Some Responses to Reviews of Longitude and Empire
Note: The responses to reviews of Longitude and Empire are going to focus on criticisms of the book. As a result, however, the tone may end up sounding defensive, but hopefully this will kept to a minimum and its existence accepted by the readers as a necessary evil. Whether they have offered positive or negative comments, I appreciate that people have spent the time to read and review the book. Please read the reviews first.
Boreham - Bruyns - Distad - Frost - Gascoigne - Small - Steinberg
Boreham, Ian
in Captain Cook Society
Boreham's review of Longitude and Empire is written as a personal narrative. He admits to having been defeated, to not enjoying the academic character of the text, and to finding specific passages interesting. He also includes many long quotations, which are unfortunately not referenced.
There are several factual errors in the book that Boreham has correctly noted: the names of the ships and the voyages that people were on should have been verified more closely.
The issue of whether the printed book or the original journal is being portrayed in Dance's painting had not occurred to me. Boreham's claim that it is impossible for the book to have been the printed version because the volumes weren't published until after Cook sailed on the third voyage is unsound because this is a painting, not a photograph, and so the elements of the painting never have to be together at the same time. One way to decide this issue is to find evidence of what the printed and manuscript books looked like, and see if one of them is indicated in the painting. Another way to decide is to focus on the map, which is detached from the book (suggesting a manuscript?) but also has a header and a frame similar to what is on the printed version. Does the manuscript map still exist?
Boreham objects to the claim that the voyages were the product of a book culture. To me, this is an obvious point - try to imagine Cook's voyages, and everything that made those voyages possible, without a printing press and the intellectual environment that the press created. Even when Cook was writing his journals, he knew that they were going to be published, and so he wrote his journals with that goal in mind. A more general point to make, however, is that to understand the impact of Cook's voyages, it is essential to place those voyages in a world of print, with readers, engravers, printers, translators and editors.
Later in the review, Boreham objects to referring to words in the Admiralty edition as having been "written by Cook." There are several points to be made in response to this objection. First, while it is obvious that the texts were edited (sometimes horribly) by other people before they were printed, and so Cook was not the only one involved in creating the text. Cook could be considered the primary author, especially for the second and third voyages. Also, even if Cook is not the actual author, it remains the case that it is his "voice" that is the dominant one throughout. Finally, it is not obvious, as Boreham suggests, that the journals offer an authentic, unadulterated version of Cook's words. The journals may be in Cook's handwriting, but it remains an issue whether Cook wrote things that other people said, or used phrases and ideas that emerged from conversations and people commenting on his ideas. There is an important distinction to make between the journals and the books, but Cook exists in both, and so do other people.
Boreham also objects to the claim that, while Cook is from northern England, his ideal landscape was much more aristocratic and much more focused on southern England. The argument given in Longitude and Empire is based on the kinds of landscape that Cook praises in the Pacific, which are generally those found in New Zealand. And when he talks about how people can improve land, the ideal is not northern England or working class, but rather southern England, with extended, rolling landscapes and flourishing gardens. Boreham may not be convinced, but this is the best evidence that can be given.
Bruyns, W. F. J. Mörzer
in The Northern Mariner / Le Marin du Nord
Bruyns' criticisms of the book can be divided into five themes.
1. The history of the relevant technology is more complicated than indicated in Longitude and Empire. He claims, for instance, that while Harrison received the prize for longitude, "the work of his contemporaries Le Roy and Berhoud was equally important" (page 84). Unfortunately, Bruyns does not say how importance is understood here, and while the work of these two Frenchmen may have been successful, their actual impact on voyaging and the corresponding changes to ideas of the world are nothing compared with Harrison and Cook.
Later in the review, a similar point is made concerning C-F Beautemps-Beaupré, who surpassed Cook as a hydrographer "within two decades" (page 85). Again, even if Beautemps-Beaupré was much more skilled (or had better equipment) than Cook, that is not to the point. The same can be said of the United States Exploring Expedition, commanded by Charles Wilkes, which is discussed in Longitude and Empire at the end of chapter two. Wilkes explored far more than Cook did, and in far greater detail. But the book is not about who was the most accurate hydrographer. Everyone is surpassed, and ultimately people have been surpassed altogether. The book is about how the ability to accurately measure longitude changed the way that people could explore. Cook, as the first captain to be able to measure longitude accurately enough for navigation, is the one whose voyages that mark the innovations that the new technologies allowed. If the goal is to analyse a change in how people look at the world, it doesn't matter who came after, or how skillful they were, except to point out that they their skills were superior to Cook in terms of the world view that was first organized in Cook's voyages.
2. That I use the original published versions of the voyages rather than Cook's written journals. This is a crucial point, and one that readers have to accept for the rest of Longitude and Empire to make sense. Simply put, whether the reader likes it or not, Cook's voyages existed in book form well before the original journals were printed. If the goal is to analyze the character and impact of the voyages in Europe in the 18th or 19th century, it is a profound mistake to insist on basing the analysis on texts that were not available in the 18th or 19th century. Of course, the transcriptions of the original journals are still very useful, specifically for unraveling the kinds of changes that were made from what Cook first wrote to what ended up being published in the official (and available) account. The journals help to clarify what actually happened on the voyages, or at least to clarify what Cook thought actually happened on the voyages. But they play no role in history before the middle of the 20th century because they did not exist for people until the middle of the 20th century.
3. That certain words are not used properly in the book. For instance, Bruyns objects to my use of "cabin" as anachronistic. He explains that "It would take over another century before members of ship's crews got anything near to having cabins; on his first voyage even Captain Cook shared (with Joseph Banks)" (page 84). This criticisms is a little picky, and it encourages a picky response. While I admit that I was not careful in my choice of words here, as luck would have it, the printed version of the first voyage in fact uses "cabin" in just that way. As the Endeavour moves from Botany to Trinity Bay in May, 1770, the text reads: "While the master was sounding the channel, Mr. Banks tried to fish from the cabin windows with hook and line." Banks and Cook, in other words, shared a cabin, but it was still a cabin. To broaden the history of the word, a quick glance at the OED indicates that "cabin," meaning "An apartment or small room in a ship for officers or passengers" dates from Wyclif's translation of Ezekiel in 1382.
4. That the impact of Cook's voyages was not very great. The criticism here is based on the idea there was a gradual accumulation of information about the world from the 15th century onward. Drake "circumvented [sic] the globe two centuries before Cook, when knowledge of navigation and cartography was at an infinitely lower level than in the 1760s" (page 84). As evidence, Bruyns points out that while Drake may have sailed down the latitude, in 1500 Cabral, following neither latitude nor coast, "ventured into the Atlantic to find a favourable wind" (page 84). Bruyns is correct to point out that Portuguese and Spanish sailors could sometimes move away from the coast to find favourable winds. However, he is wrong to suggest that this was a development after Drake (who, in fact, sailed around the world roughly 70 years after Cabral). Of course, more was known by Europeans about the world in 1760 than in 1500. However, the point of Longitude and Empire is not to show that Cook's voyages added a great deal of information about the world, but to show that the voyages reorganized the structure of information. The shift, in other words, was qualitative.
5. That he simply is not convinced (page 85). Bruyns notes after his introduction that "Although he quite rightly approaches the issues from various aspects, I have chosen to reflect on navigation only" (page 84). Bruyns seems to accept the basic premise of Longitude and Empire, which is that longitude is important for Cook's voyages and is a key reason why the voyages were different from previous voyages. He may point out other sources of the technology and other voyages who used the technology (after Cook), but these are tangential to the book's main argument. However, because Bruyns doesn't discuss the book's main argument, and he does not indicate what he thinks the book is trying to convince him of, the criticism does not seem to be effective. It seems unfair to focus on one chapter of a book and then claim that the book's argument is unconvincing.
Distad, Merrill
in Bulletin of the Pacific Circle
The only point I would make regarding Distad's review is the idea that Cook's voyages represent "the genesis of the modern scientific exploring expedition." The voyages were the first example of the modern scientific exploring expedition, and became the model on which later expeditions were imagined, but to call those voyages the genesis may incorrectly suggest that Cook and his voyages were the source of the modern scientific exploring expedition, an ideal that was in fact created by many different factors and was years, if not centuries, in the making.
Frost, Alan
in International History Review
There are four key criticisms in this review that merit reaction.
First, Frost claims that I do not maintain the distinction between archival and print sources by pointing to the fact that I talk about the "narrative" of the voyage when he claims I mean the voyage as such, but he does not establish why narrative is a feature of archives and not of print.
Second, appeals to Pitt the Younger's Lockean attitudes towards the Aborigines of New South Wales as a counter-example to my account of political identity in Cook's voyages, when really all that he established, quite rightly, is that there were some people after Cook's voyages, who still thought in terms of earlier thinkers. The jab at "postmodernist conceptualizations" is trivial.
Third, Frost notes that I do not discuss Gallagher and Robinson's discussion of the economics of empire, but fails to say why such as discussion would be useful or why the article is a challenge to my book. Their essay, entitled "The Imperialism of Free Trade" and available online, is interesting, and suggests that the development of English power in the 19th century was complex and often driven by short-term economic goals more than by a priori theories or ideals. So be it. But so what?
Finally, Frost objects to my characterizing Joseph Banks as being bored with Botany Bay, citing as a counter example that he later advocated that the area be colonized, which is a non sequiter - it being possible that a place is boring to Banks as a naturalist but interesting to Banks as an empire builder. Frost likewise notes how people sent specimens to Banks from New South Wales, which not only ignores the obvious distinction between Botany Bay and New South Wales, but also fails to consider what Banks thought about getting such specimens.
Gascoigne, John
in Journal of Pacific Studies
Gascoigne rightly focuses on the problem of causation and rightly claims that much of what made Cook's voyages a success had been thought about and developed well before the voyages began. One of the key themes in Longitude and Empire is how a variety of different elements came together in Cook's voyages (including the chronometer, the developments in sailing and nutrition, the emergence of scientific and military institutions, and the relative peace in Europe following the Seven Years' War). What the voyages indicate is the impact that all of those changes and opportunities had on Europe's ability to engage with the world. The results of Cook's voyages, then, ought to be explained by the combination of specific changes as well as by what all of those changes created (that is, the ideal voyage that would become an example for a wide range of different intellectual and political projects). In other words, what Longitude and Empire attempts to do is identify some of the key components of Cook's voyages and show how, once those components were combined, a new kind of voyaging and a new understanding of the world develop.
One point on which I disagree with Gascoigne is the importance of the island as a political ideal prior to Cook's voyages. He claims that the discussion of islands had been going on for some time, mentioning "the island nation of England, one of the first effective European unitary states" (page 360). This characterization is incorrect. England is not an island, and its borders with Scotland (and Wales) were often highly contested. It is likely not until the 19th century that a common national identity was created (as Britons), which could compete with the English, Scottish, and Welsh national identities. The discussion of Hobbes in chapter four is relevant here.
Small, Margaret
in Journal for Maritime Research
Small makes two important points about other topics that should (or at least could) have been discussed in Longitude and Empire.
The first is a concern for Cook's readership. Who were the books targeted at? Who was actually reading them? I agree that this is a significant topic, especially as new editions, cheaper editions, and complete reworkings of the voyages were produced years after the first publication. However, while it would be important to consider in more detail the popularity of the voyages with readers, the focus of Longitude and Empire is on the qualitative change evident in the published accounts, and so a detailed analysis of the versions and the readership would not have been on topic. But it is a worthwhile, and long overdue, project in its own right.
The second is a concern for Cook's precursors. Small mentions Columbus and Herodotus. Concerning Columbus, I disagree that "it was not the mindset but the ability that altered." Certainly the ability altered, but with the change in ability came a change in mindset, which is why Columbus, even while he sails to islands in the Caribbean, does not offer the same kind of engagement with space - with Columbus there is neither wandering nor a triumphant, mathematical and geographical knowledge of the world. As a result, while it is important to recognize that Cook's voyages occur fairly late in European oceanic exploration, it is really how he can separate his voyages from all that went on before that is significant.
Concerning Herodotus, I think that there is an important link to be researched between Cook's voyages and Herodotus's histories. One could consider the mythical nature or geographical location of the exotic, or perhaps the way that diversity is described, organized, and used in both documents. This was not my topic. The hope is that Longitude and Empire may help for the basis of a more expansive comparative analysis of European organizations of human diversity, which would at the very least include Greek, Roman, and Judeo-Christian writers.
Steinberg, Philip
in Island Studies
The single point of controversy I have with Steinberg's review revolves around Cook's importance as an independent causal agent. Steinberg's review works within two main options: that Cook's voyages either caused a new way of ordering the world or that Cook's voyages embodied a way of looking at the world that was already emerging. Steinberg argues that Cook's voyages embody, but are not the cause of the new way of looking at the world. Here, though, it is important to distinguish the different aspects of the voyages. It is correct to say that Cook's voyages did not invent longitude or create the desire to measure longitude. Cook's voyages did not cause longitude to be thought about (or measured, for that matter). Rather, it is thinking about and developing methods to measure longitude that caused Cook's voyages. However, the importance of Cook's voyages is not simply the use of longitude, but also how longitude connects to other, specifically social and political ideas, such as nations, states, collections and empires. Here, the voyages have a greater causal impact which Longitude and Empire attempts to trace. The point is not simply that people thought about longitude, but also that people used longitude to think about other things in different ways.
The importance of Bruno Latour is well taken, and is worthwhile to connect Cook's voyages to the extensive scientific debates over space and knowledge in the 18th century.
