Throughout the past two weeks of class, discussion have risen on the topic of whether or not Phyllis Wheatley was an authentic poet. Was she coerced to write certain things? Brainwashed? or is it actually her?
At first, I was a tad skeptical, but now I have made my mind up. I do believe that she was who she was and her poems were as well. My mind was solidified after the last class on the 28th because we talked about the purpose and meanings behind her poems, especially the poem, "To the Right Honorable William, Earl of Dartmouth". I believe this mainly because of her purpose behind the poem, to point out that freedom from slavery is just as important, if not more important to her, as is the colonies freedom from British control. Thinking about the time period she was writing this poem, it help me appreciate the difficulty of writing this poem to William, Earl of Dartmouth, at this time. She wrote this poem to a person of power, in order to gain entry in some way, so that she could persuade her race's freedom, or at least draw attention to it.
She uses the stage she is on and really calls out the wrongdoings that are happening at the time, which I think is pretty badass to say the least. Like many of the enslaved during this time, Wheatley used the stage she was on as a poet to draw attention to a great cause, and it isn't clear from a straightforward look at the poem. One has to dissect the poem to find the humor and meanings behind it.
This is why I believe that Phyllis Wheatley was an authentic poet who wrote each poem with a certain purpose and that became clearer than ever in her poem, "To the Right Honorable William, Earl of Dartmouth".
As to the whole authenticity of Wheatley's work, I think that there is a distinction that we have to draw between her work as a slave and work as a free person (whether or not she actually received any due respect as such can still be debated). In talking about this kind of issue, historical perspective is, of course, essential.
ReplyDeleteI will defend my positon in class that Wheatley's earlier work was not as "revolutionary" as it would seem. I resubmit my opinion on her work as being cookie-cutter, and following in the typical poetic line of rhyme. It can be considered of near-certainty that when Wheatley was first taught to read and write English, this kind of poetry was not that new; in fact, her poems almost take on a carbon-copy appearance of a John Donne-type tone and language, with some differences, I'll concede. But the point in that language is still the same. To me, there is little to no originality coming from her work before the piece that you make reference to, after she had attained a level of fame and autonomy.
As well, the subjects of her earlier works are what I would call "classical" or "typical" subject matter, most of them conversing about God and the redemption of souls. While this claim may seem to stretch too far, I think that the mere subjects of these earlier poems point to some sort of influence on behalf of her masters. We can get into a whole other argument about Wheatley being "coerced", but I think that that the talk of "brainwashing" is a little extreme. All I'm saying is that there must've been a level of influence in her education or teaching, as the points above seem to reference a lack of originality.
That is where the line is drawn. The work you refer to, at least to me, highlights a certain autonomy in the writing and subject matter. Instead of being about God or redemption of the deceased, she is making a case for her race to be freed from slavery, noting intelligently that bad hypocrisy was waiting in the wings for the British on the eve of the Revolution. The piece has this feeling because it is made in the assumptions we can make: Wheatley must've been by then a freed slave, and an extraordinary and peculiar figure in the poetical circles. It follows that she recognized this in some way, and she thus sheds her (un)original form, and creates a logical and creative plea. Her letter to the Earl of Dartmouth exhibits that authenticity that you advocate for, and I will agree that it attests to Wheatley and her abilities in the context. However, I will not completely agree with you that this singular piece speaks for an autonomous Wheatley while writing as a slave. Again, I think that there is a line between such a piece and her collected works that we read in class.
Riley, would you say that you see this notion of "putting on for your people" today? What I mean by "putting on for your people" is using your stage -- your status, your bully pulpit of some sort -- to draw attention to the sufferings of your people. And if you answer in the affirmative to this, do you think that this is in some way part of the Black and Woman poetic tradition? I don't really see it as part of the American poetic tradition (feel free to push back on that). I'm also curious to see what others think.
ReplyDeleteFor myself, I was not 100% sold that Wheatley wrote these poems off of her own inspiration. In my blog post for this week, I argued that her white owners may have had an influence on who she was writing to. However, I failed to mention the authenticity of her poems. I believe that she may have been forced to write poems to certain people, but the words and implications were surely her's. Like you said, a reader must dissect a Wheatley poem before they can understand it. Once you put yourself in her time period and in her scenarios, you can see sarcasm and racial tension when she writes to white superiors.
ReplyDelete