In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The virtuous simplicity which distinguishes the private life of General Washington, though less known than the dazzling splendour of his military atcheivments, is not less edifying in example & ought not to be less interesting to his countrymen. David Humphreys, “Life of General Washington,” c. 1788–1789 G eorge Washington liked to shape his own circumstances. Over the years he carefully crafted both his inner self and his public persona, as well as many aspects of his aesthetic world. Washington’s life formed a unity, and his morality formed part of the backdrop to his designs at Mount Vernon. His house, gardens, and art collection —and his own writings about them—were a major part of the public face of his virtue. Washington usually acted with conscious moral purpose. “Moral” is meant here in the broadest possible sense, including such ethical matters as maintaining a public reputation, using one’s time wisely, fulfilling one’s duties to society, and living without luxuries. In the eighteenth century, the conception of morality also included the achievement of individual perfection, such as living a rational, tranquil, and harmonious life. Washington was obsessed, perhaps even more keenly than his contemporaries, with matters of honor, appearance, dignity , and duty to society. As a schoolboy, Washington copied down the maxim that “every action one takes should be in consideration of all of those present,” and indeed his lifelong actions as architect, collector, and landscape gardener were done in consideration of the public ’s valuation of his moral worth.1 Until about 1774, Washington’s actions took place in the context of his stature as a wealthy Tidewater planter. He had a widespread reputation across the colonies because of his earlier military exploits, but he was not yet truly a national leader. He built the mansion at Mount c h a p t e r o n e George Washington Morality and the Crafting of Self 2 ' George Washington’s Eye Vernon before his rise to national fame, and the architecture and gardens can be seen in that light. Washington’s consciousness of public perception increased along with his social standing and fame, and his aesthetic taste and ethical/moral presentation of self were intertwined during those years. After the Revolutionary War, Washington was an international figure, and the eyes of the world were upon him. He was the new Cincinnatus, the retiring hero-soldier going back to his farm and leaving the scepter of power behind. Finally, during the presidency and the brief years of retirement afterward, the weight of scrutiny was even greater, as he symbolized the new nation and was expected, implicitly and explicitly, to express a level of taste and culture appropriate to his status and the ideal image of the new republic. It was widely believed that a democratic republic was best sustained by a virtuous populace, and Washington—in his evolving role as national leader—was determined to set a good example. Washington stated that he lived by his family motto (Exitus acta probat) when he wrote to estate manager James Anderson that he aspired “to let my designs appear from my works, than by my expressions.” He lived up to the motto, roughlytranslatableas“Theoutcomedemonstrates[thevalue of ] the deeds,” and we can judge his artistic interests by the results he left behind. Washington, by all accounts, exemplified the type of person devoted to the vita activa rather than the vita contemplativa. But, fortunately, beyond Washington ’s actions, he also used words to establish and make known his moral self and how it related to the material, aesthetic world that he created around him.2 He ended up establishing a great house, collection, and gardens, even without the benefit of a vast education, notable training in the arts, travel abroad, or having inherited an art collection or great library of books. In the aesthetic realm, he was largely self-made. Indeed, in all aspects of his life, he crafted himself, and he sought both to be and to seem perfect, presenting himself as he would have history see him. Despite whatever qualities and talents he possessed, Washington was not without intellectual limitations and faults. He was no cultural virtuoso like Thomas Jefferson. He was well read for an American of his time but was hardly erudite; Jefferson and John Adams called attention to Washington’s lack of book learning, while a foreign visitor, Gijsbert Karel van Hogendorp, complained that Washington’s mind “is not adorned with learning, he has no vivacity.”3 Washington could...

Share