Production, power and the 'natural' 1
Production, power and the 'natural': explaining the differences between English and American gardens in the eighteenth centuryIt is not easy to compare and contrast the development of garden design in America and England during the long eighteenth century. Few if any scholars understand equally well the history of designed landscapes on both sides of the Atlantic, and much of the latest research in England is difficult to access from the States, and vice versa. Such difficulties are compounded by the fact that we remain, as ever, divided by a common language, and use terms like 'baroque' or 'picturesque' in subtly, occasionally radically, different ways. Few British garden historians would thus describe the kinds of landscapes designed by Lancelot 'Capability' Brown as 'picturesque', not least because his style was so savagely attacked by Picturesque theorists Richard Payne Knight and Uvedale Price; but 'naturalistic' parklands are often so described by American writers. Yet at the same time British and American scholars are arguably united in an easy acceptance, and casual use, of terms like 'landscape garden' and, in particular, 'nature' and 'natural'the latter a dangerous practise given that nature, as Raymond Williams famously observed, is the "most complex word in our language". 1 Any attempt to compare the development of 'English' and 'American' gardens presupposes, moreover, that each had a relatively unitary and definable character. But in the eighteenth century, large areas of north America were, of course, occupied by the French and the Spanish, with their own particular landscaping traditions, while the indigenous populations were themselves involved in gardening activities, if largely of a productive rather than ornamental character. In this short essay I will follow what appears to be standard practise, and talk principally about the eastern seaboard and English settled areas, but even Production, power and the 'natural' 2