Charles Chesnutt's Essay: The Marrow Of Tradition

On “The Marrow of Tradition”
As “The Marrow of Tradition” hurtles towards its conclusion, its author, Charles Chesnutt, has two of its main characters – the half-sisters Mrs. Carteret and Mrs. Miller – stand “face to face” for the very first time. Both characters are devastated, inconsolable; indeed, the very air between the pair seems heavy, suffused as it is with a heady amalgam of private and public tragedy. It seems almost fitting, after what has just happened (in the narrative), that the two should meet for the first time in so wretched a manner, with each sister functioning as a stand-in for her entire race and mortal potential, or promise – “the body of the dead child” – rotting in the space between them.
It is interesting to note that it is specifically “the stress of the deepest emotions” that brings these “two children of the same father” – these two warring races – together at long last; on the one hand, the initial divide suggests a sense of innate (human) baseness, but the fact that the “resemblance between” Mrs. Carteret and Mrs. Miller becomes “even more striking” under the stress of such primal emotions in turn suggests a sense of innate (human) sameness. It is likewise interesting that Chesnutt chooses to use the adjective “striking” to describe their resemblance at all; the adjective certainly denotes a sense of conspicuousness, but it also denotes a sense of violence. (The adjective “striking,” curiously enough, also denotes beauty. Who – or what – could possibly be beautiful here?) Chesnutt uses the word “striking” a second time while describing the allegedly indiscriminate wrath of “Death”: “striking upon the one hand and threatening upon the other.” Interestingly enough, while the verbs “striking” and “threatening” both smack of violence, only one suggests finiteness – and it is only this one that is meted out to the black race. Even “Death, the great leveler,” seems to be kinder to the white race. Furthermore: though he allows both characters to participate in the conversation, Chesnutt – or, rather, Chesnutt’s narrator – makes it clear that he supports one’s perspective over the …show more content…
Mrs. Miller is said to stand “erect, with menacing aspect, like an avenging goddess,” while Mrs. Carteret is described as “a trembling supplicant.” The adjectives “erect,” “menacing,” and “avenging,” like the noun “goddess,” all invoke impressions of authority and power. The adjective “trembling” and the noun “supplicant,” in contrast, both denote weakness. In pronouncing Mrs. Miller a “goddess” and Mrs. Carteret a “supplicant,” Chesnutt is also alerting his readers to the existence of a (racialized) moral imbalance. Chesnutt reiterates the notion of Mrs. Carteret’s being an exceptionally cold-hearted woman by having Mrs. Miller openly affirm that “All my life you[, Mrs. Carteret,] have hated and scorned and despised me.” The adjectives Mrs. Miller employs in this assertion – “hated and scorned and despised” – all carry incredibly powerful and incredibly negative denotations. In response to Mrs. Miller’s accusations, Mrs. Carteret speaks haltingly and “tremulously, dazed,” clasping her hands together in “an imploring gesture”; the adjectives and adverbs Chesnutt employs here all denote senses of subservience and weakness. (It is also interesting to note that, while Mrs. Miller is referred to as Janet, Mrs. Carteret is never referred to by her first name. It almost seems as if Chesnutt – who has no qualms about Mrs. Miller – is refusing to even associate with Mrs.