言語・地域文化研究 第 27 号 2021 389

The Pocahontas Myth and Settler Colonialism of the British Empire

TSUKADA Hiroyuki

ポカホンタス神話とブリテン帝国のセトラー・コロニアリズム

塚田 浩幸

要 旨

アメリカ先住民の王女ポカホンタスが自分の身を挺して処刑寸前の捕虜ジョン・スミ スを救った―。このポカホンタスの平和友好の物語の再生産の始まりは、アメリカでは なく、植民地期の本国イングランドにあった。一方、入植者に対して急襲を率いたオペ チャンカナウの敵対の物語は、ヴァージニア植民地住人の主導で再生産がなされていた。 ポカホンタスとオペチャンカナウの対照的な物語が異なる再生産の経過をたどった要因 は、本国の住人と植民地の住人の相互認識や対先住民認識の相違にあった。植民地住人は、 本国の住人と同じブリテン人としてのアイデンティティを持ち、先住民との区別を強く 意識していたために、先住民の残虐性を強調するオペチャンカナウの物語の再生産を進 めた。一方、本国の住人は、植民地を帝国の内部でありながらも本国とは異なる外部の 空間として認識し、そこに住む先住民と植民地住人のあいだの平和友好を描いた。この ことは、本国と植民地の住人がセトラー・コロニアリズムにおいて異なる役割を担って いたことを意味している。本国の住人は、植民地住人による暴力の記憶を覆い隠し、征 服とは無縁のブリテン帝国の自画像を築き上げた。そして、アメリカの独立後、大西洋 岸で先住民の脅威が取り除かれると、ポカホンタスの物語の再生産の中心はアメリカへ 移行した。このときになって、アメリカ人は実際の暴力とその記憶の忘却の双方を担う ようになったといえる。 本研究は、ここ一世代で定着している研究潮流と同様に、植民地期アメリカを、アメ リカ合衆国の前史として考察するのではなく、当時のブリテン帝国や大西洋世界のなか に位置づけた。つまり、これまでのポカホンタス文学研究が陥ってきたナショナルな枠 組みを脱却し、大西洋両岸を見渡す帝国的観点を取り入れた。そして、近年のセトラー・ コロニアリズム研究の蓄積をふまえ、全体論的アプローチから、これまで着目されてこ なかった本国の住人の役割を考察した。

本稿の著作権は著者が保持し、クリエイティブ・コモンズ表示 4.0 国際ライセンス（CC-BY）下に提供します。 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ja 390 研究ノート ポカホンタス神話とブリテン帝国のセトラー・コロニアリズム （ 塚田 浩幸）

Table of contents 1. Introduction 2. The Pocahontas and Opechancanough Narratives in the Colonial Era 3. The Pocahontas and Opechancanough Narratives in the Post-Revolutionary Era 4. Conclusion

1. Introduction

The Native American princess Pocahontas risked her own life to save English captive John Smith. This has been the popular narrative in American history since the nineteenth century, in the words of Leslie Fiedler, as an “apt symbol of the White man’s reconciliation with our land and its frst inhabitants [Native Americans].” Since the 1960s, numerous scholars have insisted that the repeated reproduction of Pocahontas’s friendly narrative has covered up the real violence that took place within American history; such studies refer primarily to the Pocahontas narrative that was published after American Independence.1 An expanded analysis by Robert Tilton dealt with the Pocahontas narrative that was reproduced during the colonial period. However, his analysis remained within the national approach, and failed to note the diferent tendencies across the Atlantic, nor did it compare the reproduction of the Pocahontas narrative with that of Opechancanough (Pocahontas’s contemporary and opposition, who launched assaults upon the colonists).2 The narratives of Pocahontas and Opechancanough were based on what the early colonists, notably John Smith, wrote down. The authors in the metropole (the parent state of a colony) and the colony in later years, cut certain portions of the story, and emphasized other elements diferently. This concern for challenging the national framework has been established among current historians who focus on early American history; they often consider colonial America not as a prehistory of the United States (U.S.), but as a part of the British Empire or Atlantic world. Subsequently, scholars of the British Empire and those of the early and Native American history, have increasingly worked hand in hand. Anthony Pagden, in his studies on the self-image of the British Empire, focused on British views towards Native Americans. After the middle of the seventeenth century, the Britons viewed their own empire as commercial and oceanic. The Native American presence within the British self-image was not extensive. However, it was constructed on their self-awareness that their colonization was “mutually benefcial to migrant and native,” and was freed from conquering and enslaving, which were the ways of the Spanish Empire.3 Eric Hinderaker said that “[e]mpire is a cultural artifact as well as a geopolitical entity; it belongs to a geography of the mind as well as a geography of power,” and clarified that, when four Native American chiefs visited England in the early eighteenth century, the metropolitans sensed the imperial extension to America and regarded them as people within the British Empire.4 Linda Colley demonstrated the different identities of the metropolitans and colonists by analyzing their reactions to Native American captivity, stating that the colonists considered being taken captive as violation of their British identity, but the metropolitans did not share the same beliefs. In other words, the colonists held their British identity by differentiating themselves from Native Americans, but the metropolitans were strongly conscious of the division between them and their countrymen across the Atlantic sea (see Figure 1).5 Settler colonizers’ desire to deny their own past violence against the indigenous people, which have been dealt with 言語・地域文化研究 第 27 号 2021 391

Figure 1. Metropolitans’ and Colonists’ Identities

in Pagden’s works and the studies of the Pocahontas literature, is also explained as “screen memory” (i.e. idealized reconstructions of one’s past) in settler colonial studies. Over two decades, scholars of settler colonialism in other regions, notably Patrick Wolfe and Lorenzo Veracini, have formulated that settler colonialism is not a “subset category” of colonialism, but an “antitype category” of it. According to their arguments, colonialism says “you, work for me,” but settler colonialism says “you, go away”; in other words, colonialism exploits labor of local population, but settler colonialism dispossesses indigenous people of their land, where exogenous people settle. Then, Veracini focused his attention on the existence of the settlers and analyzed their behaviors and thoughts. Walter L. Hixon followed him in his general history of American settler colonialism, stating that English settlers were more violent than the metropolitan authority in Early America.6 However, the British metropolitans also participated in the violence mechanism. By actively reproducing the Pocahontas narrative, they covered up the real violence of American colonists. The numerous publications of the Pocahontas narrative are collected in the Pocahontas Archive. The publication list in the archive indicates that the number of publications was larger in the metropole than in the colony and signifcantly grew in the U.S. after the American Revolution.7 This tendencies can be attributed to two factors: the publication industry and people’s concern for history. The center of the English-language publication industry was in London,8 and, as Arthur M. Schlesinger expressed, the colonists did not have an enthusiasm for retracing their own history. In writing Virginia’s history that would be published for the Virginia colonists for the first time, William Stith criticized the fact that “some of my countrymen (and those too, persons of high Fortune and Distinction) seemed to be much alarmed, and to grudge, that a complete History of their own Country would run to more than one Volume, and cost them above half a Pistole,” and refrained from adding “very curious Papers and original Pieces of Record” in “fear of enhancing the Price” (italics in original, same hereinafter).9 These two different circumstances partly explain why Pocahontas began to be featured in post-revolutionary America, where there were developments in the publication industry and an upsurge in American interest in its own history. These factors, however, did not clarify why the reproduction of the narratives of Pocahontas and Opechancanough took diferent routes in the colonial period. This phenomenon was specifcally caused by the diference between identities of the metropolitans and the colonists. The authors in the colony, who were strongly conscious of their 392 研究ノート ポカホンタス神話とブリテン帝国のセトラー・コロニアリズム （ 塚田 浩幸）

diferences from Native Americans, did not bother to write about Pocahontas’s friendly narrative. Instead, they reproduced Opechancanough’s hostile one. This paper reinterprets the Pocahontas myth of the colonial period as a narrative of the British Empire and clarifies the metropolitans’ role in the settler colonial mechanism of the British Empire. The two difering narratives of Pocahontas and Opechancanough, as produced respectively by the inhabitants in Britain and America during the colonial era and post- revolutionary era, are presented and discussed, along with the diferent identities especially in the next chapter.10

2. The Pocahontas and Opechancanough Narratives in the Colonial Era

Pocahontas was born around 1596. Her father was Powhatan, who was the principal ruler of the indigenous people around the Chesapeake Bay, when the English started to establish a colony there. In December 1607, Pocahontas met the English for the frst time. The Powhatans took Smith captive and performed adoption rituals for him; his misunderstanding of one of these rituals led to the famous story of Pocahontas’s rescue. According to Smith’s book published in 1624, “two great stones were brought before Powhatan: then as many [Native Americans] as could layd hands on him, dragged him to them [the stones], and thereon laid his head, and being ready with their clubs, to beate out his braines, Pocahontas the Kings dearest daughter, when no intreaty could prevaile, got his head in her armes, and laid her owne upon his to save him from death.” Smith believed that he had been rescued by Pocahontas and he was so impressed that, in his letter in June 1608, he introduced Pocahontas to the English metropolitans as “not only for feature, countenance, and proportion, much exceedeth any of the rest of his [Powhatan’s] people, but for wit, and spirit, the only Nonpariel of his Country.” This presentation was the starting point of the Pocahontas rescue narrative.11 After the rescue, Pocahontas accompanied other Powhatan envoys in trading activities and diplomatic negotiations, but the relations between the indigenes and the English gradually worsened. In January 1609, when Powhatan tried to assault Smith, Pocahontas saved him by revealing Powhatan’s plot. This second rescue did not, however, encourage their reconciliation. Since late summer in 1609, the English attempted to build new settlements along the James River, and the Powhatans’ military resistance against those eforts provoked the First Anglo-Powhatan War. Smith returned to England on account of a bad injury and Pocahontas stopped visiting the colony owing to the ongoing confict. In 1613, when the war was at a standof, Samuel Argall kidnapped Pocahontas, who thereafter lived in the colony, was converted to Christianity, and married John Rolfe in April 1614. Their intermarriage completely concluded the war. Thomas Dale and Alexander Whitaker announced this marriage in their letters to indicate the peace between the colony and the Powhatans. Pocahontas, who was welcomed by the metropolitans during her visit to England in 1616–17, reunited with Smith, but died before returning to Virginia. Judging from his 1624 account, their reunification did not seem to be a moving one. Smith wrote that “[a]fter a modest salutation without any word, she turned about, obscured her face, as not seeming well contented; […] not long after, she began to talke, and remembred mee well what courtesies shee had done.” In her words, Pocahontas revealed her dissatisfaction of the insincere behaviors of Smith and the other English people, in three points: (1) their invasion into the Powhatan country, (2) a “lie,” which the English often told, including whether Smith was dead, and (3) Smith’s rejection of being called “father” by her, which would have confrmed their friendly and reciprocal relationship.12 Authors in later years referred to Smith’s writings to reproduce the Pocahontas narrative, often focusing on the frst rescue, the intermarriage, and the reunifcation. 言語・地域文化研究 第 27 号 2021 393

Figure 2. Ogilby, America

Tilton insisted that the authors in the latter half of the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries referred to the intermarriage of Pocahontas and Rolfe as an assimilation model that might have replaced the real hostile relations between Native Americans and the settlers.13 Tilton’s insistence was certainly true for the authors in the colony, but the Pocahontas narrative was more often presented by the metropolitans as compared to the colonists; they focused on her relationship with Smith rather than with Rolfe. John Ogilby, who was born in Scotland in 1600, saw the increase of English interest in the world and published several atlases in his later years. One of the atlases, America, was published in London in 1670. In that book, it is evident that the Pocahontas narrative had already gained repute in the history of not only Virginia but also the American colonies as a whole. In the table of contents, Ogilby arranged names of places, such as “New England” and “New Netherland, now call’d New York,” but put “The Relation of Captain Smith’s being taken Prisoner by Powhatan, and his deliverance by his Daughter Pocahonta” below “Virginia” (see Figure 2). Before he included Smith’s almost verbatim writings about his captivity and rescue, he briefy explained Pocahontas’s life, mentioning two rescues, the voyage to England, intermarriage with Rolfe, and her death at Gravesend. Of these events, Ogilby emphasized the frst rescue, stating that, “it would be endless to recount all the Treacheries and Ambuscades of the Salvages, some of which had prov’d very pernicious to the Planters, had they not been betray’d to Captain Smith by Pocahonta, King Powhatan’s Daughter, who upon all occasions shew’d her self a great Friend to the English, having sav’d the Captain’s Life, when being her Father’s Prisoner, he was just brought to Execution.”14 The next metropolitan author is John Oldmixon, who repeatedly referred to Pocahontas, and emphasized the rescue, in both his frst and second editions of 1708 and 1741. He considered the rescue “pretty romantick and suspicious” and criticized that “Capt. Smith ha[d] never dropt his main Design to make himself the Hero of his History.” Modern scholars may attempt to link his “Design” to be a hero with the “suspoicio[n]” of his invention of the rescue. However, Oldmixon’s criticism was not towards the veracity of the rescue. Rather, it was towards Smith’s suspicious attempt of heroizing himself and snatching her from the center of the historic scene of the rescue. He advocated, “We must not omit the wonderful Humanity of Pocahonta, who, when Mr. Smith’s Head was on the Block, and she […] put her own Head upon his, and ventured the receiving of the Blow to save him.” Oldmixon gave the exceptional value towards her because he understood that the English were “vain [i.e. miserable]” at being confronted with the “barbarous” people.15 394 研究ノート ポカホンタス神話とブリテン帝国のセトラー・コロニアリズム （ 塚田 浩幸）

In 1733, a letter was sent from a gentleman in England to his acquaintance in Boston. This letter was printed in the Boston Gazette the next year, in which John Boydell often published foreign news. The metropolitan gentleman praised Pocahontas and promoted the construction of a statue of her, saying that, “I don’t recollect any of the celebrated Heroines of Antiquity of half so just a behaviour or that any way exceed her [Pocahontas] in virtue or true greatness of Mind,” and, “To shew your selves the most Elegant of all the Settlements, you shou’d Subscribe for her STATUE, to set up in the beautifullest Places of the Publick Walks where your Company meets.”16 The letter is distinctive in two key ways. First, it was sent to Boston, not to Virginia, despite the New Englanders being irrelevant to Pocahontas. Second, the metropolitan believed that Pocahontas should be celebrated in America, not in England or together in England and America. Thus, the letter indicates that the metropolitan obviously viewed the American colonies as a single space separate from England, and it refects the fact that the metropolitans actively featured Pocahontas as the historic narrative of the American colonies.17 There are some other publications in which the metropolitans reproduced the Pocahontas narrative. In 1732, John Churchill published his Collections of Voyages and Travels and made a brief reference to Smith’s Virginia venture, in which Pocahontas’s rescue was listed; however, there was no mention of other events relating to Pocahontas. Robert Goadby introduced Pocahontas in his biography of Bampfylde-Moore Carew. Carew was an English imposter who was transported to America. He received Native Americans’ hospitality, which Goadby exemplifed by referring to Pocahontas’s virtue. Carew’s biographies became popular after the late 1740s, and Pocahontas was repeatedly mentioned in the publications. Moreover, in 1755, Edward Kimber narrated Pocahontas’s love towards Smith in his London Magazine. While describing her reunifcation with Smith, Kimber depicted Pocahontas’s complicated feelings, saying that “She at frst shewed great resentment against him, which is a plain sign of her having expected that he would have married her,” but “such is the native modesty of the sex in all countries, that she did not even then insinuate any such expectation.”18 In contrast to the authors in England, the colonists ambiguously dealt with the Pocahontas narrative and focused on her relationship with Rolfe, not her relationship with Smith. Stith, a historian in the Virginia colony, did not focus much on Pocahontas in his 1747 book. In his writings about Smith’s captivity and Pocahontas’s rescue, Stith’s attention to another Powhatan, Nantaquous, was equal with or larger than to Pocahontas, from both of whom “Smith received many Services.” Stith praised Nantaquous as “a Youth of the comliest and most manly Person, and of the highest Spirit and Courage, of any in the Court of Powhatan; and he embraced Smith’s Interest with much Warmth and Heartiness, and did him many Acts of Friendship and Kindness.”19 Nonetheless, Robert Beverley is a more suitable example than Stith, to be compared with the metropolitan authors, and his writings of Pocahontas’s marriage are unique. During his stay in England, Beverley checked Oldmixon’s pre-published manuscript, which had several erroneous descriptions, and, rather than correcting Oldmixon’s work, wrote his own version in London in 1705. In his description of the marriage between Pocahontas and Rolfe, Beverley stated his positive opinion about the intermarriage between Native Americans and colonists. According to Beverley, if the colonists in the early period had accepted Native Americans’ ofers of intermarriage, they could have prevented “most of the Rapines and Murders” that the Native Americans committed. In his revised edition, published in 1722, however, Beverley completely omitted this opinion and changed his description about Pocahontas’s descendants. In 1705, he wrote about their good standings in the contemporaries, saying that “She left Issue one Son, nam’d Thomas Rolfe, whose Posterity is at this Day in good repute in Virginia.” In 1722, he expressed his interest in their land holding, adding “whose posterity is at this day in good repute in Virginia, and now hold lands by descent from her.” Although Beverley said that he reduced “private” and “too diminutive” parts in general, he did not specifcally explain 言語・地域文化研究 第 27 号 2021 395

the reason for the changes in his writings about Native Americans. Susan Scott Parrish speculated that it refected a law in 1705, which stipulated Native Americans’ subordinate status within the colonial society.20 Beverley’s attention to intermarriage, as a possible way to bring peace between Native Americans and the colonists, presents an interesting contrast to Ogilby’s focus on Pocahontas’s rescue, as events that stopped “Treacheries and Ambuscades of the Salvages.” Further, another metropolitan, Oldmixon, was indiferent as to whether intermarriage was good or bad for the colony, saying “how far it [intermarriage] would have answer’d that end [continuing the Peace], the Reader may judge.” Oldmixon was unsatisfed with a point that Beverley “bestowed more of his Labour upon the Indians […] than on the History of the English,” which indicated that they had a gap in recognizing the importance of the Native American issue. Colonist Peter Fontaine also considered intermarriage preferable. In his letter to his relative in 1757, Fontaine referred to Pocahontas’s intermarriage and insisted that the colonists could rear the mixed-blood children as English Christians. There was also another example of assenting to intermarriage with Native Americans, although it did not specifcally mention Pocahontas. Colonist William Byrd considered intermarriage with Native Americans to be desirable for maintaining their friendship and civilizing and Christianizing them.21 As Tilton said, the reason that the colonists focused on her intermarriage with Rolfe related to their trouble with Native Americans; however, it also demonstrates the active reproduction of Opechancanough’s hostile narrative. Opechancanough was a Powhatan leader who was born around 1550. He began to play a diplomatic role towards the Virginia colonists in the middle of the 1610s. At the fnal stage of the First Anglo-Powhatan War, he actively behaved in a friendly manner towards the English. After that, he had an appeasing attitude, but he ultimately led an assault against them in 1622 as a response to the rapid increase in English immigration to Virginia. Following the assault, Edward Waterhouse angrily stated that 347 colonists “fell vnder the bloudy and barbarous hands of that perfdious and inhumane people, contrary to all lawes of God and men, of Nature &Nations,” and that friendly hands between the English and the Powhatans were not untied, but sharply cut of by the indigenes. After another assault in 1644, the English called Opechancanough “a bloody Monster.”22 Robert Vaughan illustrated a painting of Opechancanough for Smith’s Generall Historie in 1624. In the painting, Opechancanough looked threatening compared to Smith, who was short in stature. Vaughan, however, had not been to Virginia, and noted that his depiction was not based on Opechancanough himself, but on Theodore de Bry’s engravings of Native Americans at Roanoke, “because the [Roanoke] people difer very little from them of Powhatan in any thing.”23 In contrast, it was Beverley who omitted Vaughan’s honest acknowledgement and asserted Opechancanough’s image as “a Man of Stature” and “noble Presence.”24 The authors in the metropole and the colony shared their writings of the 1622 assault as a cruel event, but the latter came to confrm that Opechancanough pretended to be friendly for several years before the assault. In his books in 1708 and 1741, Oldmixon said that, at the time of Powhatan’s death and Opechancanough’s succession, “his Empire at last became formidable to the English,” but this was unclear regarding Opechancanough’s own perspective. Stith, in contrast, articulated in his 1747 book that “Opechancanough was a haughty, politic, and bloody Man, ever intent on the Destruction of the English.” In 1755, Kimber’s London Magazine adopted Stith’s description, which indicates that the authors across the Atlantic read each other’s books, and their writings were sometimes similar; reproduction of Opechancanough’s narrative, however, was certainly led by colonial authors.25 396 研究ノート ポカホンタス神話とブリテン帝国のセトラー・コロニアリズム （ 塚田 浩幸）

3. The Pocahontas and Opechancanough Narratives in the Post-Revolutionary Era

Pocahontas—The benignant spirit, whose humanity and courage so often snatched our ancestors from famine and the sword….Her ashes lie neglected in a strange land, without monument or device; without Barrow, or string of Wampum; but her gentle spirit is in the midst of us, and we hail her with reverence and admiration, as the guardian genius of our fathers, of our infancy, of our cradles.26

This is a toast message that was delivered in the bicentennial anniversary of Virginia colonization, held in May 1807. Virginia Americans praised her behavior and achieved unifcation with her. The last portion of this message stated, “the guardian genius of our fathers, of our infancy, of our cradles.” This seems to have two meanings: (1) the guardian genius of the colonists (i.e. “our fathers”) of the early era (“our infancy”) of Virginia (“our cradles”); and (2) the guardian genius of our ancestors (“our fathers”), of our children (“our infancy”), and of our posterity (“our cradles”). Other orations, odes, and toasts, frequently referred to Pocahontas, which indicates that she was becoming a prominent historical fgure. In the anniversary, C. K. Blanchard delivered his ode about the conquest of Native Americans, but Port Folio was unsatisfed with a point that he did not “fnd a place to mention the celebrated Pocahontas.”27 Such desire had already been announced in “a copy of letters written by a young Englishman of rank, during a tour of the United States, in 1803, to a member of the British parliament.” It stated, “I wonder that the Virginians, fond as they are of anniversaries, have instituted no festival or order in honour of her memory. For my part, I have little doubt […] that Pocahuntas deserves to be considered as the patron deity of the [Virginia colonization] enterprise. […] [B]ut for her patronage, the anniversary cannon of the Fourth of July would never have resounded throughout the United States.”28 This patriotic favor was also apparent in the Pocahontas play of Joseph Croswell in 1802 and in that of James Nelson Barker in 1808, as well as that of George Washington Parke Custis in 1830. All these plays end with scenes in which their characters spoke of the friendly union of Native Americans and the settlers, and the “big vista of futurity” of the “glorious American Empire.”29 Moreover, John Gadsby Chapman painted “Baptism of Pocahontas” for the U.S. Capitol rotunda in 1840. In the selection of painters of the historic scene for display in the Capitol rotunda, the U.S. Congress decided to choose American artists for nurturing the fne arts in the U.S. One of the selected artists was Chapman, who had already produced some paintings portraying early Virginia, and another was Robert Walter Weir, who would depict the origin myth of the Northeast, “Embarkation of the Pilgrims.”30 Thus, Pocahontas was fully integrated into the national history of the U.S as well as the national history of U.S. art. Furthermore, Blair Bolling, one of Pocahontas’s descendants, reproduced a poem about Pocahontas, and Thomas Jeferson proudly talked about the marriages of his two daughters to the descendants of Pocahontas.31 Regarding the reason why Americans began to pay attention to Pocahontas, Jay B. Hubbell explains two causes. First is the increase of interest Americans possessed of their own history. This point relates to the fact that the newly minted Americans focused more on Smith’s relations with Pocahontas, than on Rolfe’s. Because Smith surpassed Rolfe in historical achievements, Jeremy Belknap’s and other biographies contained Smith, but not Rolfe, and presented the Pocahontas narrative through their sections on Smith.32 Hubbell’s second cause is the conclusion of conficts with Native Americans who were east of the Appalachian Mountains. In other words, as Native Americans retreated west, the center of the reproduction of the Pocahontas narrative also moved west, from England to the east coast of the U.S. In the process of the transition, 言語・地域文化研究 第 27 号 2021 397

Europeans’ travel literatures played a signifcant role. Travelers wrote about not only local environments and events that they witnessed but also the historic episodes related to the places that they visited. Luigi Castiglioni, an Italian botanist, recounted the Pocahontas narrative in his 1790 travel book, and invented a story that Pocahontas rescued Smith from being “burned alive,” rather than stricken with a club.33 Yet, the most popular retellings among his contemporaries were those of Marquis de Chastellux and John Davis. Chastellux traveled around America during his service in the American War of Independence and published a travel narrative in French in 1786. Chastellux met Mrs. Bolling, a descendant of Pocahontas, in Virginia and extolled her inherited nobility in his writings. Then, Chastellux introduced Pocahontas, in a narrative that was distinct in its sentimentality in the scenes of her rescue and reunification with Smith. In her rescue of Smith, “Powhatan could not resist the tears” of his daughter, Pocahontas, and halted his execution of Smith. Moreover, in her reunifcation with Smith, “[a]s soon as she saw him she threw herself into his arms.” These depictions of Pocahontas’s behaviors were novel, because the authors in both shores of the Atlantic sea in the colonial period had not embellished Smith’s descriptions to this extent. Chastellux’s travel literature was translated and published in London in 1787, and in America in 1827, but the Columbian Magazine in Philadelphia had already copied his Pocahontas narrative in 1787. Caleb Bingham and Noah Webster also used this in their books in the 1790s. Tilton said that this version of the narrative was standard in post-revolutionary America.34 Davis travelled to America in 1798 after his service to the East India Company and the British navy and had a sense of rivalry with Chastellux in the reproduction of the Pocahontas narrative. He said that “No Traveller before me has erected a monument to her memory, by the display of her virtues; for I would not dignify by that name the broken fragment which is to be found in the meagre page of Chastellux,” and further dramatized the story in his travel narrative, which was published in England in 1803. Kimber had already depicted the romance between Pocahontas and Smith in his London Magazine in 1755, but Davis further manipulated Pocahontas’s age. Davis set Pocahontas’s age higher at 14 during the rescue in December 1607, which was considered old enough to harbor romantic feelings, and set her age lower to 19 at her death in March 1617, which intended to incite readers to lament.35 Davis received various book reviews and became popular as a writer. The Edinburgh Review in July 1803 criticized that “We never met with any thing more abominably stupid than this story, and must be excused for passing it over with very little notice.” In contrast, the Monthly Review in London in August 1804 commended this retelling of Smith’s adventure. Davis continued his reproduction of the Pocahontas narrative and published his next book, Captain Smith and Princess Pocahontas, in Philadelphia in 1805 because of the rising demand for the Pocahontas narrative in the U.S.36 In this way, the dramatized versions of the Pocahontas narrative were imported to the U.S. through European travel literature; however, the Opechancanough narrative continued to be reproduced in post-revolutionary America. In 1804, John Marshall compared powerful but friendly Powhatan with Opechancanough, who was “as remarkable for his jealousy [i.e. fury] and hate of the new settlers, as for his qualifcations to execute the revenge his resentments dictated.” In the same year, John Burk also stated, “[Opechancanough’s] hatred of the English was rooted and deadly. Never for a moment did he forget the unjust invasion and insolent aggressions of those strangers.” Burk elaborated for ten pages on proceedings from his takeover of the leadership from Powhatan through to the 1622 assault.37 Despite this hostile and treacherous image of Opechancanough, which would survive until today, his presence was small, compared to the growing popularity of Pocahontas, as Barker and Custis did not use him as a character in their plays. Before the bicentennial anniversary in 1807, Virginia Apollo positively described Opechancanough as a person who was “devoted to the destruction of the enemies of 398 研究ノート ポカホンタス神話とブリテン帝国のセトラー・コロニアリズム （ 塚田 浩幸）

his country,” but did not forget to praise Pocahontas’s “guardian spirit.” Furthermore, in the 1840 “Baptism of Pocahontas,” the center of the historic scene of the U.S. was undoubtably Pocahontas. Chapman gave only a minor role to the “sullen, cunning, yet daring Opechankanough.”38

4. Conclusion

The main proponents of the Pocahontas narrative during the colonial period were the metropolitans, not the colonists, who had to live with daily conficts with Native Americans. The metropolitans focused on her relationship with Smith, but the colonists paid more attention to her intermarriage with Rolfe as the solution to the Native American problem. These differences can be most clearly observed in the contrast between Beverley’s and Oldmixon’s writings. As the Americans became less disturbed by the Native Americans in the East, the center of the reproduction of the Pocahontas narrative shifted to America. The European travelers played an important role in the reimport of the Pocahontas story. The different leanings of the reproductions of the Pocahontas narrative, compared to that of Opechancanough, indicate that the metropolitans and the colonists had different understandings of, that is, had in their minds, diferent maps of the British Empire. The colonists diferentiated themselves from Native Americans and held on to a British identity, actively reproduced Opechancanough’s treacherous narrative. In contrast, especially as the 1733 letter published in the Boston Gazette indicates, the metropolitans considered both the colonists and Native Americans as “others” within the empire. By reproducing the Pocahontas narrative as an American historic episode, they were conscious of the diference between themselves and the inhabitants of America, and so depicted peaceful relations between the colonists and the Native Americans. Through these actions, the metropolitans covered up the real violence in America, and built up the self-image of the conquer- free empire. After American independence, the newly minted Americans succeeded the metropolitans’ role and played both roles in settler colonialism: violence and oblivion.

注 1 Leslie A. Fiedler, The Return of the Vanishing American (New York: Stein and Day, 1968), 64; Rebecca Blevins Faery, Cartographies of Desire: Captivity, Race, and Sex in the Shaping of an American Nation (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999), esp. 118; Philip Young, “The Mother of Us All: Pocahontas Reconsidered,” Kenyon Review 24, no. 3 (Summer 1962): 391–415; Namie Ozawa, “Reconstruction of Pocahontas Legends: Recovery from Historical Amnesia,” Cultures and Communication (Japan Society for Culture in English), 24 (2005): 5–16 (in Japanese). 2 Robert S. Tilton, Pocahontas: The Evolution of an American Narrative (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1994). More recently, Pocahontas studies have begun to see beyond the story’s national context, like Sabine N. Meyer’s analysis of non-English Pocahontas literature. Sabine N. Meyer, “A Strong Antidote against Unbelief and Seduction: Carl Friedrich Scheibler’s Leben und Schicksale der Pokahuntas (1781) and the German Theological Enlightenment,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 49, no. 3 (Spring 2016): 371–89. 言語・地域文化研究 第 27 号 2021 399

3 Anthony Pagden, Lords of All the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France c.1500–c.1800 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995); idem, “The Struggle for Legitimacy and the Image of Empire in the Atlantic to c.1700” and Nicholas Canny, “The Origins of Empire: An Introduction,” both in The Origins of Empire: British Overseas Enterprise to the Close of the Seventeenth Century, The Oxford History of the British Empire, vol. 1, ed. Nicholas Canny (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 31–32, 52–53. 4 Eric Hinderaker, ““The Four Indian Kings” and the Imaginative Construction of the First British Empire,” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser., 53, no. 3 (July 1996): 487 (hereafter WMQ). 5 Linda Colley, Captives: Britain, Empire and the World, 1600–1850 (London: Jonathan Cape, 2002), chap. 5. Other works on the identity gap across the Atlantic are: Carla Gardina Pestana, The English Atlantic in an Age of Revolution, 1640–1661 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004), chaps. 5–6; Susan Lindsey Lively, “Going Home: Americans in Britain, 1740–1776” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1997). 6 Patrick Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event (London: Cassell, 1999); Lorenzo Veracini, Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 16–17, 86–93; idem, “Introducing: Settler Colonial Studies,” Settler Colonial Studies 1, no. 1 (2011): 1–12; Walter L. Hixson, American Settler Colonialism: A History (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 32, 54–55. 7 Edward J. Gallagher, “The Pocahontas Archive,” Lehigh University, accessed August 26, 2020, http://digital.lib. lehigh.edu/trial/pocahontas/bib.php. 8 Richard B. Sher, “Transatlantic Books and Literary Culture,” in Transatlantic Literary Studies, 1660–1830, eds. Eve Tavor Bannet and Susan Manning (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 11. 9 William Stith, The History of the First Discovery and Settlement of Virginia (Williamsburg: William Parks, 1747), appendix iii–iv; Arthur M. Schlesinger, The Birth of the Nation: A Portrait of the American People on the Eve of Independence (New York: Knopf, 1968), 173. 10 The “colonial era” here means a period from the beginnings of the English colonization to the American Revolution. As often said, the end of the era did not release Native Americans from settler colonial relations. Susanah Shaw Romney, “Settler Colonial Prehistories in Seventeenth-Century North America,” WMQ 3rd ser., 76, no. 3 (July 2019): 376–77. 11 John Smith, A True Relation (1608), and idem, The Generall Historie of Virginia, New-England, and the Summer Isles (1624), both in The Complete Works of Captain John Smith (1580–1631), 3 vols., ed. Philip L. Barbour (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 1: 93, 2: 151. On a detailed analysis of Pocahontas’s rescue as a ritual one, see Hiroyuki Tsukada, “Pocahontas’s Two Rescues and Her Fluid Loyalty,” Language, Area and Culture Studies (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies) 26 (2020): 103–16. 12 Smith, Generall Historie, 2: 260–61; Ralph Hamor, A True Discourse of the Present Estate of Virginia (1615), in Writings with Other Narratives of Roanoke, Jamestown, and the First English Settlement of America, ed. James Horn (New York: Library of America, 2007), 1159, 1162. 13 Tilton, Pocahontas, 11–13. 14 John Ogilby, America (London, 1670), 201–5; Katherine S. Van Eerde, John Ogilby and the Taste and His Times (Folkestone: Dawson, 1976). 15 John Oldmixon, The British Empire in America, 2 vols. (London: J. Nicholson, B. Tooke, 1708), 1: 226–27, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (London, 1741), 1: 361. 16 Boston Gazette, June 17–24, 1734; Lawrence W. Towner, “Ars Poetica et Sculptura: Pocahontas on the Boston Common,” Journal of Southern History 28, no. 4 (November 1962): 482–85; Charles E. Clark, The Public Prints: The Newspaper in Anglo-American Culture, 1665–1740 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 166–71. William M. S. Rasmussen and Tilton suspected that the 1733 letter might have encouraged Mary Woodbury, a Boston schoolgirl, to paint Pocahontas in the 1730s, though “[t]here is no evidence that Woodbury saw the letter or that the painting even postdates it.” There were other few Pocahontas portraits that seemed to be produced in the seventeenth 400 研究ノート ポカホンタス神話とブリテン帝国のセトラー・コロニアリズム （ 塚田 浩幸）

and eighteenth centuries mainly in England. William M. S. Rasmussen and Robert S. Tilton, Pocahontas: Her Life and Legend (Richmond; Virginia Historical Society, 1994), 11, 32–36; Klaus Lubbers, Born for the Shade: Stereotypes of the Native American in the United States Literature and the Visual Arts, 1776–1894 (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994), 174; Philip L. Barbour, Pocahontas and her World (Boston: London: Robert Hale and Company, 1971), 233–35; Frances Mossiker, Pocahontas: The Life and the Legend (New York: Knopf, 1976), following 144. 17 This “othering” of the metropolitans towards the colonists also appeared in Oldmixon’s writings. In the prologue of his book, published in 1708, which was the year after England’s Union with Scotland, Oldmixon presented his image of the British commercial empire and expected the Native Americans, along with the colonists and Africans in the colony, to play a role as consumers. This self-image of the Empire, however, was not pan-Atlantic and did not assume a unity between the American colonies and the metropolis, as David Armitage insisted. Further, Pat Rogers said that Oldmixon’s description of the cultures of the American colonies as distinct from that of England indicated his recognition of the colonists as “others.” Oldmixon, British Empire in America, 1: xxviii–xxix, (2nd ed.), 1: xxii– xxiii; David Armitage, The Ideological Origin of the British Empire (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 2000), chap. 7; Pat Rogers, “An Early Colonial Historian: John Oldmixon and “the British Empire in America,”” Journal of American Studies 7, no. 2 (August 1973): 122. 18 John Churchill, A Collection of Voyages and Travels, Some Now First Printed from Original Manuscripts, Others Now First Published in English, 6 vols. (London, 1732), 2: 365; Robert Goadby, An Apology for the Life of Bampfylde-Moore Carew (London, 1749), 46–49; [Edward Kimber], “A Short Account of the British Plantations in America,” London Magazine 24 (1755): 435. 19 Stith, History of the First Discovery, 55. 20 Robert Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia (1705), ed. Susan Scott Parrish (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2013), 30, 34; idem, The History of Virginia: In Four Parts (1722), ed. Charles Campbell (Richmond: J. W. Randolph, 1855), xvii–xviii, xx, 28, 34; Parrish, introduction to Beverley, History and Present State, xxxvii–xxxviii. 21 Oldmixon, British Empire in America, 1: 232, (2nd ed.), 1: 361, 366; Peter Fontaine to Moses Fontaine, March 30, 1757, in Memoirs of a Huguenot Family, ed. Ann Maury (New York: George P. Putnam & Co., 1853), 348–53; William Byrd, History of the Dividing Line betwixt Virginia and North Carolina run in the year of our Lord 1728, in William Byrd’s Histories of the Dividing Line betwixt Virginia and North Carolina, ed. William K. Boyd (Raleigh: North Carolina Historical Commission, 1929), 3. 22 Susan Myra Kingsbury, ed., The Records of the Virginia Company of London, 4 vols. (Washington: Government Printing Ofce, 1906–35), 3: 550–1, 556; Anonymous, A Perfect Description of Virginia (1649), in Tracts and Other Papers, 4 vols., ed. Peter Force (New York: Peter Smith, 1947), 2 (8): 7; Helen C. Rountree, Pocahontas, Powhatan, Opechancanough: Three Indian Lives Changed by Jamestown (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2005); Alden T. Vaughan, ““Expulsion of the Salvages”: English Policy and the Virginia Massacre of 1622,” WMQ 35, no. 1 (January 1978): 57–84. 23 Smith, Generall Historie, 2: 99; Christian F. Feest, “The Virginia Indian in Pictures, 1612–1624,” Smithsonian Journal of History 2, no. 1 (1967): 22–25; Kim Sloan, A New World: England’s First View of America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), 120–21. 24 Beverley, History and Present State, 47. 25 Ogilby, America, 201; Oldmixon, British Empire in America, 1: 234, (2nd ed.), 1: 368; Stith, History of the First Discovery, 209; [Kimber], “Short Account of the British Plantations,” 485. 26 Report of the Proceedings of the Late Jubilee at Jamestown, in Commemoration of the 13th May (Petersburg: Wm. F. M'Laughlin, and Norfolk: J. O'Connor, 1807), 42–43. 27 “Jubilee Ode for 13th May, 1807,” Port Folio new ser., 4, no. 3 (Philadelphia, July 18, 1807): 47–48; David James Kiracofe, “The Jamestown Jubilees: “State Patriotism” and Virginia Identity in the Early Nineteenth Century,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 110, no. 1 (2002): 35–68 (hereafter VMHB). 言語・地域文化研究 第 27 号 2021 401

28 William Wirt, The Letters of the British Spy (1803), ed. Richard Beale Davis (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970), 97, 168–69. 29 Joseph Croswell, A New World Planted (Boston: Gilbert and Dean, 1802); James Nelson Barker, The Indian Princess; or, La Belle Sauvage (Philadelphia: G. E. Blake, 1808); George Washington Parke Custis, Pocahontas, or, the Settlers of Virginia: a National Drama in Three Acts (Philadelphia: Alexander, 1830); Murray H. Nelligan, “American Nationalism on the Stage: The Plays of George Washington Parke Custis (1781–1857),” VMHB 58, no. 3 (July 1950): 299–324. 30 John Gadsby Chapman, “Baptism of Pocahontas”, Architect of the Capitol, accessed August 26, 2020, https://www. aoc.gov/art/historic-rotunda-paintings/baptism-pocahontas; Register of Debates, House of Representatives, 23rd Congress, 2nd session, 791–95, accessed August 26, 2020, https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwrd.html; Ann Uhry Abrams, The Pilgrims and Pocahontas: Rival Myths of American Origin (Boulder: Westview Press, 1999), 35–42, 114–126; Lillian B. Miller, Patrons and Patriotism: The Encouragement of the Fine Arts in the United States 1790–1860 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), 45–57; Tilton, Pocahontas, chap. 4. 31 Blair Bolling, “Commonplace Book” (Virginia Historical Society), Mss5:5 B6383:1; William Peden, “A Book Peddler Invades Monticello,” WMQ 3rd ser., 6, no. 4 (October 1949): 635; Bernard W. Sheehan, Seeds of Extinction: Jefersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian (New York: W. W. Norton, 1973), 175. 32 Jay B. Hubbell, “The Smith-Pocahontas Story in Literature,” VMHB 65, no. 3 (July 1957): 275–76; Noah Webster, The Little Reader’s Assistant (Northampton, 1791), 6–12; Jeremy Belknap, American Biography: or, An historical account of those persons who have been distinguished in America, 2 vols (Boston: Isaiah Thomas and Ebenezer T. Andrews, 1794–98), 1: 240–319; James Jones Wilmer, The American Nepos: a collection of the lives of the most remarkable and the most eminent men (Baltimore: G. Douglas, 1805), 56–88; William Allen, An American Biographical and Historical Dictionary (Cambridge, Mass.: William Hilliard, 1809), 515–17. 33 Luigi Castiglioni, Viaggio: Travels in the United States of North America, 1785–87 (1790), trans. Antonio Pace (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1983), 191–92. 34 Marquis de Chastellux, Travels in North-America, in the Years 1780, 1781, and 1782 (1786), trans. Howard C. Rice, Jr., 2 vols. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1963), 2: 422–44; Anonymous, “Anecdote of Pocahunta, An Indian Princess, From Whom Several Respectable Families in Virginia Are Descended,” Columbian Magazine (July 1787): 548–51; Caleb Bingham, The American Preceptor: Being a New Selection of Lessons for Reading and Speaking (Boston: Manning and Loring, 1794), 148–51; Noah Webster, An American Selection of Lessons in Reading and Speaking (Hartford: Hudson & Goodwin, 1796), 95–97; Tilton, Pocahontas, 38. 35 John Davis, Travels of Four Years and a Half in the United States of America during 1798, 1799, 1800, 1801, and 1802 (1803), ed. A. J. Morrison (New York: Holt, 1909), 298–99, 320–21; Tilton, Pocahontas, 43. Pocahontas’s real age was around 11 during the rescue in 1607 and about 21 at her death in 1617. 36 Review of John Davis, Travels of Four Years and a Half in the United States of America, during 1798, 1799, 1800, 1801, and 1802, in Edinburgh Review 2, no. 4 (July 1803): 451–52; Review of John Davis, Travels of Four Years and a Half in the United States of America; during 1798, 1799, 1800, 1801, and 1802, in Monthly Review 2nd ser., 44 (London, 1804): 389; John Davis, Captain Smith and Princess Pocahontas: An Indian Tale (Philadelphia: Thomas L. Plowman, 1805); Thelma Louise Kellogg, The Life and Works of John Davis, 1774–1853 (Orono: University of Maine Press, 1924), chap. 5; Barbara Ruf, “John Davis: Poet, Novelist, and Traveler” (PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 1974). 37 John Marshall, The Life of George Washington, 5 vols. (Philadelphia: C. P. Wayne, 1804), 1: 65; John Burk, The History of Virginia: From Its First Settlement to the Present Day, 4 vols. (Petersburg, 1804–16), 1: 233–44. 38 Report of the Proceedings of the Late Jubilee, 5; John Gadsby Chapman, The Picture of the Baptism of Pocahontas: Painted by Order of Congress, for the Rotunda of the Capitol (Washington: Peter Force, 1840), 6. Image of Opechancanough in the subsequent centuries, see Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge, 6 vols. (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1860), 6: 98; John Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbours, 2 vols. (Boston: 402 研究ノート ポカホンタス神話とブリテン帝国のセトラー・コロニアリズム （ 塚田 浩幸）

Houghton, Mifflin, 1897), 1: 189–90; Carl Bridenbaugh, Jamestown, 1544-1699 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 29; idem, Early Americans (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981), 38–39; James Horn, A Land as God Made It: Jamestown and the Birth of America (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 262.