Illustrating the Phaenomena: Celestial Cartography in Antiquity and the Middle Ages
Illustrating the Phaenomena: Celestial Cartography in Antiquity and the Middle Ages
复制标题
说明现象：古代和中世纪的天体制图
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Warner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Warner
更严重的是糟糕的排版，有时会掩盖La Caille的原始文本和Glass的编辑摘要之间的差异（例如，在第88页，96页，103页）。然而，对于那些对我们如何书写18世纪殖民地时期的科学工作史感兴趣的学者来说，更令人担忧的是格拉斯对拉卡耶故事背景的处理。在许多情况下，旨在阐明历史背景的顺便评论会给人留下作者不熟悉该时期或该时期提出的问题的印象。举一个例子，在设置在开普殖民地的场景时，格拉斯写道：“奴隶来自许多地方，如马达加斯加和印度洋沿岸的各个领土。他们做了大部分的体力劳动，但与流行的看法相反，他们很少受到虐待，因为他们是主人最宝贵的财产，在某些情况下，几乎是“家庭的一部分”。对于那些受过殖民历史训练的人来说，这种明确否认奴隶制固有的暴力的做法，说得委婉些，似乎是有问题的。(On可以想象，格拉斯可能是在暗指开普敦奴隶制历史编纂中的一场辩论--这场辩论在蒂莫西·J·基冈的《殖民地南非和种族秩序的起源》（夏洛茨维尔，弗吉尼亚大学出版社，1996年），第15-16页和第298页n.中进行了总结。3-但格拉斯没有提供这样的脚注来引导读者。）在殖民地背景下撰写科学史显然是困难的。将拉卡耶置于背景中的一种方法可能是将他与其他前往18世纪南部非洲的科学旅行者进行比较（例如，齐格弗里德·惠根，《知识与殖民主义》（莱顿，布里尔，2009年）），或者确实与其他前往世界其他地方的科学旅行者进行比较，但除了一节涉及拉卡耶对彼得·科尔贝的批评外，格拉斯没有尝试这样的比较。当然，有一些方法可以写关于拉卡耶的文章，使技术问题成为他们的焦点（例如，柯蒂斯A。威尔逊的工作，他的太阳表），但在使远征好望角的重点，他的书，玻璃选择了一种方法，肯定需要更多的照顾处理的历史背景。
more serious is the poor typesetting, which sometimes obscures the difference between La Caille’s source text and Glass’s editorial summaries (for example, on pages 88, 96, 103). More worrying still, though, for scholars interested in how we write the history of scientific work in the colonial spaces of the eighteenth century will be Glass’s handling of the context for La Caille’s story. In many cases, passing remarks intended to articulate historical context create the impression that the author is unfamiliar with the period, or with the issues that the period raises. To take one example, while setting the scene in the Cape Colony, Glass writes: ‘the slaves came from many places such as Madagascar and various territories bordering the Indian Ocean. They did most of the manual work but, contrary to popular belief, were seldom badly treated, being their owners’ most valuable possessions and, in some cases, almost “part of the family” (40). To those trained in colonial history, such an explicit denial of the violence inherent in the institution of slavery will appear, to put it mildly, problematic. (On this issue, conceivably, Glass may be alluding to a debate in the historiography of slavery at the Cape—a debate summarized in Timothy J. Keegan, Colonial South Africa and the Origins of the Racial Order (Charlottesville, University of Virginia Press, 1996), 15–16 and 298 n. 3—but Glass provides no such footnote to orient the reader.) Writing the history of science in colonial settings is, clearly, difficult. One way of setting La Caille in context might have been to compare him with other scientific travellers to eighteenth-century southern Africa (for instance, Siegfried Huigen, Knowledge and Colonialism (Leiden, Brill, 2009)), or indeed with other scientific travellers to other parts of the world, but aside from a section dealing with La Caille’s critiques of Peter Kolbe, Glass does not attempt such comparison. There are certainly ways to write about La Caille that make technical matters their focus (for example, Curtis A. Wilson’s work on his solar tables), but in making the expedition to the Cape the focus of his book, Glass has chosen an approach that surely calls for more care in the handling of the historical context.