82 



i)isr.f)vi:i!Y 



A correspondent in Castlcreagh, County Koscommon, 

 lias sent me an interesting note concerning Peary's 

 claim to have visited the North Pole. He is inclined to 

 side with the American Senator, whose view on the 

 subject I quoted in a previous issue, and gives his 

 reasons for doing so. I once heard a man " settle " 

 this problem from a comfortable seat before a gas-fire. 

 He argued that Peary probably did not get there, but 

 as he had tried several times unsuccessfully to reach 

 the Pole, as he was very very anxious to do so, and as 

 he knew that the expedition of 1909 must be his last, 

 what was more natural than to say he got there whether 

 he did or not ? It seems an unfair argument, but the 

 man had studied the psychology of the whole affair — 

 Peary's doing the last stage of the journey without a 

 white companion, etc. — and that was his view. What- 

 ever be the truth, there is no doubt that Peary was a 

 great man, a resolute and adventurous discoverer. It 

 might be interesting to quote Sir Clements Markham's 

 opinion of the rival claims of Cook and Peary from The 

 Lands oj Silence,^ a really excellent book on Arctic and 

 Antarctic exploration which has just appeared. It 

 seems to me very just and not too non-committal ; 



" Peary was preceded by ii similar attempt, made 

 with much smaller means, by his former colleague, 

 Dr. Cook. . . . Dr. Cook had been ethnologist in 

 Peary's first expedition, and had acquired the Eskimo 

 language as spoken by the Arctic Highlanders. He 

 had also served in the Belgian Antarctic expedition. . . . 

 The final start was made on March 18, 1908, the 

 travelling being difficult owing to the lines of hum- 

 mocks caused by ice pressure and the lanes of water. 

 On March 30 Cook sighted land to the westward in 

 84° 50' N. which he named Bradley Land, but he did 

 not alter his course to examine it. On April 21 he 

 reports having taken a sun's meridian altitude, which 

 gave a latitude of 89" 57', but he must have been 

 mistaken, both overrating his distances and failing to 

 make sure of his direction by observations. He 

 doubtless did make a long journey over the ice, in a 

 more or less northerly direction ; but without observa- 

 tions to obtain true bearings, no reliance can be placed 

 upon his positions. 



***** 



" Cook's instruments were a se.xtant, and a glass 

 artificial horizon adjusted by screws and spirit level. 

 He also relied on shadow observations, and on an 

 odometer fitted to his sledge. But there is no mention 

 of any observations for true bearing of the sun, and 

 that he made none is conclusively proved by the fact 

 that in returning he was unable to follow his outward 

 tracks. . . . 



***** 



" On March 5 [1909] they [Peary and his party] 

 ' Published by the Cambridge University Press, 45s. 



came to a lane of open water, which detained them for 

 several days owing to lack of means for crossing it. 

 During five days Peary paced up and down deploring 

 his luck. Afterwards they crossed seven lanes of 

 water on young ice. Bartlett was the last to return, 

 after taking an observation with the resulting latitude 

 of 87' 46' 49" N. Thus 280 miles had been traversed 

 in a month, and they were 133 miles from the Pole. 

 The speed had been calculated at under fifteen miles 



a day. 



* ' * * « * 



" From this spot Peary went on for the Pole with 

 only his negro servant and four Eskimos, five sledges 

 and forty dogs. It was a great mistake to enter upon 

 what he considered the most important part of his 

 journey without any white companion, more especially 

 as bearings and distances do not appear to have been 

 ascertained by observations. For help in making 

 these rough estimates, and for such observations as 

 were taken, a colleague was imperatively necessary. 

 ***** 



" Directly Peary parted from Bartlett, his estimated 

 distances were more than doubled, and the course was 

 assumed to be due north. Peary refers to the meridian 

 of Cape Colombia as if he had never deviated from that 

 meridian during the whole journej'. Without such 

 observations it would not be possible to keep on the 

 same meridian. Yet after journej's during four days 

 estimated at from twenty-five to thirty miles a day, a 

 meridian altitude of the sun was taken which gave a 

 latitude of 89° 25' N., or 97 miles due north from the 

 position where Bartlett observed. Without amplitude 

 observations this would not be possible, so that there 

 must be mistakes in the observations for this and 

 subsequent meridian altitudes. The sun was very near 

 the horizon at noon at that time of the year. The 

 distances were, perhaps naturally, overestimated. 

 Peary was very fortunate in being able to follow his 

 tracks during his return journey, in spite of a furious 

 gale which might have obliterated them." 

 ***** 



Several correspondents have written me about one 

 of the puzzles in Mr. Stewart's article in the March 

 number — the one that seeks to show that a half- 

 yearly rise of £10 is better financially than a yearly 

 one of £40. This was stated to be a straightforward 

 problem, not a catch. Opinions seem to be, however, 

 that either it is a catch, or if not the half-yearly rise 

 proposed is not better than the yearly one. 

 ***** 



I quote as an example of the letters received from 

 one sent me by a major in the Sappers : " The ' salary ' 

 problem does contain a catch, or, alternatively, Mr. 

 Stewart has not calculated the salaries in accordance 



