Personification of Industrialized Civilization, Folk-lore, and Folk-lore Preservation in Chesnutt's Short Stories

The founding article of the Journal of American Folk-Lore presents cultures as passive, precious, and threatened objects which must be “scientifically” preserved for the benefit of all (1). Folk-lore is a tangible thing to be analyzed, and preserved in a journal, much like an extinct plant or animal specimen, which must be preserved in a museum or zoo. Various cultural traditions are threatened in the wake of expanding mechanized “uniformity” and the death of other civilizations, and this threatens the civilizations whom remain “One race cannot with impunity erase the beliefs and legends of its predecessor. To destroy these is to deprive the imagination of its natural food” (On the Field and Work 6). Most importantly folk-lore benefits those who preserve it by giving them a “a wider view, humanity as a whole”, a “complete history” of the places they inhabit and the people who have come before them (On the Field and Work 6).

In Chesnutt’s short stories, it seems as though the three characters personify the very threat of folk-lore extinction and the benefit of folk-lore preservation. John, the narrator, represents modern, mechanical, industrial civilization. His motives, with the exception of pleasing his wife, are based upon the principles of capitalism. He moves to North Carolina, where the soil is “ideal for grape-culture; labor was cheap, and land could be bought for a mere song.” (Chesnutt 1). Beyond his motives, John represents the effects of capitalism. He leaves the most industrialized part of the country to come to a setting which represents a dying past, “a quaint old town” in Patesville, a “virgin forest” just outside it, and most importantly the vineyard itself with its imagery of ruins: “decayed gateposts”, “two lines of rotting rail fence, partly concealed by jimson-weeds and briers” (Chesnutt 3). John, the industrialist, transforms this place into “a striking illustration of the opportunities open to Northern capital in the development of Southern industries”. (Chesnutt 11).

Uncle Julius represents the very folk-lore which the Journal’s founders sought to preserve. In his telling of folk stories, he preserves the history of the vineyard. This is represented partially physically, as his telling the story of “Po’ Sandy” prevents the transformation of the old school house into a new kitchen. It also happens mentally. In “The Goophered Grapevine” he is unsuccessful in persuading the narrator not to buy and, thus, transform the vineyard, but he still reaches the imagination of the narrator’s wife, Annie, in preserving for her mind the long history of slavery which occurred in that very vineyard.

It is Annie, in fact, who represents the act and benefits of cultural preservation, the very goal, which the Journal’s authors pushed for. While the narrator tends to automatically react to Uncle’ Julius’ folk histories with cold rationalized rejection of superstitions, “Are you seriously considering the possibility of a man’s being turned into a tree?” and rationalizes Julius’ motives as for the purpose of certain material gains (i.e. making revenue from grapevines, or obtaining a new church building) (Chesnutt 19, 11, 20), Annie reacts emotionally. What strikes her is not necessarily the superstition, but rather the tragic picture of slave life contained within Julius’ narrative. The cruel history of inhumane treatment, physical abuse, and separation of families, which is intertwined with the physical location, is often the first thing apparent to Anne. This is seen best in her response in “Po’ Sandy”, “What a system it was…under which such things were possible” (Chesnutt 19). Thus, she presents the place of folk-lore as an “important and essential part of history” which the Journal’s founders seemed to have in mind (On the Field and Work, 5). While John focuses on material losses, Annie gains from the preservation of folk-lore in the very manner which the Journal’s founders likely intended.