In the Pioneers, many questions are raised concerning what the laws should be allowed to govern, and how such laws were actually defined. I found it interesting to look at the laws through Elizabeth's perspective. Throughout the final chapters, Elizabeth, the daughter of the law-enforcer, takes many stances on the laws and their impacts.
For instance, Elizabeth reflects on the laws with her father on page 386. Concerned about Natty's fate, she openly questions the sanctity of the existing laws, and their true purpose. She states, "the laws that condemn a man like Leatherstocking to so severe a punishment, for an offense even I must think very venial, cannot be perfect in themselves." (386) Despite the fact that her father is the very figure behind such laws, Elizabeth's open criticism is an example of her independence and strong-will, which must have been very uncommon of women during this period.
Marmaduke's response to his daughter's criticism is logical, but very contradictory. For instance, he argues that such laws are in place to create restraint among citizens. The existence of laws is what separates the citizens from "those savages", and therefore defines them as inferior, according to Marmaduke (386). This supposed restraint was nowhere to be found during events such as the mass-pigeon shooting, or even the fishing trip. Such a contradiction shows how strewed the pioneer's intentions were, and how they manipulated laws to do whatever they wanted.
Despite her earlier ciriticism, and her comment that she cannot separate "the minister of the law from the law itself," (386), she does not hesitate to defend such laws to Indian John. For instance, on page 405, Elizabeth counters Indian Johns negative comments about the white people by emphasizing that if he understood the laws, he would judge them differently. In addition, Elizabeth emphasizes that her father is not to blame for the laws' negative consequences. Elizabeth seems to switch sides in this argument, which was a little confusing and out of character, in a way. Perhaps this reflects not Elizabeth's opinions on the issue of laws, but rather, her moral compass. Her moral compass is far superior to other characters in this novel. She does not care about angering people or obeying the laws, but rather, she seems to strive to make everyone happy and to to settle differences in a peaceful way. Why else would she openly break the law and aid in Natty's escape from prison? Such an act requires much bravery and will to do the right thing. Elizabeth's relationship with the laws of Templeton reflect the key idea that the law doesn't define a man: his moral actions do.
Michaela,
ReplyDeleteWonderful post! I love how you approached this theme from an unlikely angle, by thinking about the law's from Elizabeth's perspective. And yet, the ending of the novel suggests that Elizabeth's perception of the law will be absolutely central to the lives of the settlers over the next generation, since there's a clear passing of responsibility from Judge Temple to Oliver and Elizabeth.
So would you argue that Elizabeth will be a better judge and governor than her father has been? Or is it that the Judge's strict laws have broken all opposition and eliminated the most challenging conflicts (Indian John, Natty), so Elizabeth will be faced with a more homogeneous and less difficult population to govern?
Kelly