Two weeks ago, as Americans were preoccupied playing Groundhog War in Iraq, a significant discovery was announced in Canada. Yes, yes, of course this is an accepted ground for joking—“Worthwhile Canadian Initiative Yields Results” being the world’s most boring headline, and so on—but in this case the initiative in question really was worthwhile, at least to anyone with an appreciation for Victorian mystery, the winter sublime, and the far north. What had taken place was the discovery, intact and underwater, of one of the two ships of the Franklin expedition, the British naval voyage that went out in search of the Northwest Passage, in 1845, got stranded in the Arctic ice, and was never seen again. (There’s a good, ghostly video of the wreck here.) The finding of the Franklin ship—there were two, the H.M.S. Erebus and the H.M.S. Terror; no one is yet sure which has been spotted down there—is, for Canadians, a very big deal (“Canada’s Moon Shot,” the Toronto Star called it), since the Franklin expedition has long provided the single most eventful mythological moment in Canada’s admittedly not-exactly-limitlessly mythologized history. Margaret Atwood, in her essay “Concerning Franklin and His Gallant Crew,” from 1991, identifies it as a kind of origin myth of disaster in the Canadian experience. To translate it from Canadian into American terms, it is as if someone had found, in a single moment, the hull of the Titanic, the solution to the mystery of the lost colony at Roanoke, the original flag of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” and the menu for the Donner Party’s last meal. The basic outlines of what happened to Franklin and his crew after they foundered in the Victoria Strait had long been surmised from various kinds of evidence, chiefly the testimony of the local Inuit people, who, in 1854, told an explorer named John Rae of a group of around thirty-five Europeans who had died of starvation while struggling south. Graves and other remains of the Franklin crew also turned up on two Arctic islands, and have over the years been subject to scientific examination, revealing, or seeming to, that the men of the expedition had already been self-poisoned by badly tinned food. But the details of what had happened remained murky, at times horrifying, and often bowdlerized. One of the significant things about the Franklin expedition, as I wrote in my book “Winter,” is that, though the voyage was a failure, the relentless search for its relics gave polar exploration the existential accents that it would keep well into the time of Scott and Shackleton. Every expedition that went out in search of Franklin, through the next decades, threatened itself to become lost, and sometimes did. It was a form of throwing good explorers after bad. The search for Franklin became far more significant than Franklin, leading to much newly mapped territory and many frozen English faces. One of the spark plugs of the discovery of Franklin’s boat was the Canadian philanthropist and Arctic lover Jim Balsillie, who, working closely with the scientists of Parks Canada, the Prime Minister’s office, and the Royal Canadian Navy made it possible to build a “platform”—a big and hardy ship, called the Martin Bergmann, in honor of a colleague killed in a plane crash, in 2011—which could be used as a kind of floating home base for the dedicated and frequently chilly searchers. Balsillie, who made his fortune as one of the founders of Research in Motion, the firm that gave the world the BlackBerry, now devotes himself to an array of good and sometimes quixotic causes. (A friend of mine, he was also our own Malcolm Gladwell’s roommate at Trinity College, in Toronto; Canada can be a very small nation.) “I’d like to pretend we had a prescient and beautiful plan,” he said the other afternoon from Toronto. “In truth, it was all improvisation and a bit of luck. It’s mostly just doggedness that counts when you’re dragging sonar equipment across the ocean floor. I call it mowing the lawn, and the questions are mostly who has a bigger mower and who mows longer. “There were two areas we planned on searching, one northern and one more southern, and we were hoping to do the northern search first. But there was more ice there than there had been in twenty years, so we had to look south. It was like, you know, the old joke about the drunk looking for his car keys outside, even though he lost them inside, because the light is better there. But, in this case, that’s where the car keys were.” During that southern search, a helicopter pilot named Andrew Stirling, working under the guidance of the archaeologist Doug Stenton, began a “walk survey” of a previously unsurveyed island. “And that’s where they found it: a davit,” Balsillie said—a pulley system for deploying lifeboats. “So anyway, they looked at it and—a heart-stopping moment this was—it had the little arrows of the Royal Navy on it. So they said, ‘Let’s get over to this island and start searching right now.’ They redeployed within hours and—well, they found it. “The basic take is that it is pretty clear now. These guys [the Franklin crew] went down Victoria Strait, they got stuck—irrefutably, I think—in the most forbidding, awful part of the Arctic, where the ice pushes down—they just got stuck in the ice. They got stuck really bad. And then what happened was that they were voyaging from Victoria Island, and they came back to the vessel and the ice broke and they actually sailed again, for a while. I think the ice broke and they sailed it down, and then they were moving around and they got close to shoals. And they said, ‘Let’s leave the ship and see if we can catch a Hudson’s Bay [trading] post.’ I think that’s what happened. Where they were sailing there’s incredible potential for near misses in shoals—the Bergmann was mowing the lawn in forty metres of water. The boat must have been caught up and stuck, or near stuck, and they found the best place they could to land. And they started walking.” Balsillie explained that these new findings made sense of many other puzzling details in the pieced-together accounts—including Inuit lore of a “ghost ship” seen sailing south, presumably the relaunched Franklin vessel. Part of the mythology of the Franklin expedition—the Donner Party bit—involves their apparent descent into cannibalism. “From the mutilated state of many of the corpses, and the contents of the kettles, it is evident that our wretched countrymen had been driven to the last resource—cannibalism—as a means of prolonging existence,” John Rae reported—a conclusion which for some reason infuriated the great Charles Dickens, who collaborated with his friend Wilkie Collins on a Franklin-themed play, “The Frozen Deep,” and fixed some of the responsibility on the guiltless Inuit themselves. “We have yet to learn what knowledge the white man—lost, houseless, shipless, apparently forgotten by his race, plainly famine-stricken, weak, frozen, helpless, and dying—has of the gentleness of the Esquimaux nature,” Dickens wrote. “I think the cannibalism stories are irrefutable,” Balsillie said. “The way they hacked up fingers, and the marks on the different bones [among the discovered remains], and how the bones were scattered. So, using Rae’s testimony and the forensics, one can’t mount a credible case that there was not cannibalism.” Another famous Franklin-inspired image of the Victorian period was Edwin Henry Landseer’s astonishing painting “Man Proposes, God Disposes,” which shows man proposing in the form of a shipwreck, and God, or Nature, disposing in the form of two rather vulpine polar bears feasting on a human rib cage and the remains of a mast. “It always had to be someone else doing the eating,” Balsillie said. “British gentlemen in service to Queen and country don’t eat each other. Eskimos and polar bears do.” No one is certain whether the ship found and photographed is the Terror or the Erebus. If it is the Terror, as many suspect, it would give the story a peculiarly American and ironic angle—for, in a turn that would stump even a historical novelist, the Terror was one of the ships that bombarded Baltimore on that famous night when, in the dawn’s early light, despite the rockets and bombs, our flag, if nothing else, was still there. Survival, it is often said, is the key trope of Canadian prose, and so the discovery would once again link Canadian and American history—with the Americans triumphing, sort of, and singing loudly about it, while the Canadian boat (or at least a British ship, adapted by soul rights into Canadian myth) simply survived, deep and frozen, all these years. On the other hand, by far the most memorable of the many recyclings of the Franklin mythology in Canadian literature occurs in what many regard as the closest thing there is to the Great Canadian Novel, Mordecai Richler’s “Solomon Gursky Was Here.” In it, Ephraim Gursky, a Jewish mischief-maker escaped from London, slips aboard the Franklin expedition—and, while the honest Britishers languish with their lead-poisoned tinned rations, he and his friend Izzy fatten up on a diet of kasha and schmaltz herring, surviving to pass on their faith, and a smattering of Yiddish, to a select community of Inuit. So far, at least, no trace of the Gurskys, their herring, or the Yiddish-speaking Inuit has been found.
|
兩周以前,美國人正忙著空襲伊拉克玩“打地鼠”的時候,一個重大的發(fā)現(xiàn)在加拿大宣布。當(dāng)然,這是句玩笑話?!耙饬x非凡的加拿大倡議有了重大發(fā)現(xiàn)”等等是史上最無聊的頭條了。但是,這個備受質(zhì)疑的倡議確實(shí)有意義,至少對癡迷維多利亞時代未解之謎、冬季壯麗景色以及北極探險故事的人來說,此次發(fā)現(xiàn)非比尋常。在1845年,英國皇家海軍遠(yuǎn)征隊(duì)派出富蘭克林遠(yuǎn)征隊(duì)探索西北航線(Northwest Passage)。遠(yuǎn)征隊(duì)的兩只探險船后來受困在北極冰層中,從此以后就消蹤匿跡。加拿大在水下發(fā)現(xiàn)了兩只探險船的其中一只,船身基本保存完好。 富蘭克林遠(yuǎn)征隊(duì)出發(fā)時有兩艘探險船,分別是“恐怖號”(the H.M.S.Erebus )和“黑暗號”( the H.M.S. Terror),后均失蹤。現(xiàn)在尚未確定探測到了哪一艘,但無論怎樣,這對加拿大人來說都是一件大事。(《多倫多星報》(Toronto Star)稱其相當(dāng)于‘加拿大登月’),因?yàn)楦惶m克林遠(yuǎn)征隊(duì)在加拿大那公認(rèn)的“并非擁有很多未解之謎”的歷史上是最神秘的謎團(tuán)了。1991年,瑪格瑞特·艾特伍德(Margaret Atwood)在她名為《關(guān)于富蘭克林和他英勇的船員們》(Concerning Franklin and His Gallant Crew)的論文中把這當(dāng)做是加拿大人歷史上神秘災(zāi)難的故事的起源。富蘭克林船隊(duì)失蹤之謎是加拿大版的“泰坦尼克號事件”,這次發(fā)現(xiàn)就像某人在某一時刻發(fā)現(xiàn)了泰坦尼克號的船身,揭開了羅諾克(Rpample)部落神秘失蹤之謎、找到了最初的那一面星條旗,或者是揭曉了“當(dāng)納聚會”最后一餐一樣。(Donner Party,即在美國歷史上爆發(fā)一次到西部淘金的移民大潮中,人們前往加利福尼亞的又一次長途跋涉之旅,也是慘烈的“死亡之旅”。譯注) 1854年,維多利亞海峽(Victoria Strait)當(dāng)?shù)氐囊蚣~特人告知一個名叫約翰·雷(John Rae)的探險者有關(guān)富蘭克林遠(yuǎn)征隊(duì)的事故。當(dāng)時約翰所在的返南探險隊(duì)有35人左右,飽受饑餓困擾,生命垂危。此外,再加上各種各樣的證據(jù),富蘭克林遠(yuǎn)征隊(duì)全軍覆沒悲劇的真相逐漸浮出水面。人們在北極兩個海島上發(fā)現(xiàn)了富蘭克林船員的墓和遺骸,并用了多年時間對其進(jìn)行仔細(xì)研究。研究結(jié)果表明,或是可能表明了,遠(yuǎn)征隊(duì)隊(duì)員們因?yàn)楣扪b食品嚴(yán)重地鉛中毒了。但具體發(fā)生了什么尚未可知,有時一些研究結(jié)果得出的細(xì)節(jié)駭人聽聞、有傷風(fēng)化。我在我的書《冬》(Winter)中曾寫過,有關(guān)此事最重要的一點(diǎn)是雖然探險失敗了,但是人們?nèi)匀徊粩嗟嘏沙鏊褜り?duì),讓極地探險迎來了斯科特和薩克里頓(Scott and Shackleton,極地探險家,譯注)的時代。在富蘭克林探險隊(duì)失蹤之后的幾十年里,每一支搜尋艦隊(duì)都曾面臨過迷路的危險,有的最后不幸失蹤。這就可以說是派出優(yōu)秀的探險家去搜尋失敗的探險家。富蘭克林遠(yuǎn)征隊(duì)搜尋之旅比富蘭克林遠(yuǎn)征隊(duì)本身要重要的多,由于前者,英國繪制了很多新航海圖,也有很多英國人也因此命喪北極。 此次富蘭克林沉船探索活動是由加拿大慈善家、北極愛好者吉姆·巴爾斯列(Jim Balsillie)等人發(fā)起。他本人也和加拿大公園的科學(xué)家、總理辦公室以及加拿大皇家海軍(the Royal Canadian Navy)一起合作,建立了一個“平臺”——一艘巨大而堅固的船,為紀(jì)念在2011年遭遇空難的同事而名為“馬丁·博格曼號”(Martin Bergmann)——作為那些在寒冷的環(huán)境中專注工作的搜尋人員漂流根據(jù)地。巴爾斯列靠創(chuàng)立Research in Motion公司發(fā)家——黑莓公司的前身。他現(xiàn)在投身于眾多的慈善事業(yè),有時甚至有點(diǎn)兒堂吉訶德的味道。(我有一個朋友也是馬爾科姆·格拉德維爾在多倫多三一學(xué)院的大學(xué)舍友,加拿大真是小國家)“我本想假裝我們原本就有一個有預(yù)見性的、完美的計劃,”一天下午他在多倫多說道。“但實(shí)際上,一切都是碰巧有點(diǎn)運(yùn)氣罷了。當(dāng)你拖著聲納在海床上搜尋時,你得有一股倔勁。我把這過程稱為‘修理草坪’,問題就在于誰的割草機(jī)要大一些、誰割得久一些罷了?!?/p> “我們原計劃搜查兩個區(qū)域,一個在北邊,一個更靠南一些,我們本想先搜北邊,但20年來那個區(qū)域的冰都比南邊的要多,所以我們還是先在南邊搜尋。這就像以前一個笑話里說的酒鬼那樣,他在車?yán)飦G了鑰匙,但是他卻到車外去找,因?yàn)檐囃庥袩簦谜乙恍?。但我們這次,鑰匙就在車外。” 南面搜索過程中,一位名叫安德魯·斯圖靈(AndrewStirling)的飛行員和在考古學(xué)家鐸格·司登頓(Doug Stenton)的指導(dǎo)下工作,開始“巡察”一個以前沒有研究過的海島?!八麄兙褪窃谀抢镎业搅艘粋€吊艇架,”巴爾斯列說道。吊艇架是一個下放救生艇的滑輪裝置。“因此他們仔細(xì)看了看,接著——一個驚心動魄的時刻到了——吊艇架上有一些標(biāo)有皇家海軍標(biāo)記的小型箭狀物。他們就說:‘我們馬上到這個島上去搜吧。’他們在數(shù)小時內(nèi)有重新部署——然后他們就找到了。 “悲劇發(fā)生的基本過程基本清楚明了了。這些人(即富蘭克林的船員們)到了維多利亞海峽,然后他們困住了——我認(rèn)為,這是毫無疑問的——在北極最危險、糟糕的地方,冰緊逼而來——他們就被困在冰層里面。他們完全無法脫身,然后,他們本是從維多利亞島航海過來,后來他們回到船上時,冰化了,他們又開始航行了,不過走得不遠(yuǎn)。我認(rèn)為冰破之后他們繼續(xù)北航,接著他們靠近淺灘四處在轉(zhuǎn)。然后他們說,‘我們下船吧,看能不能搭上哈德遜灣(Hudson's Bay)郵船?!艺J(rèn)為這就是事情的經(jīng)過。他們后來航游的地方觸礁的可能性很大——博格曼號在40米深的地方探測。他們的探險船肯定被卡住了,或者是幾乎卡住了,他們找到登陸最佳地點(diǎn)了,然后他們開始步行?!鞍蜖査沽薪忉屨f這些新發(fā)現(xiàn)能解釋其他很多拼湊起來的細(xì)節(jié)問題。——其中包括因紐特人口口相傳,說看見一艘“幽靈船”往南行駛,應(yīng)該就是重新起航的富蘭克林探險船了。 富蘭克林遠(yuǎn)征隊(duì)失蹤之謎還有一部分和當(dāng)納聚會相似——那些船員顯然被逼到了自相殘殺食用的地步?!皬氖w上凹凸不平的表面以及壺里的殘留物,我們能得知我們走投無路的同胞們不得不轉(zhuǎn)向最后的食源——自己的同伴——以求能夠活得久一些?!奔s翰·雷報告道——這個結(jié)論不知為何激怒了偉大的查爾斯·狄更斯,他和他的朋友威爾吉·柯林斯以此案為原型寫了一部?。骸侗鶞Y》(The Frozen Deep),然后強(qiáng)行把一些罪名安在無辜地因紐特人身上?!拔覀儚奈绰犝f過白種人有食人的天性,即使這些白人面臨著迷路、無家可歸、無船可行、被同族遺忘、饑寒交迫、虛弱無助、和死亡的情況,我們也從未聽說過?!钡腋箤懙?。 “我認(rèn)為那過程中食人的情節(jié)是無可否認(rèn)的,”巴爾斯列說道。“他們撕開手指的方式以及不同人骨上(以前發(fā)現(xiàn)的遺?。┑暮圹E,以及骨頭散布的方式都說明了這一點(diǎn)。因此,憑借雷的證詞以及辯論術(shù),沒人能證明食人事件沒有發(fā)生?!绷硪粋€受富蘭克林事件啟發(fā)的維多利亞時期的圖畫是埃德溫·亨利·蘭西爾(Edwin Henry Landseer)令人驚奇的畫作《謀事在人,成事在天》(Man Proposes, God Disposes),畫中一個男人被畫作船的殘骸樣,而上帝或者是大自然,被畫作兩只狡猾的北極熊正在啃食一個人類的胸腔以及一根殘敗的桅桿。“他們認(rèn)為,不管怎樣,吃人的總是其他種族的人或動物,”巴爾斯列說道?!靶е遗鹾痛笥⒌蹏挠澥渴遣粫橙说摹V挥袗鬯够θ撕捅睒O熊才吃人?!?/p> 尚未能確定找到并已拍攝的船是“恐怖號”還是“黑暗號”。但若如很多人猜想的那樣是“恐怖號”,整個故事就會可以和美國掛上鉤,并極具諷刺意味——因?yàn)閯∏榉崔D(zhuǎn)得太厲害了:在1814年9月12日,英國海軍曾通宵炮擊美國巴爾的摩(Blatimore),然而在黎明將至?xí)r,美國國旗依然飄揚(yáng)在巴爾的摩的上空。人們常說幸存是加拿大散文的主要修辭手法,那么此次發(fā)現(xiàn)再次將加美兩國的歷史聯(lián)系在一起——兩者相比,美國勝出,并且還大聲地一直唱了下去(美國人弗蘭西斯·斯考特基(Francis ScottKey)目睹了英國海軍對巴爾的摩的Fort McHenry的炮擊后寫下了后來稱為美國國歌的《星條旗永不落》(The Star-Spangled Banner),譯注),而這艘加拿大船(至少也是英國船,永遠(yuǎn)地沉入到了加拿大謎海中),就這樣在海底百年來冰凍著,幸存了下來。 另一方面,在加拿大文學(xué)界中不斷重現(xiàn)富蘭克林未解之謎的文學(xué)作品中,最值得紀(jì)念,也是最貼近事實(shí)的是偉大的加拿大小說,由摩德卡·瑞馳勒(Mordecai Richler)撰寫的《所羅門·古爾斯基在這里》(“Solomon Gursky Was Here.”)。文中的艾福瑞·古爾斯基,一名從倫敦逃出的愛搬弄是非的猶太人偷偷登上了富蘭克林遠(yuǎn)征隊(duì)船上——當(dāng)誠實(shí)的英國人不情愿地吃著含鉛量高的罐裝口糧時,他和他的朋友伊茲樂滋滋地吃著蕎麥粥和液油鯡魚。他們最后活了下來,并且把他們的信仰和一些意地緒語傳給了一些因紐特人。但是,到目前為止,人們還沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)古爾斯基、鯡魚或者是說著意地緒語的因紐特人的痕跡。 (譯者 Amyyy312 編輯 Julie) 掃一掃,關(guān)注微博微信
|
|