Sources from Text(s)
1. "Dave's just an all-around genius-a genius of the first water, gentlemen; a great scientist running to seed here in this village, a prophet with the kind of honor that prophets generally get at home-for here they don't give a shucks for thier scientifics" (126)
This is when Tom is "talking up" Wilson to the twins. He is in fact mocking his interest in palmistry, and showing the opinions of the townsfolk of Wilson's ideas and explorations. They still believe him to be a "Pudd'nhead", though he is in fact not.
2. "I haven't examined half a dozen gands in the last hal-dozen years; you see, the people got to joking about it, and I stopped to let the talk die down" (127-128)
Wilson is embarressed by the mocking attitudes of the townspeople who are similar to Tom. He ,however, does not see palmistry as a science, but just finds it of interest. So Twain show's his view of palmistry as contrary to many (if not most) of the townspeople.
Historical Source:
Buckley, J.M.. "Palmistry." The Century; a popular quarterly 47(1894): 635-636.
This provides a skeptical account of Palmistry and it's being accepted as 'science'. It was published at the same time (and in the same publication) as Pudd'nhead Wilson so the ideas are contemperary to Twain's.
Critical Source:
Baylen, Joseph O.. "Mark Twain, W. T. Stead and "The Tell-Tale Hands"." American Quarterly 16(1964): 606-612.
This article talks about Twain's interest in palmistry. Specifically an encounter in 1894 (when Puddn'head Wilson was written)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Cool first quote -- what do you make of Tom referencing Wilson as a prophet? What connotations does that suggest? How might the problematics of palmistry as prophecy influence the discussions taking place about palmistry and science?
Excellent that you found the palmistry source in the Century. You might see what similar articles you can find -- try the Historical New York Times database or Readers Guide Retrospective.
Good to see that you've found a critical article already. It looks like it is rather dated since it was published in 1964 -- do you see any limits in its datedness?
Post a Comment