HOME WEB NEWS IMAGES CLASSIFIEDS YELLOW PAGESPOLLS - SURVEYS WIKI COUNTRIES PHOTOS US UK INDIA
Cities Stocks Weather Movies Coupons Travel Blogs Health Horoscope Maps ASIA EUROPE Classifieds Yellow Pages
 1
|
|
|
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. |
"Scott of the Antarctic" redirects here. For the 1948 film, see Scott of the Antarctic (1948 film).
For other persons named Robert Scott, see Robert Scott (disambiguation).
| Robert Falcon Scott | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | June 6 1868 Devonshire, England |
| Died | March 29 1912 (aged 43) Ross Ice Shelf, Antarctica |
| Education | HMS Britannia |
| Occupation | Royal Navy officer and Antarctic explorer |
| Spouse | Kathleen Bruce |
| Children | Peter Markham Scott, later Sir Peter Scott |
| Parents | John Scott and Hannah Scott |
Robert Falcon Scott (1868-1912) was a British Royal Naval officer and explorer who led two expeditions to the Antarctic regions: the Discovery Expedition, 1901–04, and the ill-fated Terra Nova Expedition, 1910–13. During this second venture Scott was one of a party of five which reached the South Pole on 17 January 1912, to find that they had been preceded by Roald Amundsen’s Norwegian party in the “race for the Pole”. On the return journey from the pole Scott and his four comrades all perished, due to a combination of exhaustion, hunger and extreme cold.
Before his appointment to the command of the Discovery Expedition Scott had followed the conventional career of a naval officer in peacetime Victorian Britain. Opportunities for career advancement were rare, and keenly sought after by ambitious officers; it was the chance for personal distinction that led Scott to apply for the Discovery post, rather than any predilection for polar exploration.Crane, p. 92. However, having taken this step, his name became ever after 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. In the closing decades of the twentieth century, however, the legend was reassessed, in a sceptical age less inclined to take tales of heroism at their face value. From a previously unassailable position, Scott became a figure of controversy, with questions raised about his competence and character. A fluent and persuasive writer, Scott showed great skill in “articulating the heroic fantasies of his generation”.Max Jones, pp. 288–290 However,in the late twentieth century, the fate of his last expedition has been put forward as a metaphor for a nation in decline, unwilling to modernise, Max Jones, p. 289 with Scott the chief symbol of that decline.
Scott’s complex character was always capable of arousing both great loyalty and deep antagonism. Some were prepared to follow him anywhere, and did so.Preston, p. 222 – Wilson’s comment to Markham “He wouldn’t ask you to do anything he wasn’t prepared to do himself”, said Terra Nova Stoker William Burton. Tom Crean was more effusive: “I loved every hair of his head”.Fiennes, p. 435 But he had difficult relations with others, including Ernest Shackleton, Lawrence Oates, and each of his expedition second-in-commands. As an explorer, something of the resourceful amateur rather than the cool professional remained with him until the end. His reluctance to embrace the superiority of dogs in polar travel methods was, some believe, the critical factor that lost him the race to the pole and, ultimately, his and his party’s lives.First stated explicitly by James Gordon Hayes in Antarctica, A Treatise on the Southern Continent, pub. 1928, quoted by Max Jones, pp. 265–66
Contents |
Scott was born on 6 June 1868, the third child and elder son of John and Hannah (nee Cuming) Scott of Outlands, a country house at Stoke Damerel, near Devonport, Devonshire. His childhood years had an illusion of mild prosperity, deriving from the family-owned brewery to which John Scott seemingly devoted little time, preferring his roles as a Justice of the Peace and Chairman of the local Conservative Party.Crane, p. 15 From the testimony of his daughter Grace it appears that he lived resentfully in the shadows of his four elder brothers who had more exciting careers in the army or navy.Crane, p. 15 His financial position later became precarious; in due course insolvency would bring about an enforced departure from Outlands, and a change for the worse in the family’s circumstances that would profoundly influence Robert Scott’s naval career path. No portents, however, clouded the relatively normal and happy childhood enjoyed by the Scott children, enlivened by such formative experiences as “sailing about Plymouth Harbour in an eighteen-foot boat with a big lug sail”.Crane, p. 18
In accordance with the family’s tradition the two boys, Robert and Archie, were predestined for careers in the armed services. Robert was educated first in the nursery at home, then for four years at a local day school before being sent to Stubbington House, a cramming establishment for the entrance exams to the naval training ship HMS Britannia to which, having passed these exams, he gained entry as a 13-year-old cadet in 1881.Fiennes, p. 17
The first of the two HMS Britannias which served as naval training ships between 1859 and 1909. Scott trained on the second, which came into service in 1869.
In July 1883 Scott passed out of Britannia as a midshipman, seventh overall in a class of 26, Crane, p. 23and by October was en route to South Africa to join HMS Boadicea. He served on several ships during his midshipman years, and it was while stationed in St Kitts, West Indies, that he had his first encounter with Sir Clements Markham, then Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society, who would massively influence the direction of Scott’s life. On this occasion, 1 March 1887, Markham noted that Midshipman Scott’s cutter had won that morning’s race. Markham’s habit was to “collect” likely young naval officers with a view to their undertaking polar exploration work in the future, and Scott was duly noted.Crane, p. 82
Later that year Scott passed his examinations for Sub-lieutenant, with four First Class certificates out of five.Crane, p. 34 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 torpedo course on HMS Vernon, an important career step. In the summer of 1893, while commanding a torpedo boat, he managed to run it aground, which earned him a mild rebuke.Crane, p.50
During the research for his dual biography of Scott and Roald Amundsen, Roland Huntford got wind of a possible scandal in Scott’s early naval career, but was unable to pin it down. He focuses on the period 1889-90 when Scott was a lieutenant on HMS Amphion. According to his account Scott “disappears from naval records” for eight months, from mid-August 1899 until 24 March 1890. Huntford hints at involvement with a married American woman, of cover-up, and protection from senior officers. David Crane reduces the missing period to eleven weeks, but is unable to throw much more light, other than scorning the notion of protection by senior officers – Scott wasn’t important or well-connected enough to warrant this. Documents that may have offered explanations are missing from Admiralty records.Huntford, pp. 121–23, and Crane, footnote pp. 39–40
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, invested the proceeds unwisely and lost all his capital.Fiennes, p. 21 He was forced to take a job as a brewery manager in Somerset, but his death in 1897 created a fresh crisis.Fiennes, p. 22 The family – mother and 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 post in the colonial service. Archie’s own death that same year thrust the whole financial responsibility for the family on to Scott. Fiennes, p. 23
An ambitious officer, Scott now had the additional weight of domestic responsibility to spur him forward on the path of advancement and, if possible, fame and fortune. Early in June 1899 he had a chance encounter in a London street with Sir Clements Markham (now the RGS President), and learned for the first time of a pending Antarctic expedition. It was an opportunity for early command and a chance to distinguish himself. Markham remembered him from St Kitts, and presumably said something encouraging, because a few days later, on 11 June, Scott appeared at the Markham residence and volunteered to lead the expedition.Crane, p. 82
Discovery, in its home port of Dundee, photographed in June 2005 by Hynek Moraree.
The National Antarctic Expedition, as it was officially known until its association with the ship, was a joint enterprise of the RGS and the Royal Society. It represented a long-cherished dream of Markham’s, and it required the deployment of all of his considerable skills and cunning to bring it to fruition under naval command and largely staffed by naval personnel. Scott may not have been Markham’s first choice as leaderCrane, p. 90 but, having decided on him, his support was unstinting. Tha appointment was not confirmed until 5 April 1900; both before and after this date there were committee battles, first over Scott\'s suitability, and later over the Royal Society\'s wish for a scientist to be in overall charge of the expedition. Markham\'s view prevailed;Preston. pp. 28–29 Scott was promoted Commander on 2 June 1900,Crane, p. 63 and Discovery finally sailed for the Antarctic on 31 July 1901.
Despite the almost total lack of Antarctic or Arctic experience within the party of fifty, there was very little by way of special training in equipment or techniques before the ship set sail. Dogs were taken, as were skis, but hardly anyone knew how to use them. This was seemingly what Markham, and perhaps Scott, wished, in the belief that a naval expedition was resourceful enough to resolve all difficulties as they arose. Huntford in his Shackleton biography, claims that Markham turned down an application from William Speirs Bruce, an experienced naturalist who had been to the Antarctic, because “professionalism was considered less praiseworthy than to excel by unforced aptitude” – see Huntford’s Shackleton, p. 134, Hodder & Stoughton 1985. Bruce subsequently led his own Scottish National Antarctic Expedition in the Scotia In the first of the two full years which Discovery spent in the ice this insouciance was severely tested, as the landing parties struggled to meet the challenges of the unfamiliar terrain.The most severe of the "harsh lessons" (Crane\'s chapter heading) was the ill-fated Cape Crozier party that resulted in the death of George Vince, 4 February 1902. Crrane, pp. 161–167 The expedition was not a quest for the Pole, but a long march south was a major objective, and this ended at the modest latitude of 82°17’S.Preston, p. 64 The second year showed improvements in technique and achievement, culminating in Scott’s western journey which led to the discovery of the Polar Plateau, and which has been described by one writer as “one of the great polar journeys”. Crane, p. 270The scientific results of the expedition included important biological, zoological and geological findings.Summarised by Fiennes, p. 148 Some of the meteorological and magnetic readings, however, were later criticised as amateurish and inaccurate.Huntford, pp. 229–30, Crane, pp. 392–93
The Discovery hut at Hut Point
At the end of the expedition it took the combined efforts of two relief ships and liberal use of explosives to free Discovery from the ice.Preston, pp. 78–79 Nevertheless Scott could feel satisfied that he was returning in good order, with much to show for his efforts. In contrast to his naivety at the expedition’s commencement, he was now a seasoned Antarctic traveller, although with many of his prejudices intact. He remained unconvinced that dogs and ski were the keys to efficient ice travel, and continued to laud the British preference for man-hauling,Max Jones, p. 71, quoting from The Voyage of the Discovery a view he maintained until very late in his Antarctic career. His insistence on naval discipline and formalities may have led to uneasy relations with the Merchant Navy members of the expedition, most of whom departed with the first relief ship in March 1903.Crane, p. 238 The question of his relationship with Ernest Shackleton has been muddied by speculation; Shackleton\'s less formal style was foreign to Scott, but there is no convincing evidence that it was personal differences rather than the state of his health that resulted in Shackleton’s being sent home on the supply ship in January 1903.See Crane, pp. 240–43. Preston, p. 68, is more equivocal The two would clash later, but for the time being mutual civilities were preserved.Shackleton sent an effusive letter to welcome Scott home. Crane, p. 3120
Discovery returned Britain in September 1904. The expedition had caught the public imagination, and Scott became a popular hero, awarded with a cluster of honours and medals, promoted to Captain RN,According to Scott\'s Navy record facsimile included in the Crane biography, Scott was promoted Captain on 10 September 1904, the day od Discovery\'s arrival in England. He did not command his first ship as Captain until 21 August 1906. and invited to Balmoral for investure by King Edward VII as a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (CVO).Preston, pp. 83–84 Scott’s next few years were crowded. For more than a year he was occupied with post-expedition duties – 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 assistant to the Director of Naval Intelligence at the Admiralty and, in August, as Flag-Captain to Rear-Admiral Sir George Egerton on HMS Victorious.Preston, p. 86 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 lunch with the Commander-in-Chief and Prince Heinrich of Prussia. Crane, p 334. The telegram related to a collision involving Scott’s ship, by then HMS Albemarle. Scott was cleared of blame
Ernest Shackleton, Scott’s polar rival
By this time Scott had already sounded out the RGS about the possible funding of a future Antarctic expedition.Preston, p. 87 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.Shackleton publicly announced his plans to the RGS on 7 February 1907. Scott had enjoined RGS Secretary Keltie to secrecy about his own intentions. Crane, p. 335 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.Crane, p. 335 In this he was strongly supported by Edward Wilson, who appeared to believe that Scott’s rights extended to the entire Ross Sea sector.Riffenburgh, pp. 113-14 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. Crane, p. 341 It was a promise that, in the event, he was unable to keep after his search for alternative landing grounds proved fruitless. He based his Nimrod expedition at Cape Royds in McMurdo Sound, and this supposed breach of agreement strained relations between Scott and Shackleton thereafter.Relations between the two had been good after the Discovery Expedition in spite of Shackleton\'s being sent home early for health reasons. However, Shackleton had felt "humiliated" (Riffenburgh, p. 111) by Scott\'s references in Voyage of the Discovery to his weakness on the 1902 southern journey. The disagreement over Shackleton\'s 1907 plans caused "a profound shift in their relationship" – Preston, p. 89 It has been said that the promise "should never ethically have been demanded", Riffenburgh, pp. 110–18 Scott’s intransigence being compared unfavourably with the generous attitude of Fridtjof Nansen, who gave freely of his advice and expertise to Shackleton, and indeed to all-comers, whether potential rivals or not.Riffenburgh, p. 118
Scott, who on the back of his Discovery fame had entered Edwardian society, first encountered Kathleen Bruce early in 1907, at a private luncheon party.Crane, p. 344 She was a sculptor, socialite and cosmopolitan who had studied under Auguste RodinPreston, p. 94 and whose circle included Isadora Duncan, Picasso and Aleister Crowley .Crane, p. 350 Their initial meeting was brief, but when they met again later that year mutual attraction was obvious. A stormy courtship followed – Scott was not her only suitor and his absences at sea did not assist his causeCrane reports that Scott’s main rival was would-be novelist Gilbert Cannan, who later suffered a mental collapse – but his persistence was rewarded and, on 2 September 1908, at the Chapel Royal, Hampton Court Palace, the wedding took place.Crane, pp. 373–74 Their only child, Peter Markham Scott, was born on 14 September 1909.Crane, p. 387
By this time Scott had announced his plans for his second Antarctic expedition. Shackleton had returned, having narrowly failed to reach the Pole,see Nimrod Expedition and this gave Scott his justification to proceed. On 24 March 1909 he had taken the Admiralty-based appointment of Naval Assistant to the Second Sea Lord which placed him handily in London. In December he was released on half-pay,Fiennes, p. 161 to take up the full-time command of the British Antarctic Expedition 1910, to be known as the Terra Nova Expedition.
It was a pious hope of the RGS that this expedition would be "scientific primarily, with exploration and the Pole as secondary objects",Crane, pp. 397–99 but neither they nor the Royal Society were in charge. There would be no "science versus adventure" dispute 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".Crane, pp. 397–99 Later claims that the race to the pole was lost because this was a scientific expedition that would not compromise its scientific goals Cherry-Garrard, p. 608, says: “We were primarily a great scientific expedition”, and “We travelled for science”, p. 275 are somewhat undermined by this unequivocal announcement; Scott had, as Markham observed, been “bitten by the Pole mania”. Crane, pp. 397–99 However, his deep respect for science,Crane, p. 308 and his close affinity with chief scientist Edward Wilson, ensured that this side of the expedition would be not be neglected. According to Apsley Cherry-Garrard the expedition had “the largest and most efficient scientific staff that ever left England”.Cherry-Garrard, p. 608
A modern photograph of Scott\'s old Cape Evans headquarters hut, inundated by snow
Scott did not of course know that he would be in a race for the Pole, until he received Amundsen’s telegram in Melbourne, in October 1910.Crane, pp. 425–28 Meanwhile he set about fashioning the expedition according to his own wishes, without the restraint of a joint committee, taking decisions which would have serious consequences later, not least concerning transport. His prejudices against dogs had not yet faded. They would be merely one element in a transport strategy that also involved horses and motor sledges and, of course, much man-hauling. Scott knew nothing of horses, but felt that as they had seemingly served Shackleton well, he should use them.Preston, p. 107. Also Crane, pp. 432–33 He asked his dogs expert Cecil Meares to choose them – Meares was going to Siberia to acquire the dogs, and Scott thought that while he was there he should deal with the purchase of the Manchurian ponies. Huntford, on p. 305, implies that Oates, who had much experience with horses, should have been sent to choose them. But Meares left England for Siberia in January 1910, and Oates was not available to the expedition until May. Huntford, p.262 Meares fulfilled his mission, but the ponies chosen were mostly of poor quality, and ill-suited to prolonged Antarctic work.Preston, p. 113
The expedition itself suffered perhaps more than its share of misfortune. On its journey from New Zealand to the Antarctic, Terra Nova was trapped in pack-ice for 20 days, far longer than other ships had experienced, which meant a late-season arrival and less time for proper preparations. One of the motor sledges was lost during its unloading from the ship, disappearing through the sea ice. Poor weather and weak, unacclimatised ponies affected the initial depot-laying journey to the extent that the main supply point, One Ton Depot, was laid 35 miles (56 km) north of its planned location at 80°S. Crane, p.466. Prophetically, Oates is reported as saying to Scott: “Sir, I’m afraid you’ll come to regret not taking my advice (to kill ponies for food and advancd the depot to 80°S Six ponies died during this journey. The expedition also learned of the ominous presence of Amundsen, who was camped with a large contingent of dogs in the Bay of Whales, 200 miles (320 km) to their east.
Despite these trials Scott refused to amend his schedule to deal with the Amundsen threat.Diary 22 February 1911: “The proper, as well as the wiser course, is for us to proceed exactly as though this had not happened”. SLE Vol I, pp. 187–88 Whilst acknowledging that the Norwegian’s base was closer to the pole and that his experience as a sledge driver was formidable, Scott still had the advantage of travelling over a known route (that pioneered by Shackleton). During the 1911 winter his confidence increased, to the extent of recording, after the return of the Cape Crozier party from the winter journey, that “I feel sure we are as near perfection as experience can direct”.SLE Vol I, p. 369
The great march to the Pole began on 1 November 1911, a complex caravan of mixed transport groups moving southward at different rates, all designed to support a final group of four men who would make a dash for the pole. Scott had outlined his southern journey plans to the expedition, without being specific as to precise roles – no one knew, for instance, who would form the final polar party. There was continuing uncertainty about how he proposed to use the dogs, a variety of different orders being issued which left it unclear whether the dogs were to saved for future scientific journeys, or were to assist the polar party home. The consequence was that his subordinates were confused by what seemed to them to be contradictions, and failed to act. As a result, no concerted attempt was made to relieve the returning polar party, when the need eventually arose in acute form.See Atkinson’s account in SLE Vol II, pp. 298–306
Roald Amundsen
The southbound party moved on, steadily reducing in size as support teams turned for home. By 4 January 1912 the last two four-men groups had reached 87°34’S. Scott announced his decision: five men (himself, Wilson, Bowers, Oates and Edgar Evans) would go forward, the other three (Teddy Evans, Lashly and Thomas Crean) would return.Exactly when Scott decided on a five-man polar party is uncertain. On the first page of the fresh journal started 22 December 1911 –two weeks before the polar party was chosen, Scott lists the five names of those eventually selected, but the list is not itself dated and could have been entered later The chosen group marched on, reaching the pole on 17 January 1912, to find that Amundsen had preceded them by five weeks. Scott’s anguish is palpable from his diary: “The worst has happened”, “All the day dreams must go”, “Great God! This is an awful place”. Diary entries, 16–17 January, SLE Vol I, pp. 543–44
The return journey began in the lowest of spirits and with physical weaknesses becoming more evident.Diary, 23 January 1912, SLE p. 551 Nevertheless the party made good progress despite poor weather, and were off the plateau on 7 February. The Beardmore Glacier descent saw the rapid decline of Edgar Evans, and his death near the glacier foot, on 17 February.Diary, 17 February, SLE Vol I, pp. 572–73 From then on the party’s fortunes descended into tragedy. In worsening weather The researches of Susan Solomon, published in The Coldest March, Yale UP 2001, point to the exceptional severity of the Barrier weather encountered by the party in February–March 1912 as the ultimate cause of their deaths and with exhaustion and hunger taking increasing toll, they struggled northward. On 17 March Oates sacrificed himself,Diary, 17 March, SLE Vol I, pp. 591–92 and three days later the three survivors made their final camp, 11 miles (18 km) south of One Ton Depot, but 24 miles (38 km) beyond the original intended location of the depot.
During the next nine days, as their supplies ran out, with frozen fingers, little light, and a blizzard ranging outside the tent, Scott wrote his final words. He virtually gave up his diary after 21 March, save for a final poignant entry on 29th, but his pencil remained busy, with letters to Wilson’s mother, Bowers’s parents, a string of notables including his former commander Sir George Egerton, his own mother and his wife. He also wrote his Message To The Public. This document is primarily a defence of the expedition’s organisation and conduct in which the party’s failure is adduced to weather and other misfortunes, but it ends 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". From Scott’s Message to the Public, SLE Vol I pp. 605–07
Scott is presumed to have died on 29 March 1912, possibly a day later. The positions of the bodies in the death tent, when it was discovered eight months later, suggested that Scott was the last of the three to die.Max Jones, p. 126. Huntford says (p. 509) that Bowers was probably the last to die, citing evidence on p. 528
The bodies of Scott and his companions were discovered by a search party on 12 November 1912 and their records retrieved. Their final camp became their tomb; a large cairn was erected over it, topped by a roughly-fashioned cross. In January 1913, before Terra Nova left for home, a large wooden cross made by the ship’s carpenters, and inscribed with the names of the lost party, was erected on Observation Hill, overlooking Hut Point.SLE Vol II, p. 398
Observation Hill, McMurdo Sound, site of the Terra Nova memorial cross
The world was informed of the tragedy when Terra Nova reached Lyttleton, New Zealand, on 12 February 1913. Scott became an instant legend, an unsullied hero in the eyes of his sorrowing countrymen. A fierce nationalistic spirit was aroused; the London Evening News called for Scott’s story to be read to schoolchildren throughout the land,Max Jones, pp. 199–201 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”. Max Jones, p. 204 11-year-old Mary Steel wrote a poem which ended:
The survivors of the expedition were suitably honoured on their return, with polar medals and promotions for the naval personnel. In place of the knighthood that might have been her husband\'s had he survived, Kathleen Scott was granted the rank and precedence of a widow of a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath. This did not amount to Scott being posthumously knighted, and it did not entitle her to call herself "Lady Scott", although both of these claims are sometimes erroneously made. Fiennes, p. 383, and Huntford, p. 523, both refer to her as Lady Scott, but that is not in accordance with The Times announcement, 22 February, 1913 In 1922 she married Edward Hilton Young, later Lord Kennet (she becoming Lady Kennet), and remained a doughty defender of Scott’s reputation until her death, aged 69, in 1947.
Amundsen heard of Scott’s death while lecturing in the United States. “I would gladly forgo any honour or money if thereby I could have saved Scott his terrible death”, he is reported as saying.Huntford, p. 525 He did forgo honour anyway, in the English-speaking world at least. 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 to an unsporting stratagem. Even before Scott’s death was known, Amundsen’s feat was reportedly the object of a sneer from RGS President Lord Curzon, at a meeting held supposedly to honour the polar victor, prompting Amundsen to resign his honorary RGS fellowship Huntford, p. 538, Max Jones, p. 90. The “sneer”, apparently, was a call for three cheers for the dogs.
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. This was not equally distributed; Scott’s widow, son, mother and sisters received a total of £18,000. Wilson’s widow got £8,500, Bowers’s mother £4,500. Edgar Evans’s widow, children and mother received £1,500 between them.Max Jones, pp. 106–108. £34,000 in total went to relatives, £17,500 to the publication of the scientific results, £5,100 to expedition debts and the balance to the creation of suitable monuments and memorials
Statue of Scott, by Kathleen Scott, Christchurch, New Zealand
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.See Max Jones, p. 295–96 for a full listing of British memorials. The US scientific base at the South.Pole, founded in 1957, is called the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, to honour the memories of both polar conquerors.
Scott’s Message to the Public begins: “The causes of the disaster are not due to faulty organisation but to misfortune”. SLE Vol I, p. 605This chimed with the prevailing image of heroic endeavour thwarted at the last by sheer bad luck, and was broadly unquestioned for half a century. In fact, Scott’s diaries, even in their edited published form, contain repeated references to errors and mistakes for which he accepts responsibility,Fiennes, p. 490 but these tended to be overlooked or disregarded. Unease at the public version, expressed by relatives of Scott’s dead companions, was kept private.Huntford, p. 523, says that Oates\'s mother privately called Scott a "murderer", but quotes no source for this. He also quotes (p.524) from a letter to Mrs Oates from Teddy Evans: "One cannot state facts plainly when they reflect on the organisation".
The catalyst that altered the public’s perception of Scott was Huntford’s 1979 book Scott and Amundsen, reissued as The Last Place On Earth in 1985 and tied into a serialised television docudrama. Two previous semi-critical Scott biographies, by Reginald Pound (1966) and Elspeth Huxley (1977) had not received huge public attention; both, ultimately, endorsed Scott’s heroism. By contrast Huntford’s book attacks Scott’s competence and character, blames him for all the failures of the expedition and for the deaths of his comrades, and sums him up as a ”heroic bungler”.Huntford, p. 527 The television version presented an even more disagreeable picture of a pompous, humourless tyrant, with seemingly no redeeming features. The power of television is such as to imprint this impression in the public mind, especially among later generations for whom the legend is ancient history. Writing in the shadow of Huntford, Francis Spufford asserts that, like Franklin before him, Scott “probably died of incompetence”. More harshly, he goes on: “Scott doomed his companions, then covered his tracks with rhetoric”.Spufford, pp. 104–05
Huntford attacks the amateurism and incompetence, exemplified by Scott, which he believes encumbered Britain through the twentieth century. Scott is “a suitable hero for a nation in decline”. Huntford, p. 525 The fate of the Terra Nova Expedition becomes a metaphor for the national failure to modernise,Max Jones, pp. 288–89 and the supposed heroism of Scott and his comrades is denounced as a construct of old-fashioned British Imperialism. Fiennes, p. 414 and p. 433 Amundsen is lauded for his professionalism and efficiency, although Shackleton, despite having many of the same faults and prejudices as Scott, is not treated in the same way.
Memorial window in Binton Church, Warwickshire, one of four panels. This one depicts the cairn erected over the site of Scott\'s last tent.
Ranulph Fiennes, Scott’s chief contemporary defender and Huntford’s principal antagonist, uses "logic based on his personal experiences" as an explorer to "reconstruct the events". Fiennes, Introduction, p. xii In his 2003 biography, which he claims is unbiased, he makes a robust defence of Scott. He draws attention to the political motives (from Right and Left respectively, according to Francis Spufford)Spufford, p. 5underlying Huntford’s and TV scriptwriter Trevor Griffiths’s attacks, and casts doubts on the credibility of much of the book’s evidence. However, the long-term Huntford effect was perhaps reflected in the BBC’s 2002 100 Greatest Britons nominations, in which Ernest Shackleton was eleventh, while Scott was fifty-fourth.The list has numerous anomalies, e.g. actor Michael Crawford in 17th place ahead of Queen Victoria, Henry VIII and William Wilberforce. Other explorers listed are Captain Cook (12th), Francis Drake (49th), Walter Raleigh (91st) and David Livingstone (96th). One hundred years after their rivalry Shackleton seems securely established in the nation’s affections as “a hero for our time, a man who, like millennial Britain, has learned to crave the winning (even when it doesn’t) rather than just the playing of the game”.Quoted by Max Jones, p. 289 There is as yet no such consensus regarding Scott.
| Persondata | |
|---|---|
| NAME | Scott, Robert Falcon |
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES | |
| SHORT DESCRIPTION | Antarctic Explorer |
| DATE OF BIRTH | June 6 1868 |
| PLACE OF BIRTH | Devonshire, England |
| DATE OF DEATH | March 29 1912 |
| PLACE OF DEATH | Ross Ice Shelf, Antarctica |
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia
