This post was originally written as a discussion post in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a graduate environmental literature course. 

William Bartram. Travels, 1791. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/63678/63678-h/63678-h.htm

J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur. Letters from an American Farmer, 17xx. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4666/pg4666-images.html

Branch, Michael. “Indexing American Possibilities.” The Ecocriticism Reader, edited by Cheryll Glotfelty & Harold Fromm, University of Georgia Press, 1996, 282-302.

Nash, Roderick Frazier. “Henry David Thoreau: Philosopher.” Wilderness & the American Mind, 4^th ed., Yale University, 2001, 84-95.

I really enjoyed reading the work of Bartram and Crevecoeur this week. The fact that they set out on expeditions of thousands of miles on foot is awe-inspiring. (And without camera crews! They were the original Man vs Wild. Ha!) I found myself reading passages aloud to my family—Crevecoeur’s description of the birds and the snakes, along with Bartram’s descriptions of the crocodiles were some of our favorites. Both authors show a depth of love for nature, while also recognizing the importance of their own survival. For example, Crevecoeur laments the fact that he has to fight nature for his own survival, even as he notes that the struggle between himself and nature is no different than that faced by any other creature: “I trace their various inclinations and the different effects of their passions, which are exactly the same as among men…” Likewise, Bartram’s concern for his own safety while cataloguing the crocodiles’ behavior shows the balanced perspective these writers shared—love for nature and respect for its power.

I read Branch before and Nash after reading Bartram and Crevecoer, so they provided interesting bookends for my reading. While both Branch and Nash point out the Romantic tendencies of early American writers and discuss their contribution to nature writing/ecocriticism, it’s interesting how their perspectives on the contribution of these authors differ. Branch approaches Bartram’s work with a very positive lens, while Nash’s take is bit more skeptical.

According to Branch, Bartram is “the greatest American naturalist of his age.” It’s clear by his description of Bartram’s writing that Branch is a huge fan: “Indeed, Bartram’s descriptions are so spontaneous and sincere, so precise in their depictions, so reflective of nature’s wonders and of a sensibility capable of appreciating them, so free of the influence of European literary models, that Travels stands as a landmark accomplishment in American literature.” Bartram’s work is just so…everything! In addition to pointing them out as landmarks in American literature, Branch lauds them for their contribution to nature writing: “The work of William Bartram…illustrates the important contributions made by natural history writers during the early romantic period…” and “…helped introduce a pattern of ecological thinking in American culture…”

Like Branch, Nash praises Bartram for articulating “his impressions of wilderness to an exceptional degree” and praises his Romantic descriptions of his experiences in nature. On the other hand, Nash points out that, while he has moments of non-anthropocentrism where he elevates the wilderness, “his attitude toward the wilderness was more complex.” He points out a moment when Bartram crosses mountains alone and notes his observations about the joy of civilization. Nash finds Bartram’s praise of the pastoral as well as the wilds a negative. Of course, Branch does point out that the “early romantic naturalists would not be considered ecocentric by the standards of contemporary ecophilosophy…” so perhaps they are just looking at the writing with different standards.

Another interesting difference between the opinions of Branch and Nash are their attitudes toward the divine. Branch’s discussion of the relationship between God and nature feels much more positive than Nash’s take. Significantly, while Nash criticizes the intrusion of religious thought onto nature, Branch flips the script and, rather than focusing on how religion impacts the views of nature, shows how writers like Bartram used nature to change the views of religion,  relocating “divinity from ecclesiastical institutions to the natural landscape…”

Branch explains that “..it was Bartram’s devout faith in the divinity of nature that distinguished his work from most scientific tracts and consequently helped open the way for American literature to explore the spiritual resources of the wilderness.” Branch highlights how Bartram’s Quaker philosophy  “insisted that plants and animals…had been touched by God with the ‘dignity, propriety, and beauty of virtue.’”

In the end, for Branch, Bartram’s connection of nature to the divine produces “a sensibility that may be described as proto-ecological.” Branch points out Bartram’s sense of interconnectedness with nature and sees in him a “strain of radical nonanthropocentrism” because he sees in all the natural world a common expression of the divine and criticizes “anthropocentric pretensions to superiority.”

On the other hand, Nash continuously focuses on his perception that Christianity created a negative perception of the wilderness and encouraged followers to destroy the wild in their efforts to cultivate it. Of course, this was how some interpreted those passages. However, while Nash is correct that the wilderness is often depicted negatively in the biblical narrative, it is also almost always a place of critical growth that brings the sojourner to a deeper understanding of their place in the world and strengthens their faith. It’s a balance here—while the wilderness is hard, it’s important to go through the wilderness to be changed. One example of this is Bartram’s comparison of himself to the biblical Nebuchadnezzar. Here Nash notes the fact that Nebuchadnezzar was “expelled from society” and forced to roam the wilderness like a wild creature and sees this as Bartram viewing the wilderness negatively. This could be the case, but what he misses here is that, instead, Bartram could have been connecting with Nebuchadnezzar and focusing, not on the negative, but on the positive in using this experience as an opportunity for growth. It could be that Bartram’s comparison has more to do with his knowledge that this experience was bringing him closer to God and building his character than with a doubleminded opinion of the wilderness.

A final thought…As I was reading this week, the references to a uniquely American literature brought to mind the American Tall Tale, which illustrates the perspectives of both Branch and Nash in a fascinating way. As a kid, one of my favorite books was a collection of American tall tales that my dad found used somewhere. While I remember stories about Johnny Appleseed and other folk heroes in the book, my favorite story was about how Paul Bunyan captured a path in the woods and rode it around. Unfortunately, I can’t find that book on my mom’s shelves any longer. The reading this week prompted me to try again to find the book online. While that search was unfruitful, in the process I found a story about Paul Bunyan and a walking forest. In this story, Bunyan is sold a tract of land for logging, but, when he and his crew wake up in the morning, the forest is gone. They determine to figure out what is happening. When they stay up one night, they see the forest slinking away, complete with mom and dad trees holding tightly to their little ones’ hands as they run away from the loggers. The story ends with the triumphant capture and logging of this forest. Clearly, this tale illustrates the mystery and majesty of the wilderness with the idea that these trees are sentient and magical. It’s also a truly American type of story with larger than life characters. Sadly, it also illustrates Nash’s point about frontiersman valuing subduing the wilderness over all else. Rather than viewing the walking forest with awe, it was a challenge to be overcome. At the end of the story, rather than pitying the little baby trees who snuck away into the woods never to be seen again, the reader is meant to see Bunyan as the hero who conquered them.