"By all the truth of signs": James Fenimore Cooper's The Last of the Mohicans

"BY ALL THE TRUTH OF SIGNS": JAMES FENIMORE COOPER'S THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS Dennis W. Allen* Immediately prior to the massacre which divides The Last of the Mohicans into two stories of capture, pursuit, and rescue, the narrative action pauses and the novel reviews the characters' reactions to Munro's agreement to cede Fort William Henry to the French. Characteristically stoic, Cora reflects that although the fort is lost, the "good name" of the Munros remains. With equal predictability, Magua is highly dissatisfied. When Montcalm prevents him from killing Munro, he argues " 'What can the Hurons do? . . . Not a warrior has a scalp, and the palefaces make friends.' "' Although both speakers view the treaty as a possible means of disgrace, their perspectives differ slightly. Worried about the surrender of the fort, Cora's concern is with the family reputation, the family's honor as a linguistic entity, for the "good name" of the Munros is, finally, what people say about the Munros. Magua, concerned with his honor as a warrior, directs his attention to scalps, the visible tokens of courage and success in battle which determine the "reputation" of the Indian. The subtle difference between the two points of view is significant for beneath the surface content of the novel—the adventure narrative, the theme of civilization and the wilderness in conflict—the work explores the semiotic differences between white and Indian cultures, between the worlds, respectively, of language and the non-verbal sign. An initial glance at means of communication in the novel suggests that Mohicans is a jumbled mass of languages (English, French, Huron, Delaware), psalms, totems, and broken twigs which mark a trail. Yet this apparent confusion can be organized along a cultural axis using simple principles of conjunction and disjunction.2 Any cultural system defines itself by means of a group of rules, positive and negative injunctions, but any particular aspect of life as organized by a culture can also be ascertained by examining what is not prescribed or forbidden: 'Dennis W. Allen is an Assistant Professor of English at the University of Minnesota. He has published previously on Sinclair Lewis and is currently working on a book on language in the nineteenth-century novel. 160 Dennis W. Allen Prescribed Not Forbidden Forbidden ? Not Prescribed Sj and S£ stand in relation to each as contraries, opposites, as do Sj and S2. Sj and_Sj are contradictories, mutually exclusive alternatives, as are S2 and So. The left column defines the permitted behavior of a society, the right column unacceptable behavior (Levi-Strauss' Culture and Nature, respectively) . Such a model can be invested with a variety of contents. Sexual relations as organized by traditional Western culture, for example, form two sets of oppositions: CultureNature Matrimonial Relations (Prescribed) C1 Abnormal Relations (Forbidden) "1 J2 *"..............* ^l Normal RelationsNon-matrimonial Relations (Not Forbidden)(Not Prescribed) In this case, abnormal relations are defined as incest or homosexuality, normal relations as adultery by the male, and non-matrimonial relations as adultery by the female. The categorization is relative; different societies would define the terms differently. Among the Rororo, for example, homosexuality would fall under the category of normal relations. In Mohicans the various semiotic modes employed by the characters can be submitted to a similar organization. Yet the use of various types of communication are not as clearly articulated by a body of written and unwritten rules as are sexual relations, and, in consequence , certain semiotic modes are not strictly forbidden. Rather, different types of communication can be considered as encouraged and discouraged: CultureNature Language (Encouraged) L Silence/Non-verbal Sign (Discouraged) L2 «¦' Music (Not Discouraged)¦*L1 Cries (Not Encouraged) Studies in American Fiction161 In the absence of rigid prohibitions, such distinctions between white and Indian modes of communication represent only general tendencies . The novel's white characters employ a variety of non-verbal signs (uniforms, flags, salutes). Similarly, Cooper's Indians often speak several languages, not simply because cross-cultural communication demands that they be conversant with French or English, nor because communication in language is a necessity for an audience whose linguistic orientation is implicit in the fact of the book itself, but finally because of the dictates of mimesis...