Early Indigenous Literatures

On the Page Collaborative Conversation

In the beginning of the conversation in the collaborative space, James Printer, Katherine Garret, Phillis Wheatley, and John Marrant all agreed that while they attempted to alter the paratexts to grant themselves authorship and agency, their every decision was highly surveilled by white publishers[1]. Each literary contributor had a “collaborator,” who they ultimately found more to be an authority who made final decisions in the editing process.[2] For James Printer, this was John Eliot.[3] For Katherine Garret, this was Reverend Adams.[4] For Phillis Wheatley, this was Countess of Huntington.[5] And for John Marrant, this was Reverend Aldridge.[6] The contributors each vocalized that they struggled with calling these figures collaborators since their joint efforts with these people was quite colluded and strained, and often times the contributors of color professed that they felt powerless.[7] The white figures held much power when it came to exact wording and placement of the words within the paratext, but the contributors each admitted that subtle manipulations in their paratext alterations was a necessary strategy to combat white print culture.[8]

Additionally, the literary contributors all recognized their comprehension of the Euro-American printing process.[9]  In our contemporary moment, we could say the writers each had a deep understanding of Karen Weyler’s concept of functional literacy. Weyler writes, “Participation in early American literary culture did not require functional literacy but rather a functional understanding of literacy and how it operated in Anglo-American culture.”[10] Due to their proximity to white printing culture, Printer, Garret, Wheatley, and Marrant all were aware of the constraints and the actions they would have to take that would allow them to be included in Euro-American print culture.[11]

A large negotiation Indigenous and Black contributors agreed they made was utilizing a particular literary genre decided by their white counterparts and defining that genre within the paratext.[12] Printer said that he was confined to a religious genre, as he was specifically asked to translate a Bible that would be handed out to other Indigenous communities in an effort to convert them.[13] He also shared that the word “Biblum” is inserted on the title page to signal the genre he is participating in.[14] Garret revealed she was subjected to the genre of an execution narrative, as “murder” is written, capitalized, and bolded in the paratext, again to signal the genre to the reader.[15] Marrant added that the paratext defines his text as a narrative, and more specifically both he and his readers are aware this is a conversion narrative.[16] Finally, Wheatley vocalized that she wrote a poetry collection and had read several collections written by Euro-American poets in order to understand the form.[17] The contributors were in consensus that genre-conforming was an essential strategy, as “genre was a vessel they used to give legible shape to their lives.”[18]

The four literary contributors also noticed that there was an ordering pattern in the paratextual materials that constantly prioritized the literary genre over their authorship.[19]  Garret’s paratextual materials mentioned the sermon genre first and then her name was added.[20] Marrant’s paratexts included the narrative as the genre first and then incorporated his authorship.[21] The genre of poetry was written first in Wheatley’s paratexts, and then her authorship is inserted.[22] Finally, the Bible is considered a religious text, and no authorship is even granted to Printer’s translation efforts.[23] This ordering of terms equally frustrated all of the literary contributors because it emphasizes the significance of conforming to Euro-American literary genres and their genres are chosen over over the authorship of their contributors of color.[24]

Wheatley and Marrant mentioned that there is a large distinction between Black and Indigenous printing experiences that had to be addressed; they noted that some of their intentional decisions when working with the paratext really depended on their position as a Black or Indigenous contributor. As Black contributors, Wheatley and Marrant each pointed out their frustration in knowing the paratext could have no mention about their opinions on slavery.[25] Joseph Resek indicates that “the relative agnosticism about the question of slavery in texts by Wheatley, Gronniosaw, and Marrant- whose medium, print, greatly increased the chances they would survive.”[26] Due to the pressures to publish and the constraints in place, Wheatley and Marrant strategically were in agreement to not include the topic of slavery in their paratexts.[27] They suggested that this strategy was required for Black literary contributors to first enter the printing space at the time. Due to their insight about the publishing process, Wheatley and Marrant understood what would and would not be published, and as their careers progressed, they continued to push these rigid boundaries.[28]

Here, the contributors also noted their distinct statuses in whether they were free or enslaved and how that appeared in the paratextual materials. John Marrant revealed that he was a free Black man when he wrote his narrative, but he was not free to write whatever he desired because of the printing restraints.[29] He also voiced that he was disappointed that he was unable to self-identify as a free Black man in the paratextual materials, as Aldridge made the decision to define Marrant as solely a “Black.”[30]

At the time of Wheatley’s publication, she was still enslaved, and her servitude was explicitly named in the paratext, as a negro servant.[31] Unlike Marrant’s desire to identified as free, Wheatley preferred that the paratext not refer to her as a servant because that was not her sole or preferred terminology she used to describe herself.[32] She deemed herself a creative poet and intellectual, yet she was subjected to a negro servant in the paratextual materials.[33]  

Garret also noticed that her paratextual materials thought of her to be an Indian servant, which is not what she wanted to be identified as.[34] Although their experiences regarding their servitude were drastically different due to their racial backgrounds, Wheatley and Garret expressed a moment of solidarity in how they were both connected to their servitude in their paratextual materials and their inability to self-identify in their own fashion.[35]

Finally, Printer offered his resentment towards not having any authorship at all.[36] He understood the amount of labor it took for him to translate the Bible, and that he did way more work than John Eliot himself, so he found it unfair that only Eliot was granted the authorship in the paratexts.[37]  

At that moment, all of the literary contributors realized that none of them were identified in the way they desired in the paratextual materials.[38] Usually, they had to hold their anger towards this injustice inward, but collectively they registered that this is a serious problem that they needed to continue resisting.

The literary contributors were of one mind when it comes to the gravity of knowing how paratexts had to be framed so that they could be a part of the archive.[39] Garret presented a vital point that their strategies could be perceived as solely assimilationist.[40] However, they all agreed that an awareness of all the details of the system would strongly help them resist it. The contributors also added that they all were able to enact subtle manipulative acts within the paratext to gain some agency.[41] They each understood the limitations, but all tried to be positive about their resistance within the paratexts. Their resistance consists of their refusal to comply with all of the print culture regulations and their refusal be silenced within the paratexts.[42]

In the collaborative space, each literary contributor declared the strides in their resistance efforts on the page. Printer shared how he strategically ordered the words in the paratext in order to prioritize Nipmuc and other Algonquian languages.[43] He resisted the hierarchies of English languages and the missionaries’ belief that religious words could not be translated.[44] In the paratextual materials there are three enlarged and capitalized phrases; “UP-BIBLUM GOD,” “NUKKONE TESTAMENT,” and “WUSKU TESTAMENT.” Each first word is translated to an Algonquian language, while the second word remains in English. Printer explained that a compromise had to be made between Printer and Eliot in this ordering and wording. While white contributors seemed to want to keep all religious words in English, Printer asserted his resistance to their claim, and he translated some of the religious words into Algonquian languages and chose to have those words presented before the English words.[45]

Garret expressed how she resisted a lack of ownership for her own text by fighting for her authorship and writing in the paratexts that the speech was left under her own hand.[46] Both of these additions in the paratext were immensely central to Garret. The term “under her own hand” highlights that she was able to write effectively and efficiently, and she has the capability to comprehend and use the English language for her own motives of having her story told. The addition of her name in the paratext illustrates her authorship and ownership over her account.[47]

Wheatley insisted that she fought for her authorship and for that to be directly stated in the paratext; the word “by” may seem miniscule to some, but to her, it indicated her authority over the text.[48] Also, Wheatley fought for a photograph of her to be inserted in her paratextual materials. She wanted the photograph to depict that she was able to write, so she held a pen while she was photographed Secondly, she chose to not look at the artist while he drew her, as she found that her gaze away from the white audience was a resistance strategy that enabled her to display her intelligence as she ponders her stylistic choices for her poetry.[49]

Finally, Marrant added that he fought for his name to be presented first in the paratext, both before Reverend Aldridge and the publishers.[50] He wanted his authorship to be incorporated first in the paratext to show that his authorship is a major priority and that he is the most important contributor in the creation of his own text. He had to resist Aldridge’s desires to have his name included first as Marrant continuously fought for his own authorship to be stated first.[51] Marrant also manipulated the size of the words in the paratext so that his name could be larger and bolder to the reader.[52]

Printer, Garret, Wheatley, and Marrant agreed that the efforts of resistance on the page required an immense amount of fearlessness.[53] Each of their paratextual manipulations and their abilities to get their names on the page were significant acts of progress which gave both Black and Indigenous contributors archival status.
 
[1] Phillip H. Round, Removable Type: Histories of the Book in Indian Country, 1663-1880, (2010), 64.
[2] Jodi Schorb, “Seeing Other Wise: Reading a Pequot Execution Narrative,” in Early Native Literacies in New England: A Documentary and Critical Anthology, (2008), 151.
[3] Phillip H. Round, Removable Type: Histories of the Book in Indian Country, 1663-1880, (2010), 5.
[4] Jodi Schorb, “Seeing Other Wise: Reading a Pequot Execution Narrative,” in Early Native Literacies in New England: A Documentary and Critical Anthology, (2008), 151.
[5] Joseph Rezek, “Early Black Evangelical Writing and the Limits of Print,” in African American Literature in Transition, 1750-1800, (2022), 19.
[6] Ibid., 25.
[7] Jodi Schorb, “Seeing Other Wise: Reading a Pequot Execution Narrative,” in Early Native Literacies in New England: A Documentary and Critical Anthology, (2008), 151.
[8] Phillip H. Round, Removable Type: Histories of the Book in Indian Country, 1663-1880, (2010), 18.
[9] Karen Weyler, Empowering Words: Outsiders and Authorship in Early America, (2013), 8.
[10] Ibid., (2013), 8.
[11] Ibid., (2013), 8.
[12] Ibid., (2013), 8.
[13] Lisa Brooks, Our Beloved Kin: A New History of King Philip’s War, (2018), 88.
[14] Karen Weyler, Empowering Words: Outsiders and Authorship in Early America, (2013), 8.
[15] Jodi Schorb, “Seeing Other Wise: Reading a Pequot Execution Narrative,” in Early Native Literacies in New England: A Documentary and Critical Anthology, (2008), 151.
[16] Tara Bynum, “A Silent Book, Some Kisses, and John Marrant’s Narrative,” (2015), 73.
[17] Karen Weyler, Empowering Words: Outsiders and Authorship in Early America, 39.
[18] Ibid., 9.
[19] Eliphalet Adams and Thomas Green, A Sermon Preached on the Occasion of the Execution of Katherine Garret, an Indian-Servant (who Was Condemned for the Murder of Her Spurious Child,) on May 3d. 1738. To Which Is Added Some Short Account of Her Behaviour after Her Condemnation. Together with Her Dying Warning and Exhortation Left Under Her Own Hand, (1738), Print.
[20] Ibid., Print.
[21] John Marrant et al., A Narrative of the Lord’s Wonderful Dealings with John Marrant, a Black :(now Going to Preach the Gospel in Nova Scotia) Born in New York in North America, (1785), Print.
[22] Megan Mulder, “Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral, by Phillis Wheatley (1773),” ZSR Library, February 26, 2013, https://zsr.wfu.edu/2013/poems-on-various-subjects-religious-and-moral-by-phillis-wheatley-1773/
[23] John Eliot and John Cotton, Mamvsse wunneetupanatamwe up-biblum God naneeswe nukkone testament kah wonk wusku testament  / ne quoshkinnumuk nashpe wuttinneumoh Christ noh asoowesit John Eliot, nahohtôeu ontchetôe printeuoomuk,  (1685), Print.
[24] John Marrant et al., A Narrative of the Lord’s Wonderful Dealings with John Marrant, a Black :(now Going to Preach the Gospel in Nova Scotia) Born in New York in North America, (1785), Print.
[25] Joseph Rezek, “Early Black Evangelical Writing and the Limits of Print,” in African American Literature in Transition, 1750-1800, (2022), 35.
[26] Rhondda Robinson Thomas, African American Literature in Transition, 1750-1800, (2022), 35.
[27] Joseph Rezek, “Early Black Evangelical Writing and the Limits of Print,” in African American Literature in Transition, 1750-1800, (2022), 35.
[28] Ibid., 26.
[29] Karen Weyler, Empowering Words: Outsiders and Authorship in Early America, 98.
[30] John Marrant et al., A Narrative of the Lord’s Wonderful Dealings with John Marrant, a Black :(now Going to Preach the Gospel in Nova Scotia) Born in New York in North America, (1785), Print.
[31] Megan Mulder, “Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral, by Phillis Wheatley (1773),” ZSR Library, February 26, 2013, https://zsr.wfu.edu/2013/poems-on-various-subjects-religious-and-moral-by-phillis-wheatley-1773/
[32] Karen Weyler, Empowering Words: Outsiders and Authorship in Early America, (2013), 39.
[33] Megan Mulder, “Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral, by Phillis Wheatley (1773),” ZSR Library, February 26, 2013, https://zsr.wfu.edu/2013/poems-on-various-subjects-religious-and-moral-by-phillis-wheatley-1773/
[34] Jodi Schorb, “Seeing Other Wise: Reading a Pequot Execution Narrative,” in Early Native Literacies in New England: A Documentary and Critical Anthology, (2008), 153.
[35] Eliphalet Adams and Thomas Green, A Sermon Preached on the Occasion of the Execution of Katherine Garret, an Indian-Servant (who Was Condemned for the Murder of Her Spurious Child,) on May 3d. 1738. To Which Is Added Some Short Account of Her Behaviour after Her Condemnation. Together with Her Dying Warning and Exhortation Left Under Her Own Hand, (1738), Print.
And Megan Mulder, “Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral, by Phillis Wheatley (1773),” ZSR Library, February 26, 2013, https://zsr.wfu.edu/2013/poems-on-various-subjects-religious-and-moral-by-phillis-wheatley-1773/
[36] John Eliot and John Cotton, Mamvsse wunneetupanatamwe up-biblum God naneeswe nukkone testament kah wonk wusku testament  / ne quoshkinnumuk nashpe wuttinneumoh Christ noh asoowesit John Eliot, nahohtôeu ontchetôe printeuoomuk,  (1685), Print.
[37] Lisa Brooks, Our Beloved Kin: A New History of King Philip’s War, (2018), 89.
[38] Karen Weyler, Empowering Words: Outsiders and Authorship in Early America, (2013), 39.
[39] Ibid., 8.
[40] Jodi Schorb, “Seeing Other Wise: Reading a Pequot Execution Narrative,” in Early Native Literacies in New England: A Documentary and Critical Anthology, (2008), 159.
[41] Phillip H. Round, Removable Type: Histories of the Book in Indian Country, 1663-1880, (2010), 18.
[42] Joseph Rezek, “Early Black Evangelical Writing and the Limits of Print,” in African American Literature in Transition, 1750-1800, (2022), 18.
[43] Phillip H. Round, Removable Type: Histories of the Book in Indian Country, 1663-1880, (2010), 29.
[44] Ibid., 29.
[45] Ibid., 18.
[46] Jodi Schorb, “Seeing Other Wise: Reading a Pequot Execution Narrative,” in Early Native Literacies in New England: A Documentary and Critical Anthology, (2008), 151.
[47] Ibid., 153.
[48] Karen Weyler, Empowering Words: Outsiders and Authorship in Early America, (2013), 22.
[49] Megan Mulder, “Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral, by Phillis Wheatley (1773),” ZSR Library, February 26, 2013, https://zsr.wfu.edu/2013/poems-on-various-subjects-religious-and-moral-by-phillis-wheatley-1773/
[50] Karen Weyler, Empowering Words: Outsiders and Authorship in Early America, (2013), 22.
[51] Joseph Rezek, “Early Black Evangelical Writing and the Limits of Print,” in African American Literature in Transition, 1750-1800, (2022), 26.
[52] John Marrant et al., A Narrative of the Lord’s Wonderful Dealings with John Marrant, a Black :(now Going to Preach the Gospel in Nova Scotia) Born in New York in North America, (1785), Print.
[53] Karen Weyler, Empowering Words: Outsiders and Authorship in Early America, (2013), 2.

This page has paths: