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 01:16:11 +0000
To: jvf~at~Gilead.org.il

Dear Ralf (and friends),

Regarding the following email:

In paragraph beginning "One timeline", I wrote "in the case of the last two
dates" where I meant to write "in the case of the first two dates".

And in my paragraph beginning "We have no choice", I wrote " 'previously
given' T2", where I meant to write "'previously given' T1".

Just to clarify.

Tom


From: "thomas mccormick" <tom_amity~at~hotmail.com>
Reply-To: Jules Verne Forum <jvf~at~Gilead.org.il>
To: jvf~at~Gilead.org.il
Subject: Re: Resolving Alleged Chronological Discrepancies In L'Ile
Mysterieuse
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:24:32 +0000

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

_________________________________________________________________
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 - 04:16:25 IDT

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