Leah and Rachel are America
CORE 2994
Dr. James & Dr. Neiwert
Digital Humanities Project
December 10, 2015
Leah & Rachel are America
Further into his analysis of John Hammond’s Leah and Rachel, Robert D. Arner builds his focuses on the historical connection of Leah and Rachel’s biblical story to the American immigrant experience according to this colonists during the mid 1600’s. This interpretation in connection with the biblical text symbolizes assumptions made by past historians about indentured servitude during the frontier experience¹. Specifically shining light on the frontier American dream of becoming rich and fortunate by means of hard work and social connections. This interpretation mirrors the business aspect behind Leah and Rachel’s intimate relations with Jacob. Like the colonial indentured servants, Jacob had to work for his own place in a new environment socially and economically, and at the same time within the hearts of two sisters. Sisters forced to live and function under the same roof of the man they both love and envy each other over.
During the colonial period most immigrants came to America with hopes of starting over and building in a new life. Many immigrants left their homes, families, cultures, and assets behind on their journey to America due to many being victims of political and religious persecution in their homeland. Out of fear and desire to live the frontier American dream, leaving many no choice but to repay lenders their fee for the boat ride to America, shelter and food. In most cases this resulted in indentured servitude. They are inevitably forced to live as service and under the control of another though a written contract². This contract supposedly last up to seven years, similar to the seven year time periods when Jacob served under the authority of Laban, Leah and Rachel’s father. Though Rachel and Jacob were the true lovers in the story Jacob still had to devote seven years of work to marry her sister, to only serve seven more in order to receive Rachel's hand in marriage. This aspect of the story connects to frontier America because of the lengthy years Jacob spent his life working to receive his true love's hand in marriage, Laban’s flock, and inherited foreign land. Showing the reality of what seems to be a life time expectation of devoted labor from indentured servants to lenders.
In Leah and Rachel’s story both sisters hands are given in marriage by their father Laban. This cultural tradition is also evident in America during the 1600s. A time when it was common for the male to privately ask the parents of the female for their suitors hand in marriage. In most discussions the meeting involved talk on the financial status and social well being of their daughter after marrying the man. Which is why marriages during this time had more to do this money, status, and power than love³. Leah and Rachel tell of the strong love they have for Jacob despite the children he creates with each sister, on the other hand Jacob puts more effort into proving himself worthy of riches. Arriving to a new land poor and ambitious makes him a great candidate for marrying two sisters with a home, land, flocks, and means of income. Similarly, colonial settlers aim at marriage into a higher class than their parents, land to call their own, and a continual way to make an income. As described by Arner, Leah and Rachel fulfilled the need for financial security and biblical prophecy of passing down land to generations of sons. Finally, to assure both Leah and Rachel will flourish as their riches increase. For colonist Rachel and Leah symbolize America and the opportunities they birth with hard work and social connections, to shift from rags to riches.
1. Arner, Robert D, “A Note on John Hammond's "leah and Rachel"”. The Southern Literary Journal 6, no. 1 (1973): 79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20077477.
2. Gottlieb Mittelberger, "On the misfortune of indentured servants." On The Misfortune Of Indentured Servants (January 2, 2009): 1.
3. Herman Lantz, "Hands and Hearts: A History of Courtship in America." Contemporary Sociology 14, no. 4 (July 1985): 494.
