Charleston Households
Preeminent Charleston historian Bernard Powers has written of people enslaved in Charleston that they “were quick to seize every opportunity to live normal lives and continually acted to enlarge the cracks in the wall of oppression, wherever these were found.”1
The wall is an apt metaphor for the structures of subjugation faced by the tens of thousands of people confined by enslavers within antebellum Charleston. Walls are meant to separate, to contain, to secure, to demarcate, and to intimidate. Yes, as Powers writes, they can be cracked, and they can also be scaled, bypassed, and circumvented. Walls can enclose and conceal, but sound and fire do not respect the limitations set by walls. With the appearance of solidity, walls can also crumble, scatter, and melt into air.
~~
According to the 1850 US Census South Carolina slave schedule, “H. S. Hayden” enslaved four people, and “Sidney Hayden” enslaved ten. With mistakes common in census notation, the Sidney Hayden entry may have been referring to H. S. Hayden, something we believe we have confirmed with other primary source documents in which his name is listed in either format. This finding suggests that Hayden enslaved fourteen people in total in 1850. For the purpose of this research, we consider the ten enslaved people under Sidney Hayden's entry as being enslaved by H. S. Hayden. The four people living at H.S. Hayden’s residence at 10 Green Street were an 80-year-old man, a 35-year-old woman, and two girls, aged 2 and 1. The other ten people likely lived elsewhere, possibly in a semi-autonomous household not far from 10 Green Street. In 1850, enumerated in the census for this household are: a 72-year-old man, a 69-year-old woman, a 58-year-old man, a 27-year-old woman, a 25-year-old man, a 16-year-old girl, a 13-year-old boy, a 10-year-old girl, an 8-year-old girl, and a 6-year-old boy.
Beyond the age, sex, and race of the fourteen people enslaved by H.S. Hayden in Charleston, we have identified the name of one of the fourteen: Jesse Young. We believe he was the 25-year-old man living in the second household.
Our first introduction to Jesse Young and his story came in the summer of 2022 when we located an obscure biography of H.S. Hayden, well-known in Charleston for his jewelry firm on bustling King Street. Found in one column of the massive sixth volume of the 1896 National Cyclopedia of American Biography, Hayden’s biography lauded the achievements of “Hayden, Hezekiah Sydney, capitalist,” who died that same year.2 The biographer, perhaps Hayden himself or his brother Jabez, the family historian, praised his record as an enslaver, claiming that, “In 1843, he, with his partner, W[illia]m Gregg, became owner of Jesse Young, a skillful jewelry-workman, of the value of $2,000, and became his full owner in 1846, on the retirement of his partner. Two years later he purchased Jesse’s entire family, of the number of twelve persons, to prevent their separation. They were subsequently sent to New Orleans, and Mr. Hayden entered into $10,000 bonds to support them during life, and prevent their ever becoming a public charge, and he made good his promise supporting his charges until they were manumitted under the emancipation proclamation.”3 There is a clear paternalism that runs through that accounting of the lives of Jesse Young and his family, and there might also be a sense of a Moravian understanding of enslaved people’s relationships with their enslavers as well.
With only this somewhat dubious postbellum source in hand, we turned to the Hayden papers at the Windsor Historical Society, where we verified that Jesse Young did indeed maintain a financial link to H.S. Hayden after the latter had returned to Windsor in 1856. On August 17, 1861, less than a month after the First Battle of Bull Run, W.G. Whilden and Augustus Hayden (H.S. Hayden’s younger brother and an eventual Confederate enlistee) wrote to H.S. Hayden with an update on the business’s affairs. They shared updates on several canceled fire insurance policies and then instructed Hayden to “pay the balance to someone in New York to pay over to Jessie [sic] Young’s family fifteen dollars per month as needed.”4
More questions came with this discovery, and more research will be needed to confirm our belief that Jesse Young and his family made up most or all of the number of people enslaved by H.S. Hayden. After examining extant correspondence in archives from South Carolina to Connecticut, we are confident that Young, described as a jewelry worker in Hayden’s 1896 biographical entry,5 worked for some time in the store that Hayden & Gregg kept on King Street. In a letter dated February 25, 1846, H.S. Hayden wrote to his brother Jabez about the store and those who worked there. He shared that, “Jess Had a Bad Cold is hardly able to Work today.”6 Later in the same letter, H.S. Hayden refers to “Jess” as “Jess Young.”7 There are others named and criticized by Hayden to his brother, and it is plausible that the Hayden & Gregg firm would have had several enslaved people working in the store.
Though we have not found documented evidence of bills of sale or transfers of ownership, we do know that the creation of the Hayden & Gregg partnership in 1842 included enslaved people in the agreement. Writing on July 17, 1842, H.S. Hayden, Gregg, and H.S. Hayden’s older brother Nathaniel set the terms of Nathaniel Hayden’s departure from the firm: “N. Hayden agrees to sell out his interest in Merchandise, Fixture, and Negro Property Accounts of the firm of Hayden + Gregg [illegible] on the 31st December next.”8 William Gregg left the partnership in 1846. By 1852, two years after the census and four years before H.S. Hayden himself left Charleston, H.S. Hayden entered into an agreement with W.G. Whilden and Augustus Hayden; in that legal document that reconfigured the firm yet again, there is no mention of enslaved people, suggesting that H.S. Hayden himself had become the sole enslaver of Jesse Young and others by that point.9
Of course, legal documents and business correspondence can only take us so far if our aim is to understand more fully the lives and stories of Jesse Young and thirteen others enslaved by H.S. Hayden.
~~
With a slightly wider lens, we can begin to see more about the lives of people enslaved by the Hayden family. This section will relate the considerable secondary literature on slavery in antebellum Charleston to those lives and will address the manifold ways enslavement and anti-Black racism shaped their experiences. It is certainly true that, as Harlan Greene has observed, “Very early on, and continuing for centuries, an obsession with race was a controlling tenet of life in South Carolina;”10 this section aims to illustrate just how controlling that tenet was for the fourteen people enslaved by H.S. Hayden.
As the 1850 US Census Slave Schedule recorded, four people enslaved by Hayden were living at 10 Green Street. Our 2022 research trip to Charleston provided us with opportunities to explore the home that H. Sidney Hayden and Abby Loomis Hayden rented from William Aiken at 10 Green Street in Ward 4 of Charleston. Visiting that building, now at the center of College of Charleston’s campus, allowed us to imagine details about the historical landscape known by people enslaved by the Hayden family. More information on that household, its surrounding neighborhood, and its architecture can found in this piece’s complementary essay to be found here.
As noted above, the other ten people enslaved by Hayden likely lived in a household not far from 10 Green Street and south of Calhoun Street. This was not atypical. Powers writes that, “Approximately 15 percent of all Charleston’s slaves lived away from their masters in 1861. In that same year, Claudia Goldin calculates that one of every thirteen of Charleston’s residences was occupied by slaves alone and one of every twelve either by slaves or by both slaves and free blacks.”11 Walter Edgar, in his 1998 South Carolina: A History, cautions that, “Slaves living as families also meant the probability of reproduction, a return on investment in human property. Slaves who had families were less likely to run away or cause trouble. Stability, control, and profit were among the benefits of owners’ encouraging the establishment of slave families.”12
How enslaved people moved through the city is significant as well. Because of extensive research done by Harlan Greene and others, the “slave badge” system of Charleston is well known. The metal badge, meant to be worn on an enslaved person’s clothing, allowed for some measure of independent movement and decision making as that person navigated the city job-to-job, still working for enslavers’ benefit.13 As Greene and his co-authors have written, Charleston was “the only place in the country that seems to have actually issued tags, though other cities legislated hiring out procedures.”14 In the years between H.S. Hayden’s arrival in Charleston and the 1850 census, the number of badges distributed by the City of Charleston held steady between an estimated low of 3,508 and an estimated high of 4,277.15 Greene et al have reviewed the occupations listed on the badges, and none correspond with the skills Jesse Young likely would have possessed.16 There is no way to know if, for instance, H.S. Hayden had purchased a badge for one of the other people he enslaved, but the badge and hiring-out system undoubtedly shaped their daily interactions. As Greene et al have written, “Those who wore the tokens, ‘tickets or badges,’ as they were called, often had a symbolic ticket to another way of life. Although these tags could not literally transport their wearers to geographic freedom, they could nevertheless unleash the power of metaphor and simile. Those wearing them could act AS IF they were free. For if a slave put on a tag, he or she could often act as his or her own master, act as if he or she had control of his or her own destiny.”17
And, yet, that measure of freedom –symbolic, actual, or somewhere in between–was almost always fleeting and superficial, as the machinery of the antebellum Charleston slave system never stopped.
~~
While the realities about enslavement detailed above may suggest a comparative degree of autonomy inherent in urban slavery, sources on antebellum Charleston remind us of the manifold restrictions and threats faced by the enslaved population.
The general suspicion of white Charlestonians toward enslaved people was certainly heightened by the conspiracy around an uprising reportedly planned by Denmark Vesey and others in 1822. In the instance of Denmark Vesey, the enslavers’ worst fears seemed to be materializing, and the consequences for Vesey and 34 others were dire; as Walter Fraser has written, “Their bodies [Denmark Vesey and others] were left hanging for hours and then turned over to physicians for dissection.”18 The memory of this horrific crisis remained with Black and white Charlestonians alike.19
Throughout the antebellum period, and in the times between these eruptions of state violence, visitors to Charleston remarked on the palpability of white citizens’ anxieties. While visiting Charleston in 1838-9, Englishwoman Fanny Kemble reflected back how many white Charlestonians felt when she wrote that she would rather have a living arrangement in which she could go “to sleep without the apprehension of my servants’ cutting my throat in my bed.”20 Demographic realities of Charleston slavery are relevant here; as Bernard Powers reminds us, “No other region of the South contained such a large and densely concentrated population of blacks, and in 1830 slaves outnumbered whites by approximately three to one in Charleston County.”21
In private correspondence, we can see how pervasive this distrust was, even within a system that afforded many enslaved people with glimpses of autonomy. A fluke of history preserved hundreds of letters between Ziba Oakes, a Charleston enslaver and broker, and his agent A.J. McElveen, based in Sumter, S.C. In one letter from 1856, McElveen’s displays attitudes common among South Carolina enslavers and their representatives: “I am very Glad to hear of the apprehension of Joe do take Good Ceare of him do notice if his leg is well and if not let me Know I had it nearly well when he left me I want to Give him one hundred lashes as Soon as I come down as he has no Cause for leaving me he Runaway from work and nothing Else. dont believe any thing he tells you.”22 This perspective eerily echoes what Walter Johnson has said about American slave markets, where “slaveholders daily gambled their own fantasies of freedom on the behavior of people whom they could never fully commodify.”23
Legal structures served to promote and protect enslavers’ profit motives and security concerns. For instance, Powers writes that, “As a means of closing all avenues to emancipation, in 1841 the [South Carolina] legislature passed the ‘Act to Prevent the Emancipation of Slaves.’ By its provisions, any bequest, trust, or conveyance for the removal and emancipation of slaves out of the state was declared void.”24 With emancipation nearly impossible in South Carolina, the state also prohibited Black residents (enslaved and free) from pursuing an education.25
The Charleston City Council did not hesitate to invest in mechanisms of punishment and surveillance throughout the antebellum era and particularly after the threat imagined by the would-be Vesey revolt. Most prominent is the creation of the workhouse “on the southwest corner of Magazine and Mazyck streets just east of the city jail where slaves were sent for ‘a little sugar,’ which meant they were flogged by the keeper of the workhouse upon payment of a small fee by the slave’s owner.” 26The Charleston Work House also featured a treadmill, which “consisted of a cylinder that had a series of steps that the prisoner would step onto in order to keep the machine turning in order to grind corn down for further processing. Each step required one to exert a considerable amount of pressure in order to keep the cylinder rolling. After having been ‘stripped entirely naked,’ enslaved people would be expected to do this for days on end.”27 When the City Council was asked to consider adding a similar torture device in the Poor House, which incarcerated indigent white people, “it was turned down on the grounds that it was a ‘punishment for slaves and other colored persons and the committee are unwilling to break down any of the distinctions between that class of persons and the white population by subjecting them to a common mode of punishment.’”28
Policing in Charleston transformed in the decades leading up to the Civil War, and each change was rooted in fears of Black resistance. The author of “Police Power and Public Safety in Antebellum Charleston” observes that, “The [City Guard] force was indeed an integral part of a system of race relations predicated on the notion” that Black people were “‘domestic enemies’ who had to be kept constantly under surveillance and ‘compleatly subordinate.’”29 In the years when H.S. Hayden enslaved Jesse Young and others, Charleston doubled its police force and, by the 1850s, “Charleston more closely resembled a modern police state than any other city in the nation.”30
All told, and as Walter Edgar has concluded, “Charleston had become a closed city; then the remainder of the state followed its lead, and South Carolina became a closed society. Whereas colonial South Carolina had welcomed new people and new ideas as vital to its growth and development, antebellum South Carolina, especially after 1835, viewed them as potential threats to its way of life.”31 H.S. Hayden, himself a newcomer who had arrived in the city a year before Edgar’s decisive year, found no difficulty navigating his adopted city for the roughly two decades he lived there; his status as an enslaver certainly made it possible for him and his family to succeed in the city Edward Ball called “the Jerusalem of slavery, its capital and center of faith.’”32 The aggregate of all of these brutalizing developments is plain to see: even as cracks were made in the metaphorically walled city of Charleston, Jesse Young and the thirteen others enslaved by the Hayden family faced insurmountable challenges to their freedom and flourishing.
~~
“By advancing a series of speculative arguments and exploiting the capacities of the subjunctive (a grammatical mood that expresses doubts, wishes, and possibilities), in fashioning a narrative, which is based upon archival research, and by that I mean a critical reading of the archive that mimes the figurative dimensions of history, I intended both to tell an impossible story and to amplify the impossibility of its telling.” -Saidiya Hartman, “Venus in Two Acts”33
~~
With broad and pervasive forms of oppression in our sight, there remain far too many gaps to begin to see the full continuum of unfreedom34 along which the fourteen people enslaved by H.S. Hayden lived their lives. For that reason, while acknowledging the requirement not to attempt to fill every gap and answer every question, we offer the following “critical fabulation” in the style of Saidiya Hartman, whose scholarship on slavery, power, and archives has deeply influenced our work.35
On the evening of April 27, 1838, fire bells rang in the city of Charleston. An “extensive conflagration” had broken out in the heart of the city. With updates written every few hours into the early morning, the Charleston Courier tabulated the losses for its readers.36 According to the newspaper report, the fire began “in the rear of a small building attached to a two story wooden” house.37 A map was soon published, revealing the “black ground” that represented land and property severely damaged or lost forever. Onto that area and the blocks around it we can map out places of lasting significance for the enslaved people who lived, worked, walked, suffered, worshiped, and learned there. Though the fire erupted twelve years before documented proof of their enslavement, this work of critical fabulation questions how they might have experienced a night of terror that likely fell within a lifetime of terrors.
From the Collections of the South Carolina Historical Society38
The newspaper’s readers and the newspaper’s writers did not ask:
Might the people enslaved by H.S. Hayden have known the enslaved people who lived and/or worked in the outbuildings on the corner of King Street and Beresford (now Clifford) Street where the fire started?
Might they have heard in the alarm bells a reminder of the repressive soundscape of a city where church bells were used to notify enslaved people that they must head home? Might they have thought also of the enormous drums used to set curfew in Charleston?
Might they have quietly cheered the news that the shop operated by H.S. Hayden and his partner stood in the fire’s path as it moved up King Street from Beresford toward Hasell Street and beyond?
Might they have worried about their future together if the livelihood of their enslaver were destroyed in the fire?
Might they have thought of the economic impact this fire would have on enslaved people who hired out and sold goods and food on street corners throughout this area?39
Might they have hoped that the winds would carry the fire toward the notorious Charleston Work House, located three blocks to the west of the fire’s epicenter?
Might they have recalled the fire eleven years later in 1849, when Calvary Church, a “nearly completed” Black Episcopalian parish located on Beaufain Street three blocks to the west and one block to the north of the fire’s epicenter, was attacked by a white mob seeking retribution for an uprising at the Work House less than one block from the church?40
Might they have known the enslaved and free Black firefighters commonly conscripted into service when fires started in the city?
Might they have resented white Charlestonians’ allegations of an enslaved insurrectionist and arsonist behind such a destructive fire?
Might they have agreed with the Rev. John B. Adger, who supposed that enslaved people “belong to us. We [white Charlestonians] also belong to them. They are divided out among us and mingled up with us and we with them in a thousand ways?”41 Might they have seen the dynamics of that mutuality differently after the fire?
Might they have accepted or rejected the vision laid out in a May 1838 sermon by Reverend Thomas Smyth of a “saddened spectator” beholding “a city of blackened walls and smoking ruins?” Might their spectating have evoked a wider range of emotions?42
Might they have already considered Ansonborough ruined land, as it was the site of frequent auctions that destroyed families and attempted to dehumanize the people held up as commodities?
Might they have sought to wall off their thoughts and emotions on this fire or on the condition of their own enslavement, opting instead for a purposeful silence or, perhaps, a purposeful expression among trusted family and friends that would hold ephemeral meaning without being stored in a box in some archive decades and centuries later?
We don’t know. There are too many walls between us and them.
The complex lives led by the fourteen people enslaved in Charleston will never fully be understood by us, but we remain committed to working away at this chapter of our institution’s history.
~~
“[T]hose who could tell the true story of slavery would never have the chance to do so.” -Walter Johnson, Soul By Soul43
“To believe, as I do, that the enslaved are our contemporaries is to understand that we share their aspirations and defeats, which isn’t to say that we are owed what they were due but rather to acknowledge that they accompany our every effort to fight against domination, to abolish the color line, and to imagine a free territory, a new commons. It is to take to heart their knowledge of freedom. The enslaved knew that freedom had to be taken; it was not the kind of thing that could ever be given to you. The kind of freedom that could be given to you could just as easily be taken back.” -Saidiya Hartman, Lose Your Mother44
~~
1 Bernard E. Powers, Black Charlestonians: A Social History, 1822-1885 (Fayetteville: The University of Arkansas Press, 1994), 9.
2 The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, Vol. VI (New York: James T. White & Company, 1896, 320.
3 Cyclopedia, 320.
4 Augustus Hayden and W.G. Whilden to Hezekiah S. Hayden, 17 August 1861, box 16, folder 28A, Hayden Collection, Windsor Historical Society, Windsor, Connecticut.
5 Cyclopedia, 320.
6 Hezekiah S. Hayden to Jabez Hayden, 25 February 1846, box 16, folder 26, Hayden Collection, Windsor Historical Society, Windsor, Connecticut.
7 Hezekiah S. Hayden to Jabez Hayden, 25 February 1846, box 16, folder 26, Hayden Collection, Windsor Historical Society, Windsor, Connecticut.
8 “Agreement between N. Hayden, William Gregg and H.S. Hayden,” 17 July 1842, Hayden367_002, WGP/GMCR 367, The Papers of William Gregg and the Graniteville Manufacturing Company Records, Gregg-Graniteville Archives at University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC.
9 Hezekiah S. Hayden, Augustus Hayden, and W.G. Whilden, “This indenture…,” 1 June 1852, box 16, folder 28A, Hayden Collection, Windsor Historical Society, Windsor, Connecticut.
10 Harlan Greene, “‘Nowhere Else:’ South Carolina’s Role in a Continuing Tragedy,” in Ilisa Barbash, Molly Rogers, and Deborah Willis, eds, To Make Their Own Way in the World: The Enduring Legacy of the Zealy Daguerreotypes (New York: Peabody Museum Press and aperture, 2020), 262.
11 Powers, 24. See also Claudia Goldin, Urban Slavery in the American South, 1820-1860: A Quantitative History (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976.
12 Walter Edgar, South Carolina: A History (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1998), 317.
13 In the summer of 2022 student and faculty researchers from Loomis Chaffee were able to see a number of slave badges on our research trip to Charleston as they have been recovered through archaeology and metal detection and are kept in local collections, including the Charleston Museum.
14 Harlan Greene, Harry S. Hutchins, Jr., and Brian E. Hutchins, Slave Badges and the Slave-Hire System in Charleston, South Carolina, 1783-1865 (Jefferson, NC and London: McFarland & Company, 2004), 6.
15 Greene et al, 119 and 134.
16 Greene et al, 49 and 58.
17 Greene et al, 6. Emphasis in original.
18 Walter J. Fraser, Jr., Charleston! Charleston!: The History of a Southern City (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989), 201.
19 For more see Ethan J. Kytle and Blair Roberts, Denmark Vesey’s Garden: Slavery and Memory in the Cradle of the Confederacy (New York: The New Press, 2019).
20 Frances Ann Kemble, ed., Journal of a Residence on a Georgian Plantation in 1838-1839 (New York: 1961), 39, in Fraser, 206.
21 Powers, 3.
22 Edmund Drago, ed., Broke By the War: Letter of a Slave Trader (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1991), 130.
23 Walter Johnson, Soul By Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 214.
24 Powers, 39.
25 Edgar, 299.
26 Fraser, 203.
27 Joseph Williams, “Charleston Work House and ‘Sugar House,” College of Charleston, last updated June 2, 2023, https://discovering.cofc.edu/items/show/31.
28 Fraser, 217.
29 Laylon Wayne Jordan, “Police Power and Public Safety in Antebellum Charleston: The Emergence of a New Police, 1800-1860,” in South Atlantic Urban Studies, vol. 3., ed. College of Charleston Urban Studies Center (Columbia, S.C: University of South Carolina Press, 1979), 127. The indirect quotation uses words from Howell M. Henry, Police Control of the Slave in South Carolina (Emory, VA: published by the author, 1914).
30 Fraser, 238 and 241.
31 Edgar, 323.
32 Edward Ball, Slaves in the Family (New York: Ballantine Books, 1999), 89 in Harlan Greene et al, 8.
33 Saidiya Hartman, “Venus in Two Acts,” Small Axe 26, vol 12, number 2 (June 2008): 11.
34 See Jared Hardesty, Unfreedom: Slavery and Dependence in Eighteenth-Century Boston (New York: New York University Press, 2016).
35 See Saidiya Hartman, “Venus in Two Acts,” Small Axe 26, vol 12, number 2 (June 2008): 1-14 and Saidiya Hartman, Lose Your Mother: A Journey Along the Atlantic Slave Route (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008). As Hartman wrote in “Venus in Two Acts,” “History pledges to be faithful to the limits of fact, evidence, and archive, even as those dead certainties are produced by terror.” And, “The method guiding this writing practice is best described as critical fabulation.”
36 “Postscript: Extensive Conflagration,” Charleston Courier, April 28, 1838, pg. 3.
37 “Postscript: Extensive Conflagration,” Charleston Courier, April 28, 1838, pg. 3.
38 Thomas Smyth, Two Discourses on the Occasion of the Great Fire in Charleston (Charleston: J.P. Beile, 1838), https://pascal-cofc.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma991003808299705613&context=L&vid=01PASCAL_COFC:SCHS&lang=en&search_scope=South_Carolina_Historical_Society_Only&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=South_Carolina_Historical_Society_Only&query=any,contains,two%20discourses%20on%20the%20occasion%20of%20the%20great%20fire&offset=0 and found in South Carolina Historical Society, “This month in South Carolina History,” published April 27, 2018 and last updated August 19, 2020, https://www.postandcourier.com/uncategorized/this-month-in-south-carolina-history/article_ad922ceb-5df5-5584-bdf5-4c2fde07ceef.html.
39 See Harlan Greene et al, 43: “Even street cries, which would become synonymous with the city and would be incorporated in the 20th century opera Porgy and Bess, were suspect. ‘The legalized audacity of the negros who hawk their wares & c. about our streets, should no longer be permitted,’ the letter writer, ‘A Warning Voice,’ noted [in 1823].”
40 Fraser, 228.
41 Powers, 10.
42 Rev. Thomas Smyth, “Discourse Second,” in Complete Works (Charleston: R.L. Bryan Company, 1908), 278, quoted in Daniel J. Crooks, Jr., Charleston is Burning!: Two Centuries of Fire and Flames (Charleston: The History Press, 2009), 69. Though laws made it harder for enslaved people to learn how to read and write, they did often participate in the city’s political and religious life. As Powers notes, “James Henry Hammond estimated that at any given public political rally or discussion, at least 10 percent of those present were blacks who listened attentively.” Powers, 16.
43 Walter Johnson, Soul By Soul, 10.
44 Hartman, Lose Your Mother, 169.
