Book Reviews
First published in 1777, George Forster’s account of James Cook’s second voyage in search of the mythical southern continent is now a largely forgotten classic. Although this fabled land was not found, the voyage yielded considerable new ethnographic, scientific and botanic knowledge. Far longer than Cook’s own account, this narrative was distinguished by its ethnographic sophistication that was in many respects remarkably free of contemporary Eurocentrism. As editors Nicholas Thomas and Oliver Bernhof attest, Forster was a radical intellectual (and later an ardent advocate of the French Revolution). His interests ranged over the philosophical and moral; his acute observations and his comparative lack of adverse judgement make him a unique commentator on these new worlds he so carefully describes. This is therefore far more wide-ranging than a text about European exploration in the narrow sense of a history of navigational achievement.
These two handsome volumes complement the recent edition of Johann Reinhold Forster’s Observations Made during a Voyage around the World, on Physical Geography, natural History, and Ethic Philosophy, first published in London in 1778, and reprinted with a new introduction in 1996. This particular volume, published originally the year before under his son George’s name, was an amalgamation of the two men’s work.
Johann Forster was a radical freethinking protestant minister and amateur naturalist who had conducted many adventures before embarking with Cook. He and George, then only a child, had travelled to inspect the German colonies along the Volga in the 1760s. Moving to London, the elder Forster cultivated the professional acquaintance of distinguished scientists and potential scientific patrons. When Joseph Banks refused to accompany Cook on the second voyage, Forster was appointed as naturalist in his stead. John Cawte Beaglehole in his famous commentary saw Forster in the worst possible light and much of the Anglophone world’s more recent knowledge of his character and abilities has been filtered through this medium. As Johann Forster was prevented from publishing his narrative, this manuscript prepared by his son, who was not restrained by legal agreement, represents the opinions of both men rather than simply the nominal author.
Thomas and Berghof have undertaken a scholarly task that is daunting and, to some extent, unappreciated. Commentary over such a vast range of disciplines that defy modern scholarly practice requires an extraordinary degree of competency. The editors are to be congratulated for their precise and adventurous interpretation of the original text. The publisher should be congratulated for the production of a handsome text.
