Overleg:Clara (neushoorn)

message: Dank je, Jan: I found your message on my disk in German WP. I had found three different spellings of the name. What I could not find out yet: how the given year of Claras arrival in the Netherlands (1741) and Douwe Mouts two years (1742 and 1744) leading a ship again  from Europe to Asia and retour make sense. Clara alone in Leiden meanwhile? Do you have any idea? All the best from  7 jul 2008 16:32 (CEST) --Felistoria 7 jul 2008 22:42 (CEST) (nachsigniert)
replies: text: Hi Felistoria. I noticed that too, and I cannot explain. Either the sources are right an Clara stayed in Holland for a couple of years in the care of someone else, or the sources are wrong and Douwe took Clara home on the Goidschalxoord, a couple of years later. I put a question about this on the Dutch discussion page a year ago, but  nobody answered. The following is just a speculation: Leiden was a university town. You uploaded a drawing from Jan Wandelaar, from an anatomical book dated 1742 till 1747. Maybe the rhino was at the university that time, while Douwe was still traveling. Regards. Jan Arkesteijn 7 jul 2008 19:59 (CEST)
replies: text: :Heureka: Look at this:  (No. 4) and see this print: , especially the text. In all later "flyers" the arrival of the rhinoceros was declared to 1741 (see here,  Douwe Mouts official "flyer" for Vienna). What does that mean? The Holland-Rhino was in Hamburg from November 1743 up to 1744 - and Douwe Mout on a VOC-ship on the way back from Asia to Holland at the same time?? There must be a mistake. Ridley (2008, German edition) says that Douwe Mout quits VOC in 1741, that was the year he arrived in Holland with the Knappenhof. That makes sense, the Wandelaar-print shows a rhino-youngster, but must have been unknown to the printer of the Hamburg-flyer, because the picture shows a Dürer-rhino but without the (false) second horn. Is it possible that the VOC-archives are wrong? Or the Instituut voor Nederlandse Geschiedenis made a mistake? I'll check the original (!:-) Hamburg-source mentioned in my first googlebook-link above tomorrow. I am sure, we will find out. I love mysteries like that ... Greetings, 7 jul 2008 21:14 (CEST) --Felistoria 7 jul 2008 22:42 (CEST) (nachsigniert)
replies: text: ::I just registered my de-account here, so we can discuss the case now as an international affair:-). --Felistoria 7 jul 2008 21:22 (CEST)

text: ::I agree, it doesn't fit, Felistoria. The database of travels of the Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie is considered the most important publication on this subject. That doesn't mean it is perfect. I looked up another source at the Nationaal Archief. It is a database of all the people who sailed with the VOC since 1700.  says he travelled as an supreme steersman on the ship Phoenix to Batavia in 1739. There is no mention of his rank on the return in 1741 with the Knappenhof, but we can safely assume it was no less then supreme steersman. He was not married, because there was no maandbrief and schuldbrief (debenture).  shows his travel on the Goidschalxoord. He left in 1742 and returned in 1744 as a skipper. By now he was married to Elisabeth Snel. The conclusion is, that two different researchers report from the archives a Douwe Jansz Mout travelling in 1742-1744. These could be different people with the same name, but it is unlikely, because both of them had a father with the name Jan (therefore Jansz, meaning son of Jan) and both were high-ranked. My guess still is that he did travel again after 1741. Maybe the best thing to do, is to add these discrepancies to the text. One other peculiarity, if Glynis Ridley did a proper research, from the data shown here it should have been clear to her that his name was Douwe Mout, not Douwemout. Regards, Jan Arkesteijn 8 jul 2008 09:57 (CEST)
Lieber Jan, Du übersetzt aus dem Deutschen, nicht wahr? Ich schreibe deshalb mal auf Deutsch weiter. Ich überprüfe mal den Hamburger Aufenthalt des holländischen Nashorns aus Batavia. Vielleicht bringt uns das weiter. Darüberhinaus denke ich auch, dass diese Unklarheiten in den Artikel sollten; ich habe sie in de.wp auf die Disk zu "Clara (Nashorn)" gesetzt, würde sie aber auch in den Personenartikel zu Douwe Mout einbauen wollen. Ridley hat leider keine Fußnoten, sondern nur einen bibliographischen Anhang. Sie erwähnt eine Urkunde der Heirat mit Snel von 1751 - also nach der Italientour mit Clara. Schiffsreisen Douwe Mouts nach 1741 erwähnt sie gar nicht; womöglich ist sie auf dieselben Unklarheiten gestoßen, hat sie aber nicht weiter untersucht, da ihr Buch ja die Reisen mit dem Nashorn zum Thema hat, die wiederum nach 1751 auch eher unklar sind, bis auf den Aufenthalt in London 1758, wo das Tier starb. Danach verliert sich auch Douwe Mouts Spur - das Leben dieses Mannes ist offenbar nur als ein gemeinsames mit seinem Nashorn zwischen 1746 und 1751 und dann nochmal 1758 publik geworden. Buffon erwähnt ihn übrigens in seiner Histoire naturelle. Beste Grüße, --Felistoria 8 jul 2008 11:57 (CEST)

text: Hallo Felistoria, ob wir an die Wahrheit geraten, wird nicht vorhersagen zu sein, aber es interessiert mich auch. Die Zeitung ist interessant, weil das jetzt die Achse der Zweifel ist. Douwe Mout kam zuruck in die Niederlande in August 1744. Die Zeitung schreibt von ein Vorfuhrung in November 1743. When das aber ein Fehler ist, und es sollte November 1744 sein, könnte es stimmen. Ridley spricht von die Ehe mit Snel in 1751? Könnte sein, aber es ist doch wahrscheinlicher das die Ehe zwischen die beide Reisen statt fand. Damals war es nicht ordentlich, eher eine Schande, wenn Mann und Frau unverheiratet zusammen lebten. Unter die gewohne Leuten passierte das mal, aber Ich schätze so ein, dass Douwe Mout in bessere Kreise verkehrte, wo das nicht akzeptiert wurde. Ich habe das Buch von Ridley nicht gelesen, kann es auch nicht finden, aber Ich will hier noch ein anderes Buch aufsuchen: Irene Verheij: Op reis met Clara. De geschiedenis van een bezienswaardige neushoorn. (1992). (Auf Reise mit Clara. Die Geschichte einem sehenswürdige Nashorn) Vielleicht bringt das etwas neues. Beste Grüsse, Jan Arkesteijn 8 jul 2008 13:50 (CEST)
replies: text: :Dear Jan, thank you very much for the inspiring debate on my de:wp-user talk! To be continued? Best, --Felistoria 9 jul 2008 00:32 (CEST)

text: I hope so Felistoria. I liked it too. Any news about Clara or Douwe I will share with you, and I hope you will be able to find out which year Clara visited Hamburg. If you want to discuss something out of the scope of Wikipedia you can always send me an e-mail. Tschüs, Jan Arkesteijn 9 jul 2008 09:11 (CEST)
replies: text: :Unfortunately we don't have the named Volume of the Hamburgische Berichte von den neuen gelehrten Sachen, the so called Kohlblätter, but I will get a scan of the pages, means only waiting some weeks, because I will leave into holidays. I found out about our second question: Yes, there was another rhino 1739 in London. See Buffons footnotes here: ,especially on p. 236. Buffon published this part (not quite sure) about 1757; I have the German edition by Holle, Leipzig 1767. Demours (obviously Pierre Demours) who translated Parsons Essay in Philosophical Transactions  1742/43 argues with the differences between the pictures in Parson's essay and the prints made after Oudry's painting, but mainly states the incompatibility with Clara's age. Demours also says that the London-rhino was a male one and teh same, Edwards shows in his illustration. Buffon saw Clara in Paris 1479 and agrees to Demours arguments. And: he mentions a third rhino which died on his way from India to Europe on the ship in 1737 and describes a drawing of this animal made by an officer of the ship, which belongs to himself. So: we had two rhinos in Europe, a male one in London and a female one in Holland. A third one (1737) did'nt arrive alive. I'am sure the London male didn't survided captivity. When Clara became a European star, people forgot this "isolated" one in England or mixed the messages about it up with the news about Clara. Well, all this is socalled "original research" and not allowed in German WP; so I will have to publish all first seriously printed, you - second - have to give it in your article with reference and - third - I then have to translate into German:-p - crazy, isn't it?:-) Best, --Felistoria 9 jul 2008 18:21 (CEST)
thread_title: Onduidelijkheid in jaartallen