- Hope Leslie’s aunt, Mrs. Grafton, here shows the dual conception of femininity – she can be a fickle and shallow widow OR a powerful influence in social change.
In Hope Leslie, Catharine Maria Sedgwick presents to the readers multiple models of religion with varying levels of approval and advocacy. Aside from the clear disdain for Catholicism as embodied by Sir Phillip Gardiner, Sedgwick also confronts the faults in Puritanism, Anglicanism, Islam, and Native American Spiritualism. However, Sedgwick also includes a subtler version of religion in the form of Master Craddock, who literally worships at Hope Leslie’s feet. By including this version of unorganized and more physical version of religion, Sedgwick reveals the problematic nature of religion as a whole.
Throughout the narrative, Master Craddock is depicted as a senile old man whose greatest pride and pleasure is tied into Hope Leslie’s person: “Craddock was so absorbed in the extraordinary happiness of being selected as the confidential aid and companion of his favourite, that he would have followed her to the world’s end, without question […]” (321). Hope Leslie needs her tutor’s help in order to free Magawisca from prison and, after having been easily persuaded to join her in helping an unnamed friend, Craddock behaves more like a blind lapdog than he does like a tutor. He is consumed in blissful pleasure at the intimation that Hope desires his company and does not discern her unusual behavior in fleeing the house undetected. This happiness comes upon a passive Craddock, who revels in his having been “selected.” This language of selection is reminiscent of the Puritan conception of the Regenerate class, who are selected by God to be saved. Similarly, Craddock is described as an unquestioning follower, trusting in Hope and in his blind faith for her. Thus, Craddock is depicted as a zealous and devoted disciple and Hope as his prophet or even his God.
Moreover, Craddock proves to her that he would do anything for her, even when his actions go against his own moral code: “Such was Craddock’s habitual deference to his young mistress, that it was morally impossible for him to make any physical resistance to her movements […]” (328). Craddock’s following and trusting in Hope is so ingrained in him as a habit, that he is unable to stop himself from complying with her wishes, even when he knows they go against social propriety. This “habitual deference” echoes the regularity, consistency, and uniformity of religious prayer and behavior – Craddock’s immediate acceptance of Hope’s wishes is linguistically reflective of the Puritan’s recitation of scripture and strict adherence to manners.
Additionally, Craddock is physically powerless against Hope. As the dominant agent in their relationship, Hope is once again depicted as a God-like figure who has physical, behavioral, and perhaps even spiritual control over her follower: “[…] but neither his conscience nor his apprehensions for her, would permit him to be silent when he felt a conviction that she was doing, and he was suffering, an act that was a plain transgression of a holy law” (328). Despite his misgivings over her actions, Craddock is physically paralyzed and is thus unable to disobey Hope’s directives. However, Hope is unable to stop Craddock from voicing his misgivings, demonstrating his oral propensities and her limits as a God-like figure. Here, Sedgwick encourages the reader to pity Craddock and his powerlessness against Hope and, in doing so, paints Hope as almost tyrannical in her uncaring disregard for Craddock’s physical safety and emotional turmoil.
Therefore, through Craddock’s worshiping of an oppressive Hope, Sedgwick demonstrates that blind faith in religion is harmful and even dangerous to the physical and moral safety of its followers and perhaps that not all religions are able to provide the eternal guidance and deliverance expected of them.
Now, I wonder whether Sedgwick included this microcosmic religion as a warning or as a beacon – is it a warning against the dangers in blind faith and zealotry? Or is a beacon for feminist potential in her contemporary place in a world beginning to consider women’s rights?
Churning Pages 