Professor Barnes described in one of his lectures the driving force that primary sources like Vassa have in the study of history.[1] Vassa’s narrative would be considered a primary source and as such would be an important consideration for a historian. Lovejoy describes historical methodology as the “process of assessing the evidence in the context of known documentation and other source materials, never trusting any document or other piece of evidence more than it can be verified.”[2] Lovejoy effectively provides this verification by linking Vassa’s recollection of his abduction and subsequent experience as a slave and historical evidence that would provide support to varying aspects of Vassa’s story.[3]
Caretta is clearly influenced in his assessment by his literary background when he suggests that understanding the veracity of the claims of Vassa comes down to the “means, motive and opportunity” surrounding the context of the claims.[4] Caretta persuasively argues that Vassa’s motives were strongly influenced by the need for an authentic African slave experience to support the abolitionist movement of the day, not to mention ascribing a strong financial motive to the author.[5] [6] Caretta also gives away his literary background in his assessment that the autobiography is not a trustworthy source due to the “selectivity and self-interested distortion” of the author.[7] While Lovejoy also has concerns about the accuracy of the autobiography in general, in the case of Vassa, he traces it back to less spurious motives.[8]
[1] Andrew Barnes, “Equiano Lecture 13” (Class Lecture, Arizona State University, Online, accessed March 10, 2012).
[2] Paul E. Lovejoy, Autobiography and Memory: Gustavus Vassa, alias Olaudah Equiano, the African, Slavery and Abolition 27, no. 3 (2006): 331
[3] Ibid, 326-330
[4] Vincent Carretta, Response to Paul Lovejoy’s “Autobiography and Memory: Gustavus Vassa, alias Olaudah Equiano, the African”, Slavery and Abolition 28, no. 1 (2007): 115
[5] Ibid, 116
Question of Identity.” Slavery and Abolition 20, no. 3 (1999): 96.
[7] Vincent Carretta, Response to Paul Lovejoy’s “Autobiography and Memory: Gustavus Vassa, alias Olaudah Equiano, the African”, Slavery and Abolition 28, no. 1 (2007): 115
[8] Lovejoy, 318
Joe,
ReplyDeleteYou effectively summarize the differences between a literary and historical approach to reviewing a primary source. I think your explanation of Lovejoy’s approach would benefit greatly from a few examples of how or where he links Vassa’s recollections with other historical evidence. In particular, Lovejoy’s use of historical methodologies and approach to explain contradictory evidence would be particularly enlightening. As you state, Lovejoy believed historical methodology is “the process of assessing the evidence in the context of known documentation and other source materials, never trusting any document, more than it can be verified.” Lovejoy’s approach is to include the contradictory evidence as part of the larger puzzle, but not using it to completely discount the autobiography as a historical document. As a historian, Lovejoy would understand that there is frequently contradictory evidence, and that all primary source documents play a role in the final interpretation or understanding of history. For Lovejoy, even if further evidence could be found proving beyond any doubt that Vassa was born in some place other than Africa, Vassa’s account will still play an important part of the larger historical record of slavery, the abolitionist movement, and subsequent historical evaluations.
In the same regard, your explanation of the literary influence on Carretta is accurate. One thing that I think might benefit your argument is how his literary influence is particularly evident in his argumentation style in his rebuttal of Lovejoy. His use of rhetorical/argumentation devices paints the argument in a very black and white manner, and shows his inclination towards an understanding of rhetorical analysis, rather than the broader perspective of history.
Joe, my perspective about the Carretta and Lovejoy is pretty similar to yours. I especially agree with your observation that Lovejoy portrayed an image of greed on Equiano(Vassa). Your perceptions are spot on, in my opinion. Only weakness is not discussing the background of Equiano’s autobiography. I agree with your assessment of both Carretta and Lovejoy.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis of the ideas between Caretta and Lovejoy is excellent. Caretta’s thoughts that Vassa lied about his place of birth for the sake of saving his autobiography and the financial gains that would come with it are very agreeable given the evidence, and also given Vassa’s rebuttal to The Oracle in which he said “With a view to hurt my character, and to discredit and prevent the sale of my narrative.” Reading the pieces by Caretta and Lovejoy convinced me that Vassa did in fact lie about his place of birth, but given the fact that he did so in part to end slavery in England, I can’t hold it against him because it worked. However I would have liked to have seen less dialect about the potential sale earnings.
ReplyDelete