[In the following excerpt, Berkhofer discusses terminology the French and English used to categorize Native Americans—most notably the English tendency to label natives as “savages”—and how such categorization reflected European conceptions of Christianity and civilization.]

To what extent … conceptions bequeathed by the Spanish to other Europeans became the preconceptions of the French and English in their subsequent contact with Native Americans is difficult to tell. Even without such advance information, the French and the English would have approached the New World's inhabitants with the same basic values and orientations as had the Spanish. Thus, whether they were or were not influenced by Spanish reports, French and English explorers saw Native Americans in light of the Christianity and civilization they knew and valued and therefore made the same comparisons as had the Spanish adventurers and settlers earlier. That such judgments had to be the outcome of contact between the French and English with the Indians was further assured by the type of native societies and cultures the representatives of those two nations encountered.¹ No Aztec or Inca civilizations awaited discovery and exploitation in the areas claimed by the two countries. Rather than peoples with complex social and governmental organizations, the explorers of those two nations met “wilder” Indians, and so perhaps the denomination of these peoples as sauvage in French and savage in English seemed more appropriate to early explorers from those two countries. Certainly this impression led to Jacques Cartier's conclusion upon the natives of the Gaspé Basin he encountered in 1534: “These men may very well and truely be called wilde, because there is no poorer people in the world.”²

Sixteenth-century Frenchmen, Italians, and Englishmen generally employed a variant of the Latin silvaticus, meaning a forest inhabitant or man of the woods, for the Indian as the earlier spellings of saulvage, salvaticho, and salvage show so well in each of the respective languages. English usage switched from savage to Indian as the general term for Native Americans in the seventeenth century, but the French continued to use sauvage as the preferred word into the nineteenth century.³ The original image behind this terminology probably derives from the ancient one associated with the “wild man,” or wilder Mann in Germany. According to medieval legend and art, the wild man was a hairy, naked, club-wielding child of nature who existed halfway between humanity and animality. Lacking civilized knowledge or will, he lived a life of bestial self-fulfillment, directed by instinct, and ignorant of God and morality. Isolated from other humans in woods, caves, and clefts, he hunted animals or gathered plants for his food. He was strong of physique, lustful of women, and degraded of origin. As the chief historian of the image suggests:

Wildness meant more in the Middle Ages than the shrunken significance of the term would indicate today. The word implied everything that eluded Christian norms and the established framework of Christian society, referring to what was uncanny, unruly, raw, unpredictable, foreign, uncultured, and uncultivated. It included the unfamiliar as well as the unintelligible. Just as the wilderness is the background against which medieval society is delineated, so wildness in the widest sense is the background of God's lucid order of creation. Man in his unreconstructed state, faraway nations, and savage creatures at home thus came to share the same essential quality.⁴

French and English explorers, like Columbus, were therefore both surprised and not surprised by the lifestyles they encountered when compared to what they expected of “wild” strangers. For the French, the dictionary definition of sauvage came to be that of André Thévet's description of the Tupinamba: “a marvelously strange wild and brutish people, without faith, without law, without religion and without civility.”⁵ In fact, these are almost exactly the words used in the great Encyclopédie of the eighteenth century to describe the sauvage: “peuples barbares qui vivent sans loix, sans police, sans religion, & qui n'ont point d'habitation fixe.”⁶ According to the author of this definition, a large part of America was still peopled with savages who were ferocious and ate human flesh but who lived in natural liberty because they lacked civilized institutions.

English usage mixed both savage and Indian in the travel accounts and letters of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Information about the Western Hemisphere and its inhabitants first became available in any quantity in English through the translations of Richard Eden in the 1550s. In these translated texts and the marginal notations upon them, Eden uniformly employed Indians for Indios.⁷ The more famous Richard Hakluyt the Younger in his great The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and Discoveries of the English Nation, published in 1598-1600, also uses Indians for Indios in the Spanish accounts he includes but “wild men” for the sauvaiges of Jacques Cartier's journals. Moreover, in his marginal notations he invariably writes savages regardless of the original word in the text.⁸ He shares this preference for savage with many of the early English adventurers in their denomination of the natives of Roanoke, Virginia, New England, and northward.⁹ Many other explorers, however, did select more neutral terms, like inhabitant, to describe the Native Americans they met in the sixteenth century,¹⁰ but no English explorer's account used Indians until the seventeenth century.

The officers of the Virginia Company in London wrote of natives in their instructions to governors of that colony, but the recipients of those letters and the Englishmen resident in Virginia talked most frequently of Indians and less often of infidels and savages in reply, even though they were well aware of the various tribes among whom they lived, as the famed Captain John Smith's writings show.¹¹ The same mingling of general terms for Native Americans and specific names and understanding of individual tribes can be found in the writings of the Pilgrims and Puritans during the first decades of their plantations in New England.¹²

What Englishmen called Native Americans and how they understood them after a few decades of settlement was summarized by Roger Williams in a brief analysis of nomenclature in A Key Into the Language of America; Or, An Help to the Language of the Natives in That Part of America Called New-England (1643). Under the heading “By what names are they distinguished,” he divided terminology into two sorts:

First, those of the English giving: as Natives, Salvages, Indians, Wild-men, (so the Dutch call them Wilden) Abergeny men, Pagans, Barbarians, Heathen.

Secondly, their Names, which they give themselves.

I cannot observe that they ever had (before the comming of the English, French or Dutch amongst them) any Names to difference themselves from strangers, for they knew none. …

They have often asked mee, why we call them Indians[,] Natives, &c. And understanding the reason, they will call themselves Indians, in opposition to English, &c.¹³

Although few Englishmen possessed the linguistic skill or the toleration of the founder of Rhode Island, his summary of European terms seems accurate in light of the publications and manuscripts of the time. For Englishmen as for other Europeans, the use of general terms for Native Americans coexisted with knowledge of specific differences among the peoples so denominated. Williams's list also suggests that Native Americans themselves needed new general terms to designate the peoples invading their lands and to differentiate themselves from those strangers just as much as the Europeans did in the contact process.

Less used than Indian and savage but still prevalent among early English synonyms for Native Americans, as Williams's little catalog indicates, were the terms infidel, heathen, and barbarian. Both infidel and heathen were based upon religious criteria and derive from ancient Jewish and early Christian distinctions between themselves and other peoples. In fact, at the time of the initial English colonization of the New World, the word nation still retained its older meaning of a people or race usually heathen as well as the more modern meaning of a country or kingdom. In brief, the term designated a foreign people of another religion or culture as well as the territory they occupied.¹⁴ Given the ambiguity of the word at the time and the nationalistic outlook emerging then, small surprise that Englishmen applied nation to what later was called a tribe. The latter term did not replace the former until well into the nineteenth century. The older usage is perhaps best known today in the references to the League of the Iroquois as the Five Nations, but then the term was used widely for individual tribes as well as for other confederacies in the colonial and early national period of the United States. Barbarian contrasted, of course, with one who was civilized and stemmed from the ancient Greeks' prejudice against peoples whose languages sounded a babble to them. By the sixteenth century, barbarian and heathen had come to be used almost interchangeably in English usage, for civility and Christianity were presumed necessarily and therefore inextricably associated.¹⁵

Just as all these terms indicate that the French and the English like the Spaniards compared their own societies and cultures with those of the Native Americans, so they too, like their rivals to the south, created basically favorable and unfavorable images of the Indian. What the French concluded from these images of the good and bad sauvage is told in pages 12-22.¹⁶ How the English moved from supposedly factual descriptions of the Native Americans to the symbolism of the Indian can be traced briefly from Richard Hakluyt to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.¹⁷

The English discoveries of the last quarter of the sixteenth century could be followed easily by that country's readers from the accounts reprinted or published for the first time in the various compendia of Richard Hakluyt the Younger. In the folio pages of the third volume of his last and greatest collection, The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and Discoveries of the English Nation (1598-1600), appeared the usual opposing descriptions of the inhabitants of the New World. Of the English accounts he printed, perhaps no person provided a more discouraging view of the Americans than Dionyse Settle in his discussion of Innuik Eskimo eating habits. After an account reeking with his disgust for their custom of eating meat raw, he concludes: “What knowledge they have of God, or what Idoll they adore, we have no perfect intelligence, I thinke them rather Anthropophagi, or devourers of mans flesh than other wise: for that there is no flesh or fish which they find dead (smell it neverso filthily) but they eate it, as they finde it without any other dressing. A loathesome thing, either to the beholders or hearers.”¹⁸ From this same man comes the remarkable tale of the capture of an old woman during a skirmish with the Eskimos: “The old wretch, whom divers of our saylers supposed to be eyther a devill, or a witch, had her buskins plucked off, to see if she were cloven footed, and for her ugly hew and deformity we let her goe.”¹⁹

In this case, preconception seemed to have created image, and image in turn became fact. From Hakluyt, the diligent reader could also obtain a most favorable view of the Indian. Now well known through modern quotation are the phrases of Arthur Barlowe, who sailed in 1584 under the auspices of Sir Walter Raleigh to reconnoiter his patron's grant from the Queen. He sums up his first impression of the natives of Roanoke Island after his initial reception as “very handsome, and goodly people, and in their behavior as mannerly and civil, as any of Europe.” After a banquet, he again comments: “We were entertained with all love, and kindnes, and with as much bountie, after their manner, as they could possibly devise.” Although he noted that the Indian peoples maintain an extremely ferocious warfare among themselves, he depreciated any fears of hostilities from these natives because: “for a more kinde and loving people, there can not be found in the world, as farre as we have hitherto had triall.”²⁰ No wonder Barlowe concluded: “Wee found the people most gentle, loving, and faithful, void of all guile, and treason, and such as lived after the manner of the golden age.”²¹

From Raleigh's attempt to establish a colony upon the Carolina coast come some of the best “scientific” descriptions of Native Americans in the sixteenth century.²² Accompanying the expedition that founded the Roanoke colony were the artist John White, who provided detailed drawings of the flora and fauna of the area, and the mathematician Thomas Hariot, who gave an elaborate description “of the commodities there found … and of the nature and manners of the naturall inhabitants” in his A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia. Hariot assured his fellow Englishmen that the natives of the proposed colony were easily intimidated by White arms and valor, that their towns and fighting strength were small, and that they were in awe of English artifacts and skills. In short, the natives were readily available for English colonization and exploitation, to tell which was his purpose in writing the pamphlet. Published originally in 1588 and included by Hakluyt in his travel collections, it was reissued in 1590 by the Flemish engraver and publisher Theodor de Bry at the behest of Hakluyt as the first volume in his great illustrated series of Grand Voyages to America. Now Englishmen and other Europeans could see pictures of Indians as well as read the accompanying ethnography of Hariot. Under the hands of De Bry's engravers, the portraits and posture of the Carolina Indians became more classical in pose and composition than the more accurate watercolors of John White, from which the engravers worked (Plate 3). In pictures and in Latin, German, French, and English, Europeans could judge for themselves the appearance, the clothing, the government, the religion, the manner of fishing and making boats, and the burial customs of the Carolina natives. These neoclassical Indians were thought such fit illustrations of the Indian in general that the De Bry plates subsequently adorned Captain John Smith's The Generall Historie of Virginia, New-England and the Summer Isles (1624) and even appeared in slightly modified form as late as 1705 in Robert Beverly's History and Present State of Virginia. Thus the heritage of the lost colony of Roanoke and the legendary Virginia Dare proved to be of two sorts: one, the peril of colony making in the new land; and two, the classical portrait of the Indian in the colonial period.²³

By the time of the founding of Jamestown in 1607, therefore, the English, whether as promoters of colonization, founders of the Virginia Company, or as adventurers to the new colony, all thought they knew what Indians were like, how they looked and behaved, and what could be expected from them. Small wonder their expectations were fulfilled. Did these images even predetermine their actions in early encounters? Their terminology and descriptions all indicate that the English saw Indians according to the twin criteria of Christianity and civilization. The Native Americans of the Jamestown area also probably had some images of the Whites from previous contact or at least hearsay from the Roanoke colony. Perhaps in this way both sides exhibited behavior that confirmed previous stereotypes of each other.²⁴

Once again one of the first impressions was of hospitality, but as English adventurers and Indian leaders competed over land and power cautious cooperation turned to outright conflict. As one gentleman observed as early as 1607: “The [native] people used our men well untill they found they begann to plant & fortefye, Then they fell to skyrmishing & kylled 3 of our people.”²⁵ The most informative and certainly the most voluminous reports on the numerous tribes of the Jamestown area came from the pen of Captain John Smith. In his many self-advertisements he tells of how he adopted a policy of striking fear into the native population in order to coerce their respect and their help in colony building. Although predisposed to see the bad side of Indian character and custom, Smith nevertheless presented an ambiguous picture of the Indian to his readers. If, on the one hand, they appeared “inconstant in everie thing, but what feare constraineth them to keepe,” they also were “craftie, timorous, quicke of apprehension & very ingenuous.”²⁶ While Smith carefully differentiated the various tribes in contact with the English on the James, he characterized them all as Indians in his description and therefore perpetuated the general category in English minds at the same time as he presented the dual evaluation of that category.²⁷

How both images served the needs of the English may be seen in the pamphlet of Alexander Whitaker, a minister in Henrico, Virginia, who urged his fellow countrymen to support the philanthropic impulse in the colony for both base and high motives in his Goode Newes from Virginia (1613). To prove the natives needed conversion, he resorted to the image of the bad Indian:

… let the miserable condition of these naked slaves of the divell move you to compassion toward them. They acknowledge that there is a great good God, but know him not, having the eyes of their understanding as yet blinded: wherefore they serve the divell for feare, after a most base manner, sacrificing sometimes (as I have heere heard) their own Children to him. … Their priests … are no other but such as our English witches are. They live naked in bodie, as if their shame of their sinne deserved no covering: Their names are as naked as their bodie: They esteem it a virtue to lie, deceive and steale as their master the divell teacheth to them.

On the other hand, to prove them capable of conversion, Whitaker stressed the favorable aspects of Indian character and custom:

But if any of us should misdoubt that this barbarous people is uncapable of such heavenly mysteries, let such men know that they are farre mistaken in the nature of these men, for the promise of God, which is without respect to persons, made as well to unwise men after the flesh, as to the wise, &c. let us not thinke that these men are so simple as some have supposed them: for they are of bodie lustie, strong, and very nimble: They are a very understanding generation, quick of apprehension, suddaine in their dispatches, subtile in their dealings, exquisite in their inventions, and industrious in their labour.

In fact, their government appears a model for their condition:

Finally there is a civill government amongst them which they strictly observe, and shew thereby that the law of Nature dwelleth in them: for they have a rude kinde of Common-wealth, and rough government, wherein they both honor and obey Kings, Parents, and Governours, both greater and lesse, they observe the limits of their owne possessions, and incroach not upon their neighbours dwellings. Murther is a capitall crime scarce heard among them: adultery is most severely punished, and so are their other offences.²⁸

The missionary concluded such glimmerings of reason and governance encouraged the English to hope for their conversion, while their savage condition demanded it. In brief, he used both images of the Indian to substantiate his argument for the prayers and particularly the generosity of the English people in the enterprise to bring these heathen under the command of Christ.

The continued conflict over land and power as the early English settlements expanded in Virginia culminated in what the Whites called the massacre of 1622 led by Opechancanough, the successor to Powhatan. The bloody devastation of the infant colony prompted one poet to pen perhaps the darkest picture of Indian character in his demand for revenge upon the murderers of supposedly innocent women and children:

… let these [lines] excite
Your military judgments to give light
In safe securing of the residue
Or extirpation of theat Indian crewe.
          For, but consider what those Creatures are,
(I cannot call them men) no Character
of God in them: Soules drown'd in flesh and blood;
Rooted in Evill, and oppos'd in Good;
Errors of nature, of inhumane Birth,
The very dregs, garbage, and spanne of Earth;
Who ne're (I think) were mention'd with those creatures
Adam gave names to in their several natures;
But such as coming of a later Brood,
(Not sav'd in th' Arke) but since the generall Flood
Sprung up like vermine of an earthy slime,
And so have held b' intrusion to this time:
          If these (I say) be but Consider'd well
(Father'd by Sathan, and the sonnes of hell,)
What feare or pittie were it, or what sin,
(the rather since with us they thus begin)
To quite their Slaughter, leaving not a Creature
That may restore such shame of Men, and Nature.(29)

So enraged was this poet over what he considered the perfidy of the Virginia natives that he lapsed into heresy to express his anger, for in depicting the savage character of the Indians he denied God's creation of all human beings in a single act at one time.

More orthodox in theology but equally uncomplimentary in judgment and vehemence were the words of Samuel Purchas in reaction to the massacre. In his first collection of travel accounts, Purchas his Pilgrimage or Relations of the World, the successor to Hakluyt in ambition if not in influence presented a less unfavorable picture of the Indian than he did in his magnum opus, Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrimes, issued in four volumes in 1625. There in a discourse arguing for the benefits of Virginia settlement, he summarized his judgment of the natives:

On the other side considering so good a Countrey, so bad a people, having little of humanitie but shape, ignorant of Civilitie, of Arts, of Religion; more brutish than the beasts they hunt, more wild and unmanly then that unmanned wild countrey, which they range rather then inhabite; captivated also to Satans tyranny in foolish pieties, mad impieties, wicked idlenesse, busie and bloudy wickednesse.³⁰

The massacre of 1622 may have escalated English rhetoric, but the basic imagery had long been set in Virginia by White experiences previous to settlement as well as the actual contact during the early years of the colony. Subsequent English experience would only prove what they already knew about the good and bad qualities of Indian character and life. Tribes might differ and specific knowledge would increase about native individuals and groups, but the meaning of the Indian was beyond such knowledge.

The impact of the dual imagery upon the minds of educated Englishmen can be seen in their uses by that nation's two greatest philosophers of the seventeenth century. In discussing the fundamentals of government in 1651, Thomas Hobbes thought the state of nature clearly undesirable:

In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

For proof that such horrible conditions could actually exist, he pointed to evidence all his readers knew already:

It may peradventure be thought, there was never such a time, nor condition of warre as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world: but there are many places where they so live now. For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small Families, the concord whereof dependeth on naturall lust, have no government at all; and live at this day in that brutish manner, as I said before.³¹

For John Locke “in the beginning all the World was America” also, but he contradicted Hobbes in equating the state of nature with the state of war, for men could live in reason and peace without government as the Europeans knew it.³² That the two eminent English philosophers believed the Indian proved their opposing cases shows the ambivalence of the imagery as well as the implications of using a general name for all Native Americans regardless of what Whites knew of the social and cultural diversity among the inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere. In the books of Hobbes and Locke the Indian had moved from the contrasting descriptions of explorers and settlers to the ideological polemics of social philosophers.

Notes

1. Early French thought on Native Americans may be followed in Gilbert Chinard, L'exotisme américain dans la littérature française au XVI^e siècle (Paris: Hachette, 1911); Geoffrey Atkinson, Les nouveaux horizons de la renaissance française (Paris: E. Droz, 1935); Cornelius J. Jaenen, Friend and Foe: Aspects of French-Amerindian Cultural Contact in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), chap. 1, and passim. Early English imagery may be found in Robert R. Cawley, The Voyagers and Elizabethan Drama (Boston: D.C. Heath and Co., 1938), pp. 344-95; Blanke, Amerika in Englische Schriftum, pp. 186-282; Gary B. Nash, “The Image of the Indian in the Southern Colonial Mind,” in Edward Dudley and Maximilian E. Novak, eds., The Wild Man Within: An Image in Western Thought from the Renaissance to Romanticism (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1972), pp. 55-86.

2. In Richard Hakluyt's translation, The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and Discoveries of the English Nation (Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons, 1903-1905), vol. 8, pp. 201-2.

3. Compare my interpretation with that of Frances Jennings, The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975), pp. 73-79.

4. Richard Bernheimer, Wild Men in the Middle Ages: A Study in Art, Sentiment, and Demonology (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952), pp. 19-20. In addition to this authority, see the interesting essay by Hayden White, “The Forms of Wildness: Archaeology of an Idea,” in Dudley and Novak, eds., Wild Man Within, pp. 3-38.

5. In the translation of Thomas Hackett of André Thévet, The New Found World, or Anarcticke (London: Henrie Bynneman for author, 1568), fol. 26. According to Samuel E. Morison, The European Discovery of America: The Northern Voyages, A.D. 500-1600 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 428, the French in the early period always called Indians sauvages, later used peaux rouges and sometimes indigènes.

6. Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des artes et des métiers, par une société de gens de lettres, vol. 14 (Neufchâtel: Samuel Faulches, 1765), p. 729.

7. For the actual translations, see Arber, First Three English Books. On Eden, consult Franklin T. McCann, English Discovery of America to 1585 (New York: King's Crown Press, 1952), pp. 112-37; Parker, Books to Build an Empire, pp. 36-53.

8. A standard modern edition is the twelve-volume one issued in Glasgow and cited in note 18. Vols. 7-11 reprint the original third volume, On America.

9. See, for example, the accounts of Ralph Lane and John White in David B. Quinn, ed., The Roanoke Voyages, 1584-1590: Documents to Illustrate the English Voyages to North America Under the Patent Granted to Walter Raleigh in 1584 (London: Hakluyt Society, 1955), series 2, vols. 104-105, pp. 255-94, 598-622; and of George Percy in Philip L. Barbour, ed., The Jamestown Voyages Under the First Charter, 1606-1609 (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press for Hakluyt Society, 1969), series 2, vol. 136, pp. 129-46.

10. For example, John Davis's account of his second voyage in Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, vol. 7, pp. 393-407; and Arthur Barlowe and Thomas Hariot in Quinn, ed., Roanoke Voyages, pp. 91-115, 368-82.

11. Smith provides a detailed political geography of the region in his tracts of 1608 and 1612, which are edited by Barbour in his Jamestown Voyages, vol. 136, pp. 165-208, vol. 137, pp. 327-464.

12. The second part of William Wood, New Englands Prospect, A True, Lively, and Experimental Description of That Part of America, Commonly Called New England, originally published in London in 1634 (facsimile, Amsterdam and New York: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, Ltd., and Da Capo Press, 1968), presents an early description of New England tribes comparable to the above-mentioned works of Smith.

13. Edited by John Teunissen and Evelyn J. Hinz (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1973), pp. 84-85.

14. See dated definitions of “nation” in The Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 7 (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), pp. 30-31. Compare the somewhat comparable argument for calling chiefs kings of Jennings, Invasion of America, pp. 114-15.

15. According to John Rowe, “Ethnography and Ethnology in the Sixteenth Century,” Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers, no. 30 (Berkeley, Calif., 1964), pp. 5-7. Also see W. R. Jones, “The Image of Barbarians in Medieval Europe,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, XIII (Oct. 1971), pp. 376-401.

16. Gilbert Chinard in his pioneering L'exotisme américain dans la littérature française au XVI^e siècle concluded that early French descriptions of Indians could be classified as favorable or unfavorable in their estimate of Indian character, customs, and values.

17. Scholars who have studied accounts of English explorers in the sixteenth century or of settlers and travelers in the succeeding century generally divide their analyses of Indian imagery into the two basic evaluations. In addition to the authorities on England cited in note 17 above, see Howard M. Jones, O Strange New World; American Culture: The Formative Years (New York: Viking, 1964), chaps. 1-2. Compare, however, the approach of Henry Bausum, “Edenic Images of the Western World: A Reappraisal,” South Atlantic Quarterly, LXVII (Autumn 1968), pp. 672-87, with the one taken by me in this chapter.

18. Hakluyt, Principal Voyages, vol. 7, p. 227.

19. Ibid., p. 220.

20. The quotations appear in ibid., vol. 8, pp. 300, 305, 306, respectively.

21. Quoted in Quinn, ed., Roanoke Voyages, vol. 104, p. 108. The primitivistic imagery employed here is examined on pages 71-80.

22. Except for Jacques Le Moyne in Florida and Jean de Lery in Brazil according to the opinion of Paul Hulton and David Quinn, eds., The American Drawings of John White, 1577-1590, with Drawings of European and Oriental Subjects (London and Chapel Hill: Trustees of the British Museum and University of North Carolina Press, 1964), vol. 1, pp. 25-36. Also see the authorities cited in note 11 above.

23. The best collation of the various editions of the Hariot tract is by Quinn, ed., The Roanoke Voyages, vol. 104, pp. 317-87. The best reproduction of the White drawings is in Hulton and Quinn, cited in preceding note. The De Bry edition of Hariot's Briefe and True Report has been issued in facsimile by Dover Publications, Inc., of New York, 1972, with an introduction by Paul Hulton.

24. On English perceptions and conceptions, see Nash, “The Image of the Indian in the Southern Colonial Mind.” Nancy O. Lurie, “Indian Cultural Adjustment to European Civilization,” in James M. Smith, ed., Seventeenth-Century America: Essays in Colonial History (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), pp. 33-60, suggests Native American attitudes and approaches to the English. Nicholas P. Canny, “The Ideology of English Colonization: From Ireland to America,” William and Mary Quarterly, XXX (Oct. 1973), pp. 575-98, treats the implications of earlier efforts at Irish colonization for New World settlement by the English.

25. Walter Cope to Lord Salisbury, August 12, 1607, in Barbour, ed., Jamestown Voyages, vol. 136, p. 110.

26. In ibid., vol. 137, p. 354.

27. See again the references cited in note 27 above.

28. Alexander Whitaker, Good Newes from Virginia (London: Felix Kyngston for William Welby, 1613), pp. 24-27. A drastically edited version of the pamphlet was included by Samuel Purchas in his great travel collection, Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrimes, 20 vols. (Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons, 1905-1907), vol. 19, pp. 110-16.

29. Christopher Brooke, A Poem on the Late Massacre in Virginia, With Particular Mention of Those Men of Note That Suffered in That Disaster (London: G. Eld for Robert Mylbourne, 1622), pp. 22-23.

30. In “Virginia's Verger: Or a Discourse shewing the benefits which may grow to this kingdome from American English Plantations …,” in Hakluytus Posthumus, vol. 19, p. 231. Compare William Bradford's preconception of the Indian as given in his Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647, ed. Samuel E. Morison (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952), pp. 25-26.

31. Leviathan, Or the Matter, Forme, & Power of a Common-wealth Eccleasiasticall and Civill, ed. Crawford B. MacPherson (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1968), pp. 186, 187. His italics. The impact of descriptions of Indians and other primitive peoples on Hobbes's thought is suggested by Richard Ashcraft, “Leviathan Triumphant: Thomas Hobbes and the Politics of Wild Men,” in Dudley and Novak, eds., Wild Man Within, pp. 141-81.

32. The quoted words are from Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1960), p. 319, and appear in a somewhat different context than suggested here. Arthur J. Slavin, “The American Principle from More to Locke,” in Chiapelli et al., eds., First Images of America, vol. 1, pp. 139-64, stresses the similarities between Locke and Hobbes in comparison to Thomas More.