Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T19:49:36.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

RACE FOR THE SOUTH POLE: THE EXPEDITION DIARIES OF SCOTT AND AMUNDSEN. R. Huntford. 2010. London: Continuum. xxi + 330 p. illustrated, hard cover. ISBN 978–1441-16982–2. £20.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2010

Rosamunde Codling*
Affiliation:
Chapel Loke, 4 Church Street, Wymondham NR18 0PH.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Book Review
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Any volume presenting previously unavailable material in an accessible form is to be welcomed. Roland Huntford has translated the journals of two of the Norwegian party that reached the Pole in December 1911 and has presented them alongside equivalent dated entries made by Scott. Amundsen's complete journal has never been published in English and Huntford was also given access to the account kept by Olav Olavson Bjaaland. He was a Norwegian ski champion and farmer as well as being a experienced carpenter, a skill much utilised by Amundsen. His record is much shorter that those of the two leaders but as Huntford says: ‘It was a record for himself alone. He had trenchancy and wit to set against the outpouring of a readier pen’ (page 2).

The book is structured in a straightforward way. Sandwiched between Huntford's 31 page introduction and a shorter epilogue are the expedition diaries of Amundsen, Bjaaland, and Scott, covering the period from Friday 1 September 1911 to Tuesday 5 March 1912. The date is given and entries from the three follow, in a commendably clear fashion. When Huntford comments on passages his text is printed in italics. This type differentiation is to be welcomed as it ensures there can be no confusion about authorship.

Books giving accounts of both expeditions were rapidly published, Amundsen's in 1912 (including the English translation) and Scott's a year later. Amundsen used a narrative format, quoting dates, but not using them as the formal framework for his story. Scott's account of his earlier Discovery expedition had also followed this pattern, but because of Scott's death, the account of the Terra Nova expedition differed and used his own journal entries, from November 1910 to the last entry in March 1912. In 1913 no mention was made of the editing of Scott's manuscript carried out by Leonard Huxley. Some of Scott's criticisms of individuals were removed, as were passages considered to show Scott himself in a bad light. Huxley had written: ‘I believe the revising hand has managed to remain unobtrusive’ (quoted in Jones Reference Scott and Jones2005: xxxiii) and readers would have been ignorant about the changes that had been made. It was not until the publishing of a facsimile edition in 1968 that Scott's own reworkings and Huxley's editorial efforts became clearer, but even then only to the limited number of individuals prepared to work through the closely written pages. In 2005 Max Jones edited a volume that clearly presented the complete list of changes made to Scott's original text, as well as providing considerable background material. Huntford makes no reference to this work and only lists the facsimile edition in his bibliography.

Having looked at Huntford's book for many hours, the reviewer is left with very mixed feelings. There is gratitude for the translations he has provided which have enabled non-Norwegian speakers to read two previously unavailable texts. He has given factual insights into subjects as varied as skiing, marine engines and the relationship of Amundsen's expedition to the International Date Line. Yet Huntford cannot resist keeping up his continuous tirade against Scott which began with his first book Scott and Amundsen (Reference Huntford1979). Every opportunity seems to be taken to pour scorn on Scott's decisions or ridicule his actions. Even the title of the book gives an indication of Huntford's position. Was Scott's expedition really a ‘Race for the South Pole’? Much has already been written about this and probably most people with an interest in polar matters have made up their own minds. The present director of SPRI, Julian Dowdeswell, recently wrote: ‘to imply failure and success as measured only by primacy in a crude and to some extent contrived “Race to the Pole”, is to miss much of the point concerning Scott in particular (Dowdeswell Reference Dowdeswell2010: 45).

Huntford's approach is illustrated by the way he relates the events which led to Scott receiving the news that Amundsen had set up camp in the Bay of Whales. Scott wrote in his diary that he would ‘proceed as though this had not happened. To go forward and do our best for the honour of the country without fear or panic’ (entry for 22 February 1912). Huntford then quotes Cherry-Garrard's diary: ‘For many hours Scott cd. think of nothing else nor talk of anything else. Evidently a great shock for him . . . I think Scott had a bad night’ (pages 25–26). To this reviewer both Scott's responses and Cherry-Garrard's observations seem understandable and reasonable. Huntford's summary of Scott's reaction is ‘mental collapse’, an extreme interpretation he fails to qualify by reliable evidence.

Huntford has also chosen to ignore careful research concerning the weather endured by the British party. Susan Solomon's The coldest march: Scott's fatal Antarctic expedition (Reference Solomon2001) analysed the meteorological data collected by the expedition as well as current information, before concluding that Scott's polar party had experienced exceptionally cold conditions that could not have been predicted. Huntford must be aware of these findings but her book is not in his bibliography.

In other academic areas such as interdisciplinary landscape research, ‘nature’ is recognised as being a heavily freighted word, with multiple meanings of a personal, cultural and changing kind that resist easy definition. Huntford regularly refers to ‘Nature’ in his comments (always using a capital letter) but it is never defined so readers have to guess at his meaning. The first occurrence gives an indication of this problem, as well as a further example of his continuous denigration of Scott. Huntford writes: ‘Scott came from a society divorced from Nature and which thought it knew best, disqualifying him from the land he had chosen to invade’ (page 3) Lurking close behind ‘Nature’ is ‘Fate’, another amorphous notion which Huntford invokes but does not elucidate. Some may consider it relevant but not all will comprehend or accept its existence.

Yet despite these criticisms, Huntford makes some fascinating points. In a note he exposes the linguistic subtleties behind an apparently straightforward geographical word vidda. It is explained as representing ‘an aspect of the Norwegian landscape . . . with connotations of untrammelled space. . . . To Amundsen, the Antarctic ice cap would simply be a vidda writ large. It would have a homely ring, so the ice cap would appear as an extension of his native terrain, and hence loose its power to instill a sense of mythic fear’ (page 319, note 52). When this reviewer was using a form of personal construct theory to elicit individual's concepts about the Antarctic landscape, it was interesting to note how many identified ‘home’ and/or ‘fear’ in their constructs (Codling Reference Codling2001). Familiarity certainly reduced concerns. Another point of interest was the February 1894 diary quotation from a naval lieutenant Sigurd Scott Hansen on the earlier Fram expedition who noted that the natural speed of a cross-country skier was the same as that of a loaded dog sledge. Huntford writes: ‘The combination was occasionally found among Siberian tribes, but its modern use in polar exploration was specifically Norwegian’ (page 13). For highlighting these and other factual matters, Huntford deserves thanks.

Huntford has not been well supported by his editors as there are errors and omissions that should have been corrected. For example, in the index PO Edgar Evans is listed as Edward Evans, and the page references to him and Lieut. E.R.G.R. Evans (‘Teddy’ Evans, later Admiral Lord Mountevans) are hopelessly mixed. Huntford calls Erebus ‘the only active volcano in Antarctica’ (page 17), an opinion not shared by Kyle (Reference Kyle and Riffenburgh2007). Vaughan Williams gave his seventh symphony the Italian name Sinfonia antartica, not Antarctica (page 308).

There are also oddities about the design of the volume. The cover uses a crisp serif typeface superimposed upon a photographic montage, yet on opening the book the headings are in a overpowering, ragged-edged face. Perhaps the intention was to echo earlier publications, such as Amundsen's 1912 account. Such a mannerism detracts. Quaint typefaces suggest eccentricity. The maps have all been published before in Huntford's books and some are not relevant to this text. They would have profited from further thought. Most are orientated with the Pole/true south to the top of the page, but the figure showing Amundsen's crossing of the Transantarctic Mountains is the other way round. The ‘Great Ice Barrier’ (now the Ross Ice Shelf) is sometimes textured, sometimes not. Coherent treatment for all maps would have been beneficial.

The conclusions of this reviewer are to value the translations and use them to understand more about Amundsen and his men; consult Jones (2005) for Scott's journals, and take great care over Huntford's remaining text. Find and appreciate the factually supported nuggets, but, with sadness, disregard a great deal of speculative dross.

References

Codling, R.J. 2001. Wilderness and aesthetic values in the Antarctic. Polar Record 37 (203): 337352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowdeswell, J. 2010. Right to reply: heroes frozen in time. CAM 60: 45.Google Scholar
Huntford, R. 1979. Scott and Amundsen. London, Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Kyle, P.R. 2007. Volcanoes. In: Riffenburgh, B. (editor). Encyclopedia of the Antarctic. New York, Routledge: 10421044.Google Scholar
Scott, R.F. 2005. Journals: Captain Scott's last expedition (editor Jones, M.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Solomon, S. 2001. The coldest march: Scott's fatal Antarctic expedition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar