Full resolution (JPEG)
- On this page / på denna sida
- Chapter XII.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has been proofread at least once.
(diff)
(history)
Denna sida har korrekturlästs minst en gång.
(skillnad)
(historik)
and is open and frank in his praise. He says: “In the
spring of 1742 Chelyuskin crowned his work by sailing
from the Khatanga River around the eastern Taimyr
peninsula and also around the most northerly point of
Asia. He is the only one who a century ago had
succeeded in reaching and doubling this promontory. The
fact that among many he alone was successful in this
enterprise, must be attributed to his great ability. On
account of his perseverance, as well as his careful and
exact measurements, he stands preëminent among
seamen who have labored in the Taimyr country.” And
furthermore, in 1785, Sokoloff published a very careful
and extensive account of these labors, together with an
extract from Chelyuskin’s diary relating to the charting
of the Taimyr peninsula, which later was published in
German by Dr. Petermann.[1] The difference in latitude
of the northern point of the Taimyr peninsula as
determined by Chelyuskin and by Nordenskjöld is scarcely
three minutes. [2]
[1] Note 52.
[2] In his review of my book in the Journal of the American Geographical
Society, XVII., p. 288, Baron Nordenskjöld says: “Mr. Lauridsen has devoted
nearly two pages to showing that I am wrong in what I have said of
Chelyuskin—that ‘up to a recent date the statement that he really did reach the
northern point of Asia was doubted.’ But I had certainly the right to say
this. If a person in 1742 performed one of the heroic deeds of geography
without having received any acknowledgment for it in his lifetime, and if
the best authorities in this person’s own country a century later still
considered him an impostor, I was surely justified in giving the above-quoted
opinion in 1880, in spite of the fact that two eminent geographical authorities have
withdrawn their charges. Moreover, is it really the case that Sokoloff’s and
Von Baer’s later writings made it impossible to revive the old charge? He who
can assert this must be but slightly acquainted with the history of geography,
and with that of Siberian geography above all.” In a note Nordenskjöld
adds: “Previous to the departure of the Vega from Sweden, I received a letter
from an unknown well-wisher to our voyage, cautioning me not to put too
much faith in the Chelyuskin exploration story, as the writer of the letter considered it fictitious.” To the Baron’s criticism I shall simply remark: I
have shown in the text that when he wrote the “Voyage of the Vega” he
was not familiar with the latest works on this question. Hence he has been
entirely unable to decide whether the old doubts concerning Chelyuskin’s
results could be revived or not. I appeal to all students of these finer points
in the history of geography, who will certainly agree with my statement that
the Baron in this question has absolutely no other support than that of an
anonymous letter!—Author’s Note to American Edition.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Project Runeberg, Tue Dec 12 13:56:47 2023
(aronsson)
(diff)
(history)
(download)
<< Previous
Next >>
https://runeberg.org/vjberingen/0138.html
