NavList:

   

Reply

It has been suggested occasionally that Dava Sobel (in her book "Longitude")
was responsible for inventing the story of Nevil Maskelyne's conflict with
John Harrison. Most recently, this arose from a reading of a late 19th
century article describing some of Maskelyne's notes. While Maskelyne's
notes are certainly interesting, his testimony (which he describes in the
notes quoted in the article) was well-known, but that testimony was by no
means enough to persuade his critics at the time.

Not long after Maskelyne's death, the French astronomer/mathematician
Delambre wrote an account of Maskelyne's life and his numerous achievements
in astronomy. It was re-published in the "Annals of Philosophy" in June,
1813. You can read the whole thing here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=2xsAAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA401

Delambre provides a relatively neutral commentary on Maskelyne's conflict
with Harrison. Here's the relevant passage:

"On [Maskelyne's] return [from St. Helena] he published his British
Mariner's Guide, in which he proposed that Great Britain should adopt the
plan of a nautical almanac traced by La Caille after his voyage to the Cape
of Good Hope. The same year he made a voyage to Barbadoes, in order to
examine the goodness of Harrison's time-pieces. The report which he made at
his return, though favourable in general to the celebrated artist whose
invention he had subjected to the most severe test, was far from convincing
Harrison, who attacked him in a pamphlet. Maskelyne wrote a reply to this
attack. Naval men and philosophers took part with one side or other,
according to their ideas and their habits. M. de Fleurieu, particularly
connected with F. Berthoud, and entirely devoted to the cause of the
time-pieces, forgot perhaps on this occasion his accustomed moderation. It
was a dispute between two useful methods, calculated to assist each other.
Maskelyne did not find the time-pieces sufficiently certain, nor
sufficiently regular. Harrison affirmed, not without reason, that they were
within the limits prescribed by Act of Parliament. He demanded the whole
reward, which was afterwards given him, though at first he received only the
half. While pleading his cause he attacked the astronomical methods,
availing himself of some admissions of La Caille, who, with his
incorruptible integrity, while boasting of the method of the lunar distance,
admitted that they had sometimes led him into error. Maskelyne proved by his
own observations that the errors are much diminished when better instruments
are employed than those used by La Caille, such as were then beginning to be
constructed in London. It is possible that in this dispute between mechanics
and astronomy both sides went a little too far. The time-pieces performed
every thing - demanded by the Act of Parliament of 1714, and there can be no
doubt that, if they had been presented at that time, Harrison would have
obtained the whole reward without difficulty. But 50 years afterwards, when
the instruments were much more complete, when the lunar observations had
received unexpected ameliorations, was it not excusable to demand a little
more? The time-pieces, by the facility which they offered, were likely to
seduce maritime men, who are usually enemies to long calculations, but their
exactness could only be trusted in short voyages. In less ordinary
circumstances, and in long navigations, the method of lunar distances had an
incontestible advantage. Hence Maskelyne appears to us to have displayed as
much justice as discernment in assigning one half of the reward to Harrison
for his time-piece, and the other half to the lunar tables which Meyer
before his death had sent to the Board of Longitude in London. The English
nation yielded at last to motives of generosity, as much as of justice, in
giving to Harrison the whole of the reward to which he had a right,
according to the literal meaning of the Act of Parliament. Maskelyne, who at
that time laboured to get the Nautical Almanac adopted, had reason to fear
that the nation, after having so magnificently rewarded one invention, would
become more indifferent and more economical with respect to a work still
finer, and of more utility. It was his duty to plead the cause of science,
and he performed it with honour, Both parties gained their cause. Maskelyne
made his country adopt the plan of La Caille, which that astronomer, too
early removed for the interests of the science, could not get introduced
into France. The English had the glory of realising it first; and this is an
obligation which seamen and astronomers of all nations and ages have to Dr.
Maskelyne, who, in order to succeed in it, stood in need of all his
perseverance, and of the consideration which he so justly enjoyed."


I described Delambre's account above as "neutral" but of course, Delambre
was a fellow astronomer, and it might be more fair to call it "charitable";
it was part of an obituary intended to celebrate the man's life rather than
treat it critically. For a sense of this, here's one of the closing
paragraphs:
"Of a character friendly and amiable, he gained the affections of all those
who had the good fortune to know him, and his death was honoured with their
regret. Destined at first to the ecclesiastical profession, he preserved
always the virtues and the sentiments of that profession. He died as he had
always lived, a Christian, firm in his faith, and in the hope that he would
be admitted into the presence of a Creator whose works he had so long
contemplated and admired."

My point here is that the conflict between Maskelyne and Harrison was not an
invention of Sobel's. It was well-known to contemporaries, and many sided
with Harrison agreeing that Maskelyne was biased against him. Furthermore,
it didn't end with Harrison. Maskelyne was accused of bias by Mudge and
other chronometer advocates in the years that followed. There were numerous
pamphlets and counter-pamphlets that do not reflect well on anyone involved.
 From my perspective, Maskelyne's faith in an astronomical method of
determining longitude and his skepticism of a mechanical device was
perfectly understandable for an astronomer of his time, but it was indeed a
bias which slowed the advancement of the art of navigation (and an
"understandable" bias is not the same as "reasonable" bias). Clocks and
watches of all sorts deserved far more attention from the navigational
scientists of 18th century England than they received. That doesn't mean
that the method of lunars, which was much favored by Maskelyne, was
un-necessary. The impression created by Sobel's book, and in other 20th
century accounts, that lunars were useless just as soon as they were
invented is incorrect. They were widely used for the better part of a
century. As Delambre notes above, chronometers and lunars provided "two
useful methods, calculated to assist each other".

By the way, there's no question that many people reading "Longitude" simply
assume that Maskelyne bore all the guilt in the dispute. Though Sobel finds
serious fault in Harrison's communication skills, she clearly places most of
the blame on Maskelyne. The writers and producers of the three-and-a-half
hour tv docudrama, "Longitude" based on the book (2000, A&E television,
starring Jeremy Irons and Michael Gambon) took Sobel's portrayal of
Maskelyne and made a caricature out of it. If you haven't seen it, beware of
this: Maskelyne is portrayed as nearly a buffoon. There's a scene with him
fumbling incompetently with his sextant. In another scene, it's actually
suggested that he doesn't like women. There's plenty to like in this film,
and I have watched it twice despite the length, but it does have some
serious flaws.

 -FER



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply