For this week’s blog I thought it would be a good idea to examine the text “A Narrative of Captivity” by Mary Rowlandson  from two weeks prior because of personal favor for the text and answer one of  the courses  “central questions” in order to get a better grasp on how this text can be viewed as “environmental literature” .  The text will be examined with the focal point of answering the central question- “What kinds of environmental and nature are of interest in the text?  How does the author define these terms (explicitly or implicitly), and how useful are these definitions?” I will focus heavily on the “useful” aspect of the definitions of natures, as I feel it has been covered in class thoroughly how the these texts are anthropocentric or ecocentric and how they align with another important questions such as Buell’s checklist.

In regards to Rowlandson I think it is important to look at environment and nature as one tied closely with food. It was briefly mentioned in class the importance of food, but it seems that for Rowlandson much of her association with Nature is defined by the life giving substance of food. It was  suggested that focusing on food  is a way to not associate with the deeper grievances of the loss of a child, but Rowlandson also achieves with the the repeated usage of food  in how food is directly linked with the environment because of how essential food is for living. It is not Rowlandson’s faith in her god that will be enough to sustain her body, it is in the environment which provides food. The natives having this same relationship with food for sustaining life becomes interesting in contrast, and Rowlandson in her religious superiority must maintain a separation in all things, even with food, where the relationship on the surface seems so similar.  This is done by  the difference between an external nature, or natural world, and an internal nature, being with a relationship with God. Therefore  nature has a duel meaning for Rowlandson, and can be seen in how what at first looked unappealing by Rowlandson becomes “savory” when the food is internalized, much in the same way her religion and understanding of her God is internalized differently than the Natives.

If Rowlandson looks at the indigenous population in the same regard, a case could be made that   environment is treated as a worldly necessity , but is importantly  placed below the higher spiritual world of God. This means that any person of God has higher claim to the worldly environment and nature, seen in  why it is a “solemn sight” that fields of food spoiled are left to “merciless enemies”.

Next it is important to note how Rowlandson finds food disgusting because of appearance at first, but later this same food is “savory” due to her heightened hungered state. This leads to my final point, and that is how Rowlandson’s definition of nature is linked closely to appearance and sight. For Rowlandson, things are as they appear on the surface(externally) when it comes to nature), but not when it comes to faith and her internal  dialogue. This explains why disgusting food can become savory, as this can link  her faith to the lord is working in her favor. The food remains disgusting and only becomes savory when entered internally into her vessel, and this is maintaining the separation between her and the indigenous peoples.

Finally an attempt at a close reading will be made with examining a short passage an applying the above theory. The obvious choice example is in The Fifteenth remove, but since this has been discussed in class already as an instance where a  typological reading could be applied, the passage that will be used instead is found prior in the Fourteenth Remove when Rowlandson states ” It was in my thoughts when I put it into my mouth, that if ever I returned, I would tell the world what a blessing the Lord gave to such mean food.”(327)  Here the food takes on a characteristic of being in “mean”, which seems to be a reflection on her current external world and the natives who hold her captive. Also it is important to take note of the anthropocentric account that is centered on first person experience and diction  in the repeated use of “I” and “my”. Also interestingly the food is now given by the “lord”, and not the Natives which were previously stated to giving her the food. Therefore the argument could be concluded that by linking the “thoughts” or the internal, with the external, or “mouth”, by the “blessings of the Lord”, the relationship with nature is established that marginalizes the role of the natives and gives all positive agency towards the internal “lord”. The lord becomes internal because as seen above, it is related to the “thoughts”. Finally to answer the last part of the central question,  what this says is that nature in Rowlandson is defined under two perspectives than depend on either the external or internal perception of Rowlandson,  which is a another way to point out through textual evidence of the obvious distinction between the favor Rowlandson finds in her lord over the Natives.