On Ceremonies of Possession

Comparative history is rarely an easy task. At the very least, it usually involves the comprehension of several different languages and historiographies, at least some of which the historian will have only a partial grasp on. In some cases the historian must rely upon translations for primary sources, and the analytical conclusions of other historians in the secondary sources, without being able to criticize or deduce a great deal on his own. Beyond these rather basic problems, comparative history involves other potential pratfalls. As the author under consideration here, Patricia Seed, notes in the beginning of her study, different societies are, well, different, in their outlook, orientations, uses and deployments of language and social practices, and of course in their respective histories. A given society may be similar to or possess points of convergence with other societies- and there are always some points of similarity or convergence- but it is at these points of convergence that the historian must be especially careful. What can appear as a similarity might very well mask profound differences.

Patricia Seed looks at such points of convergence and difference in her book Ceremonies of Possession in European Conquest of the New World 1491-1640. An enjoyable read for its relative brevity and diversity of topics, some of her points hold up very well. The ways in which various European polities take possession- or rather, declare and legitimize their possession, primarily to themselves- appear as diverse as the various polities and their cultural histories. For each nation, Seed describes the particular ways of marking possession on a new (to Europeans of course) territory, and then details the historical/cultural background of those ways of marking possession. For instance, the English, she argues, employed little in the way of ceremony or official documentation to establish their dominion. Instead, the English built things: houses, fences, walls, demarcating their space and establishing their ownership. Not only did they expect these actions to register with each other as Englishmen, but they also expected them to send the same signals to other Europeans. That they did not was part, Seed argues, of the mutual- perhaps sometimes deliberate, but usually not- incomprehension over manners of establishing possession.

There are some issues that came to my mind while reading this study, and they are reflective of the perils of comparative history I suppose. Why exactly did the English completely forgo ceremony? Was it a result of the Protestant Reformation? Could they not have combined both the active imposition of possession with the more ceremonially enacted rites similar to other nations? As for the Spanish, while the requiriemento is certainly an important part of things, the establishment of official political entities is doubtless moreso, and Seed seems unaware or uninterested in them. Also, I would have preferred a more fleshed-out proof of the influence of Islamic ideas of conquest and legality upon Spanish forms- while the intellectual milieu argument has some merits, I am always suspicious of it. Ideas do not simply float on ether back and forth- one needs solid locations, texts, instances of interpenetration. That said, her description of Islamic thought and practice was quite decent, I thought, for a non-specialist in the field. Finally, the importance of Papal authority could have used much greater emphasis; granted, it shows up in the conclusion as part of the common European imitation of Rome, but should have been incorporated in the body of the Spanish material. And as for overall questions, I would want to know a little more about how the conditions in the New World affected European approaches. Did the English act differently in, say, Honduras or the Caribbean than in North America? Obviously the Spanish greatly modify the requiriemento- do other nationalities do likewise? And perhaps greater attention could have been given to exactly why these ceremonies were enacted: obviously they are acts of self-legitimization, but more on how did they do this, and how the results could be transmitted back home would be helpful. In some cases it is quite obvious: the Portuguese and Dutch produced knowledge regimes that could translate to people back home as easily as those employing them in the New World or in organs of power.  And while it was not the point of the book, considering- where possible- indigenous responses would be very helpful and interesting.

There are doubtless other issues one could raise- those above are some that came to my mind because they involve things I know a little about. Also, while obviously outside the scope of the book, a continuation of this investigation into later forms of colonialism would be interesting: how much do these ceremonies change and evolve to suit new imperial conditions? Seeds obliquely mentions, for instance, the British in India, where very different conditions prevailed than in North America. How did the British adapt? And so on.

In lieu of such an examination, we do have Eddie Izzard’s take on later colonial ceremonies of possession- he in fact brings out the hilarity of a seemingly logical (to its enactors) way of taking possession with the incredulity of those being possessed; plus, the importance of violence as a completing and truly affirming agent is in evidence here: