Kate Hebert

October 12, 2008

The Individual, America, and Nature

Romantic ideology is easy to oversimplify by focusing on the lighter themes found in the literature of the period, but the complexity of romanticism is apparent once even the most innocent-seeming themes are followed through logically in light of the time period and analyzed. The Romantic era is full of contradictory beliefs and looking into the texts of the time leads to an emerging sketch of America as a land that embodies the Romantic ideals, in all their varying and contradictory forms.

One of the most prevalent relationships in Romantic literature is man and nature. Often the relationship is characterized by a sense of spirituality and connection through which man attains a higher level of awareness of self, God, and universe via his connection with Nature. For Romantic writers Nature was separate from nature. “Nature” became a personified force with which one could communicate with, learn from and have a deep connection to. This relationship can be seen in much of the Romantic writings, for example (insert examples)

The aforementioned relationship with Nature is abundant in Romantic literature; however, there is another side to the Man/Nature relationship as well. The America that existed for Romantic writers, and readers of the time, was both untouched, full of opportunity and freedom, and also untamed and dangerous. Both sides of Nature can lead to the sublime moments that are so powerful in Romantic literature, but the dark and dangerous side of Nature lends itself to images power and awe that are unmatched elsewhere.

For many of the readings this semester the discussion of America can also be a discussion of Nature. This is especially true in the early pre-Romantic readings. America is seen as a vast, untouched wilderness. We know looking back that obviously this was not the case, but to Europeans first “discovering” America, that romantic image was incredibly appealing. The chance to start fresh, in an unspoiled land of opportunity was a great attraction, but at the same time there was some unnamed quality of danger and wildness about America that was at the same time attractive and frightening.

Two pieces of pre-Romantic literature where this can readily be seen is in Mary Rowlandson’s “A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson”, and Susanna Rowson’s Charlotte Temple: A Tale of Truth. The stories share a similar mindset and view of America, despite the differences in plot. Rowlandson’s account of her captivity by the Wampanoag tribe is written in plain, straightforward language. Her calm recounting of her ordeal lends strength and credibility to the account. What is interesting about the account is Rowlandson’s reliance on the Bible to get her through her time in captivity. As a pastor’s wife, she is obviously familiar with the Bible and turns to it often for guidance and comfort.

However, for the purpose of focusing on early interactions with Man and Nature, it is important to note that once Rowlandson is away from civilization (in Lancaster) she is truly in the depths of the natural American world, yet she finds no connection or comfort there, rather she turns away from the dangers of the wilderness and finds comfort in her remaining connection to civilization, the Bible.  Rowlandson describes leaving her town with the Wampanoag, the morning after her capture, “…I must turn my back upon the town, and travel with them into the vast and desolate wilderness, I knew not whither” (121).

For Rowlandson, in many ways the ideal American woman: a strong wife and mother, pious and strong, the wilderness holds no opportunity or appeal. This relationship shows the complexity that can be found in the Romantic era writings about Man and Nature. To say that there is some spiritual connection and attraction between Man and Nature is wrong. Clearly, the attraction between women and Nature cannot be established by Rowlandson’s account.

Similarly Rowson’s portrayal of both physical nature, and American Nature, that wildness that seems particular to the land, supports the argument that the relationship between women and Nature is vastly different from men and Nature.

First Rowson openly writes that her intent in writing Charlotte’s story is to warn girls of the dangers of “an unfeeling world”. From the beginning we can see that Rowson views the natural world as a dangerous place, literally incapable of feeling. Rowson describes Charlotte Temple’s life at a boarding school in England, where she is surrounded by loving teachers, yet is led astray by one teacher who has low morals. Much like in Shakespeare, the minute the female characters, “stole out at the back gate, and in crossing the field”, met with male characters outside the confines of civilization, all rules of decorum no longer apply. While in Shakespeare this leads to comedic results, for Rowson, nothing lies beyond the boardinghouse walls but danger and temptation.

Once Charlotte leaves England, with a man she is not married to, and travels to America, her situation only worsens. She goes with him to a land that is uncivilized, where he leaves her pregnant and destitute. Like Rowlandson, there is no comfort in the wilderness and freedom of American Nature (both physically and culturally) for Rowson’s Charlotte, instead the wildness and lack of order and civilization leaves Charlotte unprotected in a wild and heartless land.

So these examples of pre-Romantic texts show that the other side of America’s wild openness is a dangerous, natural landscape as well. This theme of danger and temptation for women in relation to Nature, and for the purpose of the course, specifically American Nature, carries over from pre-Romantic writings into the Romantic era in interesting ways.

As the readings progress into the heart of the Romantic era, the writers are mostly men. This changes the perspective of women in nature, but there are still brief glimpses into the relationship between women and Nature. Perhaps the best example of this is in the short stories of Nathanial Hawthorne. Specifically in Young Goodman Brown, Nature, and the freedom from stepping away from civilization into the wilderness is supremely dangerous, but also tempting. How this relates to the female characters is an interesting piece of the text that is easily overlooked.

As with the pre-Romantic women discussed previously, there is a sense in Young Goodman Brown that for a woman to step outside of the protective confines of civilization and home into the wild, natural world is a truly dangerous thing. While men are allowed to go off into Nature and commune with themselves, Nature and whatever else they come across, the danger that lies there is acceptable as they can often learn from it. For women, the danger the repercussions are far greater.

As Brown leaves his wife, “aptly named”, Faith, she tells him, “A lone woman is troubled with such dreams and such thoughts, that she’s afeared of herself sometimes” (605). We as readers, immediately know that a good woman, and Faith must be good as she is young and pretty, would never go out into the night, as her husband is about to do. So, for a woman, the wilderness holds no appeal, in fact, even being alone at home frightens her.  Also, this journey that Brown is undertaking takes on a dangerous feeling from both Faiths’ invitation for him to not go, and by the fact that he is leaving his home (and civilization) at night.

As Brown goes forward on his journey, he comes to a decision that he will not continue on with his intended purpose. The reader knows that he has decided against some evil act. But the story does not end there. Brown hears Faith’s voice in the woods, and catches one of her pink ribbons falling from the air. He follows the voice and finds the good people of Salem in the midst of a witchcraft ritual.  In a truly sublime moment, with the worshippers singing, “there came a sound, as if the roaring wind, the rushing streams, the howling beasts, and every other voice of the unconverted wilderness, were mingling…” (612). In Hawthorne’s allegory for a man overcoming sin and evil, Nature and the elements of wilderness are personified as pure evil, conspiring against literally, the ”goodman Brown” who has just turned his back on sinful ways.

Hawthorne’s approach to Nature, and Brown’s shock, dismay and never-ending distrust of his wife for (even if it was a dream) appearing in the wilderness, away from civilization and in the clutches of danger and evil speak volumes about the complex relationship between Man and Nature.

Andrew Coleman wrote in a previous midterm that, “This new sense of freedom, based on the assumption that since man is part of nature he has the power to determine its outcome, embodies the new free spirit of America.” I would argue that the very same freedom and connection to nature could also be seen as a very deceptive, tempting and dangerous element of the American landscape. Particularly for women, Nature, and the freedom there, seems to need to be guarded against, and civilization and morality needs to be brought into.

The relationship between man and nature, and Man and American Nature is complex and interesting. There seems to be an almost tangible push and pull going on between the two realms. Those moments where the conflict erupts into the texts we are reading are the most sublime passages we find.  The common thoughts regarding the Romantics relationship with Nature does not sufficiently look into the tension that exists there.