The captivity narrative as a genre and captivity as a trope have been prominent at least since biblical times. (Think of how much mileage the Jewish national mythology gets out of the Egyptian and Babylon captivities.) Today the idea of captivity circulates through pop culture (think of Gwen Stefani singing “Just a Girl” or The Melodians reworking Psalm 137 into “By the Rivers of Babylon”) and periodically dominates the news (e.g., Elizabeth Smart and Jaycee Dugard).
In this post I want to focus on Rowlandson’s Narrative of the Captivity as a powerful work of theodicy — that is, an attempt to reconcile belief in the goodness of God with the fact of suffering in the world. Consider Rowlandson’s description, long after her captivity has ended, of her continuing misery:I can remember the time, when I used to sleep quietly without workings in my thoughts, whole nights together, but now it is other ways with me. When all are fast about me, and no eye open, but His who ever waketh, my thoughts are upon things past, upon the awfull dispensation of the Lord towards us; upon his wonderful power and might, in carrying of us through so many difficulties, in returning us in safety, and suffering none to hurt us.
Suffering none to hurt us! This from a woman who watched her youngest child die in her arms. Rowlandson continues:I remember in the night season, how the other day I was in the midst of thousands of enemies, and nothing but death before me: it is then hard work to persuade myself, that ever I should be satisfied with bread again. But now we are fed with the finest of the wheat, and, as I may say, with honey out of the rock: instead of the husk, we have the fatted calf: the thoughts of these things in the particulars of them, and of the love and goodness of God towards us, make it true of me, what David said of himself, Psalms 6.6. I watered my couch with my tears. Oh! the wonderful power of God that mine eyes have seen, affording matter enough for my thoughts to run in, that when others are sleeping mine are weeping. (175)
I find passages like these tremendously moving, but I’m not sure the book as a whole succeeds as a theodicy. In fact, when Rowlandson insists on “the love and goodness of God towards us” I’m not sure she believes her own words.
What do you think — does Rowlandson believe what she says? More broadly, does her Narrative succeed in reconciling the belief in “the love and goodness of God” with the seemingly random experience of captivity and loss?
Tuesday, September 22
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The most important thing to remember about Rowlandson's account is that it may have been modified from when she wrote it, to what we read today. With that being said, I do believe that Rowlandson had faith in God and that helped her get through her abduction. Who wouldn't? After being through that experience the only thing that makes you have a will to live is faith in a better tomorrow.
From a broader perspective, I do believe that this account is very successful in relaying the "love and goodness of God." In my opinion this story has a parabolic effect which is very similiar to the Book of Job. Even though Rowlandson goes through this horrible experience she never questions the motives of God (at least not according to the story that is published today). Finally, this is an uplifting account in the sense that it makes the reader believe that their life could always be worse and it shows that faith is everlasting.
This account seems like it is trying to center itself around 'keeping faith in God when bad things happen' a bit too much. I do believe that Rowlandson did have faith in God to bring her through being kidnapped and carry her through all the horrible things that had happened, like watching her own children die. On the other hand, I think that there are a few places where it gets sketchy and it seems forced to make it seem like she was a good Christian and did the right thing in her situation. Also taking into account that the records of the event could have been changed from the original, her faith in God may not have been so apparent in the first writing. I think that overall Rowlandson's account of her abduction reminds the reader well that keeping the faith in God will bring you through events such as this, even if it was changed so that the other readers at the time would further push the Native Americans into the 'savage' category and believe that God's fury was against them.
I think that Rowlandson's account is very moving. When trying to understand how she felt, I try to put myself in her shoes. Her growing up in a society based on such strong beliefs, being raised in household of the same, this faith has been embedded in her. But I believe that EVERYONE has their doubts. No mater how strongly they believe in something, it would be "un-human" to not question that belief. I feel that Rowlandson WANTED to believe in the unwavering "love and Goodness of God," though at times she must have gotten angry at what God was putting her through. She must have questioned why God was letting such things happen to her, her children, and others.
Maybe I'm projecting myself onto her to much. Maybe she really did have such strong faith. I mean, there are some people out there who, to comfort themselves during times of need, believe that God knows more than what they understand. That this will all end up for the better, no matter what. Or "His ways are not my ways, His thoughts are not my thoughts." I don't know.
I think this account, nonetheless, presents a situation far worse than many have ever gone through. I think people could and can, find comfort in this woman who went through such suffering but still seemed to keep her faith.
I guess it all depends on how you look at a situation. Rowlandson could have sunk into despair after her child died, after all these horrible things happened, but she didn't. She put her trust in God. She trusted that even though her child was dead, that he or she (I cannot recall) was now with God. Rowlandson CHOSE to look at her situation, to perceive it in this way. I think that must have taken an incredible amount of strength in faith.
It is hard to say whether or not Rowlandson believes what she says. Since she wrote this narrative after her captivity, it seems to make sense that she would edit this piece of writing to appease the public who would be reading it. Would she have edited out important parts of her story to make it seem more like she was a pious believer instead of wallowing in her despair? This is all conjecture. We have no answers to questions like these.
Thus we turn to the text itself, where I believe Rowlandson paints a veracious picture of her plight. Note what she says after her daughter died in her arms: “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.” Looking back on this terrible situation, she is thanking God for helping her not end her life. There is a congruity between this passage and the rest of Rowlandson’s account. We are privy to all of her struggles, but we also have the benefit of hearing how she reconciles the situation as she looks at it in the PAST. Notice she says “I have thought since…,” NOT “my thought at the time.” Though I don’t know, I believe that Rowlandson struggled mightily in her faith during her captivity. Afterwards she was able to put it all in perspective according to her faith. Thus, her account as a work of theodicy works for me. Looking at it in the past, she believes that her suffering was part of the master plan of a benevolent God.
I believe that Mary Rowlandson did believe what she was writing. However, I think it falls directly in line with the religous brainwashing of the time. Whether or not you believe in a certain religion or not, I think it is easy to see that each individual religion provides you with it's own unique views on who god is and why he acts the way he does. For me, I have a hard time believing that a compassionate and loving god would make a women witness the deaths of the children she had birthed during a time when the infant mortality rate was so high. I think that we are reading a piece of fiction that Rowlandson's particular faith thought was good to release to the masses as divine proof of god's showing of love through human suffering.
As Leonard said you have to keep in mind that what we read may not be entirely what she recounts. I believe that her faith did help her get through the abduction but I doubt it was to the extent that the story said.
I believe that it is successful in presenting the "Love and goodness of God." Given what Rowlandson goes through, most people would believe that she would question God but she never does in the story we have read. This is an uplifting account because it makes us as the reader believe that our life could be much worse.
Post a Comment