .link in a chain, nor any ignominious baggage, but a stupendous

antagonism, a dragging together of the poles of the Universe. He betrays his relation to

what is below him, -- thick-skulled, small-brained, fishy, quadrumanous, -- quadruped

ill-disguised, hardly escaped into biped, and has paid for the new powers by loss of

some of the old ones. But the lightning which explodes and fashions planets, maker of

planets and suns, is in him. On one side, elemental order, sandstone and granite, rock-

ledges, peat-bog, forest, sea and shore; and, on the other part, thought, the spirit which

composes and decomposes nature, -- here they are, side by side, god and devil, mind

and matter, king and conspirator, belt and spasm, riding peacefully together in the eye

and brain of every man. 11

As is clear from this characteristic excerpt, Emerson was able to achieve remarkable synergism while in point of fact operating within the limits of binary opposition, thus being able to overcome the very essence of binary opposition and simultaneously function within its boundaries - an emblematic redefining of boundaries as opposed to simple obliteration.

10 Ibid. 11 Emerson, 8 September 2007

8 While Emerson fashions power as the natural adversary of fate "If Fate follows and limits power, power attends and antagonizes Fate",12 the relationship is not one of pure antagonism.

He concludes that these already imperfect antagonistic elements of binary opposition combine

"in the eye and brain of every man,,13

The eye is an unmistakable representative of the sensual, it perceives the materialistic and due to its intrinsic physiological limitations, cannot go beyond the materialistic. Conversely, the brain represents the sheer potential of the transcendental, and Emerson maintains that the two constituents of a redefined binary opposition are redefined even further by being set in the framework of another binary opposition, the materialistic versus the transcendental, thereby simultaneously redefining this very binary opposition as well. Emerson provides a set 0 typically antagonistic concepts and redefines them in harmonious union, thereby executing the ultimate redefinition, the redefinition of binary opposition, which is commonly conceived as one of the pairs existing only through the absence of the other. Emerson's perspective turns antagonism into harmony, thereby truly defying binary opposition while simultaneously staying within its boundaries, because after all, harmony could be conceived as the constituent of a binary opposition.

Emerson subsequently reaffirms the power of individual consciousness and what link it has to freedom through the perspective of Fate, which he had already defined as

" .. .limitation ... running through entire nature" .14 The crucial passage being: "If you please to plant yourself on the side of Fate, and say, Fate is all; then we say, a part of Fate is the freedom of man. Forever wells up the impulse of choosing and acting in the soul. Intellect annuls Fate. So far as a man thinks, he is free."

12 Ibid. l3 Ibid. 14 Ibid.

9 Emerson almost parenthetically claims that even the reign of Fate is a matter of a conscious decision, it goes back to a decision previously made, a free choice and in the same sentence, he makes another significant postulation which can very easily go unnoticed -" a part of Fate is the freedom of man". Consequently, not only does Fate represent a result of an act of individual consciousness, but even the choice of Fate as opposed to freedom does not negate freedom entirely "Forever wells up the impulse of choosing and acting in the soul". Finally,

"futellect annuls Fate", means that Emerson clearly considers individual consciousness superior to predestination as well as determinism, linking freedom directly to individual consciousness through thinking. Emerson's therefore is not a strictly phenomenological stance, for anything not perceivable through the senses and not immediately given to the consciousness is not decisive as a criterion, it is the process of thinking as such which defines individual consciousness. Although the last sentence of the quotation is reminiscent of

Descartes' rationalistic "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum", Emerson's approach is clearly influenced by Mysticism - transcendental truths attainable by contemplation. Emerson's postulation differs from Descartes' in the significance of experience. For Emerson, experience is often an expression infinitely nearing consciousness.

Consider the following excerpt:

But relation and connection are not somewhere and sometimes, but everywhere and

always. The divine order does not stop where their sight stops. The friendly power

works on the same rules, in the next farm, and the next planet. But, where they have

not experience, they run against it, and hurt themselves. Fate, then, is a name for facts

not yet passed under the fire of thought; -- for causes which are unpenetrated. 15

15 Emerson, 8 September 2007

10 It is clear that interconnectedness is not determinable by a space-time grid, with every set of

connections pertaining to a specific point. For Emerson, there are connections and links which

we do not know of and the sum of these unexperienced connections which have not yet been

pondered is embodied in Fate. In this sense, Fate itself is an expression of what may be, of

infinite possibilities. This is an excellent example of redefining boundaries. Since fate is

commonly understood as that which is yet to be, the basic notion does not differ entirely from

the conclusion reached through a detailed reading of Emerson. However, Emerson does not

conceive fate as a prescribed order, but an undefined multitude of possibilities which are yet

to be created, pondered, experienced into existence, "a great disorderly Tangle of Lines,,16

unformed.

This redefinition of the boundaries of fate is further developed by Emerson when he speaks of the "omnipotence of recoil" 17 where he assesses what happens when the unexperienced prevails over the experienced. Consider the following excerpt:

For, if Fate is so prevailing, man also is part of it, and can confront fate with fate. If

the Universe have these savage accidents, our atoms are as savage in resistance. We

should be crushed by the atmosphere, but for the reaction of the air within the body. A

tube made of a film of glass can resist the shock of the ocean, if filled with the same

water. Ifthere be omnipotence in the stroke, there is omnipotence of recoil. 18

To express oneself by means of the terms of Emerson's parable, although individual consciousness cannot match the shock of the ocean of the unexperienced, when partially made up of the ocean, it can resist the shock. The unexperienced is therefore at least as important as the experienced, if not more so. With Emerson, as with Pynchon, it is always about the

16 Thomas Pynchon, Mason and Dixon (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997), page 349. 17 Emerson, 8 September 2007 18 Ibid.

11 possibilities, and in Mason & Dixon it is about the possibilities that boundaries obliterate, conceal, and create.

Although Pynchon infuses the notion of Nature as the highest truth into Mason & Dixon, he does not dwell on the matter as conspicuously and attentively as Emerson, it is too easily lost in the mayhem of ambiguity. However, just as is true for Emerson, there are certain passages where it is easier to identify these contemplations on the significance of Nature, the most obvious allusions being perpetuated by passages such as the following:

"Terrible Feng-Shui here. Worst I ever saw. You two crazy?

"Because oL.?" Dixon indicating behind them, in thickening dusk, the Visto sweeping

away.

"It acts as a Conduit for what we call Sha, or, as they say in Spanish California, Bad

Energy.-- Imagine a Wind, a truly ill wind, bringing failure, poverty, disgrace,

betrayal,-- every kind of bad luck there is,-- all blowing through, night and day, with

many times the force of the worst storm you were ever in."

"No one intends to live directly upon the Visto," Mason speaking as to a Child. "The

object being, that the people shall set their homes to one side or another. That it be a

Boundary, nothing more."

"Boundary!" The Chinaman begins to pull upon his hair, and paw the earth with

brocade-slipper'd feet. "Ev'rywhere else on earth, Boundaries follow Nature,-- coast­

line, ridge-tops, river-banks,-- so honoring the Dragon or Shan within, from which

Land-Scape ever takes its form. To mark a right Line upon the Earth is to inflict upon

the Dragon's very Flesh, a sword-slash, a long, perfect scar, impossible for any who

12 live out here the year 'round to see as other than hateful Assault. How can it pass

unanswer'd?" 19

This may very well be a rather strained connection, but it simultaneously represents precisely

that infiniteness of possibilities which both Emerson and Pynchon advocate. The following

excerpt is both a justification and an exemplification of the viability of the strained connection to be made: "[I]t's like a Woman, isn't it, you look at each other, you think Of course not, she thinks Of course not, - yet the Alternatives hang about, don't they, like Wraiths. ,,20

Be that as it may, the potential of the word "Sha" is far greater than a superficial consideration might reveal. If we perceive the word as an acronym, one of the possibilities that it spells out is "Secure Hash Algorithm". To word it quite simply, this algorithm is able to compute a fixed-length digital representation of an input data sequence of any length. The digital representation of fixed length is called a message digest and the data which is input is known as the message. The algorithm is considered "secure" when it is computationally impossible to find two different messages which result in a single message digest, or to find a message that corresponds to a given message digest. The system is not perfect, because any change to a message will not result in a different message digest every single time, although it is highly probable21

Although this parable is slightly reminiscent of the paranoia which Pynchon wrote about at length, it is nonetheless a viable one within the framework of individual consciousness and its ramifications are quite obvious when the actual possibility is contemplated. Since "Sha" is

"bad energy" and the visto "acts as a Conduit for what we call Sha", the powerful image of

"bad energy" as a Secure Hash Algorithm shifts into possibility. A SHA basically produces a compact and dense representation of a message. This representation is unique, but this

19 Mason & Dixon 542 20 Mason & Dixon 437 21 The Secure Hash Algorithm Directory MD5, SHA-J and HMAC Resources, 8 September 2007

13 uniqueness only nears perfection. A SHA is therefore a clear representation of a system beset

with boundaries, limits, and stabilized rules. In terms of this thesis, a SHA is a form of

government in the abstract sense. It is created by man and is strictly defined, has set

boundaries and despite the intrinsic intricacy of the system, it has a very clearly defined

purpose and it acts as an almost flawless stabilizer. When we factor "bad energy" into this

concept, we arrive at a very sophisticated, yet plausible conclusion, the same conclusion that

stems from the notion of individual consciousness and freedom. Since the purpose of SHA

("bad energy") is to encapsulate a message in a strictly defined manner to produce a strictly

defined structure, it is "changing all from subjunctive to declarative, reducing Possibilities to

Simplicities that serve the ends of Governments',22. The beauty of the parable is underlined by the fact that "Governments" can be interpreted both in an abstract, broader sense, as well as the literal sense, because the SHA was designed by the National Security Agency.

Looking back "less freely" at the abovementioned excerpt ... When confronted with the possibility of "Terrible Feng-Shui", Dixon, the representative of Romanticism and Mysticism

(depending on one's interpretation) is apparently hesitant to even say the word "visto", because it is such an absolute representation of the world of the Age of Reason. Pynchon is clearly contrasting Nature and boundaries created by man. ""Ev'rywhere else on earth,

Boundaries follow Nature". The following passage puts into perspective the significance of

"the Chinaman" as the representative of Nature:

"I have an enemy in these parts, I believe,-- a certain Jesuit who does not wish me

well."

"French?" inquires Mason.

"Spanish, I believe. Father Zarpazo, the Wolf of Jesus, as he is known in his native

Land, though I had the misfortune to meet him in my own. He has his Training

22 Mason & Dixon 345

14 directly from those who persecuted Molinos and his followers,-- he is accordingly

sworn to destroy all who seek God without passing through the toll-gate of Jesus. The

Molinistas, as do certain Buddhists of my own land, believ'd that the most direct Way

to the Deity was to sit, quietly. Ifthis meant using Jesus as but a stage on a journey, or

even passing him by, why so be it. Buddhists speak of finding it necessary, if the

Buddha be blocking one's Way, to kill him. Jesuits do not like to hear this sort of

thing, of course, it puts far too much into the question. If access to God need not be by

way of Jesus, what is to become of Jesuits? And the sheer amount of Silence requir'd,-

- do you think they could ever abide that? 23

It cannot be inconsequential that the enemy the Chinaman fears is a Jesuit who had his training "directly from those who persecuted Molinos and his followers", the supporters of quietism. Withdrawal from worldly interest should not be perceived as being entirely at variance with Christianity, since humaneness and modesty require to a major extent a certain refraining from worldly interests. Nonetheless, Nature as explained by Feng-Shui does not quite pass ''through the toll-gate of Jesus". Apart from the obvious scrutiny of religion,

Pynchon is also subtly considering the confrontation of religion and Nature. Furthermore,

Pynchon is deconstructing another very powerful boundary - Jesus. For many, Jesus is the ultimate unsurpassable boundary, yet Pynchon is challenging this notion through the innocent voice of a Feng-Shui "Chinaman". In a typical manner, Pynchon by no means evokes surpassing Jesus, one of the reasons for this being that in so doing, he would go against the very concept which he is advocating. Inducing an overlooking of Jesus would be just as inductive to "a Chain of single Links" 24 as the concept of Jesus being a boundary per se,

Pynchon would be a reversed "Wolf of Jesus". However, Pynchon does not explicitly

23 Alason and Dixon 543 24 Jilason & Dixon 349

15 advocate such an approach to Jesus, he is only apparently encouraging the reader through "the

Chinaman" to consider the possibility of Jesus being a boundary "but a stage on a journey".

This is most Emersonian indeed.

Be that as it may, the Nature-freedom causality is not necessarily as unambiguous as one might like it to be. It is debatable whether being one with Nature is along the path to freedom or whether freedom is an essential prerequisite ofthe union with Nature.

Nevertheless, the anarchy that both Emerson and Pynchon ponder is an anarchy of the individual consciousness, it is not disorder due to the absence of government which represents the aim, it is rather only a temporary disorder, a psychological confabulation which takes the place of the emptiness brought about by the removal of government, it is confusion and fear of the newly acquired, of that which was not yet experienced, and therefore is not defined by imposed boundaries and not shaped by would-be objective categorization. Freedom truly is one ofthe extremely scarce instances in both Emerson's and Pynchon's work when ambiguity and the derision of simplistic binary opposition must relinquish their dominion, for freedom truly is one of the few instances of binary opposition to which neither Emerson nor Pynchon entirely oppose. Although one would face great difficulty proving this claim, it is actually self-evident, at least on the level of a simplified understanding of freedom. Ultimately, freedom is always there, only hidden, and conversely, it can never be reached, although it can be sought endlessly - it is the process, the perpetual motion, the invisible goal, which bears most significance, government is only protracted individual consciousness, suppressed solipsism of the individual consciousness, the self is the only verifiable reality and the only means, method, framework of verification is individual consciousness.

Individual consciousness is in turn ever connected to boundaries, whatever form or shape they may take. Whether it "is to inflict upon the Dragon's very Flesh, a sword-slash, a long,

16 perfect scar,,25 or the mere drawing of a line in sand by a frolicking child, the boundary is primarily conceived in individual consciousness, in the mind.

Although Mason and Dixon are two historically know individuals, Pynchon, in a very

Emersonian manner, effaces this distinguishing feature. It is by no means a new notion, but the cliche of two halves of the same identity is rethought in the relationship between Mason and Dixon, and indeed between them and other characters in the novel, especially William

Emerson and Maskelyne. Mason and Dixon are not just two halves of the same identity, they each remain a consciousness on its own, yet they their consciousnesses are complementary, not strictly divided by a boundary. To distort the conventional boundaries even more,

Pynchon creates a special bond noticeable especially between Mason and Rebekah (and

Maskelyne) and between Dixon and William Emerson, and since Mason's and Dixon's consciousnesses are interconnected, it becomes impossible to separate the consciousnesses of

William Emerson, Rebekah, and Maskelyne.

While Dixon can more or less be considered a personification of the Romantic and Mystical,

Mason is rather a representation of the Age of Reason. This parallel is built up throughout the novel, but there are several passages which are more or less explicit. Pynchon writes:

"We are Fools," proposes Dixon one night.. .. "We shouldn't be runnin' this Line ... ?"

Mason regards his Cup of Claret. "Bit late for that, isn't it?"

"Why, aye. I'll carry it through, Friend, fear not. But something invisible's going on,

tha must feel it, smell it...?"

Mason shrugs, "American Politics."

, . : . ~

, ',;-

25 Mason & Dixon 542

17 "Just so. We're being us'd again. It doesn't alarm thee ... ?" ...

[begin 479]. .. "Then as we've no choice, I may speak freely and share with you some of

my darker Sentiments. Suppose Maskelyne's a French Spy. Suppose a secret force of

Jesuits, receives each Day a summary of Observations made at Greenwich and

transcalculates it according to a system known to the Kabbalists of the Second Century

as Gematria, whereby Messages may be extracted from lines of Text sacred and

otherwise, a Knowledge preserv'd by various Custodians over the centuries, and since

the Last, possess'd by Jesuit and Freemasona alike. The Dispute over Bradley's Obs,

then, as over Flamstte's before him, would keep ever as their unspoken intention that

the Numbers nocturnally obtain'd be set side by side, and arrang'd into Lines, like

those of a Text, manipulated till a Message be reveal'd."

"Bit sophisticated for me. Tho' I don't mind a likely Conspiracy, I prefer it be form'd

in the interests of Trade,--the mystickal sort you fancy is fair beyond me, I'm but a

simple son of the Pit."

"'Trade.'--Aha. You heard me mention Jesuits,--so now you're making veil'd allusions

to the East India Company, in response,--I do see, yes ... Drivel, of course. ,,26

This excerpt indicates a typical characteristic which Dixon possesses and Pynchon occasionally makes the reader aware of, a typical distrust of the present, always rethinking the present, being in intellectual motion. He expresses doubts with regard to what he does, and yet, in a typically ambiguous manner, Dixon also says later on that "The one thing we do know how to do, is Vistoes.,,27 Dixon, as it were, "nudges" Mason into a heated discussion and then recoils, allowing him enough room28 for contemplation. Pynchon is therefore contrasting the opposite sides of yet another boundary. While the only thing Dixon knows is

26 Mason & Dixon 479 27 Mason & Dixon 701 28 ef. Emerson's "There is always room for a man of force, and he makes room for many" in Government section.

18 creating boundaries, he is not satisfied with the purpose, with the motivation. He is not

satisfied with the fact that he "is being used". Mason on the other hand is quite content

because everything is stabilized, he knows what is expected of him and what he wants in

reward, nothing else matters to him, he is motionless. However, as he is nudged into

redefinition by Dixon, he makes the abrupt shift from "American Politics" to "mystickal

conspiracy", as Dixon phrases it. Even when humoring Mason's doubts, Dixon cannot go

beyond the boundaries of his own consciousness "Tho' I don't mind a likely Conspiracy, I

prefer it be form'd in the interests of Trade,--the mystickal sort you fancy is fair beyond me,

I'm but a simple son of the Pit." This is an obvious contradiction of the generally

propositioned description of Dixon as the more mystical, more romantic of the two, which

proves that there is no clear boundary between Mason and Dixon themselves, the two

protagonists effectively swapping their character. It would seem however that Dixon was

somewhat in command of the orchestration of this substitution, but he might not be aware of

it. Since trade is obviously the modem-day survivor of the postulations of the Age of Reason,

Dixon is therefore thinking within Mason's Age of Reason limitations, the limitations which

originally allowed Mason to shrug off the burden of contemplation with an unknowingly

acquiescent "American Politics", which turns into an elaborate conspiracy theory that Dixon

counters with a "I prefer it be form'd in the interests of Trade" argument. Ironically, it is

Dixon's parenthetically postulated conspiracy theory which has much greater significance in terms of the times we are living in. While Mason is the one making the effort to uncover a deeper and less obvious conspiracy, Dixon only concurs and interjects mild modifications.

And yet, these mild interjections would be of major concern to many a reader nowadays. "The

Company's own Chain of Being,,29 is more troubling than a mystical conspiracy.

29 Mason & Dixon 438

19 Mason is quite unusually pensIve while Dixon's approach to the issue is unusually

lackadaisical, each of the two in a disposition which ordinarily befits the other more aptly.

This reaffirms that they truly are more than just two halves of the same identity, they are two

consciousness conjoined in one, each retaining its individuality and simultaneously

completing the other, a fusion with boundaries, yet boundaries redefinable, ever shifting. The

indefinite boundaries between Mason and Dixon are indeed extremely intricate, never

enabling us to separate the two without facing doubts as to the veracity of the basis of the

separation.

ill spite of the fact that Mason has the ultimate opportunity to transcend the boundaries of his

consciousness, he is either not willing to do so or simply not able to. It is quite clear that free will is not an unknown concept to Mason. This notion is established fairly soon in the novel:

"If the Cape of Good Hope be a Parable about Slavery and Free Will he fancies he has almost tho' not quite grasp'd, then what of this Translocation?,,30 However, despite the fact that free will is not a concept disregarded by Mason, he never seems to be fully able to redefine the boundaries of his consciousness, always thinking within the limitations of binary opposition, it is almost always one side of the boundary for Mason ... However, it would obviously be very ''un-Emersonian'' and "un-Pynchonian" if Mason were to be so unambiguous one­ dimensional. There are passages in the novel which complicate the notion that Mason is entirely incapable of letting go of the Age of Reason mentality and thereby near "Dixon's part" of the consciousness of the conjoined Mason-Dixon identity. One of these instances of ambiguity can be exemplified using the following excerpt:

Maskelyne is the pure type of one who would transcend the Earth,-- making him, for

Mason, a walking cautionary Tale. For years now, after midnight Culminations, has

30 Mason & Dixon 158

20 he himself lain and listen'd to the Sky-Temptress, whispering, Forget the Boys, forget

your loyalties to your Dead, first of all to Rebekah, for she, they, are but distractions,

temporal, flesh, ever attempting to drag the Uranian Devotee back down out of his

realm of pure Mathesis, of that which abides.

"For if each Star is little more a mathematical Point, located upon the Hemisphere of

Heaven by Right Ascension and Declination, then all the Stars, taken together, tho'

innumerable, must like any other set of points, in turn represent some single gigantick

Equation, to the mind of God as straightforward as, say, the Equation of a Sphere,-- to

us unreadable, incalculable. A lonely, uncompensated, perhaps even impossible

Task,-- yet some of us must ever be seeking, I suppose."

"Those of us with the Time for it," suggests Mason.31

It cannot be determined for certain whether it is actually Mason who believes this, nevertheless, it certainly disturbs the complacent notion that Mason has no self-reflexive potential whatsoever. The excerpt definitely indicates that Mason's consciousness is not set within stabilized boundaries. Although Mason's realm is largely also that of "pure Mathesis, of that which abides", Rebekah is Mason's strongest bond to the world of the ambiguous, of boundaries unclear, lines drawn yet unidentifiable. Nevertheless, Mason remains within his boundaries because his consciousness is defined by the boundary of death. He never really attempts to redefine life, redefine death and the links between, he only thinks in terms of rational oppositions. When Mason realizes he has been hearing Rebekah's voice, he flees to his predefined world of science, the Age of Reason, he encloses himself in the boundaries of his consciousness, rather than embracing the opportunity to redefine these boundaries. "He tries to joke with himself. Isn't this supposed to be the Age of Reason?,,32 Nevertheless,

Mason himself must concede that even within the limitations of his consciousness, there is a

31 Mason & Dixon 134 32 Mason & Dixon 164

21 place for doubt, for change, for intellectual motion. "But if Reason be also Permission at last to believe in the evidence of our Earthly Senses, then how can he not concede to her some

Resurrection? - to deny her, how cruel!,,33

The fact that Maskelyne is "a walking cautionary Tale" for Mason is quite self-explanatory regardless of how we interpret transcending in "Maskelyne is the pure type of one who would transcend the Earth". Mason on the one hand does not wish to be engulfed by "that which abides", whether it is purely because of the love of Rebekah or because of the possibility of the escape from limitations of his own consciousness which Rebekah symbolizes. On the other hand, he perceived the:

Sky-Temptress, whispering ... forget your loyalties to your Dead, first of all to

Rebekah, for she, they, are but distractions, temporal, flesh, ever attempting to

drag the Uranian Devotee back down out of his realm of pure Mathesis, of that

which abides. 34

Mason therefore simultaneously wonders "how can he not concede to her [Rebekah] some

Resurrection" and considers Maskelyne "a walking cautionary Tale", because he "is the pure type of one who would transcend the Earth". Even Mason is therefore to a certain extent apt to a redefinition of boundaries and surpassing the limitations he created in his consciousness, but he seems to lack something to "nudge him,,35 into the terrifying undefined, the redefining of individual consciousness.

It is quite interesting to consider the significance of Maskelyne's introduction of the determination of longitude by lunar distances with respect to the importance of "transcending the Earth". It could be understood as overcoming the boundaries of the Earth by creating new

33 Ibid. 34 Mason & Dixon 134 35 e£ Duck

22 boundaries, because the combination of latitude and longitude can be used to determine any

point on the Earth, turning it thus into a map of defined points, which is exactly how Mason

contemplates the sky.

Nevertheless, Mason is clearly aware of the infiniteness of possibilities, but he contemplates

them in terms of his limitations, in terms of the scientific, numbers and equations. He does not

contemplate possibilities, but rather an innumerable set of points. Although there is the

common factor of infiniteness, the crucial difference is embodied in the fact that for Mason,

everything ultimately converges into a single truth, a truth which can be encapsulated in a

single equation, albeit a complex one. This not only reflects the importance of language as a

means of expressing ideas, but the significance of language as the creator of meaning, the co­

creator of consciousness and its boundaries, not a mere expression of this consciousness.

Mason's consciousness is strongly co-defined by the language in which he thinks. The subtle

difference of infinitude is to him apparently almost unnoticeable, because although he notices

that "the Sky-Temptress" is drawing him away from Rebekah, we cannot be quite sure how he interprets this distancing, whether he actually perceives Rebekah as a possibility of

embracing the redefinition of the limitations of his consciousness or whether Rebekah is just a distraction. It is also interesting to consider that Maskelyne was able to determine longitude using lunar distances, thus being able to define every point on the Earth. Mason could likewise utilize the distancing he feels with respect to Rebekah to redefine his own consciousness and still remain within the framework of his Age of Reason haven and in so doing create his own points in his own sky, the infiniteness of which he already acknowledges

- it would at least be the beginning of redefining of the limitations of his own consciousness.

Let us consider, if only briefly, the significance of Mason being a "Uranian Devotee". Uranus

23 has many interpretations, but one which is particularly relevant to this situation is that the

Romans perceived Uranus (called Ouranos) as the essential force of creation which created

concepts like love and vengeance. In this respect, it is ironic that Mason should be a devotee

ofUranus and yet not succumb to Rebekah's influence. The main problem is that Mason still perceives the situation in tenns of two sides of a boundary, Rebekah is dragging him ''back down out of his realm of pure Mathesis". The inability to redefine the boundary and reconcile the two sides ofthe boundary is a direct consequence of Mason's limited consciousness.

The following passage remarkably conJOInS the Emersonian significance of Nature and

Mason's relationship to Rebekah. She herself (perhaps an inner voice of Mason's transfixed consciousness) provides Mason with a solution to his uncertainty:

"Look to the Earth," she instructs him. "Belonging to her as I do, I know she lives, and

that here upon this Volcanoe in the Sea, close to the Forces within, even you, Mopery,

may learn of her, Tellurick Secrets you could never guess." 36

This passage clearly eviscerates the boundary from Mason's consciousness, as Rebekah belonging to the Earth just as Mason does sublimely redefines death and life, completely removing the preconceived boundaries. This could have been Mason's "ticket" to freedom, and yet even at the ending of the novel, he still wonders:

"Is that why I sought so obsessedly Death's Insignia, its gestures and fonnulae, its

quotidian gossip ... was it all but some way to show my worthiness to obtain a Pennit

to visit her, to cross that grimly patroll'd Line, that very essence of Division? 37

This evidently proves that Rebekah's advice quoted above had gone unnoticed. Mason was still thinking within the stem definitions of the Age of Reason. He was trying to get as close

36 Mason & Dixon 172 37 Mason & Dixon 703

24 to death so he could be close to Rebekah, rather than redefining life as such. Conceiving a

consciousness ever in motion was seemingly unattainable for Mason. After all that he had

gone through, his contemplations are still within the limitations of the defined, of

irreconcilable dualisms, the two opposing sides of an unalterable boundary. It is ironic, and

undoubtedly intentional, that it is Mason, and not Dixon, who has to deal with one of the

greatest of all boundaries - death. However, Pynchon himself suspends the greatness of the

boundary of death by introducing the duck and other automata, but these symbols of the

defiance of death (including Rebekah) do not alter the limitations of consciousness, certainly not in a significant manner, if at all.

To put it quite simply, in terms of being active in creating and recreating the boundaries within his consciousness, it seems that Mason is never the chalk, he is only the slate, a slate which cannot be written on by all types of chalk. He did not accept Rebekah's influence for instance, the most crucial of all. While he gladly explains why he must draw the line, he never contemplates the depth of its symbolic significance. 38

The limitations of consciousness in Dixon's case might not be as deeply rooted and as unalterable as is the case with Mason, yet even he has his own moments of doubt, disregarding - perhaps even avoiding - possibilities.

The most remarkable instance of both doubt and the sense of unrealized infinite possibilities, and a consideration of the significance of language are embedded in Dixon's confrontation with the watch which William Emerson leaves temporarily in his custody.

When confronted with the notion that the watch is able to function indefinitely, the notion of perpetual motion, Dixon suddenly faces perhaps one of the most deeply rooted of his

38 Ev'ryone has a Point of View they wish to persuade the Surveyors to. "Sometimes you're the Slate," Mason observes, "sometimes you're the Chalk." Mason & Dixon 442

25 limitations of consciousness. Unlike Mason, he is able to realize that his boundaries are being

challenged, that they are not unalterable, that they can be redefined, although he has great difficulties with the concept nonetheless. Consider the following excerpt:

"If we are arriv'd in the Age of Newton transcended ... ? Perpetual-Motion

commonplace ... ? why's it yet a Secret?"

"Interest," chuckl'd Emerson, cryptickally. "In fact, Compound Interest! Eeh, eeh,

eeh!,,39

There are several issues that can be addressed at this stage. Apart from the fact that the punctuation40 is emblematic of Pynchon's (and Emerson's) approach to language as a set of re-definable possibilities, there is the obvious political insinuation - a commonplace notion which confronts hitherto created boundaries is being kept secret, because it is not in the interest of government (in the more abstract, broader sense). The fact that William Emerson resonates intensively of R.W. Emerson factors into every single consideration concerning the interaction between Dixon and William Emerson, and it is up to each reader to take the connection as far as she wills. Nevertheless, the political insinuation certainly is not far from what R.W. Emerson advocated himself, the necessity to abide without government.

The next excerpt reflects less ambiguously the relationship Dixon has with William Emerson, including the potential relationship between R.W. Emerson and Romanticism and Mysticism which Dixon is a personification of. Herein lies one of the key differences between Dixon and

Mason. Although Dixon also suffers from his limitations of consciousness, he is partially aware of that and he deeply ponders the problem and does not simply reject it.

Their history in Durham together has been one of many such Messages, not

necessarily clear or even verbal, which Dixon keeps failing to understand. He knows,

39 Mason & Dixon 318 40 " ... ?"

26 to the Eye-Blink, how implausible Emerson is, as the source of the Watch. Meaning

he is an intermediary. For whom?41

Clearly, Dixon has to face one of the greatest boundaries of his conSCIOusness, which surprisingly is not very far in nature from the very essence of the limitations that define

Mason's consciousness - science.

He [Dixon] is a N ewtonian. He wants all Loans of Energy paid back, and ev'ry

Equation in Balance. Perpetual Motion is a direct Affront. If this Watch be a

message, why, it does not seem a kind one ... [begin 319] All our assumptions about the

Conservation of Energy, the Principia, eeh ... ? our very Faith, as modem Men,

suddenly in question like thah, ... ?,,42

Unlike Mason, Dixon realizes what the potential flaw of his limitations is, which is the first step to redefining the limitations of his consciousness. The notion of perpetual motion is obviously not a purely mechanic one, and in this case, the fact that it is an Emerson who imparts the symbol of perpetual motion on Dixon simply must be emblematic. The watch - that which defines and expresses the present - is capable of perpetual motion. The present becomes perpetual motion. This was surely what troubled Dixon most, that is, if he truly realized it. The watch is not a mere representation of a point in time ( and space), it has the potential of being an endless reality, fusing the past and the future into an eternal present. It seems that Dixon will have to reconcile with the full scope of what Mason had such difficulty even imagining: [Mason, to Dixon: ] "You expect me to live in the eternal Present, like some

Hindoo?,,43

The symbolic power of the watch, the sheer potential it has of shattering Dixon's boundaries, starts to bother him to such an extent that although William Emerson asked him to safeguard

41 Mason & Dixon 318 42 Mason & Dixon 318-319 43 Mason & Dixon 166

27 it, he starts contemplating ways of getting rid of it. It is a most wonderful image - Emerson bestowing upon Dixon the task of safeguarding the symbol of the limitedness of his consciousness, despite the fact that - or perhaps precisely because - Dixon "keeps failing to understand" the messages from Emerson. In this sense, the watch from Emerson is Dixon's version of the ultimate boundary, of Mason's Rebekah. In a typically ambiguous manner,

Pynchon does not fully reveal the extent of Dixon's confrontation with one of his ultimate boundaries, just as is the case with Mason, only reaffirming the possibility that Mason and

Dixon are a plexus of a single identity rather than a synonymous relationship reflected in a single consciousness - they can replace each other but simultaneously reaffirm each other, yet not entirely.

Another level is added when we contemplate the watch as a false deifier of boundaries, intentionally implanted by Emerson in contrast with the Vroom clock, the preceding symbolic brother of the watch, which acquires the status of a living being:

One by one the girls have grown up believing the Vroom Clock, a long-case heirloom

brought from Holland, to be a living Creature, conscious of itself, and of them, too,

with its hooded Face, its heartbeat, the bearing of a solemn Messenger. It stands deep

in the House, in a passageway between the Front and the Back,-- the two Worlds,-­

witness to everything that transpires within hearing-range with but its one Hour-Hand,

and two Bells, a Great and a Small, for striking the Hours and Quarter-hours. They

call it 'Boet,'-- the traditional name, here, for an elder Brother.44

This completes the full circle, the watch given to Dixon by Emerson becomes another automaton which defies binary opposition, although in this case it is not the "simple" matter of animate versus inanimate, but rather boundedness versus unboundedness per se.

44 Mason & Dixon 155

28 The dilemmas of both Mason and Dixon can be looked at from a single perspective which

Maskelyne summarizes quite adequately:

"We may sail with the Wind," he said once, "at the same speed, working all its

nuances,-- or we may stand still, and feel its full true Course and Speed upon us, with

all finer Motions lost in the Simplicity." 45

There obviously is not an interpretation which could claim complete veracity, which is again

yet another example of the ambiguous and creative approach to language which both Emerson

and Pynchon undoubtedly share. Despite the plethora of possibilities that poetic ambiguity in

prose presents, one ofthose which certainly can claim validity is connected to the redefinition

of boundaries which neither Mason nor Dixon quite seem to be fully prepared to undergo.

Sailing with the wind can either be conventionally understood as "going with the masses",

succumbing to predefined boundaries and locking the consciousness within outwardly preset

limitations. Sailing "at the same speed" would therefore indicate an act detrimental to

individual consciousness. Conversely, the wind could be interpreted as the constituent of

Feng-Shui, an element of Nature, and consequently a desirable guide, the same speed being a

union with nature.

Standing still and feeling the "full true Course and Speed" of the wind would in that case

respectively mean acquiring the freedom of redefining the boundaries of individual

consciousness - intellectual mobility - or it could be interpreted as resistance to Nature, a

stubborn clinging to the externally predefined boundaries of individual consciousness in spite

ofthe endless possibilities, the "full true Course and Speed".

In the first case, "Simplicity" would be a metaphor for truth, reality if you will, while in the

latter it would imply signify the falsity and incompleteness of the limitations of individual

consciousness. 46

45 Mason & Dixon 162

29 The relationship between Mason and Maskelyne is perhaps not as emblematic as that between

Dixon and William Emerson, yet Maskelyne also has a significant effect on Mason's

consciousness. Mason's connection to Maskelyne is clear when we consider the following

excerpt from the very beginning of the novel:

"As if...there were no single Destiny," puzzles Mason, "but rather a choice among

great many possible ones, their number steadily diminishing each time a Choice is

made, till at last 'reduc'd,' to the events that do happen to us, as we pass among 'em,

thro' Time unredeemable,-- much as a Lens, indeed, may receive all the Light from

some vast celestial Field of View, and reduce it to a single Point." 47

Mason indeed comes very close to the notion of the limitlessness of individual consciousness, yet he is betrayed by the limitations of his consciousness which disallow him to see that the

Age of Reason parable in fact reduces the entire notion into the loop of predestination and powerlessness. Although he begins with the suspicion that no single destiny exists, he in fact contradicts himself because the lens "may receive all the Light from some vast celestial Field of View, and reduce it to a single Point", which basically negates the infinitude of possibilities. This is quite typical for Mason - he is aware of the infinitude of possibilities48 and yet simultaneously contradicts this notion by conceiving some point of convergence. 49

Ironically, Dixon is the first to die, a point of convergence which Mason would have surly appreciated because he was trying to be as close to death as he could for Rebekah (although she explicitly asked him to do the contrary), and Mason's face becomes a slate ofNewtonian symmetry, a representation of that which Dixon strongly believed in, one of the most

46 Mason & Dixon 162 47 Mason & Dixon 45 48 An essential constituent of freedom. 49 C£ Previously discussed relationship between Mason, death, and the sky.

30 powerful detenninants of his consciousness. What is just as important is that there is an

indication that Mason might have shifted into a different fonn of existence, that he himself had become one of those borderline entities which defy binary oppositions, that he had

acquired an inanimate nature. There is no explicit indication, but Pynchon's wording is again very invitingly ambiguous 50:

Mason is gone gray, metallic whiskers sprout from his Face, even his eyelashes are

grizzl'd. Franklin is surpriz'd to find that Mason has lost his Squint, that as the years

have pass'd, his Face has been able somehow to enter the Ease of a Symmetry it must

ever have sought, once he abandon'd the Night Sky, and took refuge indoors from the

Day. 51

One of the more explicit automatons in the novel which deserves special attention in tenns of the subject matter at hand is indubitably represented by de Vaucanson's duck.

The duck is an obvious shifter of boundaries, it pertains neither to the realm of the animate, nor to the realm of the inanimate, it dissolves this particular dualism and thus redefines the boundary, thereby redefining the concept of binary opposition as such. One of the few explanations provided concerning the duck simultaneously brings into focus the notion of boundaries as the essential constituent that may be held responsible for the induction of the potential to defy boundaries into the very essence of the duck:

"Some" the Frenchman bristles, "might point rather to a Commitment of Ingenuity

unprecedented, toward making All authentic ... 'twas this very Attention to Detail,

whose Fineness, passing some Critickal Value, enabl' d in the duck that strange

50 The grey color, the use of the word "metallic" etc. 51 Mason & Dixon 771

31 Metamorphosis, which has sent it out the Gates ofthe Inanimate, and off upon its

present Journey into the given World." 52

The "Critickal Value" is evidently a boundary, the surpassmg of which represents the surpassing of the notion of boundaries as such, it shifts the duck out of the world of binary opposition. If "this very Attention to Detail" is interpreted from a modem-day perspective, we arrive at the notion that a scientific experiment of a Grenoble engineer is likened to a godly creation of life, albeit a different and indefinable form of live. The attention to detail is strongly reminiscent ofthe famous adage "God is in the details", which is often attributed to the twentieth century French architect Le Corbusier who was known for designing buildings with unusual unconventional shapes. This brings the duck into perspective in modem terms, it could either represent the devil or god, a possibility which will not be pondered further, but is valid nonetheless. More importantly, the duck was defined by a surpassing of boundary and thus became the embodiment of this surpassing and the representation of the defiance of boundaries per se.

Another dimension is added when we consider the following excerpt:

Who knows? that final superaddition of erotick Machinery may have somehow nudg'd

the Duck across some Threshold of self-Intricacy, setting off this Explosion of

Change, from Inertia toward Independence and Power! Isn't it like an old Tale? Has

an Automatick Duck, like the Sleeping Beauty, been brought to life by the kiss

of.. .l'Amour?" 53

This not only reaffirms the validity of the ducks significance in terms of the defiance and redefinition of boundaries ("setting off this Explosion of Change, from Inertia toward

Independence and Power"), but it also introduces another aspect, a cliche redefined - the power of love. While it could be the power of love interpreted in the common sense, it is

52 Mason & Dixon 372 53 Mason & Dixon 373

32 rather the power of procreation which possibly nudged the duck into a boundless and undefined void, quintessentially mirroring the very same "nudge" that vexed Mason vis-a.-vis

Rebekah, and possibly the nudge that Dixon orchestrated to start Mason thinking beyond the

"American Politics" argument. This concludes the already perplexing origin of the ducks evasion of definition. The reason it no longer was entirely a part of the conventional, predefined inanimate was either purely scientific, heavenly, or mystically and romantically emotional. Be that as it may, even pinpointing the precise source of its animation (or redefinition of the inanimate) does not provide an answer as to the resulting state.

The unearthly speed and invisibility of the duck are also very emblematic.

The duck had achieved freedom according to R.W. Emerson (and William Emerson), because it fulfilled the criteria of eternal mobility and invisibility. In this sense, it realized the

American desire of not being always on the move, never belonging to a specific space-time continuum. The duck apparently managed to escape the four-dimensional continuum in which all physical quantities may be located - i.e. three spatial coordinates and one temporal coordinate. However, the duck is too involved in Luise and Armand, its freedom is not complete despite having escaped four-dimensional space in an Emersonian fashion. The duck is not free because it is not willing to let go of Armand and later Luise to achieve complete freedom. Interestingly enough, Pynchon has chosen to ponder the incompleteness of freedom using a creature who (which) is neither animate nor inanimate. The duck itself is a boundary, it does not represent either of the dualistic categories it defies. It therefore should not really be a part of the freedom paradigm which Emerson proposed and therefore can violate its rules and boundaries, in an ultra-Pynchonian or perhaps ultra-Emersonian way, Pynchon is challenging even the boundaries of Emerson's paradigm of freedom. 54 The duck may very

54 Because after all, it is a paradigm defined by boundaries, no matter how flexible and translucent.

33 well have exempt itself from the space-time continuum, attained invisibility and consequently freedom, yet it is quite clearly attached to Armand and also Luise and it desires a companion, so in that sense, it was not able to achieve true freedom. Furthermore, it did not acquire all of this on its own, it was "nudged" into its existence. Is Pynchon trying to prove that achieving freedom through Emerson's paradigm simply is not possible, that it requires an escape from the constraints of the dualist world and that even after this escape, there is no guarantee of freedom? Although it might seem that this contradicts Emerson's postulations, it is in fact deeply Emersonian. Emerson himself generally claimed that to acquire true freedom, one must not be dependent on anything to such an extent that one would not be able to abandon it.

Taking it a step further, even transgressing boundaries or being able to do so at will does not ensure independence with regard to the dualistic i.e. even the duck still has desires it is not willing to let go of for freedom. Then perhaps, Pynchon is saying that one must remain within the dualistic to transgress the dualistic or that being out of the constraints ofthe dualistic itself does not free one from the dualistic. This could be supported by the fact that the duck can be seen only by "those more susceptible to the shifts of Breeze between the W orlds"S5

Finally, there is a remarkable interaction between the duck and Mason and Dixon which has so many possible interpretations that only some issues will be underlined without further development, as that would require much space and would eventually digress from the matter at hand:

Mason groans. "Shall wise Doctors one day write History's assessment of the Good

resulting from this Line, vis-a-vis the not-so-good? I wonder which List will be

longer."

55 Mason & Dixon 448

34 "Hark! Hark! You wonder? That's all?" One of the Enigmata of the Invisible World,

is how a Voice unlocaliz'd may yet act powerfully as a moral Center. 'Tis the Duck

speaking, naturally,-- or, rather, artificially, "What about 'care'? Don't you care?"

"This Visto .. .is a result of what we have chosen, in our Lives, to work at," Dixon

bewilder'd that the Topick is even coming up, "--unlike some mechanickal water-fowl

we have to, what on our planet is styl'd, 'work,' ... ?"

"Running Lines is what surveyors do," explains Mason.

"Thankee, Mason," says Dixon. "And one of the few things Stargazing's good for, is

finding out where you are, exactly, upon the Surface of the Earth. Put huz two

together with enough Axmen, you have a sort of Visto-Engine. Two Clients wish'd to

have a Visto for one of their Boundaries. Here we are. What other reason should we

be together for?" 56

The very first line clearly shows that Mason is still thinking in terms of the dualistic.

Conversely, Dixon on the other hand is surprised that he actually has to say aloud that the visto is the result of his own choice. The "powerfully unlocaliz'd center" is a key concept which can be related directly to anything from religion to consciousness, and the fact that

"Stargazing's good for. .. finding out where you are, exactly, upon the Surface of the Earth" shows that the very occupation of Mason and Dixon is to define and create boundaries that will resist redefinition. The Visto-Engine metaphor is a representation of how easily boundaries can be drawn and that it is a mechanical process as opposed to a spiritual one. The very last line puts into perspective the already mentioned union of Mason and Dixon. They perceive their relationship quite pragmatically on the superficial level, yet they paradoxically possibly share the very essence of their consciousness and face the same dilemmas. 57

56 Mason & Dixon 666 57 Consider especially the watch versus Rebekah.

35 Government

It is typically ironic that while Mason's and Dixon's essential task is to create boundaries and their foremost ability consists in determining their position on Earth, as well as mapping the positions of stars, they are "in their Thoughts how ummappable .... ,,58 The creating of boundaries, drawing lines, setting limits, that is what Mason & Dixon is obviously about on the superficial level. The consequences of these actions are obviously much deeper than a simple story about two stargazers. Having explored the significance of individual consciousness, it is incumbent upon one to at least briefly consider the significance of government and the connection that Mason and Dixon have to it, whether they represent it, and to what extent they are aware of it. The implications of Emerson's and Pynchon's understanding of government, both in the literal and the abstract sense are still deeply intertwined with American culture today, with many current events acting as testimony to the veracity of this assertion.

According to Emerson,

There is always room for a man of force, and he makes room for many. Society is a

troop of thinkers, and the best heads among them take the best places. A feeble man

can see the farms that are fenced and tilled, the houses that are built. The strong man

sees the possible houses and farms. His eye makes estates, as fast as the sun breeds

clouds. 59

58 Mason & Dixon 316 59 The Complete Works of Ra1ph Wa1do Emerson - Volume VI - Conduct ofLife (1860) 8 September 2007 < http://rwe.org/index.php?option=com_ content&task=view&id= 168<emid=42>

36 This excerpt from Power clearly indicates that Emerson considered the individual superior to

society as a whole. Although Emerson uses very plain language to identify the difference between "a man of force" and an ordinary man, the implications are quite extensive and closely related to the issue of individual consciousness, the endless redefining and recreating of the world in one's consciousness. This particular excerpt is quite explicitly concerned with seeing possibilities, conceiving the yet inexistent, the uncreated, as opposed to simply perceiving the existing, the previously and externally defined, a notion which reverberates throughout the American culture, sometimes by means of a "minor" paradoxical digression.

Consider for instance Robert Kennedy's famous "Some men see things as they are and say why... I dream of things that never were and say why not". He seemingly borrowed this from

6o George Bernard Shaw , but as is now fairly obvious, he unknowingly borrowed the notion as such from Emerson. It is ironic that America, the land of "possible houses and farms", the reason why so many left the United Kingdom of today, underrates its past through this simple example of a "minor" digression. However, in all fairness, in this particular case, the G.B.

Shaw line is easier to memorize ...

Be that as it may, Emerson's definition of "a man of force" is not as Nietzschean as it might seem. Although power is a crucial concept even in Emerson's concept, it is not the single most important factor. According to Emerson,

When a new boy comes into school, when a man travels, and encounters strangers

every day, or, when into any old club a new corner is domesticated, that happens

which befalls, when a strange ox is driven into a pen or pasture where cattle are kept;

there is at once a trial of strength between the best pair of horns and the new corner,

and it is settled thenceforth which is the leader. So now, there is a measuring of

60 ef. Back to Methuse1ah

37 strength, very courteous, but decisive, and an acquiescence thenceforward when these

two meet. Each reads his fate in the other's eyes. The weaker party finds, that none of

his information or wit quite fits the occasion. He thought he knew this or that: he finds

that he omitted to learn the end of it. Nothing that he knows will quite hit the mark,

whilst all the rival's arrows are good, and well thrown. But if he knew all the facts in

the encyclopaedia, it would not help him: for this is an affair of presence of mind, of

attitude, of aplomb ... 'Tis a question of stomach and constitution. The second man is

as good as the first, -- perhaps better; but has not stoutness or stomach, as the first has,

and so his wit seems over-fine or under-fine. 61

It is clear that an absolute level of perfection is not decisive, it is rather a matter of a natural aptitude, "a question of stomach and constitution". It is not an issue of a quantitatively determinable superiority, it is not a matter of who knows most, it is a much less quantifiable matter of "presence of mind". A question arises of what the precise definition of "the best" encompasses. Obviously, courage is valued greatly by Emerson ... yet the Americans are now driven more by fear than courage, especially when they had already acquired a certain level of materialistic freedom or indulgence rather, they are driven on by the fear of losing what they already have. Pynchon makes an indirect allusion to this practically in every novel by means of his particular style of writing. The reader is often unaccustomed to the lack of definiteness, the inability to control the text, unaccustomed to having to scrutinize every connection and assumption, which allows the reader to experience more closely the paranoia which some characters in Pynchon's novel possibly have to suffer themselves. 62 This paranoia also reflects the apprehension that many Americans experience after having acquired the "freedom" they had been seeking. Some are even driven by fear from the very beginning, the fear of being

61 Emerson, 8 September 2007 62 Namely Oedipa Maas, but even Mason and Dixon in a less conspicuous manner.

38 categorized, of being a representative of a particular group, of being undistinguished, or more gravely, of being identified with the "wrong" group. There are many tangible, real-life, as it were, proofs of the depth of these sentiments, one only has to look at the efforts of social stratification made as early as high school as an example.

Consider the following passage:

She had heard all about excluded middles; they were bad shit, to be avoided; and how

had it ever happened here, with the chances once so good for diversity? For it was

now like walking among matrices of a great digital computer, the zeroes and ones

twinned above, hanging like balanced mobiles right and left, ahead, thick, maybe

endless. Behind the hieroglyphic streets there would either be a transcendent meaning,

or only the earth. In the songs Miles, Dean, Serge and Leonard sang was either some

fraction of the truth's numinous beauty (as Mucho now believed) or only a power

spectrum .... Ones and zeroes .... Another mode of meaning behind the obvious, or none.

Either Oedipa in the orbiting ecstasy of a true paranoia, or a real Tristero. For there

either was some Tristero beyond the appearance of the legacy America, or there was

just America and if there was just America then it seemed the only way she could

continue and manage to be at all relevant to it, was as an alien, unfurrowed, assumed

full circle into some paranoia.63

This excerpt is extremely revealing in many ways. The preceding excerpt from Emerson's

Conduct of Life is deeply connected to Pynchon's "Another mode of meaning behind the obvious, or none". Emerson does not doubt that such meaning exists, because it is the individual consciousness which creates meanings. However, the question whether it exists or not is secondary, the existence is directly dependent on the individual consciousness, on "men of force". Pynchon leads Oedipa through a plethora of possibilities and apparently

63 Thomas Pynchon, The Crying alLot 49 (New York, Harper Perennial, 1990) pp. 136-137

39 unconsidered interconnectedness, but the question one should ask in view of the passage from

Conduct of Life quoted above is whether Oedipa is "a man of force" or whether she is just desperately trying to "see the farms that are fenced and tilled, the houses that are built" and find a Masonian "single gigantick Equation" that would encapsulate all. Consequently, "if there was just America then it seemed the only way she could continue and manage to be at all relevant to it, was as an alien, unfurrowed, assumed full circle into some paranoia". This paranoia is now stronger than ever in the American culture. Those that are driven by the commonly promulgated "modern" American dream of being rich and famous rather than free and independent wish to be associated as a part of a specific niveau of society, which arguably opposes what Emerson considered to be the quest for individual freedom even more radically than the previously mentioned desire of not being associated with a particular level of stratified society. On attaining the desired level of wealth and fame, the fear of losing it all again completely robs the individual consciousness of freedom. Paradoxically, the fear of losing something is quite un-Emersonian itself, but in this case, it is misplaced, for the fear of losing freedom per se as opposed to losing the materialistic is somehow still more acceptable.

To place this notion entirely in context with Emersonian terminology, the flaw indented in this approach is not so much the obvious materialistic nature as the finiteness of motion, an ultimate goal which is supposedly the apex of what can be achieved. Not being willing to liberate oneself from this ultimate aim (wealth and fame) is an intrinsic impediment that disallows the attaining of freedom, as any limitation, any boundary, any constraint preventing endless motion is also a hindrance to freedom.

40 The significance of Nature is reiterated frequently, although it is not perhaps as conspicuous as in other cases. Emerson claims that "A nation of men unanimously bent on freedom, or conquest, can easily confound the arithmetic of statists, and achieve extravagant actions, out of all proportion to their means; as, the Greeks, the Saracens, the Swiss, the Americans, and the French have done.,,64 This is another example of the importance of Nature which is not bound by the definable, the unambiguously determinable, the "arithmetic of statists". It is clear that the individual can achieve more than the masses, the government is limited by arithmetic, but the free individual is not.

Let us now consider the significance of voluntary association from the perspective of

Emerson's oeuvre. Emerson's conception of "voluntary association" in New England

Reformers is indeed a reversion of government as such, not voluntary associations alone, it is a reversion of anything superimposed under the pretext of objectivity and stability, when the mind must travel the path of eternal subjectivity in order to reach freedom, a free individual consciousness. According to Emerson,

It is the union of friends who live in different streets or towns. Each man, if he

attempts to join himself to others, is on all sides cramped and diminished of his

proportion; and the stricter the union the smaller and the more pitiful he is. But leave

him alone, to recognize in every hour and place the secret soul; he will go up and

down doing the works of a true member, and, to the astonishment of all, the work will

be done with concert, though no man spoke. Government will be adamantine without

any governor. The union must be ideal in actual individualism 65

64 The Complete Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson - Volume III - Essays II (1844), Politics, 8 September 2007 The Complete Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson - Volume III - Essays II, (1844), New England Reformers 8 September 2007 < http://rwe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 143&Iternid=42>

41 The reversion can be seen in the paradoxical wording of: "The union is only perfect when all the uniters are isolated". Furthermore, the relationship between the individual and the union is inversely proportional, as can be inferred from "the stricter the union the smaller and the more pitiful he is". In this respect, both Emerson and Pynchon are reverted Machiavellians.

It must be the individual who is central, not the government. Regarding moral considerations,

Emerson is not as firmly determined a supporter as he is staunchly opposed to government and the inferiority of the individual. If we consider the attitude which Emerson had towards the masses, it is questionable whether his opinion would differ substantially to that of

Machiavelli's regarding the necessity to maintain power without a regard for moral considerations. As Emerson writes in Considerations by the Way: "Leave this hypocritical prating about the masses. Masses are rude, lame, unmade, pernicious in their demands and influence, and need not to be flattered but to be schooled. I wish not to concede anything to them, but to tame, drill, divide, and break them up, and draw individuals out ofthem.,,66

It is obvious that Emerson does not think highly of the masses. Nevertheless, the fact that the masses are ''unmade'' indicates that Emerson is not categorically opposed to masses per se, but a very specific "type" of masses - masses without freedom, without individual conSCIOusness. Masses as interpreted by Emerson in the quotation are basically

''unindividuals'', in that sense, he is ruthlessly Machiavellian. If masses are interpreted from this perspective, Emerson does not even allow them a degree of Socratic wisdom in the sense that they do not even posses enough wisdom which would amount to a wise choice of a leader. In fact, the pondering of choosing a leader as such is erroneous. However, if masses were not to represent a group of people who have no individual consciousness, no freedom, then Emerson would surely not be so severe in his judgment, no at all.

66 8 September 2007 < http://rwe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 173&Itemid=42 >

42 Americans remained faithful to this notion of the unworthiness of masses, whether knowingly

or unknowingly. The support of the masses in sociopolitical terms is far from the magnitude of the support in European circumstances. The American is accustomed to depending on herself and not depending on the government. This is logical considering the historical beginnings of American. Not only was self-sufficiency an extremely important survival factor, but governments were often the most potent inducement of escaping to America. It seems however that nowadays, the prevailing factor is the independence from government as opposed to independence per se, independence as a representation of freedom. If independence from government implies setting up voluntary associations to meet common interests, then so be it. However, as was explained previously, Emerson largely considers voluntary associations a minimalist version of a national government, and ultimately a form of government in the abstract sense, therefore just as flawed. If America were to abide by

Emerson's insight, such unions would have to "be ideal in actual individualism"

There is another significant issue which the quotation mentions - that of breaking up and division. Obviously, breaking up and division are crucial in Emerson's and Pynchon's minds alike. If we reexamine the quoted passage through the perspective attained in the preceding excerpt from Emerson's Power, we discover a new and interesting angle to both Emerson's

"There is always room for a man of force, and he makes room for many" and Pynchon's depiction of the significance of Mason and Dixon and their dividing and breaking up.

It is indeed difficult, perhaps impossible, to decide whether Mason and Dixon are "men of force" in the Emersonian sense, which is also true for the question whether they are "making room for many". Nevertheless, there are numerous indications in Mason & Dixon which would suggest that Mason and Dixon are unknowingly agents of government in both the literal and abstract sense. Consider the following excerpt about the significance ofthe visto:

43 "Trees are not the Problem. The Forest is not an Agent of Darkness. But it may be

your Visto is ... To rule forever," continues the Chinaman, later, "it is necessary only to

create, among the people one would rule, what we calL.Bad History. Nothing will

produce Bad History more directly nor brutally, than drawing a Line, in particular a

Right Line, the very Shape of Contempt, through the midst of a People,-- to create thus

a Distinctin betwixt 'em,-- 'tis the first stroke.-- All else will follow as if predestin'd,

unto War and Devastation."

"Wait," objects Mr. Dixon. "It's as plain as pudding that Pennsylvania and Maryland

are so different, that thy fatal Distinction was inflicted upon these Shores long before

we arriv'd,--"

"Poh, Sir," goads Mason, "the Provinces are alike as Stacy and Tracy."

"Except for the Negro Slavery upon one side," Dixon points out, less mildly than he

might, "and not the other."

"If you think you see no Slaves in Pennsylvania," replies Capt. Zhang, his face as

smooth of Suet, "why, look again. They are not all African, nor do some of them even

yet know,-- may never know,-- that they are Slaves. Slavery is very old upon these

shores,-- there is no [begin 616] Innocence upon the Practice anywhere, neither among

the Indians nor the Spanish nor in the behavior of the rest of Christendom, if it come to

that." 67

This passage quite neatly demonstrates the connections between Nature, and the personalities of Mason and Dixon. The postulations of Nature are represented by Captain Zhang, "the

Chinaman". If we chose to believe what Zhang says about "bad history", Mason and Dixon

67 Mason & Dixon 615-616

44 would certainly not be "men of force" in a positive way, yet their actions would certainly have a great affect which apparently reverberates even through our present. 68

On the other hand, they are obviously "making room" for others, both literally and figuratively, but in what way? In the literal sense, routes will run along the visto and figuratively these routes force others to redefine their consciousness, redefine boundaries after being confronted with such a literal boundary, but the literal sense prevails, for those who were directly affected by the visto have apparently not come to terms with it, they were redefined by the visto:

Countryfolk they meet again are surpris'd to see them, sometimes shock'd, as at some

return of the Dead. Mothers drive their small ones like Goslings away to safety. Bar-

room habitues reprove them at length, - "You weren't ever suppos'd to be back this

way, -" ... "We took yese in among us, - allow'd ye to separate us, name us anew,-

only upon the Understanding, that ye were to pass through each of our Lives here, but

once." 69

It is clear that those whom Mason and Dixon happened upon with regard to the direct consequences of their work were deeply affected by the encounter.

They were not "nudged" into freedom by Mason and Dixon, they were redefined by them, they were objectified, limited, suffered an externalized stratification - "separated" and

"named anew". Consequently, although the effect Mason and Dixon had was undoubtedly of great magnitude, it certainly was not in an Emersonian sense, because rather than "make room for many", they limited freedom. On the other, it could be said for the sake of a balanced argument that they were "allow'd" to do so, which would indicate a free decision, but that cannot match the ultimate limitation of freedom.

68 et America, Africa and history passage. 69 Mason & Dixon 710

45 Consequently, the prevailing aspect of the actions of Mason and Dixon is that of drawing lines, creating boundaries, creating a stabilized division - they "produce Bad History". It is interesting to note that while Mason is ignorant of the significance of slavery in terms of the difference between Pennsylvania and Maryland, Dixon has the exactly opposite perspective.

This is indicative of the fact that Mason and Dixon truly complement each other in many aspects. Furthermore, it is fairly interesting to notice that Dixon considers the visto inconsequential, that he is in fact only reaffirming what had already been externally defined beforehand - that certainly is not very Emersonian, especially if we take into account the significance of William Emerson's watch impetus ("nudge"). Finally, it is also quite emblematic that Zhang ultimately in a reconciliatory gesture of Nature claims that slavery is far more widespread than they both are aware of, thereby effacing the boundary of binary opposition between Mason and Dixon. His assertion that many are slaves and "may never know" resonates very deeply of the connection between Emersonian perceiving of the masses and government which was explained earlier on. In this sense, many Americans are slaves and

"may never know", they are slaves to their limited consciousness.

Ostensibly, Mason and Dixon are according to Captain Zhang's assertion creators of "bad history". However, this is slightly in contradiction with them being unknowingly agents of government. Consider the following excerpt:

n ••• Who claims Truth, Truth abandons. History is hir'd, or coerc'd, only in mterests

that must ever prove base. She is too innocent, to be left within the reach of anyone in

Power,-who need but touch her, and all her Credit is in the instant vanish'd, as if it

had never been. She needs rather to be tended lovingly and honorably by fabulists and

counterfeiters, Ballad-Mongers and Cranks of ev'ry Radius, Masters of Disguise to

46 provide her the Costume, Toilette, and Bearing, and Speech nimble enough to keep her

beyond the Desires, or even the Curiosity, of Government..." 70

If Mason and Dixon truly are unknowingly agents of government and procreators of "bad history", they are the ones who "need but touch her [history], and all her Credit is in the instant vanish'd". This results in another ambiguity which is typically beyond dualistic division. If Mason and Dixon truly are agents of government, the "bad history" they create looses its "Credit". Furthermore, there is an indication that Dixon might be wary of the restrictive evil the visto is capable of causing because he claims that "It's as plain as pudding that Pennsylvania and Maryland are so different, that thy fatal Distinction was inflicted upon these Shores long before we arriv'd". Whether he just says that in his defense or whether he truly believes that cannot be determined for certain, yet it is quite possible that he preemptively believes it to be true as an excuse for his actions. Unlike Mason, he at least attempts a justification and he is also certainly more aware of the gravity of slavery. If we opt for Dixon's perspective, he and his colleague Mason are not creators of ''bad history", it was already extant before their arrival, they only chronicled the obvious. Even if that be true,

Mason and Dixon would have thus enforced and stabilized a boundary, which is not in accord with the notion of freedom and individual consciousness regardless of the prior state.

Pynchon himself abides by the rationale of the quotation above in not claiming truth. His

Mason & Dixon certainly is not a simple story about Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon with everything written about them being in the realm of the verifiable and effortlessly explicable.

His recounting of the story of Mason and Dixon certainly does keep their history "beyond the

Desires, or even the Curiosity, of Government"

70 Mason & Dixon 350

47 It is obvious that "Government" is not a purely political entity. Pynchon, just as Emerson,

perceives government as a general metaphor for anything which stabilizes, anything that

hinders progress, evolution, reconceptualization, motion, and ultimately freedom. It is a

metaphor for anything which imposes categorization, boundaries, limits, and consequently

enforces, and requires the compliance with, predetermined concepts as opposed to the

creation of new concepts. This is a clear link between language and government, a clear link between language and meaning, made not in solely academic deliberation on language and meaning, but rather propounded as an invitation to embracing redefinition and reconceptualization. Pynchon does not take apart the grammatical apparatus of the English language to pinpoint "where things went wrong", nor does he philosophically explore "the meaning of meaning" to locate and extract the formula which would explicate the link between language and meaning, because apparently, no such objective conclusion could be reached - "Who claims Truth, Truth abandons" ... What he does instead is turn language into a fluid medium of expressing ideas in a reconceptualized manner, and his and Emerson's understanding of government is a part of this reconceptualization.

Let us look at the manifestations of what Pynchon coined as "bad history" from a more up-to­ date perspective using the following excerpt to ease us into the transition:

Facts are but the Play-things of lawyers,-- Tops and Hoops, forever a-spin ... A1as, the

Historian may indulge no such idle Rotating. History is not Chronology, for that is

left to lawyers,-- nor is it Remembrance, for Remembrance belongs to the People.

History can as little pretend to the Veracity of the one, as claim the Power of the

other,-- her Practitioners, to survive, must soon learn the arts ofthe quidnunc, spy, and

Taproom Wit,-- that there may ever continue more than one life-line back into a Past

we risk, each day, losing our forbears in forever,-- not a Chain of single Links, for one

broken Link could lose us A11,-- rather, a great disorderly Tangle of Lines, long and

48 short, weak and strong, vanishing into the Mnemonick Deep, with only their

Destination in common.71

The concept that "History is not Chronology" obviously is in direct opposition to the common interpretation of history. It is tempting to conceive this claim as an Emersonian assertion that even the past is not definite and categorized, just as the present and the future depend on individual consciousness, so does the past. In spite of the fact that it is very tempting to make this connection, there is no compelling reason which would refute this connection beyond any doubt. On the contrary, the abovementioned passage is most resonant of Emerson's "This knot of nature is so well tied, that nobody was ever cunning enough to find the two ends.

Nature is intricate, overlapped, interweaved, and endless. 72

Therefore, even the connections to the past must not be via a single line, this limitation would mean that "one broken Link could lose us All". Therefore, even the past is subject to individual consciousness, it is not an externally predefined set of truths. On the contrary, it is best handled through ''the arts of the quidnunc, spy, and Taproom Wit".

In spite of the danger of using the word "history" in context with what Pynchon wrote about it, it would seem that the history of mankind is beset with the preoccupation with and attachment to the simplicity of systematization, drawing lines, creating boundaries. Ironically, this was practically how the whole of Africa was divided up by its conquerors, most of it by remarkably straight lines. Is it mere coincidence that Africa is being disintegrated by great poverty and turmoil despite its natural wealth or is it a manifestation of what Pynchon said about the destructive power of the straight line? Is Africa a gloomy exemplar of "bad history"?

71 Mason & Dixon 349 72 6 September 2007

49 The truthfulness of the evil power of the straight line and "bad history" is not perhaps as obvious in the case of America in comparison to Africa due to the favorable superficial indicators of wealth and wellbeing, yet there remains till these days a preconceived notion, based on verifiable numerical facts, that the south is poorer than the north, and this holds true not only in America, but on a global scale. It is most ironic that such a widespread "truth"

("Who claims Truth, Truth abandons") is based on "facts" ("the Play-things of lawyers") and yet is entirely in accord with the revolting idea of boundaries, one of the central themes - if not the central theme - of Pynchon's Mason & Dixon. This in turn is in accord with

Pynchon's defiance of dualism, both theological and philosophical, and the redefining of binary opposition. The ironic connection between fact, truth and "bad history" reaffinns its validity perhaps precisely because it is ironic and not smoothly prefabricated, it is not a link in

"a Chain of single Links" but rather a constituent of "a great disorderly Tangle of Lines, long and short, weak and strong, vanishing into the Mnemonick Deep"

It is perhaps this "Mnemonick Deep" which acts as the frightening impediment which makes us prefer "a Chain of single Links" to "a great disorderly Tangle of Lines", a predictable and systematized linearity to contingency and individual zeal. As Emerson phrased it in Fate:

A text of heroism, a name and anecdote of courage, are not arguments, but sallies of

freedom. One of these is the verse of the Persian Hafiz, "'Tis written on the gate of

Heaven, 'Wo unto him who suffers himselfto be betrayed by Fate!'" Does the reading

of history make us fatalists? What courage does not the opposite opinion show! A little

whim of will to be free gallantly contending against the universe of chemistry. 73

This is reaffirms Pynchon's assertion in the sense that a passive reading of history as opposed to its redefining through individual consciousness means submission to fate. It might seem that this conclusion is in contradiction with Emerson's exalting of Nature, yet if we consider

73 Idem.

50 the fact that "We must respect Fate as natural history, but there is more than natural history,,74, it becomes obvious that Emerson believes strongly in the need to redefine history, not to conceive it as any other limitation or boundary. This is quite logical when pondered more deeply. If history were to be exempted from "perpetual motion", the need to constantly recreated individual consciousness, it would infinitely claw back on the present, rendering every manifestation of freedom a point in the past, and therefore beyond redefinition, a point in history.

It seems that America has become the victim of a conceptual atavism, a regression of freedom and individualism. Freedom and individualism were the primary notions of those who came to

America, whatever definition of "freedom" was relevant for each individual, whether it be economic, religious, escape from oppression etc. However, social "evolution" - or devolution perhaps - resulted in controlling, limiting and stabilizing institutions, government in the abstract sense, which may include anything from religion to the institution of a family, depending on the individual and what she is not willing to give up to attain utter freedom.

There is always something one is not willing to give up, the question is whether it is a result of government or a primordial "flaw" which has kept America from being free and paved the path for government. Has America been "reading too much history", has it become fatalistic?

One of the other interesting angles of approach stems from the following excerpt:

"Does Britannia when she sleeps, dream? Is America her dream?--in which all that

cannot pass in the metropolitan Wakefulness is allow'd Expression away in the restless

Slumber of these Provinces, and on West-ward, wherever 'tis not yet mapp'd, nor

written down, nor ever, by the majority of Mankind, seen,--serving as a very Rubbish­

Tip for subjunctive Hopes, for all that may yet be true,--Earthly Paradise, Fountain of

74 Ibid.

51 Youth, Realms of Prester John, Christ's Kingdom, ever behind the sunset, safe till the

next Territory to the West be seen and recorded, measur'd and tied in, back into the

Net-Work of Points already known, that slowly triangulates its Way into the

Continent, changing all from subjunctive to declarative, reducing Possibilities to

Simplicities that serve the ends of Governments,--winning away from the realm of the

Sacred, its Borderlands one by one, and assuming them unto the bare mortal World

that is our home, and our Despair.75

Pynchon looked at the possibility of America as a dream, but the question is whether America per se is able to dream. At the beginning, America certainly was a dreamed "Earthly

Paradise", a "Rubbish-Tip for subjunctive Hopes, for all that may yet be true". However, the mapping ofthe west (Mason's and Dixon's task) changed "all from subjunctive to declarative, reducing Possibilities to Simplicities that serve the ends of Governments". The west is an apotheosis of an America as a dream.

"To stand at the Post Mark'd West, and turn to face West, can be a trial for those

sentimentally inclin'd, as well as for ev'ryone nearby. It is possible to feel the

combin'd force, in perfect Enfilade, of ev'ry future second unelaps'd, ev'ry Chain yet to

be stretch'd, every unknown Event to be undergone,-- the unmodified Terror of

keeping one's Latitude.,,76

Did Maskelyne mitigate this terror by introducing longitude, and Mason and Dixon frame this terror with their ability to detennine the exact position on Earth, rendering the terror thus another boundary? It is certainly a powerful image, that of Mason and Dixon as government surging through the unknown territory, a "Visto-Engine,,77 physically assaulting the land of freedom and unexperienced opportunities, the "American dream".

75 Mason & Dixon 345 76 Mason & Dixon 444 77 Mason & Dixon 666

52 The "American dream,,78 is thus contemplated as a dream in a dream, a dream of Britannia's, but does America still dare to dream after the surge of the "Visto-Engine" ... ?

America was defined in its early days in contrast to its European origin, defined by how much it remained the same in comparison to how much it differentiated itself. This looming past, the shadow of Europe predisposed America to start defining itself in terms of what may be termed in summation "oppositional otherness" i.e. what America is not, all answers basically converging to the "only in America", "this is un-American", or the ever popular comprehensive referring to "democracy". The ideals that once existed in a pure form are unfortunately deteriorating very rapidly into empty ideals, mere reverberations of what once was. America is not like Europe, it is not like the East (not in the political or even strictly geographic sense, but rather an abstract "non-west" sense)79. It is perhaps one of the instances in Pynchon where one can find a more or less unambiguous binary opposition which Pynchon does not entirely refute, the division between East and West, although there is a typical touch of ambiguity, albeit a minor one. Pynchon writes:

"As to journey west," adds the Revd. helpfully, "in the same sense as the Sun, is to

live, raise Children, grow older and die, carried along by the Stream of the Day,--

whilst to turn Eastward, is somehow to resist time and age, to work against the Wind,

seek ever the dawn, even, as who can say, defy Death." 80

Death is at the end of the journey west, whereas journeying east resists death. There is of course an immense discrepancy of implication depending on the temporal interpretation of this issue. In the eighteenth century, going west meant going into the unknown, undefined, unexperienced, unbounded - the ultimate search for freedom. The east represented the past,

78 Freedom, wealth, success, fame ... 79 Also a non-New England. 80 Mason & Dixon 263

53 that which those in America were escaping from for different reasons, yet all connected to the

desire of some form of freedom, the east was the very reason for going west. Modem-day interpretations would obviously be heavily burdened by the political and religious turmoil of modem history - "bad history".

Conclusion

The reason America presumably never entirely experienced true freedom is manifold, yet all possible explanations can be validly traced back to the one haunting imperfection which

Emerson identified and others such as Pynchon reiterated and developed from slightly different perspectives. It is the clash between the innate desire for freedom - in all the various forms it may be understood - political, religious economic, the ability and the desire to transcend all that may hinder freedom, being willing to let go of anything (perhaps freedom itself) to truly acquire freedom - and between the inability or unwillingness to truly be free due to apprehension of the unidentifiable, the fear of the undefined. Freedom will ironically remain unknown for those who search, for quite logically those who search for freedom have not experienced it yet (if it were true freedom that they had experienced in the past, they would have never lost it regardless of external circumstances). Consequently, with every step that brings them closer to true freedom, they become enmeshed and intimidated by the unknown and unexpected sacrifice that comes with freedom. This is also why America is generally perceived as a highly materialistic country nowadays. The initial impulse was arguably a pure one, the materialistic was only a byway, a minor digression which was to serve the ultimate aim - being truly free. Yet it is the materialistic that prevails in the end, for

54 apparently, most have misconceived the pleasures of the materialistic agents of freedom as

freedom itself and therefore associate the fear of losing their belongings with the losing of their freedom. Consequently, the "more you want to be free", the more you have to own in terms of the materialistic. This vicious circle in turn dissuades the individual from the search for true freedom, and most importantly, this almost invariably occurs without the knowledge of the individual. It is the external that becomes dominant, the circumstances take over and this is exactly what Emerson was fraying against. Although the Americans generally do not rely on the government, a trait which seemingly differentiates them from their European ancestry, they often rely on organizations and voluntary unions which they create themselves for their own ends. Although it might not seem quite true, it is in fact the same blind obedience which Emerson contested against.

Pynchon wrote "Who is unique? Who is not own'd by someone?,,81 ... Emerson would probably agree, it is all a form of government. For Emerson, the solution to this problem is the infinite mobility of individual consciousness.

The American ever seeking after constant change of identity as well as American efforts to schedule time to the fullest (making time the most valuable item in American life) is a practical manifestation of the significance of the Emersonian mystical ideal. Death and time are conceived as boundaries, the ultimate boundaries perhaps, and Emerson, in Self-Reliance, is concerned about redefining these boundaries as well. The liberation potential of the concept of the eternal present represents the mystical root which apparently still brings ideals to

America. Pynchon clearly agrees with Emerson to a major extent on the issue of death and time as redefinable boundaries, which he purveys not only through such intricate concepts as the duck or Rebekah, but even more explicitly in cases such as: "... Distance is not the same

81 Mason & Dixon 551

55 here [in America, in the West], nor is Time.,,82 It is questionable to what extent Pynchon is being ironic when he writes that "too much, out here, failing to mark the Boundaries between

Reality and Representation,,83, because it would seem that America has become either about reality or (false) representation, the ambiguous in-between had been effaced by government because it was indefinable and uncontrollable.

Emerson was perfectly aware from the beginning that freedom could easily be misrepresented, which is why he did not place much faith even in legal documents which were meant to encapsulate the essence of freedom, just as William Emerson in Mason &

Dixon, in a spell of Platonic idealism84 "loves Vortices, may stare at 'em for hours, if he's the

Time, so far as they remain in the River,-- yet, once upon Paper, he hates them, hates the misuse,,85

This is again very reminiscent of Emerson's own wording:

And though nothing is more disgusting than the crowing about liberty by slaves, as

most men are, and the flippant mistaking for freedom of some paper preamble like a

"Declaration of Independence," or the statute right to vote, by those who have never

dared to think or to act, yet it is wholesome to man to look not at Fate, but the other

way: the practical view is the other. His sound relation to these facts is to use and

command, not to cringe to them.86

Although "conventional" history would consider the Declaration of Independence a decisive document, for Emerson, it is just "some paper" - little wonder that the concept of freedom ensnared on "some paper preamble" was not too appealing.

82 Mason & Dixon 647 83 Mason & Dixon 429 84 The higher truth disappears when the vortices are on paper. 85 Mason & Dixon 220 86 6 September 2007 < http://rwe.org/index.php?option=com content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=42>

56 The same can be said for religion, it can equally be considered a set of ensnared boundaries, which would be in accord with Emerson's assertions and also frequently considered by

Pynchon, who writes for instance:

"Brae, your Cousin proceeds unerringly to the Despair at the Core ofHistory,-- and the

Hope. As Savages commemorate there great Hunts with Dancing, so History is the

Dance of our Hunt for Christ, and how we have far'd. If it is undeniably so that he

rose from the Dead, then the Event is taken into History, and History is redeem'd from

the service of [begin 76] Darkness,-- with all the secular Consequences, flowing from

that one Event, design'd and will'd to occur."

"Including ev'ry Crusade, Inquisition, Sectarian War, the millions of lives, the seas of

blood," comments Ethelmer. "What happen'd? He liked it so much being dead that

He couldn't wait to come back and share it with ev'rybody else?,,87

This passage simultaneously encapsulates the notion of history which appears in the novel several times as well as the biting comment on religion as a set of boundaries. There are several of these insertions which concern religion, some being quite contradictory, such as

" ... speculation upon the Eucharistic Sacrament and the practice of Cannibalism ... ,,88

This particular excerpt contradicts the notion of religion as a limitation, because it associates cannibalism with transgressing boundaries and therefore freedom.

Furthermore, Pynchon conjoins Emerson's dislike of voluntary unions with the notion of religion in yet another religious allusion:

The Ascent to Christ is a struggle thro' one heresy after another, River-wise up-country

into a proliferation of Sects and Sects branching from Sects, unto Deism, faithless

pretending to be holy, and beyond--ever away from the Sea, from the Harbor, from all

87 Mason & Dixon 75-76 88 Mason & Dixon 384

57 that was serene and certain, into an Interior unmapp'd, a Realm of Doubt. The Nights.

The Storms and Beasts. The Falls, the Rapids, ... the America of the Soul...Doubt is of

the essence ofChrist...The final pure Christ is pure uncertainty. He is become the

central subjunctive fact of a Faith ... to wrap our poor naked spirits against the coldness

of a World where Mortality and its Agents may bully their way wherever they wish to

go. 89

This excerpt is yet anther contradiction of the notion of religion being another boundary, yet not intrinsically, but through a redefining which Pynchon sums up in: "He [Jesus] is become the central subjunctive fact of a Faith". Ironically, this is an "abuse" of what Revd.

Cherrycoke had said some two hundred pages earlier - "the word Liberty, so unreflectively sacred to us today, was taken in those Times to encompass even the darkest of Men's rights, - to injure whomever we might wish, - unto extermination, were it possible ... ,,90

The reinterpretation of Jesus as "the central subjunctive fact" is indeed a mental extermination, because the very foundations of faith are reliant upon absolute faith, not the subjunctive.

It is clear that Pynchon has much of the Emersonian within his mind. For both Emerson and

Pynchon, everything is connected, but this connection cannot be fully uncovered, there is no ultimate explanation. Both Emerson and Pynchon induce the reader to acknowledge that interconnectedness is not self-explanatory, that it differs greatly from one-way undisputable and completely verifiable connections, a perfect web of causality, "a Chain of single Links,,91

89 Mason & Dixon 511 90 Mason & Dixon 307 91 Mason & Dixon 349

58 It is tempting to consider concepts such as the duck and the school of ghost-fish92 merely a reaffirmation of Platonic realism, as universals which are in an abstract sense, yet not in any special or temporal frame with respect to people's bodies. Nevertheless, it is necessary to treat these concepts just as all the others, to conceive of these concepts as representations of boundaries, of eternal motion, especially because Mason and Dixon actually come into sensory contact with these concepts of would-be Platonic universals without actually having conceived their abstract forms, but rather perceiving them as definable within the sensory - even Mason has to admit that with regard to Rebekah. The interpretations are truly endless and one can only end this with a symbolic redefining of the connection between Emerson and

Pynchon using a Mason & Dixon quote conveniently coming from Emerson, William

Emerson, who in turn quotes Galileo standing trial before the Inquisition, government, a keeper of boundaries :

Pretending it solid, when like light and Heat, it indeed flows. Eppur' si muove, if yese like." 93

92 Mason & Dixon 660 93 Mason & Dixon 219

59 Bibliography:

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Representative Men: seven lectures. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, c1903

Gougeon, Len, and Myerson, Joe1. Emerson's Antislavery writings. New Haven: Yale University press, 1995

Emerson, R.W. The Conduct ofLife. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1904

Atkinson, Brooks The Complete Essays and Other Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. New York:

Modem Library, 1950

The Internet's Complete Guide to the Life and Works ofRalph Waldo Emerson

Richardson, Robert D. Emerson: the mind onfire. California: University of California Press, 1995

Atkinson, Brooks. Selected Writings ofRalph Waldo Emerson. New York: Modem Library, 1992

Pynchon, Thomas. V. New York: Modem Library, 1966

Pynchon, Thomas. The Crying ofLot 49. New York: Harper Perennial, 1990

Pynchon, Thomas. Gravity's Rainbow. New York: Viking Press, 1973

Pynchon, Thomas. Mason and Dixon. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997

Weisenburger, Steven. A "Gravity's Rainbow" companion: sources and contexts for Pynchon 's novel.

Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1988

60