In This Case Also The
Column For "Remarques" Is Blank.
Can we believe that if the port had been
observed, no attempt would have been made to fix the situation of it?
The
latitudes and longitudes of some quite unimportant features of the coast
were duly noted. Here was a large bay, and not the slightest reference
was made to it in the table. The inevitable inference is that the French
saw nothing worth recording between Cape Schanck and Cape Otway. Baudin
is corroborated by the table of "positions geographiques."
3. The atlas issued with the first volume of the Voyage de Decouvertes in
1807 contained several coloured plates of views of coasts traversed by Le
Geographe. The work of the artists accompanying the expedition was very
beautiful; some of the plates have rarely been excelled in atlases of
this kind. These coast sketches, like narrow ribbons, prettily tinted,
were done from the deck of the ship, and represented the aspect of the
shore-line from seaward. The coasts of Bass Strait were duly represented,
but there was a gap between the Schanck and the Otway sides of Port
Phillip. Why? Obviously because the ship was not near enough to the coast
to enable the artists to see it clearly. Can we believe that men whose
particular task it was to depict the coasts traversed, would have missed
the picturesque gateway of Port Phillip if they had seen it? Baudin is
corroborated by the atlas.
4. The Moniteur of July 2, 1808, contained a long article by Lieutenant
Henri de Freycinet - elder brother of Louis - reviewing the work of the
expedition, on the occasion of the publication of Peron's first volume.
Now, Henri de Freycinet was Baudin's first lieutenant on Le Geographe. If
Port Phillip was seen from that ship on March 30, he should have seen it
if Baudin did not. If the captain was ill, or asleep, Henri de Freycinet
would be in charge. But in his article, though he described the
discoveries claimed to have been made with particular regard to the
so-called Terre Napoleon coasts, he made no reference to Port Phillip.
Baudin is corroborated by his chief officer.
5. Lastly, when Captain Hamelin returned to Europe with Le Naturaliste in
1803, Bonaparte's official organ, the Moniteur, published an article on
the voyage from information supplied partly by him and partly contained
in despatches.* (* Moniteur, 27 Thermidor, Revolutionary Year 11 (August
15, 1803).) Referring to Baudin's voyage along the "entierement
inconnues" southern coasts of Australia, the article said that he first
visited Wilson's Promontory (which it called Cap Wilson), and then
advanced along the coast till he met Captain Flinders. No reference was
made to seeing any port, although if one had been seen by any one on
board Le Geographe, it surely would have been mentioned with some amount
of pride in an official despatch.
As has already been said, Freycinet was not with Le Geographe on this
voyage, and therefore knew nothing about it personally. But before the
publication of the official history was completed, Peron died. Baudin was
also dead. Freycinet, who was preparing the maps, was instructed to
finish the work. He therefore wrote up from the notes and diaries of
other members of the expedition a geographical description of the coasts
traversed. His general plan, when describing coasts with which he had no
personal acquaintance, was to acknowledge in footnotes the particular
persons on whose notes he relied for his descriptions. But it is a
singular circumstance that when he came to describe this part of the
coast of Terre Napoleon, and to repeat, with an addition, Peron's
statement that Port Phillip was seen on March 30, he gave no footnote or
reference. In whose diary or notes was that fact recorded? It was not in
the ship's log, as we have seen. Who, then, saw Port Phillip from Le
Geographe? Henri de Freycinet did not; Baudin did not; Peron did not;
Louis de Freycinet was not there. If it were seen by a look-out man, did
no officer, or scientist, or artist on board, take the trouble to look at
it, or to make a note about it, or a drawing of it? What singular
explorers these were!
We must examine Freycinet's story a little more closely. He is not
content with saying, as Peron had done, that the port was seen from the
masthead. He is more precise - he, the man who was not there. He says:
"Nous en avons observe l'entree." That is more than Peron, who was there,
had claimed. If the "entrance" to Port Phillip was "observed" on March
30, still more incomprehensible is it that the ship did not enter, that
the fact was not mentioned in the log, that the latitude and longitude
were not taken, and that the artists neglected so excellent an
opportunity.
But that is not all. Freycinet, the man who was not there, and whose
narrative was not published till thirteen years after the voyage, has
further information to give us. He states, on whose authority we are not
told, that the country observed along part of this coast, between Cap
Suffren and Cap Marengo (that is, between Cape Patton and Cape Franklin),
presented "un aspect riant et fertile." The book containing these
descriptive words was, the reader will recollect, published in 1815. Now,
Flinders' volumes, A Voyage to Terra Australis, were published in 1814.
There he had described the country which he saw from inside the port as
presenting "a pleasing and in many places a fertile appearance." "Un
aspect riant et fertile" and "a pleasing and fertile appearance" are
identical terms. It may be a mere coincidence, though the comparison of
dates is a little startling. All the words which one can use are, as
Boileau said, "in the dictionaries"; every writer selects and arranges
them to suit his own ideas. But when Flinders said that the country
around Port Phillip looked "pleasing and fertile," he had seen it to
advantage.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 18 of 82
Words from 17579 to 18583
of 83218
