William Bartram, “Travels” (Part One) A Revolutionary Naturalist

The Library of America collection of William Bartram’s writings is a slim volume by the series standards but rich in material.  It contains his major work, Travels Through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida (1791), his report to John Fothergill on those travels, and eight essays.  My perspective on Bartram, which I will develop as I re-read this works this week, is that he was a naturalist of the American Revolution and in his own way was as much of a founder as John Adams or Thomas Paine.  Although I am not sure he knew this, he was tasked with providing an American understanding of the North American natural world.  He went to frontier areas, as far as he could away from the European influence still felt in the urban areas.  He attempted to study the American Indians of the Southeast, not as part of nature or as savages, but as a potential bridge between the settler societies and the continent they established.  His vision of the natural world is one as dynamic and changing as the world he saw around him.  His writings also show the influence of the revolutionary turmoil in American religion at the later 18th century, when people sought an emotional connection to God.  That places Bartram in his time, but he speaks to us by giving us a model for a degree of solidarity of nature even as he poses a warning about our tendencies to idealize the natural world.

bartramdrawing

The Travels begins with a powerful description of Bartram’s fascination with Nature, he feelings about its divine origins, and the familiarity between the human world and nature.  Without going so far as to call humans part of nature, he does suggest the possibility of some solidarity of feelings between humans and their brothers and sisters in nature.  Of course, he begins with a discussion of creation.  “This world, as a glorious apartment of the boundless palace of the sovereign Creator, is furnished with an infinite variety of animated scenes, inexpressibly beautiful and pleasing, equally free to the inspection and enjoyment of all his creation.” (13)  Mixed with these shouts of religious awe are lists of the Linnaean taxonomy of plant life of America.   He presents a fascination with the order of nature.  “Nature seems to have furnished them [Sarracenia] with this cordated appendage or lid, which turns over, to prevent a too sudden and copious supply of water from heavy showers of rain, which would bend down the leaves, never to rise again. . . . These latent waters undoubtedly contribute to the support and refreshment of the plant: perhaps designed as a reservoir in case of long continued droughts, or other casualties,” (16)  Nothing here surprising in a pre-Darwinian thinker.  I cannot help but notice that no advocate of intelligent design in the present world can produce as beautiful prose as Bartram does in this introduction.

Bartram goes beyond the elegant design of the natural world to suggest a moral center to animal life.  “If then the visible, the mechanical part of the animal creation, the mere material part, is so admirably beautiful, harmonious, and incomprehensible, what must be the intellectual system? That inexpressibly more essential principle, which secretly operates within? that which animates the inimitable machines, which gives them motion, empowers them to act, speak, and preform, this must be divine and immortal?  I am sensible that the general opinion of philosophers, has distinguished the moral system of the brute creature from that of mankind, by an epithet which implies a mere mechanical impulse, which leads and impels them to necessary actions, without any premeditated design or contrivance; this we term instinct, which faculty we suppose to be inferior to reason in man.” (19) Bartram will have none of that prejudice.  He describes filial love in animals, birds socializing, emotion among animals suggesting love.  At one point he contrasts the hunting skill of a spider with that of a Seminole.  This is the foundation, for Bartram, of a possible solidarity with nature.  The Indians, however, are not part of nature, or at least no more so than Europeans.  He ends his introduction with a belief that the Indians could enter into civil society.  Clearly, Bartram still sees a divide between Nature and humans, but he is close to breaking it down, not by bringing humanity to the level of animals, but rather by lifting up the plants and animals he observed into our brothers and sisters.

Chapter one describes Bartram’s arrival in Charleston.  During his travels he is reminded of how powerful nature is.  “how vain and uncertain are human expectations!  how quickly is the flattering scene changed!  The powerful winds, now rushing forth from their secret abodes, suddenly spread terror and devastation; and the wide ocean, which, a few moments past, was gentle and placid, is now thrown into disorder, and heaped into mountains, whose white curling crests seem to sweep the skies.” (27)  The “majesty” of the oceans is on his mind as he travels by ship, but he was incapable of applying his scientific knowledge to the oceans.

He does not stay long in Charleston and soon travels to Savannah.  His expertise is soon applied as he can carefully define and categorize the animals and plants of the land.  He also makes note of the human settlements, the frontier religion, agriculture, and mixed economy.  The human successes in development matter little in the face of nature, represented in a violent thunderstorm.  “When instantly the lightning, as i were, opening  a fiery chasm in the black cloud, darted with inconceivable rapidity on the trunk of a large pine tree, that stood thirty or forty yards from me, and set it in a blaze.” (36)  As he did in his introduction, in this chapter he gave animals human characteristics.  In this case, it is the bald eagle, who stands above his subjects through “rapine and violence” extracting “tribute and subsidy from all the feathered nations.” (32)

In chapter three, Bartram begins his consideration of the American Indian people.  When he first met an armed Indian, like Rowlandsen, Bartram surrendered himself to God’s will.  His safe passage into the Indian settlement convinced him of the universal morality shared between all humans (and it seems many animals who seem to him driven my a moral compass).  “Can it be denied, but that the moral principle, which directs the savages to virtuous and praiseworthy actions, is natural or innate?  It is certain they have not the assistance of letters, or those means of education in the schools of philosophy, where the virtuous sentiments and actions of the most illustrious characters are recorded, and carefully laid before the youth of civilized nations; therefore this moral principle must be innate, or they must be under immediate influence and guidance of a more diving and powerful preceptor, who, on these occasions, instantly inspires them, and as with a ray of divine light, points out to them at once the dignity, propriety and beauty of virtue.” (45)  Without evolutionary theory, and without Darwin, Bartram could not come to a evolutionary model of morality but he is close.

Chapters four and five, complete part 1 of Bartram’s Travels.  These chapters develop some of the same themes of the power of nature, its divine spark, and descriptions of Indian settlements.  Bartram is the naturalist of the American Revolution and far more than arguing for a nationalist picture of the American ecosystem, he is calling for a broader solidarity with nature, at the same time Thomas Paine is demanded the universal rights of man.

Advertisements

6 responses to “William Bartram, “Travels” (Part One) A Revolutionary Naturalist

  1. I got turned off as soon as I read the Indians can enter civil society. It worked for them and they were closer to nature. The so called ‘Civil” society destroyed more of nature for its buildings, furniture, clothes, countless accessories then the Indian populations ever did. Tearing all these things out of the earth the animals need for their health what makes it CIVIL now? Sorry if I get upset here but I am very much concerned about the health of the electrolyte. All nature’s health is required to sustain it. Nature knows what does while humans fight over it tearing every once of land and mining all they can to destroy it. Sure humans are different but to nature we are still just another Eco system. If not we would never die like any other non organic.
    Animal rights have to be concerned with not only animals for food but what is ripping the earth apart that they need to live on too. Civil? This whole perfect civil race gig is really pissing me off.

    • Mkesling: I do not disagree with you about so-called “civil society.” If you look at my last post on “Who?”, you will see my discussion of what civil society can mean for self-identification (something we can probably agree is crucial for liberty). In this blog, I am trying to be as fair as possible to the writers. My goal is to learn what we can from each of these writers. I guess I do not quite see the point of a harsh reading of an 18th century writer, unless it is to break down myth-making (I hope I am not engaged in that). In a sense, Bartram is akin to Jefferson’s opinion that Indians should be brought into white American culture. Remember, others at the same time said that the death of Indians due to disease was providence, or argued that the best place for them was far away – removed from their homes. Given late 18th century dialogs on Indians, Bartram is on the more forward looking side.

      I reckon we can learn something from Bartram for a more sustainable relationship with nature (we are part of nature of course). This blog is not looking for heroes or presenting perfect models, just suggesting that our (yes, I am from the USA) tradition can be consulted for radical themes.

      Thanks for your comments.

      • If the Indians died from disease when the whites came and it was the Indians fault, how was it they were here when the whites got here?
        If their way of life was a killer then they would have not been here for the whites to put them on reservations. Which by the way their land is being poisoned which means the water table by government favored use of the land for practically nothing. That water table goes right under all our homes.
        My point is do not blame under crowding for disease. Because it makes no sense to logic. The Europeans were crowed and full of disease they took with them everywhere along with the Asians and every other crowed population of the world.

        Over population and the filth associated with it carries disease.

  2. I forgot who it was that claimed disease was providence because it opened up land for whites (my memory tells me it was Ben Franklin), but in any case it was that sentiment, that Bartram did not share, which I was referring to.

    Who here is blaming Indians for imported diseases or modern civilization’s tendency to poison the land, water, and air? You do not need to be an advocate of the “ecological Indian” myth to know who is to blame for that (industrial capitalism). If I was unclear, I apologize.

  3. Pingback: One Year Anniversary | Neither Kings nor Americans

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s