March 14, 2014
Intro to Poetry 116w
The Role of Race in Determining the Canonicity of Phillis Wheatley’s Works
Over the years, the types of literary works considered to be part of the cannon have varied greatly but the criterion for selecting a canonical work seems to have stayed the same. According to American literary critic Northrop Frye, the canonicity of a work represents the admission of the work unto a “unified scheme” that is also “in accord with a permanent structure of ideas” (Hilton, 140). While poet Phillis Wheatley certainly focused upon the “permanent structure of ideas” that is most significant in our society- religion, freedom, integrity- she was fairly unsuccessful at achieving a canonical status for most if not all of her works. Wheatley’s achievements were undoubtedly impressive, yet much attention was paid to her race rather than her talent. While a canonical work by definition creates a powerful literary legacy, after her initial fame Phillis Wheatley was “no longer a revelation, unable to successfully commodify herself again, she died penniless and forgotten” (Flanzbaum, 79). Much of the controversy surrounding Wheatley’s work was brought on by accusations made by critics that she held a misguided racial identity, in which she identifies more with her white, privileged readers than her black peers. Even decades later, many critics of Wheatley’s work are still unable to see past skin color to see her work for what it truly is. It cannot be said for certain that without the attention paid to her race, Wheatley would have earned a place in the cannon; that being said, the constant attention on her race means that she never really had a chance. Through the use of the criticisms “Analysis of Selected Poetry of Phillis Wheatley” and “Unprecedented Liberties: Re-Reading Phillis Wheatley” it becomes clear that the expectations and judgments placed upon Wheatley for her race greatly hindered her positive recognition as a poet. Assuming that Wheatley’s identification with euro-centric institutions throughout her works represents a sense of shame and discomfort with her racial identity as a black woman is to project upon Wheatley a 20th century depiction of what a “liberated” African American is supposed to look like, leaving her with little chance of living up to these expectations.
The article, Analysis of Selected Poetry of Phillis Wheatley, by Angeline Jamison, discusses the biases of various groups of readers that prevented the reception of Wheatley’s work as a canonical text. The article stresses that because Wheatley does not place enough emphasis on traditional Black culture and heritage throughout her poetry, she should be regarded as a poet who just happened to be of African descent rather than a “black poet.” However, I would argue that because Wheatley discusses her race in so many of her poems, she is more in touch with her blackness than we might realize. Phillis Wheatley’s perceived lack of pride in her own heritage can provide a plausible explanation for why many critics assumed that Wheatley was ashamed of her roots, but these assumptions are misguided because these critics have placed Wheatley’s work within a 20th century frame within which Black liberation and pride was considered noble and empowering. The criticism places much stress upon Wheatley’s supposed shame over her African roots, stating “when examining certain poems where she makes direct and indirect references to herself as an African, it is obvious that she lacked pride in her heritage” (Jamison, 411). However, what was perceived as shame by Jamison might have simply been a result of Wheatley’s realistic understanding of her circumstances; if during Wheatley’s lifetime she had in fact questioned traditional white power structures, her work would likely have not been published at all and she would have faced far greater personal consequences. Jamison points to several places in Wheatley’s work where she supposedly displayed a traditionally “White” perspective, but many of these examples actually show that Jamison’s conclusion hides a much more complex relationship with race. In the poem, “To the University of Cambridge in New England” which warns Harvard students against the dangers of sin, Wheatley simultaneously assumes the voice of an authority figure while still referring to her skin color in a negative way. The text says that, “Ye blooming plants of human race divine/ An Ethiop tells you ‘tis your greatest foe” (Wheatley). While one might be quick to assume that the use of the phrase “human race divine” shows that she views the students, who were white, as God-like in nature, there is no real implication that their divinity in any way relates to their status as White men. As an exceptionally religious woman, Wheatley could just as likely be referring to them as divine because as members of the human race, they were creations of God. That being said, Wheatley’s statement that “an Ethiop tells you,” does seem particularly degrading, because it suggests that an Ethiopian person might be particularly aware of sin and its consequences. While this line does add a self-demeaning tone to the poem, Wheatley’s self-identity seems to be more complex than Jamison is willing to admit. With her eagerness to place Wheatley into a position of shame about her race, Jamison is unable to confront the parts of “To the University of Cambridge in New England” that do point to a strong sense of pride and comfort in her racial identity, whether it be her willingness to assume a position of authority over the White students or belief that her faith in God had left her entitled to “glory without end” (Wheatley). The focus that Jamison and other similarly modern critics placed upon Wheatley’s racial identity through their projections of modern-day values about race unfortunately served to completely detract from the merits of her work.
Unlike many later criticisms of Wheatley’s work, this criticism also points out the role that criticisms from openly racist readers had on the canonization of her works. More specifically, Jamison asserts that there were certainly Whites who “were blinded by her color and their prejudices” (Jamison, 410). This statement calls to mind Thomas Jefferson’s brutal review of Wheatley’s work, in which he writes that, “the compositions published under her name are below the dignity of criticism” (Jefferson, 267). Jefferson’s review of Wheatley’s work, written within Wheatley’s generation unlike Jamison’s, inadvertently serves as an example of the social conditions Wheatley had to face. If a powerful and educated leader like Jefferson cannot see past race when looking at Wheatley’s works, it is unlikely that the typical reader would be able to accept Wheatley’s works as canonical at all if she had drawn added attention to her racial oppression like Jamison seems to require of her.
Also within the criticism, Jamison accuses Wheatley of portraying extremely naïve and contradictory views on several major issues concerning her race, which prevented her poetry from being taken seriously as a canonical work. Because Wheatley praises the same infrastructure that directly prevented her from advancing in society, she appears foolish to modern critics who cannot clearly see the oppressiveness of the time period. However, expecting Wheatley to use her talent as a tool to rally against slavery is an anachronistic oversimplification given her own social circumstances. The criticism uses, “To the King’s Most Excellent Majesty” as an example of this flaw, but Wheatley’s seemingly naïve outlook can also be seen in “Atheism,” when she discusses religion and asserts that, “Rise from the dust and seek the mighty God/ By whose great mercy we do move and live” (Wheatley, 67). This poem provides a plausible explanation for why critics were quick to jump to the conclusion that Wheatley was out of touch with reality, but a deeper analysis might suggest that Wheatley was speaking ironically throughout the poem. Although on the surface her use of the terms, “move and live” might seem like a foolish disconnect on Wheatley’s behalf because she had so little freedom in her everyday life, but a deeper reading suggests that Wheatley was perhaps being ironic. The same theory applies to Wheatley’s use of the word “mercy;” although on the surface this implies that God has given her something that she does not necessarily deserve, this can also be read with an ironic tone. One more example of a place within “Atheism” where Wheatley’s true irony could once again be intentionally clothed under a mask of naivety is when she discusses her hope for liberation of the United States, despite her un-free status as an African American woman. Because of the way that civil rights for minority groups have gradually increased over the past decades, it seems as if modern critics such as Jamison were too detached from the oppressive social conditions of Wheatley’s generation to focus on anything other than her perceived racial identity, thus leaving her with no real opportunity to become a canonical literary figure.
Perhaps due to the even more modern context, Hilene Flanzbaum’s article “Unprecedented Liberties: Re-reading Phillis Wheatley,” discusses how Wheatley’s accomplishment in writing at all, considering her inopportune life experiences, prompted more theories and debate than any line of her poetry ever has (Flanzbaum, 71). While Flanzbaum is certainly correct in this regard, she also argues that one reason for the lack of praise and canonical recognition of Wheatley’s work stems from her lack of support from the Black community, who felt that she did not hold traditionally “Black” values and was lacking in racial pride. The criticism states that, “because advocates of the Black Aesthetic could not read Wheatley as inspiring black identity or pride, their formulations almost triggered the demise of Wheatley studies” (Flanzbaum, 73). It is undeniable that Wheatley incorporates traditionally euro-centric themes into much of her poetry; however, once again a modern critic has forced her own modern frame upon Wheatley’s work. By implying that she did not have support from Black audiences, Flanzbaum is being naïve to the fact that because of widespread slavery, at the time not many African Americans would have been able to read or have the freedom to enjoy poetry. Because of this, Wheatley’s decision to include very euro-centric themes such as royalty and classical allusions throughout her works seems more reasonable, as she was trying to appeal to the White people who would most likely be her readers. For example, “On being brought from Africa to America” says that ““Remember, Christians, Negros, black as Cain,/ May be refin’d, and join th’ angelic train” (Wheatley, 13). This statement can be interpreted as degrading because to use the word “refined” in these lines implies that in order for Blacks to be equal to Christians, they must in some way be purified, inherently saying that Blacks are inferior to begin with. However, it is much more realistic to assume that she was using a passive aggressive and sarcastic tone because while Wheatley did not have the power to be able to openly stand up for herself and have racial pride, she was able to indirectly send a message through the use of irony.
According to Flanzbaum’s theory, the major barrier preventing Wheatley from being accepted into the literary canon is that critics tend to treat her poetry as an anthropological source rather than the literary works that they were intended to be. In doing so however, the overlook the literary clues that serve as windows into Wheatley’s views on the world around her. For example, the poem “To the King’s Most Excellent Majesty” serves as a prime example of the way that Wheatley’s work can go much deeper than what critics like Jamison would allow. The poem says that, “A monarch’s smile can set his subjects free” (Wheatley, 13). Flanzbaum points out that by discussing the importance of the United States being freed from the Mother Country while she herself did not have any true freedom, Wheatley shows a disconnect with her own circumstances and with members of the Black audience. However, I would argue that the fact that the line is already an exaggeration, because a king’s smile cannot actually set his subjects free, points to a deeper meaning in which Wheatley is using the American revolution as a lens to safely discuss her hopes for her own freedom because historically, Wheatley would not have been able to openly discuss her yearnings for freedom. Although the “monarch’s smile” refers to King George at face value, it can also represent any leader that has the ability to set her free. Flanzbaum’s criticism is set apart from those of Jamison and Jefferson because Flanzbaum can acknowledge that if more attention was paid to the literature within which, Wheatley could have avoided the constant allegations of a lack of racial pride that clouded the critics’ judgments of her work. The text discusses this, saying that, “the reader can glimpse another Wheatley… a black woman slave who cautiously but persistently tugs at the chains of her enslavement” (Flanzbaum, 79).
What Flanzbaum did not acknowledge however were the historical conditions that affected Wheatley’s decision to create subtle references to her oppression rather than blatant references that might have been more inspiring to an African American audience. For example, the poem, On Imagination, shows Phillis Wheatley’s true frustration with her situation and provides a great example of the added dimension that can be found in Wheatley’s work when we acknowledge her historical context rather than evaluating her work within the context of the 20th or 21st century. The poem reads that “Winter austere forbids me to aspire, And northern tempests damp the rising fire” (Wheatley, 37). The “winter” that forbids her to aspire can plausibly symbolize the metaphorical chains of slavery which hold her back from achieving her real-life dreams and aspirations. Because this reference is less subtle than others, as Wheatley blatantly discusses her inability to aspire to a better life, it is reasonable to assume that this dissatisfaction can also be seen in its more subtle forms in her other works. In conclusion, while Flanzbaum is more willing than Jamison to accept that Wheatley was shrewdly expressing discontent with her enslavement, she still does not evaluate the prospect that within Wheatley’s historical context, using a more subtle approach to discussing her enslavement might have been a necessity.
Although it is true that Wheatley did not seem to take great pride in her race, her place in the literary canon was greatly altered by the inability of her critics to accept that her historical conditions were not the same as their own. In arguing that Wheatley is complicit with white-power structures, critics such as Jamison are assuming that there is an alternative sort of radical, black-power stance that Wheatley could have taken. Unfortunately, however, that voice was not really available and served more as something that we as modern readers projected back onto her. The societal advancements in regards to race since Wheatley’s lifetime are obvious and apparent. While that is undoubtedly a positive thing for our society, it creates an interpretative issue when we use modern notions of race to critique poets who lived during an entirely different historical context. It is impossible to say that if Phillis Wheatley’s works had been written today, they would have earned a place in the literary cannon. However, I can be certain that if she had written her poetry today, her work would have at least received a fair chance.

Works Cited
Flanzbaum, Hilene. "Unprecedented Liberties: Re-Reading Phillis Wheatley."
MELUS 18.3, Poetry and Poetics (1993): 71-81. JSTOR. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/468067>.
Jamison, Angelene. "Analysis of Selected Poetry of Phyllis Wheatley." Journal of Negro
Education 43.3 (1974): 408-16. JSTOR. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.
Jefferson, Thomas. "Notes on the State of Virginia: Laws." (n.d.): 257-70. Web. 19 Feb.
2014.
Wheatley, Phillis. Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral. New York: AMS,
1976. Print.