4 Our Nig: fetters of an American farmgirl R.J. Ellis From her who ever was and still’s a slave (Mary Collier, 1739)1 Following its rediscovery by Henry Louis Gates Jr in 1982, Harriet Wilson’s Our Nig (1859) was quickly identified as a double first – the first African-American novel published by a woman and the first African- American novel published in the USA. It was also rapidly located within its ante-bellum abolitionist literary contexts. Plainly Our Nig draws upon Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) and slave narrative writing of this period.2 My purpose is not to gainsay these perspectives, but to identify, complementarily, how Our Nig, the work of a Northern free black, also provides a working-class portrait of New England farm life, removed from the frontier that dominates accounts of American agrarian life.3 The novel articulates a young female farm servant’s class position and lack of agency.4 Consequently its engagement with the pas- toral is highly original – an originality promoted by Wilson’s African- American identity: the pastoral tradition to hand was a white Western one, from which she was largely alienated.5 She was therefore compelled to bring to her experiences the resources of the only literary tradition coherently available, the slave narrative. As a consequence, that tradition’s stress on labour emerges in her writing in the very face of Western pasto- ral conventions.6 This transposition to a rural setting in the ‘free’ North of frankness about toil and its consequences means that Our Nig stands as not simply some type of slave narrative variant, but also what I will call an ‘apastoral’. Just as, in Toni Morrison’s words, Chinua Achebe ‘insist[s] on writing outside the white gaze, not against it’, so Harriet Wilson does not write against pastoral conventions in the way an anti-pastoral does,7 but stands outside the pastoral’s ‘gaze’ – without it (in both senses of the word). Her R.J. Ellis - 9781526137654 Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 10/02/2021 12:10:41AM via free access 66 R.J. Ellis novel offers a close engagement with power and economics in the New England countryside, illuminating from without the way the pastoral pre- serves a near-silence on both sides of the Atlantic concerning farm labour’s exhausting physical demands (though this illumination stayed unrecognised for over 120 years, whilst the novel remained unreviewed and largely unread until Gates’s facsimile was released). We now know, thanks to the work of Gates and Barbara H. White, that Our Nig’s story-line is autobiographical, and that its probable setting is New Hampshire.8 Frado, the book’s central character, as a child becomes a type of indentured servant to the Bellmonts, working on their family farm in the fictionally named town of ‘Singleton’,where she is treated with abominable cruelty. This farmhouse is a ‘Two-Story White House’, the novel stresses, in an irony reflecting on the two-story concerning race and slavery peddled both by America’s political establishment and by the town of Singleton. But also, equally plainly, Frado labours as a farm servant,9 so providing a bottom-up view of her society’s rural way of life. As such, her portrait is not unrepresentative. Indenturing of children was common in the ante-bellum North, and when she flees from her mistreatment upon coming of age to try to make her own way, she joins a transient group of ‘tenants . and the landless . an important part of the population,... moving from farm to farm and township to township, never settling per- manently because they owned no land’.10 Frado’s story, then, offers a grim version of New England country life, laying bare pastoralism’s underlying rural class structure. It thereby coun- ters what Joan M. Jensen describes as the‘muffling’of class differences and conflicts in the rural North, where members of communities tended to be highly interdependent and so appear unified.11 Considered from this per- spective,Our Nig emergesasbothoneofthefirst fictional portraits of farm life produced by a working-class writer and one of the earliest prose accounts of any kind written from the point of view of the rural working class in either the United States or Britain. Furthermore, it offers a female viewpoint on this condition.12 This is quite another way of identifying the novelasa‘first’,one opening up a large new area in which to locate the text – stretching back down what Raymond Williams has described as the ‘backward moving escalator’ of the pastoral tradition, transmitted origi- narily from classical Rome, taken up during the Renaissance and, subse- quently, in neo-classical Enlightenment forms.13 I will begin, then, by identifyinghowthispastoral‘escalator’,movingawayfromemergingissues of class on both sides of the Atlantic, is one upon which Our Nig’s disloca- tions of fictional representations of farm life conspicuously do not stand. R.J. Ellis - 9781526137654 Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 10/02/2021 12:10:41AM via free access Our Nig: fetters of an American farmgirl 67 One starting point in this respect, if not an obvious one, is Elizabeth Gaskell’s Cousin Phillis, a near-contemporaneous novella published in 1864.14 This offers a rare fictional account of a female working in the fields. Cousin Phillis is not working class, but she is the daughter of a far- from affluent minister who also works a small farm (which he apparently owns) in order to make ends meet. The family lead frugal but comfort- able lives, though relying on all members of the family pulling their weight, in line with a Protestant work ethic that Gaskell knew well from her Unitarian involvements in Manchester and its environs. Phillis always works steadily, for the most part at light domestic tasks such as mending clothes and knitting (CP, pp. 17, 38). But, significantly, she also helps out on the farm. We see her feeding chickens, carrying hens’ eggs and picking peas (CP, pp. 18, 35, 65). The climax to this farmwork comes during two hay harvests (CP,pp.80ff.). Initially the book does not portray her engag- ing in the harvest but instead standing beside her father in the hayfield admiring the theodolite of an engineer staying at the farm. However, extraordinarily, she is finally depicted at work in the fields, ‘leading the row of farm-servants, turning the swathes of fragrant hay with measured movement’ until ‘the red sun was gone down’ (CP, p. 118). This type of fieldwork is precisely the sort that women above the servant class are never portrayed as undertaking in fiction up to this time. As such it is worth focusing upon, for the moment is carefully circum- scribed. Phillis’s work is unavoidable, since harvest time requires all pos- sible hands – so much so that the book’s narrator (a visitor to the farm) joins in. Secondly, her labours are carefully framed. No specific mention is made of her using an implement as she ‘lead[s] the row’ (though earlier we have been told she ‘throw[s] ...her rake down’to welcome her cousin, CP, p. 118) and stress is placed on how ‘some sort of primitive distinction of rank’ is preserved. The intimation is that Phillis risks losing ‘rank’ as a consequence of her farm work. Significantly, other farm work is predom- inantly done by labourers or the house servant, Betty, busy churning, ‘washing out her milk-pans in ...cold bubbling spring water’,or hard at harvest work whilst Phillis inspects her engineer’s apparatus (CP, pp. 15, 64, 60). By portraying a woman of Phillis’s standing working in the fields Gaskell’s story tests the limits of propriety. Yet Gaskell also must – and does – recognise the omnipresence of rural labour. What I am suggesting is that the discourse that became established in the nineteenth century – that ‘Man [is] for the field and women for the hearth’ (in Tennyson’s 1847 phrase)15 – is in practice undermined by a whole series of inevitable exemptions. Women can work as dairymaids R.J. Ellis - 9781526137654 Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 10/02/2021 12:10:41AM via free access 68 R.J. Ellis and shepherdesses, and even fieldworkers – but only if they are working class (unless chicken or baby animal feeding or gentle garden work is involved).16 Phillis trespasses across this line, despite the narrative circumscriptions designed to excuse her in what is, otherwise, a largely conventional text in terms of its preservation of pastoral boundaries (though one is also made aware how theodolites impact on the rural idyll – Gaskell’s engagement with the pastoral is far from naive). The book’s adherence to the pastoral idyll is clear. The farmhouse inter- ior is one where ‘such things as were to be white and clean, were just spot- less in their purity (CP, p. 27), whilst ‘The court was so full of flowers that they ...were even to be found self-sown upon the turf that bordered the path’ (CP, p. 18). In the kitchen-garden, ‘profuse in vegetables and fruits ...raspberry-bushes and rose-bushes grew wherever there was a space’ whilst ‘the warm golden air was filled with the murmur of insects ...the . sound of voices out in the fields, the clear far-away rumble of carts’ (CP, pp. 64–5, 117). As the escalator moves backwards to this utopia, the beasts gain human feeling: ‘all the dumb beasts seemed to know and love Phillis’ (CP, p. 147). The way that nature produces its bounty free from human labour (abundantly self-seeding), and the beasts possess human sensibilities, even intelligence (‘know and love’), generate a ‘dream world’ – if one with disturbing implications for those who perform the actual, largely concealed, labour.