Abstract
If there is one question in polar history that can easily spark a heated discussion, it is the Cook–Peary controversy. Today, most polar historians will easily agree that it is at best extremely doubtful whether either Cook or Peary reached the pole, and thus the whole controversy could be considered as settled, in particular as for a modern analytical understanding of polar history it might even be asked if this is really a relevant question to begin with.
Robert Bryce’s book is mainly an annotated reprint of a photographic reproduction of Cook’s notebook (the original notebook needs to be considered lost and thus the 1909 photographic reproduction rediscovered in Copenhagen in 1993 needs to be considered as the only available copy, and as authentic), including a complete transcription of the text and extended comments on the notebook, mainly arguing that Cook used it to put together a hoax.
Regardless if one agrees or disagrees with Bryce’s interpretation of the notebook, it can certainly be stated that making it available for historical research on the exploration of the Polar Regions is an important achievement in itself. The meticulous transcription of Cook’s often virtually unreadable handwriting, and the careful analysis of the order of the various layers of text included in the notebook are achievements in themselves, and serve to make this invaluable source readily available to the researcher for the first time. Together with the reproduction of the original notebook, this means that Cook’s notebook is now not only easily available, but can be used to develop a wide variety of research questions beyond the well-known controversy.
In addition to the reproduction and transcription, Bryce provides extended comments on nearly all paragraphs of the notebook. When reading these comments, the reader is likely to feel that, to an extent, they are basically a breakdown of Bryce’s earlier book, Cook & Peary: The Polar Controversy Resolved, distributed through the individual passages of the notebook. Thus the whole book reads up to a point more like an addendum to Cook & Peary: The Polar Controversy Resolved than an independent publication, as the author himself admits (p. xii). Nevertheless, The Lost Polar Notebook is more than such an addendum, as it provides access to one of the key documents of the whole controversy.
But what about the relevance of the book for scholars not really interested in the Cook–Peary Controversy but the history of polar exploration at large? Of course, these colleagues will not be disappointed, because the text provides a rare insight into an authentic document from the period of the race to the North Pole, but it does need to be mentioned that Bryce only rarely engages with the historiography of polar exploration outside research directly related to the controversy, and even here he is mainly referencing his own earlier publication.
Thus in the end, the best judgment on the book might be as simple as praising it as an important edition of a primary source. Whether or not the reader agrees with Bryce’s clear conclusion regarding Cook having constructed a hoax seems of lesser relevance, despite Bryce’s clear intention to convince his readers of the correctness of his position, especially as he regularly refers to his earlier book on the controversy for a full discussion, and thus without reading Cook & Peary: The Polar Controversy Resolved, Bryce’s argumentation cannot be fully assessed.
On a technical note it should be pointed out that the book has not been published by a regular publisher, but via the self-publishing platform CreateSpace.com, and thus there was no regular editorial processing involved, which might explain why a good number of illustrations are simply referenced to ‘contemporary newspapers, books and magazines’ without providing proper citations, and why the whole appearance of the book has somewhat of a ‘DIY’ feel to it.
Altogether, The Lost Polar Notebook can be understood either as an addendum to Bryce’s earlier book or as an edition of an important primary source. Both takes are valid and welcome, but both takes render the book primarily relevant for the comparable small group of specialized historians dealing with the Polar Regions and or the history of science in around 1900.