1

Native​ ​Literature​ ​Review

This​ ​literature​ ​review​ ​explores​ ​the​ ​uses​ ​and​ ​meanings​ ​of​ ​the​ ​term​ ​native​ ​in​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​texts,

historiography​ ​and​ ​contemporary​ ​thought.​ ​It​ ​attempts​ ​to​ ​show​ ​the​ ​flexibility​ ​of​ ​the​ ​term​ ​based​ ​on

its​ ​geographical​ ​context​ ​and​ ​how​ ​the​ ​definition​ ​a​ ​native​ ​or​ ​native​ ​population​ ​can​ ​impact​ ​the

findings​ ​of​ ​historical​ ​research.​ ​Alongside​ ​this,​ ​it​ ​sketches​ ​a​ ​meaning​ ​of​ ​the​ ​term​ ​within​ ​an​ ​early

modern​ ​context.​ ​Based​ ​on​ ​this,​ ​it​ ​calls​ ​for​ ​a​ ​careful​ ​consideration​ ​of​ ​the​ ​term​ ​and​ ​provides​ ​a

roadmap​ ​for​ ​applying​ ​native​ ​as​ ​a​ ​central​ ​keyword​ ​for​ ​exploring​ ​the​ ​environmental​ ​body.​ ​This

literature​ ​review​ ​also​ ​serves​ ​as​ ​an​ ​introduction​ ​to​ ​my​ ​own​ ​understanding​ ​of​ ​the​ ​term​ ​at​ ​this​ ​point

in​ ​my​ ​research​ ​and​ ​an​ ​exploration​ ​of​ ​the​ ​historiography​ ​which​ ​has​ ​influenced​ ​this.

One​ ​of​ ​the​ ​first​ ​encounters​ ​I​ ​had​ ​with​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​environmental​ ​history​ ​came​ ​when​ ​I​ ​was

researching​ ​and​ ​writing​ ​a​ ​dissertation​ ​on​ ​domestic​ ​migration.​ ​Here,​ ​David​ ​Rollison’s​ ​work​ ​on

what​ ​he​ ​calls​ ​‘the​ ​new​ ​pastoral’​ ​of​ ​English​ ​natural​ ​history​ ​beginning​ ​in​ ​the​ ​mid-seventeenth

century​ ​was​ ​particularly​ ​influential​ ​to​ ​me​ ​in​ ​providing​ ​a​ ​framework​ ​for​ ​understanding​ ​the​ ​role​ ​of

cultural​ ​discourses​ ​in​ ​shaping​ ​our​ ​ideas​ ​about​ ​populations​ ​connection​ ​to​ ​space​ ​and​ ​the

landscape.1​ ​Keith​ ​Wrightson​ ​has​ ​stated​ ​the​ ​need​ ​for​ ​historians​ ​to​ ​avoid​ ​replicating​ ​‘the​ ​myth​ ​of

the​ ​relatively​ ​isolated,​ ​self-contained​ ​and​ ​static​ ​rural​ ​community'‘myth​ ​of​ ​tight-knit​ ​isolated

communities’.2​ ​However,​ ​at​ ​the​ ​same​ ​time​ ​we​ ​need​ ​to​ ​be​ ​aware​ ​how​ ​these​ ​discourses​ ​have

been​ ​created,​ ​and​ ​were​ ​crafted​ ​in​ ​discourses​ ​within​ ​past​ ​societies,​ ​outside​ ​of​ ​a​ ​strictly​ ​social

history-based​ ​explanation,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​through​ ​the​ ​history​ ​of​ ​vagrancy.

1
​ ​David​ ​Rollison,​ ​'Exploding​ ​England:​ ​The​ ​dialectics​ ​of​ ​mobility​ ​and​ ​settlement​ ​in​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​England’,
Social​ ​History​,​ ​24​ ​(1999),​ ​4.
2
​ ​Keith​ ​Wrightson,​ ​English​ ​Society,​ ​1580-1680​ ​(London,​ ​2013),​ ​49.
 2

Rollison​ ​draws​ ​out​ ​his​ ​meaning​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​histories​ ​ideology​ ​of​ ​the​ ​‘new​ ​pastoral’​ ​through​ ​the

shifting​ ​meaning​ ​of​ ​region​ ​from​ ​medieval​ ​to​ ​contemporary​ ​definitions.​ ​The​ ​earliest​ ​definitions​ ​of

region​ ​were​ ​shown​ ​in​ ​the​ ​context​ ​of​ ​the​ ​domination​ ​of​ ​a​ ​lordship.​ ​As​ ​the​ ​writers​ ​of​ ​the​ O
​ xford

English​ ​Dictionary​ ​inform​ ​us,​ ​region​ ​derives​ ​from​ ​Old​ ​French,​ ​meaning​ ​‘to​ ​direct’​ ​or​ ​‘to​ ​rule’

when​ ​associated​ ​with​ ​a​ ​‘realm​ ​or​ ​kingdom’.3​ ​By​ ​the​ ​nineteenth​ ​century​ ​this​ ​meaning​ ​had​ ​been

‘superseded’​ ​by​ ​a​ ​new​ ​meaning​ ​defined​ ​by​ ​‘a​ ​large​ ​tract​ ​of​ ​land’​ ​distinguished​ ​by​ ​‘certain​ ​natural

features,​ ​climatic​ ​conditions,​ ​a​ ​special​ ​flora​ ​or​ ​fauna,​ ​or​ ​the​ ​like’.4​ ​Rollison​ ​sees​ ​this​ ​new

definition​ ​of​ ​regions​ ​as​ ​being​ ​propagated,​ ​promoted​ ​and​ ​filled​ ​in​ ​by​ ​the​ ​‘natural​ ​history

conception​ ​of​ ​regions’​ ​pioneered​ ​by​ ​the​ ​works​ ​of​ ​the​ ​early​ ​‘Royal​ ​Society’​ ​grounded​ ​in​ ​the

‘precise,​ ​scientific​ ​(and​ ​therefore​ ​unquestionable)​ ​classification​ ​and​ ​differentiation’​ ​of​ ​landforms,

soil,​ ​flora​ ​and​ ​fauna.5​ ​This​ ​conception​ ​of​ ​region​ ​is​ ​matched​ ​by​ ​a​ ​new​ ​conception​ ​of​ ​regional

populations.​ ​Here,​ ​Rollison​ ​sees​ ​John​ ​Aubrey’s​ ​natural​ ​history​ ​of​ ​his​ ​native​ ​North​ ​Wiltshire​ ​as

an​ ​essential​ ​expression​ ​of​ ​the​ ​idea​ ​of​ ​the​ ​native​ ​within​ ​the​ ​new​ ​natural​ ​history.​ ​In​ ​describing​ ​the

natives​ ​of​ ​Wiltshire​ ​as​ ​‘indignes’​ ​or​ ​‘aborignes’​ ​populations​ ​are​ ​presented​ ​as​ ​being​ ​shaped​ ​‘by

the​ ​landscape​ ​itself’.6​ ​Whereas​ ​previously​ ​populations​ ​were​ ​seen​ ​to​ ​be​ ​settled​ ​because​ ​‘the

ruling​ ​class​ ​or​ ​caste’​ ​had​ ​‘willed​ ​it’,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​legally​ ​under​ ​a​ ​system​ ​of​ ​dominance​ ​within​ ​a

manorial​ ​estate,​ ​they​ ​were​ ​now​ ​perceived​ ​as​ ​‘settled​ ​because​ ​they​ ​belonged​ ​to​ ​the​ ​biosphere’

of​ ​their​ ​particular​ ​region.7​ ​Here,​ ​Rollison​ ​sees​ ​natural​ ​historians​ ​as​ ​re-conceptualising​ ​England

as​ ​being​ ​made​ ​up​ ​of​ ​distinctive​ ​regions​ ​of​ ​‘flora​ ​and​ ​fauna’​ ​which​ ​blended​ ​with​ ​local​ ​gentry,​ ​soil

and​ ​populations​ ​to​ ​produce​ ​‘subtle​ ​and​ ​unique’​ ​cultures.8​ ​In​ ​this​ ​context,​ ​a​ ​‘stationary’​ ​or​ ​‘settled

conditions​ ​is​ ​what​ ​all​ ​true​ ​English​ ​regions’​ ​had​ ​in​ ​common.​ ​What​ ​kept​ ​people​ ​settled​ ​was​ ​the

3
​ ​Rollison,​ ​'Exploding​ ​England’,​ ​3.
4
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​4.
5
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​5.
6
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​4.
7
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​7.
8
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​5.
 3

distinctiveness​ ​of​ ​‘every​ ​native​ ​people’,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​landscape​ ​that​ ​produced​ ​them,​ ​from​ ​each​ ​other.
9

Rollison’s​ ​argument​ ​of​ ​the​ ​representation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​landscape​ ​as​ ​made​ ​up​ ​of​ ​settled​ ​habitats​ ​and

serene​ ​immobility​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​to​ ​reflect​ ​other​ ​historians​ ​arguments​ ​concerning​ ​the​ ​cultural

production​ ​of​ ​space.​ ​As​ ​Andrew​ ​McRae​ ​has​ ​argued,​ ​orthodox​ ​elite​ ​opinion​ ​assumed​ ​that

‘geographical​ ​stability​ ​would​ ​accompany​ ​social​ ​stability’,​ ​citing​ ​a​ ​Tudor​ ​royal​ ​proclamation

naturalising​ ​the​ ​relationship​ ​between​ ​native​ ​and​ ​landscape,​ ​stating​ ​that​ ​local​ ​gentry​ ​were​ ​not

‘borne​ ​for​ ​themselves​ ​and​ ​their​ ​families​ ​alone,​ ​but​ ​for​ ​the​ ​publique​ ​good​ ​and​ ​comfort​ ​of​ ​their

countrey​ ​(i.e.​ ​local​ ​region).10

Rollison’s​ ​work​ ​differs​ ​in​ ​how​ ​he​ ​sketches​ ​out​ ​the​ ​meaning​ ​of​ ​the​ ​native​ ​and​ ​its​ ​implications​ ​for

understandings​ ​of​ ​man’s​ ​relationship​ ​with​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​in​ ​the​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​world.​ ​To​ ​draw

out​ ​this​ ​meaning​ ​Rollison​ ​uses​ ​John​ ​Aubrey’s​ ​study​ ​of​ ​North​ ​Wiltshire​ ​as​ ​a​ ​case​ ​study.​ ​Citing

Aubrey’s​ ​desire​ ​to​ ​write​ ​a​ ​text​ ​recording​ ​‘the​ ​several​ ​sorts​ ​of​ ​earth​ ​in​ ​England’​ ​in​ ​which​ ​he

supposed​ ​indicate​ ​‘the​ ​indigne’​ ​of​ ​English​ ​regions​ ​as​ ​respectively​ ​‘witty​ ​or​ ​dull,​ ​good​ ​or​ ​bad’.11

Rollison​ ​presents​ ​him​ ​as​ ​a​ ​proto-anthropologist​ ​observing​ ​and​ ​recording​ ​an​ ​exotic​ ​‘other’​ ​in​ ​the

‘indignes’​ ​native​ ​to​ ​the​ ​region.​ ​Here,​ ​he​ ​argues​ ​that​ ​it​ ​is​ ​possible​ ​to​ ​see​ ​in​ ​Aubrey​ ​the

‘beginnings​ ​of​ ​the​ ​perspectives​ ​and​ ​interests​ ​of​ ​the​ ​modern​ ​discipline​ ​of​ ​anthropology’​ ​along

with​ ​the​ ​‘illusion​ ​of​ ​clinical​ ​detachment’​ ​of​ ​the​ ​social​ ​sciences.12​ ​Here,​ ​Rollison​ ​presents

9
​ ​Ibid.
10
​ ​Andrew​ ​McRae,​ ​'The​ ​peripatetic​ ​muse:​ ​Internal​ ​travel​ ​and​ ​the​ ​cultural​ ​production​ ​of​ ​space​ ​in
pre-revolutionary​ ​England'​ ​in​ ​Gerald​ ​MacLean,​ ​Donna​ ​Landry,​ ​Joseph​ ​P.​ ​Ward,​ T ​ he​ ​country​ ​and​ ​city
revisited:​ ​England​ ​and​ ​the​ ​politics​ ​of​ ​culture,​ ​1550-1850​ ​(Cambridge,​ ​1999),​ ​45.
11
​ ​David​ ​Rollison,​ ​The​ ​local​ ​origins​ ​of​ ​modern​ ​society:​ ​Gloucestershire​ ​1500-1800​ ​(London,​ ​1992),​ ​249.
12
​ ​Ibid.
 4

Aubrey’s​ ​conception​ ​of​ ​natives​ ​or​ ​indigenous​ ​as​ ​‘inferior​ ​humans’.13​ ​Aubrey​ ​conceived​ ​the

environment​ ​as​ ​a​ ​way​ ​of​ ​explaining​ ​natives​ ​‘physical​ ​and​ ​cultural​ ​appearances​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​of

landform’,​ ​soil​ ​and​ ​‘the​ ​type​ ​of​ ​production​ ​that​ ​it​ ​tended​ ​to​ ​impose​ ​on​ ​inhabitants’​ ​Rollison

presents​ ​Aubrey’s​ ​vision​ ​of​ ​‘aboriginal​ ​culture’,​ ​and​ ​in​ ​turn​ ​the​ ​native,​ ​as​ ​‘passive’​ ​shaped​ ​by,

‘but​ ​not​ ​shaping’,​ ​the​ ​‘landscape​ ​they​ ​inhabited’.14

What​ ​is​ ​initially​ ​captivating​ ​about​ ​Rollison’s​ ​narrative​ ​is​ ​his​ ​presentation​ ​of​ ​a​ ​framework​ ​of

climatological​ ​and​ ​ethnographic​ ​ideas​ ​within​ ​a​ ​domestic​ ​English​ ​context.​ ​Such​ ​ideas​ ​have​ ​large

implications​ ​for​ ​understandings​ ​of​ ​local​ ​society.​ ​However,​ ​what​ ​is​ ​noteable​ ​to​ ​students

well-versed​ ​in​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​ethnography​ ​is​ ​his​ ​treatment​ ​of​ ​Aubrey​ ​in​ ​complete​ ​isolation​ ​from

his​ ​broader​ ​context​ ​of​ ​classical,​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​ethnic​ ​and​ ​climatological​ ​thought​ ​at​ ​the​ ​national

and​ ​local​ ​level.​ ​Undoubtedly,​ ​such​ ​exotic,​ ​anthropological​ ​visions​ ​of​ ​‘native’​ ​English​ ​populations

were​ ​not​ ​limited​ ​to​ ​Aubrey’s​ ​work.​ ​Aubrey’s​ ​contemporary​ ​Robert​ ​Plot’s​ ​1673​ ​plan​ ​for​ ​scientific

survey​ ​of​ ​England​ ​proposes​ ​to​ ​inquire​ ​of​ ​‘Animals’​ ​and​ ​the​ ​‘strange​ ​People’​ ​of​ ​‘Charleton-Curley

in​ ​Leycstershire’.15​ ​ ​Here,​ ​Plot​ ​is​ ​referring​ ​to,​ ​as​ ​a​ ​1745​ ​text​ ​informs​ ​us,​ ​the​ ​‘ungrateful​ ​manner

of​ ​speech’​ ​of​ ​the​ ​‘Natives​ ​of​ ​that​ ​town’.16​ ​This​ ​was​ ​deemed​ ​not​ ​due​ ​to​ ​‘any​ ​imperfection​ ​in​ ​the

parents’​ ​as​ ​children​ ​‘born​ ​in​ ​other​ ​places​ ​are​ ​not​ ​troubled’​ ​with​ ​the​ ​‘infirmity’.17​ ​As​ ​such,​ ​the

cause​ ​was​ ​found​ ​in​ ​some​ ​‘quality​ ​in​ ​the​ ​elements​ ​of​ ​the​ ​place’​ ​in​ ​the​ ​‘nature​ ​of​ ​the​ ​soil​ ​or​ ​water’.
18
​ ​This​ ​example​ ​depicts​ ​the​ ​transmission​ ​of​ ​differences​ ​in​ ​speech​ ​from​ ​the​ ​landscape,​ ​air​ ​and

water​ ​and​ ​therefore​ ​impacting​ ​and​ ​pre-disposing​ ​populations​ ​equally.​ ​However,​ ​Rollison​ ​sees

13
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​252.
14
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​251.
15
​ ​Early​ ​Science​ ​in​ ​Oxford:​ ​Dr.​ ​Plot​ ​and​ ​the​ ​correspondence​ ​of​ ​the​ ​philosophical​ ​society​ ​of​ ​Oxford​,​ ​ed.​ ​R.
T.​ ​Gunter​ ​(Oxford,​ ​xii,​ ​1920),​ ​343
16
​ ​Anon,​ ​A​ ​new​ ​description​ ​of​ ​Berkshire,​ ​Buckinghamshire,​ ​Cambridgshire,​ ​Cheshire,​ ​Cornwal,
Cumberland,​ ​The​ ​Isle​ ​of​ ​Man,​ ​Derbyshire,​ ​Devonshire​ ​(London,​ ​1749),​ ​63.
17
​ ​Ibid.
18
​ ​Ibid.
 5

Aubrey’s​ ​work​ ​as​ ​being​ ​framed​ ​through​ ​his​ ​Norman​ ​heritage,​ ​as​ ​part​ ​of​ ​a​ ​‘civilised’​ ​and

‘inherently​ ​superior​ ​caste’​ ​and​ ​therefore​ ​not​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​the​ ​topographical​ ​forces​ ​that​ ​impacted

the​ ​‘ecologically​ ​determined​ ​aborigines’.19​ ​In​ ​this​ ​final​ ​analysis​ ​difference​ ​is​ ​perceived​ ​through​ ​a

‘racialist​ ​ethnography’​ ​where​ ​Aubrey’s​ ​‘genetic​ ​inheritance’​ ​makes​ ​him​ ​‘detached​ ​from​ ​the

primeval​ ​landscape’.20​ ​Rollison’s​ ​argument​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​to​ ​mirror​ ​those​ ​critiqued​ ​by​ ​scholars​ ​of

contemporary​ ​ideas​ ​of​ ​the​ ​indigenous​ ​or​ ​the​ ​native.​ ​As​ ​Tim​ ​Ingold​ ​has​ ​argued,​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Western

imagination,​ ​‘the​ ​difference​ ​between​ ​the​ ​indigenous​ ​person​ ​and​ ​colonist’​ ​no​ ​longer​ ​reflects

‘respective​ ​models​ ​of​ ​habitation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​land’​ ​in​ ​favour​ ​of​ ​ideas​ ​of​ ​‘descent’.21​ ​This​ ​‘genealogical

position’​ ​is​ ​fixed​ ​‘independently’​ ​of​ ​‘position​ ​and​ ​involvement​ ​in​ ​the​ ​lifeworld’​ ​but​ ​instead​ ​exists

only​ ​in​ ​the​ ​form​ ​of​ ​‘biocultural​ ​diversity’.22

As​ ​such,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​possible​ ​to​ ​see​ ​Rollison’s​ ​construction​ ​of​ ​the​ ​native​ ​as​ ​a​ ​conceptual​ ​object​ ​within​ ​a

familiar​ ​paradigm​ ​to​ ​anthropological​ ​and​ ​social​ ​scientific​ ​debates​ ​of​ ​the​ ​term.​ ​In​ ​contemporary

thought​ ​native​ ​is​ ​term​ ​loaded​ ​with​ ​meaning.​ ​As​ ​Maria​ ​Dibattista​ ​argues​ ​native’s​ ​etymological

form​ ​refers​ ​to​ ​serfdom,​ ​to​ ​a​ ​‘person​ ​born​ ​in​ ​bondage’.23​ ​For​ ​Dibattista,​ ​‘imperial​ ​and​ ​colonial

orders​ ​inherited​ ​and​ ​expanded​ ​on​ ​this​ ​de-humanizing​ ​legacy​ ​in​ ​speaking​ ​of​ ​the​ ​native​ ​as​ ​a

lesser​ ​order​ ​of​ ​mankind’.24​ ​The​ ​dehumanising​ ​and​ ​colonial​ ​elements​ ​of​ ​the​ ​term​ ​native​ ​is​ ​still

something​ ​which​ ​haunts​ ​and​ ​clouds​ ​our​ ​use​ ​of​ ​the​ ​term​ ​today​ ​and​ ​our​ ​reading​ ​back​ ​of​ ​the

term's​ ​meaning​ ​and​ ​use​ ​in​ ​historical​ ​discourse.​ ​As​ ​such,​ ​for​ ​Alan​ ​Kuper​ ​native​ ​is​ ​a​ ​‘ghostly

category’​ ​which​ ​in​ ​for​ ​a​ ​vision​ ​of​ ​‘primitive​ ​society’​ ​existing​ ​in​ ​‘isolation’​ ​where​ ​‘culture​ ​does​ ​not

19
​ ​Rollison,​ ​Local​ ​Origins​,​ ​246.
20
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​253,​ ​246.
21
​ ​Tim​ ​Ingold,​ ​The​ ​perception​ ​of​ ​the​ ​environment:​ ​Essays​ ​on​ ​livelihood,​ ​dwelling​ ​and​ ​skill​ ​(London,​ ​2000),
137.
22
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​142.
23
​ ​Maria​ ​DiBattista,​ ​'Native​ ​cosmopolitans'​ ​in​ ​Cesar​ ​Dominguez​ ​and​ ​Theo​ ​D'haen​ ​(eds.),​ ​Cosmopolitanism
and​ ​the​ ​postnational:​ ​Literature​ ​and​ ​the​ ​new​ ​Europe​ ​(Boston,​ ​2015),​ ​78.
24
​ ​Ibid.
 6

challenge​ ​nature’.25​ ​Similarly,​ ​Tim​ ​Ingold​ ​has​ ​noted​ ​how​ ​‘indigenous’​ ​or​ ​native​ ​people​ ​are​ ​used

to​ ​represent​ ​an​ ​‘ancestral​ ​condition’​ ​that​ ​are​ ​in​ ​some​ ​sense​ ​‘the​ ​same’​ ​in​ ​their​ ​way​ ​of​ ​life​ ​to​ ​their

pre-colonial​ ​counterparts.​ ​As​ ​such,​ ​they​ ​are​ ​presented​ ​as​ ​an​ ​‘essential​ ​part’​ ​of​ ​the​ ​story,​ ​and

study​ ​of,​ ​‘global​ ​humanity’.26​ ​For​ ​such​ ​writers,​ ​as​ ​for​ ​Rollison,​ ​the​ ​classifications​ ​of​ ​certain

populations​ ​as​ ​‘native’​ ​or​ ​‘indigenous’​ ​to​ ​a​ ​region​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​as​ ​a​ ​way​ ​of​ ​seeing​ ​‘lesser’,

‘primitive’​ ​human​ ​populations​ ​as​ ​scientific​ ​data​ ​to​ ​be​ ​observed​ ​and​ ​analysed​ ​by​ ​anthropologists,

ethnographers​ ​and​ ​historians​ ​for​ ​insights​ ​into​ ​an​ ​essentialized​ ​contemporary​ ​or​ ​historical​ ​human

condition.

This​ ​case​ ​serves​ ​to​ ​illustrate​ ​the​ ​difficulties​ ​of​ ​a​ ​term​ ​so​ ​loaded​ ​with​ ​meaning​ ​within​ ​humanities

and​ ​social​ ​scientific​ ​discourses.​ ​Here,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​notable​ ​that​ ​Rollison​ ​is​ ​writing​ ​within​ ​the​ ​paradigm​ ​of

social​ ​history.​ ​Presenting​ ​Aubrey​ ​within​ ​a​ ​broader​ ​argument​ ​of​ ​the​ ​‘languages​ ​of​ ​social

discrimination’​ ​indicates​ ​that​ ​narrative​ ​he​ ​is​ ​attempting​ ​to​ ​produce.27​ ​This​ ​section​ ​shifts​ ​to​ ​a

more​ ​neutral​ ​definition​ ​of​ ​native​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​‘a​ ​person​ ​born​ ​in​ ​a​ ​specified​ ​place,​ ​region​ ​or​ ​country’

commonly​ ​seen​ ​within​ ​the​ ​historiography​ ​of​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​and​ ​the​ ​body.28

As​ ​Steven​ ​Shapin​ ​has​ ​argued​ ​all​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​‘theories​ ​of​ ​the​ ​self’​ ​were​ ​‘environmental

histories’.29​ ​Within​ ​the​ ​inherited​ ​Greco-Roman​ ​framework​ ​for​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​understandings​ ​of

the​ ​body,​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​that​ ​subjects​ ​consumed​ ​and​ ​the​ ​air​ ​they​ ​inhaled​ ​and​ ​exhaled​ ​shaped​ ​ ​their

minds,​ ​bodies,​ ​appearances​ ​and​ ​behaviours.​ ​Medical​ ​discourse​ ​frequently​ ​invoked​ ​the

​ chool​ ​of​ ​Physick

necessary​ ​reliance​ ​on​ ​one’s​ ​native​ ​environment.​ ​Nicholas​ ​Culpeper’s​ ​1659​ S

25
​ ​Adam​ ​Kuper,​ ​'The​ ​return​ ​of​ ​the​ ​native',​ ​Current​ ​Anthropology​,​ ​44​ ​(2003),​ ​389.
26
​ ​Ingold,​ ​The​ ​perception​ ​of​ ​the​ ​environment,​ ​133.
27
​ ​Rollison,​ ​Local​ ​origins,​ ​243.
28
​ ​Oxford​ ​English​ ​Dictionary​ ​Online​ ​(www.oed.com,​ ​accessed​ ​8​ ​November​ ​2017),​ ​native,​ ​n.
29
​ ​Steven​ ​Shapin,"'You​ ​are​ ​what​ ​you​ ​eat’:​ ​Historical​ ​changes​ ​in​ ​ideas​ ​about​ ​food​ ​and​ ​identity",​ ​Historical
Research​,​ ​87​ ​(2014),​ ​380.
 7

stated​ ​that​ ​God​ ​had​ ​provided​ ​in​ ​the​ ​‘Fields,​ ​Pastures,​ ​Rivers’​ ​all​ ​‘remedies​ ​necessary​ ​for​ ​the

recovery​ ​of​ ​health’.30​ ​Whilst​ ​these​ ​remedies​ ​applied​ ​to​ ​those​ ​of​ ​the​ ​‘Native​ ​Country’​ ​they​ ​could

not​ ​be​ ​‘performed’​ ​successfully​ ​elsewhere​ ​or​ ​upon​ ​a​ ​non-native​ ​body.31​ ​The​ ​term​ ​native​ ​is​ ​a

useful​ ​keyword​ ​for​ ​determining​ ​the​ ​geographical​ ​scope​ ​and​ ​lens​ ​of​ ​investigation​ ​in​ ​which​ ​is

environmental​ ​self​ ​operated.​ ​As​ ​Shapin​ ​states​ ​the​ ​idea​ ​of​ ​the​ ​body​ ​being​ ​shaped​ ​by,​ ​and

dependent​ ​upon,​ ​its​ ​immediate​ ​environment​ ​meant​ ​that​ ​a​ ​‘settled​ ​habit’​ ​was​ ​an​ ​essential

prerequisite​ ​for​ ​the​ ​health​ ​and​ ​stability​ ​of​ ​mind​ ​and​ ​body.32

Native​ ​in​ ​its​ ​primary​ ​definition,​ ​as​ ​associated​ ​with​ ​a​ ​place​ ​of​ ​origin,​ ​has​ ​remained​ ​stable​ ​with​ ​the

early​ ​modern​ ​period​ ​to​ ​our​ ​own.​ ​However,​ ​it​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​as​ ​a​ ​‘slippery’​ ​term​ ​in​ ​that​ ​its​ ​exact

meaning​ ​is​ ​mutable​ ​depending​ ​on​ ​the​ ​context​ ​in​ ​which​ ​it​ ​is​ ​being​ ​used,​ ​where​ ​geographically​ ​it

is​ ​being​ ​used​ ​and​ ​in​ ​relation​ ​to​ ​wherelse.​ ​For​ ​example,​ ​I​ ​am​ ​simultaneously​ ​European,​ ​British,

English,​ ​a​ ​Londoner,​ ​a​ ​native​ ​of​ ​Barnet​ ​or​ ​just​ ​down​ ​the​ ​road​ ​from​ ​the​ ​football​ ​ground

depending​ ​on​ ​upon​ ​the​ ​context.​ ​The​ ​root​ ​of​ ​the​ ​difficulties​ ​with​ ​the​ ​stability​ ​of​ ​the​ ​term​ ​is​ ​its

relation​ ​to​ ​identity​ ​which,​ ​as​ ​Jones​ ​and​ ​Woolf​ ​argue,​ ​is​ ​‘fluid’​ ​and​ ​‘socially​ ​and​ ​rhetorically

constructed’​ ​by​ ​subjects​ ​and​ ​their​ ​associates.33​ ​Identities​ ​tend​ ​to​ ​be​ ​‘asserted’​ ​and​ ​‘crystallized’

only​ ​when​ ​challenged​ ​or​ ​exposed​ ​to​ ​difference.34​ ​As​ ​such,​ ​claims​ ​to​ ​nativity​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​to

define,​ ​as​ ​Anthony​ ​Cohen​ ​states,​ ​‘the​ ​boundary’​ ​of​ ​‘insiders’​ ​and​ ​‘outsiders’​ ​of​ ​a​ ​group​ ​or

geographical​ ​space.35​ ​It​ ​is​ ​in​ ​this​ ​context​ ​that​ ​Vladimir​ ​Jankovic​ ​calls​ ​‘nativity’​ ​a​ ​‘keyword’​ ​for

30
​ ​Nicolas​ ​Culpepper,​ ​School​ ​of​ ​physick​ ​(London,​ ​1659),​ ​7.
31
​ ​Ibid.
32
​ ​Shapin,​ ​"'You​ ​are​ ​what​ ​you​ ​eat’,​ ​380.
33
​ ​Norman​ ​Jones​ ​and​ ​Daniel​ ​Woolf,‘Introduction’​ ​in​ ​Norman​ ​Jones​ ​and​ ​Daniel​ ​Woolf​ ​(eds.),​ ​Local
identities​ ​in​ ​late​ ​medieval​ ​and​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​England​ ​(New​ ​York,​ ​2007),​ ​2.
34
​ ​Ibid.
35
​ ​Anthony​ ​P.​ ​Cohen,​ ​The​ ​symbolic​ ​construction​ ​of​ ​community​ ​(London,​ ​1985),​ ​12.
 8

local​ ​historians,​ ​naturalists​ ​and​ ​antiquarians​ ​in​ ​the​ ​eighteenth​ ​century​ ​to​ ​assert​ ​their​ ​authority

over​ ​knowledge​ ​of​ ​their​ ​‘patch’​ ​and​ ​the​ ​relevance​ ​of​ ​their​ ​study.36

Placing​ ​these​ ​ideas​ ​into​ ​the​ ​body,​ ​environmentally-orientated​ ​historians​ ​have​ ​seen​ ​‘native’​ ​as​ ​a

keyword​ ​for​ ​understanding​ ​the​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​construction​ ​of​ ​minds​ ​and​ ​bodies.​ ​These​ ​scholars

have​ ​tended​ ​to​ ​work​ ​from​ ​a​ ​nation-based​ ​definition​ ​of​ ​native.​ ​As​ ​Alix​ ​Cooper​ ​has​ ​argued​ ​the

‘unsettling’​ ​concerns​ ​of​ ​geography​ ​and​ ​identity​ ​that​ ​followed​ ​the​ ​sixteenth​ ​century​ ​age​ ​of

exploration​ ​were​ ​mirrored​ ​in​ ​‘debates​ ​over​ ​the​ ​native​ ​and​ ​natural​ ​world’​ ​and​ ​their

inter-relationship.37​ ​Here,​ ​the​ ​natural​ ​world​ ​became​ ​‘a​ ​tool​ ​for​ ​unravelling​ ​identity’.38​ ​Cooper

traces​ ​this​ ​through​ ​the​ ​works​ ​of​ ​Swiss​ ​medical​ ​writer​ ​Paracelsus’​ ​early​ ​sixteenth​ ​century

Herbrius​ ​which​ ​was​ ​littered​ ​with​ ​references​ ​to​ ​the​ ​powers​ ​of​ ​the​ ​‘Herbs,​ ​Roots​ ​and​ ​Seeds’​ ​of​ ​the

‘Native​ ​Land​ ​and​ ​Realm​ ​of​ ​Germany’​ ​in​ ​opposition​ ​to​ ​the​ ​‘category’​ ​of​ ​‘exotic’​ ​foreign​ ​remedies.
39
​ ​Such​ ​appeals​ ​could​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​as​ ​a​ ​form​ ​of​ ​German​ ​‘patriotism’​ ​or​ ​nationalism​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​a

‘cultural’​ ​if​ ​not​ ​‘political​ ​unit’.40​ ​Cooper​ ​sees​ ​this​ ​as​ ​mirroring​ ​Lutheran​ ​appeals​ ​to​ ​the​ ​‘German

nation’​ ​crucial​ ​in​ ​fostering​ ​‘regional​ ​identity​ ​in​ ​the​ ​fragmented​ ​territories​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Holy​ ​Roman

Empire’.41​ ​This​ ​nationalistic​ ​call​ ​for​ ​the​ ​local​ ​in​ ​opposition​ ​to​ ​the​ ​exotic​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​reflected​ ​in

English​ ​texts,​ ​for​ ​example​ ​Nicholas​ ​Culpepper​ ​promoted​ ​remedies​ ​that​ ​‘grow​ ​in​ ​England’​ ​as

being​ ​‘most​ ​fit​ ​for​ ​English​ ​bodies’​ ​as​ ​opposed​ ​to​ ​‘outlandish’​ ​foreign​ ​herbs.42​ ​Cooper​ ​sees​ ​this

use​ ​of​ ​‘outlandish’​ ​as​ ​not​ ​referring​ ​to,​ ​as​ ​in​ ​a​ ​contemporary​ ​sense,​ ​the​ ​‘strange’​ ​or​ ​the​ ​‘weird’

36
​ ​Vladimir​ ​Jankovic,​ ​Reading​ ​the​ ​skies:​ ​A​ ​cultural​ ​history​ ​of​ ​English​ ​weather,​ ​1650-1820​ ​(Chicago,​ ​2000),
103.
37
​ ​Alix​ ​Cooper,​​ ​Inventing​ ​the​ ​indigenous:​ ​Local​ ​knowledge​ ​and​ ​natural​ ​history​ ​in​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​Europe
(Cambridge,​ ​2007),​ ​25.
38
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​ ​21.
39
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​30.
40
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​31.
41
​ ​Ibid.
42
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​21.
 9

but​ ​to​ ​the​ ​‘non-native’.43​ ​As​ ​Andrew​ ​Wear​ ​informs​ ​us​ ​such​ ​ideas​ ​were​ ​based​ ​within​ ​the​ ​inherited

Greco-Roman​ ​framework​ ​of​ ​the​ ​humoural​ ​system​ ​that​ ​‘related​ ​the​ ​character​ ​of​ ​a​ ​people’,​ ​their

minds,​ ​bodies​ ​and​ ​health​ ​needs,​ ​to​ ​the​ ​‘type​ ​of​ ​country​ ​they​ ​lived​ ​in’.44​ ​Here,​ ​as​ ​Daniel​ ​Carey

states,​ ​within​ ​the​ ​context​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​history​ ​writing,​ ​there​ ​was​ ​‘no​ ​firm​ ​separation’​ ​between

natural​ ​history​ ​‘generally’,​ ​the​ ​study​ ​of​ ​flora,​ ​fauna​ ​and​ ​landscape,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​‘natural​ ​history​ ​of

man’.45​ ​As​ ​such,​ ​subjects​ ​were​ ​a​ ​part​ ​of​ ​‘all​ ​organic​ ​life’​ ​that​ ​‘lived​ ​within​ ​the​ ​same​ ​region’,

‘breathed​ ​the​ ​same​ ​air’​ ​and​ ​‘drank​ ​the​ ​same​ ​water’​ ​leading​ ​to​ ​‘noticeable​ ​similarities’​ ​in​ ​the

apparent​ ​appearance,​ ​needs​ ​and​ ​internal​ ​natures​ ​of​ ​‘peoples,​ ​animals​ ​and​ ​plants’.46​ ​As​ ​such,

local​ ​plants​ ​were​ ​those​ ​deemed​ ​most​ ​suitable​ ​for​ ​local​ ​people.

The​ ​strength​ ​of​ ​this​ ​nation-based​ ​conception​ ​of​ ​native​ ​was​ ​not​ ​just​ ​in​ ​drawing​ ​the​ ​boundaries

between​ ​climate,​ ​places​ ​and​ ​countries​ ​and​ ​the​ ​need​ ​for​ ​one’s​ ​native​ ​nature​ ​to​ ​maintain​ ​the

stability​ ​of​ ​mind,​ ​body​ ​and​ ​health​ ​but​ ​also​ ​in​ ​its​ ​accommodation​ ​with​ ​broader​ ​ideological

systems.​ ​As​ ​Wear​ ​argues,​ ​medical​ ​writers​ ​justified​ ​their​ ​rejection​ ​of​ ​the​ ​‘exotic’​ ​through​ ​a

providential​ ​explanation​ ​of​ ​geography,​ ​human​ ​difference​ ​and​ ​varying​ ​health​ ​needs.​ ​As​ ​such,

sixteenth​ ​century​ ​physician​ ​Timothie​ ​Bright​ ​cited​ ​Ecclesiasticus​ ​Ch.​ ​88​ ​V.​ ​4,​ ​stating​ ​that​ ​the

‘Lord​ ​hath​ ​created​ ​medicines​ ​out​ ​of​ ​the​ ​earth’​ ​to​ ​‘bolster’​ ​his​ ​case​ ​for​ ​localised​ ​understandings

of​ ​health​ ​and​ ​medicine.47​ ​For​ ​Bright,​ ​only​ ​remedies​ ​that​ ​went​ ​through​ ​a​ ​process​ ​of​ ​‘taming’​ ​in

‘our​ ​own​ ​soil’​ ​would​ ​agree​ ​with​ ​English​ ​bodies.48

43
​ ​Ibid.
44
​ ​Andrew​ ​Wear,​ ​Knowledge​ ​and​ ​practice​ ​in​ ​English​ ​medicine,​ ​1550-1680​ ​(Cambridge,​ ​2000),​ ​97.
45
​ ​Daniel​ ​Carey,​ ​'Compiling​ ​nature's​ ​history:​ ​Travellers​ ​and​ ​travel​ ​narratives​ ​in​ ​the​ ​early​ ​royal​ ​society,
Annals​ ​of​ ​Science,​ ​54​ ​(1997),​ ​273.
46
​ ​Trudy​ ​Eden,​ ​'Food,​ ​assimilation​ ​and​ ​the​ ​malleability​ ​of​ ​the​ ​human​ ​body​ ​in​ ​early​ ​Virginia'​ ​in​ ​Janet
Lindman​ ​and​ ​Michele​ ​Tartar​ ​(eds.),​ ​A​ ​centre​ ​of​ ​wonders:​ ​The​ ​body​ ​in​ ​early​ ​America​ ​(New​ ​York,​ ​2001),
30.
47
​ ​Andrew​ ​Wear,​ ​'The​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​debate​ ​about​ ​foreign​ ​drugs:​ ​localism​ ​versus​ ​universalism​ ​in
medicine',​ ​Lancet​,​ ​354​ ​(1999),​ ​150.
48
​ ​Ibid.
 10

One​ ​of​ ​the​ ​major​ ​contributions​ ​of​ ​this​ ​historiography​ ​is​ ​to​ ​show​ ​the​ ​indigenous/exotic​ ​medical

debates​ ​as​ ​part​ ​of​ ​a​ ​broader​ ​cultural​ ​process​ ​of​ ​nation-building​ ​that​ ​included​ ​the​ ​creation​ ​of​ ​an

unitary​ ​idea​ ​of​ ​the​ ​English​ ​body​ ​and​ ​nation.​ ​Andrew​ ​Wear​ ​has​ ​labelled​ ​this​ ​process​ ​as​ ​a​ ​form​ ​of

‘medical​ ​topography’​ ​which​ ​worked​ ​to​ ​give​ ​people​ ​‘an​ ​idea​ ​of​ ​how​ ​they​ ​related​ ​to​ ​the​ ​world​ ​in

which​ ​lived’​ ​by​ ​knitting​ ​together​ ​‘people,​ ​places​ ​and​ ​climate’.49​ ​Geographical​ ​and​ ​medical​ ​writing

was​ ​not​ ​reflective​ ​of​ ​a​ ​unified​ ​idea​ ​of​ ​the​ ​native​ ​English/British​ ​body​ ​and​ ​climate​ ​but​ ​played​ ​an

essential​ ​part​ ​in​ ​its​ ​discursive​ ​formation.​ ​As​ ​Elizabeth​ ​Yale​ ​has​ ​argued​ ​the​ ​idea​ ​of​ ​Britain​ ​as​ ​a

cultural​ ​and​ ​political​ ​‘whole​ ​island​ ​and​ ​seafaring​ ​nation’​ ​was​ ​‘incomplete​ ​at​ ​best’​ ​before​ ​and

after​ ​the​ ​1707​ ​union​ ​of​ ​England​ ​and​ ​Scotland.50​ ​Here,​ ​the​ ​geographical​ ​and​ ​medical​ ​writings​ ​of

William​ ​Camden,​ ​Culpepper​ ​and​ ​later​ ​authors​ ​were​ ​crucial​ ​in​ ​establishing​ ​a​ ​‘stable​ ​vision’​ ​of

England​ ​and​ ​Britain​ ​as​ ​a​ ​‘topographical​ ​object’​ ​and,​ ​in​ ​turn,​ ​united​ ​in​ ​climate,​ ​landscape​ ​and

body.51​ ​This​ ​localised​ ​medical​ ​movement​ ​worked​ ​alongside​ ​a​ ​growth​ ​of​ ​expanding​ ​geographical

knowledge​ ​which,​ ​as​ ​Lesley​ ​Cormack​ ​states,​ ​provided​ ​an​ ​‘ideology’​ ​and​ ​‘image’​ ​of​ ​the​ ​English

as​ ​‘unique​ ​and​ ​separate​ ​from​ ​other​ ​peoples’.52​ ​Local​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​medical​ ​systems

construction​ ​alongside​ ​ideas​ ​of​ ​religions,​ ​notions​ ​of​ ​place,​ ​climate​ ​and​ ​self​ ​identity​ ​as​ ​shown

within​ ​the​ ​indigenous/exotic​ ​debates​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​as​ ​an​ ​exercise​ ​in​ ​drawing​ ​the​ ​boundaries​ ​of

native​ ​insiders​ ​and​ ​stranger​ ​outsiders​ ​along​ ​national​ ​lines.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​this​ ​image​ ​of​ ​an​ ​homogenous

English,​ ​and​ ​later​ ​British,​ ​body​ ​which​ ​has​ ​become​ ​dominant​ ​in​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​historiography.​ ​A

typical​ ​expression​ ​of​ ​this​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​Trudy​ ​Eden’s​ ​work​ ​on​ ​food​ ​and​ ​assimilation​ ​in​ ​the

experience​ ​of​ ​early​ ​colonial​ ​settlers​ ​in​ ​North​ ​America​ ​stating​ ​that​ ​‘localism’​ ​and​ ​concern​ ​of​ ​a

49
​ ​Wear,​ ​Knowledge​ ​and​ ​practice,​ ​192.
50
​ ​Elizabeth​ ​Yale,​ ​Sociable​ ​knowledge:​ ​Natural​ ​history​ ​and​ ​the​ ​nation​ ​in​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​Britain
(Pennsylvania,​ ​2016),​ ​22.
51
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​37.
52
​ ​Lesley​ ​Cormack,​ ​'Good​ ​fences​ ​make​ ​good​ ​neighbours:​ ​Geography​ ​as​ ​self-definition​ ​in​ ​early​ ​modern
England',​ ​Isis​,​ ​82​ ​(1991),​ ​645.
 11

loss​ ​of​ ​‘English​ ​identity’​ ​powerfully​ ​informed​ ​English​ ​consumption​ ​and​ ​environmental​ ​practices.53

Such​ ​questions​ ​of​ ​identity​ ​‘did​ ​not​ ​cause​ ​concern​ ​as​ ​long​ ​as’​ ​English​ ​subjects​ ​‘remained​ ​on​ ​their

island’.54

However,​ ​the​ ​defining​ ​of​ ​this​ ​idea​ ​of​ ​the​ ​local​ ​or​ ​indigenous​ ​should​ ​not​ ​naturalise​ ​ideas​ ​of​ ​the

nation-state​ ​or​ ​impose​ ​such​ ​conceptions​ ​on​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​subjects.​ ​Recalling​ ​our​ ​context-based

definition​ ​of​ ​native,​ ​such​ ​terms​ ​should​ ​not​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​as​ ​unproblematic​ ​and​ ​absolute​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​the

national​ ​or​ ​ethnic​ ​British/English​ ​nation​ ​or​ ​body.​ ​Such​ ​an​ ​approach​ ​avoids​ ​the​ ​risk​ ​of

disregarding​ ​or​ ​misinterpreting​ ​sources​ ​which​ ​do​ ​not​ ​match​ ​national​ ​models​ ​of​ ​native​ ​‘English

bodies’.​ ​To​ ​take​ ​one​ ​example​ ​from​ ​my​ ​own​ ​research,​ ​the​ ​Royal​ ​Society​ ​physician​ ​Nathaniel

Henshaw​ ​stated​ ​in​ ​1664​ ​that​ ​the​ ​best​ ​cure​ ​for​ ​any​ ​‘distemper​ ​gotten​ ​abroad’​ ​was​ ​to​ ​remove​ ​to

an​ ​individual's​ ​‘native​ ​soil’.55​ ​For​ ​Henshaw,​ ​this​ ​was​ ​because​ ​the​ ​‘aerious​ ​particles’​ ​that​ ​enter

the​ ​body​ ​from​ ​infancy​ ​became​ ​the​ ​‘principal​ ​ingredient’​ ​to​ ​making​ ​up​ ​the​ ​body.56​ ​However,​ ​this

notion​ ​of​ ​‘native​ ​soil’​ ​did​ ​not​ ​refer​ ​to​ ​an​ ​homogenous​ ​English​ ​soil​ ​but​ ​to​ ​a​ ​much​ ​more​ ​localised

conception​ ​of​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​which​ ​was​ ​limited​ ​to​ ​the​ ​‘place​ ​of​ ​his​ ​birth​ ​and​ ​first​ ​abode’.57

Such​ ​an​ ​approach​ ​requires​ ​careful​ ​investigation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​flexible​ ​nature​ ​of​ ​the​ ​key​ ​vocabulary​ ​of

native​ ​and​ ​country.​ ​Following​ ​this​ ​line​ ​of​ ​inquiry.​ ​the​ ​late​ ​David​ ​Hey’s​ ​essay​ ​‘the​ ​countries​ ​of

England’​ ​takes​ ​its​ ​understanding​ ​of​ ​England​ ​from​ ​‘one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​definitions​ ​of​ ​country​ ​in​ ​the​ O
​ xford

English​ ​Dictionary​’​ ​referring​ ​to​ ​a​ ​‘tract​ ​or​ ​district​ ​having​ ​more​ ​or​ ​less​ ​definite​ ​limits​ ​in​ ​relation​ ​to

53
​ ​Eden,​ ​'Food,​ ​assimilation​ ​and​ ​the​ ​body​ ​in​ ​early​ ​Virginia',​ ​33.
54
​ ​Ibid.
55
​ ​Nathaniel​ ​Henshaw,​ ​Aero-chalinos,​ ​or,​ ​A​ ​register​ ​for​ ​the​ ​air​ ​for​ ​the​ ​better​ ​preservation​ ​of​ ​health​ ​and
cure​ ​of​ ​diseases​ ​(London,​ ​1664),​ ​75.
56
​ ​Ibid.
57
​ ​Ibid.
 12

human​ ​occupation’.58​ ​In​ ​Hey’s​ ​vision​ ​England​ ​is​ ​re-conceptualised​ ​as​ ​provincial,​ ​being​ ​made​ ​up

of​ ​small​ ​‘neighbourhoods​ ​that​ ​people​ ​used​ ​to​ ​refer​ ​to​ ​as​ ​their​ ​country’.59​ ​This​ ​definition​ ​is

common​ ​to​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​sources.​ ​Daniel​ ​Defoe​ ​stated​ ​of​ ​the​ ​city​ ​of​ ​Lincoln​ ​in​ ​the​ ​early

eighteenth​ ​century​ ​as​ ​being​ ​in​ ​a​ ​‘most​ ​rich,​ ​pleasant​ ​and​ ​agreeable​ ​country’.60​ ​This​ ​need​ ​to

historicise​ ​pre-industrial​ ​society​ ​through​ ​a​ ​geography​ ​consisting​ ​of​ ​the​ ​far​ ​more​ ​‘limited​ ​mental

horizons’​ ​of​ ​subjects​ ​reflects​ ​broader​ ​movements​ ​amongst​ ​local​ ​historians.61​ ​It​ ​is​ ​in​ ​this​ ​context

that​ ​Charles​ ​Phythian-Adams​ ​calls​ ​for​ ​the​ ​need​ ​to​ ​study​ ​the​ ​‘peoples​ ​of​ ​England’​ ​in​ ​culturally

distinct,​ ​‘ethnic​ ​terms’.62​ ​For​ ​Adams,​ ​this​ ​is​ ​an​ ​alternative​ ​to​ ​local​ ​history​ ​as​ ​‘compartmentalised

versions​ ​of​ ​English​ ​national​ ​history’​ ​which​ ​he​ ​deems​ ​to​ ​have​ ​become​ ​a​ ​means​ ​of​ ​‘sophisticating

our​ ​knowledge​ ​of​ ​particular​ ​national​ ​processes​ ​at​ ​still​ ​acceptable​ ​levels​ ​of​ ​historical

generalisation’.63​ ​Here,​ ​that​ ​which​ ​is​ ​‘regionally​ ​or​ ​locally​ ​idiosyncratic’​ ​has​ ​tended​ ​to​ ​be

‘suppressed’.64​ ​Such​ ​an​ ​approach​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​to​ ​mirror​ ​the​ ​works​ ​of​ ​micro-historians​ ​within

continental​ ​historiography.​ ​As​ ​Matti​ ​Peltonen​ ​argues​ ​micro-history​ ​does​ ​not​ ​oppose​ ​models​ ​of

social​ ​scientific​ ​research​ ​but​ ​attempts​ ​to​ ​analyse​ ​the​ ​‘deviations’​ ​from​ ​their​ ​models.65​ ​In​ ​this

context,​ ​significant​ ​or​ ​exceptional​ ​details​ ​take​ ​on​ ​their​ ​importance​ ​in​ ​their​ ​comparison​ ​to

‘hegemonic’​ ​models​ ​of​ ​social​ ​life.66​ ​As​ ​Giovanni​ ​Levi​ ​explains​ ​‘microscopic​ ​observation’,​ ​of​ ​a

58
​ ​David​ ​Hey,​ ​The​ ​grass​ ​roots​ ​of​ ​English​ ​history:​ ​Local​ ​societies​ ​in​ ​England​ ​before​ ​the​ ​industrial​ ​revolution
(London,​ ​2016),​ ​20.
59
​ ​Ibid.
60
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​24.
61
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​20.
62
​ ​Charles​ ​Phythian-Adams,​ ​'Local​ ​history​ ​and​ ​national​ ​history:​ ​The​ ​quest​ ​for​ ​the​ ​peoples​ ​of​ ​England',
Rural​ ​History​,​ ​2​ ​(1991),​ ​4.
63
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​3.
64
​ ​Ibid.
65
​ ​Matti​ ​Peltonen,​ ​'Clues,​ ​margins​ ​and​ ​monads:​ ​The​ ​micro-macro​ ​link​ ​in​ ​historical​ ​research',​ ​History​ ​and
Theory​,​ ​40​ ​(2001),​ ​354.
66
​ ​Ibid.
 13

community​ ​or​ ​a​ ​concept,​ ​allows​ ​the​ ​ability​ ​to​ ​bring​ ​new​ ​meanings​ ​to​ ​‘phenomena​ ​previously

considered​ ​to​ ​be​ ​sufficiently​ ​described’​ ​by​ ​altering​ ​the​ ​scale​ ​of​ ​observation.67

This​ ​has​ ​important​ ​consequences​ ​for​ ​environmental​ ​history​ ​and​ ​the​ ​idea​ ​of​ ​the​ ​environmental

self.​ ​Perspectives​ ​taking​ ​terms​ ​such​ ​as​ ​native​ ​and​ ​country​ ​as​ ​unproblematic​ ​expressions​ ​of

nationhood​ ​risks​ ​working​ ​from​ ​a​ ​geographic​ ​scope​ ​and​ ​climatological​ ​lens​ ​which​ ​is​ ​then

reproduced​ ​in​ ​the​ ​historiography.​ ​This​ ​disparity​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​comparing​ ​Henshaw’s​ ​localised

vision​ ​of​ ​the​ ​body's​ ​need​ ​for​ ​‘native​ ​air’​ ​compared​ ​to​ ​Eden’s​ ​claim​ ​that​ ​English​ ​localist​ ​ideas

about​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​only​ ​concerned​ ​identity​ ​when​ ​within​ ​the​ ​colonial​ ​context.​ ​This​ ​is​ ​not​ ​to

suggest​ ​that​ ​any​ ​one​ ​lens​ ​or​ ​scope,​ ​either​ ​global,​ ​national​ ​or​ ​local,​ ​will​ ​produce​ ​a​ ​‘correct’​ ​vision

of​ ​the​ ​environmental​ ​self​ ​and​ ​environmental​ ​understandings​ ​for​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​subjects.​ ​Instead

it​ ​calls​ ​for​ ​the​ ​need​ ​to​ ​investigate​ ​how​ ​ideas​ ​and​ ​methods​ ​concerning​ ​the​ ​environment,​ ​the​ ​body

and​ ​its​ ​key​ ​terminology,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​native,​ ​could​ ​co-exist,​ ​differ​ ​and​ ​change​ ​depending​ ​on​ ​the

global,​ ​national​ ​or​ ​local​ ​context​ ​in​ ​which​ ​it​ ​was​ ​used​ ​and​ ​explored.

An​ ​example​ ​of​ ​this​ ​approach​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​Steven​ ​Shapin’s​ ​work​ ​on​ ​food,​ ​the​ ​body​ ​and​ ​the

environment​ ​in​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​thought.​ ​Shapin​ ​repeats​ ​ideas​ ​familiar​ ​to​ ​environmental​ ​historians

of​ ​the​ ​body​ ​in​ ​a​ ​colonial​ ​context​ ​in​ ​stating​ ​that​ ​the​ ​‘colonial​ ​enterprise’​ ​existed​ ​within​ ​a​ ​worldview

that​ ​saw​ ​‘native​ ​foods’​ ​as​ ​responsible​ ​for​ ​‘native​ ​humours​ ​and​ ​temperaments’​ ​and,​ ​therefore,

crucial​ ​to​ ​maintain​ ​the​ ​difference​ ​between​ ​‘colonists​ ​and​ ​colonised’.68​ ​Here,​ ​Shapin​ ​sees​ ​‘beef’

as​ ​defining​ ​‘Englishness’​ ​citing​ ​a​ ​late​ ​sixteenth​ ​century​ ​diplomat​ ​remembering​ ​‘‘a​ ​speech​ ​of​ ​Sir

Roger​ ​Williams​ ​to​ ​an​ ​idle​ ​Spaniard,​ ​boasting​ ​of​ ​his​ ​country​ ​citrons,​ ​orenges,​ ​olives,​ ​and​ ​such

67
​ ​Giovanni​ ​Levi,​ ​'On​ ​microhistory'​ ​in​ ​Peter​ ​Burke​ ​(ed.),​ ​New​ ​perspectives​ ​on​ ​historical​ ​writing
(Cambridge,​ ​1991),​ ​101.
68
​ ​Shapin,​ ​"'You​ ​are​ ​what​ ​you​ ​eat’,​ ​384.
 14

like:​ ​Why​ ​(saith​ ​he)​ ​in​ ​England​ ​wee​ ​have​ ​good​ ​surloines​ ​of​ ​beefe,​ ​and​ ​daintie​ ​capons​ ​to​ ​eat​ ​with

your​ ​sauce,​ ​with​ ​all​ ​meat​ ​worthy​ ​the​ ​name​ ​of​ ​sustenance;​ ​but​ ​you​ ​have​ ​sauce​ ​and​ ​no

sustenance’.69​ ​Beef​ ​did​ ​not​ ​just​ ​agree​ ​‘with​ ​English​ ​natures’​ ​but​ ​‘helped​ ​to​ ​make​ ​English

natures’.​ ​In​ ​this​ ​context,​ ​as​ ​the​ ​body​ ​was​ ​influenced​ ​by​ ​its​ ​transactions​ ​with​ ​its​ ​immediate

environment​ ​routine​ ​eating​ ​of​ ​English​ ​beef​ ​‘transmitted​ ​into​ ​English​ ​human​ ​natures​ ​the​ ​natures

of​ ​the​ ​beasts​ ​themselves’​ ​and​ ​their​ ​environment.70​ ​However,​ ​these​ ​processes​ ​of​ ​the​ ​role​ ​of

custom​ ​and​ ​environment​ ​are​ ​also​ ​shown​ ​reflected​ ​at​ ​the​ ​local​ ​level.​ ​Shapin​ ​cites​ ​the​ ​works​ ​of

Robert​ ​Burton​ ​discussing​ ​cider​ ​and​ ​perry​ ​which​ ​were​ ​common​ ​to​ ​Worcestershire​ ​and

Gloucestershire​ ​but​ ​were​ ​seen​ ​as​ ​'cold​ ​and​ ​windy'​ ​drinks​ ​that​ ​were​ ​not​ ​appropriate​ ​for​ ​English

bodies.71​ ​However,​ ​Burton​ ​states​ ​that​ ​'in​ ​some​ ​shires​ ​of​ ​England'​ ​it​ ​was​ ​'their​ ​common​ ​drink,

and​ ​they​ ​are​ ​no​ ​what​ ​offended​ ​with​ ​it'.72​ ​As​ ​such,​ ​environmental​ ​processes​ ​involved​ ​in​ ​the

understandings​ ​of​ ​the​ ​construction​ ​of​ ​the​ ​‘link​ ​between​ ​constitution​ ​and​ ​aliment’​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​to

apply​ ​differently​ ​when​ ​considered​ ​in​ ​national​ ​or​ ​local​ ​terms​ ​upon​ ​the​ ​same​ ​bodies​ ​being

described.73

This​ ​literature​ ​review​ ​has​ ​explored​ ​the​ ​flexible​ ​meanings​ ​of​ ​native​ ​and​ ​its​ ​corresponding

vocabulary,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​country​ ​and​ ​indigenous,​ ​within​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​mentalities​ ​and​ ​contemporary

thought.​ ​In​ ​lieu​ ​of​ ​a​ ​conclusion,​ ​I​ ​will​ ​outline​ ​the​ ​potentials​ ​of​ ​native​ ​as​ ​a​ ​keyword​ ​when​ ​centred

as​ ​a​ ​way​ ​of​ ​understanding​ ​the​ ​body’s​ ​relationship​ ​with​ ​the​ ​external​ ​environment​ ​within​ ​early

69
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​385.
70
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​386.
71
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​383.
72
​ ​Ibid.
73
​ ​Ibid.,​ ​382.
 15

modern​ ​scholarship.​ ​This​ ​will​ ​also​ ​serve​ ​as​ ​a​ ​roadmap​ ​of​ ​my​ ​own​ ​understandings​ ​and​ ​way​ ​of

seeing​ ​the​ ​term​ ​at​ ​this​ ​stage​ ​of​ ​my​ ​research.

Native,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​native​ ​body,​ ​are​ ​best​ ​seen​ ​as​ ​a​ ​system​ ​of​ ​conceptual​ ​thought​ ​with​ ​a​ ​clearly

defined​ ​meaning​ ​for​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​writers.​ ​That​ ​which​ ​is​ ​native,​ ​either​ ​referring​ ​to​ ​a​ ​place​ ​or

something​ ​which​ ​is​ ​consumed​ ​in​ ​reference​ ​to​ ​a​ ​place,​ ​(it’s​ ​air,​ ​water,​ ​soil,​ ​climate)​ ​represented

stability.​ ​Something​ ​with​ ​which​ ​bodies​ ​were​ ​accustomed​ ​to​ ​and​ ​therefore​ ​maintaining​ ​mind​ ​and

body​ ​in​ ​balance​ ​with​ ​the​ ​world​ ​in​ ​which​ ​it​ ​was,​ ​and​ ​continued​ ​to​ ​be,​ ​shaped.​ ​One​ ​way​ ​this​ ​may

be​ ​understood​ ​is​ ​through​ ​considering​ ​native​ ​as​ ​it​ ​was​ ​defined​ ​across​ ​early​ ​modernity.

Dictionaries​ ​across​ ​our​ ​period​ ​saw​ ​native​ ​as​ ​a​ ​synonym​ ​for​ ​the​ ​natural,​ ​Samuel​ ​Johnson​ ​noted

that​ ​to​ ​be​ ​‘native’​ ​was​ ​to​ ​be​ ​in​ ​a​ ​state​ ​of​ ​being​ ​‘produced​ ​by​ ​nature’.74​ ​This​ ​notion​ ​of​ ​nature

should​ ​not​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​as​ ​fixed​ ​but​ ​fluid​ ​and​ ​malleable,​ ​existing​ ​in​ ​common​ ​with​ ​contemporary​ ​uses

of​ ​native​ ​as​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​the​ ​term​ ​‘digital​ ​native’.​ ​Here,​ ​the​ ​body​ ​is​ ​conceptualised​ ​as​ ​being

continually​ ​shaped​ ​and​ ​reshaped​ ​through​ ​the​ ​process​ ​of​ ​custom.​ ​As​ ​Shapin​ ​has​ ​argued,

‘habitual​ ​transactions​ ​with​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​could​ ​remake​ ​your​ ​natural​ ​constitution’.75​ ​Such​ ​ideas

of​ ​the​ ​power​ ​of​ ​custom​ ​as​ ​second​ ​nature,​ ​inherited​ ​from​ ​Aristotelian​ ​philosophy,​ ​was​ ​common

currency​ ​in​ ​medical,​ ​natural​ ​historical​ ​and​ ​topographical​ ​texts​ ​of​ ​the​ ​period.​ ​To​ ​draw​ ​on​ ​findings

of​ ​my​ ​own​ ​research,​ ​as​ ​self-help​ ​writer​ ​Thomas​ ​Tryon​ ​wrote​ ​in​ ​1701​ ​there​ ​could​ ​be​ ​no​ ​objective

‘good​ ​air’​ ​as​ ​the​ ​body,​ ​through​ ​custom,​ ​existed​ ​in​ ​‘continual​ ​communication’​ ​with​ ​its​ ​immediate

environment​ ​shaping​ ​and​ ​reshaping​ ​the​ ​body.76​ ​This​ ​made​ ​even​ ​the​ ​‘grossest​ ​and​ ​most​ ​impure

74
​ ​Samuel​ ​Johnson,​ ​A​ ​dictionary​ ​of​ ​the​ ​English​ ​language​ ​(London,​ ​1755),​ ​331.
75
​ ​Shapin,​ ​"'You​ ​are​ ​what​ ​you​ ​eat’,​ ​386.
76
​ ​Thomas​ ​Tryon,​ ​The​ ​merchant,​ ​citizen​ ​and​ ​country-man's​ ​instructor:​ ​or,​ ​a​ ​necessary​ ​companion​ ​for​ ​all
people​ ​(London,​ ​1701),​ ​56.
 16

air’​ ​tolerable​ ​and​ ​agreeable​ ​as​ ​the​ ​‘best​ ​air’​ ​to​ ​bodies​ ​that​ ​were​ ​native,​ ​those​ ​that​ ​‘live’​ ​and

‘were​ ​born’​ ​within​ ​‘citties’.77

Centering​ ​the​ ​conceptual​ ​importance​ ​of​ ​native​ ​within​ ​environmental​ ​histories​ ​of​ ​the​ ​early

modern​ ​body​ ​has​ ​the​ ​ability​ ​to​ ​challenge​ ​established​ ​binaries​ ​within​ ​the​ ​existing​ ​historiography

of​ ​Britain​ ​by​ ​placing​ ​the​ ​body​ ​within​ ​its​ ​native​ ​and/or​ ​accustomed​ ​context.​ ​This​ ​may​ ​include

reconsidering​ ​ideas​ ​seen​ ​as​ ​sufficiently​ ​described​ ​such​ ​as​ ​the​ ​consensus​ ​of​ ​early​ ​modern

medical​ ​writers​ ​and​ ​topographers​ ​towards​ ​‘country​ ​air’​ ​and​ ​an​ ​aversion​ ​to​ ​‘city​ ​air’​ ​as,​ ​inherently,

‘bad’.78​ ​These​ ​ideas​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​reflected​ ​in​ ​a​ ​broader​ ​sense​ ​in​ ​the​ ​work​ ​of​ ​Mary​ ​Dobson​ ​who

argues​ ​of​ ​‘sharp​ ​divisions’​ ​between​ ​‘good​ ​airs’​ ​and​ ​‘bad​ ​airs’​ ​recorded​ ​by​ ​‘physicians,

topographers​ ​and​ ​others’​ ​investigations​ ​of​ ​English​ ​‘places​ ​and​ ​habitats’​ ​during​ ​the​ ​late

seventeenth​ ​and​ ​eighteenth​ ​century.79​ ​Such​ ​arguments​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​to​ ​be​ ​working​ ​from​ ​an

objective,​ ​homogenous​ ​understandings​ ​of​ ​an​ ​‘English’​ ​body.​ ​In​ ​contrast,​ ​a​ ​native-centred

paradigm​ ​understands​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​subjects​ ​bodies​ ​as​ ​being​ ​conceived​ ​subjectively​ ​in​ ​relation

to​ ​their​ ​exposure,​ ​and​ ​transactions,​ ​with​ ​certain​ ​environments.​ ​Reconceptualising

understandings​ ​of​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​and​ ​body,​ ​with​ ​native​ ​as​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​key​ ​vocabulary, allows

early​ ​modern​ ​ideas​ ​and​ ​concepts​ ​to​ ​be​ ​understood​ ​on​ ​their​ ​own​ ​terms.​ ​Such​ ​a​ ​view​ ​avoids,​ ​as

Mary​ ​Douglas​ ​has​ ​stated​ ​in​ ​relation​ ​to​ ​ritual​ ​cleanliness,​ ​a​ ​‘straightforward’​ ​contrast​ ​between

seeing​ ​our​ ​own​ ​practices​ ​and​ ​conception​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​influence​ ​on​ ​the​ ​body​ ​as​ ​being

inherently​ ​rational​ ​and​ ​‘scientific’​ ​compared​ ​to​ ​the​ ​‘symbolic’​ ​concepts​ ​used​ ​by​ ​pre-modern

societies.80

77
​ ​Ibid.
78
​ ​Wear,​ ​'Making​ ​sense​ ​of​ ​health​ ​and​ ​the​ ​environment’,​ ​135.
79
​ ​Mary​ ​Dobson,​ ​Contours​ ​of​ ​death​ ​and​ ​disease​ ​in​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​England​ ​(Cambridge,​ ​1997),​ ​21,​ ​26.
80
​ ​Mary​ ​Douglas,​ ​Purity​ ​and​ ​danger:​ ​An​ ​analysis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​concepts​ ​of​ ​pollution​ ​and​ ​taboo​ ​(New​ ​York,​ ​1966),
35.
 17

Works​ ​Cited-

Anon,​ ​A​ ​new​ ​description​ ​of​ ​Berkshire,​ ​Buckinghamshire,​ ​Cambridgshire,​ ​Cheshire,​ ​Cornwal,
Cumberland,​ ​The​ ​Isle​ ​of​ ​Man,​ ​Derbyshire,​ ​Devonshire​ ​(London,​ ​1749).
Anthony​ ​P.​ ​Cohen,​ ​The​ ​symbolic​ ​construction​ ​of​ ​community​ ​(London,​ ​1985),​ ​12.
Carey,​ ​Daniel,​ ​ ​'Compiling​ ​nature's​ ​history:​ ​Travellers​ ​and​ ​travel​ ​narratives​ ​in​ ​the​ ​early​ ​royal
society,​ ​Annals​ ​of​ ​Science,​ ​54​ ​(1997),​ ​269-292.
Cohen,​ ​Anthony​ ​P.,​ ​The​ ​symbolic​ ​construction​ ​of​ ​community​ ​(London,​ ​1985).
Cooper,​ ​Alix,​​ ​Inventing​ ​the​ ​indigenous:​ ​Local​ ​knowledge​ ​and​ ​natural​ ​history​ ​in​ ​early​ ​modern
Europe​ ​(Cambridge,​ ​2007).
Cormack,​ ​Lesley,​ ​'Good​ ​fences​ ​make​ ​good​ ​neighbours:​ ​Geography​ ​as​ ​self-definition​ ​in​ ​early
modern​ ​England',​ ​Isis​,​ ​82​ ​(1991),​ ​639-661.
Culpepper,​ ​Nicolas,​ ​ ​School​ ​of​ ​physick​ ​(London,​ ​1659).
DiBattista,​ ​Maria,​ ​'Native​ ​cosmopolitans'​ ​in​ ​Cesar​ ​Dominguez​ ​and​ ​Theo​ ​D'haen​ ​(eds.),
Cosmopolitanism​ ​and​ ​the​ ​postnational:​ ​Literature​ ​and​ ​the​ ​new​ ​Europe​ ​(Boston,​ ​2015),​ ​75-93.
Dobson,​ ​Mary,​ ​Contours​ ​of​ ​death​ ​and​ ​disease​ ​in​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​England​ ​(Cambridge,​ ​1997).
Douglas,​ ​Mary,​ ​Purity​ ​and​ ​danger:​ ​An​ ​analysis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​concepts​ ​of​ ​pollution​ ​and​ ​taboo​ ​(New
York,​ ​1966).
Early​ ​Science​ ​in​ ​Oxford:​ ​Dr.​ ​Plot​ ​and​ ​the​ ​correspondence​ ​of​ ​the​ ​philosophical​ ​society​ ​of​ ​Oxford,​
ed.​ ​R.​ ​T.​ ​Gunter​ ​(Oxford,​ ​xii,​ ​1920),​ ​343
 18

Eden,​ ​Trudy,​ ​ ​'Food,​ ​assimilation​ ​and​ ​the​ ​malleability​ ​of​ ​the​ ​human​ ​body​ ​in​ ​early​ ​Virginia'​ ​in
Janet​ ​Lindman​ ​and​ ​Michele​ ​Tartar​ ​(eds.),​ ​A​ ​centre​ ​of​ ​wonders:​ ​The​ ​body​ ​in​ ​early​ ​America​ ​(New
York,​ ​2001).
Giovanni​ ​Levi,​ ​'On​ ​microhistory'​ ​in​ ​Peter​ ​Burke​ ​(ed.),​ ​New​ ​perspectives​ ​on​ ​historical​ ​writing
(Cambridge,​ ​1991),​ ​93-113.
Henshaw,​ ​Nathaniel,​ ​Aero-chalinos,​ ​or,​ ​A​ ​register​ ​for​ ​the​ ​air​ ​for​ ​the​ ​better​ ​preservation​ ​of​ ​health
and​ ​cure​ ​of​ ​diseases​ ​(London,​ ​1664).
Hey,​ ​David,​ ​The​ ​grass​ ​roots​ ​of​ ​English​ ​history:​ ​Local​ ​societies​ ​in​ ​England​ ​before​ ​the​ ​industrial
revolution​ ​(London,​ ​2016).
Ingold,​ ​Tim,​ ​The​ ​perception​ ​of​ ​the​ ​environment:​ ​Essays​ ​on​ ​livelihood,​ ​dwelling​ ​and​ ​skill
(London,​ ​2000).
Jankovic,​ ​Vladimir,​ ​Reading​ ​the​ ​skies:​ ​A​ ​cultural​ ​history​ ​of​ ​English​ ​weather,​ ​1650-1820
(Chicago,​ ​2000).
Johnson,​ ​Samuel,​ ​A​ ​dictionary​ ​of​ ​the​ ​English​ ​language​ ​(London,​ ​1755).
Jones,​ ​Norman​ ​and​ ​Woolf,​ ​Daniel,‘Introduction’​ ​in​ ​Norman​ ​Jones​ ​and​ ​Daniel​ ​Woolf​ ​(eds.),​ L ​ ocal
identities​ ​in​ ​late​ ​medieval​ ​and​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​England​ ​(New​ ​York,​ ​2007),​ ​1-19.
Kuper,​ ​Adam,​ ​'The​ ​return​ ​of​ ​the​ ​native',​ ​Current​ ​Anthropology​,​ ​44​ ​(2003),​ ​389-402.
McRae,​ ​Andrew,​ ​'The​ ​peripatetic​ ​muse:​ ​Internal​ ​travel​ ​and​ ​the​ ​cultural​ ​production​ ​of​ ​space​ ​in
pre-revolutionary​ ​England'​ ​in​ ​Gerald​ ​MacLean,​ ​Donna​ ​Landry,​ ​Joseph​ ​P.​ ​Ward,​ T ​ he​ ​country
and​ ​city​ ​revisited:​ ​England​ ​and​ ​the​ ​politics​ ​of​ ​culture,​ ​1550-1850​ ​(Cambridge,​ ​1999),​ ​41-58.
Oxford​ ​English​ ​Dictionary​ ​Online​ ​(www.oed.com)
Peltonen,​ ​Matti,​ ​'Clues,​ ​margins​ ​and​ ​monads:​ ​The​ ​micro-macro​ ​link​ ​in​ ​historical​ ​research',
History​ ​and​ ​Theory​,​ ​40​ ​(2001),​ ​347-359.
Phythian-Adams,Charles,​ ​'Local​ ​history​ ​and​ ​national​ ​history:​ ​The​ ​quest​ ​for​ ​the​ ​peoples​ ​of
England',​ ​Rural​ ​History​,​ ​2​ ​(1991),​ ​1-23.
Rollison,​ ​David,​ ​'Exploding​ ​England:​ ​The​ ​dialectics​ ​of​ ​mobility​ ​and​ ​settlement​ ​in​ ​early​ ​modern
England’,​ ​Social​ ​History​,​ ​24​ ​(1999),​ ​1-16.
Rollison,​ ​David,​ ​The​ ​local​ ​origins​ ​of​ ​modern​ ​society:​ ​Gloucestershire​ ​1500-1800​ ​(London,
1992).
Shapin,​ ​Steven,​ ​"'You​ ​are​ ​what​ ​you​ ​eat’:​ ​Historical​ ​changes​ ​in​ ​ideas​ ​about​ ​food​ ​and​ ​identity",
Historical​ ​Research​,​ ​87​ ​(2014),​ ​376-392.
Tryon,​ ​Thomas,​ ​The​ ​merchant,​ ​citizen​ ​and​ ​country-man's​ ​instructor:​ ​or,​ ​a​ ​necessary​ ​companion
for​ ​all​ ​people​ ​(London,​ ​1701).
​ ​Wear,​ ​Andrew,​ ​'Making​ ​sense​ ​of​ ​health​ ​and​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​in​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​England'​ ​in
Andrew​ ​Wear​ ​(ed.),​ ​Medicine​ ​in​ ​society:​ ​Historical​ ​essays​ ​(Cambridge,​ ​1992),​ ​119-149.
Wear,​ ​Andrew,​ ​'The​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​debate​ ​about​ ​foreign​ ​drugs:​ ​localism​ ​versus​ ​universalism​ ​in
medicine',​ ​Lancet​,​ ​354​ ​(1999),​ ​149-51.
Wear,​ ​Andrew,​ ​Knowledge​ ​and​ ​practice​ ​in​ ​English​ ​medicine,​ ​1550-1680​ ​(Cambridge,​ ​2000).
Wrightson,​ ​Keith,​ ​English​ ​Society,​ ​1580-1680​ ​(London,​ ​2013).
Yale,​ ​Elizabeth,​ ​Sociable​ ​knowledge:​ ​Natural​ ​history​ ​and​ ​the​ ​nation​ ​in​ ​early​ ​modern​ ​Britain
(Pennsylvania,​ ​2016).
19