Part 6 (2/2)
”Probably it was suppressed or destroyed,” says Dr. Holland Rose (Life of Napoleon 1 379). But why should it have been? There is no reason to suppose that it contained anything which it was to anybody's interest to destroy or suppress. Indeed, it is by no means clear that there was such a doc.u.ment. It is quite likely that the scheme of the Inst.i.tute was explained verbally to the First Consul. Why manufacture mysteries?) There is only one doc.u.ment relating to the expedition in the collected correspondence of Napoleon;* (* Edition of 1861.) and that concerned an incident to which reference will be made in the next chapter. The reason for the absence of letters concerning the matter among Napoleon's papers is presumably that he left the carrying out of the project to the Inst.i.tute; for he was not wont to restrain his directing hand in affairs in which he was personally concerned.
But there were two leading members of the Inst.i.tute who had already concerned themselves with Australasian discovery, and who may safely be a.s.sumed to have taken the initiative in this matter. They were Bougainville the explorer, who had commanded the expedition of 1766 to 1771, and Charles Pierre Claret de Fleurieu, who had been Minister of Marine in 1790, and had written a book on the Decouvertes des Francais dans le sud-est de la Nouvelle Guinee (Paris, 1790), in which he maintained the prior claims of the French navigators Bougainville and Surville to discoveries to which later English explorers had in ignorance given fresh names. Fleurieu had also intended to write the history of the voyages of La Perouse, but was prevented by pressure of official and other occupations, and handed the work over to Milet-Mureau.* (* Voyage de la Perouse, Preface 1 page 3.) He stood high in the esteem of Napoleon, was a counsellor of State during the Consulate, became intendant-general of the Emperor's household, governor of the palace of Versailles, senator, and comte. Both Fleurieu and Bougainville had abundant opportunities for explaining the utility of a fresh voyage of exploration to Napoleon.
It was, too, quite natural that these men should desire to promote a new French voyage of discovery. None knew better what might be hoped to be achieved. We are fairly safe in a.s.suming that they moved the Inst.i.tute to submit a proposition to the First Consul; and it is not improbable that they personally interviewed him on the subject.
Bonaparte, at any rate, received the proposal ”with interest,” and we learn from Peron* (* Voyage de Decouvertes 1 4.) that he definitely authorised the expedition at the very time when his army of reserve was about to move from Geneva to cross the Alps in that astonis.h.i.+ng campaign which conduced, by swift, toilsome, and surprising manoeuvres, to the crus.h.i.+ng victory of Marengo. The plan of the Inst.i.tute was therefore ratified in May 1800. The Austrians at that time were holding French arms severely in check in Savoy and northern Italy. Suchet, Ma.s.sena, Oudinot, and Soult were, with fluctuating fortunes but always with stubborn valour, clinging desperately to their positions or yielding ground to superior strength, awaiting with confidence the hour when the supreme master would strike the shattering blow that, while relieving the pressure on them, would completely change the aspect of the war. It was while pondering his masterstroke, and deliberating on the choice of the path across the Alps that was to lead to it, that Bonaparte gave his approval; while elaborating a scheme to overwhelm the armies of Austria in an abyss of carnage, that he expressed the wish that, as the expedition would come in contact with ignorant savages, care should be taken to make it appear that the French met them as ”friends and benefactors.”
It may here be parenthetically remarked that it does not make us think more favourably of Freycinet that when, in 1824, he issued a new edition of the Voyage de Decouvertes, he omitted all Peron's references to Napoleon's interest in the expedition, and his direction that when savages were met the French should appear among them ”comme des amis et des bienfaiteurs.”* (* Peron, 1 10.) While Peron tells us that this laudable wish was personally expressed by the First Consul, Freycinet* (*
1 74, in the 1824 edition.) altered the phrase to ”le gouvernement voulut,” etc. He had absolutely no justification for doing so. The reader of the second edition of the book had a right to expect that he was in possession of the original text, save for the correction of incidental errors. But in 1824 Napoleon was dead, a Bourbon reigned in France, and Freycinet was the servant of the monarchy to which he owed the command of the expedition of 1817. The suppression of Napoleon's name and the record of his actions from Peron's text, was a puerile piece of servility.
There is nothing surprising in Bonaparte's cordial approval of the enterprise. One has only to study the volumes in which M. Frederic Ma.s.son has collected the papers and memoranda relating to Napoleon's youth and early manhood to realise how intensely keen was his interest in geography and travel. In one of those interesting works is a doc.u.ment occupying eight printed pages, in which Napoleon had summarised a geographical textbook, with a view to the more perfect mastery of its contents.* (*
See Ma.s.son's Napoleon Inconnu; Papiers Inedits; Paris 1895 volume 2 page 44. The text-book was that of Lacroix.) It is curious to note how little the young scholar was able to ascertain about Australasia from the volume from which he learnt the elements of that science for which, with his genius for strategy and tactics, he must have had an instinctive taste.
”La Nouvelle Guinee, la Carpentarie, la Nouvelle Hollande,” etc., figure in his notes as the countries forming the princ.i.p.al part of the southern hemisphere now grouped under the denomination of Australasia; ”la Carpentarie” thus signalised as a separated land being simply the northern region of Australia proper, the farthest limit of which is Cape York.* (* Mallet's Description de l'Univers (Frankfort 1686) mentions ”Carpenterie” as being near the ”Terre des Papous,” and as discovered by the Dutch captain, Carpenter.)
It is not a little interesting, that when, in April 1800, twenty sculptors were commissioned to execute as many busts of great men to adorn the Galerie des Consuls, the only Englishmen among the honoured score were Marlborough and Dampier.* (* Aulard, Paris sous le Consulat 1 267.) It is curious to find the adventurous ex-buccaneer in such n.o.ble company as that of Cicero, Cato, Caesar, Demosthenes, Frederick the Great, and George Was.h.i.+ngton, but the fact that he was among the selected heroes may be taken as another evidence of Bonaparte's interest in the men who helped to find out what the world was like. Perhaps if somebody had seen him reading Dampier's Voyages, as he read Cook's on the way to Egypt, that fact would have been instanced as another proof, not of his fondness for extremely fascinating literature, but of the nourishment of a secret pa.s.sion to seize the coasts which Dampier explored.
Napoleon had been a good and a diligent student. The fascinating but hateful characteristics of his later career, when he was the Emperor with a heart petrified and corroded by ambition, the conqueror ever greedy of fresh conquest, the scourge of nations and the tyrant of kings, too often make one overlook the liberal instincts of his earlier years. His pa.s.sion for knowledge was profound, and he was the p.r.o.nounced friend of every genuine man of science, of every movement having for its object the acquisition and diffusion of fresh enlightenment. It is an English writer* (* Merz, History of European Thought in the Nineteenth Century 1 152 to 154.) who says of him that he was, ”amongst the great heroes and statesmen of his age, the first and foremost if not the only one, who seemed thoroughly to realise the part which science was destined to play in the immediate future”; and the same author adds that ”some of the glory of Laplace and Cuvier falls upon Napoleon.” He took pleasure in the company and conversation of men of science; and never more so than during the period of the Consulate. Thibaudeau's memoirs show him dining one night with Laplace, Monge, and Berthollet; and the English translator of that delightful book* (* Dr. Fortescue, page 273. Compare also Lord Rosebery, Napoleon, the Last Phase page 234: ”In the first period of his Consulate he was an almost ideal ruler. He was firm, sagacious, far-seeing, energetic, just.”) emphasises the contrast between the ”just and n.o.ble sanity of the First Consul of 1802 and the delirium of the Emperor of 1812.” The failure to keep that difference in mind--to recognise that the Bonaparte of the early Consulate was capable of exalted ideals for the general well-being that were foreign to the Napoleon of ten years later--is fruitful of mistakes in interpreting his activities. On April 8 he attended a seance of the Inst.i.tute, and was there instrumental in reconciling several persons who had become estranged through events which occurred during the Revolution.* (*
Aulard, Paris sous le Consulat, 1 252.) He was therefore on good terms with this learned body, and was himself a member of that division of it which was devoted to the physical and mathematical sciences.* (*
Thibaudeau (English edition) page 112.)
It was quite natural, then, that when the national representatives of scientific thought in France approached him with a proposition that was calculated to make his era ill.u.s.trious by a grand voyage of exploration which should complete man's knowledge of the great continents, the First Consul gave a ready consent.
The task of preparing instructions for the voyage was entrusted to a Committee of the Inst.i.tute, consisting of Fleurieu, Bougainville, Laplace, Lacepede, Cuvier, Jussieu, Lelievre, Langles, and Camus; whilst Degerando wrote a special memorandum upon the methods to be followed in the observation of savage peoples--the latter probably in consequence of the First Consul's particular direction on this subject. It was an admirably chosen body for formulating a programme of scientific research.
A great astronomer, two eminent biologists, a famous botanist, a practical navigator, a geographer, all men of distinction among European savants, and two of them, Laplace and Cuvier, among the greatest men of science of modern times, were scholars who knew what might be expected to be gained for knowledge, and where and how the most fruitful results might be obtained.
In their instructions, the committee directed attention to the south coast of Tasmania--by that time known to be an island, since the discoveries of Ba.s.s and Flinders, and their circ.u.mnavigation, had been the subject of much comment in Europe--as offering a good field for geographical research. They indicated the advisableness of exploring the eastern coast of the island, of traversing Ba.s.s Strait with a view to a more complete examination than appeared to the Inst.i.tute to have been made up to that time, and of pursuing the southern coasts of Australia as far as the western point of Dentrecasteaux's investigations, especially with the object of searching that part of the land ”where there is supposed to be a strait communicating with the Gulf of Carpentaria, and which, consequently, would divide New Holland into two large and almost equal islands.” So much accomplished, the expedition was to pay particular attention to the coasts westward of the Swan River, since the old navigators who had determined their contour had necessarily had to work with imperfect instruments. The vessels were then to make a fuller exploration of the western and northern sh.o.r.es than had hitherto been achieved, to attack the south-west of Papua (New Guinea), and to investigate the Gulf of Carpentaria. No instructions seem to have been given relative to a further examination of the eastern coasts of the continent. Cook's work there was evidently thought to be sufficient, though Flinders found several fresh and important harbours. The programme, as Peron pointed out, involved the exploration in detail of several thousands of miles of coasts. .h.i.therto quite unknown or imperfectly known, and its proper performance was calculated to accomplish highly important work in perfecting a knowledge of the geography of the southern hemisphere.
The French Government fitted out the expedition in a lavish and elaborate fas.h.i.+on.* (* ”Les savans ont vu avec le plus grand interet les soins que le gouvernement a pris pour rendre ce voyage utile a l'histoire naturelle et a la connaissance des moeurs des sauvages.” Moniteur, 22nd Fructidor.) Funds were not stinted, and the commander was given unlimited credit to obtain anything that he required at any port of call. The best scientific instruments were procured, and the stores of the great naval depot of Havre were thrown open for the equipment of the s.h.i.+ps with every necessity and comfort for a long voyage. Luxuries were not spared; ”in a word,” says Peron, ”the Government had ordered that nothing whatever should be omitted that could a.s.sure the preservation of health, promote the work of the staff, and guarantee the independence of the expedition.”
Two vessels lying in the port of Havre were selected. The princ.i.p.al one, which was named Le Geographe, was a corvette of 30 guns, 450 tons, drawing fifteen or sixteen feet of water, a fast sailer, but, in Peron's opinion, not so good a boat for the purpose as her consort. Flinders described her as a ”heavy-looking s.h.i.+p.” The second vessel, named Le Naturaliste, was a strong, lumbering store-s.h.i.+p, very slow, but solid.
She was a ”grosse gabare,” as one French writer described her.* (* Dr.
Holland Rose (Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era page 139) heightens the effect of his argument by stating that Bonaparte ”sent out men-of-war to survey the south coast of Australia for a settlement.” It may be true that, strictly speaking, the s.h.i.+ps were ”men-of-war,” inasmuch as they were s.h.i.+ps of the navy. But the reader would hardly derive the impression, from the words quoted, that they were vessels utterly unwarlike in equipment, manning, and command. As will presently be seen, they were very soon loaded up with scientific specimens. Nor is there any warrant for the statement that the expedition was instructed to ”survey the south coast of Australia for a settlement.” There was nothing about settlement in the instructions, which were not, as the pa.s.sage would lead the reader to infer, confined to the south coast.)
The staff was selected with great care, special examinations being prescribed for the younger naval officers. A large company of artists, men of science, and gardeners accompanied the expedition for the collection of specimens, the making of charts and drawings, and the systematic observation of phenomena. There were two astronomers, two hydrographers, three botanists, five zoologists, two mineralogists, five artists, and five gardeners. Probably no exploring expedition to the South Seas before this time had set out with such a large equipment of selected, talented men for scientific and artistic work. The whole staff--nautical, scientific, and artistic--on the two s.h.i.+ps consisted of sixty-one persons, of whom only twenty-nine returned to France after sharing the fatigues and distress of the whole voyage. Seven died, twenty had to be put ash.o.r.e on account of serious illness, and five left the expedition for other causes.
The great German traveller and savant, Alexander von Humboldt, was in Paris while preparations were being made for the despatch of the expedition; and, being at that time desirous of pursuing scientific investigations in distant regions, he obtained permission to embark, with the instruments he had collected, in one of Baudin's vessels. He confessed, however, that he had ”but little confidence in the personal character of Captain Baudin,” chiefly on account of the dissatisfaction he had given to the Court of Vienna in regard to a previous voyage.* (*
Humboldt's Personal Narrative of Travels, translated by H.M. Williams, London 1814 volume 1 pages 6 to 8.) Humboldt's testimony is interesting, inasmuch as, if it be reliable--and, as he was in close touch with leading French men of science, there is no reason to disbelieve him--the original intention was to make the voyage more extensive in scope, and different in the route followed, than was afterwards determined. ”The first plan,” he wrote, ”was great, bold, and worthy of being executed by a more enlightened commander. The purpose of the expedition was to visit the Spanish possessions of South America, from the mouth of the River Plata to the kingdom of Quito and the isthmus of Panama. After traversing the archipelago of the great ocean, and exploring the coasts of New Holland from Van Diemen's Land to that of Nuyts, both vessels were to stop at Madagascar, and return by the Cape of Good Hope.” Concerning the reasons why he was not ultimately taken, Humboldt was not accurately informed. ”The war which broke out in Germany and Italy,” he wrote, ”determined the French Government to withdraw the funds granted for their voyage of discovery, and adjourn it to an indefinite period.” Such was not the case. The funds were not withdrawn; the expedition was not adjourned. But Humboldt was a German, and the Inst.i.tute very naturally desired that French savants should do the work which was to be sustained by French funds. There would probably be the less inclination to employ Humboldt, as he reserved to himself ”the liberty of leaving Captain Baudin whenever I thought proper.” He believed himself to be ”cruelly deceived in my hopes, seeing the plans which I had been forming during many years of my life overthrown in a single day.” But in view of his confessed dislike of the commander, it does not seem that, on this ground alone, it would have been good policy to enrol him as a member of the staff, when there were French men of science eager for appointment.
The chief naturalist and future historian of the expedition, Francois Peron, was twenty-five years of age when he was commissioned to join Le Geographe. Born at Cerilly (Allier) in 1775, he was left fatherless at an early age; but he was a bright, promising scholar, and the cure of his native place took him into his house with the object of educating him for the priesthood. But ”seduced by the principles of liberty which served as pretext for the Revolution, inflamed by patriotism, his spirit exalted by his reading of ancient history,” as a biographer, Deleuze, wrote, he left the peaceful home of the village priest, and shouldered a musket under the tricolour. He fought in the army of the Rhine, and in an engagement against the Prussians at Kaiserslautern, was wounded and taken prisoner.
Always a student, he spent the little money that he had on the purchase of books, which he devoted all his time to reading. He was exchanged in 1794, and returned to France.
His short soldiering career had cost him his right eye; but this deprivation really determined the vocation for which his genius especially fitted him. The Minister of the Interior gave him admission to the school of medicine at Paris, where, in addition to pursuing the prescribed course, he applied himself with enthusiasm to the study of biology* (* The word ”biology” was not used till Lamarck employed it in 1801 to cover all the sciences concerned with living matter; but we are so accustomed to it nowadays, that it is the most convenient word to use to describe the group of studies to which Peron applied himself.) and comparative anatomy at the Museum. He was industrious, keen, methodical, and, above all, possessed of that valuable quality of imagination which, discreetly harnessed to the use of the scientific intellect, enables a student to see through his facts, and to read their vital meaning. The expedition to the South Seas had already been fitted out, and Baudin's s.h.i.+ps were lying at Havre awaiting sailing orders from the Minister of Marine, when Peron sought employment as an additional biologist. The staff was by that time complete; but Peron addressed himself to Jussieu, pressing his request with such ardour, and explaining his well-considered plans with such clearness, that the eminent botanist was unable to listen to him ”sans etonnement et sans emotion.”
Peron was very anxious to travel, not only for the sake of the scientific work which he might do, but also to find relief for his feelings, depressed by the disappointment of a love affair. Mademoiselle was unkind--because the lover was poor, his biographer says; but we must not forget that he was also one-eyed. Many ladies prefer a man with two.
Jussieu conferred with Lacepede the biologist, and the two agreed that it would be advantageous to permit this enthusiastic young student to make the voyage. Peron was encouraged to write a paper to be read before the Inst.i.tute, expounding his views. He did so, taking as his princ.i.p.al theme the desirableness of having with the expedition a naturalist especially charged with researches in anthropology. The Inst.i.tute was convinced; the Minister of Marine was moved; Peron was appointed. He consulted with Cuvier, Lacepede, and Degerando as to a programme of work, procured the necessary apparatus, went to Cerilly to embrace his sisters and receive his mother's benediction, and joined Le Geographe just before she sailed.* (* The facts concerning Peron's early career are taken from Deleuze's memoir, 1811, and that of Maurice Girard, 1857.)
<script>