illustrate the latter problem and to select a few examples that can be cited succinctly. The ‘heading’ is the direction in which the vessel is pointing, not the direction of sailing (31); a Gunter sector is not logarithmic (202) though his ‘rule’ is; the maximum altitude of the sun, even with an adjustment for declination, is not the latitude of the observer (39–40). Some problems might have been noticed with little specialist knowledge. It might have seemed unlikely that, as we are told, Riou was trying to manage with an average daily loss of time by ‘the ship’s watch’ of over two and a half hours (161); a figure quoted in a footnote would suggest that this is simply a misunderstanding of the symbols for minutes and seconds. We are told that Riou’s possible error of some 10 degrees in longitude was equivalent to ‘nearly’ 600 nautical miles (166). Presumably this equivalence is based on a conversion rate of 60 nautical miles per degree of longitude due east or west, but that is true only at the equator and elsewhere longitude lines converge progressively towards the poles. Riou’s position was in the southern Indian Ocean. It is a pity to find such flaws in a book on training for navigation. One appears on the first page, where much is made of the printed figure of a seaman holding what we are told is a log and line. The length of the line, the shape of the attachment and the nature of their connection surely indicate that this is a lead and line. As it happens, this identification is a stronger affirmation of the author’s thesis. The seaman holds a book aloft in his other hand: the trappings of literacy are to be associated with even the most humble and ancient of navigational practices. Why do authors feel they must try to engage with technical matters, if this leads to inaccuracy and confusion? Why not simply say that the primary source being cited deals with this or that technique, without trying to describe them in detail? A reviewer then might point out that technical matters are not covered, but a technical account is not always necessary and authors should play to their strengths, which in this case are considerable. As things stand, a reviewer who sees many inaccuracies owes readers an obligation to say so, and risks leaving a negative impression that could have been avoided. The fault arises from the reviewing or checking process at an earlier stage of preparing the text. This book cannot have been read carefully by someone well informed on technical matters of navigation in the period, as the inaccuracies could readily have been corrected and the confusions deleted one by one, leaving the strengths untainted. It is disappointing to see a neglect of technical reviewing in a book from a major university press.

中文翻译：

---

书评：劳里亚的罗杰（c.1250–1305）：“海军上将”

说明后一个问题，并选择几个可以简洁引用的例子。“航向”是船只指向的方向，而不是航行方向 (31)；Gunter 扇区不是对数 (202)，尽管他的“规则”是；太阳的最大高度，即使对赤纬进行了调整，也不是观察者的纬度（39-40）。有些问题可能在很少有专业知识的情况下就已经注意到了。据我们所知，Riou 试图应付平均每天“值班”时间超过两个半小时 (161) 的情况，这似乎不太可能；脚注中引用的数字表明，这只是对分钟和秒符号的误解。我们被告知，Riou 在经度上大约 10 度的可能误差相当于“接近”600 海里 (166)。据推测，这种等效是基于每度向东或向西经度 60 海里的转换率，但这仅在赤道和其他地方的经线逐渐向两极会聚。里奥的位置在南印度洋。很可惜，在一本关于航海训练的书中发现了这样的漏洞。一个出现在第一页上，其中大部分是由一个海员的印刷人物组成，我们被告知是一根原木和一条线。线的长度、附件的形状以及它们连接的性质肯定表明这是一条引线和一条线。碰巧，这种认同是对作者论点的更有力的肯定。海员的另一只手高举一本书：即使是最卑微、最古老的航海实践，也将与识字相联系。为什么作者觉得他们必须尝试处理技术问题，如果这会导致不准确和混乱？为什么不简单地说引用的主要来源涉及这种或那种技术，而不试图详细描述它们？然后，审稿人可能会指出技术问题不包括在内，但技术说明并不总是必要的，作者应该发挥自己的优势，在这种情况下，这些优势是相当可观的。就目前情况而言，看到许多不准确之处的审稿人有义务让读者这么说，并且可能会留下本来可以避免的负面印象。错误源于在准备文本的早期阶段的审查或检查过程。在那个时期，对航海技术问题了如指掌的人不可能仔细阅读这本书，因为不准确的地方很容易被纠正，混淆的地方一一删除，让优势不受影响。在主要大学出版社的一本书中看到对技术审查的忽视是令人失望的。