Re: MDDM Washington

Otto wrote:

>> http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/slavery/advertiseimage.html
>> 
>> " [...] As they went off without the least Suspicion, Provocation, or
>> Difference with any Body, or the least angry Word or Abuse from their
>> Overseers, 'tis supposed they will hardly lurk about in the
>> Neighbourhood [...]"
>> 
>> best
>> 
> 
> Does the formulation "As ... 'tis supposed" indicate that GW doesn't expect
> that somebody will hide & help them because everybody in the neighbourhood
> knows they don't have been mistreated?

I get the idea from this that GW wasn't expecting that these particular
slaves would hang round to take revenge upon some cruel overseer, because
they had had no "Difference with any Body". What's interesting here is that
GW seems to allow that slaves might indeed have "Differences" with their
masters, and not just vice versa.

I also get the impression from this particular snippet that GW wasn't really
trying to encourage the local landowners to keep an eye out for the escaped
slaves, i.e. he's saying something like 'Don't worry, they're long gone by
now'. It's as if he's only going through the motions in the ad because that
is what was expected of him. As we see later in _M&D_ when Dixon frees the
chained slaves, if George were to have suddenly turned into an anti-slavery
zealot and started freeing his own and others' slaves then he would have
been placing his life in danger, let alone the future of the American
Republic to be. And, pragmatically-speaking, aren't the slaves better off in
the care of a benevolent "master" like George than if they were on the run
and hiding out in the swamps &c? I think it's certainly a dilemma which the
text is posing, particularly so later on when Dixon does free those slaves.

Anyway, I find Pynchon's depiction of GW far less "ominous" than that of Ben
Franklin - that surreal danse macabre out into the future at 294-5 really
lays the scary symbolism on thick - and I think John Bailey made some good
points on why that might be. Franklin's Electricks are the root of the curse
of modern civilisation as Pynchon envisions it, that unquenchable power Grid
which will ultimately come to despoil our planet.

And I think that most characters in Pynchon's work are shown to be
"ridiculous" at one point or another: in fact, far from making them
cartoonish, it actually has a humanising effect. But, compared with just
about any other comparable character in the novel - Maskelyne, Wicks,
Emerson, Lord Lepton, Franklin, Zarpazo, Zhang, even Mason and Dixon
themselves - GW does seem to come off quite nicely on that count too I
think. And I don't think the point is that Gershom is "much smarter" than
George either, or that George is actually "giving orders" at all. If
anything, what they're both mimicking is the traditional master-slave
relationship where the slave actually does what the master bids, and is
totally passive and obsequious in his or her subservience. That doesn't
happen between George and Gersh at all, and George doesn't seem to be upset
about it in the least.

I think it's pretty well-documented that the historical GW was in fact very
solicitous of his slaves' well-being, and that out of the public eye he
wasn't an advocate of the institution at all, far from it in fact, and I
think it's this aspect of his character which Pynchon is picking up on from
the primary source material. Also, I just can't imagine Pynchon readers
being offended by the depiction - and that's another reason why I find it
difficult to believe that he intended the portrayal to be an indictment or
simply somewhat negative, or even only "mock flattering", as Paul puts it. I
had no opinion either way on GW before reading the text, and very little
prior knowledge about him. I truly do find it a complimentary portrayal. The
characterisation just doesn't shock us with a portrait of GW's supposed
villainy, and I think that Pynchon would be pretty sure by now that the type
of reader who reads his fiction isn't going to buy into all the blatantly
patriotic mythologising anyway, as Paul points out. I think it probably
comes as more of shock to some to see GW as a slave-owning, hemp-marketing,
real estate entrepreneur being presented in a positive light in a Pynchon
novel! In the midst of all that graphic and horrific stuff about the
slaughter of the Susquehannas by the Paxton mob in Lancaster Town,
pox-infected blankets and such, and compared with the scene with the
slave-driver later on, the charming scene with George, Gershom and Martha on
the porch really does provide an extremely positive counterpoint.

Paul brings up the scene in Ch. 42 where M & D see Austra again, and the
narrator comments on "what a glamorous International Life it's proving to be
for her too, so far at least. Who says Slavery's so terrible, hey?" (427.31)
Obviously there's irony here, and it's a bit like the narrator's caustic
aside in _V._ about the 60,000 Herero deaths being "only 1 per cent of 6
million, but still pretty good." (245) But there's a major difference too in
that Austra's life *does* seem to be pretty glamorous and exciting, and she
seems pretty pleased with it, almost gloats in fact when she "smiles not at
all enigmatickally" at Mason as he jealously calls her a "Wanton". It's not
so clear-cut what the actual textual sentiment is here at all, there's an
ambivalence about it, and I recall that that particular passage did jump out
at me this time around too.

To fast forward to Ch. 58, we see Washington and Mason playing a friendly
game of billiards in George's local. Again, it is George who has initiated
the meeting, and considering the general temper of the times and his own
erstwhile preeminence amongst the Revolutionary faction, it is both a brave
and a pointedly tolerant invitation which Pynchon has GW make here. The fact
that the invitation is made in "a note tucked into a Frame full of cross'd
Ribbons" (572.9 - What is the significance of these ribbons? Is it an
anachronistic reference to the wearing of ribbons in our times as a sign of
remembrance or solidarity with various causes? Or is there a particular
historical precedent? ... ) anyway, the apparent secrecy of this invitation
illustrates just how dangerous it would have been for George to be seen
consorting in public with Mason, a minion of the much-hated English King.

So, in the fortuitously smoky poolroom, the talk inevitably turns to
Revolution, and white American colonists are described as being "enslaved"
by the British, with someone offering the sentiment that "we're merely
another kind of Nigger" (572). I think the exclamation taking offence at the
use of the term "Nigger" at 572.26 is Washington's, which is why Mason is
suddenly "twitching away", and then the retort at 572.28 is Gershom's, which
is exactly the moment when George recognises his friend's voice. I'm pretty
sure of this now that I read it over again, and it certainly shows us that
Pynchon's GW is quite ready and willing to take an anti-racist stand. And,
note as well that it's actually the "razor sharp" Gershom who intervenes,
risking personal danger in the exposure of his own racial identity, to
defuse the situation and protect his friend, George Washington. Through the
smoky veneer of Pynchon's narrative this is in fact a very telling moment in
my opinion.

I also think that what happens on the next page when Mason recognises Nathe
McClean's voice, and the youngster is acting in exactly the same role as
Gershom, is that an analogy is being made between the lot of a Negro slave
and the lot of a white wage "slave", i.e. all those workers who have been
chopping and clearing and cooking and mucking about as Mason and Dixon's
employees on the Commission over the past couple of years. I have a feeling
that what we're being alerted to in this scene, and in the novel and
Pynchon's works more generally, is that there are basic similarities between
all humans - relationships, behaviours, natures etc, whatever the particular
circumstances - and that it's the degree of benevolence or cruelty of the
"master", whether that master be King, Colonel, slave-owner, or employer,
which makes all the difference.

It's interesting that William Gaddis's early (unpublished) play _Once at
Antietam_, long excerpts from the original script of which crop up as a play
written by one of the characters in his 1994 novel _A Frolic of His Own_,
likewise "brings up this whole question of wage slaves in the North" (_A
Frolic of His Own_ 107) being the equivalent of Negro slaves in the South.
It's quite a radical proposition, but one which neither text is dismissing
lightly. I think this sort of revisionism of the conventional revisionist
posture which we see in both texts is quite radical and ground-breaking. And
I do believe that there's a real affinity between Gaddis's and Pynchon's
work in general, whether conscious or not.

best