 |
|
JUSTIFICATION AND REDEMPTION: MARY ROWLANDSON'S JOURNEY BEYOND PURITANISM
In
1682, a Puritan woman by the name of Mary Rowlandson published a work relating
her experiences of the time she spent with local Indians. She was the second
female to be published from the Puritan world; the first was Anne Bradstreet.
To survive in her harsh new setting, Bradstreet would often turn as many
early settlers did to faith in God. Bradstreet also turned to writing poetry,
much of which revolved around her family, friends, and events which occurred in
daily Puritan life. Bradstreet did not though intend to have her work published;
it was her brother-in-law who secretly brought her poetry to England for
publication. After this first publication, more of
Bradstreet’s works would not again be published until after her death.
In nearly sixty years of existence here in the New World, why was there
only one woman before Rowlandson to publish a literary work? This had to do with
a strict moral code, which governed Puritan society. Under this system, women
most certainly took a back seat to men, if it could be said that the two were
even riding in the same car. About fifty years before Mary Rowlandson published
her work, an outspoken woman by the name of Anne Hutchinson was expelled from
Puritan society. Her views and in turn actions to change religious practices
caused her to be viewed as a heretic and therefore a danger to society. More
importantly, her revolutionary ideas became a threat to Puritan life. Any type
of challenge to the Puritan lifestyle was not acceptable; to better understand
this one must discover the routes of Puritanism.
In the early 1630s, a group of English people and a man by the name of John Winthrop set sail for America aboard a ship named the Arabella. While en route he composed a work entitled “A Model of Christian Charity.” This work makes clear that this group of settlers was coming to the new world with a purpose, a distinctive ideal. Winthrop writes that this group was to create a “City upon a Hill,” which would be a model of the purest society. In that manner the world having all “the eyes of all the people upon us” (qtd. in Wiesner 29) would see the value of this model and, in the case of England, cause the reforms which the Puritans desired, which the English church at the time was greatly opposed to. With this ideal in hand, it is clear why Hutchinson was expelled, for clearly she demonstrated an immediate threat to the model. In addition, the fact that Bradstreet did not want her work published becomes clear with the application of this ideal. Winthrop also once wrote “… [woman] in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man …” (qtd. in Wiesner 21). By Bradstreet publishing her work, she might then upset the belief of a woman’s role and thereby damage the Puritan model. Then why does Rowlandson tempt these Puritan ideals? Clearly the author of the work’s preface saw this issue of a woman writing as a large danger for he or she goes as far as to write that they hope “none will cast any reflection upon this Gentlewoman on the score of this publication of her affliction and deliverance” (46). The author even goes as far as too pardon Rowlandson for writing the work, “[e]xcuse her, then, if she comes thus into public … [c]ome and hear what she has to say” (46). With this type of atmosphere, why did Rowlandson undertake the very risky task of composing a literary work? Christopher
Castiglia writes, “Mary Rowlandson told her story to give thanks to God and to
spiritually and psychologically redeem herself” (132). The idea of redemption
is a very important one, especially after an ordeal such as Rowlandson’s
capture by “savages.” She could have been attempting to redeem herself as a
Puritan. Not too long before Rowlandson’s capture in the early 1670s a man by
the name of Joshua Tift was captured by Indians and was eventually like
Rowlandson returned to his previous life. Yet, Tift upon returning to Puritan
society was hanged and quartered. Both captives as the Castiglia writes were
“forced to leave English ways behind” (132) yet unlike Rowlandson, Tift had
been willing to stand aside and watch as his captors shot English soldiers. This
was viewed as treason; this man according to Puritan doctrine, no matter his
circumstances, was to be loyal to the Puritans. Could this have been in the back
of Rowlandson’s mind? Was this fact of proving herself loyal to the English at
the core of her work? Then by proving her loyalty, does Rowlandson redeem
herself to her Puritan counterparts? In order to achieve this redemption she
goes through many justifications. Consciously
and carefully, Rowlandson explains several occurrences. The first being the
presence of tobacco, which was addressed twice. The first appear in The Eighth
Remove, “King Philip, … bade me come in and sit down, and asked me whether I
would smoke … but this no way suited me … it seems to be a bait, the devil
lays to make men loose their precious time …” (82). This seems a rather
unimportant side note to the overall narrative, and perhaps equally as
unimportant when considering the purpose for writing this work, is redemption.
In fact admitting that she smoked tobacco at one point: “I had formerly used
Tobacco … two or three pipes … such a bewitching thing it is” (82) seems
to damage rather than to help her redemption case. The reason for this
appearance is clarified in the Twentieth Remove
Amongst
other things which my Husband sent me, there came a pound of
Tobacco: which I sold for nine shillings in Money: for many of the Indians
for want of Tobacco, smoaked Hemlock, and Ground-Ivy. It was a
great mistake in any, who thought I sent for Tobacco… (102) There
in lies her desire to prove her English values. To the Puritans on the other
end, why this pious religious woman would send for of all things tobacco must
have been greatly confusing. The first mention therefore is to remove any doubt
that she smoked at all during her capture, and the second mention was a follow
up to what then happened to the tobacco that her husband sent. The second
conscious explanation comes in regards to her ransom
They
bid me speak … [n]ot knowing that all we had was destroyed by the
Indians, I was in a great strait: I thought if I should speak of but a little, it
would be slighted, and hinder the matter; if of a great sum, I knew not where
it would be procured: yet at a venture I said twenty pounds, yet desired
them to take less… (98) This certainly appears to again hurt her redemption, consorting with her captures in the setting of her ransom to an amount, which she thought would be difficult to acquire. Yet, upon closer inspection perhaps not, Rowlandson most likely in the time, which followed her capture, became somewhat of a star, a winner of a Puritan survivor if you will. As a woman, this did not likely sit well with the staunch Puritan ideal. She then may have put this passage in to dull her star a little, and show that she had no idea where the money (over-looking the fact that she set the amount, because of her rationalizing) would come from. Indeed there are other instances where Rowlandson tries to humanize herself, most noticeably when her child dies. “There I left that Child in the wilderness, and must commit it, … to him who is above all” (75). By including this painful subject, the death of the child, she tries to show that her time with the Indians was truly not a camping trip; her stardom came with a heavy price, in part the life of her small child. Her
justifications, were they just to redeem herself, or was there someone or
something else which needed redemption through justification? Was she trying to
justify her husband who on the surface appears to have done little physically to
attempt to retrieve his wife? In addition, were these justifications intended to
dispel hard feelings in regards to the lack of physical abuse or how it seemed
she received special treatment to secure her release? Indeed much of the work on
the surface attempts to justify all of these concerns, which Puritan society may
have had with Rowlandsons’ captivity. In that way, she is attempting to redeem
herself, and to prove she is still worth of the title of Puritan. In addition to looking at the purpose of the work, it is equally important to consider the audience intended to view the work. On the surface, it is clear she is writing to Puritan society. Taking for granted that the purpose of the work remains constant, (redemption), is there anyone else to which her need of redemption could be directed towards? When reading the work, if the “heathen” or “savage” references are taken out, some of the work takes on an entirely different tone. The most obvious occurrence of this other tone is when she describes her master. “My master being gone, who seemed to me the best friend that I had of an Indian…” (86). Terming her master a “friend,” let alone her best friend, seems a bit unusual considering her situation. In addition, this tone appears many times throughout the work in her references to camp. Typically one would expect the labeling of the camp as a prison or similar establishment, nonetheless she writes “[t]hose that were with us at home…these at home gave a shout…” (76). This is clearly not a label, which a captive would easily term their place of internment. There are other instances that also do not fit with this capture master relationship. In the Thirteenth Remove, when her mistress’s baby dies, she writes not of her glee that she holds because a “savage” has died, or that God has is inflicting his wrath on these “heathens.” Rather “there was one benefit in it, that there was more room” (91). This statement seems more in line with a border who now has more room to stretch their feet, thanks to a roommate moving out. Again, her statements demonstrate an atypical captor/captive relationship. The most telling example is when Rowlandson writes of one Indianan who had been converted to Christianity and sold his father to the English “thereby to purchase his own life” (98). An expected reaction from a good Englishman would be one of satisfaction for now they could attempt to cleanse this “heathen,” or more simply one less Indian in the world. Rowlandson writes that this “praying” Indian, “betrayed his own Father…” (98). “Betray” is not a word which comes to mind when looking at this transaction from the Puritan side. Betray is a word that Indians would have been more likely to use to describe this action. In their eyes, this “praying” Indian, in order to save his own life, would rather sell his father than stand up as a proud warrior. This becomes even clearer when one looks back to what Rowlandson wrote about the day of her capture. “Another [Puritan] … was shot and wounded … he begged of the … [Indians] his life, promising them Money … [they] stript him naked, and split open his Bowels” (68). From this excerpt, it is clear that Indians do not take kindly to cowardice, which is why Rowlandson’s Indian-like reaction to the “praying” Indian is very suspicious. If then, in addition to the Puritans, the Indians were intended as part of her audience, why go to the trouble of including all of these subversive almost secretive justifications. Under all of the justification of her action to prove her Puritanism, could Rowlandson have been trying to redeem herself and her Puritan society for their treatment of the Indians? It is possible, that during her time with the Indians, she moved beyond the stage of a capture master relationship, to what extent is for this inquiry of little difference; it is the mere fact that she did move beyond this relationship. This work then was written on two levels to redeem the author. On the surface, she wrote to redeem and prove that she was still loyal to the English. Deeper though, there is this idea of justification to the Indians. Whether or not this subversive undertone of Indian justification was a conscious effort or not is an interesting question. If it was unconscious then her captors were able to “bewitch” her into believing her situation was better than it really was. If though this was a conscious effort on her part to include these justifications, then Rowlandson did identify with the American Indians and perhaps felt guilty, so much so that she needed to apologize in order to “spiritually and psychologically redeem herself” (Castiglia 132). Return to the Educational Center's Table of Contents Works Cited Castiglia Womanhood
from Mary Rowlandson to Patty Hearst. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Rowlandson,
Mary. The Sovereignty and Goodness of God. Ed. Neal Salisbury. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997. Weisner,
Stephen G., and William F. Hartford. American Portraits. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2002. |
|
No part of this article may be used or reproduced in any manner without the expressed written consent from Hocus Pocus Tours, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles, essays and reviews in which case the following citation is required:
Return to the Educational Center's Table of Contents
2006 Hocus Pocus Tours |
