|
The British Antarctic explorer Robert Falcon Scott became the subject of controversy when, more than 60 years after his death on the return march from the South Pole in 1912, his achievements and character came under sustained attack. Until that time the image of Scott, in Britain and in much of the world, had been that of heroic endeavour, the cornerstone of his reputation being his "Message to the Public" written just before his death. Occasional muted criticisms of his methods and character had generally failed to penetrate the public's consciousness. However, Roland Huntford's 1979 joint biography of Scott and his rival Roald Amundsen presented a contrasting view of Scott, not as hero but as heroic bungler. The book was reissued in the 1980s as ''The Last Place On Earth'', and was the subject of a 1985 television docudrama miniseries. Although Huntford's objectivity was questioned, and despite the hostility of the descendents of Scott and his comrades, the book and the related television docudrama changed the public's perception, the "bungler" tag quickly becoming the new orthodoxy. In the 1980s and 1990s Scott was depicted negatively in further books, was satirised and finally subjected to ridicule. As Scott's reputation declined, that of his contemporary Ernest Shackleton, long overshadowed by Scott, was in the ascendent as his man-management skills were celebrated, particularly in the United States, as models for business leaders. Historians have argued that the changing attitudes toward Scott arose not merely from Huntford's analysis but from late 20th century cultural shifts which would in any event have questioned the traditional forms of heroism represented by Scott. The first decade of the 21st century has seen specific attempts to rescue Scott's reputation. Analysis of March 1912 meteorological data has been used to suggest that Scott and his party might have been primarily the victims of unusually severe Antarctic weather rather than of bungling and incompetence. A 2003 Scott biography from polar explorer Sir Ranulph Fiennes included a spirited defence of Scott, and was the first book to mount a serious attack on Huntford's thesis and credentials. Other biographical and historical works, television programmes and numerous articles have continued to appear, representing different areas of the controversy's spectrum. According to historian Stephanie Barczewski, the variations in Scott's reputation are the result of current cultural forces that have very little to do with Scott himself. Finally, in 2012, Karen May at the Scott Polar Research Institute re-discovered the following facts. In 1921, 'Teddy' Evans revealed in his book ''South with Scott'' that Scott had left the following written orders at Cape Evans dated 20 October 1911 to secure Scott's speedy return from the pole using dogs. This order, rediscovered in 2012, was not carried out, and Scott and his men died: Expedition member Apsley Cherry-Garrard initially omitted mentioning Scott's order in his 1922 book ''The Worst Journey in the World''. However, in the 1948 preface to his book, also rediscovered in 2012, he admits to the existence of Scott's order, and explains that Scott's order could not have been carried out because insufficient dog food had been laid out (this was Cecil Meares's responsibility, being the dog-driver and the recipient of Scott's order) and because one of the base camp team, Atkinson, was too exhausted at the specified time of departure. ==Background== Robert Falcon Scott and four companions reached the South Pole on 17 January 1912, to find that they had been forestalled by a Norwegian party led by Roald Amundsen, who had arrived at the Pole five weeks earlier.〔L. Huxley, Vol I p. 544〕 Scott's party perished during their return journey to base camp in McMurdo Sound, their bodies and records being recovered by a search party during the following season.〔L. Huxley, Vol II, pp. 345–48〕 Scott's journals told the story of the march in terms which had a great public impact, elevating him to the role of iconic hero, with few searching questions asked about the causes of the disaster. Scott's assertion in his final Message to the Public, that his party's fate was the result of misfortune, not faulty organisation, was generally accepted without question;〔Jones p. 101〕 accounts of Scott's last expedition contained only limited and muted criticisms.This broadly remained the case for the following sixty years.〔Jones, pp. 286–87〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|