NavList:

   

Reply

Dear Robert,

let me start with saying that I do regret it if I offended you (and 
others) with my previous post. I reread it and realize that my words 
sound quite harsh (is that the right word?). It was in no way meant to 
be that way, but being not native peaking English, my words sometimes 
come out a bit different than I want them to be.
First of all Bauer has no way to defend himself on this matter and 
second I know how hard it is to write down a good story when it should 
be historically right. At this very moment I am busy with several 
articles, one of which is under review by an expert in the field to make 
sure I do not make big mistakes. But even so I risk making some cock-ups 
in it (sorry for my French). The only point I wanted to make that if 
Bauer had someone else check that part (or read a work like Water's) it 
would have been of much better quality and better fitting in the whole 
book. As I said, starting from the nocturnal one can see that he put a 
lot of effort to get it all right. I guess that the part I was writing 
about did not have his interest that much as the rest of the book 
(again: no offence meant).

I am glad you took the courage to defend his work in his place.

Nicol�s




enoid@northwestel.net wrote:
> Nicholas wrote (clipped)
>
>   
>> Today I read   book and took a copy of Chapter I (A Short 
>> History) with me. As most of you know by now I am specialised in the early 
>> history of navigation (1590-1700), researching mainly the wooden 
>> instruments (the astrolabe is the exception on that rule) before 
>> the octant arrived.
>>
>> Bauer starts off with the Polynesian latitude hook, giving his 
>> chapter a promising start (although he might have mentioned the use of 
>> hand/fingers for altitude measurements). He then continues with 
>> the Kamal (skipping the earlier Chinese version of that instrument), 
>> before going over to the astrolabe. It is from that point on were he 
>> misses virtually every aspect of the instruments that follow up to the 
>> nocturnal. So his ideas of the astrolabe, the cross-staff and 
>> backstaff/davis quadrant do not reflect proper research, even when 
>> taking in account the year he published his book (figures 1.7 and 
>> 1.8 even show us a Davis Quadrant with the horizon vane assembled in 
>> the wrong way). I could try to sum up the errors/omissions in his 
>> text, but that might take more words than he spent on those instruments in 
>> total......
>>     
>
> Robert comments:
>
> To start with, and at the risk of sounding like I am name-dropping (which is 
not my intention) Cmdr. Bauer was a close personal friend of mine. The list 
members should therefore not be be surprised that I take great exception and 
offence to some of the comments offered by Nicholas de Hilster about 
"historical errors/omissions...that might take more words than he [Bauer] 
spent on those instruments in total......"
>
> Bauer was first and foremost, a professional and highly experienced mariner 
and navigator with many years of distinguished service as a Destroyer Captain 
in the US Navy. After he retired, he maintained his professional 
qualifications by commanding a research vessel off the coast of Florida. 
Bauer was also an avid sailor and a keen historian. I know for a fact that he 
was very well-versed in the history of navigation and in the development of 
the marine sextant as well as many other aspects of nautical and classical 
history. 
>
> Bauer's book was not intended to be an exhaustive treatise on the history of 
the development of the sextant. The chapter in question was intended to give 
the reader a brief historical and contextual overview which would lead into 
the meat of the book: which is sextant maintenance and repair. If you want a 
history book, consult the local university or write the damn thing yourself, 
otherwise don't expect to get this kind of exhaustive information from what 
was essentially meant to be a practical handbook for practical mariners.
>
> I'll close by saying that I'm a getting a little fed up with some of the 
pedantic and petty nit-picking which frequently takes place on this list and 
most of which seems to originate with navigation scholars as opposed to 
actual sailors and practical navigators. By all means, we should question and 
challenge each other for one sword sharpens another, but there are more 
cicumspect ways of doing this. Slagging someone else's labour is not what I 
consider to be respectful discourse. Nicholas may not have intended to cause 
offence with his comments, however, in my opinion, they come off sounding 
like cheap shots against a man who has passed away and can therefore no 
longer defend himself. That leaves me to take up the cudgel on his behalf.
>
> 'Nuff said.
>
>
> Robert Eno
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>   


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply