Editor's note: "I believe Doug's review exposes this pseudo-history work
as a perversion of the most extraordinary
achievement in all of Arctic history. Noose of Laurels was misunderstood
by book reviewers and has been misrepresented ever since. When
originally published no one knew Herbert had a history of correspondence
with anti-Peary/anti-Establishment
crusaders Helene Vetters
and author Hugh Eames. Recently, Herbert's
financial motives have been exposed as well." (Russell R. Robinson) |
"Although one might expect Herbert, as an experienced writer and
polar traveler, to bring new perspectives to these old arguments
we get only fudged data, one-sided analysis and the sniping tone
of a rival."
 |
Sir Wally Herbert's web site hawks a watercolor painting of
the famous day that "the North Pole was reached for the very first
time by a party of men on foot." Sir Wally is both the artist and
subject of this painting. The day was April 6, 1969—exactly 60
years after the officially recognized discovery of the North Pole
by RAdm Robert E. Peary. The painting is from a photograph
described by Herbert as a "vaguely familiar" pose documenting his
arrival at the pole. "What other proof could we bring back that we
had reached the Pole?" Herbert had once asked in the book about
his marathon trek across the Arctic Ocean via the Pole in
1968–1969.
Of course, Sir Wally's trek was witnessed by the armed forces of
three nations, who were busy air dropping 56,000 pounds of
supplies, including a hut and a bath tub, and rescuing him from
the icy waters near Spitzbergen at the end of the trip. Peary,
traveling in the days of utter self-reliance, had only fellow
expedition members as witnesses. Herbert uses Peary's lack of
independent witnesses (i. e. the armed forces of three nations) as
his opening to reject Peary's account and develop a speculative
theory in Noose of Laurels that pushes Peary off the pole by 60
miles or more. With Peary out of the way (and no one else having
bothered to go on foot in the intervening 60 years) Herbert claims
the North Pole as his prize.
Attacks on Peary's account began in 1911 with a book by
rival claimant and colossal fraud Frederick Cook (My Attainment
of The Pole) followed in 1917 by his supporter Thomas Hall (Has
The North Pole Been Discovered?). Every now and then (when old
arguments can be presented as new) another book in the same vein
comes out. In fact nearly everything in Noose of Laurels is
borrowed from earlier books. But Herbert is able to garner
popular credulity by touting his polar traveling experience and by
claiming to have new information from documents that had only
recently been made public, including Peary's diary.
Herbert would have us believe there is a smoking gun among these
documents, enticingly noting that it is little wonder that the
Peary family wanted to keep "documents as revealing as this under
wraps", but there is in fact nothing damaging to Peary's claim in
them, and very little that is new.
For example, Herbert acknowledges that a Congressional
Subcommittee, looking into a promotion for Peary, made a "somewhat
superficial " examination of Peary's diary 75 years before Herbert
saw it. What he doesn't admit is that the Subcommittee
specifically noted on the public record (as reported in earlier
critical books) Herbert's two most important "discoveries": (1)
that Peary's "Pole at last!" entry made at the pole camp is
written on a loose page; and (2) that the cover of the diary says
"No. 1, Roosevelt [the name of Peary's ship] to [blank space] and
return."
Although Herbert identifies these "discoveries" as the source of
his doubts about Peary's diary, they are irrelevant. Herbert
concedes that if Peary were making a false record he could have
easily avoided the first two supposed irregularities. The
inserted page is, in fact, followed by a blank page on which Peary
could have made or transcribed the same entry. And Peary obviously
could have filled in "North Pole" on the cover.
Although the book is neatly kept (Peary's Subcommittee testimony
described the care that he took to protect the diary), Herbert
concludes it was truly written in the field. As Herbert notes, the
diary includes personal memoranda that would not be included in
any document created for publication. Herbert concludes that
the diary is genuine, but argues that it is revealing because
nowhere (excluding the inserted page) does it state that Peary
went to the pole. But here Herbert is just plain wrong. For
example, among numerous other direct and indirect references to
success, Peary's diary entry for April 9 proclaims: “from here to
the Pole & back has been a glorious sprint with a savage finish.”
|
 |
|
Typical example of Peary fact contradicting
Herbert fantasy. |
|
Nor do other documents provide any sign of the smoking gun
Herbert implies is buried in this new archival material. Herbert
refers extensively to Peary's correspondence to develop his
theories of Peary's character and motivation, but the vast
majority of this is published in earlier biographies or critical
works, and attempts to psychoanalyze Peary based on letters to his
mother are interesting speculation at best.
A few cryptic notes on distances traveled and things observed
while on the ice are about all that is new, and even these Herbert
misinterprets. Herbert claims that “Self came in from [dash] in 20
days (18 marches).” indicates that Peary was not claiming to have
returned from “the Pole,” but it is clear from the mileage used in
an accompanying calculation that the dash was shorthand for the
farthest point out on the ice from which Peary returned, some 9
miles past the Pole (and a few miles to the "west," using the 70th
meridian as north).
Detailed data on wind speeds and directions recorded in Peary's
diary do constitute new evidence, but this evidence appears
damaging only because Herbert puts his thumb on the scale.
Herbert's thesis is that all the significant winds were from the
east (mostly in the first 3 or 4 days), forcing the ice to drift
west. But Peary's diary noted that, after strong easterly winds
for two days, there were two days of strong westerly winds. Borup,
who had returned to land for additional fuel similarly noted that
it was "blowing great guns" from the west. Herbert does not
mention this westerly wind or take account of it in his analysis,
despite the fact that Borup observed that when he went back out to
overtake Peary, he found that the trail, previously broken into
slabs that had shifted to the west, had moved back nearly to its
original location.
In any event, the idea that anyone can demonstrate an uncorrected
westward drift from Peary's own data is logically absurd.
Herbert's estimate of the ice drift (due to winds) is based
entirely on data that Peary had recorded but without the benefit
of any additional information Peary may have had but did not
record.
Peary obviously was well aware of the wind data that he himself
recorded, and is on record as being aware of the correlation of
wind to ice drift. Whatever Herbert predicts about the effect of
winds, Peary would also have predicted. Moreover, during the time
when most of the predicted drift would have occurred, Peary was
well within the sight of land, as noted in his diary. It is
ridiculous to suggest that a man of his experience would not have
noticed the familiar landmarks bearing ever more eastward as the
ice drifted westward. And, of course, when Borup rejoined Peary,
he undoubtedly would have mentioned his observations about what
the wind had done to the trail.
Herbert sniffs that “there is no evidence” that Peary took account
of any of this data, but there is certainly no evidence that he
failed to do so. In fact, the most significant wind driven drift
occurred in the first four marches, according to Herbert, and
Peary's own sketch of this part of his track matches Herbert's.
Herbert concedes that by April 1, 1909 through whatever
combination of planning, skill or luck, Peary had put the Pole
within his grasp, less than 133 nautical miles away. But then
Herbert tells us, sadly, the direction he traveled was not north.
Herbert notes that Peary was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Bowdoin
College who won surveying positions with the Coast Survey and with
the Naval Engineers, based on nationwide competitions against
hundreds of applicants. His work surveying a proposed canal route
in Nicaragua was highly praised. His longitude and compass
variation observations of lands discovered in Greenland were
accurate. Why are we to believe that this man, who certainly knew
how to find north, didn't bother to do so?
Herbert finds the explanation in some unspecified way in the
penumbras of Peary's "complex" character. Peary was driven by a
desire to achieve fame; he was determined and persistent beyond
reason (a "weather beaten fanatic"); he believed that it was his
destiny to discover the pole; he refused to fail, could not afford
to fail, having invested so much of his life in pursuit of the
pole; he felt he deserved to succeed. Even if true, none of that
would explain why upon leaving Bartlett, he would go five marches
(long marches, according to his Eskimo companions, marches
totaling 132 miles according to Henson, 130 miles according to
Peary's diary) and not bother to head in the right direction to
get to the pole, or as close as possible.
Herbert rehashes the charge (first made within days of Peary's
return and repeated in every critical work over the years) that
Peary couldn't have traveled as fast as he claimed in the last 5
days after "sending back any credible witnesses." Even here Sir
Wally wavers.
Herbert, in fact, states in one chapter that the distances were
"incredible" and in the next chapter that Peary had gone far
enough (to reach the Pole), but had veered to the west. This
doublespeak arises out of Herbert's difficulty in dealing with the
statements of Henson, Peary's Negro assistant.
It was popular in 1909 and still popular with some polar "experts"
(e. g., Curator Robert Headland of the Scott Polar Institute) that
Peary's decision to take Henson rather than Bartlett on the final
dash reflected a desire not to have a "credible" (i. e., white)
witness present. Herbert acknowledges that Henson, as the best
non-Eskimo dogsledder of his time, perhaps ever, stated
confidently that the distance to the Pole had been covered.
In discussing the supposed impossibility of Peary's distances,
Herbert would have to argue that the expert Henson, with knowledge
of the actual conditions encountered, was just plain wrong or that
he was lying. Instead, he just doesn't mention Henson.
But Herbert cannot ignore Henson altogether, because he wants to
put his own spin on a comment made by Henson. Henson had been in
the lead on the last few marches, and announced that he was the
first person to reach the pole when Peary arrived at the last
camp. When Peary shot back that they might not yet be exactly at
the pole, Henson opined that they had come far enough, and if they
were not at the pole, it was Peary's fault, since he was setting
the course. Peary apparently was angry with Henson for the rest of
the trip, and Henson attributed this to the fact that he had
disobeyed his commander's instruction to stop short on the last
march, thus making them co-discoverers—an event Peary had wanted
to avoid. Peary had simply not wanted to share the honor with any
other man, even (it is documented) with Bartlett. Back in the USA
Peary would be quoted by newspapers saying, “I am the only white
man to reach the Pole.”
Herbert thinks the real reason for Peary's anger was that Henson
had hit the nail on the head -- that Peary's observations told him
they had come the wrong direction, and it was Peary's fault. Of
course, Herbert is free to second guess Henson 80 years after the
fact, but it is disingenuous to seize on this incident and ignore
half of what Henson said -- that the full distance from Bartlett's
camp had been covered. This flatly contradicts Herbert's theory
that the distance was impossible as well as his theory that Peary
simply didn't bother to head north. If Peary was going to cover
the full distance, or anything close to it, why would he not try
to head north? And if he didn't bother to head north, why would he
be angry when he discovered he hadn't done so?
In discussing Peary's distance claims, Herbert ignores not only
the opinion of Henson, but also the opinion of the majority of
experienced dog sledge drivers who have written on the
subject. Herbert summarily dismisses the opinion of modern dog
sledger Will Steger, but does not even mention the opinions
(favorable to Peary) of famous arctic explorers such as Gunnar
Isaachsen, Knud Rasmussen, Peter Freuchen, and Vilhjalmur
Stefansson. Interestingly, since Herbert’s 1988 book a lone pair
of Canadians (Landry & Crowley, 2000) reached the Pole within 4
days of Peary’s 37-day record. It was only their first attempt.
Herbert's last main point again goes back to charges made in 1909,
that Peary did not make sufficient navigational observations to
find the Pole. Herbert finds it shocking that Peary did not take a
single observation for longitude, but this is not new; Peary
testified in 1910 that he took no observations for longitude.
Other methods for finding north exist, and Peary explained his
navigation methods to the satisfaction of surveyors from the Coast
Survey who checked his work in 1910.
One annoying aspect of the book is the obvious insincerity
of Herbert's constant protestations of admiration for Peary.
Herbert claims to give Peary the benefit of every doubt, but does
just the opposite, as when he assumes Peary ignored wind-driven
drift of the ice, despite compelling evidence to the contrary.
While admitting that no one has ever attacked Peary's courage or
determination, he turns these virtues against Peary.
• Peary's willingness to take risks—normally considered
bravery—Herbert sees as being motivated by fear of failure.
• Many of the risks Peary took are (with the benefit of hindsight)
ridiculed by Herbert as ill conceived.
• After Peary set a new world’s record for the “farthest north” in
1906 Herbert scoffs at Peary's determination to survey an
unexplored coast late in the season by means of an arduous and
dangerous trek across northern Ellesmere Island. The "pathetically
small" 60 miles of coastline could "so much more easily be
explored by some other explorer at some other time." Herbert
theorizes that the whole effort was calculated to distract public
attention from Peary's failure to reach the Pole that year.
• Herbert repeats every tale told by someone with a grudge against
Peary, including Peary's archenemy Cook, whether or not supported
by any evidence. He even recounts charges that are demonstrably
false.
• Herbert characterizes Peary’s personal diary notes, in which he
accurately compares his achievements and expected rewards with
those of other arctic explores and considers the potential market
for "Peary North Pole" products as “reek[ing] of delusions of
grandeur.” Herbert has no trouble expecting the public to pay
$15,000 for paintings of his own achievement.
• Where Herbert appears to be simply recounting facts, he chooses
loaded words to reflect his speculative theories of Peary's
motivation or feelings.
In a letter dated November 25, 1971, Herbert advised Cook
biographer Hugh Eames that, although none of his anti-Peary
material was new, the "general public could easily be fooled that
what you have to say has never before been said." Like Eames,
Herbert has come up with nothing new. He relies on old and long
disputed arguments to reach the same conclusion he published in
1969—that some unnamed “critics” claimed Peary missed the Pole by
60 miles.
Although one might expect Herbert, as an experienced writer and
polar traveler, to bring new perspectives to these old arguments,
we get only fudged data, one-sided analysis and the sniping tone
of a rival.
E N D
Douglas R. Davies, August, 2002 |
|
 |
|
Wally tried to
knock Peary off the North Pole
pedestal and place himself upon it with his 1989 book. |
|
|
|
Herbert lied about Peary's diary: |
"...he argues that nowhere does
Peary's diary state
that he went to the Pole
...Herbert is just plain wrong." |
|
|
Peary's Diary:
April 9
"From
here to the Pole & back has been a glorious sprint with a
savage finish. Its results due to hard work, little sleep, much experience, first
class equipment, & good fortune as regards weather & open water"
Apr. 22-23
"..at 6.-a.m. of the 23rd reached the igloos at C.
Columbia, 16 marches from the Pole. It
has been a great return trip. Will never be done like
this again. 52 days (43 marches) from land to beyond the Pole &
back again.
...I have got
the North Pole out of my system. After 23 yrs of effort, hard
work, disappointments, hardships, privations, more or less
suffering & some risks,
I have won the last, great geographical
prize, the North Pole, for the credit of the U.S., the Service to
which I belong, myself, & my family. My work is the finish, the
cap & climax, of 300 years of effort, loss of life, & expenditure
of millions, by some of the best men of the civilized nations of
the world; & it has been accomplished with a clean cut dash,
spirit, & I believe thoroughness, characteristically American. I
am satisfied."
|
http://www.dougdavies.com
/diaryMAIN6.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
…so called "evidence" appears damaging only because Herbert puts
his thumb on the scale. |
|
|
 |
|
www.SirWalley.com |
|
"The financial motive is all too obvious. Herbert's website openly proclaims himself, not Peary,
as first to reach the North Pole ...selling pictures for as much
as US $15,000..." |
|
Quote from Russell R. Robinson |
|
|
|
“…the obvious insincerity of Herbert's constant protestations of
admiration for Peary. Herbert claims to give Peary the benefit of
every doubt, but does just the opposite…” |
|
|
|
“… Herbert has come up with nothing new. He relies on old and long
disputed arguments to reach the same conclusion he published in
1969—that some unnamed “critics” claimed Peary missed the Pole by
60 miles.” |
|
|
|
|
Herbert wrote to anti-Peary author Eames:
"...most of the other books (polar controversy) on the subject are
out of print, and the general public could easily be fooled that
what you have to say has never before been said...do not appear to
have a chip on your shoulder—but
rather, let the reader form his own conclusions...if it is merely
a David and Goliath situation—where
you are determined to take on the American "establishment" and
fell it with one well-timed book—beware!...I
would of course be delighted to review your manuscript for the
publisher (at a price proportionate to the time spent on the
work). I would expect the publisher to pay my fee...You might let
them know I am prepared to do this."
|
|
 |
|
Robert E. Peary, 1909. A tough athlete who today
we would call "an iron man." He stood almost a foot taller than
Wally Herbert and could have kicked his butt. |
|
Wally?
