Elizabeth Eagle

28 March 2012

The Popularity of the Captivity Narrative in Colonial America

            Upon my first reading of the captivity narratives of Mary Jemison and Mary Rowlandson, I have been extremely interested not only in the narratives themselves but also why their narratives were so popular over other narratives. For Mary Rowlandson, her captivity ended once she was released on May 2, 1676 at Redemption Rock for twenty pounds (Klekowski). But Mary Jemison was different. Her captivity never ended because she chose to stay among her captors; however, Jemison might claim her captivity ended once she began to accept the ways and lifestyle of her captors. It is evident that age plays a significant role in how and why each woman accepted their fate and their lives after their captivity ended. Rowlandson was approximately forty years old when she was captured by the Native Americans and had several children. In her mind, she was fully a colonist and more importantly, fully English so the lifestyle of the Native Americans did not appeal to her especially since much of her family was killed during the initial attack. Mary Jemison was much younger, only fifteen when she was captured. Although she learned quickly that much of her family had been killed shortly after the attack, Jemison chose to remain a captive because her mother had warned her not to run away (White). Jemison's reluctance to escape could also be attributed to her knowledge of her own lack of resources if she decided to escape. As a young, unmarried, childless, young woman who knew her family had been killed, the idea of escape must have seemed foolish. But what of other captives? Are the majority of captive narratives like Jemison's or Rowlandson's? Is age a significant factor?

            Jonathan Dickinson offers an account from a much different perspective than either Jemison or Rowlandson. As a Quaker man coming to America from Jamaica, his ship wrecked off the coast of Florida and he, along with the others on board that included his wife and son, were subsequently captured by Native Americans who did not immediately kill them because the Native Americans believed the shipwrecked English to be Spanish. The attitudes of the Native Americans changed from hospitable to hostile and back again. The party never knew where they stood among the Native Americans. The party walked nearly 230 miles to St. Augustine where they were rescued by Spanish soldiers from the Native Americans before being given safe passage to Charleston, which was the closest and most southern English settlement. Dickinson then wrote a journal of his experience that detailed not only his captivity but related valuable information about the now extinct Native Americans in the area as well as the plants and animals of Florida. Dickinson later became chief justice and later mayor in Philadelphia and enjoyed a life as one of the richest men in Philadelphia (Reis). Like Rowlandson, Dickinson found it very easy to return to his previous lifestyle. Because he was a merchant, Dickinson had business opportunities to attend to as well as his wife and young son. With these responsibilities compounded with capture by a hostile Native American tribe, living among the Native Americans seemed unfathomable.

            There are few captive narratives that focus specifically on children and their experiences living among Native Americans and then choosing that life for themselves over a return to their former homes. Indeed, it seems the only evidence available is that these stories happened yet were rarely written down. Mary Jemison's story is particularly useful as it captures the essence of what a child or young adult would think once separated from their parents and their siblings: that to survive, the life of the Native American must be embraced. It seems that age plays a major role in whether or not the captive will remain a captive or eventually find freedom in that, the younger a captive is, the more likely they are to remain among their captors for the rest of their lives.

            However, I have found the captivity narrative was popular in colonial America for a very specific reason. The captivity narrative embodied the religious teachings of the colonists at the time and proved that through God, the captive could and would be saved. Richard Slotkin best describes the captivity narrative and this experience when he said, “In [a captivity narrative] a single individual, usually a woman, stands passively under the strokes of evil, awaiting rescue by the grace of God. The sufferer represents the whole, chastened body of Puritan society; and the temporary bondage of the captive to the Indian is dual paradigm--of the bondage of the soul to the flesh and the temptations arising from original sin, and of the self-exile of the English Israel from England” (Qtd. in Campbell). While the captive was “in the Indian's devilish clutches, the captive had to meet and reject the temptation of Indian marriage and/or the Indian's "cannibal" Eucharist. To partake of the Indian's love or of his equivalent of bread and wine was to debase, to un-English the very soul” (Campbell). In the end, “the captive's ultimate redemption by the grace of Christ and the efforts of the Puritan magistrates is likened to the regeneration of the soul in conversion. The ordeal is at once threatful of pain and evil and promising of ultimate salvation. Through the captive's proxy, the promise of a similar salvation could be offered to the faithful among the reading public, while the captive's torments remained to harrow the hearts of those not yet awakened to their fallen nature” (Campbell).

            While age may have determined whether a captive would remain among their captors or free themselves, it seems captivity narratives were written and made popular because of religion. The captivity narrative that followed the redeemed captive solidified the colonists belief in God and their faith in Providence and redemption. If Slotkin's words are correct, then the captivity narrative of Jemison and of children like her would be in direct opposition of what the colonial captivity narrative aimed to achieve. Stories of children who chose to remain among their captives and thus turn their backs on their English upbringing, language, relatives, and most importantly their religion, would not please the Church. The colonists would not want to believe their children would rather be among Native Americans than their own English, particularly when Native American religious practices did not include God.

            To continue Slotkin's assertion, captivity narratives of children who remained among their captors would be needed as well as more captivity narratives of those who managed escape. While it seems the age of the captive played a significant part in whether or not the captive would escape the larger implication of the captivity narrative is the religious message of Providence and redemption that was paramount to those who wrote the narrative down for colonial consumption. Therefore, the captivity narrative was only important to the colonists if that captive escaped and praised God for allowing him or her to do so.  

Works Cited

Campbell, Donna M. "Early American Captivity Narratives." Literary Movements. Dept. of English, Washington State University. 21 March 2010. Web. 28 March 2012.

Klekowski, Libby. Mary Rowlandson-Captive in 1675/76. University of Massachusetts. n.d. Web. 27 March 2012.  <http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/mary.html>.

Reis, John R. The Life and Times of Jonathan Dickinson. <http://www.apex-            ephemera.com/floridahistory/dickinson2.htm >. n.d. Web. 28 March 2012.

White, Craig. “Selections from Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison”. <http://coursesite.uhcl.edu/HSH/Whitec/LITR/4231/ >. n.d. Web. 27 March 2012.