Abstract

340 RHETORICA to be monitored by the community and that is balanced by an ethics, psy­ chology, and political theory emphasizing isolated, estranged, and restive individuals (pp. 142-45). The image of the modern Lockean individual that Vogt advances is that of the chastened explorer, conscious of the perils of the voyage of discovery undertaken with imperfect tools, but confident in his ability to overcome as yet unknown challenges. Vogt attempts to formulate a strong version of Lockean modernity in order to shed light on what he terms "the strong attack on Lockean modernity" that he perceives in the work of Burke, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche (p. 6). In those thinkers there is, for Vogt, a more precise pessimism. In their hands, Locke's nautical metaphors entail a much greater risk of disorientation. In this reading, the Burkean sublime is a chaste riposte to Locke's cheerful analogizing, a critique of even a figural empiricism's ability to deal with the measureless. Vogt reads the marine paintings of Caspar David Friedrich and J. M. W. Turner to undermine the notion that maritime life is a storehouse of figures that stand for challenges overcome. Many of the things that Vogt has to say with regard to this strong attack on the strong version of Lockean modernity are suggestive. But it is not clear that a monograph on Locke was the best place to explore these complex issues with the sustained attention that they deserve. David L. Marshall Kettering University Juliet Cummins and David Burchell (eds.), Science, Literature and Rhetoric in Early Modern England (Literary and Scientific Cultures of Early Modernity Series), Aldershot (England) and Burlington (Ver­ mont): Ashgate, 2007. 241 pp. ISBN: 9780754657811 The intent of this collection of essays is to "present new insights" about the "interaction of science, literature and rhetoric" in the development, reception, and dissemination of scientific knowledge in early modernity. The studies emanate from a symposium of scholars held at the University of Western Sydney, Australia. The editors promise in the introduction a wide angled book that will encompass the cultural, political, and social elements of the new science. This has been accomplished to a large degree, even if at times the treatment is a bit parochial in its regional view of science and narrow historical perspective. In addition, rhetoric, left undefined, permits a diffuse sense of the term, and a vague notion that it pervades discourse. But despite these shortcomings, the book offers a rich, lively, innovative collection of essays that illuminate selected literary texts of the period. Several of the essays stand out for their clarity and scholarship. Peter Harrison's "Truth, Utility, and the Natural Sciences in Early Modern Eng­ land" avoids parochialism in its treatment of changing opinions regarding Reviews 341 natural science vis a vis the humanities. Harrison begins his essay with Sir Philip Sidney's weighing of knowledge for its moral usefulness and his elevation of the particular as key to understanding the universal in "The Defence of Poesy. Earlier the studia }iu matiitutis had revamped education for its social and moral utility as well (p. 17). The essay, with apt illustrations from the writings of the virtuosi and their commentators, shows that a similar moral evaluation was being applied to the study of natural philosophy in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The discipline was thought to aid in the development of virtue through the habits of careful study required of its practitioners. And it turned minds to regard the purpose of their labors as the betterment of mankind. Thus, the moral value of the philosophers' work eventually made the occupation socially acceptable, despite critics' ridicule of experiments performed at meetings of the Royal Society. With impressive erudition, David Burchell analyzes Hobbes' style and its debt to both Seneca and Cicero. His essay, '"A Plain Blunt Man'; Hobbes, Science, and Rhetoric Revisited," has only a tenuous connection to science, but it clarifies the relation of rhetoric to science in the period. Burchell successfully rebuts those who have claimed that Hobbes rejected rhetoric and adopted instead a "clear and perspicuous" style to foster better scientific debate. Burchell shows that Hobbes had, instead, a very broad knowledge of rhetoric and used different...