Caretta uses examples of literature during or before and after the time of Vassa to support his conclusion, such as The Analytical Review of 1789, The Monthly Review of 1789, The Oracle and the Star (1792) and The Narrative (several of the editions) as main key points in his arguments.(1) All of them being a piece of literature. Using his knowledge of British literature, Caretta calculated that Vassa was indeed born in South Carolina and not in Africa as he claimed in The Narrative. (2) Vincent Cerrata takes a different aproach from Paul Lovejoy because in the examples of his readings, he takes the literal words into account. For an example, the St. Margaret Church recorded that "Gustavas Vassa a Black born in South Carolina".(3) With various other supporting arguments, all literature, Carretta reaches the final conclusion stating that, "what evidence external to The Interesting Narrative do we have that the identity of Olaudah Equiano existed before the name appeared in the first and subsequent editions of Vassa's book?"(4) Obviously his birth place would be be the a main issue concerning Vassa's true identity.
Paul Lovejoy, a history professor uses a different approach with different resources. Lovejoy concludes opposite that of Caretta, "circumstantial evidence indicates that he was born where he said he was, and that, in fact, The Interesting Narrative is reasonably accurate in its details, although, of course, subject to the same criticisms of selectivity and self-inter- ested distortion that characterize the genre of autobiography." (5) However, Lovejoy responds to Caretta's debate conlcuding that Vassa was indeed born in Africa,"basing his (Caretta)analysis on documentary evidence that Vassa was born in South Carolina." (6) Paul Lovejoy uses more historic documents and evidence than that of Caretta's "Olaudah Equiano or Gustavas Vassa?". One example would include the history of the name "Gustavas Vassa" which was a Sweeden King. (7) When questioning the time period that Gustavas Vassas was born, he does not conclude that the written evidence should be taken so literally instead he concludes, "In my opinion, Vassa guessed when he was born, based on his own calculations of when he thought he arrived in England and the fixed date of his baptism in 1759." (8)
These are just small examples of what Lovejoy and Caretta used in their arguments debating the name and identity of Gustavas Vassa. However, Caretta's experience as a professor in the English department has lead to his conclusion based on documents, while Lovejoy's thoughts are from based off what could possibly be human era. He looks at the documents from a different perspective.
1. Vincent, Caretta. "Olaudah Equiano or Gustavas Vassa?" in "New Light on an eight-teenth Century question of identity" : Slavery and Abolition: A Journal of Slave and Post-Slave Studies, 20:3, pp 96-97
2.Ibid, 102
3.Ibid, 102
4.Ibid, 103
5. Lovejoy, E. Paul. "Autobiography and Memory: Gustavas, alias Oluadah Equiano, the African" in "Slavery and Abolition. Vol. 27, No. 3, Decemeber 2006 pp. 318
6.Ibid, 319
7.Ibid, 321
8.Ibid, 322
I think you've nailed the respective arguments of both Carretta and Lovejoy. I admit that I'm envious of how well you presented them.
ReplyDeletePersonally I find it interesting that Lovejoy is less empirical. He's a historian and should not be so open to circumstantial evidence. Of course that is my opinion and I find it to be a fatal flaw in his argument. It is not outside the realm of possibilities that Vassa made up the story of his origin. Hard evidence is far more proof than the memories (real or not) of a child. For that matter, why would an adult Vassa allow his place of birth to be listed as South Carolina in the Racehorse muster book? It just doesn't add up for me.
I think Carretta makes the better argument and in this case the better historian, literature teacher or not.
I can't really argue with you on the points made. The stances of Carretta and Lovejoy both resonate with influence of their respective backgrounds. It just bugs me that the Literature guy had the better argument in my opinion.