Proslavery Politics and Classical Authority Antonio Canovas George

7/23/2019 Proslavery Politics and Classical Authority Antonio Canovas George

1/33

American Academy in Rome and University of Michigan Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome.

http://www.jstor.org

PROSLAVERY POLITICS AND CLASSICAL AUTHORITY: ANTONIO CANOVA'S "GEORGEWASHINGTON"Author(s): Christopher M. S. JohnsSource: Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Vol. 47 (2002), pp. 119-150Published by: for theUniversity of Michigan Press American Academy in RomeStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4238795Accessed: 18-08-2015 16:26 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:26:50 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=umphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaromehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4238795http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4238795http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaromehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=umphttp://www.jstor.org/


2/33

PROSLAVERYOLITICS

AND CLASSICAL

UTHORITY:

ANTONIOCANOVA'S EORGE

WASHINGTON

Christopher

.S.

Johns,

University

f

Virginia

f

all the

public monuments executed

by

Antonio

Canova

in

a

career that

began

in

the ancien

regime

and

ended

during

the

Restoration,

George

Washington

s

argu-

ably

the

least well

known

today.

Paradoxically,

Washington

was the

era's most

widely

re-

spected and

admired

hero,

and

not

only

in

the

United

States.

A

statue

of

him made

by

Europe's

most

celebrated artist

created

an

unprecedented

degree

of

excitement on both

sides of the Atlantic. Unfortunately,a fire in remote Raleigh,North Carolina,destroyed

the

statue

in

1831.

This

tragic

loss,

coupled with a shift in

artistic

taste

away

from the

neoclassical

aesthetic,

soon

consigned

George

Washington

o near

oblivion,

despite

the

fact

that

Canova's

original

scale

modello

survives

(fig. 1).

In

addition,

a

large number of

engravings record the

sculpture's

appearance,

albeit with

widely

varying

degrees

of

me-

diation. Even

today,

in

an

era

more

tolerant of

classically

engaged

art,

George

Washing-

ton is

known

only

to

specialists.'

In

this

article I

argue

that

conflagrationsand

modernist

aesthetic

aversionare

not the

only

reasons this

late

masterpiece

by

Canova

s so

little

known

and

appreciated.

Commis-

sioned partly as a public symbol of planter-aristocraticrule by the political elite of a

slaveholding

state,

Canova's

George

Washington,n

its

antebellum

North

Carolina

context,

overturned

neoclassical

xpectations

regarding

monuments

o

antique

virtue

and

transgressed

againstreceived

traditionsof

heroic

emulation.

Indeed,

the

planter

politicos

of the

Tar

Heel

State

saw

in

George

Washington ot

only

a

model

patriot

and

disinterested

statesman

but

also a

marble

embodiment

of their

own

rightto

rule.

This

deeply

conservative

nd

antidemo-

cratic

agenda

has

generally

been

more

intuited

than

explicitly

recognized

andhas,

I

believe,

tended to

divert

scholarly

crutiny

rom

this

highly

significant

workof

art.A

careful

recon-

structionof

the

monument's

ontext-from

the

termsof

the

commission

o its

official

recep-

tion in Raleigh n 1821-should help not only to clarifythe sculpture's ignificance or the

development

of

nineteenth-century

American

artbut

alsoto

illuminate

he

political

expecta-

tions

for

public art in

the

Old

South.

George

Washington

lso

marks a

crucial

shift

in the

cultural

politics of

the

classical

radition.

Graeco-Roman

recedent,

once

deployed

o

visual-

ize

a

utopian

future,

was

reconceptualized s

a

justificationof

the

status

quo.

I

wish

to

thank

MaurieD.

McInnis,

Jeffrey

L.

Collins,

Elizabeth

A.

Meyer,

and

the

anonymous

eaders or

sev-

eral

suggestions hat

have

substantially

mproved

my ar-

ticle. I

also

thank

Donald

McColl

for a

kind

invitation

to

lecture on

Canova's

George

Washingtont Washing-

ton

College n

2001.

1

The

statue,

mentioned

only

briefly n

the

Canova

it-

erature

and n

historiesof

American

culpture,has been

the

focus of

only one

sustained

nvestigation, he

out-

dated

butstill

useful

account

of

Connor

1910.

This

pub-

lication

was

the

source

or

muchof

Fehl

1968.

Both

pub-

lications are valuablesourcesfor relevantdocuments

pertaining o

the

commission

but

make

no

attemptto

place

the

work in

its

political

context.

MAAR

47,

2002

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/33

120 CHRISTOPHERM. S.

JOHNS

Fig.

1.

Antonio

Canova,

George

Washington,

c.

1816

1817.

Possagno,

Gipsoteca

Canoviana.

1.

The

History

of

the Commission

On 16 December

1815,

shortly

after the end of hostilities between

Great Britain

and

the

United States in the War of

1812,

the Senate

and House of Commons of the state of

North

Carolinaointly resolved~~~~~~~~+,

o co"mmissio;e*%n

a

-

full length+n

,I.

ttu

of4

G-,eo*rge

Washingtonor,%

the

%



4/33

PROSLAVERY

OLITICSAND

CLASSICAL

AUTHORITY

121

state

house

in

Raleigh.

Commander-in-chieff the

American

armies

during

he Warof

Inde-

pendence

(1775-1783),

Washington

also servedas

the first

president

of the new

nation,

retir-

ing

from

public life at the end of his

second term

in

1797.

He died

two

years

ater

in

1799

at

Mt. Vernon,his Virginiaplantationon the banks of the PotomacRiver,opposite the new

national

capital that had

been named

in

his honor. It

would be

difficult to

exaggerate

he

significanceof

Washington's

ersonality

ult

during

he

early

national

era,

and

his

reputation

for

patriotism,

determination,

modesty,

and

disinterestedness

made

him

the model

statesman

for the

new

republic.

That he was a

slaveholding

planter-aristocrat

ho

possessed

great

mili-

tary

and

political

power

and

voluntarily

surrendered t to

return

to

plantation

life,

a

la

Cincinnatus

returning

o the

plow,

particularly

ndeared

him

to

Southern

politicians

who

wished to

see

themselvesreflected n

his

image.

North

Carolina

was not

alone

n

its

desire o

honorthe

paterpatriae.

Many

tates,

counties,

andmunicipalities addiscussedvarious ypesof monumentso honorWashingtonn the pe-

riod

following

his

death, but

many

of

these took

years

to

realize,

and

the vast

majority

f the

proposalscame

o

nothing.What

makes

he

Raleigh tatue

so

unusual s

the

alacrity

with

which

the

legislativedecision

was

made,

the

intelligent

canvassing

f the

most

sophisticated esthetic

opinion

available,

he

relative

reedom

given

to the

artistand

to

the liaison

(Thomas

Appleton)

for

the

project

n

Italy,

and

the

unflinching

cceptance f the

statue's

very

high

priceby

a

state

notorious

or

resistance

o

almostall

forms of

taxation

and

public

expenditure.

Most

remark-

able,

however,was the

choice of

Antonio

Canova or

the

commission.

No

expense

was to

be

spared,

and

the

legislature

learly

not

only envisioned

he

monument

as a

tribute

to the

first

presidentbut

also

believed

it would

be a

tangible

proof of

state

support

for the

arts.Such

attitudes

n

Charleston,

Baltimore,

Philadelphia, r New

York

would

be

unsurprising,

ut in

1815

Raleigh

had

fewer

han

2,000

inhabitants, nd

North

Carolina

wasthe

poorest

state n

the

Union.

Astonishingly,

he

entire

expenditureor all

aspects

of the

commission

otaled

$12,487.50,

while

public

revenues n

the

state

peakedat

$137,712.74

n

1818.2

Thus,the

Canova

tatue's

cost

was a

noteworthy

percentageof

the

state's

ncome

during he

lean

years

mmediatelyol-

lowingthe War

of

1812.

For

financial

reasons f

for

no

other,

there

can be no

questionthat

Canova's

George

Washington

as of

the

utmost

significance o

the

politicians

who

paidfor

it.3

Popular

enthusiasm

or the

War of

1812

was

widespread

n

North

Carolina,

and it

re-

vived

fadingmemoriesof

the

heroes

of

the first

struggle or

independence rom

Britain,

above

all the memoryof GeorgeWashington.Thus,

martial

ardorand

patriotismwere

major

ac-

tors

in

the

legislature's

decision

to

commissiona

statue

of

Washingtonor

the

state

house. It

is

said

that a

Fourth

of

July

speech in

Raleigh n

1815

by

legislatorA.

G.

Glynnwas

the

direct

inspiration

or

the

monument,

but

there is

considerable

videnceto

suggest

that

discussion

about a

statue

of

Washington

was

commonplace.4

When the

legislative

session

opened

in

2

In 1820

North

Carolina

had

the

smallest

per

capita

in-

come in

the

country.

Connor

[1929]

1973,

1:445. The

costs for

the

monument

break

down as

follows:

To

Canova:

$7,107;

To

Trentanove, for

the

pedestal

reliefs:

$4,044;

Transport,

customs, the

agent

Thomas

Appleton's

ex-

penses, etc.:

$336.50;

Appleton's

honorarium:

$500;

Total:

$12,487.50.

3

See Fehl

1968,

542, who

cites

the

primary

documents.

See

Connor

[1929]

1973,

1:463-469, with

additional

bibliography.

The

costs

for

the

renovation

of

the

capi-

tol

are

not

included in

this

figure

but

are

obviously a

collateral expenditure to be considered in relation to

the

statue.

I

Williams

1957-1958, 23;

see

also

Lemmon

1971.

The

Glynn

speech,

highly

laudatory

of

Washington

and

the

"patriots of

1776,"

was

reprinted in

the 7

July

1815 is-

sue

of

the

Raleigh

Register, a

newspaper

with

strong ties

to

the

Democratic-Republican

Party.



5/33

122

CHRISTOPHER

M.

S.

JOHNS

November,

a monument o

Washington

was

an

early opic

of debate.

The

bill

authorizing

he

commissionpassed

easily,

even

though

there was considerable

opposition

to the

expendi-

ture,especially

rom

the

state'swestern

counties,

the

importance

of whichwill be

considered

in due course. On 3 January1817 the RaleighRegisterproclaimedthat "in order to per-

petuate

the

memory

of

[Washington]

the

Legislature

have

ordered a

superb

MARBLE

STATUE,

to be erected

by

the

first

ARTIST

in

the

WORLD,

the

celebrated CANOVAof Rome

. . .

and

which

will

no doubt be the finest

piece

of

sculpture

n the

U. States."This

notice

was

picked

up

by several

other

newspapers

and

generated

much

favorable

publicity

for the state.

Sig-

nificantly

for

the

present

argument,

most

outside interest

in

the

statue

came

from the

slaveholdingstates.5

Working

out the

particulars

f the

commission,however,

ook most

of the

year

1816 to

complete.

These detailed

negotiations

are

crucialto

understanding

he

agenda

of the

North

Carolinapoliticians n decidingto pursuetheproject.At the suggestionof ThomasJefferson,

whose

opinion

had

been

solicited

by

state

officials,

Thomas

Appleton,

United States

consul

in

Livorno

(Leghorn), he

majorport

in

the Grand

Duchyof

Tuscany,was

selected

by Gover-

nor

William Miller to serve as liaison

between the

legislature

and Canova.

Appleton

had

little

difficulty

in

persuading

the

overworked

sculptor

to

accept

the

commission,

undoubtedly

be-

cause of

the

person

whom

the statue

was to

honor.

Appleton forwarded

Canova's

response to

Jefferson and sent

a

translation

to

Governor

Miller

in

Raleigh.

The

artist's

reasons for

ac-

cepting

the task

are

worth

considering:

Sir,I am

responding

mmediatelyo

thegracious

etterwith

which you

havebeen

pleased

to offer me the commission or a marblestatue of the immortalWashington, or one of

the

states

of

the

United

Statesof

America.Truly

hemany

worksto which I

am

obligated

for

manyyears o come

oughtto mean

that

I

would

onlythank

you forthis

honorable ask

[and

decline

t],

but

myadmiration or

thegreat

Geniuswho

performed

uchgreat

deeds

and

for the

healthand

libertyof his

nation

demand hat

I adopt every

force....

I

there-

fore

accept

the

commission.6

It should

also be

acknowledged

that Canova,

at the

zenith of

his fame, was

eager to

send an

example

of

his art to the

United

States.

Before

discussing the

iconography of

Canova's

George

Washington,

which is one

of the

primary keys to its interpretation, I would like to call attention to the extraordinary proac-

tive

legislative efforts to

protect the

statue from

the

public. The

revolutionary

epoch had

witnessed

spectacular acts of

political

iconoclasm,

above all to

public

sculpture, but the

state's

obsession

with the

issue is

nonetheless

surprising, given

the almost

universal

veneration for

Washington.7

In

a

poem addressed to

Canova

published

by an

anonymous author

in a

news-

paper

in

1817, the

possibility of the

statue's

defacement is

addressed

directly:

I

Alexandria

(Va.)

Herald,

20

January

1817;

Richmond

(Va.)

Commercial

Compiler, 7

February

1817;

Savannah

(Ga.)

Repuhlican, 9 January 1817; among many others.

6

Quoted in

Fehl 1968,

530.

7

The

politicization

of public

sculpture in

late

eighteenth-

century France has

been

intelligently discussed

by

Merrick

1991. The

destruction

of

royalist

and

ecclesias-

tical

monuments

all

over

Europe

during the

Revolution-

aryand

Napoleonic era

deeply

shocked

many artists.

For

Canova's

negative reaction

to

iconoclasm

and its

influ-

ence on his public sculpture, see Johns 1998, esp. chap.

3.

The

most

spectacular

loss

was

Edme

Bouchardon's

Louis

XV, a

colossal

bronze

equestrian

monument

that

had

stood

in

the

Place

Louis

Quinze.

See

McClellan

2000,

with

additional

bibliography.

In the

early

days of

the

American

Revolution a

statue

of

George

III in

New

York

City

was

destroyed by

an

iconoclastic

mob;

see

Marks

1981.



6/33

PROSLAVERY

OLITICS

AND CLASSICAL

AUTHORITY

123

'Tisgratitude

hat consecrates

he

Shrine

No commontask,

great artist, hen,

is

thine.

No pretty

decorations hould

disgrace,

(To

tempt

the idle trav'ler

o

deface

Thisnoble tributeto his honor'dname:)

No pen

of

history -No trump

of Fame 8

This ambiguous

bit of doggerel

may

be

an

attack

on the complicated

allusions ("pen

of

history

") and

allegories

("trump

of Fame

")

often encountered

n

European

monumental

sculpture,

but the

phrase

"To

tempt

the idle trav'lerto deface"

is

more

difficult to

inter-

pret. Could

it be directed

to a foreign, possibly

a

British,

tourist? Since

it was

generally

known

that

the statue

was to

be set

up

in an

interior, protected

space-the

state

house-

rather

than a public square,

this concern

seems even

more

puzzling.

Indeed,

the

issue of

possible harmbeing done to the monumentoccasionedmore discussionin the legislature

than

did the

original

commission.

On 29

December

1821,

shortly

after

Canova's

statue arrived

n

Raleigh,

the

governor

signed

a

bill into law

making

t a crime to "injure

or deface"the sculpture.

Both

the

Senate

and the

Commons

debated

the

bill

at

length,

adding

"spit

on" and

"in

any way

stain"

to

"injure

r deface"

as "indictable

offenses."9 uch

stipulations

ndicate

an

uneasiness

over the

sculpture's

vulnerabilityand

were doubtless

wise precautions

o

protect

an

important

and

expensive

work

of art.

I

wonder,however,

f

an

image

of Washington,

a

symbol

(at

least to

some

viewers)

of

planter

aristocracy

nd elite government

by a landed,

slaveholding

minor-

ity,mayalso haveneeded protectionfrompoliticallymotivatedabuse.Moreover,could the

slaves who

worked

in the state house and

who were charged

with

cleaning

the statue

have

been

perceived

as a threat

to the monument's

afety?

In

any event,

the fact that

the legisla-

tors believed it necessary

o takelegal steps

to protecta statue

placed

only a few

stepsaway

from where

they

convened

to make andinterpret

he state's

awsis perhaps

evidence,

admit-

tedly speculative,

hatWashington's

opular egacy

mayhave been

morepoliticized

n 1821

than

it

was

in

the years

mmediately ollowing

his

death in 1799.

2. TheIdeology fIconography

One of

the

most remarkable

eatures

of Canova's

George

Washington,

nd the aspect

of the

statue that occasioned

the most

commentat

the time, was

the

ancientRoman

militarycos-

tume.

In

works

of

art

Americans

hadrarely een

Washington

wearinganything

other than

his

8

The

poem is addressed"ToSignor

Canova,

at

Rome,

on His

Being Chosen

by

the

Legislature

f

North Caro-

lina, to Execute a Marble Statue of

Washington,with

Appropriate mblems o be

Left

to His Own

Taste."The

artist,

who had some

readingknowledgeof

English,

al-

most certainlynever saw it (norwas he probablyever

intended to see it). It was published

in

the

Daily

Na-

tional

Intelligencer

in

Washington,D.C.,

on

15 January

1817.

PublishedCourtesyof the

ResearchFiles of the

Museumof Early Southern

Decorative

Arts, Winston-

Salem,

North

Carolina.

9

"The

bill

making

t

anindictable

offense to injure or

deface the

statue

of

General

Washington was read,

and,

on

motion

of

Mr.

Seawell,

was amendedby add-

ing

in

the sixth

line of the first

section, the words 'spit

on' and on

motion of Mr.

Williamson, the

same was

further

amendedby addingin

the said line

the words

'or in anyway stain.'Whereupon he said bill was read

the second and third

time,

as

amended,

and

passed."

Journal

of

the

Senate and House of

Commonsof the

General

Assembly of North

Carolina, 29 December

1821, quoted in Fehl

1968, 536-537. The

"in any way

stain"

may

refer to

either urine

or,

more

ikely,

obacco

juice.



7/33

124

CHRISTOPHER

M. S.

JOHNS

Fig. 2. Jean-AntoineHoudon, George

Washington,

786-1792.

Richmond,Va.,

State

Capitol

Rotunda (photo VirginiaStateLibrary).

l | 1 |- )' t t,2.........................................................,'?'i}227,'({'...S....*.....l

l | | | - X j, a>,< .e . .

p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...

....

Continental

Army regimental

uniform or the

elegant

but understated civilian attire of the

late

eighteenth-century gentleman.

In

sculpture, Jean-Antoine

Houdon's

George Washington

in Richmond, Virginia, was the prototype (fig. 2). Painted portraits by Charles Willson Peale,

John

Trumbull,

and

especially

Gilbert

Stuart,

among myriad

other

artists,

were familiar to

many through copies

and

inexpensive engravings.

The issue of costume for Canova's statue

was

extensively debated,

but

the

opinions

of Thomas

Jefferson,

Senator

Nathaniel

Macon

of

North

Carolina,

and other

prominent

Americans with a

reputation

for

knowledge

of the fine

arts

convinced

Governor Miller

to

stipulate classicizing

Roman

military

dress

for the

statue,

although

the

sculptor

was

given

a

relatively

free hand in most other

respects.

Such

a

historicizing

solution

marks an

important departure

from the

Benjamin

West-inspired

em-

phasis

on

contemporary

dress

in

the neoclassical treatment of

subjects

from modern

history.

This

phenomenon

is

possibly

connected to the broader shift

in

Washington's personality

cult

from a

larger-than-life

but still

accessible

modern

hero to

the realm

of the

remote,

mythic,

and eternal

deity

for the

ages.

Given Canova's aesthetic

preferences,

Roman dress

in

all like-

lihood would also have been his

personal

choice.'0

10

Given the problems with nudity Canova encountered

with Napoleon as Mars the Peacemaker (1803-1806), rep-

resenting Washington in the buff would likely not

have

been

considered

a

viable option;

see

Johns 1990, 368-



8/33

PROSLAVERY

OLITICSAND CLASSICALAUTHORITY 125

The best

contemporary description

of the costume of the

original

statue of

Washing-

ton

I have

encountered

was

published

in the

Norfolk (Va.)

Herald on 22

June 1821,

months

before

it arrived from

Rome,

and

very

likely

written

by

someone

who had seen it on

display

in Canova's studio:

He is clad

in

the

Roman

costume,

the head and neck

bare,

a

close vest with

braccie,

with

a

girdle

round

the

waist, upon

which

is

displayed

Medusa's

nakyhead,

and otherem-

blems of the Roman

taste.

The

toga,

or

cloak,

is

drawn close

round the

neck,

and de-

scends

in luxuriant olds to the floor.

The

legs

bare to the

knee,

the feet covered

with

sandals....11

As Andrew McClellan

has

pointed out,

costume alla

romana

enjoyed

universal

authority

and

legibility

in

ancien

regime Europe.

Even Etienne Maurice

Falconet,

an

outspoken proponent

of modern dress in sculpture, favored Roman attire for imperial images that demanded height-

ened respect

and

augmented dignity.12

Even

so,

there was no real consensus as

to

the

superi-

ority

of ancient or

contemporary

dress

for

monumental

public sculpture,

at

least

in

the United

States.

Thus,

in

terms of

costume,

the

Raleigh George Washingtongenerated

considerable

controversy.

What would have been less clear to most American viewers who felt

uneasy

about the

first

president appearing

in

Roman

armor, however, was the fact that the

perfectly

conven-

tional

European

accessories

(sandals,

breastplate, stylus, etc.)

that

the

sculptor

used to make

the costume

philologically

correct were standard stuff

in

Italy

and were not an

attempt to

impose on American sensibilities. The fact that Canova based the pose on a celebrated antiq-

uity-the Ludovisi Mars-was also

fully

in

keeping with

neoclassical sculptural practice.

Houdon

earlier

had

included the

antique fasces

with his otherwise contemporary rendering

of

the

Father

of the

Nation, and even such

canonical painted portraitsof Washington in mod-

ern

dress as those

by

Gilbert Stuart and Thomas

Sully deploy

ordnance from the venerable

arsenal

of

the

seventeenth-century

baroque princely portrait.

In

sum, for many Americans

understanding

of

a

"modern"

portrait was largely limited to

contemporary clothing and a

specific physiognomy. Classical

allusions and accessories could be

tolerated if the likeness

was

convincingly

"real."

Through the agency of Senator Nathaniel Macon, Thomas Jefferson became the lead-

ing proponent of

antique dress for the North Carolina George

Washington. As soon as the

state

legislature passed the bill in

favor of the monument, Governor Miller wrote to the

state's senators

in

Washington, D.C., asking them to solicit

expert opinion. Jefferson, a

political

ally

of

Macon, was the first

to respond to the appeal, and his intervention was

decisive.

In

addition to

stating

authoritatively that the sculpture could only be executed in

3 82

and

Johns 1994,

with

additional

bibliography. Sev-

eral

early sources

say that Canova

read Botta

1809 while

he

was

working on

the

statue

of

Washington.

This

multivolume history was translated into English by

George

Alexander Otis and

published

in

Philadelphia

in

1820-1821.

11

The story

was

repeated

in

the

Maryland

Gazette

of

Annapolis on

5

July

1821. The

notice

continues:

"With

regard to

the

dress, it is

said

he

[Canova]

could not haz-

ard

his

reputation

by

attempting any

other than

that

which was

most

familiarwith

him,

and

which is

best

adapted o

his taste and

genius. In

the

opinion

of

ama-

teurs,

this is

Canova's

happiest

effort-so

he has

been

heard to declare himself, and the Pope [Pius VII

Chiaramonti]

nd

Cardinal

Ercole]

Consalvihaveex-

pressed

the

same

opinion."

Consalviwas

the papal

sec-

retary of

state.

Courtesy

of the

Research

Files of

the

Museum

of

Early

Southern

Decorative

Arts,

Winston-

Salem,

North

Carolina.

12

McClellan

000, 18,

who

quotes

Falconet

1781.



9/33


JOHNS

}~~~~~~~~~~~~

.....

..:

..',,.,.

..............................................................................................

,,

/M

; l | l : '

.... : .

' : u .

v.

: . ''5 l '5, X , i | | | | | . ..................................

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

..... .....

... .. ... .........

.|E l w

g Sg _ _

.._..

.;s , } * ........ - _ _

...... ...

.

_

~ ~~~~~

#~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- ---

Fig. 3. ThomasJefferson,State Capitol,Richmond, Va., 1785-1 789 (photo VirginiaState

Lihrary).

Italy and that "old Canove" in Rome was the only sculptor who could do

justice to the com-

mission, Jefferson

also

emphatically

advocated ancient Roman dress for the statue. In an im-

portant

letter written to Macon

from Monticello on

22

January 1816 Jefferson

declared: "As to

the

style

or

costume,

I

am sure

the artist, and every person of taste in Europe

would be for the

Roman, the effect of which is undoubtedly

of a different order. Our boots and

regimentals have

a

very puny

effect."'3

The "puny effect" of modern military dress raises some highly interesting

issues related

to

Jefferson's

earlier involvement with Houdon's George Washington in the Virginia capitol,

a

building

he had

designed

in

a

progressive neoclassical style (fig. 3). Early

in 1786, Jefferson

wrote to

Washington

to

ask his opinion about costume for the Richmond monument. He

modestly

demurred

but mentioned

West's preference for contemporary dress for modern

themes,

as

in

the famous Death

of General Wolfe of 1771 (fig. 4). Jefferson

obligingly con-

formed to

Washington's

clear but unstated preference for the modern. Epistolary evidence,

however, suggests that Jefferson

also favored modern dress at the time, despite H. H.

Arnasson's claims to the contrary, and that his views on the issue had changed dramatically

by

1816.14 It should also be considered

that Jefferson's change from modern to ancient dress

13

Quoted

in Connor

1910, 23-26. This letter

was

for-

warded to the governor

in

Raleigh,

who was

guided by

it

in

every respect.

14

Arnason 1975, 72-73 argues

that, although Jefferson

preferred

antique dress for Houdon's statue, he

acqui-

esced to

Washington's desire to be shown in

his uniform.



10/33

PROSLAVERYOLITICS

AND CLASSICALAUTHORITY

127

*.......................................|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

. ..

...

.... .....

Fig.

4.

Benjamin

West,

The Deathof General

Wolfe,

1771.

Ottawa,

National

Gallery

of

Canada.

for

images

of

Washington may

be due to more than

simply changing

taste.

The

Sage

of

Monticello was

politically

more conservative in 1816 than he had been in

the

1780s,

and

ancient tradition and aesthetic

authority,

above all in the

public sphere

of

patrician,

slaveholding, agrarian government, may

have had an

enhanced

appeal.

As a visualization of ancient Roman auctoritas

grafted

onto the

political

context of the

early

American

republic,

Canova's use of

antique military

dress was

highly

successful.

Many

in the new

nation, however,

deeply

resented

European

cultural

imports

of

any

kind and

vo-

ciferously

objected

to

the

latinization of the

pater patriae.

Some attacks on

antique

costume

had a

decidedly

chauvinistic

and

xenophobic

tone.

A

letter

published

in

the

American Re-

corder

n

Washington,

D.C.,

on 2

9

January

1819,

signed simply

"A

Plain

Man,"

is a

character-

istic

example

of this

type

of criticism. Written

in

response

to a discussion about a

proposed

equestrian

monument to

Washington

attired

alla

romana,

"Plain Man"

clearly

had in

mind

newspaper descriptions

of the

Raleigh

statue when he

pontificated:

I

will not

attempt

to state

my

ideas of the

propriety

of our

erecting

statues,

etc.

(which

have ever been the

toys

of ambitious

monarchs)

.. but I do

hope,

that if

any

such

statue

A

letter written later

in

1786 by Jefferson warmly cham-

pions contemporary dress and

denigrates

the

antique.

See Hallam

1978, 75-77,

who

publishes

the text of the

letter. Houdon, unlike Canova, had little input

in

the

decision, although he

probably wanted to portray Wash-

ington

in

ancient garb, possibly as a proof of his abilities

in the heroic genre, hoping to receive the commission

for

a colossal equestrian monument then being promoted

by Jefferson; see Arnason 1975, 73.



11/33

128 CHRISTOPHER. S.

JOHNS

Fig.5. Horatio

Greenough,eorge

..

.

.

i.

Washington,832-1841.

Washington,

.C.,

Smithsoniannstitution.

should be erected

...

it will

represent

our hero

in

his

proper emphasis

mine]

dress ...

and not in the robes

and

nakedness

of ancient

statues,

with a

truncheon

in

his hand.

This

may

be an uncouth and awkward

opinion;

but I was never

more

forcibly

struck

with the

propriety

.. than on

entering

the

capitol

in

Richmond,

and

seeing

there

a

statue

of the

illustrious

hero,

in

the

military

dress

of the

Revolution .. .

I

was

pleased

with the

independence emphasis

his and

mine]

of the dress. Our little

gentlemenmay

have formedtheir tastein antiquemoulds,but I do not think this is anyconsent thatit

is

correct."

In

this

amusingly self-righteous

letter to the

editor,

contemporary

dress for statues is

equated

with

patriotism

and to a

great degree

defines

the artistic

quality

of

being

"American." The

"little

gentlemen," including Jefferson,

are all but accused

of

being unpatriotic

(with

a hint

of

a

charge

of

effeminacy)

for their

cosmopolitan

aesthetic notions.

Representative

of a

grow-

ing segment

of

public opinion,

this

anonymous

tirade

helped

to

prepare

the

ground

for

the

wholesale

rejection

of

Horatio

Greenough's George

Washington (fig.

5).

Unfortunately

for

the

sculptor, by

the

early

1840s

the American

public usually

associated overt

classicism

and

sculptural

nudity

with

"decadent"

European

traditions that seemed

not

only

alien but mor-

ally

tainted. To

portray

a cultural icon and

ur-patriot

like

George Washington

in

such a man-

ner

was little short of

blasphemous.

15

Courtesy

f the ResearchFiles

of the Museumof

Early

Sou-

1-___

hern

- - - -- -

D c ai -Ar----'Vts,

- - - C'- - -' T

W s - l North

-_1

C r Ina.



12/33

PROSLAVERYOLITICSAND

CLASSICAL UTHORITY

129

Much

greater

damage

was

done

to

the

reputation

of

Canova's

George

Washington

nd

its

antique garb by the art

critic

Edward

Everett,

who

published

in

the North

American

Review

the

first

analysis

of

the

sculptor's

career

to

appear

outside

Europe.16

Based

largely

on translationsof Italian and Germanbiographiesof Canovaand on newspaperaccounts

of individual

sculptures,

Everett

went out

of

his

way

to

condemn

the

choice

of

antique

dress for the

Raleigh monument.

In

addition,

he

pronounced

the head an

unsatisfactory

likeness

although

he

obviously

had

never seen the statue.

Many

of

the

errors

and

inven-

tions

in

the article

have

been

repeated

in

the literature on

the artist and the

sculpture

to

the

presentday.

Everett

claimed that Canova

had

complained

of

a lack

of

adequate

models

for the

portrait,a mendacious

charge

that

all reliable

accounts

refute.'7

Moreover,

he

erro-

neously states

that

Washington s

portrayed

n

the act

of

writing

the

Constitution

( )

with a

styluson a

tablet

when,

in

fact,

the

intended text was

the

salutation

of

the

celebrated"Fare-

well Address." After briefly describingthe Romanclothing, Everett adds: "Thisdress is

criticized

[supposedly by people

who,

unlike

Everett,

had

actually

seen

the

sculpture]

as

unbecoming,

besides

being

inconsistentwith

the

legislative

or

civil

occupation

represented,"

concluding

that it "will

not suit

the American

aste."'8

Although

the

circulationof the

North

American

Review was

limited,

excerpts from

the essaywere

picked up

by several

newspa-

pers,

prejudicing

many against

the

statue even

before it

arrived

n

North

Carolina.More

significantly,

t

helped

foment

public

opposition

to

ancient

allusion

in

public

sculpture

in

America

hat

would

havegrave

implications

or the rising

generationof

American

neoclas-

sicists,

above all Horatio

Greenough.

The

central

conceit

of

Canova's tatue

s

Washington

omposing he

"Farewell

Address."

This act

is

crucial

to

its

political

interpretation

n

context. The

hero

preparing to

leave

public

office

to returnto

the

plantationafter

years

of

public service

was a

vitalmessage

the

Raleighpoliticians wished to

convey

in

the

monument.

Thus,Everett's

mistake

n

identify-

ing

the

proposed

text is

strangewhen

one

considers the

legislative

agendaand

the keen

popular

nterest

in

the

famous

published

oration

n

the

years

followingthe

Warof 1812. In

1818, the

Raleigh Minerva

ran an

advertisement rom a

Philadelphia

publisher

soliciting

subscriptions

or

a

luxury edition of

the

revered

document,marketed

by Gideon

Fairman,

John

Binns,

and

Charles H.

Parker.

The

notice

was

titled simply

"To the

People of the

United

States,"

repeating the

opening

words of

Washington's

alutation in the

"Farewell

Address,"

which

was

penned to

commemorate

his

retirement

rom the

presidency n

1797

at the

end

of

his second

term.19Many

people,

especially

Europeans,

marveledthat

such a

powerful

and

popular eader

would

voluntarily

urrenderpower

(they

were

thinkingabove

all of

Napoleon),

and

it

became a

major

component

of the

Washington

mystique.

Canova

16

[Everett]

1820.

17

Canova

used a

plaster cast taken

from

the

original

bust

executed from

the

life

by

Giuseppe

Ceracchi,

a

work

that

belonged to

Thomas

Appleton in

Livorno. More

will

be

said about this portrait later. It was reported by Ameri-

can

visitors

to

Canova'sstudio

that the

head was

"esteemed

an

excellent

likeness"

(Norfolk

Herald,

22

June

1821).

18

[Everett]

1820,

385-386.

Among

the

newspapers

that

published

parts of

the North

American

Review

article

was the

Cincinnati,

Ohio, Western

Spy

and

Literary Ca-

det, 29

June

1820.

Courtesy

of

the

Research

Files of the

Museum

of

Early

Southern

Decorative

Arts,

Winston-

Salem, North

Carolina.

Mixed

opinion

about the

statue

and the

likeness is

recorded in

Cooper

1993, 231.

The

author misses

the

point

in

saying that

"one can

only imag-

ine the

reaction

of

North

Carolina

planters

upon

view-

ing the great American general as Cincinnatus, half-na-

ked, with

tablet

and

pen

in

hand."

Such a

dismissive

statement

reveals

not

only a lack

of

knowledge of

the

commission

but only

a

superficial

understanding

of

the

sculpture's

appearance and

iconography.

19

Raleigh

Minerva,7

August

1818.

I

do

not know

whether

this

particular

edition

was ever

published.



13/33

130

CHRISTOPHERM. S.

JOHNS

sculpted

Washingtonpoised

to

writethe salutation,

but the

sculptor

almost

certainly

eft the

tablet blank,

to

be

filled

in

by

his

patrons

n North Carolina.

Still,

he knew what text

was

intended,

since he put

the words

"Al

popolo

e concittadini

degli

stati uniti di America"

on

the tablet in the scale modello that was exhibited in his studio. Such a renderingon the

marblestatue, however,

would have

been

highly opaque

to

the

"popolo

e

concittadini"

n

Raleigh. Political

leave-taking

s crucial to the

political significance

attached to the work

by its patrons

since the chief

virtue of "disinterested"

lanter

rule

is the idea of

"returning

to the plow"

in

emulation of the Roman

republicanworthy

Cincinnatus,

who

gave up

dic-

tatorial

power

to resume

agricultural ursuits

and

the

supervision

of his

slaves).

Cincinnatus

was a

frequently

evoked

prototype

for

George Washington,

and the

plow

and fasces

(sym-

bol of

juridical

authority

n

ancient

Rome) figure prominently

n

the

rearview of Houdon's

statue

in

Richmond.

The Roman

military

dress

(Cincinnatus

was

also a

dictator-general

n

a

time of nationalemergency) n Canova'sstatue makesimplicit the flatteringreference to

Cincinnatus.

The allusion to Cincinnatus

n

the

Raleigh

monument occurs even more

explicitly

on

the

base.

In

the commission to Canova

negotiated by Appleton,

the choice of

subjects

for

the

relief

sculptures

hat were to adorn the

pedestal

was left to the

artist,who,

in

the

event,

was

prompted by

the

diplomat

after an initial

proposal

from

North Carolinawas

rejected

by

both men.

This

scheme,

offered

in

the form of

a

sketch,

sheds

considerable ight on how

the

North Carolina

egislators

viewed

the

entire

undertaking.

According

to

Appleton'sde-

scription

of the lost

drawing, he sketch

represented

a

laudatory nscriptionflankedby two

female figures, one representing the goddess of agriculture Ceres and the other Liberty.20 t

would

be

difficult to

imagine

a more

explicit political message

for the

monument-Wash-

ington,

the

modern Cincinnatusand

role model for

the Southern

egislator, supported by

liberty

and

farming.

I

believe the

honorific

intent

of

the

sculpture

was

equally

balanced

by

a

desire to

commemorate he rule

of

planter-politicians,

and the

original proposal

for the

pedestal

decoration

seems

to

confirm

this

idea. That

Appleton

and

Canovaboth

objected

to the

plan

was

not

due

to the

iconography

but to

notions

of

narrative

unityand the need

to adorn all four

sides

of

the

pedestal

since it was

determined

early

on that the

sculpture

was to be

viewed

in

the round.

Thus, the base

was articulatedwith three scenes in marble

relief from

Washington's

ife:

GeneralCornwallis urrendering

his sword after the battle of

Yorktown

n

1781;

the commander n

chief relinquishinghis

militarycommandat the end

of the

war

in

1783;

and

Washington

unanimouslyelected first

president of the nation in

1788.

The

fourth

relief

was

emblematic and associative:"Washingtonholding a plough

drawn

by

two

oxen, behind,

is

a

humble

cottage,

near to which are

seen

Ceres and

Mer-

cury,

with their

suitable

emblems."'21

o

"Cincinnatus eturned to

the plow" made its ap-

pearance

on the

pedestal, accompanied

by

the

fecund goddess of

agriculture.It may be

supposed

that

Mercury

s

present

in

part

in

his

capacity as divine herald, ready to call the

hero

back to the

public sphere

should

the necessity arise.22

20

This

discussion s based on

a letter

fromAppleton to

Jefferson

datedLeghorn,

27 September

1816,

quoted n

Fehl

1968,

530-531.

21

From a

letter from

Appletonto

GovernorMiller in

Raleighdated 11

June 1818.

Quoted in

Connor

1910,

39-40. Thepedestal

reliefswere

sculptedby Raimondo

Trentanove, a

Canova

pupil of

Tuscan origin

whose sis-

ter was

allegedly

Appleton's

mistress.

22

It

is also

possible

that

Mercury is

present in his

role as

god of

commerce,

here

wedded to

agriculture,

helping

to

clarify

the

vision

of

plantation

farming

for

export

rather

than

symbolizing subsistence

farming by smallholders.



14/33

PROSLAVERYOLITICSAND CLASSICAL UTHORITY

131

Fig.

6.

Giuseppe

Ceracchi,

George

Washington,


15/33

132

CHRISTOPHERM. S.

JOHNS

In

1800 a national monument

in

honor

of

Washington

was

proposed

in

Congress only

a few

weeks after

his death. The most controversial

plan,

which

enjoyed

wide

popular sup-

port, called

for a

huge granite pyramid

to serve as a mausoleum. Rival schemes included a

heroically scaled bronze equestrian statue and an enormous standing figure, both to be

placed

outside

the

capitol

then

under construction. Nathaniel

Macon,

a member of

the

House

of

Representatives

from eastern North Carolina who as

senator

became

a

major

ad-

vocate

for the Canova

statue, opposed

all such federal

monuments, especially

the mauso-

leum,

at considerable

political

risk. As

I

shall soon

demonstrate,

the

reasons

for the

change

in Macon's attitude toward

public

monuments are of

deep significance

for

understanding

the

political agenda

of

the

Raleigh Washington.

Macon's

antipathy

to

the

mausoleum

was

partly pragmatic-he objected

to the

staggering projected expense.

More

important

for

the

present

context was his

ideological objection,

in which he described such works of

art

as "useless and pernicious ostentation" and claimed that a biography of Washington to

teach schoolchildren

lessons

in

virtue would be

a far more

appropriate

"memorial." He

warned the House

of

Representatives

that "the

precedent

we now establish will be

auspi-

cious

to

our

future measures.

If

we decline

raising

a mausoleum to

Washington,

no man

who succeeds

him

can ever

expect

one reared to his

memory.

24 The

privileging

of

text over

image

is

predictable

in

a

bourgeois republic,

and

the subtext of Macon's

remarks

is

that

monuments are

intrinsically dynastic, aristocratic,

and

essentially

un-American. In addi-

tion,

their

interpretation

is more difficult to

control since the

language

of

visual

form

is

more

open

to

ambiguity

and subversion.

Thus,

his

support

for the

Canova statue sixteen

years later represents a crucial ideological shift. The reasons for Macon's change of heart

will

be

examined

in

detail

in

due

course.

The national debate about the necessity for a monument to Washington in the nation's

capital

and the visual

form

it should take continued for several

years.

After

the War of

1812,

fewer voices were raised against public monuments

in

principle,

I

believe partly because most

of those

proposed

for

such

commemorations were

deceased,

it

being

at the time

politically

safe

to

praise

the dead

(but

how times have

changed).

Given this sea

change

in

public atti-

tudes about honorific monuments to

past leaders, the North Carolina project was used as a

reproach to

the

federal government's inactivity. Moreover, the pedagogical advantages of

Canova's statue for the

emerging

American school

of artists

began

to be

appreciated.

A

Wash-

ington, D.C., newspaper proclaimed

in

1819:

[T]here is

an

admirablepropriety n the whole of this proceeding [the Raleighmonu-

ment]....

This

statuewill

kindle

in

the minds of our countrymen n enthusiasm or this

noble

art;

and it is

not improbable hatan American chool of statuarywill take its rise

from this

workmanship

f Canova.25

This article

was

reprinted

a few

days later by the Baltimore Morning Chronicle. As early as

1813,

in

the

aftermath of the

battle of Fort McHenry, a member of the advisory board for a

monument to Washington to be erected in Baltimore suggested that Canova be approached

for the

commission,

but

nothing came

of

it.26My point here is that the victory in the second

24

Quoted

in

Dodd

1903,

153-154.

25

American

Recorder, 4 June

1819.

Courtesy of the

Re-

search

Files of the Museum

of Early

Southern Decora-

tive

Arts,

Winston-Salem,

North

Carolina.

26

Alexander

1974,

71-72.



16/33

PROSLAVERYOLITICSAND

CLASSICALAUTHORITY

133

..............

Fig. 7. Gilbert

Stuart,George

Washington,

1796.

Boston, Mass.,

Museum

of

Fine Arts.

... .

....

.

......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

...

...

H

,

.

. .

. .

.~

~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

..

..

....

.....

....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......: ........ ...

7.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

thoe of Euoe

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

s

......_......

4...The.Raleigh.State

ouse.and.Other

mages.of Washington

.. ... .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

. ....

..

. .....

.. . .. ...

. B .

The statue of the

pater patriae

commissioned

for the state

capitol

was neither the first

nor

the

only image

of

Washington planned

for the

building.

In

its first session after

Washington's

death,

the

North Carolina

legislature

authorized Governor

John

Branch to obtain two

por-

traits of the late

president,

one for the Senate chamber

and one to be

placed

behind

the

speaker's podium

in

the House of Commons.

What the lawmakers had in mind

were

copies

of Gilbert Stuart's famous Athenaeum

original

(fig.

7),

but the artist's

quote

of

$1,500

for

the

framed pair so shocked the parsimonious solons that the entire idea was dropped. In the

wake of the Canova

commission, however,

the

proposal

was

revived. Rembrandt Peale

and

Thomas

Sully,

two of the era's

leading society portraitists,

were

approached

for

pictures,

mean-

ing

framed

copies

of the

Stuart

original.

Peale

asked for so much

money

for the work

that

attention soon focused

solely

on

Sully.

To the

delight

of the

governor,

the artist

demanded

only

$400

for each

copy

or

$600

for one

copy

and an

original

historical

portrait

of his

own



17/33

134

CHRISTOPHERM. S.

JOHNS

invention, proposing

the

passage

of

the Delaware

River

on the eve

of the battle of

Trenton

as

the

subject.27

The state

agreed

to the second

proposition

and must have been well

satisfied

with

the

bargain,

considering

how much

money

had

already

been committed to Canova.

Sully's

copy of the Stuart George Washington(fig. 8) arrived in Raleigh in November 1818, and the

painter began

Washington's Passageof

the Delaware

(fig. 9)

the

following

summer.

Sully

had

no

instructions

concerning

the

size

of

the

room

in

the

state

house

designated

to receive the

painting,

and he made it far too

large

for

any

available

space (19'

x

14'

framed).

Governor

Branch and

the

legislature,

with

Sully's approval,

voided the

contract

for

the second

picture

and settled

for the

single copy

of the Stuart

portrait.28

think

it

very likely

that

Sully

made

Washington's

Passage of

the Delaware

extraordinarily large

because

he had no intention of

actually sending

it to North Carolina.

Hoping

to cash

in

on the

Washington

craze

sweeping

the nation

after

1815,

the

artist

decided to send his

picture

on

tour,

charging

admission

to

visitors who lined up to see it. In addition, large dimensions and a compelling historical sub-

ject,

seen

by

more

people

than

ever would have been

possible

in

provincial

Raleigh, helped

to satisfy Sully's

desire,

shared

by many

other

portrait

painters,

to transcend the lesser

genre

by painting "half-history pictures."29

The

commissions for

the

Canova statue and the

Sully paintings

reveal a

desire

on

the

part

of

the governor

and

the

legislature

to

enhance the

authority

of the state

government,

symbolized visually by

the

capitol

building. Principles

of

states'

rights were

cherished

in

North

Carolina as elsewhere in the

South,

and the

glorification

of

the seat of

government was

in

part

a

concrete

assertion of this

ideological position. The

direct

consequence of the

immi-

nent arrival of

George Washington

in

Raleigh was the decision to make

extensive

alterations

to the architectural

fabric of the state

house,

which

was an

incommodious, antiquated relic

of the

immediate

post-Revolutionary years.

As the

legislature

was considering how to

display

the Canova

statue to best

advantage, the utter

inadequacy of the building came into

focus. It

was rather

like

buying

new shoes

only

to discover

how

shabby an old suit actually

looks.

Given the

highly

favorable

publicity

the

statue's

commissioning had

generated for the state,

it was vital to

showcase it

properly. There is almost

an element of panic in minutes of

the

committee debates on

what

ought

to be

done.

Alfred Moore, a member

of the House of Com-

mons from

coastal

Brunswick County, penned the

report submitted to the full

legislature

regarding accommodation for the

statue and expressed full awareness

of the state's responsi-

bility

toward

such an

important

monument. He

concluded:

The

absolutenecessityof

preserving n exactrelative onformityn all the

accompanyments

[sic]

of a

work of taste and

of art so forcibly

mpressedon the mindsof the committee,

that

they cannotrefrain rom the

expressionof it. Let, therefore, he

plan adoptedby the

27

Sully's

opy

of

the Stuart

was to be

the

full-length

por-

trait

n

the

Pennsylvania

Academy

of

Fine Arts n

Phila-

delphia,where

Sully's

portraitpractice

had been

estab-

lished for

severalyears.

English-born

ut

broughtup

in

Charleston

ndRichmond,Sullymayhaveseemedespe-

cially

appealing

ecauseof his

Southern

onnections.See

Fehl

1973,with

additional

bibliography nd

citationof

the

primary

ources.

28

Fehl

1973, 584.

Fehl states

that

Sully

had second

thoughts

about

sending he

workto North

Carolina, ut

I think

he

had a tour

in mind

when

he made

the pro-

posal,

drawingattention

to the

worknot

as a

specula-

tion but

as an

actual

commission rom

a state

govern-

ment.

Making

such a

grand

paintingwithout

explicit

instructions,

especially or

only

$200, would

otherwise

seemfoolhardy.

29

For

Sully's

ambitions o

work n

the

historical

genre n

the

traditionof

Joshua

Reynoldsand

Henry

Fuseli, see

Johns

1983,

with

additional

bibliography.

or a

differ-

ent

readingof

Washington's

assage f the

Delaware, ee

Myers

2000,

524,

n.

6.



18/33

PROSLAVERYPOLITICS AND

CLASSICAL AUTHORITY

135

|_

|

g.

~~~~~Fig.

8. Thomas

ully,GeorgeWashington

after

Gilbert

_ ITa,2.,

.,t',lD

l'.07

Stuart),

818.

Raleigh,

N.C.,

OldStateHouse

photo

North

s

.

t~~~~~~~arolina Museum

Of

Hilstory).

...~_

. .......

__,~

~ ~

~~~~Fg

Thma

Suly Wahngo'

PsaeothDlwr,

......

~ ~ ~

_

.. ..........

.

.... ......

.. . ......

... ......

11

.. .. ...11.

_

w

. .:. . ....

_..... .......:,_

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---------------:.

I

_ _

_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...

.

...



19/33

136 CHRISTOPHER

. S.

JOHNS

legislature,

be

what it

may,

hey

earnestly

ecommend hat this idea

may

not

be lost

sight

of for

a

moment.

To

fail,

is to

become rediculous

sic].30

The

newspapers agreed.

After

eulogizing

Washington

and

lauding

Canova,

the

Raleigh

Minerva

wondered:

where

are

we to

put

the statuewhen we

get

it?

Supposing

t

be

placed

in the

passage

of

the State

House,

some

of our

naughty

boys

would mutilate t within

six weeks

time;

be-

sides that there

is

neither

ight

nor elevation

or it

there. The

onlyplan

then

will

be,

to

adopt

the

plan

of

enlarging

and

altering

he

present

building.31

Even in

the

urgency

to determine a

fitting place

to

set

up

the

statue there is

concern for its

security,

in this

case

fear

of

mutilation

by

"naughtyboys."

It

could be

argued

that

this

cat-

egory

would include

male slaves of

any

age

but would

not be

limited

only to them.

The

legislature

took

prompt action,

voting

to

sell land

in

nearby

Wake

County

to

pay

for

the

renovation and

expansion

of

the

capitol,

an

undertaking

estimated to

cost

$25,000,

twice as

much

as the

Canova statue. William

Nichols,

an

English-born

architect active in the

Carolinas,

Tennessee,

and

Alabama,

was

named

superintendent

of

public

buildings

to oversee the

project.

Nichols's

plan

called

for the addition of a

second

story

to the

existing

structure,

the

extension

and

widening

of

hallways,

the

construction of

an annex to

house

offices and a

gallery,

and

the

replacement of

the small

cupola with a

simple, elegant

dome, under which

Canova's

monument

was to

be

placed.32

Completed

in

1822,

a few

months after the

arrival of

the

statue

from

Italy,

the

cramped,

homely brick

structure

was

transformed into an

earlyexample

of classical

revival

architecture

in

the

South

(fig.

10).

It

should

be

noted, however, that the

building's

classicism is

more

closely

related to the

aristocratic villa

and

palace models of

Palladio than

to the

genuinely

progressive

neoclassicism of

Virginia's

capitol

building, a

fact that

further

underscores

the al-

tered nature

of

neoclassicism in

the

early decades of

the

nineteenth

century.

The

highly

ambitious

initiative

to provide

the North

Carolina

state

house

with a monu-

ment

to

George

Washington

sculpted

by

the

world's

most famous and

expensive

artist,

coupled

with the

additional

commission to

obtain

two

painted

portraits of

the

hero, was a

highly re-

markable

cultural

undertaking

in

the

nation's

poorest state.

When

one also

takes

into ac-

count

the

large

expenditure for

the

renovation of

the capitol

(admittedly long

overdue) to

receive and

display a

work of

art, the

endeavor

seems

necessarily

fraught

with political

sig-

nificance.

Considering the

history of

bitter

opposition in

the state

government

to

public money

being

used

to fund

schools, pave

roads,

dig canals,

construct

bridges,

and

support

other in-

ternal

improvements, the

decision

to spend

such a

staggering sum

on

things of

largely sym-

bolic

value

demands

explanation

beyond

the

patriotic desire

to honor

the first

president

and

to

relieve

overcrowding

in

the

halls of

the

legislature.

What

could they

hope to gain

with

Canova's

statue,

Sully's

paintings,

and

Nichols's

renovations?

Other

states-richer, more

popu-

lous,

and

presumably no

less

patriotic-attempted

nothing on a

proportionately

similar scale.

A

crucial

part

of the

explanation,

I

believe,

lies in the

changing

political

landscape of

North Carolina following the War of 1812. At that time, national debate came to center more

30

Quoted

in

Fehl

1973, 598.

31

Raleigh

Minerva,

23 April

1819.

Courtesy

of

the Re-

search

Files of

the

Museum

of

Early

Southern

Decora-

tive

Arts,

Winston-Salem,

North

Carolina.

32

For a

brief

summary of

Nichols's

alterations, see

Elliot

1958. For

Nichols's

career in

the

United

States,

see

Peatross and

Mellown

1979

and

Lane

1985,

146-153,

with

additional

bibliography.

See also

Murray

1983, 251-

255,

with

additional

bibliography.



20/33

PROSLAVERY

OLITICS

AND

CLASSICALAUTHORITY 137

~~~~~~~~~......S |

..

.

..........

-"w --

,--

Fig.

10. William

Nichols,

State

House,

Raleigh,

N.C.,

destroyed

1831

(photo

North CarolinaMuseum

of

History).

and more

on the

issues

of states'

rights, greater

democratization of the

political process,

and,

above

all,

slavery.

These issues

gained immediacy during

the bitter debates on the Missouri

issue from

1819

to

1821,

while the statue was

being

carved,

but were

incubating

as

early

as

1815, when it became clear that Missouri's future admission to the Union would upset the

free state/slave

state

balance

in the

Senate. At the state

level,

the

power

of the

slaveholding

planters

of eastern North Carolina was

being increasingly opposed by

the small farmers of

the western and Piedmont

counties,

who

only rarely

owned slaves. The choice of Canova for

the

Raleigh

monument indicates an attraction to fame and a commitment to

classicism,

but it

also

reveals

just

how much was at stake. The cultural

politics

of the statue can

only

be under-

stood

in

relation to the multivalent

expectations

of

its

patrons.

Canova's

George Washington

is an excellent case

study

of the

profound change

in

the aesthetic

ideology

of

public

art that

will come to characterize the middle decades of the nineteenth

century.

5.

Senator Nathaniel Macon and Canova's

Washington

On New Year's Eve

1815,

as

I

have

already

mentioned,

Governor William Miller wrote a

letter to North Carolina's two snnators

in

Washington Asking them .tlicit advice about the



21/33


JOHNS

monumentto

George

Washington

recently

approvedby

the

legislature.James

Turner,

he

senior

senator,

seems

to have

done

little

about

it,

but Nathaniel

Macon,

recentlyappointed

to the

Senateby

Miller,

ook

up

the

task with

enthusiasm,

writing

that he would

"cheerfully

giveeveryaidin mypowerto procure he statueof General

Washington."33

Maconhadvehe-

mently opposed

a

national

monument

n

Washington's

honor

in

1800 when he

was

in

the

House of

Representatives,

o

his

ardent

support

for a similarmonument

n

1816

is

highly

curious. Macon

immediately

became the

majorpolitical

player

n

the

commission,

and it

is

difficult

to

imagine

the

project

being

realized n its

final

form without his intervention.

As

North Carolina'smost

prominent

statesman,

Macon,

a

slaveholdingplanter

from

Warren

County

n

the east-central

ection of the

state,

was a

Documents

Proslavery Politics and Classical Authority Antonio Canovas George