Then and Now: American Captivity Narratives Revisited

Diplomarbeit

zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades einer Magistra der Philosophie

an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz

vorgelegt von Nina REIBENSCHUH

am Institut für Amerikanistik Begutachterin: ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr.phil. Roberta Maierhofer, M.A.

Graz, WS 2017/18

EIDESSTATTLICHE ERKLÄRUNG

Ich erkläre an Eides statt, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbstständig verfasst, andere als die angegebenen Quellen/Hilfsmittel nicht benutzt und die den benutzten Quellen wörtlich und inhaltlich entnommenen Stellen als solche kenntlich gemacht habe.

Graz, am ......

(Unterschrift)

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I declare that I have authored this thesis independently, that I have not used other than the declared sources / resources and that I have explicitly marked all material which has been quoted either literally or by content from the used sources.

Graz, …………......

date (signature)

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 4

Introduction: Captivity Narratives Revisited ...... 7

1 Social and Historical Background ...... 11

1.1 European Colonization of the Americas ...... 11

1.2 English Settlers and Native Americans in 17th Century New England ...... 15

1.3 Puritan Beliefs and Values ...... 17

1.4 Native Americans: Narraganset Indians’ Life ...... 21

2 Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson ...... (Mary Rowlandson) ...... 24

2.1 Captivity Challenges and Opportunities: A New Female Heroic ...... 26

2.2 Interpreting Puritan Ideals and Beliefs ...... 40

2.3 (Re)Considering the Female Ideal ...... 46

2.4 Survival as a Heroic Act ...... 53

3 “Our Lady of the Massacre” (Angela Carter) ...... 58

3.1 Captivity Reconsidered: Women Breaking Free ...... 67

3.2 Female Identity and White Womanhood ...... 76

Conclusion ...... 80

Bibliography ...... 84

Primary Sources ...... 84

Secondary Sources ...... 84

Webliography ...... 89

INTRODUCTION

Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative The True History of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson (1682) is often referred to as the “origin” of the genre of American captivity narrative. (Lepselter 68) Moreover, the story of Mary Rowlandson eleven-week captivity by an indigenous tribe in 1676 during King Philip’s War is known as the first autobiographical American bestseller. (Sayre 24) What has made this narrative to become so relevant in our times? Without doubt, Mary Rowlandson grants the readers a significant insight into 17th century America, when European settlers and Native Americans encountered each other and eventually came into conflict. Personally, I am going to argue that Mary Rowlandson’s work does not only allow its readers to revisit history but also to rethink certain concepts which determine the world we are living in. This thesis is going to take a different perspective on Rowlandson’s captivity narrative, as certain concepts and ideas of her work will be reflected in a 20th century short story. Therefore, close attention will be drawn to Angela Carter, a sagacious, broad-minded author of the 20th century. Carter manages to rethink Mary Rowlandson’s narrative in her short story “Our Lady of the Massacre” and discuss it in a completely different context. It is not the intention of this thesis to compare The True History of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson with “Our Lady of the Massacre”, however, certain ideas will be analyzed in both works. Furthermore, this thesis is going to prove that Rowlandson’s work can neither be classified as a biased work against indigenous people, nor as a strong attraction towards the Native American culture and people. However, there are comments, observations, and depictions of scenes that hint at certain ideas and mindsets, which are going to be detected and discussed in this thesis. I am going to argue that these ideas continue to have a considerable impact on contemporary authors, such as Angela Carter. Besides critically analyzing Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative, a closer look at Angela Carter’s short story “Our Lady of the Massacre” (1979) will be taken. Angela Carter does not only achieve to revisit and rethink Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative via the short story but she also draws upon other literary classics: Oronooko (1688) by Aphra Behn, Robinson Crusoe (1719) and Moll Flanders (1722) by Daniel Defoe.

A great amount of academic research has shown that captivity narratives generally reveal desires and fears about gender, race and colonization. (Lepselter 47) One of the main aims of this thesis is to raise awareness for gender and racial issues through colonial and postmodern

4 literature. For this thesis, I have chosen to analyze the original version of Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative and read it together with an extraordinary tale of Angela Carter. I am going to argue that Angela Carter tests Mary Rowlandson’s narrative not only on racial and gender issues, but also on feminism. Carter makes use of postmodern strategies and literary techniques and accepts sexual openness; the protagonist of her short story is a decisive, bold, sexually active woman who does not want to be protected from the harsh reality. The male dominance in society constrains her to a certain degree; however, she manages to find different ways to break out of patriarchal and racial boundaries. According to Christopher Castiglia, “the captivity narratives embody women’s loss of control but also provide strategies for enduring and altering their powerlessness.” (12) The present thesis aims to call into question Castiglia’s assertion that women lose control during captivity. It will be shown that both Mary Rowlandson and Carter’s heroine become independent and autonomous subjects and gain individuality through captivity. Castiglia argues that captivity narratives manage to change female powerlessness. However, this thesis is going to examine that Rowlandson and the protagonist of Carter’s short story transform their powerlessness into a means of power.

Gerda Lerner makes an interesting observation with regard to the history of women, as she states that our understanding of women in the past has been primarily shaped by men. It is the male system of values and beliefs which contributed to our idea of female identities. However, what we, as human beings of the 21st century, should do is to ask ourselves what the history would look like if women told their stories from their perspectives. In the end, women and their experiences represent half of our world, as they have inhabited the earth equally as men:

Equally in the sense that half, at least, of all the world’s experience has been theirs, half of the world’s work and much of its products. In one sense, then, to document the experience of women would mean documenting all of history: they have always been of it, in it, and making it. But their history has been a special kind, distorted and alienated because it has been refracted doubly –through the lens of man’s records and observation; through the application to it of male values. (xxi)

As Lerner states, the majority of our understanding of the world has been shaped by men. Hence, the female worldview has been neglected for a long period of time. The aim of this thesis is thus to broaden current knowledge of female experiences and perceptions in patriarchal societies. Therefore, the narrative voices of two women are going to be analyzed.

It is going to be proved that their narratives allow readers to revisit an intangible world, and to make new observations which contribute to our understanding of the world.

At the beginning of the thesis, I will introduce the reader to the genre of captivity narratives and its main characteristics. The theoretical background of captivity narratives will serve as a basic knowledge for readers unfamiliar with the genre. Moreover, it is helpful to all readers of this thesis, as two captivity narratives are going to be analyzed. The first chapter will give an overview of the social and historical background. Therefore, information about European colonization of the Americas will be given. Furthermore, the reader will be informed about the encounter of English settlers and Native Americans in 17th century America. Additionally, the reader will get an insight into the Puritan and Native American culture, their beliefs and rituals, as these ideas will be addressed frequently in the analyses. The second chapter will be devoted to the analysis of Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative, which is divided into four sections. In the first section, the dichotomy between the narrator’s rejection of the indigenous people and her developing empathy and appreciation for the indigenous culture will be discussed, as she has both good and bad experiences with the Native Americans. The second section will address her frequent references to the Christian Bible, as her captivity narrative serves as a model of Christian tribulation and testimonial of God’s salvation. The third section investigates the question of Rowlandson’s new self-experience with regard to her role as a woman in society during captivity. The last chapter looks at Mary’s emotional and physical suffering during her captivity.

Rowlandson’s captivity narrative is widely considered to be among the most important literary works of America. Despite this interest, it has seldom been studied Rowlandson’s work together with a contemporary writing. The present paper proposes a new approach to Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative, as it will work as the basis for the analysis of Angela Carter’s short story “Our Lady of the Massacre”. There are numerous hints in Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative which Angela Carter apprehends and takes up, and thereby creates an extraordinary story. Carter highlights that women are having battles with prescribed roles of femininity and womanhood; with “Our Lady of the Massacre” she creates a romanticized picture of Native Americans. In the analysis of Carter’s short story, it is going to be proved that the protagonist understands that all the repression and discontent she has been feeling throughout her life has been caused by her home society. In the second chapter of

6 the analysis, the narrator’s increasing self-awareness as a woman will be discussed. Some conclusions are drawn in the final section of this thesis.

Throughout the analyses, I used several terms to refer to Native Americans, for instance Indians, Indian tribe, indigenous people, indigenous tribe or Native Americans. Although there have been heated discussions on the validity and justness of these terms, I feel that these expressions allow me to be consistent with Mary Rowlandson’s word choice. Nonetheless, careful attention must be exercised in disregarding the connotations of these words, as some of them might carry pejorative connotations. Hence, the reader is provided with the origins and definitions of these terms in order to avoid any misunderstanding. Over the past 500 years, a great number of terms have been used as referents to indigenous people of the Americas. Generally, the expression American Indian is frequently used to refer to indigenous people from the Western Hemisphere; the utilization of constituent parts dates back to the 16th century. The term Indian derives from Christopher Columbus’ misconception that he landed at the shores of South Asia, and thus he inducted the expression Indios (originally, “person from the Indus valley”) as a referent to the people of the New World. The term American was attached to Indian shortly after in order to distinguish between people of these areas from those of South Asia. In the 1960s, however, numerous U.S. American and Canadian activists refused to use the phrase American Indian; the correctness of the term was questioned, as they often conveyed racist meanings. As a result, Native American soon became the preferred expression in these countries, although the majority of the indigenous people living north of the Rio Grande kept referring to themselves as Indians. (Encyclopedia Britannica, online) It is important to mention that it is by no means the aim of this thesis to discriminate against people of indigenous heritage.

INTRODUCTION: CAPTIVITY NARRATIVES REVISITED

According to David Minter, captivity narratives follow a recurring pattern by “telling affecting stories concerning the gracious Providence of God”: attack and capture lead to an exhausting journey, then follows confinement in one place, sale or trade, and finally escape or ransom. There are only few variations found in this pattern. It is important to understand that there are two traditions that influence these narratives: first, an understanding of history and

7 the world that interpreted God’s actions as ruling even “the most unruly” and second, a theory of hardships and pain that endorses suffering and tribulation by declaring them as instructive, profitable and corrective. (337) Christopher Castiglia affirms that an interpretative “frame” was determined for captivity narratives by a person other than the narrator itself. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, this frame was set up by Puritan ministers. (12) Mary Rowlandson’s narrative is the prototype of the genre of captivity narratives. The pattern introduced by David Minter is also recognizable in her writing: the work begins with an attack of the Native Americans on Lancaster, afterwards she is taken captive by the Indians and has to endure arduous travels through the American wilderness before she is finally released. Moreover, Rowlandson’s beliefs are adherent to the Christian faith and interprets affliction as God’s lesson, which strengthens her will to persevere. It is important to mention that the Puritan mindset and philosophy of life have an impact on all the writings of seventeenth century America, which also constitute Rowlandson’s captivity narrative.

Christopher Castiglia claims that “the laws of the genre of the captivity narrative are clear”. According to him, one of the main functions of captivity narratives is the maintenance of established hierarchies, which are structured by inequalities based on race and gender. Many captivity narratives arise during periods of gender and racial tension in America, which oppose these established hierarchies, for example during the confrontation of colonists with Native Americans or during the Civil War. The captivity narrative usually tells the story of vicious savages who attack and capture a vulnerable, weak white woman. According to Castiglia, these vicious savages are generally Indians, as they have dark skin. These barbarous creatures threaten to sexually abuse or enslave the white woman. Therefore, white men are assigned to kill the black men, rescue the white woman and bring her back to the white, civilized community. Once the white woman has returned to the white society, she is deeply grateful for the patriarchal control and protection. It is the authority of white, male figures – ministers, editors, lawyers, or publishers - which implement generic laws and influence the stories of women. (Catharine R. Stimpson in Castiglia’s Foreword) Catherine Stimpson argues that captivity narratives aim to reveal the brutality of indigenous people. However, there is not sufficient evidence in Rowlandson’s narrative which hints at sexual abuse or attempted rape of European-descendent women by Native Americans. Sharon Block, for example, has argued that indigenous people did not rape as they had cultural restraint which proscribed the mixture of war and sex. (225) Additionally, Ramón Gutiérrez has declared that

8 some indigenous cultures clearly distinguished between life-giving sexual acts and life-taking war. (as cited in Block 225)

By narrating their individual stories, the captives undermine established laws; their narrating position allows them to somehow write beyond received rules. Thus, the captives’ accounts demonstrate the paradoxes that emerged through their captivity: the imprisonment far away from their native community teaches several captives about imprisonment at home. Being captured has led them to act in different ways; white women who have been detained by the Indians react differently in their situations. While some will wait for white men to be rescued, others will try to escape on their own. Still others will adapt to their new cultural environment and refuse to abandon the Indian community. Catharine Simpson points out that “according to one account, of 723 female captives, 60 stayed with the Indians and 150 converted to Roman Catholicism, some becoming nuns.” There are also captives who refuse to adhere to one side, but use their situation between two societies to criticize both. Over time, the captivity narrative becomes more secular and less an exclusive example of God’s will. Independent of the captive’s specific attitude and religious conviction, her story undermines gender and racial stereotypes. Her strength, endurance and courage during the captivity oppose the stereotypical image of frail womanhood; her frequent grief after her release questions masculine excellence. Despite the fact that captives never lose their privilege of being white and being able to write, their depiction of the relationship with Native Americans – especially with squaws – challenges the white men’s representation of the savages. In short, the captive understands how alterable gender and racial constructs are. (Catharine R. Stimpson in Castiglia’s Foreword)

In general, scholars perceive the Indian captivity narrative as one of the characteristic American literary genres. Rowlandson’s captivity narrative has continued to have noticeable impact on the portrayal of the Indians centuries after. The subsequent captivity narratives exhibit the drama of the captivity at the beginning of the narrative and the release of the captive through ransom, rescue or escape at the end, and were thus following Rowlandson’s narrative style in featuring the customs and the way of life of an alien culture in which the captive immersed for a limited time. Whether as an anxious hostage anticipating death or as an appreciated member of the group, the majority of the captives – male and female – grants the reader an intimate glimpse into a foreign culture, while attempting to make sense of their

9 very personal, exceptional experience. In later decades, genuine captivity narratives strived for popularity with entirely fictional works; some narratives would present cultural adjustment of the captive to a nearly idyllic Indian life, while others would depict savage persecutions of male and sexual abuse of female captures. (Catharine R. Stimpson in Castiglia’s Foreword) As previously mentioned, Stimpson’s point about sexual abuse by indigenous captors lacks literary support; so far I have not come across any captivity narrative which directly refers to Native Americans who intend to rape or abuse their captors.

The majority of the narratives represent the Native Americans as an uncivilized folk threatening the civilized one; however, other narratives conveyed the image of noble savages, and the indigenous people become the symbol of a dissolving wilderness. In 1890, the “frontier was closed” and thus the emergence of new captivity narratives decreased. Even as previous works continued to be reprinted; hardly any new titles were released in the twentieth century. (Kolodny 4) Angela Carter, however, was determined to write a retrospective captivity narrative and published the short story “Our Lady of the Massacre” in 1986. Carter’s short story aims to shed light on a white woman’s experience among a Native American tribe, who decides to flee from the white society and integrate into the indigenous community. The white woman finds fulfillment and happiness in her life among the Indians, which she could not find in her former life among the white community. Furthermore, the woman learns to appreciate and adopt the Indian manners, attitudes and values, and thus adjusts to their culture. Carter conveys a romanticized picture of Native Americans and, hence, questions the description of savage Indians and civilized Whites in former captivity narratives, which can in parts also be found Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative.

1 SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

1.1 EUROPEAN COLONIZATION OF THE AMERICAS

The entire Western Hemisphere was colonial for approximately three hundred years. Europeans inhabited the country, brought over their culture, and assimilated to the American country. European and native nations became rivals because of their vicious intents; the exploitation of native inhabitants and the resources of the country together with the aspiration towards possession and wealth led to numerous conflicts. Some entire tribes were eradicated and passed the colonial power of the Americas to England, Spain, Portugal, and Russia. During this time European colonies increased in America; they represented the majority of the country. Between 1776 and 1826, the vast majority of South America and two thirds of North America declared political independence from Europe. Hence, the Americas, with a few exceptions, eventually became an autonomous nation. The independence from Europe has made these nations to target political stability, economic welfare, and a good relationship with each other and with all countries of the world. (Bolton 448-449)

Christopher Columbus opened the way to the Americas not only for Spain but also for the rest of Europe. His discovery of the Americas eventually provoked exploitation and colonization; these consequences can be attributed to more than one nation. Spain and Portugal broke the first ground. Besides exploring and exploiting, they were constantly colonizing, and their actions served as an example for other nations. In minimal time, the Spanish took control of the West Indies, Central America, and South America, with exception to its eastern coast. The dominance of Spain and Portugal at the end of the 16th century America was outstanding; they were the only European nations that had achieved a permanent settlement. The Spaniards occupied two thirds of the Americas, and the Spanish influence is still a dominant and extensive presence to this day. (Bolton 449-450) The most popular colonies of the late comer were those established in Guiana and the Caribbean. English, French, Dutch, and Danes settled next to each other in the Lesser Antilles, combated, and fought against the Spanish nation. Tropical plantations, trading systems, and a base for buccaneering were established. The profits of investors were higher than on the mainland at the end of the century. Little Barbados’ immigrant population was bigger than New England’s population in 1676. However, the new comer nations saw their future in the northern part of the continent with its wide areas and back country which belonged to no one. Here, France and Northern Europe

11 hoped to acquire some of the Spaniard’s won renown and wealth in South America and Mexico. As a consequence, England, France, Holland, and Sweden all headed out to establish their colonies in the northern mainland. Therefore, European colonies and trading establishments built a figure eight shape around the fringe of both Americas. Middle America was taken by the colonists from ocean to ocean; long salients had moved to the inner countries of the continent. England had established not thirteen but approximately thirty colonies on the Atlantic coast and on the islands, which led from Guiana to Hudson Bay. The common expression “Original Thirteen” has thus been deceptive; the phrase does not refer to the original number of colonies but rather to the primal states of the American union. (Bolton 451)

Eric Hinderaker and Rebecca Horn call into question some past assumptions of Bolton about the European colonization of the Americas. They underline that Bolton’s approach lacks correlation, as he does not see the colonization of the Americas as a related whole. Rudiments of unitary approaches have been regularly published by historians who intended to overcome these boundaries, however, these limitations have often restricted their success. Nationalist approaches, determined readership, language differences, and institutional standards all impede the attempts to comprehend the history of the Americas as a whole. Nonetheless, we live in an era in which integrative understandings are becoming more and more important. (397-398) Hinderaker and Horn argue that the different colonies from 16th to 18th century America, such as English, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, French colonies etc., were indeed distinct, however, they share a common history. (398) According to Hinderaker and Horn, the Americas have a joint history, as they have been colonized from roughly the sixteenth to eighteenth century, which is also referred to as the early modern area. It was a time of change, as distinct European social orders could be found in the Americas. The discovery and the economic exploitation of the Americas triggered not only opportunities but also conflicts, which were a driving force in the transition from medieval to modern social and political forms determining the country. The colonization of the Americas enabled the emergence of new labor markets, led to a dispersion of population, facilitated the transition from assorted monarchies to a modern state, supported the development of new ideologies and racial and gender hierarchies, and assisted in founding global companies which connected America with European economy and culture. (430)

England was the mother nation of the United States in the first half of the seventeenth century, especially before 1688, when the revolution started. Specific characteristics of the seventeenth century, which can no longer be found in England, may yet be identified in the folk traditions, beliefs and superstitions of people in America. More than thirty thousand English people crossed the ocean before half of the century. The survivors of the rough beginning of pioneer life, with fast-propagating offspring, rose to fifty thousand in 1650, the community was halved between the Chesapeake waters colonies and the Dutch settlers on the coast of New England. Therefore, speech, institutions, traditions, and customs of the United States are English. (Eggleston 1-2) In America, the European settlers found themselves in a completely different world from which they had started their journey in England. (Eggleston 18) When the European settlers first came to the Americas, they started to translate the world from their own perspective and wanted to impose their understanding on the native people. Moreover, they took over their land, resources, and labor for their own benefit. They referred to tales and images of other travelers in order to promote colonial hierarchies. Additionally, they placed Europeans above indigenous people, and men above women. (Ramirez 103)

Until the year of 1630, New England was the country of anybody; the small group of Pilgrims who landed in Plymouth ten years earlier was not big enough to have left a large group of people hostile to their ways of thinking. However, when the Massachusetts Bay Colony was established, the destiny of New England was ensured. Within ten years, fifteen or twenty thousand people came across under puritan headmen; and the foundation of three new colonies, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Heaven, had been established to fight against Massachusetts Bay in rivalry for Christian living and divine purpose. (Morison 8) During the 1670s, before King Philip’s War broke out, many signs hinted at the degeneration of the English. A decline of church membership and church attendance could no longer be neglected. People were moving farther away from the coast, and closer to the Native Americans. The interaction and trade with the indigenous people was intensified. One year before King Philip’s war broke out, Increase Mather released the sermon The Day of Trouble is Near, in which the Puritan minister laments the prodigality of his community members and the “great decay as to the power of godliness amongst us.” He regretted the upcoming difficulty to distinguish between members of the church and other men. (Lepore 6)

One of the exceptional facts in the first historical encounter of English settlers and Native Americans was how their preconceptions shaped the language for their perception of the happenings. William Wood, who was an Englishman and stayed in the Bay Colony from 1629-1633, claimed that the indigenous people thought of the ship to be a floating island. Without doubt, this was an aboriginal idea, as island canoes and floating islands were conversant characteristics in the Algonquian folklore of northern New England and Canada:

1634 OF THEIR WONDERING AT THE FIRST VIEW OF ANY STRANGE INVENTION These Indians being strangers to arts and sciences, and being unacquainted with the inventions that are common to a civilized people, are ravished with admiration at the first view of any such sight. They took the first ship they saw for a walking island, the mast to be a tree, the sail white clouds, and the discharging of ordnance for lightning and thunder, which did much trouble them, but this thunder being over and this moving-island steadied with an anchor, they manned out their canoes to go and pick strawberries there. But being saluted by the way with a broadside, they cried out, “What much hoggery, so big walk, and so big speak, and by and by kill”; which caused them to turn back, not daring to approach till they were sent for. (Wood [1634] as cited in Simmons 66)

Native American legend includes various warnings and omens of the European’s arrival. The (Narraganset?) tradition said that Native Americans should encounter the Englishmen in a loving way, otherwise they would be killed. The task of the premonition was to stimulate the Native Americans to accept the English beliefs and religion:

And an Indian said, before the English came, that a white people should come in a great thing of the sea, and their people should be loving to them and receive them; but if they did hurt or wrong the white people, they would be destroyed. And this hath been seen and fulfilled, that when they did wrong the English they never prospered and have been destroyed. So that Indian was a prophet and prophesied truly. (Fox (1952) as cited in Simmons 68)

When the Algonquians of New England encountered something new or noteworthy, they said “Manittóo”, which means “it is a god.” (Simmons 65) Roger Williams pointed out how the Algonquians attributed this idea to the impressive observations of the English colonization:

Besides there is a generall Custome amongst them, at the apprehension of any Excellency in Men, Women, Birds Beasts, Fish, & c. to cry out Manittóo, that is, it is a God, as thus if they see one man excel others in Wisdome, Valour, strength, Activity & c. they cry out Manittóo A God: and therefore when they talke amongst themselves of the English ships, and great buildings, of the plowing of their Fields, and especially of Bookes and Letters, they will end thus: Manittôwock They are Gods. (as cited in Williams [1643] in Simmons 65)

1.2 ENGLISH SETTLERS AND NATIVE AMERICANS IN 17TH CENTURY NEW ENGLAND

“New England was not only puritan, but a fair test of what values there were in English puritanism: for in New England the puritans had it pretty much their own way.” (Morison 3) The Puritans founded their own colonies which belonged to no one other than themselves; anyone who disagreed violently or openly criticized their ideas and way of life was immediately extruded. The New England colonists were struggling to maintain their civilized standards, as most of the time they were living a bitter pioneer life. Their target audience was fairly small; their contact with European culture and learning facilities was weak; their opportunities for publication were modest. In respect of their intellectual life, they followed their own way as to the content and form of their readings and writings. Their preferences, requests, and prejudices determined what would be written, published, read, and studied. It is well-known that the Puritan tastes were somehow narrow – for example, they rejected the drama. However, they did not only prevent but also did they encourage their members to pay attention to the classics, poetry, and scientific research. Neither the tribulations of pioneer life nor other hardships were ever so overwhelming as to thwart the emerging of intellectual life in seventeenth-century New England. (Morison 3-4)

New England was different from other English colonies, as it was founded mostly with the intention to experiment with the Christian life. This assertion becomes self-evident after a careful read of the literature of the times, both puritan works and accounts of their enemies. There is a common theory that suggests that the prime motive of the English settlers was economic, albeit enunciated in a religious language. Without doubt, numerous New England settlers had the hidden agenda of improving their conditions in life: the attraction of adventure must also be considered; however, no one who has dug deeper into the history and origin of New England colonies can disavow that the main motive behind the New England settlement was English Puritanism wishing to realize itself. The heads of New England settlers suggested to relocate a part of the earth in the spirit of Christian doctrine: a new state and church, family and school, morals and conduct – their aim was to build a new City of God. (Morison 7)

The Puritan minister Increase Mather addressed the topics of decay and bewilderment, which were prevalent themes at that time; people from New England were concerned that they would degrade so much and eventually become undistinguishable from evil monsters. Shortly

15 after Mather released his Day of Trouble, Samuel Danforth published a sermon on beastliness in which he declared the practice as a “monstrous and horrible Confusion” that “turneth man into a bruit Beast.” The fear of not being able to differentiate between godly and ungodly men revealed the main anxiety of the colonists: the mistaking of English settlers for Native Americans. The people from New England possibly feared that they would become “Indianized”, tainted by the impact of the American wilderness and its ferocious savages. At the same time, various Algonquians feared the opposite would happen; they were worried about taking on English characteristics. The English colonists did not only demand their land and disturbed their traditional trading and cultivation system, but they also disarranged the power of sachems and made an attempt to eradicate the influential force of powwaws, the leaders of their native religion. Upon the decimation of the English coastal population due to illnesses, numerous indigenous people converted to Christianity and ended up living with the colonists. Those Native Americans that rejected the English values usually ascribed all the problems of their people “to the Departure of some of them from their own heathenish Ways and Customs.” Philip held the opinion that too many Native Americans had been “Anglicized” and “Christianized”, worshipping a European god and learning how to read and write. (Lepore 6-7) When Philip and his counselors were trying to reach an agreement with English settlers from Rhode Island, they affirmed the following:

they had a great fear to have ani of their Indians should be Caled or forsed to be Christian indians. They saied that such wer in everi thing moe mischievous, only disemblers, and then the English made them not subject to their kings, and by ther lying to rong their kings. (Lepore 7)

The Algonquians of New England started a war against the European colonists as a response to their invasions of their economy, culture and politics. Moreover, a great part of the Algonquians fought to preserve their Indianness. At the same time, New England colonizers waged war in order to gain Indian territories, and to expel Indians from their lands. Many English colonists believed that their tribulation was caused by God, in which He “in wisdom most devine” would “purg ther dros from purer Coyne.” However, the idea of the English to eradicate the indigenous people by tormenting, enslaving, and killing them, would have been the same procedures as the Spanish applied; behaving as the Spanish had would again endanger their identity as English colonists. (Lepore 7-8)

Dissension between Native Americans and European settlers was caused by a discrepancy about the distribution of the land and the exercise of power. Moreover, supernatural ideas

16 provoked discordance between the two cultures. Native American legends are dominated by four major themes about Christianity. The first one is the discordance of European and Native American religious beliefs, which had its origins in the culture of Indian and English traditions. European clergymen, such as Mayhew, Eliot and William viewed the Native Americans as their enemy, the evil, in the American wilderness. The second issue addressed by indigenous legends is the ultimate victory of the Christian faith. The third theme is the importance of destiny in both cultures (observed in illnesses, storms, accidents etc.) which penalized the sinners and rewarded the pious people. The last topic is the Native American’s idea that Christian traditions and beliefs were already present in their culture before the Europeans inhabited the Americas. (Simmons 73)

The controlling power of the English settlers in warfare cleared the way for religious advances. However, the indigenous people either accepted or rejected the Christian faith for numerous reasons which resulted from their different history and political assimilation to a menacing colonial world. The first indigenous groups which converted to Christianity were the ones near Massachusetts Bay Colony, close to the mighty European settlers. Small indigenous groups around Martha’s Vineyard, Plymouth Colony, and Nantucket also accepted Christianity. However, there were more independent indigenous groups who rejected the Christian faith because it relinquished power from their subjects, for instance Canonchet of the Narragansett or Uncas of the Mohegan. Even after their victory in King Philip’s War, a Narragansett Native American rejected conversion because, as he declared, Christianity did not give rise to better people and the English themselves could not determine which denomination was the best. (Simmons 74)

1.3 PURITAN BELIEFS AND VALUES

Who were these Puritans and what did they intend to do? They were a representative group of the Church of England that emerged during the regimen of Elizabeth with the aim to expand the Protestant reformation, and to restore the Church of England with regard to its doctrine and morals. Religion they believed should pervade every phase of life. Human beings exclusively belonged to God; their only purpose in life was to elaborate God’s magnificence and to adhere to his will, and every other sort of ungodly human activity must be prohibited. (Morison 8) There was also a strong factor of individualism in the Puritan belief; every member of the Puritan community had to take care of his own salvation. At the same time,

17 however, the Puritan state required that all members of the society are organized in one line. Puritans proceeded in groups and towns, inhabited whole communities, and kept up a steady government over all members. New England philosophers perceived society as a unit, which is irrevocably bound together. (Miller 143) “Errand into the Wilderness” written by Perry Miller declares the Puritan state as a dictatorship:

The government of Massachusetts, and of Connecticut as well, was a dictatorship, and never pretended to be anything else; it was a dictatorship, not of a singly tyrant, or of an economic class, or of a political faction, but of the holy and regenerate. Those who did not hold with the ideals entertained by the righteous, or who believed God had preached other principles, or who desired that in religious belief, morality, and ecclesiastical preferences all men should be left at liberty to do as they wished –such persons had every liberty (…) to stay away from New England. (Miller 143-144)

The laws and rules of society, the goals and tasks, are established by God; in a healthy state, however, the inhabitants of a state must first approve these regulations, and must first create the society by agreement and participation. (Miller 144)

Puritanism can be defined as a religious reform movement which took place in the 16th and 17th centuries. Its aim was to “purify” the Church of England of remaining characteristics of the Roman Catholic papism, as they claimed that these features had been preserved after the religious agreement realized during Queen Elizabeth’s I. reign. The Puritans became known for their strong religious beliefs and morals which basically determined their lives; they aimed to expand their way of life to the whole nation through the reformation of the Church of England. Their strong will to change the entire nation heavily contributed to the civil war and to the inception of colonies in the America as models of Puritanism. Generally, the definition of Puritanism is strongly influenced by the great religious value they held onto. Puritans deeply felt that it was indispensable to create a strong bond with God; they believed in the necessity to release themselves from their sins, and that preaching would bring God’s salvation. Moreover, they thought that the Holy Spirit was the main force of men’s salvation. Calvinism was an influential theology in the emergence of Puritan doctrine. Hence, their preaching led to the refusal of Anglican rituals, as they argued that it was merely “popish idolatry.” The Puritans’ preaching was based on scenes from scripture and daily experiences. However, the significance of preaching led the Puritans to draw on known ministry. Therefore, the Puritans combined their moral and religious values with the preaching of predestination, which they had adopted from Calvinism in order to set up a “covenant

18 theology”; they viewed themselves as the favored few by God who had been elected to create godly lives both as a community and individuals. (Encyclopedia Britannica, online)

According to Morton, the Puritans were Protestants and Calvinists, refusing human authority with regard to faith, and demanding the freedom to create their own view of the world; their practices were based on their own interpretation of God’s words. Their tremendous faith in the doctrine, which they fully embraced, helped them to overcome their tribulation, and to persevere until they left England. (Morton xii)

Relating to gender roles, women did not share the same role as men in Puritan society; wives were considered secondary subjects to their husbands. On a number of occasions, women were even perceived inferior to male children with regard to their intellect. Moreover, the widespread belief that everyone was originally tainted with sin led to the assumption that women were more vulnerable to sin, as Eve’s sins in the Garden of Eden were automatically transferred to all women. In addition, women were not allowed to lead discussions on theological themes, except in all-female praying groups. However, they were admitted to read scripture, as the Puritans hold the belief that everyone should have access to biblical scriptures. Community and family were of great value to the Puritans because it fostered their religious beliefs. Hence, a woman was a purposeful member for the divine plans of the English settlers, as she represented a sense of individuality and was able to faithfully serve God and the Puritan community, albeit her role was restricted to household and mothering tasks. (Smith, online)

The Massachusetts Body of Liberties is considered to be the first code of law which was adopted in 1641; it reveals the patriarchal and conservative view towards female liberties and rights. Articles 79 and 80 point to the legal rights of “liberties of woemen”:

79. If any man at his death shall not leave his wife a competent portion of his estate, upon just complaint made to the General Courts she shall be relieved.

80. Every married woman shall be free from bodily correction or stripes by her husband, unless it be in his own defense upon her assault. If there be any just cause of correction, complaint shall be made to authority assembled in some court, from which only she shall receive it. (51)

In general, women were viewed as second-class citizens; New England emphasized that female autonomy and ambition is sinful, referring to Judeo-Christian myths and taking Eve as an example. The writings of women can thereby be rarely found in 16th and 17th century America. Anne Hutchinson, for example, was examined by Plymouth Colony Governor John Winthrop in 1637 due to preaching doctrine different to Puritan belief. Hutchinson strongly advocated for women’s right to express their opinion on biblical matters. She particularly questioned the interpretation of Adam and Eve’s story and the theory that women caused original sin; this is the basis of Puritan doctrine. Anne Hutchinson acquired the role of an unauthorized female minister of a church discussion group in Massachusetts. Although originally only women attended her talks, men started noticing her and joined her preaching. Hutchinson carefully studied the Bible which she explained through her personal understanding; she referred to it as “divine inspiration.” Although Hutchinson actually promoted the Puritan religious beliefs and principles, slight deviation from the Puritan doctrine led her to get in trouble – she fervently supported the rights and equality of women, and thereby opposed both Puritan and dominant cultural attitudes. (Smith, online)

In order to understand the context influencing the Puritan beliefs, it is important to consider the circumstances and facts which surrounded their way of life. The Puritans believed that God and his angels somehow communicated with their world; on some occasions they would appear in disguised human forms, on other occasions they were not able to see them, as they were invisible. Similarly, they had faith in Satan and his devils whose intentions were to disturb their peaceful life in an illicit way. They thought that his vicious nature aimed to destroy the Puritan morals and to destroy their faith. Additionally, God would punish them whenever he felt ill-affected; the Puritans hence interpreted poor crops, early death of their children, bad weather, or livestock’ illness as the anger of God. (Smith, online)

The Boston minister Cotton Mather also played a crucial role in the shaping of women’s image in the Puritan society. He commented on the Salem Witch Trials in The Wonders of the Invisible World: Observations as Well Historical as Theological, upon the Nature, the Number, and the Operations of the Devils (1693). Mather’s firm belief in the enormous power of witches led him to revise reports in the New World. Various factors influenced the rising witch hysteria in the New World: the loss of the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s charter, the difficult relationship with the Native Americans (the Puritans lived in fear of attacks by the

20 indigenous people), Satan and his powers were present in various ways in the American wilderness. (Smith, online)

1.4 NATIVE AMERICANS: NARRAGANSET INDIANS’ LIFE

Narraganset is the term for indigenous people of North America who initially occupied the vast majority of today’s state of Rhode Island, which lies west of the Narragansett Bay. The indigenous tribe was divided into eight parties, each of them had a territorial chief who was subordinate to a head chief. The Narraganset Native Americans depended on corn crops, fishing, and hunting. The Narraganset were on good terms with the English settlers until King Philip’s War broke out in 1675, when they affiliated other tribes in trying to stem colonial expansion. In 1675, shortly after a fierce combat in which approximately 1,000 members of the indigenous tribe died or were captured, the Narraganset decided to give up their territory. The majority of the Narraganset entered the Abenake or Mohican tribes or escaped to Canada, some of them were allowed to return later. Numerous Narraganset Indians who fled to Canada later moved to New York where other Algonquian groups, who had stayed neutral during the war, had settled; others moved to the Mohegan in Connecticut, and some went to what is today known as Rhode Island. The Narraganset population was estimated to hold among 4,500 individuals in the early 21st century. (Encyclopedia Britannica, online)

Mary Rowlandson shed light upon the divination practices of the Native Americans, as she depicted a wartime ritual in the Narrative of the Captivity of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson. Rowlandson, the wife of the minister of Lancaster, was captured in 1676 by King Philip’s people. After a journey of four months with her captors through the American wilderness, she was ransomed and reunited with her husband. Her captors, together with various other indigenous bands, had attacked and destroyed an English army in April 1676. Rowlandson witnessed an indigenous ritual before the battle, which she did not understand though:

Before they went to that fight, they got a company together to Powaw; the manner was as followeth. There was one that kneeled upon a Deerskin, with the company round him in a ring who kneeled, and striking upon the ground with their hands, and with sticks, and muttering or humming with their mouths; besides him who kneeled in the ring, there also stood one with a Gun in his hand: Then he on the Deerskin made a speech, and all manifested assent to it: and so did they many times together. Then they bade him with the Gun go out of the ring, which he did, but when he was out, they called him in again; but he seemed to make a stand, then they called the more earnestly, till he returned again: Then they all sang. (Rowlandson [1682] as cited in Simmons 51)

The Native American with the gun acted as if he had been hypnotized by his people, who then helped him to get his consciousness back. Without doubt, the ritual was an encouraging event for the indigenous tribe, for they behaved “as if the Devil had told them that they should gain the victory.” (Rowlandson [1682] as cited in Simmons 52)

If the history of King Philip’s War had been written by the Native Americans, they probably would have stressed the significance of shamanistic divination in working out their warfare tactics. On May 8, 1676, for example, a group of more than three hundred Native American warriors gathered in the rain-soaked areas in Bridgewater, a town in Massachusetts. They were burning houses and were suddenly disturbed by a thunderstorm, and they immediately stopped their attack and flew without killing any single Englishman. A legend which was told long after King Philip’s War implied that the indigenous warriors “had a Pawaw when the Devil appeared in the Shape of a Bear [walking] on his 2 hind feet.” If the visitation had been a deer, the Native Americans affirmed, “they would have destroyed the whole Town & all the English.” However, as the appearance represented a bear, they “all followed him & drew off.” (Stiles [1916] as cited in Simmons 51) The warrior sachem Tispquin, who led this group of Native Americans, sincerely believed in these prophecies and supposedly predicted the inauspiciousness of these happenings despite the great benefit in numbers. (Simmons 52)

Euro-American reports of indigenous cultures hold a rather critical view of Native American women’s work. Indigenous women’s work was either presented as too labor-intensive and tough or perceived to be the work for men. During the time of European settlement, the majority of Native American women in tribes east of the Mississippi were working in the agricultural sector and on fields; they were responsible for the growing of squash, corn and beans. Indigenous women on the northwest coast were actively involved in trading. Throughout America, indigenous women were in charge of the carrying, hence, they transported water and wood into the villages. (Shoemaker 12) Nancy Shoemaker argues that European settlers addressed criticism to the unkind and rough treatment of indigenous women:

Euro-American men criticized Indian men for abusing "their women" by treating them like "squaw drudges" or "beasts of burden," a stereo type of Indian women much in contrast with the romanticized, “Indian princess” portrayals of Pocahontas and Sacagewa. (Shoemaker 12)

The historical reading reveals that the majority of women’s working took place near the village or camp. Indigenous women collected nuts, berries, and wild foods in cornfields; they were responsible for the distribution of food within the household, and were even recognized to be the owners of the houses. (Shoemaker 13) In former times, historians believed that indigenous women stoutly refused Christianity because missionaries intended to restructure their families with the goal to establish a patriarchal family model. These days, however, historians admit that there were several different approaches of women to Christianity; many Native American women even decided to convert to the Christian faith and thereby contributed to the incorporation of Christianity in native communities. (Shoemaker 13)

Rayna Green argues that the study of Native American women started with John Smith who created the image of the New World nobility with the Princess Pocahontas. The clichés resulting from the myths of indigenous women are compelling. Nonetheless, somewhere between the creation of dead princesses and saints (Kateri Tekakwitha) with the goal to celebrate white men as heroes and General Sheridan’s reference to killing squaws and their babies (“nits make lice”), people have been attached to stories about Native American women ever since. (Green 249) Nowadays, indigenous women of America struggle with living between two completely different societies, their tribal community and the prevalent Euro- American society. Native American women are prone to face a double hazard of misery, as they are female and belong to a minority group at the same time. In comparison to other groups, however, indigenous women occupy important historical roles within their communities, which have enabled them both to take part in the group and to gain individuality. (Hogan 113)

2 NARRATIVE OF THE CAPTIVITY AND RESTORATION OF MRS. MARY ROWLANDSON (MARY ROWLANDSON)

If one looked before one there was nothing but Indians, and behind one, nothing but Indians, and so on either hand, I myself in the midst. (13)

These days, there are hardly any anthologies of American literature that do not mention Mary White Rowlandson, the author of the Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson. Published in 1682, this Indian captivity narrative is today recognized to be the first American bestseller. In recent years, Rowlandson’s captivity narrative has gained great interest and enormous popularity among scholars, which can perhaps be attributed to the effort of directing more attention to women writers. (Greene 24) It is important that students give interest not only to women’s works but also to writings about the ethnic ‘othering’. It is assumed that Rowlandson was born sometime between 1635 and 1637 in New England as the daughter of John and Joan White. Mary was still a child when her family emigrated to the Bay Colony in 1639. They continued their journey in 1653 and moved to Lancaster, a “plantation” in the outskirts of the English settlement near Boston. (Faery 25) The Puritans were among the first settlers in Lancaster; as Alice Walker clarifies, “settlers” is “a very benign euphemism for what they actually were” (“Am I Blue?” online). The majority of Puritan settlers viewed themselves in benevolent terms and believed in their mission to establish their culture in a land which, as William Bradford declared, is “a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wild beasts and wild men”. (Bradford 70) The Puritans relied on their mission to tame the wild folk. It is true that the Indians played the role of the “other” against whom the Whites could confirm their colonial identity. (Faery 25)

Mary Rowlandson’ narrative retells her captivity by the Narragansett Indians during King Philips’s War in 1676. Her husband Joseph is to bring help to defend their plantation in Lancaster, when she and her three children, are captured. After a week of their capture, the youngest child Sarah dies in her arms; she is then separated from her other two children, Mary and Joseph, who are taken captive by other groups. Rowlandson finds herself battling her way through the cold, arid wilderness with the indigenous people for eleven weeks. After her release, she writes down her experience “for the benefit of the afflicted”. (1) The narrative is

24 broken down into different removes that Rowlandson experiences when struggling through the wilderness with the Native American tribe.

Before diving into the literary analysis of Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative, it is important to clarify various relevant terms and expressions which are frequently used in the genre of captivity narrative. During her captivity, Mary Rowlandson belonged to a Native American couple (Quinnapin, a Narragansett leader, and a “squaw sachem” whose name was weetamoo), to whom she referred to as her “mistress” and “master.” Native American captives would probably have been able to foresee their fate as captives, but Europeans felt terribly unsure of what lay ahead of them, or what their prescribed role was in the indigenous community. The captives of King Philip’s War were called by various names: servants, captives, slaves. (Lepore 135) Even in these days, these expressions can cause confusion, wherefore it is necessary to define these terms:

A captive is someone who has been kidnapped and held by force, usually temporarily. A servant is someone required (often by force) to work for another in exchange for housing, food, and occasionally wages. A slave is a permanent, unpaid servant, whose children inherit that status. (Lepore 135)

The aforementioned terms were used interchangeably during King Philip’s War. Captivity mostly implied being captured against one’s will, normally for a certain period of time; a captive, however, specifically a male captive, still held a will. Slavery, on the contrary, signified to be owned by someone else, free will or personal rights no longer existed. (Lepore 135-136)

Mary Rowlandson’s role as a narrator definitely deserves close attention, as her captivity narrative was published during a time when women’s legal rights were limited; all authorities in her religious and social environment required women to be silent. Her captivity narrative was a bestseller; however, it has to be considered that the original version had to go through more than thirty editions to please the reading public’s interests. In the end, the narrative was sanctioned and accepted by the Puritan community because they perceived it as a religious document. (Davis 50) According to Margaret Davis, Mary Rowlandson “imposed no blasphemous competition to the patriarchal hegemony because she maintained the stance of bride-like submission required of women, subjecting herself first to God as ultimate authority and then to males as his earthly representatives.” (50)

Smith-Rosenberg affirms that Rowlandson accomplished to publish her writings during a time when women were put to silence within the Puritan state, the courts of law and the church because she was writing within the prevalent male discourses of Puritan biblical exegesis and British imperialism. By doing this, she opposed the male authority in a way. Writing within the male circle, she also redefined the male writings by extending the prevalent male gender of the British in America. (487) Rowlandson “regendered the body of God's Puritan elect by representing herself as their representative” and she also “regendered the British imperial body”. (Smith-Rosenberg 487) I feel that Smith-Rosenberg’s argument is slightly exaggerated. He claims that the British imperial body was shaped by the experience of a woman who articulated her self-authorizing subject. However, Mary Rowlandson’s narrative voice cannot be regarded as an autonomous voice, as her writings were published under the observation of Puritan ministers. Moreover, Rowlandson’s narrative position was clearly defined beforehand, and thus her freedom of writing was severely restricted.

2.1 CAPTIVITY CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES: A NEW FEMALE HEROIC

When Rowlandson notes that “Sometimes [she] met with favor, and sometimes with nothing but frowns.” (18), she refers to both good and bad experiences she had with the Indians. As a result, her perception of the Native Americans constantly changes throughout the narrative. However, this is not particularly surprising if we consider that Rowlandson’s narrative represents very intimate perceptions that are influenced by many factors, both internal and external ones, such as emotions, mental state or treatment. What is more, Rowlandson adheres to Puritan belief, which forces her to convey that Puritanism is right and the Indian culture is not. When reading through the captivity narrative, Mary Rowlandson partly seems to be biased against the Native American lifestyle; her word choice suggests her racially biased messages, when she defines them as “barbarous creatures”, “hell-hounds” or “wolves”. (4) The attack at the very beginning of the narrative is very vivid in its description; the reader encounters an extraordinarily violent portrayal of the indigenous people. This could be interpreted as being a result of a white woman’s account about a Native American tribe. It cannot be ruled out that Rowlandson embellished certain scenarios and downplayed others; sensationalism and the portrayal of violence played a crucial role in the popularity of such

26 writings at that time, which brings the accuracy of certain events into question. However, it has to be mentioned that these brutal conflicts must have been terrifying for Mary. Hence, the harsh word choice can also be attributed to the inevitable nature of such conflicts.

Jill Lepore argues that the words used to depict a war scenario have to fulfill various requirements: they have to convey the intensity and brutality of war, its anxieties, traumas, and victories; they have to be clear about who is deemed victorious and who is not, find encouragement and engage allies. Moreover, they must record the affliction of war, and help to give attention to the pain by writing these words down. Lepore assures that not all the words which are used to describe a war fulfill all these before mentioned requirements, but the majority of the words meet at least some of them. The words used in the definition of war are among the most exhausting and tiresome in any language. Although “brutal”, “bloody”, “savage”, “cruel”, “atrocious” are overused and especially vague expressions, they remain shocking to the readers, which could possibly be attributed to their vagueness. (Lepore ix) Jill Lepore asks a highly interesting question: “How does someone far from the scene of the battle imagine “savage cruelty” except by thinking the worst”? (Lepore ix) Mary Rowlandson uses numerous acrimonious expressions in her narratives, which impact the reading experience and the reader’s imagination. However, the vagueness and overuse of these harsh words might also cause indifference in the reader, as he gets used to these words. Nonetheless, Rowlandson’s extensive use of powerful expressions combined with the description of terrible war scenarios causes discomfort in the reader.

Richard Slotkin argues that analogies between Rowlandson’s captivity narrative and Jonathan Edward’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” (1749) are worth to consider because of his “sensationalist” rhetoric; the sermon is written in a way to impose various sense perceptions on the reader, which will impact his affections and thus urge him into the sentimental crisis of religious conversion. According to Slotkin, this is also the case with Rowlandson’s narrative, which he would characterize as a myth-tale; the success of Edwards’s sermons proves that these narratives make use of the power of captivity-myth imagery. (103) As hypothesized by Slotkin, the following examples will demonstrate that Rowlandson has a proclivity to violent and sensationalist depictions and explanations of certain scenarios.

Not only human frontier experiences are susceptible of various interpretations; captivity narratives also had to be published in certain frameworks which limited possible interpretations deviating from Puritan oligarchy. Richard Slotkin states that “the addition of prefaces and “improvements” to the narratives by careful ministers was one of the best means for restricting the reader’s (and often the writer’s) interpretive freedom.” (114) The purpose of narratives in the seventeenth century, such as the one by Mary Rowlandson, was often a proof of a man’s dependence on God. Captives who escaped from the Native Americans by cunning or strength might therefore imply that humans can rely on their own personal strength. (114) It is true that the preface of Rowlandson’s captivity narrative, written by Increase Mather, also highlights God’s divine protections; it endorses the book and encourages people to read it. Therefore, circumstances that influence the writing (such as the writer’s obligation to stick to the Puritan belief) have to be kept in mind when it comes to the interpretation of certain passages.

At the very beginning of her narrative, Rowlandson’s portrayal of the Indians is a fearful, terrible one; she pictures them as cruel, bloodthirsty creatures who strive to obliterate the town she lives in. Castiglia confirms that Rowlandson’s view of the Native Americans is a way to approve that the Puritans are “human and spiritual, the proper subjects of culture”. (46) By using harsh expressions such as “murderous wretches” (1) or “hell-hounds” (35), the reader gets the impression that a clear distinction between the savage Indians and her own folk, the merciful, kind-hearted Puritans, has to be made. By definition, a “hell-hound” is “a dog represented in mythology as a guardian of the underworld” or “a fiendish person”. (online) The fact that the term “hell-hound” is often used in mythology and associated with the underworld reinforces the idea that the author does not see the indigenous people as creatures of this world; she would rather associate them with the underworld, which carries a negative connotation. Furthermore, Rowlandson characterizes the Native Americans as “fiendish”, which again indicates her repugnance to the indigenous manners at the beginning of her capture.

Rowlandson starts her captivity narrative with the day when Lancaster was attacked by the Native Americans. It is important to mention that she does not provide a report from an objective perspective; on the contrary, a subjective depiction of the horrible scenario unfolding in front of her eyes is given. Rowlandson describes the day of the attack as “the

28 dolefulest day that every mine eyes saw” (1). Given that many of her loved ones died in the battle, it is hardly surprising that Rowlandson harbors a feeling of hatred toward the Indians. As previously mentioned, the hateful words she uses can be ascribed to her painful experiences, which somehow also arouse hatred towards the “enemy”. With the following opening lines she intends to underline the grief and pain she was feeling during the attack of the Indians:

On the tenth of February 1675, came the Indians with great numbers upon Lancaster: their first coming was about sunrising; hearing the noise of some guns, we looked out; several houses were burning, and the smoke ascending to heaven. There were five persons taken in one house; the father, and the mother and a sucking child, they knocked on the head; the other two they took and carried away alive. There were two others, who being out of their garrison upon some occasion were set upon; one was knocked on the head, the other escaped; another there was who running along was shot and wounded, and fell down; he begged of them his life, promising them money (as they told me) but they would not hearken to him but knocked him in head, and stripped him naked, and split open his bowels. (2)

The first lines of Rowlandson’s narrative describe a war scenario; “guns” and “smoke ascending to heaven” are the effect of a clash of two different cultures. The narrator goes on with a detailed description of the brutal practices of the indigenous people who “knocked on the head”, “shot and wounded”, “stripped him naked” and “split open his bowels”. (2) Her highly emotional language combined with detailed descriptions of the Native Americans’ violent proceedings create a feeling of uneasiness in the reader. As Faery points out, “the ensuing scene is gruesome, and Rowlandson plunges the reader into it with powerful immediacy”. (28) The narrator is surrounded by death. Many of her loved ones, including her sister, nephews, neighbors and brother-in-law, die. She and her six-year-old daughter Sarah, whom she is holding in her arms, are wounded by a bullet. “Thus were we butchered by those merciless Heathen,” she notes, “standing amazed, with the blood running down to our heels”. (3) These descriptions create a truly horrible image of the indigenous people, and the narrator thus conveys the image of a bloody-minded folk.

When describing the sanguinary battle at the very beginning of the narrative, Rowlandson illustrates the Puritans as weak, pitiful humans who are attacked by the ruthless Native Americans by using the following statement: “like a company of sheep torn by wolves, all of them stripped naked by a company of hell-hounds, roaring, singing, ranting, and insulting, as if they would have torn our very hearts out”. (4) The reference to the “roaring, singing, ranting” practices reminds the reader of cultural rituals and customs that seem to determine

29 the indigenous culture. Generally, these cultural manners do not convey a negative connotation, however, Rowlandson adds harsh words to her descriptions, for instance referring to them as “wolves” and “hell-hounds” that “[tear] [their] hearts out”. Hence, she sheds very poor light upon the Indian manners and conveys the image of a barbarous culture that is inferior to the Puritan one. The narrator later mentions the Indians’ enthusiastic celebration over some white men’s scalps, which she declares as “their manner” and thus again alludes to their vicious cultural customs (“Oh, the hideous insulting and triumphing that there was over some Englishmen’s scalps that they had taken (as their manner is) and brought with them.”) (9) The exclamation “Oh” at the very beginning of the sentence hints at the horror and fright she feels when being confronted with the indigenous manners.

Smith-Rosenberg argues that Mary Rowlandson's narrative excluded Native Americans from the human race when claiming that the Puritans are the true folk of America. Rowlandson declares that the Puritans are the only proper inhabitants America would deserve, representing herself as the embodiment of the Puritan culture in New England. (486) In maintaining her vision of “the irredeemable evil of the Indians, Rowlandson contributes to God any kindness shown her in the first part of the narrative”. (Castiglia 46) It cannot be denied that Rowlandson adheres to the Puritan culture and frequently maligns the Native American manners. However, I do not agree with Castiglia stating that the narrator maintains the image of the Indians as being “irredeemable evil”. By the end of the narrative, Rowlandson’s perception of her surrounding changes and, hence, her harsh criticism of the Indians diminishes. Rowlandson slowly adapts to her new cultural environment and thereby starts recognizing that the Native Americans are not as evil as she thought at the beginning of her captivity.

Furthermore, it can be argued that she uses these rough words in order to picture the “savageness and brutishness” (35) of the Indians. The cruel word choice she applies, however, does not necessarily contribute to the tender and sympathetic nature the Puritans wished to represent. I claim that Rowlandson’s harsh words are often a way to express her fear of the unknown; in fact, the Indian culture and customs were completely new to the Puritan community, which led them to distance themselves from them. What is more, Rowlandson’s wording was influenced by white Puritan ministers who forced her to adhere to Puritanism

30 and thereby blackguard the Indians. All of these factors have an impact on Rowlandson’s narration style, resulting in a distorted perspective of the narrator.

Many hypotheses regarding Mary Rowlandson’s racist attitude appear to be ill-defined. One of the main issues in our knowledge of the narrator’s mindset is a lack of consistency. Moreover, Rowlandson’s narrative voice can be interpreted as a dialectical play between the two worlds, the European and the indigenous community, which is a result of a war experience. As Carroll Smith-Rosenberg argues, Rowlandson “inscribed a self-contradictory subject” and “Rowlandson’s subjectivity, fused with demonic Indians, continually divides, multiplies, and fragments”. (487) In addition, Susan Howe ends her essay on the captivity narrative with a concise comment on the multiplicity of the text: “Mary Rowlandson saw what she did not see said what she did not say”. In Mary Austin’s view, however, the captivity narrative exhibits Rowlandson’s racist perceptions of the society she was living in. She wrote “as the forerunner of a long line of narrative of Indian captivities among vanished tribes, it […] constitutes itself one long shudder of the mingled terror and contempt in which the Indians were held by the English settlers.” Austin closes her writings with the following question: “In ‘The Captivity and Restoration of Mary Rowlandson, may not the American gather the roots of all he likes least in today’s report of existing racial conflicts?” (as cited in Faery 63)

It is very probable that readers may have noticed Rowlandson’s feeling of empathy towards the Indians; one such example could be the following scene, in which the Native Americans have to flee from the White men:

The occasion (as I thought) of their moving at this time was the English army, it being near and following them. For they went as if they had gone for their lives, for some considerable way, and then they made a stop, and chose some of their stoutest men, and sent them back to hold the English army in play whilst the rest escaped. And then, like Jehu, they marched on furiously, with their old and with their young: some carried their old decrepit mothers, some carried one, and some another. Four of them carried a great Indian upon a bier, but going through a thick wood with him, they were hindered, and could make no haste, whereupon they took him upon their backs, and carried him, one at a time, till they came to Banquaug river. (11)

Contrary to previous descriptions, Rowlandson depicts the scene without harshly criticizing the Indians. What is surprising is the fact that she somehow blames the English for their exhausting journey (“the English army […] being near and following them”). (11) The

31 reference to the English army conveys the impression that it was the indigenous people who had to flee from their enemies. Additionally, Rowlandson specifies the difficulties the Indians had to face when they had to move on; by doing that, she highlights the Native Americans’ sense of community when they had to take “their old decrepit mothers” and a “great Indian upon a bier”. (11) When Rowlandson refers to their getaway, she used the word “escaped”, which, by definition means „To issue from confinement“ or “to avoid a threatening evil”. Therefore, the reader might assume that Rowlandson changes her mind for a moment; she seems to understand that the English pose great threat to the Native Americans, their natural environment on which they depend and their way of life.

At the beginning of her narrative Rowlandson describes the Indians as a “company of hellhounds”. When the story proceeds, however, the reader notices that some Native Americans develop individual personalities within the narrative. Rowlandson clearly demonstrates that some of the Indians treat her with kindness by offering her a captured Bible or food. (Kolodny 184) When one of the Native Americans notices that Rowlandson has not bathed for more than a month, she notes that "he fetch me some water himself, and bid me wash, and gave me the Glass to see how I lookt, and bid his Squaw give me something to eat." (29) Rowlandson even explains the economic role she establishes for herself by knitting clothes in exchange for food:

During my abode in this place, Philip spake to me to make a shirt for his boy, which I did, for which he gave me a shilling. I offered the money to my master, but he bade me keep it; and with it I bought a piece of horse flesh. Afterwards he asked me to make a cap for his boy, for which he invited me to dinner. (…) There was a squaw who spake to me to make a shirt for her sannup, for which she gave me a piece of bear. Another asked me to knit a pair of stocking, for which she gave me a quart of peas. (16)

According to Burnham, however, the narrative does not reveal any awareness of the structural disagreement between Rowlandson’s strict Puritan belief that the Native Americans are a savage folk, and her depiction of individual Indians who are affectionate and friendly. Typically, the reasoning for Rowlandson's two "voices" is located in the contradiction between Rowlandson’s individual psychology and the compulsion to conform to Puritan expectations. Without doubt, the narrator experiences a psychological trauma and feelings of grief as a result of a dramatic event; however, this does not necessarily mean that she separates herself or her narrative from Puritan norms. Rowlandson’s beliefs remain persistent with traditional New England Puritanism throughout the narrative. The contradictions which

32 can be found in the narrative are the result of the narrator’s transformed cultural subjectivity, an adjustment provoked by the extensive contact with the Native Americans. (61)

Rowlandson’s narrative is also represented "as an account of the Indians that couples genuine human sympathy with a hatred almost unimaginable to one who has not gone through her experience", and therefore postulating a psychological base for its stylistic contradiction. (Slotkin/Folsom 304) The narrator’s ambiguity is ascribed to Rowlandson’s developing cultural awareness and respect for the Native Americans. Furthermore, an evolution of Rowlandson’s narrative style can be observed; her rhetorical depiction of the Indians as fiendish instruments of Satan becomes increasingly ordinary and pro forma. Rowlandson never concedes her changing awareness of the Indians in spite of the fact that she notices that they are not individually as malicious as she thought at the very beginning of her capture. (Slotkin/Folsom 307)

Rebecca Faery makes a similar observation and claims that Rowlandson’s text is full of contradictions: the Puritans are right, and the Indians are savage; but the Puritans are wrong, and the Indians are not vicious, they can in fact have a deferential and respectful attitude toward a captured European woman. Therefore, the narrator supports the colonizers’ projection of Native American savageness which hides their own violent acquisition of Indian land. By describing the Indians’ respectful treatment of her person, however, she opposes the Puritan claims. (49-50) Faery therefore claims: “if she succeeds in making herself invulnerable to criticism, she renders vulnerable and begins to undo the founding mythologies of Puritan culture in New England.” (50) The correlation between Rowlandson’s narrative and American mythologies is noteworthy because the Puritans in New England heavily contributed to the myths of the Native American culture. This concurs well with Richard Slotkin’s observations of myth-making in America. He states that myths can only be created by humans, and the people who constituted the vast majority of American inhabitants were European by ancestry, by literary and religious heritage, and by language. The only non- European culture in America was the indigenous one. It is important to mention that the “self- baptized American people”, as Slotkin calls them, were the first ones in printing their narratives. (6) As a result, the image of Early America was to a great extent influenced by the writings of English settlers. However, it is important to consider that texts play a crucial role in the history of Puritans, especially the Bible.

Slotkin provides the reader with a definition of the myth-making process and addresses the problems arising with them:

Myth-making, by this definition, is simultaneously a psychological and social activity. The myth is articulated by individual artists and has its effect on the mind of each individual participant, but its function is to reconcile and unite these individualities to a collective identity. A myth that ceases to evoke this religious response, this sense of total identification and collective participation, ceases to function as a myth; a tale that, through the course of several generations – or even several retellings within one generation – acquires this kind of evocative power has evolved into myth. (8)

Likewise, Rowlandson’s narrative creates different effects on every reader; some might perceive her depiction of the Indians as sympathetic, others might argue that she depicts them to be hostile. The collective identity, however, is a unification of all the characteristics transmitted by the narrator. Therefore, it cannot be ignored that Rowlandson’s narrative shapes the readers’ image of early America. Her work definitely contributed to the reader’s image of seventeenth century America when the Native American culture was confronted with the Puritan one. Although Slotkin argues that the emerging mythologies are “artless” in their depiction of the world and rather appeal to people’s emotions than intelligence (6), I do not believe that Rowlandson’s narrative is an “artless” portrayal of the experiences she had during her captivity. It is important to mention that Rowlandson’s understanding of the world is different to the one we have today and, hence, the source of myth is the human understanding of the world at a particular time. What is more, in Puritan mythology, God’s providence joins and modifies a myth.

The study of Rowlandson’s work has revealed that the narrator emphasizes the kindness of the indigenous people who cared for her when she was at her weakest point, and indeed was close to death.

Yea, instead of that, he many times refreshed me, five or six times did he and his squaw refresh my feeble carcass. If I went to their wigwam at any time, they would always give me something, and yet they were strangers that I never saw before. (32)

According to Benjamin Allen, the narrator starts justifying her captors. Rowlandson claims that though the Indian couple may have been malevolent, however, at some point, they let their kindness appear; the narrator even mentions how many times they self-sacrificial served her. Allen argues that “the Native Americans become human for Rowlandson” because she

34 gets to know some individuals who treat her with kindness. (39) He interprets the citation “sometimes I met with favor and sometimes with nothing but frowns” (18) as an assertion that signifies a crucial mindset shift in the narrator’s thought. Allen’s view coincides with Fitzpatrick’s who clarifies the ambiguous writing style Rowlandson uses throughout her narrative. Fitzpatrick states that “the descriptive language that Rowlandson applies to the Indians changes over the course of the narrative, effectively echoing what appear to have been her evolving conception of their identities, of their otherness”. (22) At the beginning of the narrative, she depicts them as demonic creatures (“heathens”, “infidels”, “black creatures in the night”); however, as the narrative evolves, Rowlandson starts perceiving the Indians as individuals and appreciates their names, personalities and peculiarities. She is even amazed at their capabilities to survive despite the hardships they have to face ("I can but stand in admiration to see the wonderful power of God in providing for such a vast number of enemies in the wilderness") (37) (Fitzpatrick 22)

The more time Rowlandson spends among the Indian tribe, the more she becomes aware of their culture and manners. Hence, she depicts a very important cultural event of the Indians towards the end of her captivity. Surprisingly, the reader only encounters innocuous statements, such as the description of the Native American ceremonial dresses:

He was dressed in his holland shirt, with great laces sewed at the tail of it; he had his silver buttons, his white stockings, his garters were hung round with shillings, and he had girdles of wampum upon his head and shoulders. She had a kersey coat, and covered with girdles of wampum from the loins upward. Her arms from her elbows to her hands were covered with bracelets; there were handfuls of necklaces about her neck, and several sorts of jewels in her ears. She had fine red stockings, and white shoes, her hair powdered and face painted red, that was always before black. (34-35)

By describing the Native American clothing style and ceremonial rites in such detail, the narrator creates an authentic picture of the Indian’s way of life. Furthermore, she highlights the importance of culture and tradition within the Indian tribe; the Native American values and attitudes are totally different from the ones Rowlandson knows from the Puritan community. Whereas cooperation and agreement are rather important among the Indian tribe, religious and social commitment is essential among the Puritan community. Without doubt, Rowlandson conveys the Puritan principles throughout the narrative; however, she starts accepting and appreciating the values of the Indians. When Rowlandson refers to their

“singing and knocking on a kettle for their music” and “hopping up and down” (35), she does not speak with contempt in her voice.

To support my claim, Rebecca Faery makes a similar observation when stating that “her months of embeddedness in Indian culture have given her new eyes with which to observe the people she has lived with and their ways, typically so foreign to the English.” (67) Faery verifies that the narrator is motivated by curiosity and the approval, although unspoken, that Narragansett Indians’ culture is a very complicated one, their rituals and manners have a significance which exceed the narrator’s ability to understand them. Faery reads the close observations of Indian rituals and dresses as a drastic change which has taken place in Rowlandson’s life since she was being captured by the Indians. It is hard to believe that the woman she embodies at the beginning of her captivity- a woman who will only refer to her captors as “they”- learns to appreciate and observe the “Powaw” as she does towards the end of the narrative. (68)

It is quite an ironic situation when Rowlandson receives the New Testament from a Native American, as he probably took it from the corpse of the original owner, who was certainly a Puritan man or woman. Given the fact that the Bible has a great meaning for a member of the Puritan community, the readers might assume that Rowlandson’s receipt of a Bible from a Native American is a crucial moment for her (“One of the Indians (…) came to me, and asked me, if I would have a Bible, he had got one in his basket. I was glad of it, and asked him, whether he thought the Indians would let me read? He answered, yes.”) (9) Although Rowlandson mentions that the Indian confirms that she would be allowed to read the Christian scripture and she “was glad of it”, her reaction to the gift is very indifferent; in fact, Rowlandson feels more pleased when receiving food from the Indians. Despite the fact that the Bible verses help Rowlandson and inspire her to find her strength in God, the Indians’ food sharing is more valuable to her. In fact, the narrator is aware of the severe food shortages the Indian community has to face, and therefore appreciates the Indians for sharing the precious food with her. Rowlandson refers to many occurrences when she receives small bits of food, such as ground nuts or (in rare occasions) a piece of meat; she highlights the generosity and benevolence of the indigenous people by referring to their kindness and describing “how pleasant it was to [her]” to still her hunger and how “two spoonfuls of meal comfort [her]”. The sharing of food among the Indian community is a very memorable

36 experience to the narrator, which can be testified by her mentioning it frequently throughout the narrative. Moreover, the repeated reference to the sharing food with the indigenous tribe functions as a reminder that food is a common, basic human need for survival regardless of one’s origin, race or skin color. Additionally, it shows that every human is capable of adapting to different foods and thus to a culture which is distinct from one’s home culture.

There is no other option for the narrator than to accept the restricted meal options of the Indian community, otherwise she would have starved to death. The serious food shortages help Rowlandson to actually enjoy and appreciate the Indian food. I claim that her willingness to adjust to the Indian food culture and food gathering techniques lead her to assimilate to the new cultural environment and give her a feeling of being part of the indigenous community. When a Native American asked her whether she would eat horse liver, she told him that she would try; both, the Indian and Rowlandson are surprised, which can be interpreted as the clash of two different cultures. On a different occasion, Rowlandson enjoys eating a deer fetus, which is definitely a new experience for her. When a Native American gives her a small piece of pancake made of “parched wheat, beaten, and fried in bear’s grease”, the narrator states that she "never tasted pleasanter meat in [her] life.” (16) She even overcomes her horror of eating bear meat, although “the thought that it was bear made [her] tremble” (18) in former times. Rowlandson refers to how “handsomely” (18) the English used to bake bear, however, she found it so disgusting that she could not eat it. Surprisingly, while among the Native Americans, the bear meat tastes “savory” (18) to her. Some might argue that this is a result of extreme hunger and sensory adaptation; however, I think that the narrator’s reference to the deliciousness of bear meat among the Indian community shows that she somehow separates herself from the Puritan society and makes a step toward the Native American culture; she embraces her new cultural environment by enjoying Indian food. (18)

When Rowlandson eats the fawn of a deer, she describes it as “so young and tender, that one might eat the bones as well as the flesh, and yet I thought it very good” (25); the reader might associate this action with uncivilized and savage behavior, which Rowlandson usually attributes to the indigenous community. However, immersing herself in the Native American culture forces her to adapt to their manners and become “savage”. In fact, their existence depends on hunting wild animals and gathering wild plant foods, such as seeds or nuts. The narrator does not deny that she enjoys the Native American food culture, which again

37 indicates her respect for them. There is one conspicuous situation in which the reader calls the narrator’s civilized behavior into question: Rowlandson goes as far as to steal and eat up the food of an English child; she writes how “savory it was to [her] taste”, which shows that she does not feel guilty or ashamed of taking away the food of a Puritan child. This behavior certainly does not coincide with the Puritan ideals Rowlandson intends to convey throughout the narrative; in this particular situation Rowlandson does not represent the gentle and sympathetic character of the Puritans, on the contrary, she copies the manner of some indigenous people who take away the food from others in case of fatigue and excessive hunger. Although Rowlandson herself has been in the same stressful situation when some Indians have taken away her precious food, she steals the food of an European child and does not comment on any feelings of guilt and shame.

Michelle Burnham argues that Rowlandson’s narrative is neither about her captivity nor about her eventual liberation, “but about the journey between”. (60) The journey Burnham refers to, on the one hand, can be understood as a “spiritual pilgrimage” which the Puritan woman unconsciously but duteously undergoes; she experiences difficulties and adaptation which allure the captive and test her faith and election by God. On the other hand, Rowlandson is obliged to take on a journey of several miles through the wilderness, to adjust not only to the landscape and to the Native American’s hasty walk through it, but also to the cultural differences of their community. Additionally, the arduous journey serves as a test, but Rowlandson is only hardly aware, if at all, of its purpose and significance. Before her captivity, the Native American culture was not present in Rowlandson’s and her readers’ lives apart from being a typological symbol. Through the conversion of her captivity experience into a written story with the objective to “better to declare what happened” (2) to her, a documentation of a complex interplay between two cultures arises; both cultures had long before inhabited the same continent but had experienced little contact, particularly in such an intimate setting and over such a long period of time. (60-61)

Burnham also addresses the “curious split in the narrative tone of Rowlandson’s narrative”. (61) This gives the impression that the precise depiction of her journey was recorded by one narrator, and the biblical citations and conclusions drawn from her experience reported by another. (61) As Kathryn Zabelle Derounian states, the "empirical narration (the 'colloquial' style) defines the author's role as participant, while rhetorical narration (the 'biblical' style)

38 defines her role as interpreter and comment”. (as cited in Burnham 61) As mentioned by Derounian and Burnham, the reader gets to know a multifaceted narrator who depicts personal experiences in various ways. Rowlandson’s contemplation of her journey reveals different ideas which unite the events of her Puritan past and experiences in an alien culture: Puritan responsibility, cultural complexity, and prejudiced expectations. As previously mentioned, the narrator finds herself in the middle of an (unknown) culture while trying to make sense of misfortune and maintaining her Christian faith. I believe that the following passage is a key scene in Rowlandson’s narrative that shows her hesitancy to express her opinion about the Native Americans:

I had often before this said that if the Indians should come, I should choose rather to be killed by them than taken alive, but when it came to the trial my mind changed; their glittering weapon so daunted my spirit, that I chose rather to go along with those (as I may say) ravenous beasts, than that moment to end my days. (4)

Rowlandson juxtaposes the “ravenous beasts” and the “glittering weapon [that] daunted [her] spirit” and thus invites the reader to question her sanity; although the narrator addresses the Indians with derogatory language (“ravenous beasts”), she finally decides “to go along with [them]”. What is more, Rowlandson highlights that her “mind changed” which hints at her changing cultural perception; she also emphasizes that it is her own choice to take on the journey with the indigenous people, which is a strong statement for a Puritan woman in the seventeenth century. However, her writing that she “chose” to go along with the indigenous tribe might also be seen as a slightly deceptive idea, as in war one is hardly ever able to decide whether he would prefer to stay among his home society or not.

As previously mentioned, Mary Austin observations led her to conclude that Mary Rowlandson wished to reveal racial conflicts. However, the historical context has to be considered when interpreting a narrative written in the 17th century. There is not enough evidence in the captivity tale to support the hypothesis that Rowlandson consciously highlights America’s racist problems at that time, as Mary Austin has argued. It is true that the reader might sometimes feel that Rowlandson shows empathy towards the Native Americans and appraises their values. Although there are some moments when the narrator seems to appreciate the indigenous manners, it is not easy to verify Rowlandson’s respect and understanding for the Native American culture. In fact, the reader is confronted with numerous scenes in which it is impossible for her to see past the stereotypes used to

39 categorize the Native Americans; Rowlandson’s inability to see beyond the racist images peddled by the Puritan society remains throughout the narrative. In the end, she relies on her divided feelings for the Indians.

To sum up, Mary Rowlandson’s narrative voice is remarkably diverse; a single interpretative frame thereby does not fulfill the literary need to consider more than one perspective. In the end, Mary is able to somehow connect to the indigenous culture and people, although they markedly differ from her native European society. Rowlandson even states that the Native Americans are preserved by God. (“And here I cannot but take notice of the strange providence of God in preserving the heathens.”) (12) Without doubt, hesitation can be observed in the narrator’s voice, as she refers to God’s preserving of the Native Americans as “strange”. Furthermore, she uses a rather harsh characterization of the indigenous people by referring to them as “heathens”. However, Mary at the same appreciates the fact that (the Christian) God also protects the indigenous folk. As it has been shown in this chapter, there are many scenes in the narrative which reveal the duality of the narrator’s voice. This leads me to the conclusion that Mary Rowlandson’s versatile experiences result in a multifaceted narrative voice, which allows more than one interpretation.

2.2 INTERPRETING PURITAN IDEALS AND BELIEFS

And here I may take occasion to mention one principal ground of my setting forth these few Lines; even as the Psalmist says, To declare the works of the Lord, and his wonderful power in carrying us along, preserving us in the Wilderness, while under the Enemies hand, and returning of us in safety again; and his goodness in bringing to my hand so many comfortable and suitable Scriptures in my distress. (15)

David, son of Jesse, is one of the most multifaceted characters in the Old Testament and thereby has the potential to represent numerous symbolic meanings. According to Dawn Henwood, David is “Shepherd, soldier, singer. Lover, giant-killer, king. Poet, penitent, prophet of the Messiah.” When the white men decided to start their battle against the American wilderness in order to find their New Jerusalem, David, Israel’s hero, was “the call to battle, the cry for help, the prophecy of victory, the music of consolation”. The Bay Psalm Book (1640), the first book printed in the American wilderness, was based on his Psalms. Therefore, it is not surprising that Rowlandson, in her bitter battle against the wilderness during her three-month tramp through the American bush, frequently relies on the first book

40 of the New England Puritans in order to soothe her pain. The curious duality in her narrative, the two sides of the narrator which caused much criticism, seems to partly come from the versatile voices of David’s songs. The narrator finds a context for her tribulation, spiritual support and emotional liberation in the Psalms. (Henwood 169-170)

During that time, church membership and Puritanism was declining in New England. Therefore, clergymen became worried about the decreasing interest in the Christian faith and the church, and hence supported Rowlandson’s text. Their “support” probably influenced her writings. Mary Rowlandson’s experiences among the indigenous tribe were interpreted in the same way which empowered other historians and Puritan members. As already mentioned before, Rowlandson thereby perceived her captivity as God’s will and as a teaching not only to herself, but also to her readers. (Sayre 24)

The front page together with Increase Mather’s preface, her husband’s sermon and the narrative itself all function to restore Mary Rowlandson in the Puritan community. The full, lengthy title shows the overlap of the ideological, social and discursive positions (Logan 258):

The Sovereignty and goodness of GOD, together with the faithfulness of his promises displayed; being a narrative of the captivity and restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson, commended by her, to all that desires to know the Lord's doings to, and dealings with her. Especially to her dear children and relations. Written by her own hand and for her private use, and now made public at the earnest desire of some friends, and for the benefit of the afflicted. Deut. 32.39. See now that I, even I am he, and there is no god with me; I kill and I make alive, I wound and I heal, neither is there any can deliver out of my hand. (2)

The narrative’s title transforms the work into an “instance” of God’s “sovereignty and Goodness”; the writing is valuable not because it narrates the experiences of the narrator’s captivity and restoration, but because of the greater significance of Rowlandson’s fate. Therefore, the narrator develops into a representative member of all Puritans who are saved by God’s mercy. (Logan 258) The Puritans discovered the moral value within the captivity narratives, which served as a base for instruction. Ministers, such as Mather, portrayed individual captives as metaphors for the Puritan community, who deserved tribulation for momentary misbehavior but eventually would be redeemed by divine rescue. The Puritan portrayal of the vicious Indians toward the religious Christian captives was a way to justify the transformation of the “savages” and their removal. (Kolodny 187)

It might be that Mary Rowlandson knew Increase Mather rather well. Joseph Rowlandson was a minister, which brought them into contact with Mather. Therefore, it is highly probable that Increase Mather was, either directly or indirectly, involved in the composition of Mary’s narrative by expressing propositions and thereby shaping the narrative. Mather played a significant role in Rowlandson’s perception of affliction, which she interpreted as an essential point of the Puritan faith, rather than as an individual phenomenon: similar words, for example, can be found in the last sermon of her husband Joseph, which was added in the appendix of the narrative. Mather’s intention thus was to exhibit that Puritan’s world view was able to explain the happenings during King Philip’s War, with all the horror and fright, as an approval of its principles; Mather did not want to permit the story to become a tale of horror or trauma which might question the great aptitude of Puritanism. (Breitwieser 7)

Several authors have expressed doubt about the preface to Rowlandson’s narrative. Tiffany Potter states that Increase Mather’s preface to Rowlandson’s narrative defines a good Puritan woman as God’s “precious servant” (2) and, as a passive and submissive human being who outlines her trials only for her own education, "a pious scope which deserves both commendation and imitation." (3) The preface creates an example requiring “imitation”, however, it comes to the reader’s mind that a female public voice in any other context requires the casting of only negative reflections. Additionally, the preface states that in Rowlandson’s narrative, God will be seen "ruling the most unruly, weakening the most cruel and salvage (…) curbing the lusts of the most filthy" (5), which, according to Potter, is a completely inaccurate characterization of indigenous men, as it expresses a clear demand of women to be ruled (the opposite of unruly), and thus risking sexual peril. (Potter 156)

Although Rowlandson’s captivity narrative does not explicitly mention any indecencies neither by Indian men nor her, the reader comes across certain passages loaded with uncertainties about the chastity of a Puritan woman. I feel that the narrator intends to convince the reader of her chastity and purity with the following statement:

I have been in the midst of those roaring lions, and savage bears that feared neither God, nor man, nor the devil, by night and day, alone and in company, sleeping all sorts together, and yet not one of them ever offered me the least abuse of unchastity to me, in word or action. Though some are ready to say I speak it for my own. (38)

According to Rebecca Faery, “Rowlandson’s report that the Indians were never sexually aggressive toward her does not mean that her story altogether lacks an erotic element.” (70) The representation of a virtuous restored Puritan woman requires the reader to disregard certain scenarios in the text which have indeed an erotic character. Throughout the narrative, it becomes obvious that the narrator is attached to Quinnapin; her candor in showing her close relationship with him is striking. When Quinnapin abandons the group for several weeks, she truly misses him: she notes “my master himself was gone and I left behind, so that my Spirit was now quite ready to sink”. (21) When Rowlandson and Quinnapin are reunited after a long time, she writes “and glad I was to see him”. (29) The night before her ransom and return to the Puritan community, Quinnapin, drunk from the whiskey, asks her to come to his wigwam. It is not completely clear what actually happens in these last hours when they are still in the roles of master and slave. Rowlandson again goes with restraint, possibly combined with an unacknowledged desire. The sexual attraction, however, ends when Quinnapin only drinks to her, “shewing no incivility” (35), and decides to spend the night with one of his wives. (70)

Rowlandson frequently draws upon the first book of the New England Puritans in order to certify that she maintains her faith during her nearly three months captivity. According to David Downing, approximately one third of the Biblical citations Rowlandson incorporates in her writings come from the Psalms. (255) One of the reasons Rowlandson’s captivity narrative became so popular at that time was definitely the narrative’s representation of a model of Christian tribulation. What is more, Rowlandson perseverance in that tribulation appealed to the interest of the Christian audience. Her narrative strongly emphasizes her Christian faith and belief in God; she incorporates many citations from the Bible and frequently mentions that God is testing her faith through her suffering. Throughout the narrative, Rowlandson juxtaposes real happenings with biblical comparisons. When Rowlandson for example bemoans the pain and hardship she is feeling during the eleventh remove, she ends her laments with a quote from the Bible: “I know, O Lord, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me” (Psalm 119,75). (19) The reference to the Psalm again implies that she will undergo the tribulation faithfully.

Mary Rowlandson fills her captivity narrative with biblical references. In the writings about her “martyrdom”, Rowlandson refers to the Bible more than eighty times; the reader encounters numerous direct quotations, references to biblical characters, or rendering of

43 biblical phrases. The common references to the Bible serve as a base for the narrator’s typological interpretation and, hence, present spiritual lectures not only for herself but for all members of the Puritan community. Rowlandson’s autobiographical report retells the occurrences during her captivity among the Native American tribe; she uses a very spiritual language and proves the sovereignty and grace of God. Furthermore, she classifies her captivity broadly as part of the Christian experience in New England, and as a symbol of the soul sacrificed by Satan. Generally, the narrator uses ordinary and vivid language to retell the happenings of her captivity, connecting close reflection with a plain, simple narration style. However, the narrator uses high-toned and pompous expressions when citing passages from the Bible, or referring to metaphors in order to convey her understanding of the occurrences. Rowlandson applies this changing narration style already at the beginning of the narrative. The introductory paragraph, which describes the Indian attack on Lancaster, does not include any biblical references, except the mention of “the smoke ascending to heaven”, which is not an explicit reference to Christian scripture. (Downing 252) It can be argued that the smoke is an indication for the Native Americans who are perceived as black souls and fiery, dark creatures by the Whites; the smoke thus poses a threat to the Christian heaven. However, it is more probable that Rowlandson wished to refer to the Old Testament biblical sacrifice scene of Abraham and Isaac.

Surprisingly, Rowlandson changes to a biblical language when trying to make sense of her sister’s death; she inserts a direct quotation from the Bible: “I hope she is reaping the fruit of her good labors, being faithful to the service of God in her place.” However, the narrator’s refusal of a pompous writing style is striking. It is important to look at the alternating narration style which is present throughout the entire narrative. After the depiction of daily events within the Native American community with only few citations from the Bible, Rowlandson usually ends her description to reflect upon the occurrences, often referring to her Christian belief and interpreting biblical verses. Interestingly, the closing paragraph, in contrast to the opening one, which is about the same length, includes more than a dozen references to the Bible. (Downing 252) I think that Rowlandson ends the removes with biblical references in order to emphasize the purpose of her narrative, which is, as Increase Mather declared in the preface, God’s approval by Christian faith rather than the story of her captivity. I believe that Rowlandson uses such an extensive amount of God’s words at the end of her narrative in order to justify her writings; she conveys the impression that her captivity

44 narrative is an account of a poor Christian soul’s tribulation proving her faith. Additionally, the narrator manifests her good nature and Puritan origin with biblical references; hence, she intends to show that she is a well-behaved, dutiful Puritan woman who follows the rules of the Puritan society.

In general, Rowlandson’s work is a testimonial of God’s salvation. As the majority of Indian captivity tales written by members of the Puritan community, it features various characteristics of spiritual autobiography. (Downing 253) In Regeneration Through Violence, Richard Slotkin describes the connection between the two types of writing as follows: "Indian captivity victimization by the wilderness was the hardest and most costly (and therefore the noblest) way of discovering the will of God in respect to one's soul, one's election or damnation." (as cited in Downing 253) Rowlandson’s work shows how captivity can become an opportunity for the exploration of one’s soul. According to Downing, most biblical verses quoted in the tale are about her fear of God’s judgment and her effort to find affirmation in the Bible about her salvation. (253) I believe that the biblical references throughout Rowlandson’s narrative also reveal her anxiety of Puritan obligations; when an Indian couple offered her to flee with them, she refuses because she “was not willing to run away, but desired to wait God’s time”. (38) This is a very contradictory statement if we think about her great desire to go home, which she has mentioned several times before. I think that a possible explanation for this reaction could be her fear of running away from the affliction she “deserves”; it is not only God’s will, but also the requirement of the Puritans that she endures her tribulation, as she is among the favored few according to the Christian faith. The narrator might thereby fear the judgment of God and the Puritans if she decides to run away from her fate. Rowlandson states “Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord” (Exodus 14.13) (43) in the very last sentence of her narrative, which implies that the ultimate purpose of her writings is to rely on her belief in God and confirm the Puritan values. It is rather questionable, however, whether it is Mary’s firm intention to write down a story which manifests her Puritan faith, or rather the wish of Puritan ministers.

2.3 (RE)CONSIDERING THE FEMALE IDEAL

The first studies of Rowlandson’s captivity narrative considered it to be a record of a pitiful Puritan woman being captivated by the savage Indians. However, there was little discussion on white women’s positive and beneficial experiences among the Native Americans in former years. Captivity, as Laurel Thatcher Ulrich argues, is a way to access “new worlds both of terror and of possibility”. (202) The Indian captivity can be understood in a paradoxical way for white women of New England. Contrary to popular belief, their confinement did not only restrict them but also allowed them to broaden their understanding and horizon, and to grow. According to Rebecca Faery, Rowlandson is among the first women who document Native Americans’ life in the English language. It is the voice of a woman who displays her immersion in the Indian culture; Rowlandson tastes the food of the Indians, acquires some words of their language, and sleeps among them. Her experience outside the Puritan community required her to gain abilities she would never have developed in the Puritan society, namely the capacity to refuse and resist. During captivity, she developed a capacity for resistance, a power to oppose and retaliate, capabilities that helped her survive. Her return to the Puritan community was certainly precarious due to her transgression of her determined feminine role. (Faery 31-32) Although Mary Rowlandson was among the first writers who documented their immersion into the indigenous culture, it is to doubt whether she was the very first author who recounted her experiences among the Native Americans in English. The works of Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson should not be neglected in the literary canon of 17th century America.

Rebecca Faery draws our attention to the similarities between Puritan women and the Native Americans at that time. She points out that indigenous people and Englishwomen take over a similar role in the patriarchal Puritan society: their limits and boundaries were established by the Puritan men. Neither Englishwomen nor Native Americans were regarded as adults, they were thought to be connected with the forces of nature – indigenous people because of their “uncivilized” culture, women because of their female reproductive function, their innate capacity of giving birth to a child, lactate and nurture it, their cyclic rhythms – and therefore tend to be “more inclined to licentiousness and other kinds of unruliness”. (Faery 32) Without doubt, Native Americans and European women shared a number of characteristics with regard to their status in the male Puritan community; however, I cannot see Rebecca Faery’s point of comparing them with each other, as indigenous people are distinctly different from

Englishwomen. Although women were regarded inferior to men in Puritan society (and so were indigenous people), they were still part of the community and equally seen as members of their communal life. Moreover, they shared the same religious belief, origin and culture. As opposed to European women, Puritan men did not share any cultural values or beliefs with the indigenous folk, which puts them on an entirely different social level and thus makes them incomparable with Puritan women.

Through a violent capture, the white woman is all of a sudden physically allied with the Indians, whose ideological commonalities had been determined by the Puritan society long before. The situation results in a dilemma; one the one hand, the White woman has to defend her Puritan self against the indigenous way of life and thus reject their savageness as she had been taught at home and, on the other hand, she has to keep up her attributed role of the Puritan woman. As already mentioned before, the return to the Puritan society might have provoked others to question her prescribed feminine role, which made her an object of suspicion within the community. (Faery 32) I argue that it can only be assumed that Rowlandson was confronted with suspicious observers and malicious tongues. There is no evidence which proves that Puritan community members questioned her white womanhood when returning to the Puritan society. It is very probable that Rowlandson continued her previous life and attributed role as a Puritan woman, however, I do not think that her understanding of womanhood was the same as before the captivity. I assume that the transformation of her knowledge changed the perception of herself and other Puritan women, which could have influenced her behavior and attitude among the white community. It is important to mention, however, that these assumptions are only speculations which lack sufficient evidence to prove them right.

Throughout the captivity narrative, the reader encounters some implicit characterizations of men and women in 17th century New England. In the following passage, Rowlandson refers to the “good labors” and “spiritual accounts” (3) of her sister and thus provides the reader with an understanding of the seventeenth century Puritan woman in America. The narrator’s laudatory remarks indicate feelings of respect and admiration for her sister and, hence, show that she is aware of women’s versatile tasks within the Puritan community. As aforementioned, Mary’s perception of herself as a Puritan woman might have change through her experiences among the Native Americans. Thus the narrator might no longer appraise the

47 bounden duties of Puritan women at the end of her captivity. It is not completely clear whether the narrator’s reference to “much trouble upon spiritual accounts” demonstrates that her sister has not always been a great admirer of the Christian faith. In the end however, she indicates that the Christian belief is a “sweet” and “comfortable” place to her. The last sentence of this passage therefore reveals that Puritans had no other choice than committing their lives to God and the Christian scriptures.

I hope she is reaping the fruit of her good labors, being faithful to the service of God in her place. In her younger years she lay under much trouble upon spiritual accounts, till it pleased God to make that precious scripture take hold of her heart, "And he said unto me, my Grace is sufficient for thee" (2 Corinthians 12.9). More than twenty years after, I have heard her tell how sweet and comfortable that place was to her. (3)

Lisa Logan argues that this passage expresses a metaphor for Rowlandson’s own life; she compares her sister’s situation with her own experience. During her captivity in the Native American culture, Rowlandson also “lay under much trouble” as she struggled with her own “spiritual accounts”. Furthermore, the narrator relies on Biblical passages which “take hold of her heart” and thus strengthen her will to survive. According to Logan, this passage does not only express the understanding of her own experience; her reference to the term “place” plays a crucial role in the representation and remembrance of the captivity. The biblical quotations present “places” that bring warmth and relief to Rowlandson’s uncertain situation; the Bible therefore is a secure anchor in the narrator’s life that assists her in making sense of her tribulation by placing her struggle in the wilderness into a typological and significant context. Additionally, the term “place” is used to determine the position of a person – political, social, spiritual- who serves God as a part of the New England Puritan society. The narrator’s sister was a loyal person “in her place”, the word choice implies the existence of other places, places that the Puritan community in New England sets up as gendered. The overlap of figurative and literal spaces is a notable characteristic in Rowlandson’s work; therefore, the work can be read as both a narrative of her captivity and about “place”. (Logan 256) Lisa Logan’s idea of “place” in Rowlandson’s narrative is particularly interesting, as the narrator encounters various places before, during and after her captivity. Especially the removals could be interpreted as distinct places, which render a static place impossible. As the woman is forced to move on with the Native Americans, her former definitions of place become invaluable – Mary has to experience a form of displacement. Rowlandson’s former knowledge and beliefs are suddenly displaced by a new set of values, which she acquires

48 through her experience among the indigenous people and her newfound female role (as an autonomous, independent woman) in the American wilderness.

I agree with Lisa Logan who argues that considerable attention must be paid to the historical context in which Rowlandson wrote her narrative because it shows that gender relations are a major factor in her work. Women did not have the courage to speak their minds aloud or to write down their experiences or opinions, which was connected with their sexuality. There is historical evidence which allows us to trace back the climate of New England women’s writings; John Winthrop, for example, interpreted the writings of Anne Hopkins as madness (“a godly young woman (…) who was fallen into a sad infirmity, the loss of her understanding and reason, which had been growing upon her divers years, by occasion of her giving herself wholly to reading and writing”). (as cited in Logan 260) In 1650, Thomas Parker expressed his contempt of his sister when she published a book: “your printing of a Book, beyond the custom of your Sex, doth rankly smell”. (as cited in Logan 260)

Parker argues against women’s right to authorship, and connects his sister’s writings with physical attributes (“doth rankly smell”). The association of her writings with smell suggests a connection between a woman’s corporal body and the body of her work. Parker is not the only one who connects women’s works with their sexual organs; John Cotton declared Anne Hutchinson’s writings as “spiritual adultery”, and it was often stated that Hutchinson “seduced” Christians away from their belief and the church. Considering the context of seventeenth century New England, Rowlandson’s captivity narrative foresees potential hostility toward her female authorship as well as her reader’s suspicion about her: that her captivity among the Indians might be the punishments of God because of her sins and impiety, her work being one example of it. (Logan 261-262) Increase Mather’s preface therefore seeks to defend Rowlandson’s narrative and protect her from speculations (“I hope by this time none will cast any reflection upon this gentle woman on the score of this publication of her Affliction and Deliverance.”) (as cited in Logan 262)

Although Rowlandson finds herself “in the midst” of the indigenous tribe, far away from the Puritan community (“If one looked before one there was nothing but Indians, and behind one, nothing but Indians, and so on either hand, I myself in the midst, and no Christian soul near me.” (13)), this situation allows her to reshape her identity. During her captivity, Mary

Rowlandson makes a new self-experience with regard to her woman’s role in society as a woman. She is no longer restricted to the rules of the Puritan society; despite her capture, she experiences a sense of freedom and thus has a greater sense of herself. It cannot be neglected that Rowlandson has more autonomy in the Native American community than in the patriarchal society. Additionally, she is incorporated in the Native American community which has an entirely different way of life; they work as a group and thus Rowlandson gets involved in a collective experience.

Additionally, her life among the indigenous people enables her to enjoy moral and emotional freedom which is a new experience for a Puritan woman. In her role of a Puritan minister’s wife, she was required to be dependent, subservient and patient. According to Benjamin Allen, the captivity allows her to prioritize her own person and needs, and to speak her anger aloud without fearing any negative consequences which would follow the articulation of such feelings in her native community. Rowlandson notifies that her “spirit was … very impatient and almost outrageous” (37) and carries out a rather selfish action, stealing the food from a helpless English child. While at the beginning of the narrative, Rowlandson was afraid of her captors, her attitude changes and she becomes quite bold; when some indigenous people menace to kill her, she responds: “I told him they had as good knock me in the head as starve me to death” (52). Benjamin Allen argues that Rowlandson rejects patriarchal rules, and eventually even refuses King Philip’s commands, the leader of the indigenous tribe. When Mary resists giving away a piece of her apron to make a piece of clothes for King Philip’ son, Weetamoo menaces to pull off a piece, to which the woman responds that she will destroy his coat in revenge. Although a Puritan woman should obey orders without resisting, Mary Rowlandson adopts an impertinent behavior and provokes conflict. The captivity thus allows her to acquire a sense of emotional and physical liberty which was typically inaccessible for a Puritan woman. (Allen 33)

Nonetheless, it is essential to consider that Mary finds herself in a master – slave experience. Without doubt, she acquires a sense of newfound autonomy which is rather unusual for a woman who comes from the Puritan community. Moreover, Rowlandson somehow steps out of her prescribed role as an obedient, silent, non-resisting woman, as she refuses the orders of indigenous men. Her female role is thus redefined and extended with regard to her self- determination and independence. However, Mary is still forced to take on a subordinate role

50 as a captive among the Native Americans and, hence, her female freedom is restricted to certain boundaries.

I believe that Rowlandson’s reference to Native American women is highly important with regard to self-characterization and her perception of women in general. Rowlandson sheds light upon women’s roles within the Native American community and thereby reflects upon her own role in the Puritan society. By describing the appearance and habits of Indian squaws, she discovers differences between Puritan and Native American women. I think that Rowlandson’s depiction of a different type of woman can also be interpreted as a description of herself; describing what she is not is a way for her to express who she is. I believe that Rowlandson’s awareness rises with regard to the restrictions and limitations of a Puritan woman; she becomes more aware of the expression of femininity in the Native American community which can be observed in the following example:

A severe and proud dame she was, bestowing every day in dressing herself neat as much time as any of the gentry of the land: powdering her hair, and painting her face, going with necklaces, with jewels in her ears, and bracelets upon her hands. When she had dressed herself, her work was to make girdles of wampum and beads. (29)

The narrator depicts the behavior and attributes of a squaw; she describes the Indian woman as a “dame” (by definition “a woman of rank, station, or authority”, online) which shows her admiration and appreciation for this woman. Furthermore, the narrator describes the beauty of the squaw who wears “necklaces”, “jewels in her ears” and “bracelets upon her hands”. It is important to consider that Puritan women did not adorn themselves with jewels; however, Rowlandson’s admiration for the expression of beauty and femininity cannot be neglected. Additionally, the narrator comments that “she had dressed herself” which leads me to the assumption that she highlights the fact that Native American women had the right to wear what they wanted. On the contrary, Puritan women’s’ dress code was predefined by their society, one such example can be found in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, in which Hester Prynne is forced to wear the letter A on her breast, as she is punished for adultery.

To support my claim, Faery points out that Rowlandson’s description of Weetamoo’s and Quinnapin’s traditional dresses and adornment show her raising awareness of the social setting of her captivity, although she is not always able to understand it. Rowlandson’s

51 comparison of Weetamoo with a “Dame” of the English upper class could be interpreted as scoffing at Weetamoo’s self-adornment and toilet as presumptuous. The narrator’s depiction is, however, the result of a close observation, which could also be the effect of curiosity about the Indian world which is unfolding in front of her eyes. According to Faery, the reader notices a hint of adulation and even envy in the passage expressed by the narrator toward the beautiful dress and appearance of the Indian woman. (Faery 69)

Christopher Castiglia also claims that the captives’ definition of themselves changes, as the depiction of their personalities develops from a shared identity with white men in opposition to a nonwhite population, to a definition of being mainly “female”, and thus promotes a shared identity with all women, regardless of their origin or skin color, in contrast to all men. (8) As previously mentioned, I believe that Rowlandson’s identity is partly shaped by her reference to the identity of Native American women; the female gender becomes a central theme in her narrative and opposes male dominance within the Puritan community. According to Castiglia, living among the Native Americans was an opportunity for the captives to doubt the portrayal of “sexually vulnerable, unalterably xenophobic, and physically helpless women who require protection and support of white men.” Additionally, white women achieve to define themselves as subjects who address other captives or women through captivity, and thus position themselves as “agents of cultural exchange”. (9)

Rowlandson’s captivity narrative combines her many-sided positions – social, physical, ideological, discursive – that she has: Puritan, wife, mother, neighbor, captive, writer, woman. It is about searching for a place from which to speak, occupying a position of authority from which to express experience and self, and, simultaneously, devoting oneself to public examination. Rowlandson’s text represents an inquiry into the position(s) of women as subjects of discourse; hence, “captivity” is not only a place for her writing and self expression but also a metaphor for her various female position(s). Throughout the narrative, captivity is used as a metaphor to bring to light the numerous position(s) she occupies as a female author and a political and gendered subject. (Logan 256)

I agree with Logan’s opinion about Rowlandson’s self-characterization through the reference to other women in the text. However, I do not believe that Rowlandson’s purpose was to merely emphasize the difficulties a Puritan woman had to deal with at that time; through her

52 experiences within the indigenous tribe and the wilderness, her awareness of herself and others changes. This is a subtle, unconscious effect. It is important to bear in mind that the narrator steps into a completely new female role, which she has probably never thought of before. Rowlandson finds herself within an alien culture where women occupy different positions than in her own society. Interestingly, the narrator somehow marvels at the female role and Indian womanhood when, for example, she admires their beautiful dresses or refers to their independent tasks, such as collecting food. Mary Rowlandson somehow sees indigenous women as exempt from a patriarchal order, which seems to attract her attention.

2.4 SURVIVAL AS A HEROIC ACT

Rowlandson’s narrative recounts the story of a woman and her child being captured during an attack by the Native Americans, and the child’s painful dying in the arms of her starving and injured mother who has to walk for miles through the American wilderness and has to find rest on the hard ground. Her narrative can be viewed as a “scary, gruesome thriller”. (Sayre 24) According to Kathryn Derounian, the narrator suffered from physical and psychological trauma (“survivor syndrome”) during and shortly after her captivity but intended to disguise the symptoms in order to obey the Puritan instruction of providential pain. Her captivity narrative therefore accomplished a function for the personal and public service. Writing down her experiences was, on the one hand, a healing process for herself because she encountered her past outside the conventions of society and, on the other hand, it was also a religious (public) writing because she noted down her return to the Puritan society. (90)

Throughout her captivity, Mary Rowlandson definitely has to face several hardships and difficulties. I claim that she goes through several very severe tribulations; one of the most painful experiences for Rowlandson is the death of her youngest child Sarah and the separation from her other children Mary and Joseph. The narrator does not know about their fate for a tremendously long time; the readers can assume that Rowlandson starts thinking that all of her children are dead until she finally meets up with them and realizes that they are still alive. The fact of not knowing where her children are must be a very terrible experience for a loving and caring mother, which Rowlandson definitely is. She is affected by the separation from her dear children and suffers from anxiety, which is expressed by the following

53 statements: “Heart-aching thoughts here I had about my poor children, who were scattered up and down among the wild beasts of the forest.” (11) At the beginning of her captivity, the narrator is not familiar with the indigenous culture, resulting in her fear about the “wild beasts of the forest”, which might threaten or even kill her children.

The reader notices that the narrator feels pity for her poor children, which is not surprising, as they are taken captive by an unknown folk, whose language, habits and beliefs are completely different from their home society. Additionally, Rowlandson has experienced the cruelty of the Indians, which results in her anxiety that her children will have to deal with their wild manners as well. In the following scene, the reader feels the narrator’s suffering and states of fear, as she constantly has to think about the situation of her son. Furthermore, she does not know anything about the condition of her “poor girl”:

My son was ill, and I could not but think of his mournful looks, and no Christian friend was near him to do any office of love for him, either for soul or body. And my poor girl, I knew not where she was, nor whether she was sick, or well, or alive, or dead. (17-18)

As already mentioned, Rowlandson has to overcome emotional and physical pains during her captivity, one of it being the death of her six-year-old daughter; Sarah’s dying is definitely a life-changing experience for the narrator. It is important to mention that Rowlandson refers to her daughter as it rather than her; Sarah’s name is only mentioned once in the entire narrative (“With tears in his eyes, he asked me whether his sister Sarah was dead; and told me he had seen his sister Mary”). (9) As the reader can observe in the other references, Rowlandson mostly uses the pronoun it. This can easily lead to the assumption that Rowlandson is contemptuous of Sarah or does not care about her. Even though Rowlandson does not use her child’s first name, characterizing the use of it as dismissive would be an unreasonable assumption; it would stand in contradiction with Rowlandson’s sorrowful descriptions of her daughter passing away:

Thus nine days I sat upon my knees, with my babe in my lap, till my flesh was raw again; my child being even ready to depart this sorrowful world, they bade me carry it out to another wigwam (…) whither I went with a very heavy heart, and down I sat with the picture of death in my lap. About two hours in the night, my sweet babe like a lamb departed this life on Feb. 18, 1675. It being about six years, and five months old. It was nine days from the first wounding, in this miserable condition, (…). I cannot but take notice how at another time I could not bear to be in the room where any dead person was, but now the case is changed; I must and could lie down by my dead babe, side by side all the night after. I have thought since of the wonderful

goodness of God to me in preserving me in the use of my reason and senses in that distressed time, that I did not use wicked and violent means to end my own miserable life. (7-8)

In fact, this passage lends support to Rowlandson’s care and affection for her daughter. Moreover, Mary’s grief on her child’s death is a “universal” experience regardless of her cultural positioning; it will always be a terrible experience for a mother to lose her child. She names her “sweet babe” and compares her with a “lamb”, which has a strong connotation to Christianity. The lamb is a “symbol of renewal, victory of life upon the death, gentleness, tenderness, innocence”. What is more, the lamb is “a perfect victim which should be sacrificed to assure someone’s salvation”. (online) The symbol of the lamb is therefore interesting in several ways. First, it symbolizes “renewal” and “victory of life upon death”, which could mean that Rowlandson’s belief in the resurrection of her dead daughter gives her hope, strength and courage to continue the journey without her child. Second, the lifesaving signification of the sacrificial lamb indicates that the death of Sarah is a way for her mother to survive. Additionally, Rowlandson indicates that her feelings of sorrow for her sick child are worse than her death (“There remained nothing to me but one poor wounded babe, and it seemed at present worse than death that it was in such a pitiful condition (…) and I had no refreshing for it.”) (5)

This observation might at first seem gruesome, however, carrying her “poor sick babe” (6) with her definitely represents physical exertion and emotional upset for Mary. Despite the fact that the injured child is putting Rowlandson’s body under severe strain, her unconditional love for her daughter is made obvious through her strong will to carry her child on her arms while trying to survive in the wilderness. When Sarah dies, Rowlandson refuses to leave her dead child, although she was previously afraid of being close to dead persons (“I could not bear to be in the room where any dead person was, but now the case is changed”). (8) I believe that this assertion proves that Rowlandson’s love for her daughter outweighs the pain the loving mother feels at that moment. Referencing Sarah as it can thus be interpreted as a way for Rowlandson to soothe her pain; the personal name of her daughter will of course have a greater meaning to her than it. Sarah is severely injured and it takes her a long time to die, which is a very painful experience for a mother. Apart from being in this terrible situation, she does not receive much sympathy from the indigenous people. She even goes so far as to contemplate suicide on Sarah’s death. The restricted use of the name Sarah could therefore be

55 interpreted as the revelation of the narrator’s feelings of pain and sorrow when writing about her dead child.

I believe that there is still considerable ambiguity with regard to Sarah’s burial; do the Indians bury her daughter out of kindness or meanness? What are the narrator’s feelings about the Indians’ burial of her dear daughter? It is important to mention that the Native Americans do not tell Rowlandson about her daughter’s burial on the hill, which can be deduced from the following statement:

When I came I asked them what they had done with it; then they told me it was upon the hill. Then they went and showed me where it was, where I saw the ground was newly digged, and there they told me they had buried it. There I left that child in the wilderness. (8)

When Rowlandson becomes aware of the fact that the Native Americans have buried Sarah upon the hill, she again refers to her daughter as it, except in the very last sentence when she states that she leaves that “child in the wilderness”. I claim that Rowlandson’s reference to her child in the last sentence can be understood as a farewell gesture; she finally finds release from grieving. Additionally, the narrator writes that she leaves Sarah “in the wilderness”, which indicates that she trusts in nature and her surrounding, and is able to leave her dear child in the land of the indigenous people. In comparison to previous scenes, Rowlandson does not get very emotional about her daughter being buried by the Indians; on the contrary, she writes in a very objective and realistic way and does not bemoan her daughter’s burial. I assume that Rowlandson understands that Sarah is relieved from her suffering and is finally able to let go, find peace and move on.

Besides emotional trauma, Rowlandson has to endure physical suffering and pain:

My head was light and dizzy (either through hunger or hard lodging, or trouble or all together), my knees feeble, my body raw by sitting double night and day, that I cannot express to man the affliction that lay upon my spirit. (11)

Her body is deprived of food for a very long time, which results in starvation dizziness. The feeling of faint and hunger together with physical endurance are definitely a very hard experience for a woman. Additionally, there are numerous occasions when the Native Americans treat her badly: “I lay by the fire, I removed a stick that kept the heat from me. A squaw moved it down again, at which I looked up, and she threw a handful of ashes in mine

56 eyes.” (21) Throughout the narrative, Rowlandson describes the arduous journey her body and mind have to withstand. Surprisingly, her descriptions do not include expressions of self-pity nor whining, neither does she consider suicide to be the solution for her suffering. Without doubt, Rowlandson can be considered a heroine due to the powerful female roles she takes on. She does not only maintain her role as a decent Puritan woman, but also as a faithful Christian. Furthermore, she creates a proper role for her life among the Indians, which allows her to survive. Rowlandson manages to find a place between two completely different worlds: the Puritan and the indigenous one.

3 “OUR LADY OF THE MASSACRE” (ANGELA CARTER)

My name is neither here nor there since I used several in the Old World that I may not speak of now; then there is my, as it were, wilderness name, that now I never speak of; and, now, what I call myself in this place, therefore my name is no clue as to my person no my life as to my nature. (41)

These are the very first lines of the short story “Our Lady of the Massacre” (1979) by Angela Carter. The opening lines foreshadow Carter’s critical approach to the writings of captivity narratives and some other genres, such as the Robinsonade. According to her, the name (and identity) of a person do not reveal anything about the “nature”, “person” and “life” of someone. (41) With these opening lines, I believe that Carter intends to convey that the origin and native community of a person do not determine who we are or what we believe in. Our personality changes throughout the life, as we go through specific experiences at particular life stages. Indeed, our background and surrounding will influence our beliefs and values. However, the mindset of a person will develop gradually or even change with new experiences. The author creates the story of a white woman who grows up among a white community, but eventually decides on living among the Native Americans. The protagonist (whose name is unknown to the reader) learns to appreciate her new surrounding, the American wilderness, and successfully adapts to their culture.

The year of publication indicates that Angel Carter opted for a retrospectively narrated captivity narrative. Hence, the author did not personally experience the captivity depicted in the short story, rather she created a fictional work, which is set in the seventeenth century. She views the conflict between the Puritans and the Native Americans in the early Americas from a 20th century perspective, which certainly has an influence on her writing. Personally, I believe that the perspective Carter writes from is important to consider, as her work is not only influenced by a broad knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, but also by her wish to shed light upon neglected dichotomies in captivity narratives. With “Our Lady of the Massacre”, the author certainly creates a critical approach to the genre of captivity narratives; she dares to reverse the concept of the captivity narrative and features the Native American community instead of the white one. Furthermore, the reader will come across a

58 feminist approach, as Carter’s short story highlights the fact that the white woman is actually captured by a stereotypical, patriarchal white society.

As aforementioned, Angela Carter’s short story can, among others, be read as a mocking of captivity narratives. Personally, I think that the author holds a rather critical view of Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative; she discovers various controversial elements in Rowlandson’s work, especially feminist ones, and incorporates them in her short story. However, the short story “Our Lady of the Massacre” not only reveals characteristics of the genre of captivity narratives but also of other well-known literary works. The similarities between the female protagonists in “Our Lady of the Massacre” and Moll Flanders are striking. Both women grow up as orphaned girls in unfamiliar families. Their childhood and adolescence is characterized by several difficulties arising from their poor status in a patriarchal society, which is also attributed to their gender and prescribed female role(s). The women decide to earn their living with prostitution and stealing, despite their unenviable reputation. Moll and the protagonist of “Our Lady of the Massacre” cannot cease from stealing, as they are obsessed with it. Moreover, they are not ashamed of prostitution; they rather deride men’s sexual desire and view it as a possibility to gain money for a woman. They convey the idea that female prostitutes are able to live an autonomous life without being financially dependent on men.

Additionally, the reader will detect parallels to the so-called Robinsonade, which developed from Daniel Defoes’ adventure novel Robinson Crusoe (1719). The Robinsonade is a “fictitious narrative of often fantastic adventures in real or imaginary distant places” and often tells “a story of the adventures of a person marooned on a desert island”. (online) Furthermore, the Robinsonade is characterized by the restlessness and domination of nature of the protagonist. Robinson would not have become involved in these dangerous adventures without his strong and profound emotions. Mere coincidence and luck helped him to flee from the island. (Martzak-Görike 12) Just as Robinson, the protagonist in “Our Lady of the Massacre” is able to flee from the plantation due to a lucky coincidence; in a favorable moment she cuts off the ear of her overseer and heads out into the American wilderness.

At the beginning of the story, Robinson Crusoe, just as Angela Carter’s heroine, decides to leave his home country England in order to head out and explore the world. Robinson also

59 encounters indigenous people, the “savages”, and becomes friends with a Native American man, whom he names Friday (“Never Man had a more faithful, loving, sincere Servant, than Friday was to me.”) Both the protagonist of Carter’s short story and Robinson overcome cultural boundaries and approach a Native American, whom they eventually learn to respect and admire, contrary to what they were taught in their native society. Carter’s heroine encounters a squaw picking herbs, who invites her to go along with her and get to know her native community, an indigenous tribe. The indigenous woman treats Carter’s protagonist as her own child, who eventually decides to marry a Native American man.

Although not directly mentioned, the reader notices that Carter’s short story has glimpses of elements seen in Aphra Behn’s novel Oroonoko. The narrator, a young English woman, befriends Oroonoko and his wife Imoinda. The African prince Oroonoko and Imoinda are enslaved and sold to the British colonists. During the 1650s, the colony of Surinam imported numerous African slaves, as they did not have enough English slaves to work on their sugar cane plantations. Angela Carter addresses the topic of African slaves, as she incorporates a “negro slave”, who works on the same plantation as the white woman, in her short story. Moreover, she takes up Oroonokos’ fate (whose ears are cut off) and reverses it, as the heroine in her story cuts off the ears of her overseer.

Angela Carter expresses her rebelling against the concept of femininity, which is shaped by the norms of society:

I can date to that time and to that sense of heightened awareness of the society around me in the summer of 1968 my own questioning of the nature of my reality as a woman. How that social fiction of my ‘femininity’ was created, by means outside my control, and palmed off on me as the real thing. (Kunz 3)

Angela Carter speaks about a “heightened awareness of society” (3) which results in a closer examination of her own perception of being a woman. She points out that her “femininity” is shaped by “social fiction”, which means that the era we live in and the society we grow up in will impact the awareness of ourselves. The idea of femininity in 20th century Europe is obviously different from 17th century America. Carter declares the concept of femininity as “fiction”, which is, by definition “something invented by the imagination or feigned” or “an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth”. (online) Hence, we can assume that Carter views the idea of femininity which is determined by society

60 critically; the reference to “social fiction” implies that she even denotes it as inaccurate. Carter does not hesitate to thematize the inner struggle a woman feels when society imposes a concept of femininity on her. Kim Snowden contends that “reading Carter’s work as antifeminist and reinforcing the patriarchal constraints of the genre is a misunderstanding of her complex intent.” (158) I agree with Snowden’s point – Carter’s short story “Our Lady of the Massacre” is the perfect example which shows her intend to illustrate women’s struggling with womanhood and gender identity. Angela Carter narrates a story in which she turns everything upside down and inside out – she creates a series of possible roles.

When Angela Carter died at a very young age in 1992 - she was only 51 – she received much attention in the British press. Her death entailed numerous laudatory obituaries: “Angela Carter (…) was one of the most important writers at work in the English language.” “She interpreted the times for us with unrivalled penetration.” “Her imagination was one of the most dazzling of this century.” (The Guardian, online) Shortly after her death, the publishing house Virago, with which Carter collaborated most, sold out of her works. In the course of the following academic year, the British Academy obtained 40 enquiries for doctorates about her work. The contingency of identity is among others one of the main themes Carter writes about. Although she was not the first to make this observation, her view of femininity is striking. (The Guardian, online)

The short story “Our Lady of the Massacre” (1979) by Angela Carter was published in 1979. It constitutes the third short story of the collection “Black Venus”, which immerses the reader in a world of feminism coupled with patriarchal societies and a critique of colonization. “Our Lady of the Massacre” narrates the adventures of a white, young woman who ends up living with the indigenous people in the New World. At the very beginning of the story, she states that her name “is neither here nor there” (41), which hints at her multiple identity provoked by various memorable experiences throughout her life. The main protagonist of the short story is an orphaned girl who lost her parents at a very young age and is separated from her siblings; she then gets to live with a solitary woman called Mary. When Mary dies, she decides to travel to London where she turns to prostitution and stealing in order to survive. The woman steals a gold watch of a man, which she is strongly condemned for; she is transported to Virginia where she is forced to work on a plantation for seven years. The protagonist, however, does not accept the judgment of the white men and carves off the ears

61 of her overseer. She thereupon flees into the American wilderness. Although she has to face serious food shortages, the woman begins to appreciate her new surroundings and eventually prefers it to the white community. When the woman encounters a squaw picking herbs, she decides to go with her. The Indians affiliate to the white woman who gradually adapts to their culture. The peaceful and happy living among the indigenous tribe does not last for a long time, as it is disturbed by the English army, who attack the Native Americans. The blissful communal life among the indigenous tribe far away from the restrictions of the Europeans results in a horrid ending: the woman is revealed by an English soldier and is forced to return to the white community.

Personally, I think that the short story can be read as a reversed captivity narrative albeit it is not explicitly mentioned by the author. Angela Carter places special emphasis on the successful integration of a white woman into the Native American community. She thereby contradicts the ideas of a patriarchal white society, which determines racial and gender hierarchies. Moreover, the author gives priority to a female main protagonist, whose story is not only enjoyable but also arousing since she undergoes a transformation of identity caused by her residence among the Indians. With “Our Lady of the Massacre”, Angela Carter creates a story that subverts the dominant male view of gender and power relations. The author combines her awareness of the power relations between the sexes with a fantastical, fictional story. The main protagonist of the story uses a provocatively direct language; she expresses herself in an idiomatic speech. Furthermore, the character highlights that women are having battles with prescribed roles of femininity and womanhood. Women’s living is often based on the public presentation of certain kind of aspects of sexuality and femininity, which they are rather conscious of. The main protagonist of “Our Lady of the Massacre” is an intelligent woman, who possesses a vivid imagination and does not fear to express her opinion on racial and gender issues. She is aware of her femininity and her role as a woman and, hence, uses it to negotiate with the world.

Angela Carter elects an evocative title, which foreshadows the terrible ending of the story. The title “Our Lady of the Massacre” is striking, as she combines the gentle word “Lady” with the cruel expression “Massacre”. By definition, a “massacre” is “the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty”. (online) As the Native Americans are attacked by the English, it is

62 implied that the English use ruthless means to suppress the Indians. Numerous Indians are killed or seriously injured during the attack, which reveals the brutal procedures of the English. With the title, I think Carter intends to express that the main protagonist (involuntarily) steps into the role of the “lady of the massacre”; the woman is of Caucasian descent, which leads her to stand out of the Indian tribe. Before her life among the indigenous people, the white society forced her to adhere to the concept of a “lady”, which may impact her behavior and thinking. However, it is important to consider that the woman decides to turn to prostitution and refuses to embody a lady; she views the work as a prostitute as “normal”, or rather as a way for her to live a life independent of men. In the end, she cannot deny her descent and, hence, her white skin color and blue eyes eventually reveal her origin. The white woman becomes the centre of the massacre, as she is trapped between two sides: although she originally belongs to the white attackers, she voluntarily converts to the side of the Native Americans. In the end, however, the white society obliges her to return “home” and reassume the roles of a white woman and resume her Catholic identity.

Throughout the narrative, the reader frequently encounters words written in italics, for example “wilderness” (41), “lady” (41), “Virginia” (42), “London” (42) or “white man” (45). Albeit not all the italicized words point towards the same theme, some of them seem to allude to a similar idea. I argue that Carter raises awareness for the Native American culture by italicizing the following words: “Algonkian” (46), “red men” (46), “succotash” (46), “sacramental meal” (46), “midwife” (47), “werowance” (47), “agriculture” (48). It needs to be mentioned that all these aforesaid words represent a part of the Indian culture. “Algonkian”, for example, refers to the Indian language; the white woman is willing to learn some words of the Algonkian language. “Succotash” is the name of a traditional Indian dish, and “sacramental meal” hints at a cultural ritual of an Indian tribe in the North, who eat the thighs of a captive to “honour the departed by devouring him”. (46) Despite the fact that the woman previously has feared cannibalism, she accepts the Indian’s reasons for eating their captors without criticizing them. Therefore, it can be argued that the author deliberately draws attention to the woman’s integration into the Indian community. The main protagonist of the short story adapts to their habits and manners over time. Although most of the Native American customs are unknown to the woman, she recounts their habits in an exceedingly positive manner. Moreover, it is probable that with “sacramental meal” the author expresses irony about the Catholic communion. I think that the words printed in italic characters thus

63 serve to underline the author’s various points; there are multiple ironies and voices in “Our Lady of the Massacre”. Among others, Carter sheds light upon racial and gender inequalities which lead the people in power to discriminate against disadvantaged groups in our society, for example ethnic minorities or women. Hence, it is also a “contemporary” story.

According to Christopher Castiglia, Angela Carter is “one of the most careful readers of captivity narratives” because she sheds light on white womanhood, their relationship to the Native American community, and even more important, to their home societies. (18). Yet, Angela Carter’s short story may seem “far-fetched” to readers of Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative and contradictory to critics who are familiar with the tradition of captivity. In their captivity narratives about life among the Native Americans, white women build self- confidence and determine their social and economic role, which they were rarely allowed to do within their native communities. Carter rejects to present the binary logic of civilization and savageness by showing the victory of the Indians being the consequence of Anglo imposition and brutal ferocity; on the contrary, Carter’s heroine, as numerous other captive white women, raises the question of Puritans’ innate moral superiority. Furthermore, she defends the ambivalence about the captive’s return to the native community which is present in captivity narratives. Several authors are advocates of the hypothesis that a return to the native community indicates freedom for the captive, and is the intended ending of a captive’s writing. The short story “Our Lady of the Massacre”, however, ends by representing life among the white community as a form of captivity; the white society demands women to learn survival skills which work against their necessities and interests. Carter’s fictional short story highlights the importance of a careful reading of captivity narratives, as they show that white women are finally able to breathe freely within the Native American community once freed from the restrictiveness of the white society. (18-19)

Christopher Castiglia argues that numerous captives who indicate social injustice of white women within a patriarchal, white society exist. Various narratives unintentionally show a captive’s difficulty in leaving the values and rules of their native society behind. In “Our Lady of the Massacre”, Carter represents the life among the Indian tribe as a utopia of collective solidarity, respect and communal spirit, into which the heroine immerses herself without regretting her former life among the white community. Because of the experienced devaluation in her home society, the white woman apparently does not bring any racial

64 privileges into the Indian society. As a result, the Native American community gives her a feeling of freedom, which she has never experienced before; among the Indian tribe, Carter’s heroine frees herself from the attributed roles which formerly characterized her womanhood and whiteness. In presenting a universal and natural sympathy between women in general, however, and by showing a white woman initiate and profit by this “sisterhood”, Angela Carter portrays a romanticized picture of white women’s successful integration into an alien culture. Additionally, she romanticizes the maternal and erotized Native Americans, although the patriarchal ideology persists in the depicted scenario (all women are the same). Furthermore, the author portrays an imperialistic allegory of Indians who are willing to incorporate a white woman into their community. When Carter’s heroine takes off her clothes and aims to find a similarity between the Indian woman and herself, she defines womanhood by referring to the biological side and freeing herself from the captivity of white acculturation; she conveys the impression that her body is innocent of cultural meaning. Yet, Carter’s heroine is far from obtaining freedom from the white society among the indigenous culture. The narrator, as many other captive white women before her, emphasizes her cultural and social dissatisfaction. (Castiglia 19-20)

The majority of authors of captivity narratives did not intend to romanticize life among Native Americans as Angela Carter did, rather they conveyed the impression that both lives among the white or indigenous community represented a sort of captivity to them. Unlike Carter, they did not perceive life among the Native Americans as the ultimate goal to free themselves from the restrictions of white womanhood. It is important to mention that captivity narratives frequently apply the language of “sisterhood” or “bonding”, but they also use an explicit language when depicting scenarios of survival, coercion, and resistance, and thus show that the biological is always cultural. By doing this, they question Carter’s assumption of freedom. (Castiglia 19) Although Christopher Castiglia correctly identified Carter’s short story as a romanticized portrayal of captivity, I do believe that the author depicted certain scenarios in an exaggerated way in order to raise the reader’s awareness of the duality of captivity narratives. Carter’s heroine does not remove her clothes because of her belief that all women are naturally the same, but because of her willingness to leave her white womanhood behind and to adapt to the Indian culture and values. Without doubt, the captive’s body will never be free from cultural meaning, as her “body” has experienced cultural shaping throughout her life. Carter’s heroine will never be able to free herself from her prostituted body, or her

65 adventures in London. Although she can finally leave her work as a whore behind when adapting to the indigenous culture, her experiences of the past have a profound impact on her remaining life. Nevertheless, Carter’s heroine embraces the nakedness of her body, which could be interpreted as her ability to obtain freedom and happiness through the experience of a “new” womanhood among the Indian tribe. When the white woman encounters a squaw from the Indian tribe for the first time, she instantly feels connected to her and has to urge to remove her clothes:

But I am struck by her looks, she is a handsome woman, not red but wondrous brown, and it came into my mind to open my bodice, show her my breasts, that, though I had the whiter skin, I could give suck as well as she and she reached out and touched my bosom. (45)

It is very ironic that “Our Lady of the Massacre” does not mention any possibility to break free from the home culture which determines the subject; it shows that the stories which constitute one’s home culture will win over any competing social experiences in the end. Through the juxtaposition of Mary’s captivity account with the preface of the minister, Angela Carter reveals that it is impossible for the captive to obtain complete agency in her self-portrayal. In most captivity narratives, editors revise and modify the captives’ stories in order to strengthen fading religious conviction, to spread the Western belief and the extinction of Native Americans, and to distribute the illusion of a paternal and stable nation. In the short story “Our Lady of the Massacre”, the minister aims to establish a “Community of Saints”, a colonialist community which demands a rejection of white womanhood to support a violent massacre resulting in the narrative endorsement of white clergymen and military authority. Therefore, the minister creates the image of brutal savages and helpless white women: the heroes of his writings are white men, who can exterminate (massacre) the inhuman danger to “their” women and thus preserve their social control. By clarifying the right to substitute his writings for hers, as well as in content of his narrative, the minister claims his social superiority over “Mary” (and over the Indians, who cannot present their version of the story). Hence, the minister’s account serves to establish a social hierarchy which is based on race and gender. The agreement of a white man’s story, in “Our Lady of the Massacre”, to submission to orders of a white male authority, “Mary” literally becomes a servant of God, or to his human representatives. (Castiglia 21)

Therefore, Angela Carter unfolds patriarchal imperialism’s investment in both figures: the captive and the narrative, although she hides her own investment in the figures of white feminism. However, the ministerial inscription of white authority represents a sharp contradiction to the narrator’s story, who reveals that she has more to “fear” from the white men than from her Native American “captors”. While the minister achieves to put the narrator into a fixed narrative position (represented by the minister’s reference to a name from the Bible, which stands for female sacrifice), the narrator affirms her ability to redefine her identity (she states that her name is “neither here nor there”). In writing a different narrative based on distinct cultural values (communal spirit, polygamy, an awareness of racial identity, respect for women) and highlighting subjects of minority cultures, the narrator interrupts the representation of an uncontradicted social narrative. Angela Carter hence emphasizes the ambiguity present in various captivity narratives between an editorial frame and the narrative’s authorial subject. Furthermore, Carter highlights the transformation of characters and identities throughout the narrative in order to gain self-confidence, economic independence, and, even more important, possibilities for debating the positions of the own subject. These ruptures continue to be the most consistent characteristic of the captivity narratives, revealing the contradiction in the positions of white women in relation to cultural conditions of gender, race and nation. (Castiglia 21)

3.1 CAPTIVITY RECONSIDERED: WOMEN BREAKING FREE

At the beginning of the story, the white woman adheres to the beliefs and values of the European society without scrutinizing them. When her parents die, for example, she has no other option than to sew and clean the house of an old lady in the town she lives in. Although she was only “nine or ten year of age” (41), the woman does not complain about her tough childhood. This can be interpreted as a form of non-resistance due to a lack of knowledge. The white society she grows up in prescribes the role of a dutiful woman who is responsible for the household. The society forces her to believe in these gender roles. Luckily, the old lady she works for is a literate woman with a broad knowledge of astrology and the Hebrew language. The practices of astrology lead her to convince “her dear child” (41), as she used to call the little girl, to “take a long voyage over the Ocean to the New World”. (41) Moreover, the woman’s reading of books animate her to conclude that the “‘red children of the

67 wilderness’” could be none other than the Lost Tribe of Israel”. (41) It has to be considered that her foster mother is an ‘alien’ in England, as she is a literate woman who is able to read and write. However, the knowledge of her foster mother serves her in good terms in America.

It is important to mention that the narrator does not accord credibility to the old lady’s theories, which she expresses with the following statement: “And if I had not been a steady girl, she would have turned my head with all her nonsense for she would have it that the stars foretold I should grow up to be nowt less than Our Lady of the Red Men.” (42) She obviously does not believe in the woman’s forecasts, and even calls it “nonsense”. When the story proceeds, however, the reader will find out that the old lady’s forecast has been right. It can be argued that the reference to “Our Lady of the Red Men” foreshadows the white woman’s fate. Additionally, the author implies that the white woman is not necessarily the lady of the “massacre” but rather the lady of the “red men”, which refers to her contented life among the Native Americans, which constitutes the main part of the short story.

The woman is condemned by the white men to work on a plantation for seven years, but she decides to “escape from bondage”. (42) Through her reference to “bondage”, it is implied that the woman perceives the white society as a form of captivity from which she wants to flee. It is not only the overseer and the work on the plantation which represent confinement to her; the woman is captured by a stereotypical white society which determines how she has to behave and what she has to look like. Luckily, a “good-natured kind of Negro man and a slave” (43) who works on the same plantation persuades her to “be off into the wilderness” and “cast [her] fate to the tender mercies of the savage Indian.” (43) Interestingly, the black slave juxtaposes the words “tender” and “savage” when referring to the Indians. The narrator, however, does not question the slave’s statement; rather does she follow her instinct and takes up her journey into the American wilderness.

The white woman wanders fearlessly through the wide landscapes and boondocks of America, although “the great vastness of the Americas was then unknown to [her]” (44). The solitude leads her to mull over the Indians; the lonely wanderer does not fear them as she states “if I can keep off that overseer with my knife, I’d be more than a match for them, if I should meet them”. (44) However, this statement also indicates that the protagonist somehow thinks that the Indians are ferocious and savage, as she refers to her brutal act as a way of

68 confronting the Indians in case they meet. Angela Carter might also intend to refer to the captivity of Hannah Dustin, who is captured during King William’s War, and breaks free from captivity by killing several Native Americans. Carter critically portrays Hannah Dustin’s brutality by the mentioning of a knife of her protagonist. It is important to consider that the perception of Carter’s heroine of the Indians develops throughout the narrative; while at the beginning of the narrative she thinks more critically about the Indians, her viewpoint changes as soon as she gets to know a squaw of the Indian tribe.

Interestingly, the white woman successfully adapts to her new environment, the American wilderness, and adopts the manners of the “savages”. The woman becomes a survivor of the wilderness and learns essential skills, for example food gathering and hunting techniques:

I had clean water out of the streams and it was the season of berries so I made my breakfast off a bit of fruit but my guts began to rumble by dinner-time and I cast my eye about for more solid fodder. Seeing the brakes full of small beasts and birds unknown to me, I thought: “How can I go hungry if I use my wits!” So I tied my shoestrings together to make a little snare and trapped a small, brown, fury thing of the rabbit kind, but earless, and slit its throat, skinned it, toasted it on the end of my carving-knife over a fire I made with the blessed tinder-box the gardener give me. So all I wanted was salt and a bit of bread. (44)

Although the woman has grown up among a civilized society, she is able to survive in the wilderness because, as she states, she uses her “wits”. (44) It could be argued that she owes her knowledge to the civilized society; however, it is not explicitly stated. The “wits” she refers to could also allude to her natural instinct, which she demonstrates due to her exposure to the wilderness. The protagonist’s diet mainly consists of berries and wild animals, but she also finds “acorns” and “mulberries”. (44) Despite her desire for “salt and a bit of bread” (44), she does not loudly complain about the modest food options. On the contrary, she states that “[she] can get along here very well in the woods on [her] own for a while even if [she] must eat meat without salt!” (44) She feels curiously content and relishes her new-found freedom.

The deeper the protagonist gets into the wilderness, the more she complains about her life among “civilization”. It seems as if the solitude and separation from the white society lead her to rerun the past events. The woman seems to understand that all the repression and discontent she has been feeling throughout her life has been caused by her home society. She expresses her deep contempt for human beings, or white men, as she states that her “nostrils [are] too full of the stink of humanity”. (45) She becomes more and more aware of the fact that the real

69 threat lies in the white patriarchal society rather than in the savage wilderness, as she states that she has “more dread of the white man, which I knew, than of the red man, who was at that time unknown to me.” (45) The fact that the red men do not fill her with more terror than the white men, although they are at that time unknown to her, strengthens my argument that she strongly feels her misplacement in the white society. I assume that the woman becomes enamored with the thought of being free and independent far away from the restrictions of civilization.

One day, when the woman is wandering through the woods, she suddenly hears someone singing cheerfully and beautifully; it is the voice of a squaw. The white woman observes the indigenous woman picking herbs, and soon notices that she does not carry a weapon with her. Hence, she approaches the squaw, who reacts cautiously and shrinks back. She thereby spills the herbs she has collected; the white woman walks up to her without hesitation and helps her recollect the herbs. The squaw detects the brand on the hand of the white woman, which unsettles her. The squaw, however, casts a spell on the white woman, who writes that she is “struck by her looks” as she is a “handsome woman, not red but wondrous brown”. (45) Suddenly, the woman feels the urge to “open [her] bodice, show her [her] breasts, that, though [she] had the whiter skin, [she] could give suck as well as she and she reached out and touched my bosom.” (45) The narrator’s reaction definitely has an erotic character, as she undresses in front of the squaw who gently touches her breast. The women become sexually attracted to each other, and express mutual respect by appreciating each other’s body. The white woman’s reference to her fair skin indicates that all women, regardless of their skin color, have the same value. When the narrator states that she is able to breastfeed someone as good as the squaw, she conveys the idea that the origin and skin color of a person do not determine the role or value of a woman.

It is not explicitly stated by the author whether the squaw invites her to go along with her. It can be assumed, however, that mutual sympathy lead both to take up their journey together and to head towards the Indian town. The encounter with the squaw somehow helps the white woman to overcome her “fear” of the Indians; she grows more and more certain that the Native Americans are not the savage beasts of the wilderness. Additionally, the narrator believes that the European men will not search for her among the Native Americans. In case they will find her among the Indians, they will suppose that she has been captured by them:

I think the overseer will never come to look or me among the red men! So I goes with her to the Indian town and in this way, no other, was I ‘taken’ by ‘em although the Minister would have it otherwise, that they took me with violence, against my will, haling my by the hair, and if he wishes to believe it, then let ‘im. (46)

When the white woman views the Indian town for the first time, she displays it as the perfect place. The narrator describes it as a “clean, pretty town”, “the houses built of birchbark set in gardens with vines with pumpkins on ‘em and the cooking of their meat savouring the air”. (46) It can be argued that the white woman instantly feels comfortable in her new surrounding, the Indian town, as she admires their little village. Moreover, the narrator recounts that “The town was surrounded by tidy fields of tobacco and corn and a river near. But no kind of beast did I see.” (46) It can be assumed that the white woman loses her anxiety of the Indians, as she does not observe any “beast” (46) and marvels at their fertile, neat landscapes.

The European woman also reflects upon the impressions conveyed by the white society, which intends to persuade its members that the indigenous people are a savage band of cannibals. However, the personal encounter with the Indians teaches her not to believe in the stereotypical images conveyed by the whites, as she states: “I had heard these Indians were mortal dragons, accustomed to eat the flesh of dead men, but the pretty little naked children playing with their dollies in the dust, oh! never could such little ducks be reared on cannibal meat!” (46) Upon seeing the Indian children playing outside, the white woman is absolutely sure that they could never be cannibals. However, as mentioned before, she gets to hear of a cannibal Indian tribe in the North, who eat the flesh of their captives as a form of cultural ritual. Surprisingly, the white woman reacts indifferently and seems to accept their cultural manner. Additionally, the Indians warmly welcome her, as the narrator states that the squaw “gives [her] water to wash in and a bunch of feathers to dry [herself], so that [she] was much refreshed.” (46)

The white woman enjoys the food of the Native Americans and recounts that she mostly eats “fish, game or fowl, boiled or broiled” or “corn cooked in various ways, beans, squash in season”. (46) What is more, she uses praising words when referring to the indigenous eating habits and describes it as a “healthy diet that it is very rare to see a sick body amongst them and never did I see there any either shaking with palsy or suffering toothache or with sore eyes or crooked with age.” (46-47) I think that her mentioning of the “sick body” does not

71 only refer to the physical state of being ill be but also allude to the mindset and values of the Indians. Whereas the narrator encounters various “sick bodies” (with regard to their beliefs and behavior) among the Europeans, she cannot find any among the Indians. As aforesaid, the woman appreciates the nutritious diet and healthy delicious food of the Native Americans, which results in a robust community who rarely suffer from illnesses. It can thereby be assumed that the woman has been confronted with illnesses in her former life among the white society. Therefore, she values her chance to live among the Indian tribe, as the circumstances are a great deal better than in the community she was raised in.

In addition, the woman acquires her first word of the Indian language (‘Sharp’ which means ‘Knife’), as she states: “And that was the first word of the Algonkian language that ever I spoke, though not the last, by any means.” (46) The narrator reveals her open-mindedness and willingness to adapt to her new cultural environment by stating that she is eager to acquire the indigenous language. Moreover, she adapts to the indigenous dresses, as she “exchanged [her] petticoat for the buckskin one [her] mother give me and she give [her] a necklace, too, of the beads they carve from shells”. (47) She dresses as a squaw, which shows her assimilation to their culture, and her decision to leave the traditions of her home culture behind.

It is important to mention that the squaw she met in the wilderness, who took her to the native tribe, deliberately steps into the role of her mother, as she has no children and “was thankful to the English for giving away.” (47) Likewise, the white woman appreciates her new Indian family and claims that she “learned from her Indian manners”. (47) To explain that in more detail, she “learned how to cure and dress robes out of buckskin, beaver and other skins, and to embroider them with shell and feathers.” (47) The Native Americans aim to integrate the white woman into their culture by allocating responsibilities to her. Hence, the woman is gradually incorporated into communal life and eventually becomes a member of their society. Additionally, she depicts the Indian celebration of the cultivation of corn, which again alludes to her cultural assimilation.

The white woman obviously idolizes the Native American men, as she depicts their characteristics in great detail and eventually decides to marry an indigenous man. She opposes the stereotypical image of the European society, who refers to them as “demi-evils”. (47) She briefly outlines the male role among the indigenous community:

How do they live, these so-called demi-devils? The men among them have an easy life, spend all their time in leisure and idleness, except when they are hunting or fighting their enemies, since all their tribes are constantly at war with one another, and with the English, too; and the werowance, as they call him, he is not the chief, or ruler of the village, although the English do say that he is so, but, rather, he is a man who goes the first in battle, so he is commonly more courageous a man than the English generals who direct their soldiers from the back. (47)

This citation is rather ironic in several ways. Interestingly, the narrator does not harshly criticize the indigenous men for their free time. On the contrary, she describes the indigenous men as more courageous than the English men and continues with a depiction of the “werowance”, whose function is misstated by the whites. The narrator clarifies his role among the Indian community and thereby opposes the stereotypical images portrayed by the white society. Furthermore, the narrator explains that Indian men are prone to have more than one wife, as she states: “The more wives a man has, the better company for them, the more knees to dandle the children on and the more corn they can plant so the better they all live together.” (49) Surprisingly, the narrator does not sharply criticize the Indian men’s custom of having more than one wife; rather she lists the benefits of having more than one wife for the entire family. It can be argued that she appreciates the solidarity between the families, which is completely different than in her home society. Although the European men officially have one wife, the woman has experienced that white men secretly approach other women. As the narrator has been a prostitute in the European society, she knows that white, married men secretly cheat on their wives. Therefore, it can be assumed that the woman prefers the openness and the communal spirit of the Indian tribe, which the white society lacks. The author thereby mocks at Christian values, which prescribe their members to promise their love to only one wife. However, numerous Christian men, as the protagonist in Carter’s short story experiences herself, only pretend to be good-natured, faithful Christians. They secretly approach female prostitutes and thus cheat on their wives, which is a deceit of their faith.

According to Ann Plane, marriages among indigenous tribes played a crucial role in society. The marriages of sachems did not only bring together a man and a woman, but the whole community gathered as they affected or maintained strong alliances beyond their territory. Women were responsible for the production and harvest of food crops, hence, a man’s marriage with more than one woman could increase his wealth and status in the indigenous community. As a result, polygyny, a man’s marriage to several women, was considered normal among Native American societies in 16th and 17th century America. Marriage itself created a bond between a man and a woman, however, it could be easily be dissolved by both

73 men and women. (5) Carter’s heroine accepts and appreciates the polygyny among the indigenous tribe, as it represents their values and beliefs, as opposed to Christians.

It is not explicitly stated why the white woman eventually decides to marry an Indian man. I believe that it is the conjunction of various circumstances which finally convince her to agree her marriage: the willingness to fully integrate into the Native American community, the wish to leave her former life behind, the attraction to the Indian man, and the desire to live a happy, fulfilled life. When the narrator is pregnant, she praises the affection and love of her husband: “It was marvelous to see the tenderness of my husband’s bearing towards me when the sun grew hot and made me sweat, weary, heavy, peevish […] but he bore with all.” (50)

However, the blissful happiness is disturbed by the English, as their attempt to colonize the Americas threatens the Indian peaceful life. The white woman warns the indigenous tribe about the English army, and refers to them as brutal evils, liars and thieves:

I sent word by him that it would take all the tribes of all the continent to drive away the English, and then the English would only go away to come again in double numbers, so eager were they to ‘plant the colony’ with me and such poor devils as I had been. So I told them straight they must make a grand, warlike, well-armed confederacy amongst all the Indian nations and never trust a word the English said, for the English would all be thieves if they could, and I was living proof of it, who only left off thieving when there was nothing to steal. (50)

By revealing the radical strategies of the English, the woman commits to the Native Americans; her intention is to help them win the battle with her knowledge, which somehow makes her the centre of the fight and thereby the lady of the massacre.

As the fierce combat against the white men is near, her husband persuades her to talk to one of the English soldiers personally, as she is the only one among the Indians who knows the English language. However, the vigorous debate ends up in an assault of the English soldier, as he accuses her of betrayal. Hence, the woman kills the English man in order to survive: “I shows him the babby and he calls me all kind of foul names, to whore among the heathen, so I shoves a sharp stick in his belly to teach him manners.” (52) It is a terrible day when the English soldiers attack the Indian town, as they destroy their houses and fields: “They burned the ripe cornfields and set light to the stockade so it burned and our lodge burned when the powder went up so I saw the massacre bright as day.” (53) As before mentioned, the woman

74 kills an English soldier, as it is the only way for her to survive. She then finds a gold watch in one of the pockets of the dead man; she steals the precious watch from the corpse and proudly shows it to her husband. Her husband, however, does not praise his wife for stealing, on the contrary, he feels that it is dangerous to steal the watch of an English soldier. The narrator recounts that “[her] husband, poor, superstitious savage that he was for all he was the best man in the world, [her] husband fell a-shaking and a-trembling and said the watch was ‘bad medicine’ and boded ill.” (53) Although the woman calls her husband a “savage”, it can be argued that she says it in a loving way, as she seems to appraise his values. Contrary to the white woman, he believes in superstitions. However, the white woman refuses to have faith in superstitions, as this is also a common trait of her native community, the Catholics. Furthermore, Puritans also accorded credibility to superstitious theories. Carter’s heroine does not want to live by the dictations of others, neither by her indigenous husband nor by her “home” society.

The English soldiers kill the white woman’s “mother” (“they violated her, then they slit her throat" (53)) who is one of her closest friends among the Indian community, as she owes her the integration into the Native American tribe. The narrator depicts the horrible war scenario:

So all over quickly, by daybreak nowt left but ashes, corpses, the widow mourning her dead children, soldiers leaning on their guns well pleased with their night’s work and the courageous manner in which they had revenged the governor. (53)

One of the English soldiers intends to rape her, as she states that “this soldier puts his knee on [her] belly, unfastens his britches intending to rape [her].” (53) However, as he finds out that the woman is of Caucasian descent, he stops his attempted rape and shouts to his chief: “’Captain!’ he says. ‘Look here! Here’s a squaw with blue eyes, such as I’ve never seen before!” (54) Although she has successfully integrated into the Native American community, and assimilated to their culture and dresses, she cannot hide her origin – the fair skin and the blue eyes eventually unveil her descent.

Upon the European soldiers forcing her to return to her native society, the woman laments that “[her] spirit [is] broken” (54) and “the river watering this earthly paradise running blood.” (54) Her Indian husband and “mother” are dead, and she is forced to go along with the whites. Moreover, an English soldier tells her “to thank God that I have been rescued from

75 the savage and beg the Good Lord’s forgiveness for straying from His ways.” (54-55) The English soldiers are barking commands to the woman who has no other option than to obey the orders of her white rulers, and thereby accept their firm belief in God. Moreover, she has to accept their judgment of the indigenous people as savage beasts of the wilderness.

When the white men ask for her name, she reacts as follows: “And when they ask my name, I give ‘em the name of my old Lancashire lady, which was Mary.” (55) I assume that the woman elects the name of the old lady of Lancashire, as she was a very independent woman who did not commit herself to the instructions of the white society. It could be argued that the old lady fulfilled a role model function for the woman, as she was an independent woman who dedicated her life to astrology and reading, which was very unusual for a white woman at that time. Although the woman’s son is of Native American descent (as his father is an Indian man), the Europeans aim to baptize the baby and give him a Christian name. Upon the white men’s order to baptize her son, she anxiously asks whether his name is not good enough. The Minister, however, responds that ‘Little Shooting Star is no name for a Christian,’ and a baptized Christian [his] boy must be.” (55) The white minister refers to the woman’s baby as “his” son, which again shows the power of the white society over women and other folks, for instance Native Americans. The woman, however, does not give in to the commands of the whites, and opposes her rulers with silent resistance: “But, as for me, I will not call him by the name the Minister gave him; nor do I talk to him in any but the Indian language when nobody else is there.” (55)

3.2 FEMALE IDENTITY AND WHITE WOMANHOOD

At the very beginning of the narrative, the narrator commits herself to the concept of white womanhood. Her limited view of women’s role in society forbids her to further question the patriarchal society she grows up in. Hence, her identity is shaped by the strong demands of the European society. Although she is still a young girl, she is forced to take on the role of a maid servant: “I could do a bit of sewing and keep a place clean so when I were nine or ten year of age they set me up as a maid of all work to an old woman that lived in our parish.” (41) Moreover, her perception of femininity is distorted, as she grows up in a family in which the values of a white, patriarchal society are strongly advocated. However, Carter later

76 conveys the idea that the woman is able to break free from these prescribed values. Although it is a taboo in society, the woman turns to prostitution and thus shows that she is adaptive and feels little sexual shame.

Upon the death of her parents, she has to work for an old lady in her town. The old lady grew up in a rather patriarchal family, as they wanted her mother to give birth to a son: “her father, wanting a son and getting nowt but she.” (41) Surprisingly, the old woman does not represent the typical white female who is restricted by patriarchal conceptions; on the contrary, the old lady is a sovereign woman who does not advocate the values of the society she lives in. She conveys the idea of an autonomous, rebellious woman, as she devotes herself to typically male tasks which are not intended for women, for example reading books and acquiring foreign languages. It could be argued that the young girl’s stay with the old lady teaches her important values for the future, as she gradually transforms into an independent woman. Furthermore, the relationship with the old woman foreshadows her own fate, as she eventually finds her identity and inner self among an alien culture and thereby rejects the rules of the white men.

The narrator’s decision to travel to London forces her to turn to prostitution: “and the ‘Lancashire milkmaid’ was soon in a fair way of trade as the ‘Lancashire whore.” (42) It is important to mention that she has to “trade” her body in order to survive, which again reveals the prejudiced image of women who are obliged to sell their bodies to white men for the sake of an “independent” life. Interestingly, the woman does not complain about her life as a whore and a thief, as she is aware of the fact that prostitution and stealing eventually allow her to flee from the restrictiveness of patriarchal concepts, and thereby enable her to determine her own role in society:

When I clapped my eye on his coin, I was as if struck with love and though want made a thief of me, first, it was avarice perfected me in the art and whoring was my ‘cover’ for it since my customers, blinded as they were with lust and often fuddled with liquor, were easier to pluck, living, than geese, dead. (43)

The blindness and drunkenness of the white men somehow give her a feeling of superiority, as she takes advantage of them for a time. Her “cover” (43), as she calls it, allows her to step into a different role and hide her real identity and beliefs, which are not accepted in her home society. This approach can be considered as a typical feature of Angela Carter as an eclectic

77 feminist, who does not always intend to portray women as pitiful members of a patriarchal society. On the contrary, she aims to highlight that they indeed are in power, despite the male dominance. Furthermore, the author wants its readers to change the perspective on the topic, and view proscribed jobs, such as prostitutes, as a way for women to gain independence.

However, her independence does not last for a long time, as she is caught stealing and is sent to Virginia. The woman is again treated as an inferior member of society, and is suppressed by the white men, who assert their dominance over women. This situation in her life is similar to the one in which she was forced to work as a maid by the white men, as she again suffers from the constraints of the European society. The narrator recounts that her overseer in Virginia “pestered [her] unmercifully that, since [she] had been a whore in Cheapside, [she] should not play the honest maid with him in Virginia.” (42) The man treats her disrespectfully and disregards her person; he urges her to conform to his rules. Carter’s heroine does not show any form of resistance, as she is aware of the male power over women. However, she does not give up her belief in independence and freedom, as she states that she will “work [her] sentence in the plantation for seven year, after which they said [she] should be a free woman again.” (43)

The woman eventually decides to break free from the restrictiveness of her white overseer and flees into the American wilderness after cutting off his ears. As a result, she regains her independence and is again able to determine her own fate. Her desire for freedom even leads her to think about prostitution among unknown folks, as she states: “I’d ply my trade amongst strangers, for a whore needs nowt but her skin to set up business.” (44) Her designation of “whore” shows that she does not view the work as a prostitute in pejorative terms but rather as an opportunity for a woman to live an autonomous life without being dependent on men.

When the narrator returns to the white society, however, she is forced to take up the tasks of a white woman: “I was the same skivvy as I’d been in Lancashire” (55) and “I scrubbed the Minister’s floor, cooked the dinner, washed the clothes”. (55) The return to her native society mirrors her childhood experiences; again she is forced to carry out the tasks of a European woman, most of which are restricted to white men’s houses. Although at the end of the short

78 story it seems as if the white, male dominance wins over independent womanhood, I believe that Carter’s heroine opposes the white, patriarchal society by the refusal of their values throughout her life. The woman’s courageous decision to integrate into the Native American community, which is rejected by the whites, shows her indomitable will to be in charge of her life. Despite the fact that she is eventually captured by the European men, she maintains her values and beliefs which she has acquired by living among the indigenous people. At the end of the story, Carter’s heroine states that she has the “least desire to take up [her] old trade again.” (56)

CONCLUSION

As stated in the introduction, this research was undertaken in order to highlight the significance of literary accounts for our understanding of the world. Literary texts allow us to revisit history and comprehend corresponding values of people belonging to different cultures. I want to remind the reader of the impossibility to correctly identify the motives and ideas of the authors. The interpretations which have been discussed in the analyses of Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative and Angela Carter’s short story are assumptions and suppositions. Hence, it is important to bear in mind that both writings are fictional works which do not necessarily refer to real life. However, the analyses have shown that certain text passages hint at particular concepts and beliefs. The academic research cited and my personal view can thereby contribute to a broader understanding of the world.

The analysis of Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative has illustrated that the literary account of her experiences among the indigenous tribe cannot easily be interpreted as either an empathetic or hateful report of the Native American culture; it is not about declaring the captivity narrative as either the former or the latter. The present thesis has revealed that readers of Rowlandson’s work will not succeed in finding the narrator’s definite and exclusive viewpoint; on the contrary, numerous distinct experiences, frames of mind, and values are included in the narrative. As the narrator writes herself, good and bad experiences have been made with the Native Americans (“Sometimes [she] met in favor, and sometimes with nothing but frowns.”) (18) Therefore, Mary can be considered as an indecisive, versatile narrator who shares her intimate journey and provides an insight into all its different facets. These interesting facets allow us to experience Rowlandson’s captivity as a journey of two minds. The narrator, as Caroll Smith-Rosenberg argues, creates a “self-contradictory subject” (487) which impede the reader from perceiving solely one perspective. As a result, readers of Rowlandson’s captivity narrative should seek after accepting and appreciating both sides. This approach has the potential features to regard the literary work as a whole and to accept the time and context of the creation of the work.

In my view, hateful and harsh expressions, for example, cannot only be regarded as hate against the indigenous community; there are always two (or more) sides. Vicious language can also be attributed to painful experiences and tribulation Mary was feeling throughout her

80 captivity, which has been discussed in the section of the narrator as a heroine. Moreover, the brutal word choice can be the consequence of sensationalist rhetoric or restrictions of society, which has been elaborated in the first section of the analysis. The narrative thus allows more than one interpretation, as various backgrounds have to be considered.

There are various similarities between the narratives of Angela Carter and Mary Rowlandson with regard to their experiences among the indigenous tribe and their native community. I have obtained satisfactory results proving that both women recognize the restrictions of their home societies to a different degree. Whereas the protagonist in Angela Carter’s short story “Our Lady of the Massacre” does not make a secret of the constraints in her patriarchal home society, Mary Rowlandson’s narrative includes implicit references to the strict regulations of the European community she grows up in. Mary’s developing self-awareness and reshaping of identity within the indigenous tribe can somehow be interpreted as a critical attitude towards the Europeans and an aversion of the Puritan society. Without doubt, Angela Carter detects feminist indications in Rowlandson’s work (e.g. Mary’s characterization of her sister’s “good labors” and “service of God”) (3) and transforms it into a revealing glimpse into her heroine’s experiences of dissatisfaction and unhappiness among the European society. However, it is important to consider that Angela Carter mocks the concept of feminist criticism and the writings of feminist authors. She conveys the idea that it is not the task of a feminist to show how inferior women feel in a patriarchal society; on the contrary, she reveals gender inequalities without pitying females. Hence, Carter takes up Rowlandson’s new- gained self-awareness and reshaped identity, and develops them into an unshakeable self- confidence of her heroine. The protagonist of her short story learns to transform the boundaries and weaknesses of society into a means of power. Although prostitution and stealing are not considered ladylike behavior, she does not feel ashamed or inferior because of practicing it. On the contrary, she views it as a “job” which grants her power and independence in a patriarchal society.

The analyses have demonstrated that both women are attracted by the indigenous culture and people. It can be assumed that Mary’s attraction to her master Quinnapin is taken up by Carter, as the heroine of her short story eventually marries an indigenous man. Moreover, both women admire indigenous women. Rowlandson glances at the beautiful dresses and jewelry of indigenous women. Her appreciation of indigenous dresses could potentially have

81 inspired Carter, whose protagonist learns how to fabricate and embroider these traditional dresses. The protagonist of “Our Lady of the Massacre” is charmed by an indigenous woman who she encounters in the American wilderness; her fascination is expressed by the undressing in front of the woman and her decision to accompany the squaw to the indigenous tribe. Despite the experienced stereotypical portrayal of the savage Native Americans, Carter’s heroine trusts the squaw blindly and follows her. Furthermore, both women appreciate indigenous rituals and customs. Interestingly, Mary depicts scenarios of cultural rituals without harshly criticizing them, which can be interpreted as an acceptance of the indigenous way of life. Just as Mary Rowlandson, Angela Carter’s narrator in “Our Lady of the Massacre” describes the cultural ritual of harvest without having a critical attitude. Carter’s heroine also gladly accepts the communal tasks and values of indigenous men and women, such as the polygyny within indigenous marriage or the indolence of indigenous men with regard to the food harvest. In addition, both women enjoy Native American food. Again, it can be argued that Angela Carter discovers Rowlandson’s enjoyment of the indigenous food culture, and adopts it into her short story. Without doubt, severe food shortages lead Rowlandson to savor indigenous food. Her stay among the Native Americans, however, allows her to explore different types of food (e.g. deer fetus), which she eventually enjoys. Mary even learns to love the meat of bear among the indigenous community, although she never liked it in her native society. Carter’s heroine even raves about the healthy indigenous diet, as the fresh food options prevent illnesses (which are common in the European society).

Through the analysis of Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative, comprehensive results proving that her multifaceted narrative voice includes more than one perspective have been obtained. Several scenes in the narrative suggest empathy towards indigenous people. There are numerous examples in Rowlandson’s narrative which refer to the kindness and tender nature of the Native Americans. Angela Carter even reflects one particular scene of Rowlandson’s captivity narrative in her short story (“gives [her] water to wash in and a bunch of feathers to dry [herself], so that [she] was much refreshed”). (46) Hence, Carter comprehends Rowlandson’s developing sympathy towards the indigenous tribe, and transforms it into a reversed captivity narrative, in which the Native American community represents a utopian place for a woman of European descent.

The evidence from this thesis points towards the idea that Angela Carter’s major intention was to highlight the newly found identity and self-experience among the indigenous community. Carter takes up Rowlandson’s experiences of self-discovery among the Native Americans and reverses the concept of captivity; the heroine of “Our Lady of the Massacre” recognizes that she is captured by the white society and flees into the American wilderness in order to find freedom and blissful happiness. Although Rowlandson’s narrative voice has often been interpreted as a biased attitude towards the Native Americans, the captivity allows her to discover self-awareness and to gain a new perspective of womanhood, as the role of women in indigenous communities are significantly different from the Puritan society. Returning to the hypothesis posed at the beginning of this study, it is now possible to state that Angela Carter is aware of gender and racial attitudes present in Rowlandson’s captivity narrative and transforms them into an extraordinary short story full of parody. To sum up, Mary Rowlandson’s work allows us to revisit 17th century America, to rethink certain concepts and to broaden our understanding of the world. Angela Carter’s short story “Our Lady of the Massacre” is the perfect example of the relevance of historical literary works, as the reading from a 20th century perspective will enable us to detect attitudes and ideas which are still present in our societies. Angela Carter does not hesitate to reveal society’s beliefs on women’s roles and femininity. In conclusion, both Mary Rowlandson and Angela Carter contributed to a redefinition of the image of women in a male dominated society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Rowlandson, Mary. Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson. North Charleston: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 1682. Print.

Carter, Angela. “Our Lady of the Massacre.” 1979. [online]

SECONDARY SOURCES

Allen, Benjamin Mark. Messara, Dahia. The Captivity Narrative: Enduring Shackles and Emancipating Language of Subjectivity. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2012. Print.

Allen, Benjamin Mark. Captivity, Past and Present: A Compendium of Observations and Interpretations. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010. Print.

Behn, Aphra. Oroonoko. England: Penguin Classics, 2016. Print.

Block, Sharon. Rape and Sexual Power in Early America. Virginia: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006. Print.

Bolton, Herbert E. "The Epic of Greater America," American Historical Review 38, No. 3. (1933): pp. 448–74. JSTOR. Web. 02. Dec. 2017.

Bradford, William. Of Plymouth Plantation 1620-1647. Rpt. New York: Random House, 1981. Print.

Breitwieser, Mitchell Robert. American Puritanism and the Defense of Mourning. Religion, Grief, and Ethnology in Mary White Rowlandson’s Captivity Narrative. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990. Print.

Burnham, Michelle. “The Journey between: Liminality and Dialogism in Mary White Rowlandson's Captivity Narrative.” Vol. 28, No. 1 (1993): pp. 60-75. JSTOR. Web. 05. Oct. 2017.

Castiglia, Christopher. Bound and Determined. Captivity, Culture-Crossing, and White Womanhood from Mary Rowlandson to Patty Hearst. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996. Print.

Davis, Margaret H. “Mary White Rowlandson's Self-Fashioning as Puritan Goodwife.” Early American Literature. Vol. 27, No. 1 (1992): pp. 49-60. JSTOR. Web. 22. Sept. 2017.

Defoe, Daniel. Moll Flanders. Köln: Anaconda Verlag GmbH, 2016. Print.

Defoe, Daniel. Robinson Crusoe. Stuttgart: Phillip Reclam jun. GmbH & Co. KG, 2012. Print.

Derounian, Kathryn. “Puritan Orthodoxy and the "Survivor Syndrome" in Mary Rowlandson's Indian Captivity Narrative.” Early American Literature, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1987), pp. 82-93. JSTOR. Web. 23. Sept. 2017.

Downing, David. “Streams of Scripture Comfort": Mary Rowlandson's Typological Use of the Bible.” Early American Literature, Vol. 15, No. 3 (1980/1981): pp. 252-259. JSTOR. Web. 10. Oct. 2017.

Eggleston, Edward. The Transit of Civilization from England to America in the Seventeenth Century. Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1972. Print.

Faery, Rebecca Blevins. Cartographies of Desire. Captivity, Race, & Sex in the Shaping of an American Nation. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, 1999. Print.

Fitzpatrick, Tara. “The Figure of Captivity: The Cultural Work of the Puritan Captivity Narrative.” American Literary History, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1991), pp. 1-26. JSTOR. Web. 11. Oct. 2017.

Greene, David L. “New Light on Mary Rowlandson.” Early American Literature, Vol. 20, No. 1 (1985): pp. 24-38. JSTOR. Web. 21. Sept. 2017.

Green, Rayna. “Native American Women.” Vol. 6, No. 2, Studies in Change (1980): pp. 248- 267. JSTOR. Web. 29. Nov. 2017.

Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Scarlet Letter. England: The Penguin English Library, 2012. Print.

Henwood, Dawn. “Mary Rowlandson and the Psalms: The Textuality of Survival.” Early American Literature, Vol. 32, No. 2 (1997): pp. 169-186. JSTOR. Web. 10. Oct. 2017.

Hinderaker, Eric. Horn, Rebecca. "Territorial Crossings: Histories and Historiographies of the Early Americas." William and Mary Quarterly, (2010): pp. 395–432. JSTOR. Web. 30. Nov. 2017.

Hogan, Linda. “Reviewed Work: Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies”. Vol. 7, No. 2 (1983): pp. 112-114. JSTOR. Web. 29. Nov. 2017.

Howe, Susan. The Birth-Mark: unsettling the Wilderness in American Literary History. London: University Press of New England, 1993. Print.

Kolodny, Annette. “Among the Indians: The Uses of Captivity.” Women's Studies Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 3/4, (1993): pp. 184-195. JSTOR. Web. 26. Sept. 2017.

Kunz, Annemarie. Women in the 1960s: Angela Carter’s The Magic Toyshop. Hamburg: Anchor Academic Publishing, 2014. Print.

Lepore, Jill. The Name of War. King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity. New York: Vintage Book, 1999. Print.

Lepselter, Susan. The Resonance of Unseen Things: Poetics, Power, Captivity, and UFOs in the American Uncanny. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016. Print.

Lerner, Gerda. The Female Experience: An American Documentary. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill Educational Publishing, 1983. Print.

Logan, Lisa. “Mary Rowlandson's Captivity and the "Place" of the Woman Subject.” Early American Literature. Vol. 28, No. 3 (1993): pp. 255-277. JSTOR. Web. 3. Oct. 2017.

Martzak-Görike, Paul. Neue Robinsonaden. Isolation und Verwandlung in der deutschsprachigen Literatur bei Marlen Haushofer „Die Wand“, Franz Kafka „Die Verwandlung“ und Christian Kracht „Imperium“. Diplomarbeit. Universität Wien, 2013.

Miller, Perry. Errand into the Wilderness. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Print.

Minter, David L. "By Dens of Lions: Notes on Stylization in Early Puritan Captivity Narratives." American Literature 45.3 (1973): 335-47. JSTOR. Web. 23. Sept. 2017.

Morison, Samuel Eliot. The Intellectual Life of Colonial New England. New York: Cornell Paperbacks, 1956. Print.

Morton, Nathaniel. New England’s Memorial. Boston: Congregational Board of Publication, 1855. Print.

Plane, Ann Marie. Colonial Intimacies: Indian Marriage in Early New England. London: Cornell University Press, 2000. Print.

Potter, Tiffany. “Writing Indigenous Femininity: Mary Rowlandson’s Narrative of Captivity.” Eighteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2, False Arcadias (2003): pp. 153-167. JSTOR. Web. 10. Oct. 2017.

Ramirez, Renya. “Healing, Violence, and Native American Women.” Vol. 31, No. 4, Native Women and State Violence (2004): pp. 103-116. JSTOR. Web. 29. Nov. 2017.

Sayre, Robert F. American Lives: An Anthology of Autobiographical Writing. London: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1994. Print.

Shoemaker, Nancy. “Native-American Women in History.” OAH Magazine of History. Vol. 9, No. 4, Native Americans (1995): pp. 10-14. JSTOR. Web. 26. Nov. 2017.

Simmons, William Scranton. Spirit of the New England Tribes: Indian History and Folklore, 1620-1984. London: University Press of New England, 1986. Print.

Slotkin, Richard. Folsom, James K. So Dreadfull a Judgement: Puritan Responses to King Philip’s War, 1676-1677. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1978. Print.

Slotkin, Richard. Regeneration through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier, 1600-1860. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, 1973. Print.

Smith-Rosenberg, Carroll. “Subject Female: Authorizing American Identity.” American Literary History, Vol. 5, No. 3, Eighteenth-Century American Cultural Studies (1993): pp. 481-511. JSTOR. Web. 21. Sept. 2017.

Snowden, Kim. “Fairy Tale Film in the Classroom: Feminist Cultural Pedagogy, Angela Carter, and Neil Jordan’s The Company of Wolves.” Fairy Tale Films: Visions of Ambiguity (2010): pp.157-177. JSTOR. Web. 23. Oct. 2017.

Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher. Good Wives: Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England 1650-1750. 1980. New York: Vintage Books, 1991. Print.

WEBLIOGRAPHY

Encyclopedia Britannica Online. “Narraganset.” Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2017.

Encyclopedia Britannica Online. “Puritanism.” Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2017.

Encyclopedia Britannica Online. “Tribal Nomenclature: American Indian, Native American, First Nation.” Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web.17 Nov. 2017.

Gordon, Edmund. “Angela Carter: Far from the fairytale.” in: The Guardian, 1 October 2016. Web. 10. Oct. 2017.

Lamb Symbol. Web 28. Sept. 2017.

Mather, Increase. A True History of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson. The Preface to the Reader. Web 02. Oct. 2017.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. “Dame.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2017.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. “Escape.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2017.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. “Fiction.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2017.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. “Hell-hound.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2017.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. “Massacre.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2017.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. “Robinsonade.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2017.

Smith, Glen D. “Women’s Roles in Puritan Culture.” 2012. Web. 25. Oct. 2017.

Walker, Alice. “Am I Blue?” Web. 21. Sept. 2017.

Whitmore, William H. A Bibliographical Sketch of the Laws of the Massachusetts Colony from 1630 to 1686. Boston: Rockwell and Churchill, City Printers, 1890. Web 17. Nov. 2017.