one sign that the jet age and the air force had caught up with each other despite. its low budget and great technical. as rapidly as could, we were developing modern aircraft like the very big saber jet, splendidly ready to prove themselves in battle, ready to serve our country by giving new strength to the rising power of the united states airport.

now tonight we have a very special guest here with a wonderful new book, maurizio valsania, a good friend of mine, a professor of history, american history at the university of turin, italy. i'm happy to say that maurizio,

through his incredible leadership and vision, was the first one to get the mount vernon ladies association of an international conference in their 160 year history. and we did it in turin, italy, and we celebrated on on common ground, walking in george washington's footsteps. it was all about the creation of nation states in the 19th century. and of course, turin was the original national capital of the first nation of italy. and we had an incredible conference of scholars. but i remember best was the extraordinary food in turin, and there were restaurants that have been around since 1720 something, and they were 14 courses. and there was maybe there might have been a glass of wine drunk on that trip, but it was an extraordinary thing. and richard put this incredible conference together. we were delighted to partner with him and it led to great things. we did a conference in paris in 2019, and then we just got back

from an incredible conference in madrid and 2025. keep your eyes peeled. our next international conference will be in london. so thanks to maurizio, we've got the the estate moving and doing these incredible international affairs. and the reason he was able to do that, because he's a well-known scholar, renowned scholar of early american history, and we'll find out why this italian gentleman is so interested in early american history. but he's the author of four books now, three of which he's wasted his time on thomas jefferson. let me read let me read this for you in case you're interested. the limits of optimism. thomas jefferson's dualistic enlightenment. excellent uva press. nature's man. thomas jefferson's philosophical anthropology, and jefferson, his body, a corporeal biography, which is intriguing, is the recipient of several fellowships from leading academic institutions, including the

american antiquarian society, the google sharon institute of american history, the library company of philadelphia, the john d rockefeller library at colonial williamsburg. the is alumnus of the international center for jefferson studies, admonished fellows, as i am, and he has written for the aup blog and collaborated with the bbc world service, amongst many, many other things. delighted this evening to welcome him up here. but i'll mention one other thing. he was our member of our washington library, fellow class of 2016 and 17 and again in 2000 2021, when he was the recipient of the jim reese fellowship in leadership and george washington there. he's going to discuss his brand new book, george washington, the first american male, which is hot off the press from johns hopkins university. please, let's give a big mount vernon welcome to maurits koval sonia ratio.

something very much. dagen thank you, stephen, and thank you to all of you for showing up tonight. well, i'm sure we'll have fun and, and thank you for buying this book. what you'll be doing hopefully right after this talk if you haven't already. now over you can hear me when my neck is not like that. can you hear me? if i just speak normally. okay. first, among men, george washington peeking out from this little picture here because you're going to reveal to us the true man. it's a myth busting book. well, yeah, i think it is. and okay, where to begin? there are the title itself first among men. and the question about the myth of american masculinity.

it's it's kind of a joke, which is mostly it's not against there's nothing this is not a work book or i'm not trying demote george washington or to cut him down to size or anything like that or to show that he was a liberal in the content prairie sense in the modern sense. but but it is a joke as a kind of a joke which is on biographers, on some biography who seem not to have washington enough. they want always more washington like he got to be that tallest and the most athletic man and you know, the most seductive among all the men, which is a kind of, as you can easily tell, is a kind of a cliche, isn't it? because what the heck we look

down back on the 18th century, starting from what our cultural now they're saying, well, we know a real man is supposed to be and we project upon a upper class 18th century man our priorities, our sense of the real masculinity and starting with the most matter of factly details his stature. yeah, yeah. let's let me pause right there, because i think that one of the great things that you do is you try to bring the reader into the 18th century and and help us see all the different modern layers of thinking that have gone into our notions of what george washington was like. so, for instance, i know a famous historian who's probably been in your seat, or at least said mount vernon, who often says that george washington was he was like john wayne in and he

was john wayne in stagecoach. that's what george washington was like. and you you're you're trying to puncture some of those ideas, talk a little bit about how the myths around washington's stature emerge. sure. okay. first off, i do believe that we show george washington more respect and not less when we acknowledge his complexities and also when we we realize that he cannot really become a model, a model. all the way. you know, not everything he did was was, you know, commendable. and something that we should take our cue from. but this is, again, something that shouldn't be very much controversial. but then again, how tall was george washington and biographer? so, john wayne, you know, that that was trying to say earlier

on just projecting down on the 18th century the notion and idea we take for granted. it's not that good. a historical method. i believe. so. how tall was george washington? well, if we listen to some biography, he was 63 or maybe six four in the house inches that the max figure was able to attract the house six four and a half inches, and then come on, he's sending out incredibly detailed letters to his purveyors and tailors. and you don't write to your tailor, do you? so, yeah. and what did he write this tailors? well, yes. okay. the there are many letters. and in some it says, well, you know, and i should you take my measurement, you have to bear in mind that i am six foot two in my shoes, which means that in

the 18th century, shoes had heels. so and then other letters says that he writes, they send out to his tailor, says, well, i am full, six foot tall. so i think i think that gives us a essential clue to from where we should start. okay. maybe he wasn't he was that athletic, muscular giant that some biographers want him to become, not only because it wasn't like that, but because he would have no, sorry, he wouldn't have known what to do with that kind of physique, you know, because 18th century society, especially the upper class society, was more about, you know, being able to perform with elegance on the dance

floor. it was about being a good rider, being elegant astride. that was that major concern. and it wasn't something that just could come natural and again, i may just haphazardly a little mental experi ment if you allow me to do so. should i ask you what is the center of the 20/21 century? may body? where is the center of the male body? where is the most important component of the male body? i believe you would say? well, it's the bust. yeah, it's it's shoulders the all. okay. yeah, exactly. and the the chest. but that's not an 18th century standard because this is a story. it's a great story as a historian. so 18th century corporeal ity

and material historians and medical historians agreed that at that moment in time, especially for upper class society, the most important part of a male's body were the leg. so it's not up above, it's down below. and which also explain why, you know, there wasn't such an emphasis on arms and arms and muscles and stature. so. at six or maybe six one, maybe after two wars and, you know, weren't down after two press audiences, he may have washington may have settled down at an elite at a pinch less than than than six foods, six feet. so but that doesn't shouldn't come as a surprise because, you know, it's even more impressive

to that. the fact that he was able to turn a relatively normal height into sound, very charismatic and impress. so i think it may become a little bit disrespectful to really believe that in order to be perceived by his peers and his society as a real man, as a masculine man, he had to mimic a character portrayed by a famous actor, john wayne. is that possible? you know, or to have the size, chest of arnold schwarzenegger to be taken seriously so in the book, i try to, you know, with high tides comes also strength. and so when we're looking to the 19 century, there are so many legends sprouting out, you know how strong it was as single,

singlehandedly able to defeat all his opponents and wrestling and tossing things whenever it comes to i kept the bar. they tossed the bar. oh, he needs to also muster with the way listen to his sample there's there's a scene where he wrestles the guy. yeah, yeah. he and i grapples him by his neck and he but the all these stories are sort of second hand, 19th century like tall tales or they told tales definitely play. and they it's interesting because this is the age of john bunyan and paul bunyan stories, right? john bunyan. yeah. no, that is precise there. and and it is also the 19th century is not the 18th century. that's a that's a platitude. but but in terms of political ideals and also perceptions about masculinity, everything

changed. you take andrew jackson, for instance. well, andrew jackson is precisely the opposite. when we come to a analysis of masculinity is the opposite of what george washington was able to embody, because as much as andrew jackson was reckless and and self preening and, you know, bragging about himself and also channeling aging people as a jewel, you know, it was a jewelers. it was a brawler. that kind of practice was didn't make any sense for a man of the 18th century, and certainly not for a man like george washington. so those explosive shows of rage and vile lengths and and, you know, being able to single

handedly amassed you it all the other opponent and then bragging about those achievements, that really doesn't reason with the world in which george washington was was a member and a very visible member at that. if i just may, just to add a little note, when young lafayette came to america to fight in the revolution, every war, it was very young. it was a he came from a aristocratic family. so probably there were different standards. there in france at the moment among aristocrats. and he did one of the first things he did when he came over was to challenge a duel. a british diplomat, because he allegedly said something unfair about george washington. and george washington reacted with the most you know, the the only way he could have done with irony. and he sent out a wonderful

letter to lafayette making fun of this. you know, neo. medial evil these and that apparently was was was still a standard among the french aristocracy. so this kind of physicality didn't appeal to george washington because he didn't need to, uh, abide by those standards. yeah. one of the things you really bring out, i think, is the washington sense of what he means by civilized nation or civility or control, all in a way that nature or nature is kind of a danger for him. talk a little bit about you know, how you are. you know, you bring that out. oh, yeah, sure. so. who was george washington was a he was many things, many personalities. he had many personalities.

a had he played many personas. but when he was a young boy, a mustache, 16 years old, he started to go out and explore and the lay of lots of surveying was a his first foray into the wilderness. and by wilderness i don't mean i poetic idea you know the representation of would sand rocks and rivers but those where material elements those were real rocks and river sand and wood and so on and so forth so and it was it was a dangerous oh, very much so. people died. and then his companions oh god, their toads frozen. and they, they to their lives in their hands, literally on so many occasions. so his first encounter here with nature wasn't just, you know, like to think about thomas

jefferson. you know, he went to paris and went to europe and visiting the gardens and the and touting about all the beauty that the natural was, but not george washington, because his first hand encounter with nature was actually the end counter with his own sense of personal limits and with the brutal charity that was all over the place that was actually out there. so this sense that civilization may become an island to counteract the brutality which was for him the norm was out there in nature, among animals and in the way societies interact. so this jewel isn't between the

boons that may come from civilization and the brutality which is all over the place is gave him a very deep sense of his own personal identity. he knew he had to try to implement a solution to get rid of brutality because he he got to know brutality through, you know, the most immediate setting nature and animals and rivers and freezing with cold and, you know, undergoing hardship that many other founders couldn't even imagine. and we maybe we can imagine or or maybe not. but that kind of menacing, threatening nature doesn't belong to our understanding anymore. but it did in form. george washington in a very deep

way. so his sense of vulnerability, of being violent, rebel of, you know, that that life could be taken any moment with no note and short notice that informed his personality. well, i mean, you do spend a lot of time talking about the violent nature of the world, the 18th century. yeah, people were in from the modern sensibility, inhumane to each other all the time. sure. yeah. in their daily relations. and so talk a little bit about that. oh yeah, sure. washington as a slave owner. oh, yeah. but washington's also observing of you know, native american warfare. the character of war in the 18th century. oh, yes. why do we need to understand this? to understand washington? oh, okay. i think we need to understand george washington once and the standing of violence and

brutality in a typical 18 century way. so because, you know, okay, well, we all know that slavery as an institution was the most brutal institute position ever contrived by human mind. there is no arguing about that. but that at the same time, that's just a part of a much more widespread violence that you could see actually all around, not only among in the way masters inflicted punishment upon the people they held in bondage, but also during the warfare there. and also when they as poor washington, had to to to do when they subject themselves to 18 century medecine. so the level of pain and

brutality that was scattered all over society then that branched out in so many directions, does strike us as something i'm familiar. so mind there are there are some chapters in in which i you gather for give me i can be a little bit sneaky from time to time but it's not just because most distinct person but is because really every one of my goals is to provide readers with the sense of a distance between our ideals and standards and the standards that were prevalent in 18th century society. and it didn't matter whether the people involved or the people suffering from that kind of

violence, where on the lower ladder of society or on the top echelon of society, there is a difference. i'm not saying that it is layperson was subject to the same level of brutality than a free person. i'm not saying that, but what i'm saying is that at the same time as well as a enslaved person was made the target of countless acts of brutality. so a upper class made middle class, well-off person at the same time had often to go through countless ordeals because life could be taken away again. whether or not natural was involved. but it could have taken away. it's very short notice. and you know, when we go into the magic called dimension of

this level of brutality, yes, you spend a lot of time on his teeth. oh, yeah. brutal. well, yeah. because again, not because he's sadistic, but. no. yeah. in order to give you the sense of a cultural and temporal distance that will the 18th century world is not relatable in the way sometimes we would like that world to be so there are things with him we can we have to take our cues from the best that that society and that were that world were able to craft. we have to take our cues from them, but also at the same time, i think we should acknowledge that there is a hiatus, there is a a distance, a gap opening and a wind. gaping, sorry, gaping wound between our. world and the 18th century

world. so that's so so that whole first section of the book, which is about the physical differences of washington himself and his world, one of the things you do is, which i've seen other historians, very few early american ists you're interested in we think sometimes that the brain alone is sort of the identity of the person or the way to understand the person. but you as a recent scholar of the latest literature, you're really talking about the mind, which is a it's a corporeal experience. so that's why all these ways that you experience a world is critical to understanding who a person was. i talk a little about that. yeah, sure. a little abstract. yeah. no, i understand, but bear with me. just a couple of minutes. so may maybe some books about george washington's character and character is a usually it's a more of a the way of a 20th

central 21st century world because of a character we mean the personality, the moral character, you know, the the what's in what's what's inside. even person in the 18th century, re character was more like a reputation. so it was sort of an art definition, sort of a post freud yeah, exactly. it goes inside of an inner life. that's exactly character is inside is not outside for us, but for those people it was quite the opposite. so if we take that seriously as a, as a starting point and trying to, to, to look at experiences in a personal experiences in a more formal way, you know what these people did? so we in that case, we don't have to, you know, to do to to subject washington or the other founders to psychoanalysis because it doesn't make any sense. but by looking out what they

perform, what they did, the experiences they went through, we can discover a great deal about their beliefs and and their minds that themselves. so the mind is not something that just happened inside your head is something that is around you, is it? it can be visible through the things you do to it, through the performance as you put on stage, through the way you dress, through, through the things you say and the way you approach your friends or the way you keep distance, all of that is a part of george washington's mind. so maybe in this book there is a a higher level of of of bodily experiences than it's maybe usual, maybe in a case for more conventional biographies. but that just because i do believe that the mind or understanding someone's mind must go through the things that

this person did through his body. and her body. yeah, well, let's get to the good part then and talk about love and romance. if we're going to talk about that. sally fairfax a lot of historians think george washington was in love with sally fairfax his whole life. yeah, and obsessed with her. and of course she was the wife of his good friend. talk a little bit about this story. oh, yes. thank you for give me this punchline. so, yeah, okay. once again, by by all means, george washington got to be the tallest and most athletic, the strongest the you know, the most brutal or whatever. and so in the same way, he must be the most seductive among the american men. and there are so many legends.

you know, when he shows up at ball's whim and start drooling and swooning because he's so irresistible, once again, we are projecting back onto to the 18th century canvas our priorities and our ideas about what a seductive man should be. in fact, before the mid-19th century, that kind of seduction wasn't really a big thing. it was quite the opposite. it was the sign of a moral decay. so seduction meant in the 18th century, it meant, you know, to be to be drawn astray, to be corrupted, to be deceived. so it was this sex and not something good. and for instance, they samuel richardson, famous 18th century writer, he wrote a wonderful

novel, pamela, about said action but seduction there is something appalling is something morally contemptible is something is something terrible. so george washington wasn't seductive because seduction belonged to a later world, to a later society. and so how what can we make about the famous love letters that he sent out to his. wife's best friend, george william fairfax? well, you know, we had to read those documents at once with other similar to documents and the soccer field epistolary novel in the 18th century. it was very widespread. it was it was a big hit. it was very popular. so you actually you can see there are so many novels written

around the mate 18 century in which all these overblown sense in mentality and these come of prohibited love took place. but it was the the the taste of the time. it shouldn't be taken literally as if it were a legal document because there are so many other examples around published and and available to everyone. and those letters were actually performed in public. and so we, we don't we don't need a leap of imagination to say that most likely those love letters that george washington sent to sally fair for us must have been read aloud in public by george william himself, who must have had a laugh about

that. so there is this kink in the letters were sent in the same packets. exactly. yeah. that's another you know, husband had access to the letters and they yeah, it was made with each other and precise nicely. precisely. it was informative. that's critical. very much so. so that gives us a essential indication that there is everything we need to know is already out there. those letters in the 18th century, the most prohibited, the most sentimental letters used to be enclosed, used in other letters, because that was the most expedited way for those letters to reach the the their their their goal to reach the person they were supposed to be written for. so there is a lot of ambiguity in 18 century society. there is a lot of playfulness in 18th century society. and when we take those letters

and we look at them from the angle, i was just trying to emphasize they they take up a different meaning or a different flair. so all in all, i don't think there is a base is to conclude that that george washington was actually in love with sally fairfax. it was certainly in love. with me. it was, you know, in the same way he was in love with the young lafayette, which doesn't entail anything. homosexual or sexual or anything, you know, and a scandal. there is no scandal in the relationship between young lafayette and the older george washington because those letters, again, are very playful and typically 18th century in their over blown sentimentality. so reading document together,

reading the documents, you know, comparing one document and importing that documents in context and comparing one document to another helps the historians to to draw more, you know, likely conclusion than just to rush into they the suspicion that george washington must have been in love all his life with sally hemings. so, yeah, well, that's fantastic. but what about martha? yeah, again, what what kind of relationship did they have? oh, okay. so don't seem to be very romantic at all. oh, well, no. aren't romantic love letters aren't really love letters. yeah. because the 18th century. yes, because the 18th century is not our world. and what for us is immediate is just say and meaning.

we grasp immediately. it wasn't for the 18th century, and by subversive what we do need some work of translation. when we approach 18th century document and it's not just because they are written in a foreign language that the way it's a foreign language to you. but it's why it is a foreign language. but it is a foreign language to you to me as it's a was those sentences and those documents sometimes where crafted to mean something which escapes us almost entirely. so the question again the question about the relationship shape between george and martha comes up regularly. you know, i we we know we have read some biographers. we know the story. so george washington couldn't have possibly loved martha because it's a new name names in

this book, historians that i do. he does. he does i'm not attacking anyone ends as a triangle he is no i don't know. it's attack irbs now attack whatsoever but yes. so the the standard story goes that george washington couldn't have possibly lost martha because she was an attractive but yet again sally. yeah because and then the action is impassioned amy sort of the prose. yeah, the prose of his life. but then when we get trade, when we jetted on all these seemingly common sensical conclusion and, and, and we look at the documents and we look at the context. so for sure, there was no romantic between george and

martha, can we say that it's no revelation, but that was perhaps what in the 18th century was considered even more important and deeper, which was love based on happiness, not only romanticism, but on happiness and happiness in the 18th century meant something again, very concrete, very material. it was about being able to engage in a soothing routine, which meant in the specific case, to wake up at five in the morning for 32 to 2, write letters, and then to do sound works and to go out on on the horse and then to sound like a soothing routine. i know because these people were really peculiar. so, again, romantic love is

predicated upon some premises, which is, again, seduction and that kind of sexual and fashion centric and the heart above they had. but the 18th century was really about love, was really about happiness is something concrete because it's a pleasant routine, is about being able to create a project together. and on this on that score for sure, martha and george where karl conspirators right through to the end they understood each other they they they they were able to to to be on the same page there. they build the things together and they spend time. so there's no need and that's my conclusion, if i may. there's no need really to, to,

to project that marriage upon the canvas. that should be romantic love because there is already enough out there in terms of they routines and mutual understand thing and project they had in common and visions about about the future in cluding a freeing the 123 enslaved person who belong to george washington was again something that may be may resonate this kind of a happy routine and mutual understanding. and it was part of a of a project about happiness. so the time the two spent together, the the the letters they sent to each other, unfortunately, a few documents survive all of kind of a of of

continuity in time speaks volume and we don't need to to translate that into the romantic vocabulary so yeah it's a fascinating and comprehensive approach that you have. so we talked about the physical did a little on the emotional yeah. your third section is on the social. yeah. let's talk a little bit about the george washington rules of civility. okay. yeah, yeah. what are they and why does he have them? oh, well any i my point i think any. answer which is, you know, certainty, we cannot arrive at certainty about why did he copy those. 100 something rules of civility, things which were kind of conventional through 16th

century and 17th century and 18th century society could have just been because it was trying to perfect his style, just learning to write in a more elegant manner or it could have been because those rules were about being able to enter what was at the time the epitome of modernity, which is the civilized so coming from the middle ages and the 16 cent the 15th century and and 16th and 17th century, and he persons leaving the 18th century, it could well go into, you know, all the examples of rude mass and lack of civilized zation that where so easily available. you know, people spitting at each other and or you know just

the lack of hygiene was appalling at the time. so being able to produce an image about a person who was more in control of of her body or his own body was in portant to being able to approach the other persons through a different standards. that was the gist of, of, of the rules of civilization. yeah. i mean, there's word there's 110 of them. yeah. and a lot of them kind of comical to a modern. yeah. in a way, but a lot of them are about not spitting in public and blowing your nose on your jacket. yeah. not walking out of your room without your clothes on and taking off your hat in the house, picking at your teeth at the table. i mean, these are like basic politeness. yeah sure. you know, self fashioning. yeah. exact well. so fashioning self control. moderation. you could see those ideals like

self defacement, for instance, instead, you know, just branching out, going out, doing, you know, stretching out, tried to contain your body to be more aware, aware of your own body. those ideals apply not only to the corpse real world, but they apply to the values held in society as well. the republican is the 18th century republican is is all about virtue and what is virtue. virtue is a ability to put aside your your immediate interest to put aside your ambition in order to to to become someone who is able to take a look at the common good. so implementing values that are based on virtue, whether that applies to the political realm

or whether that applies to, you know, the daily lives over your own body. but they were the same thing. 18th century ideals where we're meant to create individual souls who could put themselves in the background in order to look at something more important. and so they were about nurturing visions, ambitious vision for for us ambitions, visions that where our national in scope. so there is a continuity a fine line between the way these people these 18th century people try to contain their own body and to appear civilized and the political out and the nation they to to build.

so in both cases you have to be able to put yourself in the background to be more subdued. one of the the common sense that a lot of people made about washington is contemporaries was. that he had mastered himself. the first victory was over his own passion. oh, yeah. that, you know, that he and yet. and then of course, we would have these stories of when he lost control. yeah, sure. you know, when he lost his temper. yeah. and this bursts of furious anger and this idea that he would have been if he grew up in a different society would have been the wild this man of the woods. sure. yeah yeah. so is that part of this effort of self-control? it is 100%, because so cato was the ideal of every upper class man in the 18 century. it wasn't john wayne. it wasn't arnold schwarzenegger. it wasn't something like that. it was kate. so the the roman general who was

able counteract the ambition of of caesar and to push the roman republic forward. so but that idea of masculine was precisely predicated upon self-control and being able to quell your temper, you know, you know that you're supposed as that real man is not supposed to to go off a bout of rage. he was supposed to just to control his passions and his temper and some time this is also it's interesting, not always was george washington a perfect cato sometime you know he got to his boiling point where he lasted but but then again that it's useful to make sense of the entire picture

sometimes he lost it he he wasn't able to control his rage but then he knew that in all those circumstance as he was losing something about his own masculinity. so he didn't like that. interesting. so, okay, a couple of rapid fire. then we'll go to the audience to take some questions. you're known as the best dressed historian in the western world. so let's talk a little about the fashion sense. george washington, what was his fashion sense and use will? was he i don't know what was he going for? oh, yes. yes. with fashion. i mean, what what does it tell us about him? what do we know? okay. so just a few things. first off, he was very knowledgeable. he didn't think that being an expert in the quality of fabrics or the colors or, you know, how

fabrics where weaving together and, you know, that kind of material expert expertise. he didn't think that that was a waste of time. quite the opposite he thought that that was essential to craft a more complete and thoroughly image about his persona and about his own masculinity. so being a someone who knew by heart old who was able to name all those fabrics and camp bricks and and them calico and the and so on and so forth. he was an expert in that from very early on. it means most, most clearly that not only elements those those subject were important to him, but it meant that those issues were important from a political

point of view. so when we come to the choices he made, some of the choices he made his life, the brown inaugural suits that you may see here at the museums, that choice at that time. you know, instead of of going with the no brainer that would have been, you know, the posh, flashy silk coming from from from britain instead of going with that, he made the deliberate decision to go full grain or grain american and being a piece of homespun in itself. so to pitch a message because once again, just in the way the is not something that stays within our head, but it spreads all over at the same time or even fashion choice where not

something simply purse and all. but they had a political impact and for sure being the fastidious person who was making the right choice at that precise moment was for him, paramount to give the right message to his cabinet and his fellow founders, and then the people who were around him. so it wasn't just a matter of personal taste. it wasn't something personal, it was political and it was empowering. so no, no. knowing the fabrics and what a well-cut suit meant, it was empowering to george washington of course, we have more or less may have the most well dressed sky, or now, but we lost that. we lost that a great deal.

but for the 18 century upper class, again, it was commonsensical. it was it was all the way important to being able to crack the code of dress and clothes and being able to project the right visual image. yeah. so so what do you think about the way mark zuckerberg dresses? it's political. he's right. i think, it's really yeah. i think it's billionaires with their hoodies. sure. yeah, exactly. it's to downplay something to to to look like the man of the people. washington writes, i do not think vanity is a trait of my character to james craig. is he lying or he's not? yeah. well, what does he mean? because he doesn't have again. and i don't don't don't spread the word. and you got to read the book. yeah, okay. yeah, you got to spread the word. so when we compare george washington against thomas jefferson, something interesting

emerges because while thomas jefferson had this sense all throughout his life this sense of self entitlement, he never had doubts about himself. he wasn't shivering in any moments about who he was. but the same thing doesn't apply to to george washington. and what makes him to my eyes even more interesting figure, because he tried to really hard to become the person, the persona, the actor he eventually became. and to do that, you had to listen very, very carefully to what comes to the information that comes to you. you have to be very humble to listen to what the masters of style teach you. for instance, to remain in the sartorial chapter to learn how to move in a gracious way in

society to in order to do that, you have to to look around. you have to be eager to learn something new. so i think i really think that that that sentence that that that letter should be taken literally. vanity wasn't something that belonged to a man who became who he eventually became. thanks to his own self-will and determination and all the work he put into the things he did, including dancing, including dressing. so he wasn't a born dancer? not at all. he couldn't have. or a born rider or stuff like that. he had to go through the ordeal of learning how to control his own body in the proper way. let's open it up for some questions, and i'd like you to wait for the microphone, because we're recording this and

streaming it as well. so hello, everybody out there. the interwebs? yes, sir. for a man, they had 110 rules of civility. how did he justify the rules of war other than just survival, the british. but the lack of manhood to attack versus just shoot from behind the tree. well, yeah. okay. so i think he i cannot go into details right now, but there is an evolution in the way he walk through the first big war he went to and up to the revolutionary war. so in the french and indian war during the french and indian war, he had the chance to meet firsthand with the kind of warfare, you know, hiding beneath trees and bushes and and attacking and and also all the

while reading through countless handbooks about the military rules and how to carry yourself properly in battle. so there is a transformation happening. george washington has, as he transitioned toward the the revolutionary war because think in a nutshell think i was pretty much uncomfortable about all that wild ambushing and what happened especially during the french and indian war. he he realized that he didn't like the what we call the collateral effects. but he wanted a much more this plain army and he put a lot of effort in order to to to be that kind of a general. i think we may agree on that. so there are elements we can read warfare through the lens of

ideals of civility that played out in the 18 century society. yes. here, this young man in front. wait for the microphone, please. addressing the myth portion of the discussion in the beginning here, how do you think that the oversize persona or this larger than life character of washington has been allowed live through that threat of history where do you see the historians should are dealing in facts essentially so how has that been able to continue through? well, okay. yeah, that's an interesting question. i don't have an answer about it. i can. i can just i could just point a few facts like, for instance, the 1812 is a the war of 18 is one of the most pointless war that the united states ever fought because nothing changed in the aftermath. rather than ushering in a period

decades prosperity, a few crises apart, but a period of prosperity and territorial and and a new age of democracy which cannot be understood without the westward expanse. so you have these new people getting a new chance and getting the possibility of a new life and and, of course, not everyone was was on the right side of the fence. so needless to say that. so the age of democracy wasn't really the age for of opportunities for for for women. and let alone for poor enslaved persons who were about to enter the golden of of slavery. so but yet at the same time they

transformed them from the hierarchy technical elitist, 18th centrist society to, the democratic society, and these new visions about a muscular, athletic nationalism, you know, was momentous. the shift was so dramatic. and i think there is a continued it's in many ways the 19th century visions and ideals still live on in this country. so maybe that's why it's so difficult to with the 18th century, the idea is because we sympathize for the kind of man. it's not that way. literally we do, but we can relate to the type of man like, for instance, andrew jackson was or i don't know, james polk or i know you keep going then and

teddy roosevelt again. so there this enduring myth about the nationalism conceived in terms of expansion and aggression and, you know, and muscularity that to some extent still lives on. yeah. yeah, i think that because mauricio isn't raised as an american, but as an observer, i was observer of not only the united states today and our culture, but also this history of the founding. he's got a really unique ability, i think, to pass some of our some of the things that are harder for native born american citizens acknowledge or to to see and discern that they've come out so. sure, but yeah, sure. i don't know whether i'm able to do that, but i try. but for sure, 19th century

nationalism with all that comes with that didn't resonate with the 18th century sensibility because for them, the nation wasn't all about it wasn't not, it was not about, you know, becoming bigger and bigger, but it was about creating a international society in which this so-called empire for freedom in which you have different units defined as nations that can strike a dialog among themselves. so there is this ideal about civilization, which applies and politeness which applies to the rule of nations as well. um, yeah, but the 18th century faded away for good or for worst. i mean, the notion of emulating this kind of imagined, you know, ancient roman republic.

yeah. versus, you know, this new man. yeah. american new thing. yeah. it's not ancient, it's brand new. it's it's young. it's dramatically different. yeah, yeah. break from the past. and washington is still very much living in a world where you're idolizing cato. yes. these notions and that's very different from andrew jackson. oh, yeah, for sure. it would have been wonderful had for many reasons for himself. first, i would have been wonderful had he survived a couple of decades in the 19 century, could have been possible to live through his nineties. it would have been interesting to know what he would have thought about this new brave world of democracy that was looming so large at the beginning. after the war of 1812. more questions. yeah, so right, they're back in the middle and then we'll come right here in front and here

comes the microphone. thank you, stephen. i'm curious about the role, especially during the war of washington and all of his aides, men like hamilton and tillman and the role they're playing in writing for him. and how is that sort of, you know, are they helping to craft this idea? is he telling them, you know, what is that interaction? what does that relationship like in the context of building this idea of who he is? oh, yeah. yeah. thank you for that. it's a very is a hard question. i think many answers could be provide it so for sure we can learn something about his style of leadership to begin with because he wasn't the poor man's ideas of a leader you know someone who is a doesn't trust his chain of command or someone who doesn't rely on other people because he was quite the

opposite. i think we can agree and agree on that. so he he trusted the he trusted both trusted and trusted the people around him starting with alexander hamilton, maybe better than other people and a few spats aside, you know, there are episodes, but they fell out for some time, as we know. but all in all, i think he retained a lot of trust and he, uh, he gave power to the people around him because that was also the style of his being a general, you know, not trying to centralize everything in order to demote the other people. but quite the opposite, to create a good and environment, to create a good cabinet, to to have around, to be and circled and to be able to to to rely on

the people around him that was something, i think, very meaningful. and that was the question. sorry, i got lost. the ending is, oh yeah, yeah, sure. sorry about it. and then there is something you. know, sure. writing letters and having people doing that was also a strategy. oh, probably not to edit out his, you know, the unpleasant facts that were of course visible, but it was certainly a strategy to to create a good car. so he understood pretty well that in order to to preserve his own memory, in order to preserve his reputation, he had to to add to it a huge huge amount of letters and other documents.

so where is the precise threshold of george washington's persona and personality? for sure, we can see that letters play out in a way that they become george washington and himself. so it was so paramount for him to being able to to preserve and to all organize all that material, because he knew that was what was bound to be remembered for general. and again, to do that, you had to to cooperate with with the people around you. so they the two dimensional, i think, go along pretty well. trusting people and trusting people and understanding that there is something that will live on when you will be gone. so fascinating. we had question oh, you already have the mic. go ahead. this is just an observation.

i'm we move it a little closer to you. i'm i'm always very amused in the. 21st century, man measured it goes up to the full size statue to measure up against the. yeah yeah that pictures in his book. yeah yeah our sculptures yeah yeah. i'd like to say it was really generous in his description of it. yeah. i don't, i think. you know tries to convey very nice idea about yeah. it's about it's a story about family. yeah. yeah, exactly. right. yeah. for the father of our country. yeah. and i think it's nice. it is nice. i think so, yeah. no, i agree. so why did you why did you get interested in writing about the founders of the united states. well, it's yeah. you're oh oh, oh, yeah. gentlemen of style. oh, well, what?

um, whatever. and it so hum. well, i. when i started my phd years ago, um, i was right away, away fascinated by the 18th century writ large and wasn't able to get rid of that. and then i bumped into, uh, you know, the radicalism of the, of the society in birmingham, uk. so joseph presley, erasmus darwin, this man, but benjamin frankly used to be a guest to their meetings and, and so i started wondering what kind of links there were between these two visionary sides of the atlantic ocean and what brought them together. i then i started asking questions about, about thomas jefferson and then, um, grew tired about and navigated. that's not true. but it's kind of true.

but i think that that the okay would drew me to george washington there was this combination of you know he was a prominent slave owner and at the same time is someone doesn't want to appear like a beautiful soul. you know what i mean? just no, he's doesn't try to to to, you know, to craft a disingenuous image about himself or to perfect or to you know to to brag about himself. but quite the opposite. he constantly tried to craft his own persona in a way that would then effect the country, trying to build along with other persons. of course. so. but that sense of humility is i think it's it's kind a stands out among the founders i think yeah well let's give marissa a big round of applause.

i got something for you. so thank you. i have a gift i have a gift for a wonderful scholar here tonight. here. i don't know if you're to open that. please go ahead. sure. it's from all of us. yeah. oh, thank so. so let's do so. yeah, yeah, yeah. that's a not. yeah. uh, so what is that? oh, do you know what this is? oh, yeah, sure, i know. what do we have everybody what this is? yeah, this is a casserole? marcy? number six, which is allegedly the cologne that george washington and allegedly, if you want to know smelled like don't it but okay may i just a 30 seconds so there was a moment when, you know this is another legend, the tall tale i did

contact because when i say and i say, okay, sure, we have all the documents in the archive and said, okay, let me come there. let me take a look at what you have and. and so they demure a bit. so eventually, apparently there is no documents about george washington going there and to perfects, perfects some purchases. but they do have interesting documents about the the the 18th century. but unfortunately, there's no thomas jefferson. i think that should be classified. a another legend, another myth. thomas jefferson, you said when did they say thomas? oh, son, no. george washington. well, i don't think it's a myth. i think it's true. it must be really a must.

the scent is sold at our shops. ladies and gentlemen, it's the perfect gift for the person who you want to smell like george washington. and we also have the soaps made as well. so the george washington soap in the middle six. oh, i lovely job it is lovely i'm kennedy okay the jockey club very good and eisenhower as well so the presidential but for the discriminating man for those of you we purchased at mount vernon shops online or in-person thank you very very much. yeah thank thank you. thank