"Evil teachers, unknown to him, had crept into the schools; there was a general decay of truth and right principles at least in the city; and as that set the example to the nation, it must spread." (MacDonald, 178)
This quote taken from The Princess and Curdie by MacDonald shows a strong reaction to the move away from the teaching of morality and the move into science during the Victorian era. The "evil teachers" can be interpreted as being those who were teaching science and pushing back the importance of teaching morals. This move toward science and away from morals was bringing society down, it was encouraging degeneracy. Although MacDonals's reaction initially makes me want to agree whole heartedly and back it up with the moral point of his tale, where Curdie punishes the kingdom for their immoral behaviour, I can not. Morals should be an important part of an education, as well as, a society however, it can not be the only important aspect. Possessing only good morals and completely ignoring science as MacDonald would have us do, is impossible.
Perhaps during the Victorian period it would have been easier to achieve such a goal as ignoring science and focusing on morals but since Darwin and improvements and advancement of science this would be unachievable. Through the 20th and 21st century science and technology has been thriving, making it near impossible to function without some form of them. I doubt a company in this day and age would hire an individual based on their superior morals, who could not operate some form of machinery or technology. Please do not misunderstand, this post is not to advocate for science, as we are attempting to prove since the shift away from liberal arts to science society has degenerated, it is merely to point out that science can not be ignored.
Work Cited: MacDonald, George. The Princess and Curdie. 1882. Toronto: Penguin Group, 1994.
2 comments:
Good point Hilary. We are not arguing that science is useless but more that it should not make a formal (ie literary) education redundant. If MacDonald really wanted to make a point of the "morality over science" argument clear I think he would have worked an apothecary or an alchemist into the story somewhere.
Another point about Curdie is that the fish with legs throws the Priest into the street. This is a tool of Darwin attacking the morality of religion. In the book evolution and devolution take place in accordance with the morality of the individual. Now, if, as Hilary argued, Darwin is not to be looked to for morality and religion is also corrupt then what remains? LITERATURE! MacDonald eliminates the two other sources of morality leaving only his own.
But what about all of the (not-so-subtle) allusions to the morality of religion in the novel? Amoung other things, Curdie basically goes through Jesus Christ's passion in his condemnation in the king's city in order to force the reader to feel the utmost sympathy for Curdie, a soon to be leader of the city, just as Jesus became the leader of the faith. Following the renunciation of the evil beings in the castle, the townspeople go through some sort of metamorphosis with Curdie's influence. True, they do regress again, and maybe this is the attack on religion. But MacDonald also touches on religious morailty here.
Post a Comment