Jules Verne Forum

<jvf@Gilead.org.il>

JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Re: Resolving Alleged Chronological Discrepancies In L'Ile Mysterieuse

From: thomas mccormick <tom_amity~at~hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:24:32 +0000
To: jvf~at~Gilead.org.il

Dear Ralf,

You write -

>But doesn't your statement [below] confirm that the
>discrepancies persist and cannot be resolved... unless we change
>dates?

I think not. There are two timelines in Nemo's autobiographical narrative in
Part III, chapter xvi of Mysteriious Island (MI).

One timeline, which I call T1, employs actual dates: 1849, 1857, and two
dates in 1866 and 1867 - these are derived from Twenty Thousand Leagues
(20TL) or, in the case of the last two dates, extrapolable therefrom, the
only proviso being that 1866/67 is a slip for 1867/68 (for some reason Verne
makes similar slips at least six times elsewhere in MI).

T1 is entirely consistent with itself. It is also consistent with 20TL,
allowing for the slip. But it contradicts the internal chronology of MI.
Verne specifically tells us in two Editorial Notes, here and in Part II,
that this timeline is "wrong" in terms of the imaginary world of MI. His
note says: "The true dates could not be given until now." Thus, even while
Nemo's narrative cites these 20TL dates, Verne tells us in his Notes that
they are not correct, and directs us to substitute "the true dates".

So, what are "the true dates"? They constitute the second timeline (T2),
which in fact contains the only set of "new dates" in the narrative. This
new timeline is clearly distinguished from T1 because it uses an entirely
different method for dating events: instead of citing actual dates (1849,
etc.), it uses durations: "For thirty years", "sixteen years ago", "from the
age of ten to thirty", "[when Nemo was] sixty years old", "for six years".
The timeline formed by these dates is consistent with itself, just as T1 is
consistent with itself. Unlike T1, however, it is consistent also with the
events of MI, and completely inconsistent with T1 and with the the dating of
the events of 20TL. The latter (T1) is precisely what Verne in his Note
tells us is "wrong" and to be eschewed in favor of the "true dates which
could not be given until now", i.e. the dates as given in T2.

In other words, the Editorial Note identifies the dates occuring in, and/or
extrapolable from, 20TL, and whose occurence in Nemo's MI narrative
constitutes what I call T1, as "wrong", and directs us to substitute "the
true dates" which "could not be given until now". What dates are "not given
until now"? Those of T2, which are distinguished from the "wrong" dates by
the fact that they are cited by means of their duration rather than by
actual dates, and which are the only new dates given.

Since T1 identifies the year of Dakkar/Nemo's return to Bundelkhand at age
thirty as 1849, and since T2 tells us that Nemo was "sixty years old" six
years prior to the arrival of the Americans at Lincoln Island in 1865, both
timelines make their precise internal datings possible.

T1 gives us:

1819: Nemo born in Bundelkhand as Prince Dakkar.
1829: Dakkar goes to live in Europe at age 10.*
1849: Dakkar returns to Bundelkhand at age 30.*
1857: Dakkar participates in rebellion.
18(?): Dakkar builds the Nautilus with his companions, becoming Nemo.
1866-67 [sic - slip for 1867-68]: Aronnax and party aboard the Nautilus.

*Assuming that Dakkar was abroad "from age ten to thirty", as in T2.


T2 gives us:

1799: Nemo born in Bundelkhand as Prince Dakkar.
1809: Dakkar goes to live in Europe at age 10.
1829: Dakkar returns to Bundelkhand at age 30.
18(?): Dakkar participates in rebellion.*
1838: Dakkar builds the Nautilus with his companions, becoming Nemo.**
1852-53: Aronnax and party aboard the Nautilus.***
1859: Nemo pilots the Nautilus to her last berth on Lincoln Island.***
1865: Arrival of American colonists.

*Impossibly the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857, but rather a previous (possibly
fictional) sepoy rebellion.
**"For thirty years [as of 1868] I have lived beneath the ocean."
***"The Frenchman who chanced upon me sixteen years ago [as of 1868]."
****"Captain Nemo was then sixty years old . . . For six years he remained
here, waiting for death, Then he witnessed the arrival of the American
colonists from the sky."

We have no choice other than to accept Verne's flat statement: in terms of
the imaginary world of MI, T2 is correct and the "previously given" T2 is
wrong. To opt for either timeline, of course, has unnerving consequences. T1
makes hash of the entire chronology of MI, a novel in which Verne has taken
great care to give precise dates for almost every incident. T2, on the other
hand, forces us to conclude that the events of 20TL took place in 1952-53,
and that author Aronnax not only gave fictititious dates but set the story
in what was, for then, the future, no doubt necessitating a number of
anachronisms of which the name of the ship Abraham Lincoln is only one. T2
does not, however, leave us with any chronological anomalies or
discrepancies, but only the question of how in blazes Verne intends to make
good on his promise that "why the true dates could not have been given until
now" will be apparent to us "later"!

>So it would seem to me that you make a distinction between "chronological
>discrepancies" (which can be resolved) and "date discrepancies"
>(which cannot be resolved, but require redating).

Not what I meant to say.

Tom


>From: ralf.tauchmann~at~t-online.de (Ralf Tauchmann)
>Reply-To: Jules Verne Forum <jvf~at~Gilead.org.il>
>To: "Jules Verne Forum" <jvf~at~Gilead.org.il>
>Subject: Re: Resolving Alleged Chronological Discrepancies In L'Ile
>Mysterieuse
>Date: 12 Jun 2006 05:53 GMT
>
>"thomas mccormick" <tom_amity~at~hotmail.com> schrieb:
> > The "old" (20,000 Leagues) chronology
> > is wildly out of synch with the events of Mysterious Island; the second
> > chronology is quite consistent with those events although it requires an
>odd
> > re-dating of 20,000 Leagues.
>
>Dear Tom,
>
>But doesn't your statement as cited above confirm that the
>discrepancies persist and cannot be resolved... unless we change
>dates?
>
>So it would seem to me that you make a distinction between "chronological
>discrepancies" (which can be resolved) and "date discrepancies"
>(which cannot be resolved, but require redating).
>
>All the best,
>
>Ralf Tauchmann
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>mailto:ralf.tauchmann~at~t-online.de
>tel: +49-351-8336141 fax: -8336142
>http://www.ratau.de ; http://www.brassens.de
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Received on Tue 13 Jun 2006 - 03:24:50 IDT

JV.Gilead.org.il
Copyright © Zvi Har’El
$Date: 2009/02/01 22:36:11 $$