William Pynchon."The Meritorious Price of Redemption, Justification, &c., Clearing from Some common Errors; And proving: 1. That Christ did not suffer for us those unutterable torments of God’s wrath, that commonly are called Hell-torments, to redeem our souls from them. 2. That Christ did not bear our sins by Gods imputation, and therefore he did not bear the curse of the Law for them. 3. That Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of Law (not by suffering the said curse for us, but by a satisfactory price of atonement; viz by paying or performing unto his Father that invaluable precious thing of his Mediatorial obedience, whereof his Mediatorial Sacrifice of atonement was the masterpiece. 4. A sinner's righteousness or justification is explained, and cleared from some common errors."
- The introduction of William Pynchon's banned work.
Herein, we shall dissect the character that was William Pynchon in a bit more detail, as in the interest of brevity I had skimmed over some very interesting happenings in the early colonial record. Afterward in another article, we will expound upon John Mason's exploits to the south in Connecticut, to hopefully illustrate two very different approaches to colonial issues by two very different men. We will extrapolate from this contrast a series of highly biased interpretations to be marked in [brackets].
We'll pick up our story in February of 1638, in the Connecticut Colony settlement of Hartford. Over the past year, open conflict with the Pequot Tribe that lived on the Connecticut coast had broken out concerning the Pequot consolidation of native power in the region. Pequots had for the last few decades slowly increased their held lands by vassalizing neighboring tribes and had aspirations of controlling the lucrative fur trade that dominated the Connecticut River Valley in its entirety. In May of the previous year, Hartford and its various satellite towns had raised a force of 90 colonists (back then quite the sizable portion of working-aged men) to combat the Pequots and their allies to the south. This would prove quite damaging to their food stocks, and the lack of men led to untended fields and starving cattle as consequence. Now, corn from the neutral Agawam tribe was necessary for survival. If the Agawam caught wind of the precarious conditions the colonists found themselves in, they had free reign to charge whatever they liked. So worried about this were the Connecticut residents that they passed laws restricting trade on an individual basis with the Agawam and Nonotuck under penalty of heavy taxation, placing the power to trade liberally solely in the hands of William Pynchon, granting him a certain amount of leeway with which to bargain. "No man in this River nor Agawam shall go upriver among the Indians or at home their houses to trade for corn or make any contract or bargain among them for corn either privately or publicly upon the pain of 5 shillings for every bushel that he or they shall so trade." (quotations like this I have edited in order to modernize the English therein)
Throughout the warm seasons of 1637, Pynchon had been unable to adequately secure corn at the initial authorized price and refused to raise it, though authorized to do so, for fear of accelerating the rate of inflation on the commodity. This was not received well by Connecticut residents, who had resorted to feeding grain seed meant to be sown in spring of '38 to their cattle to keep them alive. Therefore, they resolved to send their military leader John Mason north to resolve the dispute.
"Whereas it was ordered octo die (Marcii) last that there should be a restraint of trading for corn... with Mr. Pynchon to supply the plantations, upon consideration of Mr. Pynchon's that he is somewhat fearful of supplying the plantations, and whereas there is a clause in case of necessity 3 magistrates may dispense with the order. It is therefore ordered that Mr. Ludlowe and Captain Mason or either of them, taking likewise such with them as shall be met, shall trade to supply their own necessities and the necessities of some others that are in want."
So Mason travelled north, talked with the Agawam and Nonotuck, then met with Pynchon in the colonial settlement across the river. Mason alleged that the tribes portrayed Pynchon as the Great Sachem of the Connecticut River Valley, and that they feared reprisal from Pynchon were they to break with his will and trade with the southern colonial settlements. A claim Pynchon adamantly denied, as historian Mason Green tells us,
"Mr. Pynchon said at once that he knew no reason why the Nonotuck Indian should fear him. He then proposed that the rest of the conference be carried on apart, as it would not do to let the Indians realize the extent of the English distress for food... 'Sir,' continued Mason, 'I have brought up some cloth and wampum, to trade some corn with the Indians; & I desire you to deal with them for us, & to bind them to a bargain to bring it down [to the Connecticut settlements].' To this Mr. Pynchon replied, that was not the way to bind the Indians to a bargain, as they would break their promise if they were paid in advance, 'whereupon some anger might follow, and then if I had a hand in it, they may bear me a grudge; for I fear their treacherous dealing, we being remote, & but weaker; therefore I will neither make nor meddle to bind them to a bargain...' The Captain flew into a 'great passion,' and exclaimed: 'What hurt can it be to you? I pray, Sir, let me know what hurt can it be to you, for it is a dark riddle to me.'"
[Of course, we in the anti-Pynchon camp have a very good clue as to the answer of that riddle. Any disruptions to the status quo were potentially quite harmful to the positive cross-cultural relations that Pynchon relied on for his fur-trading endeavors to remain profitable. The pious and martially-minded Mason perhaps hadn't yet considered such a realist perspective from Pynchon, a man so deeply engrained in Bostonian ministerial society.]
Some few days later, on the 24th of March, Pynchon received a summons to report to the Connecticut General Court to answer to charges laid against him. They were as follows;
"... (1) that he had deliberately raised the price of corn as between him and Connecticut, and was holding the Indians to their bargains, all to his private gain; that (2) he refused to lend a canoe to a Woronoco Indian, who was under contract with Captain Mason to take corn down the river; that (3) he kept the Agawam, Woronoco, and Nonotuck Indians under abject fear of him, that he might be considered the great English sachem of the Connecticut valley; and, finally, that (4) he induced certain Mohawk runners to sell him some beaver skins, which were sent by Mohawk chiefs to the Connecticut authorities as presents and assurances of good-will."
Pynchon's defense can be summarized as, (1 & 3) Springfield fared no better than her sister settlements to the south in terms of food supply, and that after her residents were given out corn according to her dire needs there was none left to pass south. In regard to point (2) and the general accusation of holding the local tribes under his thumb through fear, the Connecticut court demanded a verbal statement by Pynchon be distributed to the tribes stating the contrary. Pynchon, as Mason Green tells us, "...seeing that such a declaration by him might be interpreted by the Indians as a release from the bargain, which they had failed to keep, objected to do so until the debt [owed by the Indians to Pynchon] had been fully reaffirmed." A compromise was reached on this particular point, and the verbal statement issued to the tribes reaffirmed that the debts must be paid, though Pynchon stressed his goodwill and cordial attitudes towards them continued. A refutation of (4) devolved into a he-said-she-said scenario, where Pynchon alleged that he wasn't home at the time, and that a confusion among other residents of Springfield and their interpreters led to Pynchon holding in his possession furs meant for the other prominent leaders of the Connecticut Colony. In a turn of events that surely scandalized the frontier courtroom, Governor Thomas Hooker then took the stand himself in order to testify as to the character of Mr. Pynchon.
"Finally, the commissioners, having heard Mason, the Indians, and the rest, called in Rev. Thomas Hooker and Rev. Samuel Stone as experts upon the ethical question of Mr. Pynchon's conduct. They both said most emphatically that Pynchon had broken his oath. Mr. Pynchon rose and explained his mode of bargaining with the Indians without advancing wampum... Mr. Hooker replied that 'that offer was as good as nothing, for Mr. Pynchon knew that the Indians being afraid of him, would not bring down any corn, but that he should have all the trade to himself, and have all the corn in his own hands, and bring all that water to his own mill, and so rack the country at his pleasure...' To this Mr. Pynchon was silent, being grieved at such a hard answer." [Otherwise known as resignation in the face of resounding defeat.]
This event [portrayed by Mason Green as nothing more than a character assassination of Pynchon stemming from hunger and frustration] was the point of no return between what would become Springfield and the rest of the Connecticut Colony. It laid the foundation for further grievances, especially surrounding the tax Pynchon's Agawam had to pay as restitution for poor business practices in order to keep using the river to ship his furs from Seabrook to Boston (as the land route at this time was simply a very well-treaded forest trail, using it to transport goods was out of the question). Agawam quietly seceded from Connecticut in summer of 1638, making no formal declaration initially, though Pynchon was in close contact with associates in Boston throughout, and word of it spread quickly. [It seems to Pioneer Valley Dissidence that during this short intermission Pynchon truly was English Sachem of the Connecticut River Valley, north of Enfield Falls at least. If the Connecticut complaints are to be taken at face value, Pynchon controlled trade and used it to command the loyalty of the Agawam, Nonotuck, and Woronoco tribes, a roughly 60 square mile tract of land. No small feat in just two years' time.] Things came to a head in the fall of that year as during discussions regarding cooperation between English settlements in order to oppose Dutch interests, the issue of English Agawam came up. In correspondence over the matter between Connecticut Governor Hooker and Massachusetts Governor Winthrop, Hooker alleged that Pynchon's settlement now considered itself a Massachusetts affiliate when it pleased them, and a part of Connecticut when it was expedient to do so. He claimed,
"'Yea, taking it for granted that it is in each inhabitant's liberty in Agawam to choose his jurisdiction (which is to me beyond question), if I was there as an inhabitant, I should judge myself bound in conscience to submit to the jurisdiction of this river, and do believe I should make a breach of the Eighth Commandment if I should otherwise; because in so doing I should steal from mine estate, in that I should rush myself into needless and endless inconveniences; namely, to cast myself into that condition that for a matter of five shillings (as the case may fall out) I should put myself to unreasonable charges and trouble to seek for justice a hundred miles off in the wilderness. If Mr. Pynchon can devise ways to make his oath bind him when he will, and loosen him when he list; if he can tell how, in faithfulness, to engage himself in a civil covenant and combination (for that he did, by his committees in their act) and yet can cast it away at his pleasure, before he give it sufficient warrant, more than his own word and will, he must find a law in Agawam for it; for it is written in no law or gospel that I ever heard.'" [Once again, another absolute deconstruction of Pynchon's governance. The last line is especially damning, as Pynchon's word was law in English Agawam. He was also the treasurer, financier of the church, magistrate, collector of tax, diplomat, etc. etc.]
This would settle the status quo between Connecticut and Massachusetts Bay's westernmost settlement, for a few years at least, until a "tariff war" between the two was fought over the construction of a fort at the mouth of the Connecticut River in 1648. Pynchon [expectedly] refused to have his goods taxed over said construction, claiming a multitude of factors. Chief among these were the sordid conditions of said fort located in Saybrook, the fact that Springfield proper was under no threat from malignant actors due to a natural interruption in the river some 15 miles to the south, and that Springfield would be submitted to taxation by both colonial authorities. The first intercolonial meeting between New Haven, Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, and Plymouth intended to settle the tariff war ended inconclusively, with only Plymouth and New Haven fully ratifying its proclamations. Springfield and by extension Mr. Pynchon's fur trading enterprise, sharing the utilities of the Connecticut River, stood to benefit from the protection of said river, and therefore Connecticut Colony was just in requiring payment for its continued use. In response, Massachusetts Bay began taxing goods from other colonies leaving ports under its protection, making business harder universally throughout young New England. This, combined with William Pynchon's continued refusal to pay the tax, exacerbated the situation and Connecticut eventually was forced to concede. [The superstitious reader will be interested to know that in the immediate aftermath of this, Springfield was beset by all manner of tragedy including terrible floods, strange sicknesses, plagues of caterpillars, ravenous flocks of pigeons, and a sharp increase in wolf attacks.]
Two years after the conclusion of the tariff war, Pynchon was called to Boston on a matter of serious import. A man living in Springfield by the name of Hugh Parsons had been accused of witchcraft and had been sent to the capital to be tried in court. His wife was tried simultaneously after confessing that it was actually she who had been under the influence of Satan, and had caused the death of their infant child. However, unbeknownst to Pynchon, a manuscript he had published in England the past year called The Meritorious Price of Redemption had managed to find its way into the hands of the increasingly orthodox leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. So, when he arrived to deliver his testimony on the Parsons' case, Pynchon found himself at odds with the law. The book was ordered to be burned in the town square of Boston, and Pynchon had to issue a public retraction of the heretical doctrines therein. His retraction was found wanting, and in light of his previous upstanding reputation [his powerful business ties in the colony certainly didn't hurt either] was allowed to return home to Springfield until the general court reconvened in the Spring of the following year.
[Such scandal! A business-oriented layman with a local monopoly on trade, daring to challenge the monopoly of the spiritual by Puritan ministers! And worse, it had travelled from nascent Springfield on the frontier straight to London for publishing, without being checked first by the ministers of Boston. And it was under the authority of this blasphemer that witchcraft had been allowed to promulgate unchecked.] Anti-authoritarianism, or lack of deference to their authority at least, was considered untenable by John Winthrop's successor, John Endicott (Endicott was far stricter on deviance than Winthrop had been and wasn't the kind of man who would take challenges to his authority lightly. His cultural regulations on things as banal as hair length, in addition to his violent persecution of new unorthodox settlers, most likely contributed a great deal to contemporary perceptions of Puritan culture). The New England colonies were too young to be fractured yet again by religious belief a la New Haven, Connecticut and Rhode Island. Antinomian thought (theologically, the idea that redemption in the eyes of the Lord was found exclusively in His grace or forgiveness, rather than through works, works defined here as a set of moral rules one must follow in order to receive the Lord's grace) had already shaken the young colony to its core; this would not be allowed to play out a second time. [Certainly, the accusations against Pynchon in 1638 by his detractors in Connecticut would hold more weight if Pynchon was indeed openly advocating for looser interpretations of God's requirements of man. Something like withholding corn trade from the common good for fear of reduced future profit was definitely not included in the Puritan conception of godly works.]
Faced with additional court proceedings to be held in some months, Pynchon's Boston business dealings were in jeopardy. With few options available, he had by some foresight already chartered a boat back to the Kingdom before his first trial, and in light of recent developments hastened back to England with his fur-trading fortunes in 1652 (as soon as the English Civil War had concluded) where he would live comfortably in a manor overlooking the Thames until the Stuart Restoration a decade later, as some of his spoils were redistributed to Royalists by Charles II's decree. The rest, including all of his New England possessions, were given to his son after his death in 1662.
[William Pynchon. As a pious man, he held three Indian tribes in his thrall through the power of commerce. As a man of law and letters, he did as he liked to secure his business interests. As a man of honor, he cashed out those business interests as soon as his public reputation had sufficiently soured to make them unprofitable.]
No comments:
Post a Comment