By popular request, we'll be focusing on the more political poetry in MMM's Book for Wednesday (4/1). I'll expect you all to be familiar with
The Female Patriots. Addressed to the Daughters of Liberty (Hannah Griffitts), p. 172
New Jail. Philadelphia Jany. 1st 1776 (Unattributed), p. 198
The Patriotic Minority in Both Houses of the British Parliament (Hannah Griffitts), p. 244
The Ladies Lamentation over an Empty Cannister (Hannah Griffitts), p. 247
Some questions you might like to address in response to this blog post:
Do these poems present a coherent and seamless set of political views, or do they display some tension and uncertainty?
Does the tone and style differ in any interesting ways from the poems by Susannah Wright that we've read in class from this book?
What do you find in these poems that complicates your understanding of the woman-authored poetry of this period?
How would you describe the political agency that Griffitts displays in these poems? Is there a meaningful distinction between to be drawn between the political agency they show and the poetic/aesthetic agency at work in them?
Deadline: Wednesday (4/1), start of class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think it is interesting to see the two sides of the issue of boycotting, especially tea. "The female Patriots. Addressed to the Daughters of Liberty in America" and "The Ladies Lamentation over an Empty Cannister" show the interior struggle between patriotic duty and personal wants as they are both penned by Hannah Griffitts.
It is interesting to note that Griffitts (and presumably other women) sees the household shopping and supplies as a form of war or protest. She recognizes the limitations of her sex, "we've no Voice," and at the same time confirms that she can make a difference simply by boycotting certain "taxables": "rather then Freedom, we'll part with out Tea .../ As American Patriots."
She also wishes to set an example for "the Sons (so degenerate)" and "point out their Duty to Men." She even asserts her power of the pen as she "can throw back the Satire by biding them blush." Because "The female Patriots" is written during the ears building up to the Revolution, the theme is very strongly pro-boycott and very rallying, but her later poem, "Lamentation over an empty Cannister" lacks this patriotic verve.
While "The female Patriots" is pro-boycotting "taxables" and offers various ways of how to exist without them; "Lamentation," on the other hand, is almost whiny. I think that part of the reason is the fact that the poems are written several years apart (1768 and presumably 1775 because of the surrounding poems). It appears that the theory of boycotting tea is easily accepted, because "Sylvania's, gay Meadows, can richly afford, / To pamper our Fancy, or furnish our Board," but the reality of going without the "precious Indian Weed" is almost to much to bear. These two poems document a shifting viewpoint on the reasons behind the American Revolution.
"If the Sons (so degenerate) the Blessing despise, / Let the Daughters of Liberty, nobly arise, / And tho' we've no Voice, but a negative here. / The use of the Taxables, let us forbear,"
Interesting that Griffitts acknowledges the perceived powerlessness of women at this time but counters it by showing the way that they can exercise their dissent in other ways (like boycotting). Also, I was kind of confused by the first part of that excerpt. Is she commenting negatively about the "Sons of Liberty" calling them degenerates? It seems like the "Blessing" would be items that were taxed (tea, paper, glass, paint). So if it's the blessing they despise (and thus boycott??) then why is she calling them degenerates but doing the same thing? I kind of confused myself here, maybe I'm not reading it right.
I took the "Blessing" to mean Liberty. Hope that helps.
The political poetry that we read from Milcah Martha Moore’s Book is a lot more focused on the immediacy of specific issues, unlike some of poems that we read by Susanna Wright, such as her untitled piece that we looked at during Monday’s class, which has a more philosophical and internally inquisitive perspective. In this poem, Wright oscillates between questioning and accepting what she has been taught about her own existence. She wishes, “let me not transgress whilst I demand / What art thou, reasoning Principle within, / Thou something which I cannot comprehend.” The poet does not want to overstep her boundaries and delve into doubting her faith, nor does she care to remain puzzled with no promise of the knowledge needed to answer her queries. There is a sense of uncertainty about how far she should follow her curiosity, a cautiousness which is especially evident in the metaphor of the sailor. This sailor who, having been “tempted far on the unfaithful Deep . . . so near to Death in the devouring Flood, / ‘Til pitying Powers above, rebuke the Storm” reminds me of the Book of Job. Job’s faith is tested by God. He is eventually released from his misery after he proves himself by not cursing God despite his intense suffering, for which the cause is unknown to him. It seems like Wright views her desire to question faith as a sort of test and that she is afraid to prove to be a doubtful Quaker.
The uncertainty and caution expressed in Wright’s poem contrast the adamantly rebellious nature of Hannah Griffitts’s “The Lady’s Lamentation over an Empty Canister.” Griffitts claims, “But King, nor Parlaiment, nor North . . . Nor Congress, nor Committee Muster . . . Sure will not dare – to hinder me, / From getting fresh Recruits of Tea.” The poet is quite persistent in her confidence that no one, even those of high authority, can stop her from drinking tea. Toward the beginning of the poem she even asks “Resentment” to guide her composition, suggesting that her refusal to accept the Tea Act is brewed in bitterness. She never questions her right to defiance regarding this issue. Unlike Wright, Griffitts is not timid about her doubtfulness of the customs enforced by authority figures.
I find the discourse between Hannah Griffitts and Susanna Wright regarding "The Ladies Lamentation over an empty Cannister" particularly interesting. Griffitts seems to take the embargo quite personally, asking of the Congress, "Why all their Malice shewn to Tea / So near, so dear--belov'd by me," and even going to the point of making tea essential for survival, as she claims "Tea I must have, or I will dye." The emotion pouring forth from her, though a bit over dramatic, situates her voice within a pointed framework against political policy. Her agency carries her to the point of threatening (or even promising) to disobey the edict. She asserts that none of the patriarchal institutions in place "Sure will not dare--to hinder me, / From getting fresh Recruits of Tea."
Her response strikes me as incredibly inflammatory and gutsy. Her dissent regarding the acquisition and consumption of tea in a public form marks an unabashed politicization of poetry; she fully embraces the tenets of the first amendment before the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. Her agency demonstrates the principles upon which the modern construction of freedom was founded.
Furthermore, Sussana Wright's involvement in the discussion creates unity and situates the predicament as one particularly of the female gender; she claims the Congress to be "So cruel to the whole female World," creating of the policy a dichotomy of sexual discrimination. The problem is thus addressed not in terms of human malaise, but specifically one brought upon women. Her alliance with Griffitts in continuing to consume tea behind closed doors illustrates the personal subversive measures available to women and also underlines the separate sphere of the interior which women seem to possess above men. Since their lives are more private, domestic dissent may not be widely acknowledged, but the suggested ideological unity between women speaks volumes for anti-patriarchal activities within the home.
Post a Comment