<doc.id=2045.a5>
<title> "Instead of a garden I found a wilderness." </title>
The first English settlers of the North American continent in the seventeenth century had enormous expectations of the New World. Regarding the American nature they were not disappointed as it offered a greater richness than Great Britain. Yet, the attitudes towards this abundance varied. In this paper I will describe some of the different ways of looking upon nature that existed among the first settlers. The authors referred to will be presented in chronological order, starting with the earliest and finishing with the latest. 

Captain John Smith was one of the first colonists who wrote his testimony of the North American nature. In A map of Virginia (1612), which is a promotion tract aimed for British readers, he thoroughly describes vegetation and animal wild life that prospective settlers will be faced with. Trees, vegetables and fruits are systematically specified and, if possible, compared with European equivalents. Smith's way of looking at nature mainly concerns how vegetation and animals can be useful for people. For example, when he accounts for the different types of trees to be found in Virginia he points out that given their abundance and considerable size they will bear a lot of good timber. Another example is the vegetables and fruits, which he mentions in respect of potential food.

Our next nature observer did not like the kind of text that Captain John Smith contributed with. George Alsop's work A Character of the Province of Mary-Land (1666) is a criticism of the promotion tracts that were created in the seventeenth's century. Alsop claimed that they were exaggerated and his way to mock it was to present a text that was even more exaggerated. He refers to Mary-Land as "she" and his style when describing her is excessive and full of metaphors. The landscape, he says, has more to offer than only what is necessary for a "man's stomach", her rich variety and diversity can also satisfy other "desiring Appetites" (p 3). Another feature of the promotion tracts that he criticized was the endless cataloguing of different sorts of vegetables and animals. By means of a lot of irony he tells his readers that he will not bore them with such particularized description of all that grows there. However, he does account for some of the animals, even though irony can be found here too. He mocks the promotion writers for their recurrent comparison with animals in Europe. The American deer, he writes for example, does not differ from the English "neither in shape nor in action" (p 4).

Robert Beverley belonged to the second generation of colonists. Since he was born in Virginia and educated in England he knew both the New and the Old world well. In his work History and Present state of Virginia (1705) there is a different kind of voice when describing the American nature. As well as the others, he praises the variety and abundance of nature's all forms in the new country. However, what differs is Beverley's opinion about the progress of civilization. He believes that the pioneer's so called improvements are ruining the natural Eden that America once was. Beverly is describing the land of Virginia in terms of before and after the "the curse of industry" (p 8). Before, the Indians lived in harmony with the country in an "original State of Nature" and afterwards the English made use of both the Indians and the land;" hardly making improvements equivalent to that damage" (p 8).
Roderick Nash is a writer from modern time and his work A Wilderness Condition provides a theory about the American pioneer's attitude towards nature in the seventeenth's century. According to Nash that attitude was generally hostile and he mentions two factors that contributed to it. First of all, the wilds of the new land were a threat against the civilized man's survival. Arriving in America was like a journey back in time; here man had to depend entirely upon the environment for shelter and food since there was no organized civilization. Secondly, the wilderness was seen as a moral vacuum and the civilized man was afraid of loosing himself in it and slip back to savagery. The only way to escape these threats was to conquest the nature. Seeing that the rough country was the root cause of their difficulties it had to be destroyed, or at least transformed. 

The idea that man was supposed to transform the wilderness into civilization had its root in religious beliefs. As Nash wrote, the New England pioneers (puritans) felt that it was their duty to subdue the wilderness. The puritans believed they had a mission from God to set an example for the rest of the world and since they thought the wilderness an environment of evil where Devils were worshipped the fate of the wilds was inevitable. Other pioneers had less holy reasons for transforming the rough country. The only way they knew how to look upon nature was through the utilitarian point of view, meaning that they felt nature's value laid in how it best could be used by man. In addition, in an age where people idealized progress the underdeveloped wilderness was seen as an obstacle. 

The colonist's dream of America as the Land of Plenty came true in many cases. The very first settlers, like Smith, were more than satisfied with what they saw. However, as time went by the authors became less one-sided positive towards the wilderness. The reason was probably that when the fist impressions had matured they became aware of the difficulties the wild condition involved. Furthermore, their opinions of what to do about it differed. Some felt it should be preserved and others felt it had to be transformed to fit man's needs. Such were the attitudes towards nature in the seventeenth's century.
</doc>