CLEMENTS MARKHAM, KCB. FRS. PART 2

22 May

Clements Markham’s rise to the Presidency of the Royal Geographical Society (RGS), was not inevitable. It happened, as has been described, when there was a rift in the Society over the admission of women members. But as President, he became the face of British geography; when he was appointed he announced that his ambition was to promote a British Antarctic expedition.

He was sixty- three when he was elected. During his presidency he had his supporters, but in spite of his many achievements, the dictatorial approach that he demonstrated (a quality that his supporters would have claimed was necessary to get results), along with an increasing reputation for vindictiveness and slander, resulted in many colleagues regarding him with suspicion and distrust.

From an idealistic youth he transmuted into a formidable, confident, opinionated leader – a man dismissive of criticism, but a man of courage who pursued his goals despite setbacks and rebuffs.

He was born in 1830. The family can be described as upper-middle class – a great-great grandfather was an Archbishop of York; a great-grandfather was an Admiral; his father was the Reverend David Markham. Clements began his life-long habit of making observations on the people he met and the places he visited when he was a young boy (he wrote that one elderly lady had a long neck, an eager little face and a voice like a cockatoo, another was untidy)! and he always made careful descriptions of the houses his family visited- He was a student at Westminster School. His cousin Admiral Markham wrote that Clements thought it was a more wonderful and delightful place than he had ever imagined!

For generations, the family had varied in its allegiance between the Church and the Navy and, aged 14, Clements joined the navy as a cadet. His acceptance was helped by an aunt, the Countess of Mansfield, who introduced him to Rear Admiral Sir George Seymour, a Lord of the Admiralty. Seymour was about to take command of the Pacific station and he assigned the young boy to his flagship, HMS ‘Collingwood’.

Clements Markham as a naval cadet aged 14
Artist Thomas Richmond

‘Collingwood’s’ tour lasted almost four years. She visited Callao, the main port on the Peruvian coast, this was a visit that gave Clements his first experience of a country that would figure so importantly in his later career. During the tour ‘Collingwood’ also called at Chile, Brazil, the Sandwich Islands (now the Hawaiian Islands),Tahiti and the Falkland Islands. Clements used the years profitably – he passed the examination to become a midshipman and he learnt Spanish.

But his experience at sea made him reassess is ambitions for the future – he decided against the navy as his career, he wanted to become an explorer/geographer. When ‘Collingwood’ arrived at Portsmouth in July 1848, Clements told his father that he wanted to leave the navy, but his father persuaded him to stay, at least temporarily. This was a decision made easier by the announcement of an Arctic expedition which aimed to find information concerning the fate of Sir John Franklin’s lost expedition of 1845, Sir John’s two ships and 128 men had disappeared whilst attempting to navigate and chart the Northwest Passage. Clements knew immediately that he wanted to join in the search and he used family influence to be appointed to ‘Assistance’ in 1850. Aged twenty he was the expedition’s only midshipman. He noted every detail of expedition life in his journal.

No survivors or clues as to the whereabouts of Sir John’s ships were discovered. However Clements played his full part in the expedition’s sledging excursions and it was at this time he became impressed by a method of man-hauling sledges through icy terrain adopted by lieutenant Leopold McClintock. Clements was convinced that with fit naval men, the method was a better and more reliable method of transport in icy conditions than dog transport. This was to have profound implications for British exploration. Fifty years later he remained an advocate of the technique.

Monument to Sir John Franklin’s fated expedition to find the Northwest Passage.
Waterloo Place London

‘Assistance’ returned to England in October,1851 and Markham left the navy. His reasons for leaving were primarily his geographical ambitions, but he also loathed what he considered to be the excessive corporal punishment characteristic of naval life – forty years later he was to spearhead a campaign that abolished flogging. Also the long periods of inactivity on the expeditions bored him. But his naval experience made a deep impression. He was convinced, permanently, that naval discipline would be right for Polar exploration. He published his experiences under the title of ‘Franklin’s Footsteps’.

Clements always dreamed of returning to Peru. In 1852, financed by his father, he achieved his ambition. His plan was to collect information about the Inca city of Cuzco and to study relics of the Inca period. He reached Cuzco in March 1853. It was at this time that he learned that the cinchona plant, grown near Cuzco, was a source of quinine. This had enormous implications for world health – cinchona bark was the first known treatment for malaria. But he could not investigate further, the death of his father meant an immediate return to England in September, 1853. Always an inveterate writer, he published ‘Cuzco and Lima’ after his trip.

He was elected Fellow of the RGS in 1854 and the Society immediately became the centre of his geographical interests. In the same year he was also appointed to the Board of Control of the East India Company and served in the ‘secret department’ at the time of the Indian Mutiny (1858-1862). But without his father’s financial support he had to earn a living. Unsatisfactory employment in the Legacy Duty Office of the Inland Revenue was followed by a transfer to what became, in 1857, the India Office, where he was to remain until 1867. In 1859, Clements proposed a scheme to his employers for collecting cinchona trees from the Peruvian and Bolivian Andes and transporting them to selected sites in India and with the support of the Secretary of State for India, he set out for Peru six years after his first visit. His brief was to transfer the cinchona plants and seeds to India. Aged 29, he was in charge of the entire operation.

Clements Markham, aged 25

His team arrived in Lima in January 1860. The enterprise was dangerous; Peru and Bolivia were on the verge of war, Markham travelled to parts of Peru which had probably never been visited by Europeans, also the Peruvian authorities, keen to protect the country’s control over the cinchona trade, were hostile and limited his operations. He was prevented from obtaining the best quality specimens. Somehow, he managed to overcome bureaucratic obstruction and obtained the necessary export licenses to transport the invaluable plant to India – a priceless service to humanity, within years the price of cinchona had fallen from 20 shillings per ounce to a few pence per ounce. Markham was granted £3,000 for this outstanding triumph. He wrote about his experiences in ‘Travels in Peru and India’.

But he achieved even more. As part of his India Office duties he investigated and reported to the Indian government on the possibility of introducing Peruvian cotton into Madras: of transporting ipecacuanha (a plant treatment for bronchitis and croup and used to induce vomiting), from Brazil to India. He reported on the future of the pearl industry in Southern India and Ceylon (Sri Lanka). He wrote compulsively – particularly relating to South America – works included: ‘Quichua Grammar’ and ‘Dictionary and The War between Chile and Peru 1879-1881’.

In 1863 he was appointed as Honorary Secretary of the RGS, a post he held for twenty-five years. At that time exploration of central Africa was creating great interest and he followed the reports of Livingstone, Burton and Speke’s expeditions with enthusiasm. He travelled in Europe, South America and the States, where he was entertained by the American Geographical Society and met President Grover Cleveland. But he always worked indefatigably for the society – he arranged scientific lectures, he reorganized the library, the map collection and the society’s photographic collection. He arranged for instruction in surveying. In 1871 he instigated a Lectureship in Geography at Cambridge University. Throughout he always supported the concept of Polar exploration.

In addition he was Secretary and subsequently President of the Hakluyt Society, a society that publishes accounts of historic voyages/travels and geographical material (he eventually published about thirty papers in the society’s journals).

In 1867 Markham became head of the India Office’s geographical department and was invited to accompany Sir Robert Napier’s military expeditionary force to Abyssinia as the expedition’s geographer. He was present at the storming of Magdala, the stronghold of the Abyssinian King Theodore (who, after a simmering dispute, had insulted the British by imprisoning the British Consul and his staff and whipping a missionary) and he was the man who found the body of the defeated King. On return he published the history of the Abyssinian War. Interestingly on this expedition he met Henry Stanley, the Welsh explorer (an unknown correspondent at this time), who two years later was sent by Gordon Bennett, the publisher of the ‘New York Herald’ to locate David Livingstone in Africa.

He made a second Arctic Voyage between 1875–76. He persuaded Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli to support this expedition and he went with it as far as Greenland. He was gone for three months and his homeward voyage was delayed. This prolonged absence from India Office duties, together with his range of other interests, seems to have been too much. His superiors asked him to resign. Fortunately his 22 years of service entitled him to a pension.

He continued his travels and was abroad at the time of his unexpected appointment as President of the RGS. Once appointed he pursued his declared ambition for Antarctic exploration with formidable determination, alienating many of the distinguished members of his committees in the process. His persistence was rewarded when ‘Discovery’ was launched (discussed in the first part of this account of his life) and his support for Scott never faltered. Scott’s death, on the return from the South Pole in 1912. was a devastating blow – one that Sir Clements never really recovered from.

Scott in his turn always supported Sir Clements. As he lay dying in Antarctica he wrote; ‘Tell Sir Clements I thought much of him and never regretted his putting me in command of the Discovery’. His son was christened Peter Markham.

Sir Clements Markham, President of the Royal Geographical Society, 1893-1905

He retired from the RGS in 1905. The Society awarded him its Founder’s Medal.
His retirement was an active one – he travelled, he wrote: biographies, editing and translation work. When Scott announced his plans for a second Antarctic exploration in 1909, Sir Clements entered into the plans enthusiastically

He was awarded honorary degrees from Cambridge and Leeds (where the Chancellor referred to him as a veteran in the service of mankind and stated that he, Sir Clements, was the inspiration of English Geographical science). He helped with the preparation of Scott’s Journals and was present when a window in St Peter’s church Binton was dedicated to Scott’s final expedition. He had continued as a as a member of the Council of the R.G,S, but was so infuriated when his successor as President, Sir George Goldie, invited Roald Amundsen to dine with the Society, that he resigned from the Council too.

He died at his home, 21 Eccleston Square. He was reading in bed by candlelight. The bedclothes caught fire, he died the following day, the 30th January 1916. He was buried in Kensal Green Cemetery on 3 Februry,1916..

He is commemorated by Mount Markham in the Transantarctic range, the Markham River in Papua New Guinea and Markham College, a private co-educational school was opened in Lima Peru.

So what is his legacy? He had the fullest of lives, the balance of his life must be considered positive. His contribution to the accessible cure for malaria was a priceless gift to humanity, his (successful), campaign to stop flogging in the navy praiseworthy. Without him the early British exploration of Antarctica would not have taken place. He had a phenomenal memory and wrote/edited about 50 books in addition to papers and memoirs. He was made a K.C.B. (Knight Commander, Order of the Bath), in 1896. His successes were acknowledged internationally – he received awards from the Kings of Portugal, Sweden, Brazil and Norway. He was made an Honorary Member of academic and geographical societies throughout Europe and America.

But he was not universally loved or even liked; in fact David Crane writes that he achieved posthumous opprobrium. His character was complex as is shown by the contrast between ‘his was a most lovable nature, always kind and sympathetic, always happy and cheerful and ready at all times to amuse others’, with, ‘he had an unrivalled capacity for self-serving, misrepresentation, scurrilities, slanders, snobberies, affectations, infatuations and vindictiveness’ Perhaps no successful man can be generally admired but they can be respected and these assessments are not suggestive of respect. The RGS’s librarian, Hugh Robert Mill, wrote that he ran the society in a dictatorial manner. Frank Debenham who served with Scott called him a dangerous old man. Professor Rudmose–Brown (who supported the Scottish expedition, ‘The Scotia’), called him an old fool and a humbug. He had none of Shackleton’s ability to inspire and conciliate.

His character was such that once he had come to a decision he stuck to it, irrespective of opposition, in fact opposition strengthened his resolve and aggression. He had a caustic tongue. He championed causes and did not attempt to hide his own prejudices. He upset contemporaries. He was dictatorial, but also a wily negotiator – this was particularly notable in his chairmanship of the Joint Antarctic Committee (12 members from the R.G.S, 12 from the Royal Society who clashed irreconcilably). Sir Clements favoured an emphasis on geography and exploration and faced down hostility and opposition from much of the scientific community; he manipulated their differences of opinion to triumph and push his own plans through.

After the ‘Discovery’ expedition he championed Scott’s career to an extent that he disparaged the (considerable) achievements of those contemporary explorers who had also been South in the early 1900s.

His public and private persona seems to have been at variance. He was married in April 1857 to Minna Chichester and the couple had a daughter, May. His Cousin Admiral Markham described him as kind and affectionate. His loyalty to Scott was absolute. He privately performed many kindnesses

But his overriding aim was to serve the Empire and Geographical Science. In this he succeeded.

Bust of Sir Clements Markham at the back entrance of the
Royal Geographical Society

Clements Markham 1830-1916

8 Apr

How we will be remembered -– over the years will our reputation be lauded, forgotten or debated?

An example of the latter possibility is Sir Clements Robert Markham, KCB. FRGS. FRS.

Markham was a geographer, explorer, writer, a Member of the Royal Geographical Society, its Secretary for twenty five years and, subsequently, its President. He achieved much in his long life, but his personality was such that he also aroused enmity, resentment an hostility. The Royal Geographical Librarian (Hugh Robert Mill) wrote that as President, Markham functioned more as a dictator than a President. David Crane, in his biography of Robert Falcon Scott, writes that Markham had an unrivaled capacity for misrepresentation. scurrilities, slanders and vindictiveness. But he qualifies this by stating that for every flaw, Markham had an opposite quality in good measure – for example a hatred of cruelty, a largeness of imagination and a wonderful capacity for loyalty and friendship.

Markham when he was elected to the Royal Geographical Society

Markham is mostly remembered for his presidency of the Royal Geographical Society to which he was unexpectedly elected, in 1893, when in his early sixties. His election followed a dispute over the question of admission of women members, a clash of opinions that Markham had kept out of (the dispute split the society – at a Special General Meeting the council voted against admitting women members, this differed from the results of the postal ballot where members had been strongly in favour). Following his election to the Presidency, Markham became a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KCB), and so became Sir Clements Markham. He was the society’s president for twelve years.

President of the Royal Geographical Society; 1893-1904

For years Sir Clements’ overriding passion had been the revival of British Antarctic Exploration and as president he was in the position and had the contacts and energy to pursue this vision – without him there would have been no British Antarctic expedition. In London in 1895 he chaired the Sixth International Geographical Congress, this was attended by deputations from all the major European countries. The focus was on Antarctica- at that time the actual presence of a Southern Continent was uncertain- and at the end of the congress a statement was issued: ’Exploration of the Antarctic is the greatest piece of geographical exploration still to be undertaken. That in view of the addition to knowledge in almost every branch of science that would result from such a scientific exploration, the Committee recommended that scientific societies throughout the world should urge, in whatever way seems most effective, that this work should be undertaken before the end of the century’.

Sir Clements aimed to achieve this lofty goal in Britain’s name.

Support and enthusiasm was certain, political and financial backing, less so.
The 1899 International Geographical Congress (the seventh), this time at Berlin, emphasized international cooperation, particularly with Germany, who were already financing their own Antarctic expedition, as well as scientific work. Sir Clements suggested dividing the Antarctic into sectors: Britain would cover the Ross Sea area. Germany’s sphere of activity would be the Weddell (north west) and Enderby (north east) sectors.
Sir Clements was to spend years fighting to achieve his goal; years in which he appears to have made as many enemies as friends. He needed to raise £90,000 and to get finance from the Treasury he needed the full support of two Specialist Societies – the Royal Society and the Royal Geographical Society. To this end he formed the Joint Antarctic Committee which consisted of twelve representatives from each of these august bodies. But far from achieving a coordinated plan the committee almost immediately fell apart. Whereas the Royal Society emphasised science, in particular terrestrial magnetism and oceanography, Sir Clements’ priority was geographical discovery. Endless sub-committee meetings and the diametrically differing aims of the societies resulted in frustration. Hugh Robert Mill, the geographer and meteorologist, who acted as Secretary for the Joint Committee reported on its deliberations and wrote that the work resulted in a confusion of jealousies, arguments and misunderstandings. Sir Clements also clashed with the Royal Society on the overall leader of the expedition. He was determined that his protégée, Lieutenant Robert Falcon Scott, should be both Captain and in overall command. By contrast the Royal Society assumed that a scientist would lead the work in Antarctica and backed a Professor John W. Gregory. It was not until May 1901, that Gregory was informed that Scott had been appointed Expedition Commander, Sir Clements out- manouvered the Royal Society, Professor Gregory, very publicly, resigned.
In three years of fund raising, only £10,000 of the £90,000 had been raised. But, by a welcome ‘munificent gift’ of £25,000 from a wealthy London business man, Sir Clements’ vision was saved. Mr. Longstaff wrote that he wished to contribute to the advancement of our knowledge of the planet in which we live. With this gift the tide was turned.. The government, after consultation with the Learned Societies, advanced £45,000. Interestingly, Arthur Balfour, (later to be Prime Minister) represented the government in meetings with the societies. He would have given the deputations a sympathetic ear, being much interested in science and actually a member of the Royal Society. He was also possibly influenced by the fact that German Government had voted £60,000 to Antarctic exploration (in addition to the £30,000 that had been raised in Germany by private subscription). The government gave £45,000 to the expedition, the Royal Geographical Society another £5,000. In April 1899, Queen Victoria wished the expedition success. The Prince of Wales agreed to become Patron.

Sir Clements’ capacity for loyalty and friendship was apparent in his support of Scott. During the months after Scott’s appointment he bombarded his protégée with advice and instructions. One of Sir Clements’ prejudices was against dogs – though even at this time the famous Norwegian explorer Nansen, supported dog transport. Sir Clements favoured manhauling which he had observed some fifty years previously when, as a midshipman, he had been on an expedition to the Arctic. On the expedition a lieutenant, Leopold McClintock, had mastered the technique of travelling over the ice with sledges. This expertise influenced Sir Clements absolutely in favour of manhauling, He was to become a major, and, it transpired dangerous, advocate of the technique -it could be said that he thought of Polar exploration in terms of heroism for heroism’s sake. Scott followed his mentor’s advice.
.

Sir Clements’ wife, Lady Markham, was to launch Discovery the expedition ship, on the 21st March 1901.

Sir Clements was fully involved in appointing Discovery’s crew members -he wrote comments on all of them. He thought the First Lieutenant, Charles Royds, was a ‘first class seaman’, and deserved to be ‘one of the Antarctic heroes’. Second Lieutenant Michael Barnes, was ‘a charming young fellow… ‘and a relation of mine which is also in his favour’. Ernest Shackleton, the future famous Antarctic explorer, was included with Sir Clements blessing as requested by Llewellyn Longstaff the ‘munificent donor’. Sir Clements thought Shackleton steady, high principled, full of zeal, hard working, good tempered and well informed. He wrote that the senior doctor of the expedition (Koettlitz) was zealous and persevering but that his mind perhaps works rather slowly.

Sir Clements decided that Discovery, a three-masted, sail and steam wooden ship, should be built in Dundee. In spite of all efforts she leaked heavily on her outward sail, the leak became all too newsworthy, the sight of water pouring from the ship in the New Zealand dry dock was well advertised and Sir Clements had to assure the press that such leaking was normal in a wooden ship.

SS Discovery

Once in the Antarctic, the expedition made the first significant penetration ever onto the continent in addition to important geographical and scientific advances: At different times and locations the expedition discovered: King Edward VII Land; the only snow-free Antarctic Dry Valleys: an unexpected Emperor Penguin colony Cape Crozier (until this time it was considered impossible that any creature could breed in the caterwauling gloom of Antarctica). Scott, with the junior doctor Wilson and Shackleton reached 82°17’ S. in a sortie towards the South Pole. All suffered from scurvy.

The Dry Valleys in the western mountains of Victoria Land

Discovery was originally meant to return to England in a year, but when the Antarctic summer arrived, she was still firmly ice bound. Sir Clements therefore had a legitimate excuse for disregarding the official orders for the ship to return to England; in fact it is claimed that Sir Clements had anticipated this and that the relief ship (Morning, which carried stores and personnel), transmitted secret instructions to Scott authorizing a further year of work.

During the second Antarctic season a major ascent into the Antarctic mountains discovered the Polar Plateau. Scientific observations were made throughout the ascent and throughout the season.

Scott had hoped that by the second Antarctic summer, Discovery would be freed from the ice, but she remained held fast. This was to be Sir Clements’ nemesis. Money was needed to get the crew home. Sir Clements’ expedition’s coffers were empty. In London he was accused of mismanagement. The Royal Geographical Society withdrew its support.
The Treasury initially refused to pay for a second rescue. The realisation that the Royal Geographical Society had made no financial provision for a relief expedition caused serious anger. Arthur Balfour (now the Prime Minister) declared this as a betrayal of trust. But Balfour really had no choice, apart from anything else thirty of the 37 officers and men on Discovery were on the Navy’s active list. The crew had to be rescued.
The Treasury funded the rescue operation on the proviso that the Admiralty took over the whole responsibility for the relief expedition. i.e. out of Sir Clements’ hands. The two Societies were told, on 20 June 1903, that the Government would assume ‘the whole responsibility for the further relief expedition which has unfortunately been rendered necessary’. Discovery was to be abandoned if she could not be freed from the ice, and her complement brought back on two relief ships. Morning and Terra Nova . The costs of repairs and victualing would be the first charge on the sale of Discovery (if she could be extricated from the ice). Morning which Sir Clements had chartered was to be transferred to the government ‘absolutely and at once’.
A furious Sir Clements claimed that Morning has been bought in his name, but the eventual threat of legal action prevailed. Sir Clements’ authority over the expedition was finished. He was out of the country when The Council of the Royal Geographical Society saw the writing on the wall and elected an Acting President who, ignoring Markham’s written instructions, acquiesced to the Treasury’s demands.
Ironically, as is the way in Antarctica, the ice suddenly began to break up. Discovery was released. The three ships returned to New Zealand together.

Sir Clements met the ship in Portsmouth on 10 September 1904, but no dignitaries greeted the party when it arrived in London a few days later. There was however, considerable public enthusiasm for the expedition. A cable from the king was sent to congratulate Scott and his men on their splendid achievements and criticism was muted in the face of royal recognition. Sir Clements advertised the achievements of the expedition and he wrote also that ‘sledge journeys without dogs are quite unequalled’. But some critics spoke out: Sir Jackie Fisher, soon to be in charge of the navy, said that money would have been better spent building up the navy writing that it wass worse than a crime, it was a blunder’

Sir Clements’ authority over Antarctic Exploration was irrevocably diminished.

To be continued

CORONAVIRUS: TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS.

24 Mar

I write to wish anyone who reads this blog my best wishes over the coronavirus storm.

In the UK the virus numbers and deaths are mounting steadily and we are told to expect many more. The advice is that by self-isolating now, we can avoid a ‘peak’ in cases, and flatten the ‘peak’ into a ‘curve’. In this way it is hoped to avoid an overwhelming number of patients requiring ventilation – as is happening in Italy and Spain; such a demand could overstretch the National Health facilities.

It is incredible to me that so many people simply flout this advice, on Sunday 22nd March (Mothers’ Day here), London traffic was at a third of normal, the parks were busy, scores headed for beauty spots in Wales and to the seaside.

In response to this we are now at the stage where Boris Johnson has imposed draconian measures. People are banned from leaving home except for food or medical treatment, plus we are advised that we can go out for exercise once a day –keeping away from each other. ‘Essential’ workers continue their work.

We get regular updates from the Prime Minister, the health advisers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (financial support) and others, on progress and on-going advice. We are fortunate that the National Health system IS national, as this facilitates cooperation between hospitals throughout the regions. But a major problem for health professionals and other front-line workers has been a shortage of PPE (Personal Protection Equipment – this is being addressed urgently), and insufficient testing kits for diagnosis and for virus antibody.

I was, some years ago, a Consultant in the National Health and vividly recall the numbers of patients needing assessment in the Accident and Emergency department when I was on emergency duty. The thought of what it must be like now is truly alarming.

For myself I am going for walks (but not seeing anyone!), watching TV, listening to the radio and trying to get to grips with all those books I have been looking at for years. Also writing a blog (Sir Clements Markham). I am trying to do an exercise programme, this is MUCH more difficult at home, than in the gym!

I hope you are keeping occupied, safe and well.  Bon chance!

CLIMATE CHANGE

9 Mar

When William Speirs Bruce planned his 1902-1904 expedition to Antarctica his primary ambition was science, as opposed to exploration.

In 1903 he built two scientific observatories on Laurie Island on the northern edge of the Weddell Sea. This was the start of a collection of scientific records that was continued, when Bruce left the Weddell Sea, by the Argentine. Recordings have now been made for 116 years. They continue today providing unique information about meteorological, magnetic and oceanographic conditions in Antarctica.

In relation to meteorology, this graph running from 1903 to 2020 shows the trend and variance in the mean annual temperature on Laurie Island. It is by far the longest recording of temperature in the region (the second longest being from Argentine Islands off the Antarctic peninsula which runs from the early 1950s). As can be seen there is a trend in temperature from – 5°C to -3°C. The graph also illustrates clearly the variability in the annual records, but it is clear that the twenty-first century recordings approximate to the upper recordings in the early 1900s.

This graph would never be available save for William Speirs Bruce’s foresight in encouraging a network of weather stations to be run continuously in the South Atlantic.

 

World temperature is rising, controversy persists, though not amongst the scientists, as to how much man is contributing to the problem.

The reason there is life on our planet relates to infra-red active gases (carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour that are in the stratosphere). The lack of these gases would result in a significantly colder climate, a permanent ice age. Conversely, a rise in infra-red gases would result in a rise in temperature, though there is a complex, non linear relationship between small changes in carbon-dioxide, methane and other trace gases, and the consequent temperature rise. The global climate system is complex which makes it difficult to simply ascribe cause and effect.

But carbon dioxide levels do have a strong correlation to mean global temperatures. Fascinating ice core records were first recovered from the Russian station Vostok which provided records covering 450,000 years. More recently a record of 800,000 years has been recovered from “Dome C” in Antarctica (part of The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica). This shows, very clearly, the link between temperature and carbon dioxide levels over cycles of glacial and interglacial periods of around 100,000 years. This is a natural process linked to long term small variations in the Earth’s orbit and axis of rotation. The level of CO2 in the stratosphere has varied naturally between around 180 ppm during glaciations to 280ppm in the warm interglacials, as shown in the records.

                        It has now passed 408 ppm.

Carbon is ubiquitous, in fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal), in organic matter in soil and in rock, in the sea. Carbon dioxide is emitted when we exhale, When fossil fuels, are burned carbon dioxide is produced. In 2019 the global emission was 33 gigatons (a gigaton is one billion ).

In the oceans it is estimated that there are billions of metric tons of carbon and further billions of metric tons in sediments on the sea bed. The latter comes from the shells of marine creatures that have absorbed carbon from the water, sunk to the ocean floor and later formed sedimentary rocks.

A raised carbon dioxide level relates to a rise atmospheric temperature which in turn is associated with a rise in ocean temperature, seawater expansion and a rise in water level. The increased water levels are also contributed to by melting land ice and erosion of ice shelf bases. Ice shelves hold ice from flowing outwards and thinning of these shelves increases the flow of ice seawards. An estimated ice loss across the entire Antarctic continent was 43 gigatons each year on average from 1992 to 2002. The loss has accelerated between 2012 to 2017.

Potential results of sea-level rise are coastal erosion and damage. Subsequently, inland areas would become affected and the soil contaminated. If the rise continues toward one metre, some of the world’s major cities will come under threat and even low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, will be threatened.

Ocean acidification, due to dissolved carbon dioxide, has serious consequences.

Acidification affects the southern Krill population. Krill, an essential primary food source, are small crustaceans that feed on zooplankton and convert this into a form suitable for larger animals such as whales, seals, penguins, squid, and fish to eat. All Antarctic wildlife ether depends on krill or depends on something that eats krill for survival. Without this stable base, the food chain linking upwards would deteriorate and eventually collapse. In addition, cold-water corals, which have calcium carbonate in their shells, become less able to build their shells and breeding grounds for both fishes and mammals would be lost.

But some do not subscribe to the concept of global warming, for example: Donald Trump cast doubt on a U.S government report warning of the devastating effects of climate change. When he was asked if unchecked global warming would wreak havoc on the US economy, he said: “I don’t believe it.” The administration has pursued a pro-fossil fuels agenda.

But if conclusions such as this from the U.S. President are wrong, the price to pay is huge. Given the persistence time of CO2 in the stratosphere of 100 years, even if the world were to stop all emission now there is still that legacy which is likely to take the planet past the 1.5 degrees C warming, which scientists say we should not pass. Currently carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning are steadily rising, rather than decreasing. Scientists warn that we are playing dice with the future of humanity.

A final point – global human population increase. This is approximately 83 million annually, or 1.1% per year. Population numbers have grown from a billion in 1800 to approximately 7.616 billion in 2018. Improved medical care and reduced child mortality would be a powerful incentive for families to have the confidence to limit the size of their families.

Policies now direct to keeping carbon emissions flat until 2050. But so far there is little sign of sufficient practical action on this. Scientists are now increasingly coming to the conclusion that we need to go “carbon negative”, which raises the possibility of large scale “geo-engineering”. – Geo-engineering is defined by as the large-scale manipulation of a specific process central to controlling earth’s climate, for the purpose of obtaining a specific benefit (Britannica .com).

Millions now do understand the dangers of global warming and the urgency to contain it. Humanity is at a crossroads, for the sake of our grand-children we need to make the right turn.

 

With grateful acknowledgement for the comments by John Dudeney O B E.-  my co-author of ‘William Speirs Bruce, Forgotten Polar Hero’

 

ERNEST SHACKLETON AUTUMN SCHOOL

24 Jan

Have you heard of the Ernest Shackleton Autumn School? If not you should look it up and consider a visit. The School is held annually in the Athy Heritage -Centre Museum in County Kildare, Ireland. It pulls all strands of Polar experiences together – it could be described as the Polar event of the year! Shackleton was born in Kilkea House, near Athy in 1874 and lived in the area with his large family until the age of ten. The school started in 2001 with the aim of celebrating Shackleton’s achievements and establishing him as a role model in the locality.

I have now attended this event on three occasions and spoken, with John Dudeney my co-author, in one. The meeting is relaxed and convivial with a very a warm welcome offered to delegates, who come from all over the world. But the scholarship of the speakers is world class and the talks are always both fascinating and thought provoking.

 

 

The Athy Heritage Centre Museum was opened in 1997, four years before the Shackleton Autumn School. Its aim was to celebrate the history of an area which dates back for hundreds of years from an Anglo -Norman settlement in the 12th century; monasteries were founded a century later, a Charter was granted by Henry VIII in 1515 (who subsequently ordered the dissolution of its monasteries in the 1530s). Athy supported the Catholic/Royalist cause in the Irish Confederate Wars, which ended when  Oliver Cromwell‘s New Model Army defeated the Irish Catholic and Royalists in the 1650s.

In the 1900s the town remained loyal to the crown in World War1. Two thousand volunteers from the area joined the British Army –one of them, John Vincent Holland, was awarded the Victoria Cross for his valour and courage in in the Battle of the Somme.

The museum is the home to the only permanent exhibition dedicated to Shackleton. Numerous artifacts include Shackleton’s sledge and harness from his Antarctic expeditions, a model of his ship ‘Endurance’’, family photographs and Frank Hurley’s film footage of the ‘Endurance’ expedition. A statute of Shackleton is outside the museum.

 

 

It occurs to me that not every reader will be familiar with some of the details of Shackleton’s story and the reasons he is so celebrated, so here is a brief summary of his most noteworthy expeditions.

He went to the Antarctic on four occasions –his two most famous expeditions were the ‘Nimrod Expedition’, (official name the ‘British Antarctic Expedition’) 1907 -1909, and the ‘Endurance Expedition’, (the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition) of 1914-1917.

On the ‘Nimrod Expedition’ Shackleton and his three companions pioneered the route up the huge Beardmore Glacier to discover the Antarctic Plateau. The route up the glacier covered 120 miles, riddled with crevasses and rising from a few hundred feet to a height of over 9,000 feet. The team reached within 100 nautical miles of the South Pole. This was an outstanding success, the first expedition to get anywhere near the Pole and was a major source of inspiration for Amundsen’s and Scott’s later expeditions. The achievement is largely overshadowed now by Shackleton’s later exploits, but at the time it was internationally recognized.   Shackleton was knighted by King Edward VII, awarded the Gold Medal of the Royal Geographical Society, also the Polar medal; an appreciation both of his achievements and of the geographical discoveries that members of his expedition had made.

Five years later on the ‘Endurance Expedition’ , Shackleton aimed to take a twenty-eight man team to the Weddell Sea in the Antarctic and then, with a small team cross the continent via the South Pole to reach the Ross Sea. He did not succeed, in fact he did not actually get onto the continent, but this is the expedition that became the stuff of legend for its courage, endurance and shining example of leadership. ‘Endurance’ was caught and subsequently crushed by sea ice in the Weddell Sea. As the sea poured into the ship Shackleton and his crew had to decamp onto ice floes. Here they existed for four months (little food and low temperatures). Their final ‘home’, the ice floe Patience Camp was eroded by the sea so the twenty eight men had to abandon the ice and crowd onto three small lifeboats in an attempt to get to safety. They made landfall on Elephant Island – this was a journey that lasted for seven days – the 9th to the 16th April 1916. It was characterized by tumultuous seas, fog, tortuous thirst, gastroenteritis and the proximity of killer wales. Shackleton and the leaders of the other two boats showed outstanding skills in keeping those small boats together.

Elephant Island was out of the shipping routes so Shackleton had to effect a rescue for his men. In an era prior to wireless communications, his only realistic option was to attempt to reach the peri-Antarctic island of South Georgia, (which he had left at the start of his expedition). He took five men with him, leaving his remaining crew of twenty –two living under upturned boats on a beach on Elephant Island. The voyage, made in a twenty-two foot boat, the James Caird took them across Drake’s Passage and via eight hundred miles of the wild, sometimes snowy and icy, Scotia Sea. The sail is said to be the most remarkable example of small-boat seafaring ever achieved. But even the arrival at South Georgia was not the end of Shackleton’s trials. He and two others, Captain Worsley and Petty Officer Crean had to cross South Georgia’s unknown and uncharted snowy mountains to reach the whaling station that he had left sixteen months before. He returned then to Elephant Island (with great difficulty) and rescued the twenty two men who had been marooned on the island for four months waiting and hoping, sometimes despairingly for his return. All Shackleton’s crew survived.

Throughout these ‘Trials of Job’, Shackleton showed his remarkable qualities of leadership, positivity and optimism. As a true leader, he knew when to alter his plans as circumstances changed. It is wonderful that he is so celebrated in the county of his birth.

 

In the meeting that I attended diverse matters were covered: a workshop by sculptor Mark Richards, who has sculpted the statute of Shackleton that stands outside the museum, a book launch (Shane McCorristine’s The Spectral Arctic: A History of Ghosts and Dreams in Polar exploration, a talk on Amundsen, a discussion on what the sea floor can tell us about ice sheets, shipwreck mysteries, Jose Manuel Moneta in the Antarctic, the Patriot Sailor and Adventurer, Conor O’Brien, Icebreakers Kathleen Shackleton, a lecture on Isolation when wintering and working in Antarctica, William Speirs Bruce, the Forgotten Polar Hero, a film Ice in the Sky and, a bus tour through Shackleton country.

A fascinating selection of topics the likes of which are repeated annually

 

A wonderful acquisition for the museum will be Shackleton’s ‘Sea Bedroom’, the cabin on The Quest in which Shackleton died on his fourth expedition south in 1922. The Quest was bought by the Norwegian shipyard owner, John Drage. Drage for use as a sealing ship, but he kept the cabin, which he transported to his farm in Norway. Now Drage’s great grandson, Ulfe Bakke, has donated this precious artifact to the Athy Heritage Centre. Joe O’Farrell a committee member of The Shackleton Autumn School accompanied the cabin, which was transported by the shipping company DFDS from Norway to Ireland.

The cabin measures seven feet by six feet, contains a bunk, wash basin, chair, enamel cabinet, a mirror and an oil lamp. Restoration is underway. It is planned the work will be completed by 2022 in time for the centenary of Shackleton’s death. This will coincide with the reopening of the redesigned ‘Shackleton Museum’ which will tell the story of the man, his family, and Ireland’s contribution to exploration.

Finally I must mention an unusual event that is celebrated in the museum – a motor race around Athy that took place in 1903. James Gordon Bennett, the flamboyant publisher of the New York Herald presented the Gordon Bennett Cup to be given to the winner of the race which was held on a racing circuit around Athy (Gordon Bennett is probably best known for his sponsorship of Stanley’s successful expedition to Africa to find David Livingstone). The race, over 527km (327.5 miles), was won by Camille Jenatzy, for Germany, in a time of 6 hours, 39 minutes.

The Shackleton Autumn School should be noted by everyone with an interest in Polar events.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F

 

SIR HUBERT VON HERKOMER R.A. 1849-1914: TIME TO REMEMBER

23 Dec

I have just sent my short account of Hubert Herkomer’s life to the publishers– I don’t know how long it will take to appear in its final form – but writing it has caused me to think again about the roller-coaster that is fame.

Herkomer would have reached the pinnacle of his fame when he painted QueenVictoria in 1901 on her deathbed in Osborne House. This beautiful picture depicts Victoria swathed in tulle, a cross in her hand, surrounded by the lilies symbolizing the return of her soul to its innocent state.

But even by 1901 Herkomer’s popularity was beginning to wane –some of his portraits were described as vulgar, richly-painted photographs!  By the early1900s artistic tastes were changing. They were to alter dramatically before and during World War 1.

I think in Herkomer’s case his fall from grace can be explained in a number of ways:

1) He was born in Bavaria. Although he became a naturalized British Citizen, he neither lost, nor hid, his affection and loyalty to Germany and visited Bavaria regularly. Throughout the early 1900s he hoped that Germany and England would continue a close association and he naively chose to ignore the indications of German aggression highlighted by the British press. He suggested that these reports were journalistic ploys and seemed oblivious to the steadily increasing British resentment towards Germany. He died in 1914 just before the beginning of the war. By 1918 Germany and all German associations were ostracized.

2) He was an extremely successful artist. Unusually, he was able to support himself and later his family by his art from the age of nineteen. ‘Social Realism’ was the vehicle of his early success (Van Gogh wrote enthusiastically to his brother Theo about him), but his move to portrait painting and the huge financial rewards in this genre (£500 for a portrait, at a time when a labourer earned approximately £40 a year), must have caused resentment amongst his less successful colleagues. His unabashed, boastful enthusiasm over his achievements must have added to this resentment, it was so un- English.

3) This resentment was made public when his fellow Royal Academicians questioned his right to British Citizenship. Humiliatingly he was forced to post his re-naturalization papers in the Academy. A further example of resentment became apparent when his name was advanced as a candidate for the Presidency of the Royal Watercolour Society in 1897 (he had been Vice President for several years). When he was beaten in the election he was bitterly disappointed. He rationalised that the defeat had come about because he was ‘a forriner’.

4) He was a polymath, his enthusiasms moved quickly through many aspects of ‘the arts’: painter, zither player, actor, banjo player, carpenter, enameler, film maker, composer, art director in his art school in Bushey. This vast array of interests, all of which he entered into with passion, inevitably meant that the quality of his paintings sometimes suffered; a fact seized upon by the critics.

5) However the most important reason that Herkomer’s artistic legacy is largely forgotten is that his work was a reflection of a society that was destroyed by the First World War – in fact even before the war, art enthusiasms had moved from ‘Realism’, as artists were drawn into a vortex of permanent revolution. Artists such as Christopher Nevinson, Paul Nash, Stanley Spencer, David Bomberg, Mark Gertler vividly portrayed the horrors of the war and after the devastation, many artists decided that the war must be used as a catalyst for change, an opportunity to embrace new advances, to experiment. Herkomer, a ‘Realist’, having died just before the war, had no opportunity to defend his work or (ironically, since he was always avid to investigate new ideas), to modify his oeuvre in relation to post war realities.

Such was the continued strength of feeling against him, that ‘Lululaund’, his Gothic-type house in Bushey, the only building in Britain designed by the renowned American architect Henry Hobson Richardson of Boston, was demolished stone by stone before the Second World War and the rubble used in the construction of an airstrip for American planes in nearby Bovingdon.

These are powerful reasons that explain in part why this amazingly talented, versatile, intelligent man fell from grace. There may be similar reasons for other artists.  But I think that it is now time for Herkomer’s contributions to late Victorian art to be re-evaluated.

Apsley Cherry-Garrard (final instalment)

26 Nov

I have spent some weeks writing a piece on the artist Sit Hubert von Herkomer RA – this has taken hours! Now, at last, I can return to Cherry Garrard’s experiences after the Terra Nova—the last comment on a man whose name is rarely recognized now, but a man who brought more clarity to life in Antarctica than virtually any other writer.

As previously, I acknowledge my indebtedness to Sarah Wheeler and her book Cherry: A life of Apsley Cherry-Garrard

 

There are several strands to the post Terra Nova narrative:

His book The Worst Journey in the World was published and republished. Written with the invaluable help of his  neighbour, George Bernard Shaw. It was to become a best seller (and, as Scott’s work had been distributed in the first world war, The Worst Journey became suggested reading for troops in the second).

Cherry’s general disillusionment with the government and the country post war – unemployment, poverty and industrial stagnation prevailed. As a member of the landowning class he felt that unfair taxes were levied to an extent that he could not continue to maintain his estates. He started to sell his properties.

He married

His physical and psychological health continued to give intermittent problems. Colitis, variably( and seriously) flared, he suffered from arthritis, but depression was always lurking. There was probably a familial trait to depression – his cousin, the publisher Reginald Smith committed suicide in 1916, and several other members of his family suffered from the illness.

 

 

The Worst Journey in the World had a long gestation. First published in 1922 when Cherry was 36, it was his eulogy to Edward Wilson and Birdie Bowers as well as a thoughtful appraisal of the Terra Nova expedition. The ‘Winter Journey’ was at the soul of the narrative. This expedition was organized by Wilson – it was a search to collect early specimens of Emperor Penguin eggs in order to investigate the theory that birds were descended from dinosaurs. Emperor Penguins were thought (wrongly), to be the most primitive of birds which is why Wilson wanted recently laid eggs (to see if these had teeth or scales). Wilson chose Lieutenant ‘Birdie’ Bowers along with Cherry, his protégée. The expedition was made in the dark, in temperatures that went down to -76° F. on a snow surface that resulted in progress of only a mile a day. At one point the three men were caught in a blizzard for many hours. They lay in their sleeping bags, without nourishment. They sang hymns. Cherry resigned himself to dying.

It was originally planned that Teddy Evans, Scott’s second in command on the Terra Nova (who Cherry and others distrusted), would write the account of the whole expedition, but Teddy became too busy to undertake the commission and Cherry was delighted to be asked take on the task. He originally planned a conventional account – stores, personnel, ship’s details, science etc. but gradually his vision changed and when he was given free licence over the work he moved from an ‘official’ account of the expedition to a personal, unique interpretation of the aims of Antarctic exploration, the hopes and the fears of the expedition, his personal assessment of his companions, psychological analyses. The work was not deferential. It was to evolve into a unique account of Polar exploration.

The help he received from Bernard Shaw was invaluable. Shaw could turn a poorly articulated concept into a beautifully crafted sentence and it was Shaw who suggested the eventual title, The Worst Journey in the World. Shaw ruled on punctuation, phrasing, typescript. Cherry appreciated Shaw’s help so much that he offered him co-authorship but Shaw refused saying that as his whole knowledge of ice dated from the great frost of 1878, his intrusion into the Antarctic Circle would be ridiculous! Shaw advised Cherry in relation to publishing and Cherry decided to retain editorial control by paying to have the work (original title Never Again: Scott, Penguins and the Pole), published. Emery Walker produced the illustrations for Never Again.

The book was first published in 1922- two volume boxed-sets, produced either with an expensive, or a cloth binding. The reviews were mainly excellent (‘A Glorious Narrative’ :…. ‘Impelling and Authentic’). One detractor was Kathleen (Scott) who objected to Cherry’s portrayal of her first husband and never forgave him for revealing Scott’s defects as well as his strengths.

The work was republished in 1927, again in 1929. In 1937, a two volume Penguin edition (the ninety-ninth and one hundredth in their series) was advertised by a penguin wielding a cricket bat and bowing – to celebrate the firm’s centenary.

The Worst Journey was hugely popular during the war. A film Scott of the Antarctic was produced in 1948. The book was adapted for television by Mark Gatiss—who also portrays Cherry-Garrard—in The Worst Journey in the World (2007). In 2017, Kat Eschner wrote in the Smithsonian.com that ‘This Catastrophic Polar Journey Resulted in One of the Best Adventure Books Ever Written’. The work remains in print.

 

 

Dissatisfaction with the government:

Along with many others before the war, Cherry had thought of war as a noble enterprise. Reality destroyed this myth brutally. The Versailles Treaty of 1919 brought peace but no return to the pre -war ways of life and Cherry felt under attack. He had been brought up in and assimilated the ‘patriarchal’ ways of life, where a landowner had responsibilities towards his tenants and land. Increases in his tax burden threatened this – he was opposed to the national claim for increased wages by workers. What he considered to be punitive duties on land owners resulted in him beginning to sell his lands and properties. As he wrote his book The Worst Journey in the World, he became increasingly disaffected with the bondage of possessions. In time he was to sell all his land assets including his family home Lamer.

 

 

Marriage

Cherry married when he was 50. He met Angela Turner on a cruise in1937. She was 20 when he proposed in 1939, just before the abyss of the Second World War. They were married immediately. Both families, untroubled by the age difference, were pleased. Angela was a happy choice –it was said that her name was her nature. She was positive, good natured. She put up with Cherry’s oddities cheerfully. In contrast to Cherry she devoted time to the local village, Wheathampstead. The villagers responded warmly – many were christened ‘Angela’. Later in their marriage they were to leave Lamer, which she had grown to love, to move, uncomplainingly, into a service flat in London. She was to support Cherry through several mental breakdowns. She was a truly supportive partner.

 

 

Psychosis

Cherry clearly became seriously, though intermittently, incapacitated by a depressive psychoses. Unlike his wife he had never had a ‘half-full’, happy outlook. He was self absorbed, often unhappy and disinterested in events that did not relate to himself. In addition, as in all illnesses, the experiences he had gone through (the harrowing events of the Terra Nova expedition), provided an external trigger.

Over the years he had severe psychotic breakdowns. In 1941 he suffered from delusions –Germans were hiding in Lamer – this delusional phase might well have passed had not his brother–in -law employed the services of an eminent London psychiatrist. Incarceration in a mental hospital was advised.

Angela was appalled – she was sure that Cherry would recover given time. She immediately cycled to her near neighbours, Bernard Shaw and his wife Charlotte for help and advice. Shaw’s robust, sharp letter, which Angela copied, told the psychiatrist to keep away from her husband. Cherry recovered though he had memory loss for the whole period. He was amazed to hear of Pearl Harbour.

Although he had good and bad periods, depression was always a cloud on the horizon. In 1946, when living in his flat in London, he had what was described as a “complete nervous breakdown”. an incapacitating depression which immobilised him for a year. Angela with help from a day nurse, and a night nurse cared for him. Cherry, immersed in dread could hardly move, his arthritic pains aggravated. He lost stones in weight. He wanted Angela to be with him continuously; she took over all the administrative duties.

 

Later years

Lamer was sold in 1947. Cherry had shed his final responsibility, but his fluctuating psychological state was such that his doctor recommended a break in Eastbourne and in Eastbourne his psychological balance and peace of mind gradually returned. A further reprint of The Worst Journey sold over 165,000 copies. He and Angela went on cruises. He wrote a postscript to a new edition of The Worst Journey suggesting, amongst other things, that vitamin deficiency had been the cause of the disastrous return from the Pole.

Cherry returned to Eastbourne regularly throughout the early 1950s. He was thrilled when Churchill returned to power in 1951 He and Angela escaped from London by going to the Mediterranean. But through the 1950s he lost ground physically and mentally. He developed ‘lung congestion’, probably a symptom of heart failure. Seven years after the 1946 breakdown he was incapacitated for months by a further mental collapse. He suffered from skin rashes as well as arthritis. He became so obsessed by noise that he and Angela moved into the Berkeley Hotel. In May 1959 he slipped in The Berkeley and broke his arm. He died of pneumonia on the 18th May. 1959.

He was buried in Wheathampstead cemetery next to his father, Major General Apsley Cherry-Garrard. His life was illuminated and dominated by his experiences in Antarctica and his writing. The Worst Journey gave a unique insight into the fascination and the lure of the Antarctic and Antarctic exploration. He was blessed in his marriage to Angela who supported him throughout.

Neil Olivers programme on Bruce

2 Oct

Neil Oliver has made an excellent film on Bruce

It was one of his ‘ Last Explorers’ series and  was on BBC 4 on Tuesday 24th Sept. You can get it on catch-up.

Obviously It will not be there for too long, but we have downloaded it.

It makes an excellent pair of bookends with my book on Bruce and, of course, the Audiobook.!!

 

IMAGES TO APSLEY CHERRY-GARRARD PART 3

28 Aug

These images have now been added.

The map image contains Scott’s route from the South Pole to his final camp 15 miles from ‘One Ton Depot’ and an insert of the resupply of ‘One Ton Depot’ by Cherry-Garrard and  Dimitri Gerof.

Apsley Cherry Garrard, (Cherry), Part 3

20 Aug

I have covered Cherry’s early life and his experiences on the Terra Nova expedition in my blogs of the 5th and 25th July.

 

This blog covers some of his experiences after the expedition.

 

 

The resupply of food and fuel to ‘One Ton Depot’ by Cherry-Garrard & Dimitri Gerof

 

Cherry died in 1958, forty-four years after the Terra Nova had returned to Cardiff, but his experiences on the expedition and the aftermath of these experiences, became a permanent scar. The expedition was reported in the press as an example of ‘gallantry in the face of catastrophe’ and as ‘a moral and spiritual expedition’, but Cherry did not see it like this. He had lost the two people he most admired in the world – Edward Wilson and ‘Birdie’ Bowers and he was haunted by their loss and by the thought (and suggestion) that when he was sent to replenish One Ton camp, he could have advanced further south of One Ton and possibly saved the explorers. One report claimed that the dog handler, Dimitri, stated that he (Dimitri) had wanted to take the dogs on alone from One Ton. An armchair specialist claimed that ‘all that could have been done was not done’.

 

Cherry had been a member of the party that found the tent where the bodies of his dead companions lay. He had seen Scott’s arm laid across Wilson. He had searched for Wilson’s watch to give to Oriana, Wilson’s widow. He had found the notes that Wilson had left. How could he forget? How could he not go over and over the events and question himself about his and Dmitri’s return?

When he finally arrived at base camp from One Ton he collapsed from physical and mental strain, hardly able to get out of his bed for weeks. He suffered from headaches, fainting fits and serious, profound depression. As he slowly recovered over the months, Dr. Atkinson the base doctor became a friend as well as an adviser and confidant. The two men became united in their distrust of Lieutenant Teddy Evans, who went home with the relief ship (see below). They (and others) lacked confidence in Teddy.[i]

On Cherry’s return to England he returned to ‘Lamer’, his Hertfordshire home. He found it was remarkably unchanged; he went over the estate affairs with his adviser- his income from his estates had increased – he met up with his tenants. He visited his Antarctic colleagues and their relatives. He lived the social life of a wealthy landowner, but his underlying melancholy and anxiety remained.

Scott’s Last Expedition, Scott’s diary was published in October 1913. It was well received, but Cherry had reservations about it. He felt that Scott had changed the story into an allegory of the Christian Story [ii]. But he mainly felt threatened (in the light of criticism of his activities), that the account failed to make the point that was so important to him personally. This was, that on the outward southern trek, Scott had taken the dogs further south than originally planned. As he read the report Cherry suspected that the committee responsible for the book, had produced a cover-up that aimed to enhance Scott’s reputation.

The story of the dogs and the dog food is complex to unravel. The dogs were supposed to turn back at the base of the Beardmore Glacier but Scott, realising their worth, decided to take them onto the glacier where they continued on the southbound journey as far as the Lower Glacier Depot. This decision, though it helped the British party on the glacier, was to have far reaching effects. Scott had not left enough dog food in the depots on his outward journey for the return and clearly more food was used when the dogs continued to the Lower Glacier Depot. When Mears turned back he carried a message from Scott that said that after Mears and the dogs had got back to camp and had rested, they should return to the Ice Barrier as far as One Ton camp carrying fuel and supplies. Scott wanted this to be done by March 1912. He wrote that in the event of Mears returning too late to do this in the necessary time frame, it was absolutely essential that, somehow or other, the supplies should be delivered to One Ton.

Mears and Dimitri turned back from the Lower Glacier Depot on December 11, 1912, 360 miles from the Pole. They had a very difficult journey to Base. Subsequently Mears did not take the dogs back onto the Barrier for the essential run to One Ton as demanded by Scott. This was mainly because he, with a number of colleagues, was booked to return home on the relief ship. Ranulph Fiennes suggests that Mears could actually have completed the run to One Ton and back and still have been on the relief ship[iii] and this may be true, but Mears did not do this; he needed to get home to sort out family affairs, his father had died- he would not run the risk of missing the ship. Someone else would have to do it.

The whole sorry saga is complicated by the fact that Teddy Evans collapsed with scurvy on HIS return from the Plateau. Lieutenant Evans had been sent back with two companions in early February. Scott entrusted him with pivotal instructions, a final message intended to OVERRIDE all previous instructions. Scott stated that the dogs were to come further south than One Ton. Mears was to take the dogs to 82-83°S, allowing Scott to meet the dogs in early March.

Lieutenant Teddy Evans became desperately ill with scurvy on the return journey. He was so ill he was unable to advance and had to be rescued from the Barrier where he lay helpless, looked after by Stoker Lashly, apparently anticipating death. Dr. Atkinson travelled onto the Barrier and carefully nursed him back to health.

Whatever happened to Scott’s last pivotal instructions that the dogs should go further south then One Ton, they did not get to Cherry.

It was clearly understood that food had to be got as far as One Ton, but the decision as to who to send with the relief dog team was difficult. It was considered that Wright, as a scientist, had to remain at Base to make the meteorological and other scientific observations. Dr. Atkinson was needed to care for Teddy Evans. Cherry was the only possibility; so, burdened by poor eyesight, limited basic skills in navigation, and a lack of dog driving experience, Cherry set out with Dimitri, the dog handler, to the depot, 150 miles away on the featureless Barrier.

Navigation was difficult. Cherry had to rely on Dimitri to spot the cairns. At One Ton Camp they were held down by weather conditions for four days. The dog food and fuel was running out. Cherry knew that the only way that further progress south could be made was by killing the dogs, but he knew also that Scott’s instructions had been that the dogs were not to be risked. He had no information about Scott’s final instructions. In addition Dimitri apparently developed a right-sided weakness and was unable to cooperate. But probably the most important factor was that Cherry had no reason to suppose that the polar party were in trouble. He had absolutely no way of knowing that of the five returnees, one had already died, Oates was die soon and the remaining three were in a battle against death which they were to lose at the end on March.

On the10 March 1912, Cherry, leaving a message for Scott, turned back to make the return journey to Base.

After his slow medical improvement and his return to England Cherry, at home in Lamer brooded. He went over and over the dog scenario. His distrust of Teddy Evans festered, particularly when Teddy was made part of the committee writing an official, formal account of the expedition. Cherry was against this; he thought it would be a permanent shame if the story was told by Evans who had been ‘the one blot on what I believe is the best expedition which has ever sailed’.[iv]

It was therefore music to his ears when the Secretary of the committee approached him to ask him to take over the account, as Teddy was too busy.

Cherry accepted immediately.

 

To be continued

 

 

[i] Wheeler, S. Cherry, A life of Apsley Cherry-Garrard, 2001, Jonathan Cape, p. 79,96,138.

[ii] Wheeler, S. Cherry, A life of Apsley Cherry Garrard, 2001, Jonathan Cape, p 161.

[iii] Fiennes, R. Captain Scott, 2003, Hodder and Stoughton, p. 360.

[iv] Wheeler, S. Cherry, A life of Apsley Cherry-Garrard, 2001, Jonathan Cape P. 138.