him a myth, a fancy, a piece of poetry, so long as we have not exactly
settled the method of determining it. I shall disregard the
expressions which my honorable colleague has thus introduced into the
discussion, because this discussion should be serious. It is plain
that Prof. ABBE did not thoroughly apprehend the explanations which I
gave of the proper methods of fixing the initial meridian, and of the
conditions which make a meridian neutral; but I return to them, since
I am invited to do so. Our meridian will be neutral if, in place of
taking one of those which are fixed by the existing great
observatories, to which, consequently, the name of a nation is
attached, and which by long usage is identified with that nation, we
choose a meridian based only upon geographical considerations, and
upon the uses for which we propose to adopt it.

Do you want a striking example of what differentiates a neutral
meridian from a national meridian? In order to avoid the confusion
which existed in geography at the beginning of the seventeenth
century, on account of the multiplicity of initial meridians then in
use, a congress of learned men, assembled in Paris at the instance of
Richelieu to select a new common meridian, fixed its choice on the
most eastern point of the Island of Ferro. This was a purely
geographical meridian, being attached to no capital, to no national
observatory, and consequently neutral, or, if you please, purely
geographical. Later, Le père Feuillet, sent in 1724 by the Academy of
Sciences to determine the exact longitude of the initial point, having
given the figure 19° 55' 3" west of Paris, the geographer, Delisle,
for the sake of simplicity, adopted the round number 20°; and, as I
stated a little while ago, this alteration completely changed the
character of this prime meridian. It ceased to be neutral, and became
merely the meridian of Paris disguised, as has been truly said, and