Is it simply human nature to appreciate what may seem intangible? To yearn for the unreachable? To want what we simply can't have? Phillis Wheatley fought long and hard for acceptance in America, or "Columbia", as she called it. Even two years after her death, in 1786, when Poems on Various Subjects was published in America, it was not welcomed warmly. In London, however, the book was circulated quickly.
As our packet tells us, "As an exhibition of African intelligence, exploitable by members of he enlightenment movement, by evangelical Christians, and by other abolitionists, she was perhaps recognized even more in England and Europe than in America."
The truth of the matter is that Phillis Wheatley met many abolitionists in England (Barron George Lyttleton, the Earl of Dartmouth) who accepted and embraced her talent, despite the color of her skin. In America, however, publishers rejected her work right and left. Yet still, Wheatley was intent about penning the glories of "Columbia" in her ingenious couplets organized in the iambic pentameter and heroic fashions. Did she want what she couldn't have?
Auspicious Heaven shall fill with fav'ring Gales,
Where e'er Columbia spreads her swelling Sails:
To every Realm shall Peace her Charms display,
And Heavenly Freedom spread her golden Ray.
She even makes mention of freedom in relation to America in this excerpt from her pamphlet entitled "Liberty and Peace."
(Samantha Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
While I do not believe that Wheatley's devotion to America/Columbia was purely because the act of belonging there was out of her reach, the goal of attaining the unattainable no doubt led her to continually pursue her patriotism through poetry.
The American Dream claims that goals can be attained through hard work. Perhaps writing poetry and fighting to gain acceptance for herself (and later for her race as a whole via her work in the abolitionist movement) was Wheatley's means to the end. Or perhaps her nationalistic poetry is actually criticizing the hypocrisy of Americans espousing freedom but practicing slavery.
As a side note, was London more accepting of blacks due to their abolition movement being earlier than America's, or was it because it was less economically dependent on slavery? I agree that it seems odd that Wheatley found much of her fame via the international community rather than through a more domestic audience. Then again, weren't most of the arts in America centered around England anyway? I recall the section on Wheatley and her contemporaries in our US history books mentioned that most artists with any "real" fame needed to succeed in England first.
Interestingly enough, some people have questioned Wheatley's place in the literary canon. It comes down to the Bradstreet question: Is she there despite of her unique situation and problems, or because of them?
Bias goes both ways. Perhaps those in America refused to see the merit of her work because of the color of her skin, but her admirers on the other side of the Atlantic were hardly impartial either. Voltaire once wrote that Wheatley had proven that black people could write good poetry, another generalization. It is notable that Wheatley herself died destitute, despite her many admirers. Perhaps both sides were simply using her as a black poet, not as a real person with merit.
I don't think that Wheatley was ignorant to the fact that she may have been exploited for her race. I also don't think that she was ignorant to the fact that she was not free. She may not have been a slave anymore, but her race bound her in the chains of racism. Therefore, I can't imagine that her praises for America are taking those point into consideration.
I think Wheatley loved America for the introduction to Christianity more than anything. While praising America, she almost always includes Heaven, God, or something Holy. In "On Being Brought from Africa to America", she celebrates her discovery of Christianity in America. Her discovery of America may have allowed her to find out that although she was black, she had a soul which would go to the same heaven as whites. Freedom was not not being enslaved, but having the freedom to "join the angelic train".
(Megan West)
"Is it simply human nature to appreciate what may seem intangible? To yearn for the unreachable? To want what we simply can't have?" (Sam)
I do believe that many humans are made with a certain drive that causes them to not be satisfied with what they have, but to strive for more. This could come in the form of material gain, recognition of some fashion, etc. The idea is that we don't want what we have, we want what we don't have. It is so much easier to take for granted what we have and continue to strive.
In the case of Phyllis Wheatley, I don't know if this is a very fair question to be answering. It is hard to tell whether recognition in America was really an issue to her. In the poem that we have been discussing in class, she seems to admit that races aren't necessarily equal, so it doesn't appear that this is something she is striving for. She seems okay with the idea that she won't be recognized, and she still praises her country anyway.
Emily T.
Post a Comment