Robert Falcon Scott
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Scott of the Antarctic" redirects here. For the 1948 film, see Scott of the Antarctic (film).
| Robert Falcon Scott | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Born | 6 June 1868 Plymouth, Devon, England, UK |
| Died | 29 March 1912 (aged 43) Ross Ice Shelf, Antarctica |
| Education | Naval cadet programme, HMS Britannia |
| Occupation | Royal Navy officer and Antarctic explorer |
| Spouse(s) | Kathleen Bruce |
| Children | Peter Markham Scott |
| Parents | John Edward Scott Hannah Scott |
| Awards | Cullum Geographical Medal (1906) |
Before his appointment to lead the Discovery Expedition, Scott had followed the conventional career of a naval officer in peacetime Victorian Britain, where opportunities for career advancement were both limited and keenly sought after by ambitious officers. It was the chance for personal distinction and financial pressure that led Scott to apply for the Discovery command, rather than any predilection for polar exploration.[1] However, having taken this step, his name became inseparably associated with the Antarctic, the field of work to which he remained committed during the final twelve years of his life.
Following the news of his death, Scott became an iconic British hero, a status maintained without serious question for more than 50 years and reflected by the many permanent memorials erected across the nation. In the closing decades of the 20th century, the legend was reassessed as attention focused on the causes of the disaster that ended his and his comrades' lives, and the extent of Scott's personal culpability. From a previously unassailable position, Scott became a figure of controversy, with questions raised about his competence and character. Commentators in the 21st century have on the whole regarded Scott more positively, emphasising his personal bravery and stoicism while acknowledging his errors, but ascribing his expedition's fate primarily to misfortune.
Contents
Early life
Family
Scott was born on 6 June 1868, the third child out of six and elder son of John Edward and Hannah (née Cuming) Scott of Stoke Damerel, near Devonport, Devon. Although his father was a brewer and magistrate, there were naval and military traditions in the family, Scott's grandfather and four uncles all having served in the army or navy.[2] John Scott's prosperity came from the ownership of a small Plymouth brewery which he inherited from his father and subsequently sold.[3] In later years, when Scott was establishing his naval career, the family would suffer serious financial misfortune, but his early childhood years were spent in comfort.In accordance with the family's tradition, Robert and his younger brother Archibald were predestined for careers in the armed services. Robert spent four years at a local day school before being sent to Stubbington House School, Stubbington, Hampshire, a cramming establishment preparing candidates for the entrance examinations to the naval training ship HMS Britannia at Dartmouth. Having passed these exams Scott, aged 13, began his naval career in 1881, as a cadet.[4]
In March 1888 Scott passed his examinations for sub-lieutenant, with four first class certificates out of five.[7] His career progressed smoothly, with service on various ships and promotion to lieutenant in 1889. In 1891, after a long spell in foreign waters, he applied for the two-year torpedo training course on HMS Vernon, an important career step. He graduated with first class certificates in both the theory and practical examinations. A small blot occurred in the summer of 1893 when, while commanding a torpedo boat, Scott ran it aground, a mishap which earned him a mild rebuke.[8]
During the research for his dual biography of Scott and Roald Amundsen,[9] polar historian Roland Huntford investigated a possible scandal in Scott's early naval career, related to the period 1889–90 when Scott was a lieutenant on HMS Amphion. According to Huntford, Scott "disappears from naval records" for eight months, from mid-August 1889 until 26 March 1890. Huntford hints at involvement with a married American woman, of cover-up, and protection by senior officers. Biographer David Crane reduces the missing period to eleven weeks, but is unable to clarify further. He rejects the notion of protection by senior officers on the grounds that Scott was not important or well-connected enough to warrant this. Documents that may have offered explanations are missing from Admiralty records.[10]
In 1894, while serving as torpedo officer on the depot ship HMS Vulcan, Scott learned of the financial calamity that had overtaken his family. John Scott, having sold the brewery and invested the proceeds unwisely, had lost all his capital and was now virtually bankrupt.[11] At the age of 63, and in poor health, he was forced to take a job as a brewery manager and move his family to Shepton Mallet, Somerset. Three years later, while Robert was serving with the Channel squadron flagship HMS Majestic, John Scott died of heart disease, creating a fresh family crisis.[12] Hannah Scott and her two unmarried daughters now relied entirely on the service pay of Scott and the salary of younger brother Archie, who had left the army for a higher-paid post in the colonial service. Archie's own death in the autumn of 1898, after contracting typhoid fever, meant that the whole financial responsibility for the family rested on Scott.[13]
Promotion, and the extra income this would bring, now became a matter of considerable concern to Scott.[14] Early in June 1899, while home on leave, he had a chance encounter in a London street with Clements Markham (now knighted and RGS President), and learned for the first time of an impending Antarctic expedition under the auspices of the Royal Geographical Society. It was an opportunity for early command and a chance to distinguish himself. What passed between them on this occasion is not recorded, but a few days later, on 11 June, Scott appeared at the Markham residence and volunteered to lead the expedition.[6]
Discovery Expedition 1901–1904
Main article: Discovery Expedition
The British National Antarctic Expedition, later known as the Discovery Expedition, was a joint enterprise of the RGS and the Royal Society.
A long-cherished dream of Markham's, it required all of his skills and
cunning to bring the expedition to fruition, under naval command and
largely staffed by naval personnel. Scott may not have been Markham's
first choice as leader but, having decided on him, the older man's
support remained constant.[15]
There were committee battles over the scope of Scott's
responsibilities, with the Royal Society pressing to put a scientist in
charge of the expedition's programme while Scott merely commanded the
ship. Eventually, however, Markham's view prevailed;[16] Scott was given overall command, and was promoted to the rank of commander before Discovery sailed for the Antarctic on 6 August 1901.[17] King Edward VII,
who showed a keen interest in the expedition, visited the Discovery the
day before the ship left British shores in August 1901,[18] and during the visit appointed Scott a Member of the Royal Victorian Order (MVO), his personal gift.[19]
Experience of Antarctic or Arctic waters was almost entirely lacking within the 50-strong party and there was very little special training in equipment or techniques before the ship set sail.[20] Dogs were taken, as were skis, but hardly anyone knew how to use them. In Markham's view, professionalism was considered less praiseworthy than "unforced aptitude",[21] and possibly Scott was influenced by Markham's belief. In the first of the two full years which Discovery spent in the ice, this insouciance was severely tested, as the expedition struggled to meet the challenges of the unfamiliar terrain. During an early attempt at ice travel, a blizzard trapped expedition members in their tent and their decision to leave it resulted in the death of George Vince, who slipped over a precipice on 11 March 1902.[22][23]
At the end of the expedition it took the combined efforts of two relief ships and the use of explosives to free Discovery from the ice.[28] Afterwards, Scott remained unconvinced that dogs and ski were the keys to efficient ice travel. In the following years he continued to express the British preference for man-hauling (the practice of propelling sledges by manpower, unassisted by animals),[29] a view he maintained until very late in his Antarctic career. His insistence during the expedition on Royal Navy formalities had made for uneasy relations with the merchant navy contingent, many of whom departed for home with the first relief ship in March 1903. Second-in-command Albert Armitage, a merchant officer, was offered the chance to go home on compassionate grounds, but chose to interpret the offer as a personal slight, and refused.[30] Armitage also promoted the idea that the decision to send Shackleton home on the relief ship arose from Scott's animosity rather than Shackleton's physical breakdown.[31] Although there were later tensions between Scott and Shackleton, when their polar ambitions directly clashed, in public mutual civilities were preserved;[32] Scott joined in the official receptions that greeted Shackleton on his return in 1909 after the Nimrod Expedition,[33] and the two were exchanging polite letters about their respective ambitions in 1909–10.[34]
Between expeditions
Popular hero
Discovery returned to Britain in September 1904. The expedition had caught the public imagination, and Scott became a popular hero. He was awarded a cluster of honours and medals, including many from overseas, and was promoted to the rank of captain.[35] He was invited to Balmoral Castle, where King Edward VII promoted him a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (CVO).[36]Scott's next few years were crowded. For more than a year he was occupied with public receptions, lectures and the writing of the expedition record, The Voyage of the Discovery. In January 1906, he resumed his full-time naval career, first as an Assistant Director of Naval Intelligence at the Admiralty and, in August, as flag-captain to Rear-Admiral Sir George Egerton on HMS Victorious.[37] He was now moving in ever more exalted social circles — a telegram to Markham in February 1907 refers to meetings with the Queen and Crown Prince of Portugal, and a later letter home reports lunching with the Commander-in-Chief of the Fleet and Prince Heinrich of Prussia.[38]
Dispute with Shackleton
By early 1906, Scott had sounded out the RGS about the possible funding of a future Antarctic expedition.[39] It was therefore unwelcome news to him that Ernest Shackleton had announced his own plans to travel to Discovery's old McMurdo Sound base and launch a bid for the South Pole from there.[40] Scott claimed, in the first of a series of letters to Shackleton, that the area around McMurdo was his own "field of work" to which he had prior rights until he chose to give them up, and that Shackleton should therefore work from an entirely different area.[41] In this, he was strongly supported by Discovery's former zoologist, Edward Wilson, who asserted that Scott's rights extended to the entire Ross Sea sector.[42] This Shackleton refused to concede. Finally, to end the impasse, Shackleton agreed, in a letter to Scott dated 17 May 1907, to work to the east of the 170° W meridian and therefore to avoid all the familiar Discovery ground.[43] In the end it was a promise that he was unable to keep after his search for alternative landing grounds proved fruitless. With his only other option being to return home, he set up his headquarters at Cape Royds, close to the old Discovery base.[44] For this he was roundly condemned by the British polar establishment at the time. Among modern polar writers, Ranulph Fiennes regards Shackleton's actions as a technical breach of honour, but adds: "My personal belief is that Shackleton was basically honest but circumstances forced his McMurdo landing, much to his distress".[45] The polar historian Beau Riffenburgh states that the promise to Scott "should never ethically have been demanded", and compares Scott's intransigence on this matter unfavourably with the generous attitudes of the Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen, who gave freely of his advice and expertise to all, whether they were potential rivals or not.[46]Marriage
Scott, who because of his Discovery fame had entered Edwardian society, first met Kathleen Bruce early in 1907 at a private luncheon party.[47] She was a sculptress, socialite and cosmopolitan who had studied under Auguste Rodin[48] and whose circle included Isadora Duncan, Pablo Picasso and Aleister Crowley.[49] Her initial meeting with Scott was brief, but when they met again later that year, the mutual attraction was obvious. A stormy courtship followed; Scott was not her only suitor—his main rival was would-be novelist Gilbert Cannan—and his absences at sea did not assist his cause.[50] However, Scott's persistence was rewarded and, on 2 September 1908, at the Chapel Royal, Hampton Court Palace, the wedding took place.[51] Their only child, Peter Markham Scott, was born on 14 September 1909.[52]By this time, Scott had announced his plans for his second Antarctic expedition. Shackleton had returned, having narrowly failed to reach the Pole, and this gave Scott the impetus to proceed.[53] On 24 March 1909, he had taken the Admiralty-based appointment of naval assistant to the Second Sea Lord which placed him conveniently in London. In December he was released on half-pay, to take up the full-time command of the British Antarctic Expedition 1910, to be known as the Terra Nova Expedition from its ship, Terra Nova.[54]
Terra Nova Expedition 1910–1912
Main article: Terra Nova Expedition
Preparation
It was the expressed hope of the RGS that this expedition would be "scientific primarily, with exploration and the Pole as secondary objects"[55] but, unlike the Discovery Expedition, neither they nor the Royal Society were in charge this time. In his expedition prospectus, Scott stated that its main objective was "to reach the South Pole, and to secure for the British Empire the honour of this achievement".[55] Scott had, as Markham observed, been "bitten by the Pole mania".[55]Scott did not know that he would be in a race until he received Amundsen's telegram in Melbourne, in October 1910.[56] Before this, he had set about fashioning the expedition according to his own preferences, without the restraints of a joint committee. So far as transport was concerned, he decided that dogs would be one element in a complex strategy that also involved horses and motor sledges, and much man-hauling. Scott knew nothing of horses, but felt that as they had seemingly served Shackleton well, he ought to use them.[57] Dog expert Cecil Meares was going to Siberia to select the dogs, and Scott ordered that, while he was there, he should deal with the purchase of Manchurian ponies. Meares was not an experienced horse-dealer, and the ponies he chose proved mostly of poor quality, and ill-suited to prolonged Antarctic work.[34] Meanwhile, Scott spent time in France and Norway, testing motor-sledges, and recruited Bernard Day, from Shackleton's expedition, as his motor expert.[58]
First season
Scott refused to amend his schedule to deal with the Amundsen threat, writing, "The proper, as well as the wiser course, is for us to proceed exactly as though this had not happened".[63] While acknowledging that the Norwegian's base was closer to the pole and that his experience as a dog driver was formidable, Scott had the advantage of travelling over a known route pioneered by Shackleton. During the 1911 winter his confidence increased; on 2 August, after the return of a three-man party from their winter journey to Cape Crozier, Scott wrote, "I feel sure we are as near perfection as experience can direct".[64]
Journey to the Pole
Scott outlined his plans for the southern journey to the entire shore party,[65] but left open who would form the final polar team. Eleven days before Scott's teams set off towards the pole, Scott gave the dog driver Meares the following written orders at Cape Evans dated 20 October 1911 to secure Scott's speedy return from the pole using dogs:About the first week of February I should like you to start your third journey to the South, the object being to hasten the return of the third Southern unit [the polar party] and give it a chance to catch the ship. The date of your departure must depend on news received from returning units, the extent of the depot of dog food you have been able to leave at One Ton Camp, the state of the dogs, etc ... It looks at present as though you should aim at meeting the returning party about March 1 in Latitude 82 or 82.30 [66]The march south began on 1 November 1911, a caravan of mixed transport groups (motors, dogs, horses), with loaded sledges, travelling at different rates, all designed to support a final group of four men who would make a dash for the Pole. The southbound party steadily reduced in size as successive support teams turned back. Scott reminded the returning Atkinson of the order "to take the two dog-teams south in the event of Meares having to return home, as seemed likely".[67] By 4 January 1912, the last two four-man groups had reached 87° 34′ S.[68] Scott announced his decision: five men (Scott, Edward Wilson, Henry Bowers, Lawrence Oates and Edgar Evans) would go forward, the other three (Teddy Evans, William Lashly and Tom Crean) would return. The chosen group marched on, reaching the Pole on 17 January 1912, only to find that Amundsen had preceded them by five weeks. Scott's anguish is indicated in his diary: "The worst has happened"; "All the day dreams must go"; "Great God! This is an awful place".[69]
Last march
Meanwhile back at Cape Evans, the Terra Nova arrived at the beginning of February, and Atkinson decided to unload the supplies from the ship with his own men rather than set out south with the dogs to meet Scott as ordered. When Atkinson finally did leave south for the planned rendezvous with Scott, he encountered the scurvy-ridden Edward ("Teddy") Evans who needed his urgent medical attention. Atkinson therefore tried to send the experienced navigator Wright south to meet Scott, but chief meteorologist Simpson declared he needed Wright for scientific work. Atkinson then decided to send the short-sighted Cherry-Garrard on 25 February, who was not able to navigate, only as far as One Ton depot (which is within sight of Mount Erebus), effectively cancelling Scott's orders for meeting him at latitude 82 or 82.30 on 1 March.[74]
With 400 miles (670 km) still to travel across the Ross Ice Shelf, Scott's party's prospects steadily worsened as, with deteriorating weather, frostbite, snow blindness, hunger and exhaustion, and no sign of the dog-teams, they struggled northward.[75] On 16 March, Oates, whose condition was aggravated by an old war-wound to the extent that he was barely able to walk,[76] voluntarily left the tent and walked to his death.[77] Scott wrote that Oates' last words were "I am just going outside and may be some time".[78]
After walking a further 20 miles, the three remaining men made their final camp on 19 March, 11 miles (18 km) short of One Ton Depot, but 24 miles (38 km) beyond the original intended location of the depot. The next day a fierce blizzard prevented their making any progress.[79] During the next nine days, as their supplies ran out, with frozen fingers, little light, and storms still raging outside the tent, Scott wrote his final words, although he gave up his diary after 23 March, save for a final entry on 29 March, with its concluding words: "Last entry. For God's sake look after our people".[80] He left letters to Wilson's mother, Bowers' mother, a string of notables including his former commander Sir George Egerton, his own mother and his wife.[81] He also wrote his "Message To The Public", primarily a defence of the expedition's organisation and conduct in which the party's failure is attributed to weather and other misfortunes, but ending on an inspirational note, with these words:
| We took risks, we knew we took them; things have come out against us, and therefore we have no cause for complaint, but bow to the will of Providence, determined still to do our best to the last ... Had we lived, I should have had a tale to tell of the hardihood, endurance, and courage of my companions which would have stirred the heart of every Englishman. These rough notes and our dead bodies must tell the tale, but surely, surely, a great rich country like ours will see that those who are dependent on us are properly provided for.[82] |
Scott is presumed to have died on 29 March 1912, or possibly one day later. The positions of the bodies in the tent when it was discovered eight months later suggested that Scott was the last of the three to die.[83]
Reputation
Glorification
The world was informed of the tragedy when Terra Nova reached Oamaru, New Zealand, on 10 February 1913.[86] Within days, Scott became a national icon.[87] A fierce nationalistic spirit was aroused; the London Evening News called for the story to be read to schoolchildren throughout the land,[88] to coincide with the memorial service at St Paul's Cathedral on 14 February. Robert Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts Association, asked: "Are Britons going downhill? No! ... There is plenty of pluck and spirit left in the British after all. Captain Scott and Captain Oates have shown us that".[89] Eleven-year-old Mary Steel wrote a poem which ended:
Though naught but a simple cross
Now marks those heroes' grave,
Their names will live forever!
Oh England, Land of the Brave![90]
An article in The Times, reporting on the glowing tributes paid to Scott in the New York press, claimed that both Amundsen and Shackleton were "[amazed] to hear that such a disaster could overtake a well-organized expedition".[95] On learning the details of Scott's death, Amundsen is reported as saying, "I would gladly forgo any honour or money if thereby I could have saved Scott his terrible death".[96] Scott was much the better wordsmith of the two, and the story that spread throughout the world was largely that told by him, with Amundsen's victory reduced in the eyes of many to an unsporting stratagem.[97] Even before Scott's death was known, Amundsen had been offended by what he felt was a "sneering toast"' from RGS President Lord Curzon, at a meeting held supposedly to honour the polar victor. Curzon had called for "three cheers for the dogs". According to Huntford's account, this slight caused Amundsen to resign his honorary RGS fellowship.[98][99]
The response to Scott's final plea on behalf of the dependents of the dead was enormous by the standards of the day. The Mansion House Scott Memorial Fund closed at £75,000 (2009 approximation £5.5 million). This was not equally distributed; Scott's widow, son, mother and sisters received a total of £18,000 (£1.3 million). Wilson's widow got £8,500 (£600,000) and Bowers's mother £4,500 (£330,000). Edgar Evans's widow, children and mother received £1,500 (£109,000) between them.[100][101]
In the dozen years following the disaster, more than 30 monuments and memorials were set up in Britain alone. These ranged from simple relics (Scott's sledging flag in Exeter Cathedral) to the foundation of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge. Many more were established in other parts of the world, including a statue crafted by his widow for his New Zealand base in Christchurch.[102][103]
A century of storms and snow have covered the cairn and tent, which are now encased in the Ross Ice Shelf as it inches towards the Ross Sea. In 2001 glaciologist Charles R. Bentley estimated that the tent with the bodies was under about 75 feet (23 m) of ice and about 30 miles (48 km) from the point where they died; he speculated that in about 275 years the bodies would reach the Ross Sea, and perhaps float away inside an iceberg.[104]
Modern reaction
Main article: Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott
Further information: Comparison of the Amundsen and Scott Expeditions
In 1979 came the most sustained attack on Scott, from Roland Huntford's dual biography Scott and Amundsen in which Scott is depicted as a "heroic bungler".[110] Huntford's thesis had an immediate impact, becoming the new orthodoxy.[111] Even Scott's heroism in the face of death is challenged; Huntford sees Scott's Message to the Public as a deceitful self-justification from a man who had led his comrades to their deaths.[105] After Huntford's book, debunking Captain Scott became commonplace; Francis Spufford, in a 1996 history not wholly antagonistic to Scott, refers to "devastating evidence of bungling",[112] concluding that "Scott doomed his companions, then covered his tracks with rhetoric".[113] Travel writer Paul Theroux summarised Scott as "confused and demoralised ... an enigma to his men, unprepared and a bungler".[114] This decline in Scott's reputation was accompanied by a corresponding rise in that of his erstwhile rival Shackleton, at first in the United States but eventually in Britain as well.[115] A 2002 nationwide poll in the United Kingdom to discover the "100 Greatest Britons" showed Shackleton in eleventh place, Scott well down the list at 54th.[115]
The early years of the 21st century have seen a shift of opinion in Scott's favour, in what cultural historian Stephanie Barczewski calls "a revision of the revisionist view".[116] Meteorologist Susan Solomon's 2001 account The Coldest March ties the fate of Scott's party to the extraordinarily adverse Barrier weather conditions of February and March 1912 rather than to personal or organizational failings, although Solomon accepts the validity of some of the criticisms of Scott.[117] In 2004 polar explorer Sir Ranulph Fiennes published a biography which was a strong defence of Scott and an equally forthright rebuttal of Huntford; the book is dedicated "To the Families of the Defamed Dead".[116][118] Fiennes was later criticised by the reviewer of another book for the personal nature of his attacks on Huntford, and for his apparent assumption that his own experiences as a polar explorer gave him unique authority.[119]
In 2005 David Crane published a new Scott biography which, according to Barczewski, goes some way towards an assessment of Scott "free from the baggage of earlier interpretations".[116] What has happened to Scott's reputation, Crane argues, derives from the way the world has changed since the heroic myth was formed: "It is not that we see him differently from the way they [his contemporaries] did, but that we see him the same, and instinctively do not like it."[120] Crane's main achievement, according to Barczewski, is the restoration of Scott's humanity, "far more effectively than either Fiennes's stridency or Solomon's scientific data."[116] Daily Telegraph columnist Jasper Rees, likening the changes in explorers' reputations to climatic variations, suggests that "in the current Antarctic weather report, Scott is enjoying his first spell in the sun for twenty-five years".[121] The New York Times Book Review was more critical, pointing out Crane's support for Scott's discredited claims regarding the circumstances of the freeing of the Discovery from the pack ice, and concluded "For all the many attractions of his book, David Crane offers no answers that convincingly exonerate Scott from a significant share of responsibility for his own demise."[119]
In 2012, Karen May published her discovery that Scott had issued written orders, before his march to the Pole, for Meares to meet the returning party with dog-teams, in contrast to Huntford's assertion that Scott issued those vital instructions only as a casual oral order to Evans during the march to the Pole. This misrepresentation has given a generation of modern scholars since 1979 the impression that Scott had left his subordinates back at base unsure of his intentions, who would consequently have failed to use the dogs in a concerted attempt to relieve the returning polar party when the need arose.[74]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment-- or suggestions, particularly of topics and places you'd like to see covered