What do you think?
Rate this book
"The Great Ocean of Knowledge": The Influence of Travel Literature on the Work of John Locke
This book explores the way in which, working within the investigative tradition associated with the Royal Society, the philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) used travellers' reports to develop a form of comparative social anthropology which was to inform his
348 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2010
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 14, 2015
Although this book evidently originated as a Ph.D. dissertation, Ann Talbot's writing style is readable, perspicuous, artful, and without a trace of academic jargon. This work is an original contribution to knowledge, based to a considerable extent on Talbot's study of unpublished manuscripts as well as her intensive analysis of published primary sources. She rounds out her appraisal with an incisive review of the relevant secondary scholarly publications.
The book examines in depth Locke's use of anthropological travel literature in his Two Treatises of Government, Essay concerning Human Understanding, and other writings. Talbot also compares the anthropological literature available during the seventeenth century with twentieth- and twenty-first-century anthropological studies. Although modern anthropology may seem more scientific than the earlier investigations, the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century literature had the advantage of being based on interactions with indigenous peoples before their cultures were much changed by contact with Europeans and Americans of European descent. Talbot provides many interesting vignettes from the travel books in Locke's library and shows how Locke used this information in his writings.
Chapter 14 of the book addresses how many scholars have changed the professional evaluation of Locke during the last few decades. As Talbot observes in the opening sentence of that chapter, "Locke once held an undisputed position as the philosopher of liberty and equality, but the philosopher of liberty and equality has increasingly been replaced in the scholarly literature by John Locke the philosopher of inequality, social hierarchy, colonial oppression and slavery." Talbot first describes the various postmodern attacks on Locke—by the likes of Foucault, Derrida, Wayne Glausser, James Tully, David Armitage, Barbara Arneil, and others. She then deconstructs the deconstructionists. Talbot effectively demonstrates that such "postcolonial" literature is based on inaccurate history.
Talbot observes that James Tully based his postcolonial theory on Locke's particular concept of property. Tully claimed that chapter 5 of Locke's Second Treatise of Government was predicated upon a theory of land ownership of appropriation through cultivation. Locke's approach allegedly followed the earlier colonial Massachusetts Bay theories of John Winthrop and John Cotton rather than the view of Roger Williams. Although Talbot does not discuss this specific philosophical issue at length, the relevant primary sources show that Winthrop and Cotton believed that God had cleared the American Indians from their lands by visiting them with disease. Furthermore, the Native Americans did not, in the Puritan view, actually subdue the land through agriculture but rather used it for hunting. Such facts were marshaled to justify the Puritan appropriation of Amerindian land in seventeenth-century Massachusetts Bay. Williams objected to this entire theory. In England, he noted, the king and other great landholders owned large tracts of land that they did not use except for hunting, and ordinary people were forbidden to use those lands for agriculture, pasturage, or even hunting. John Cotton specifically disagreed with Williams's idea that the Natives were entitled to the land because they used it for hunting (as distinguished from agriculture). Cotton might have been horrified to learn that the socialistic Diggers later used his arguments to advocate land reform in revolutionary England. Locke wrote the Second Treatise after the restoration of the Stuart monarchy. Why did Locke apparently accept the view of Winthrop and Cotton (and, later, the Diggers) instead of the view of Williams? It is a difficult philosophical issue that is beyond the scope of Talbot's book and, similarly, beyond the scope of the present review. Talbot does establish, however, that it is anachronistic for the postmodern historians to blame Locke for all the sins of British colonialism, let alone American slavery, in later centuries.
Talbot's book reflects both in-depth and extensive research as well as an excellent writing style. I highly recommend it.
The book examines in depth Locke's use of anthropological travel literature in his Two Treatises of Government, Essay concerning Human Understanding, and other writings. Talbot also compares the anthropological literature available during the seventeenth century with twentieth- and twenty-first-century anthropological studies. Although modern anthropology may seem more scientific than the earlier investigations, the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century literature had the advantage of being based on interactions with indigenous peoples before their cultures were much changed by contact with Europeans and Americans of European descent. Talbot provides many interesting vignettes from the travel books in Locke's library and shows how Locke used this information in his writings.
Chapter 14 of the book addresses how many scholars have changed the professional evaluation of Locke during the last few decades. As Talbot observes in the opening sentence of that chapter, "Locke once held an undisputed position as the philosopher of liberty and equality, but the philosopher of liberty and equality has increasingly been replaced in the scholarly literature by John Locke the philosopher of inequality, social hierarchy, colonial oppression and slavery." Talbot first describes the various postmodern attacks on Locke—by the likes of Foucault, Derrida, Wayne Glausser, James Tully, David Armitage, Barbara Arneil, and others. She then deconstructs the deconstructionists. Talbot effectively demonstrates that such "postcolonial" literature is based on inaccurate history.
Talbot observes that James Tully based his postcolonial theory on Locke's particular concept of property. Tully claimed that chapter 5 of Locke's Second Treatise of Government was predicated upon a theory of land ownership of appropriation through cultivation. Locke's approach allegedly followed the earlier colonial Massachusetts Bay theories of John Winthrop and John Cotton rather than the view of Roger Williams. Although Talbot does not discuss this specific philosophical issue at length, the relevant primary sources show that Winthrop and Cotton believed that God had cleared the American Indians from their lands by visiting them with disease. Furthermore, the Native Americans did not, in the Puritan view, actually subdue the land through agriculture but rather used it for hunting. Such facts were marshaled to justify the Puritan appropriation of Amerindian land in seventeenth-century Massachusetts Bay. Williams objected to this entire theory. In England, he noted, the king and other great landholders owned large tracts of land that they did not use except for hunting, and ordinary people were forbidden to use those lands for agriculture, pasturage, or even hunting. John Cotton specifically disagreed with Williams's idea that the Natives were entitled to the land because they used it for hunting (as distinguished from agriculture). Cotton might have been horrified to learn that the socialistic Diggers later used his arguments to advocate land reform in revolutionary England. Locke wrote the Second Treatise after the restoration of the Stuart monarchy. Why did Locke apparently accept the view of Winthrop and Cotton (and, later, the Diggers) instead of the view of Williams? It is a difficult philosophical issue that is beyond the scope of Talbot's book and, similarly, beyond the scope of the present review. Talbot does establish, however, that it is anachronistic for the postmodern historians to blame Locke for all the sins of British colonialism, let alone American slavery, in later centuries.
Talbot's book reflects both in-depth and extensive research as well as an excellent writing style. I highly recommend it.
Displaying 1 of 1 review