Tag Archives: George Washington

The telling works of Phillis Wheatley

image

Phillis Wheatley statue in the Old South Meeting House (Boston)

While in Boston earlier this August, I had occasion to pick up an Applewood Books publication of Phillis Wheatley’s poems, Poems of Phillis Wheatley, A native African and slave.  The significance of this particular publication over other collections of Wheatley’s poetry is that Applewood Books specializes in reprinting historical American works, so not only do I have the poems themselves, but also the editor’s note emphasizing that the poems are indeed the work of an African-born American slave–complete with the names of notable Bostonians who will vouch for her and the promise that a copy of their Attestation with their original signatures may be found by applying to “Archibald Bell, Bookseller, No. 8, Aldgate Street.”

I enjoy these features.  It gives context and color to the poems included in this collection.  Beyond this, I am impressed with the range of themes and intertextual allusions in the poetry itself.  It is clear, that while she was a slave, the relationship between slave and master is very different from the one we often hear or think about.  It is also clear that the same relationship and Wheatley’s success could be used to justify slavery as a liberation from savagery [in Africa].  Indeed, some of her own poetry might be used as ammunition for just that.

I want to set this particular aspect of the discussion aside, for now, as it is illuminated much better by the more capable hands of other scholars.  I want to look at her poetry from the long perspective of a Western Civilization professor.  In this long view slavery has played a consistent role, but there other features revealed in Wheatley’s poetry that speak to the strength of other long-enduring legacies, clearly prioritized in her education.

Phillis Wheatley

To Mæcenas

     MÆCENAS, you, beneath the myrtle shade,
Read o’er what poets sung, and shepherds play’d.
What felt those poets but you feel the same?
Does not your soul possess the sacred flame?
Their noble strains your equal genius shares
In softer language, and diviner airs.

     While Homer paints, lo! circumfused in air,
Celestial Gods in mortal forms appear;
Swift as they move hear each recess rebound,
Heaven quakes, earth trembles, and the shores resound.
Great Sire of verse, before my mortal eyes,
The lightnings blaze across the vaulted skies,
And, as the thunder shakes the heavenly plains,
A deep-felt horror thrills through all my veins.
When gentler strains demand thy graceful song,
The lengthening line moves languishing along.
When great Patroclus courts Achilles‘ aid,
The grateful tribute of my tears is paid;
Prone on the shore he feels the pangs of love,
And stern Pelides‘ tenderest passions move.

     Great Maro‘s strain in heavenly numbers flows,
The Nine inspire, and all the bosom glows.
O could I rival thine and Virgil‘s page,
Or claim the Muses with the Mantuan Sage;
Soon the same beauties should my mind adorn,
And the same ardors in my soul should burn:
Then should my song in bolder notes arise,
And all my numbers pleasingly surprise:
But here I sit, and mourn a groveling mind,
That fain would mount and ride upon the wind.

     Not you, my friend, these plaintive strains become,
Not you, whose bosom is the Muses’ home;
When they from tow’ring Helicon retire,
They fan in you the bright immortal fire;
But I less happy, cannot raise the song,
The fault’ring music dies upon my tongue.

     The happier Terence* all the choir inspired,
His soul replenish’d, and his bosom fired:
But say, ye Muses, why this partial grace,
To one alone of Afric’s sable race;
From age to age transmitting thus his name
With the finest glory in the rolls of fame?

*He was an African by birth.

     Thy virtues, great Maecenas! shall be sung
In praise of him, from whom those virtues sprung:
While blooming wreaths around thy temples spread,
I’ll snatch a laurel from thine honour’d head,
While you, indulgent, smile upon the deed.

     As long as Thames in streams majestic flows,
Or Naiads in the oozy beds repose
While Phœbus reigns above the starry train
While bright Aurora purples o’er the main,
So long, great Sir, the muse thy praise shall sing,
So long thy praise shal’ make Parnassus ring:
Then grant, Maecenas, thy paternal rays,
Hear me propitious, and defend my lays.

This is a complex poem.  Lacking a knowledge of classic literature, however, would make it far more complicated, still.  In the opening pages of the book, her slave master John Wheatley, acknowledges that he bought her when she was brought to America in 1761 at age 7 or 8.  In sixteen months time, she had a knowledge of English, “to such a degree as to read any, the most difficult parts of the Sacred Writings, to the great astonishment of all who heard her.”  (John Wheatley, a letter to the publisher included in the first publication of Wheatley’s poems, dated in Boston, Nov. 14, 1772)  He further acknowledged that she acquired no schooling outside what the family provided her, led by her own curiosity.

John Wheatley also explains that Phillis was interested and had an inclination for Latin.  In “To Mæcenas,” she shares a great knowledge of Greek and Roman classical literature.  These references are made in Wheatley’s own request to be so gifted a poet as those she mentions and to receive the patronage of Mæcenas.  There would be a great deal to unpack in this poem to do it justice, so it is perhaps unfair (or unwise) for me to reference it, but I do so for these reasons:

  1. It is loaded with references to the origins of our literary tradition in ancient Greece and Rome–a tradition she gained in the household of John Wheatley;
  2. Thus, it speaks to the continued reverence for such works evident in colonial Boston (and, therefore, also England), while also attesting to the continued influence of these ancient authors on these Early Modern students, readers, and authors;
  3. It reveals a complex request from Wheately for patronage–a term loaded with meanings–from Mæcenas to receive the Muses, but perhaps also to receive liberty.

To the University of Cambridge, in New England

     WHILE an intrinsic ardor prompts to write,
The muses promise to assist my pen;
‘T was not long since I left my native shore
The land of errors, and Egyptian gloom:
Father of mercy! ‘t was thy gracious hand
Brought me in safety from those dark abodes.

Students, to you ‘t is given to scan the heights
Above, to traverse the etherial space,
And mark the systems of revolving worlds.
Still more, ye sons of science, ye receive
The blissful news by messengers from heaven,
How Jesus’ blood for your redemption flows.
See him with hands outstretched upon the cross!
Immense compassion in his bosom glows;
He hears revilers, nor resents their scorn.
What matchless mercy in the Son of God!
He deign’d to die that they might rise again,
And share with him in the sublimest skies,
Life without death, and glory without end.

Improve your privileges while they stay,
Ye pupils; and each hour redeem, that bears
Or good or bad report of you to heaven.
Let sin, that baneful evil to the soul,
By you be shunned; nor once remit your guard:
Suppress the deadly serpent in its egg.
Ye blooming plants of human race divine,
An Ethiop tells you, ‘t is your greatest foe;
Its transient sweetness turns to endless pain,
And in immense perdition sinks the soul.

This is a challenging poem.  On the one hand, Wheatley appears to be castigating her homeland and the life she would have lived as an African among her people if  she had not been enslaved.  I think we must acknowledge that Wheatley was genuinely grateful for her education and her Christian faith, two things she would not have gained had she remained free in her African home.  The question must be asked, did she believe her knowledge justified her enslavement?

I am incapable of answering this question directly, but in my historical interest of the poem and its time, perhaps some indirect suggestions might be gleaned (and possibly dismissed, as I do not claim proficiency in the literary arts).

Wheatley’s poem to Harvard University, the University of Cambridge, New England (Massachusetts), makes reference to one of the intellectual pursuits of the time: astronomy.  That she chose this is assuredly not random, as “traver[sing] etherial space/And mark[ing] the systems of revolving worlds” is connected to the spiritual heavens, “And share with [Son of God] in the sublimest skies/ Life without death, and glory without end.”  That this poem reads in part like a sermon or a warning to the students that they cannot neglect to shun sin, “that baneful evil to the soul,” from an African–“the land of errors … those dark abodes”–is rather interesting.

Indeed, it is still more interesting that she links “the land of errors” specifically with “Egyptian gloom.”  The heavily Puritan population would no doubt be fully prepared to acknowledge that Egypt, known from the Old Testament, was a land of errors.  Would they have credited Wheatley for suggesting that its errors were those of slavery–namely enslaving God’s people, the Hebrews?  This would become powerful imagery and iconography among slaves in a later America, but is Wheatley calling attention to it, here?  Egypt, throughout most of the preceding centuries, is precisely referenced because of its direct association with the pride of Pharoah in refusing God in the signs of Moses when he demands in the name of God that the Hebrew slaves be freed.  The errors of Egypt are the sins of Pharoah.  The sins of Pharoah are the enslavement of the Hebrews and his pride in doing so despite God’s demands.

Why she includes this at all, and in her opening stanza no less, is certainly interesting since she intends to warn the students and scholars away from sin.  She admires the institutions of learning, she is grateful for what she has learned, and for Christian conversion, but does she imply that there is something more these learned scholars have yet to learn, specifically about her own social station in Boston?

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Fiction, Historian's Journal, Travel

II. A Place for the Federal City | Washington DC, the Place and Space Series

In Section 8 of Article I in the U.S. Constitution, there is a long list of the Congress’s powers which more or less concludes with the following lines:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Building . . .

This establishment of a “District” to serve as the place for the Congress to meet–with limited dimensions–is unusual.  To understand how this comes about, one has to begin by considering the fear of certain state delegates and elected officials had of central government on the one hand and the strong sense of regionalism and state loyalty that had already developed by this time, on the other hand.  The geographic position was itself the result of compromise.  Given these strong territorial attitudes, there was a great concern that any capital would be under undue influence of the state that hosted it.  Thus, obvious cities such as Philadelphia and New York, for which there was a great deal of precedent in housing U.S. affairs up to that point, were off the table for the southern states who were already rankled over discussions surrounding populations and voting due to the high population of slaves (should slaves be counted as part of the population if they are not voting?).  In the end, the North conciliated the South when it was decided that the city should be established along the Potomac and take land from both Maryland and Virginia–both “southern” states in many important features despite Maryland’s more northernly location.

The cities of Georgetown, Alexandria and Washington of the District of Columbia.

Over the course of George Washington’s young presidential career, the city was dug and hammered out, both legally and literally, though he would never live or work there.  The boundaries of the “Territory of Columbia” would be established by 1791, including the Maryland and Virginia portions and already existing corporations of Georgetown, MD and Alexandria, VA.  By 1796, the name, District of Columbia, would be officially christened and the existing cities would become Georgetown and Alexandria, DC.  From 1791-1801, Georgetown and Alexandria ran their respective city governments within their pre-established jurisdictions and three presidential appointees, the Commissioners, were assigned the task of establishing Washington City, selling plots to private owners and constructing public buildings.

Georgetown, DC in Washington County.

The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 called for the establishment of two counties: Washington County to the east of the Potomac (formerly Maryland) and Alexandria County to the west of it (formerly Virginia).  This organizational amendment did not effect the established cities of Georgetown and Alexandria.  Presidentially appointed justices of the peace and other county magistrates would shortly be formed into boards of commissioners, which resembled the County courts of Virginia and the Levy courts of Maryland, thus the Levy Court of Washington County and the County Court of Alexandria County.  On May 3, 1802, the Federal City transitioned from the system of Commissioners to the city government with the incorporation of the City of Washington DC.  It would remain in this configuration until 1846 when Alexandria would be returned at its request to Virginia.  (http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/351.html#351.1)

The District of Columbia Alexandria County has been returned to Virginia.

At the historical conference, John Gorney presented on Washington’s obsession with the development of the Federal City.  His contemporaries and detractors accused him both of being distracted and of furthering his own private interests given the city’s proximity to his estate in Mount Vernon.  The president’s three appointed Commissioners were tasked with seeing development of the capital city and the capitol building.  Pierre L’Enfant would design the city after Andrew Ellicott and Benjamin Banneker mapped it out.  L’Enfant would eventually be fired for failing to present the city plan in time for land sales–for his part he did not believe the site was ready to besold to private interest–and Ellicott was put in charge and recreated the L’Enfant plan from memory.  This plan remained the principle guiding vision for the city’s development until the McMillan Plan in 1901-2 sought to reinvigorate the open ceremonial spaces included by L’Enfant, but largely unrealized in the city.

Gorney argues that Washington intended DC to be a vibrant, economically successful city like Philadelphia and New York, and pointed to his plans to establish a national university in the city to foster learning in the arts and sciences (especially his own love, botany).  L’Enfant was clearly inspired by the design of the great European cities that he had seen.  But, DC develops slowly and uncouthly.  It’s awkward charter and it’s peculiar attachment to Congress make for an odd and often ponderous evolution.

Washington DC, not far from its roots as farm land, in 1852 looking past the Capitol down Pennsylvania Avenue.

The next post will take a brief look at the locals’ space in the city–the residential area–and the challenges of this concept in a city that is technically run at the will of the committees in Congress.

Leave a comment

Filed under Historian's Journal