Reviews of the following books:  Maine, Charles II and Massachusetts: Governmental Relationships in Early Northern New England by John G. Reid; The New England Indians by Keith C. Wilbu

Churchill, Edwin A.

Ray, Roger B.

English

University of Maine

Maine History Volume 19 Number 2 Article 6 10-1-1979 Book Reviews Edwin A. Churchill Roger B. Ray Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainehistoryjournal  Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Churchill, Edwin A., and Roger B. Ray. "Book Reviews." Maine History 19, 2 (1979): 118-126. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainehistoryjournal/vol19/iss2/6 This Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine History by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact um.library.technical.services@maine.edu. BOOK REVIEWSMaine, Charles II and Massachusetts: Governmental Rela­tionships in Early Northern New England. By John  G. Reid.(Portland: Maine Historical Society, 1977. Pp. x, 278.Hardcover. $21.00).T he first volume o f the Maine Historical Society Research Series, Maine, Charles II, and Massachusetts is an excellent beginning o f what hopefully will be a long run of historical works concerning the state. In this study, Reid examines the entangled politics o f early Maine, as the heirs o f Sir Ferdinando Gorges, the province o f Massachusetts Bay, and the royal governm ent vied for control during  the middle half o f the seventeenth century. Unlike so many works on early Maine, this one views the region from  an imperial perspective, relating occurrences in Maine with events, ambitions, and goals o f Massachusetts and the crown. For once, Maine is seen a part o f the whole.From this perspective, Maine’s im portance derived from its role as a foil in English-Bay Colony relations. Massachusetts had absorbed its northeastern neighbor in the 1650s during  the Cromwellian period, and when Charles II ascended to the throne, Gorges’s heirs and several o ther Maine royalists petitioned the young king, asking assistance in recovering their lost lands. Initially reluctant to move too harshly against Massachusetts, the crown gradually tired o f the colony’s evasions and, in 1664, sent a royal commission to the New World which, am ong other duties, was to examine the Maine problem. A fter investigating the situation, the commission put Maine directly under royal authority. T he arrangem ent lasted until 1668 at which date Massachusetts reannexed the northeastern settlements. By this time, the crown was moving with increasing determ ination to curb Massachusetts’s independent political stance and to bring118the recalcitrant colony firmly into the im perial system. A lth o u g h  in trin s ica lly  M aine was o f p e r ip h e ra l  im portance, it was an excellent tactical tool for the king who accused the Bay Colony of illegally wresting the region from  Gorges. In  1677, Massachusetts was able to purchase the province from  the p rop rie to r’s heirs, thus emasculating this whole argum ent. T he quarrel between the crown and Massachusetts continued but Maine was not again a m ajor issue. Increasingly, the region slid u n d er Bay Colony control with less and less opposition within the eastern province or from  England.In  reconstructing this complex story, Reid divides the main com batants into (1) “the inhabitants of Maine [who] generally sought security and stability,” (2) Massachusetts, which wanted Maine for economic, strategic, and several lesser reasons, and (3) the crown wishing “to have its authority respected.” Add to these the desires of proprietors, patentees, and royal agents, as well as the complications o f an Indian war, and one begins to see the awesome nature o f keeping the story straight. However, this is generally well done with the main threads sorted out and vital connections made. Furtherm ore, the various parts are carefully woven into a pattern  that illuminates the principle theses and highlights the chief protagonists. T here is little reason to feel that this story will need retelling for a long time to come.Because the work is top flight, it can bear some criticisms, and there are a few points where specific argum ents are not wholly convincing. Early in the study, the argum ent is advanced that one im portant reason for the Bay Colony’s easy takeover was more favorable landholding patterns in Massachusetts than in Maine. In  the Bay, the early settlers received their land from  towns o r individuals with no obligations, in o ther words, as freehold property. In  Maine, land was acquired from  great proprietors who dem anded quitrents and o ther119cond itions an d  no t in freq u en tly  fash io n ed  th e ir  transactions as long-term  leases ra ther than outright deeds. Furtherm ore, the proprietors fortified their economic ascendency by monopolizing the m ajor political offices in the province. Observing the more favorable Massachusetts model, Maine’s settlers soon grew dis­satisfied with the proprietorial system; thus, when the Bay Colony absorbed Maine, it found substantial support am ong the common people, many of whom wished change in both land  te n u re  and political contro l. Reid dem onstrates this thesis with the devastating property and political losses suffered by Edward Godfrey of York. Stripped of land and office, he ended his days in London, a prisoner for debt.However, rather than being typical, Godfrey's fate was unique. In  point of fact, there was no land revolution when Massachusetts took over Maine. Kittery had already converted to a Massachusetts pattern  of town lands and town grants, and Wells had a svstem very similar to the Bay model. To the east, Scarborough shifted from proprietorial to town lands bv the early 1660s, and Falmouth and N orth Yarm outh had gradually converted bv the late 1660s and early 1670s. In no instance was there any major upheaval in the change. In Falmouth, there were some conflicts after the takeover, but the battle was between local proprietors, not proprietors and townspeople. Finally, it should be noted that Godfrey was Gorges’s chief representative in Maine. His fate seems much more simply explained as a calculated effort to ruin a preem inent opponent. Perhaps a desire to be rid of proprietorial obligations had som ething to do with the lack of opposition to Massachusetts's takeover; however, there are o ther obvious reasons for this acquiescence. First, by the 1650s, many of M aine’s settlers were em igrants from the Bav Colony and were strong partisans of their previous home; second, there were num erous economic120and social ties between the regions; third, political and religious concepts were very similar in both areas (contrary to tradition, most early Mainers were Congregationalists); and fourth, Massachusetts prom ised a more stable governm ent (although it should be noted that much of the instability had been initiated by the Bay Colony).Reid also suggests as evidence for the revolution the disappearance o f the great proprietors from power as the century progressed. Most finally left the scene simply because o f death, not political ostracism. Furtherm ore, the new generation often had direct family, economic, and social ties with their predecessors. T here  was no great shift in power.If the economic adjustm ents w rought by the Bay Colony takeover are overdrawn, the degree o f local partisanship during the num erous squabbles is badly underestim ated. The thesis frequently presented is that generally Maine inhabitants were less interested in who won than in achieving peace and security, and would therefore usually go along with whoever could best provide for those desires. This doesn’t stand up. Falmouth held steadfast against the royal commission long after the takeover was a fa it accompli. Likewise, Saco and Scarborough resisted the Bay Colony in the 1650s and 1660s even when Massachusetts had obtained the loyality of every o ther community in the region. Local leaders often rallied their followers to one side or the o ther and political rewards and judicial punishm ents clearly reflected deeply felt and stubbornly held loyalties. T rue, people wanted peace and security, but on their own terms.Lastly, Reid succumbs to a tendency that plagues one who has worked his way through a complex body of material. He includes substantially more detail regarding specific political hassels, maneuvers, and opinions than is121needed. A fair am ount o f material could have been condensed with little loss to the main theme.Still, these problems are not all that serious. While they may suggest more complexity and perhaps a change of emphasis in some supportive argum ents, they neither affect the main thrust of the book nor challenge the solid research that went into its development. Maine, Charles II and Massachusetts is probably the best scholarly study on seventeenth-century Maine since Robert Moody s 1934 dissertation, “T he Founding of Maine." It is a book of both substance and insight and is a significant contribution in the history of the state.Edwin A. ChurchillThe New England Indians. By C. Keith Wilbur. (Chester,Conn.: T he Globe Pequot Press. 1978. Pp. 103. Paper. $8.95).It would have been better if the author had entitled his book The Indians of South Central New England since his focus, beginning with the Paleo Indians of 10,500 years ago to about 1675 A.D., is on that area only. He fails to acknowledge that Indian life in northern  New England was different. T he best part of the work is the detailed pictorial presentation of the developm ent and use of tools. This section is, indeed, well organized, and if the au thor had had more guidance in relating the developm ent of tools to the dem and created for them  by changes in the cultural composition of people, the work would be even m ore useful.122But this book should not be dismissed because of its faults. It is quite a d ifferent kind of pictorial presentation than archaeologists have p rep ared  previously. T he artifacts illustrated are explained as to their use and allocated to the periods in which they developed. T he first period, the Paleo of 10,500 years ago, is probably the time of the appearance of Indian people in the area. The Paleo Indians had arrived in the western United States about 3,000 years before and, o f course, were not the first to cross the Bering Strait into N orth America. In Maine and the Atlantic Maritime provinces, some of the Glooscap stories allude to the predecessors of the Paleos, and the Nova Scotia Museum, from  bones recovered in the province, has recreated a simulation o f one o f the first beasts hunted. In  this work the au thor has not alluded to the predecessors o f Paleos in south central New England, an im portant omission since the reader is left to wonder whether the Paleos had any contact with the earlier people, w hether the earlier people had come and vanished before the arrival of the Paleos, or w hether the Paleos should be considered as the first people to have lived in south central New England.T he second part o f the book deals with the Early Archaic period of 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, and third with the Late Archaic period o f 500 years ago to 300 A.D. In the latter period, the au thor quite properly explains at length the great influence exerted by the immigration of the A dena Indians o f Ohio into New England. These new people introduced ceramics which displaced stone pots. At this time agriculture increased in central and southern New England where the climate and terrain favored a m ore sedentary life. T he Indians of northern  New England, however, rem ained dependent on hunting and gathering because o f the harsher environm ent. Along the coast o f New H am pshire and eastward, shell fishing increased as coastal water levels rose.123In  southern New England, village life developed at perm anent locations because of the developm ent of agriculture, whereas Indian life in northern  New England was more transient because of the natives’ dependence on hunting in the winter and fishing in the spring.Social and governm ental structure in the south and central areas developed far beyond that in the north because of the m ore sedentary life. This is a fact the au thor fails to note. He also leads us to believe that the chief of a tribe inherited his office by descent. While this could have been true in the Late Archaic period, he should have supplied us with evidence for such a declaration.Perhaps the greatest weakness o f this work is its treatm ent of religion and religious practices. Writing of the Late Archaic period, the author begins with a flood story and the destruction o f most animals. He then tells of a chief god who rem ade the earth and fashioned a man and woman of stone which he later smashed because of his dissatisfaction with the result. T he chief god then created, from  a living tree, a man and a woman having immortal souls, to whom he gave instructions on how to live. T he chief god offered to those who obeyed his instructions the rew ard of an afterlife and warned that dissidents would be doom ed to restless wandering throughout eternity. U nfortunately, the au thor has selected an abridged and later version of the Algonquin account o f the creation of m odern man and woman, but then goes on to tell us, “On earth, guidance, hope, com fort and fortitude came from the spirits of the birds, beasts and fish. A bit of God was in them  from their early refuge from the Southwest. Each Algonquin chose one such personal god or manito as his guardian .” T he guardian spirit idea is, obviously, a corruption acquired from  Indian contact with Europeans. It is misleading to have the beliefs o f the Algonquins related to this abridged and corrupted  story.124T he au thor s description of a shaman is equally misleading. In fact, a sham an was considered by the tribe as being the one person who had the most direct contact with the spirit world. He endeavored to ascertain the plans, whims, machinations, and anger o f malevolent spirits. In  the case o f sick persons, he sought to ascertain why the malevolent spirits had taken um brage. T he shaman was the spiritual leader o f his tribe, and through his insights and contacts with the spirit world, he tried to guide his people.T he eas te rn  A lgonquins and  the n o r th e a s te rn  W oodland people understood that God had created the world and the earliest manlike beings. W hen God became dissatisfied with the chaos of intolerable heat, cold, drought, and animals too ferocious for man to cope with, he caused a God-hero to be born o f woman. But the God-hero was born a twin. T he b ro ther was Evil, and Evil never dies. T he God-hero was em pow ered to m oderate the climate and teach a new race of hum ans how to live. When the G od-hero had com pleted his mission he left earth for a faraway place. Those who had adhered  to his teaching would, at death, go to live with him  in peace. After the departu re  of the God-hero, m an was left to cope with Evil and his machinations as best he could. T he shaman, lacking the powers o f the God-hero but with close contacts with the spirit world, endeavored to guide his people and relieve the sick. Unlike the God-hero, he did not have the power to thw art Evil o r his minions, but he did what he could to assuage spirits and guide his people.In  his presentation o f the Indian beliefs and practices, the au thor appears to have had little interest in learning why the Indians developed certain beliefs. This has been a common e rro r since the first European contact with native people. Europeans did not come to learn what the Indians believed. They simply observed the superstitious practices without trying to discover why they developed. In New125England and the Atlantic M aritime provinces, the Algonquins developed myths from  their beliefs about the creation, the arrangem ent of the universe, and the relationship of man with the natural and supernatural worlds. It was the fear of their inadequacy to cope with Evil after the departu re of their God-hero that led to the developm ent o f superstitious practices designed to avoid o r assuage the minions of Evil. T he Indians affirm ed their belief in the departed  God-hero in their rituals, their art, their ceremonial dress, and even in the ornam entation of their crafts. Indian thinking was founded on a dem and for order. As Claude Levi-Strauss has pointed out, it is through the properties common to all thought that we can begin to understand the forms of thought that seem strange to us. O ur Indians used the knowledge at hand and their experience to assist them  in understanding their world. T heir witchcraft revealed, as Levi-Strauss has found with o ther early people, a theory of causation. They developed a theory of determ inism  that revealed to them the antecedent causes of an event.If  we are to understand the history of the Indians of New England, we must endeavor to learn their beliefs. We should, at least, read the first chapter of Claude Levi-Strauss’s The Savage Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), Mircea Eliade’s Myth and Reality (New York: H arper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1963), and, also, E. E. Evans-Pritchard’s Social Anthropology and Other Essays (New York: Macmillian Company, 1964).Roger B. Ray126

Book Reviews

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1634&context=mainehistoryjournal

Book Reviews

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Maine