NavList:

   

Reply

Frank, just a simple question:

Do you still maintain your claim that "that famous lunarian expert Baron von
Zach ... was astounded to
discover that the whole crew knew and worked lunars"?

Your post just deals with the cook. You simply cannot draw your above
conclusion from that simple story. Neither can you draw further conclusions
about the nautical proficiency of (North)American seamen at that period. Or
do you withdraw your statements now?

And your remark:

"So because you never managed to find the original article, you have
concluded that there WAS NO original article?? I can think of another
explanation..."

is obviously besides the point. I stated the simple fact that I have been
unable to find the source that you seem to rely on. You did not give it;
just a saucy tale ("the whole crew knew and worked lunars") which could not
be believed by anybody in his right mind. As long as I cannot find the
source of such an outrageous statement I am free - even compelled - to doubt
that it - or its factual basis - exists. That's the basis of rational
science - nomothetical or ideographic - since the Age of Enlightenment (at
least this side of the pond). Apart from that you have - as ever -
insinuated that I have drawn a certain conclusion - which I expressly did
not. Just read again what I wrote. I'd be obliged, though, if you could
supply the citation from the "Correspondance Astronomique, Geographique,
Hydrographique, et Statistique", Vol. 4, 62 - 65. We could then get into a
more serious discussion with a common textual basis.

By the way: Your information that von Zach "had moved to Genoa and/or
Marseilles (?) around 1814" seems incorrect, too. According to my
information he lived in Marseille since 1809 and since 1815 in Genoa; but
that is of little consequence here. Just shows your carelessness with facts
again.

And you wrote:
"First, Zach read and wrote English, no doubt about that."
I'd be obliged if you could prove that - beyond reasonable doubt. That " HE
HIMSELF records his conversations with the members of the crew of
Cleopatra's Barge in his article in the "Correspondance" doesn't mean
anything. And that "It does not appear from his account that he dealt with a
translator" circumvents my argument: if you have only a limited command of a
foreign language and do not use a translator you are more prone to
misunderstandings than if do use one. I am not aware of a tradition of
mentioning the use of a translator in such written accounts of travels and
visits of that period anyway, so the  conclusion you are suggesting lacks
any FACTUAL basis.

To my comment:
"And: 2) we'd have to take at face value that what he was told was true,
because
von Zach doesn't say that he actually saw the greatest part of the seamen
use the sextant and make nautical calculations."

you remarked:
"Yes indeed. They may have lied. It may have been a bizarre conspiracy to
fool the astronomer..."

What a cheap shot! And how it missed, because the french text you now quote
again only deals with the cook. What about "the whole crew" you have been
harping on?

Same goes for your following intended rebuttal:
"Again, von Zach asked direct questions that would reveal a mere boast and
got answers that genuinely surprised him for their accuracy and detail. He
examined the notebooks. He saw the calculations for himself."

Oh my: He only talked about the black cook.

Finally you say:
"It's too bad that this dismal and completely speculative theory, that the
story was a legend, has been dredged up from the abyss once again."

That's funny! The idea that a story is a legend to be "completely
speculative". I always thought that it is the other way around: legends bear
the burden of proof (and succumb to it mostly). And who would believe that
the story that the whole crew of "Cleopatra's Barge" knew and worked lunars
is anything but a legend?

Good night
Wolfgang


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.navlist.net
To post, email NavList@navlist.net
To , email NavList-@navlist.net
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply