Skip to content

Please be aware that some material may contain words, descriptions or illustrations which will not reflect current scientific understanding and may be considered in today's context inaccurate, unethical, offensive or distressing.

The Royal Society: Science in the Making

Correspondence Explorer

Choose two people to view all letters between them.

Showing 8 letters from 1908–1913

7 letters from William Napier Shaw; 1 letter from Archibald Geikie

Filter by year

Copy of letter [for original, see MS/591/4/13]. Shaw describes Scott's letter as 'painful reading', and he believes it goes beyond ordinary criticism. 'It is based upon misconceptions which I will endeavour to remove'. The letter refutes Scott's protests point by point, with page references in the margins referring to specific pages in Scott's letter [see MS/591/4/5]. He states that his duty was to prepare the records for publication on behalf of the Royal Society and not for Scott, but contends that Expedition members were consulted on the work. When he had doubts about data, Shaw referred these to Lieutenant [Charles William Rawson] Royds as he was the officer in charge of meteorology on the expedition, stating that it was up to 'Mr. Royds to refer to his colleagues if he thought it necessary'. Shaw provides copies of correspondence at the end of the report [see below], which he refers to as proof that instructions were given for the instruments and there were ample opportunities to practice using them. The lack of an official diary or official narrative of the Expedition made it difficult for the Meteorological Office to correlate the data, particularly when working with records from the various sledging expeditions. Shaw regrets that the review in 'The Times' was an attack on the Expedition, but this is unrelated to Shaw's preface. However, Shaw does note that there were many 'unconventionalities of the work of the 'Discovery' Expedition' which any meteorologist would recognise, even if Scott and his staff were unaware of this. Shaw argues that being transparent about these shortcomings ensures that meteorological science can make the best use of the data collected. Shaw points to several issues with thermometer and barometer readings, and the misuse of the automated recording instruments, which limit the value of the data. Shaw also critcises the 'wholesale destruction of apparatus' which means readings cannot be interpreted with direct reference to the instruments they came from. Regarding readings of pressure and winds, in his preface Shaw only summarises the work of Captain [Melville Willis Campbell] Hepworth and [Richard H] Curtis. He has therefore referred the question, concerning the wind readings being true or magnetic north on one particular sledging journey, to Curtis. Shaw notes that there was a lack of clear instructions for readings taken on sledging expeditions. Shaw says that he and Scott are in agreement that data on the rise of the Barrier surface would be valuable, and the purpose of raising this is to consider whether future efforts could be directed towards this. It was not intended to reflect on the work of the 'Discovery' Expedition. Shaw concludes by stating that Scott's letter does not do justice to the work of meteorologists analysing the data. The observers on the expedition have been recognised for their heroism, and their work is being treated 'as a seirous contribution to Natural Knoweledge deserving immediate consideration'. Shaw believe his office deserves 'something better than a letter of angry reproach'. With copies of five letters appended regarding the use of instruments, as follows: 1. Letter from Scott to Shaw, dated 2 June 1901. Scott offers to send someone to learn about the use of the sunshine recorder. 2. Letter from Scott to Sir William Wharton, dated 10 June 1901. Scott has arranged for [William] Shackleton to go to the Meteorological Office to practice with the Dines anemometer and sunshine recorder. 3. Letter from Wharton to Shaw, dated 19 April 1901. Directing Shaw to send instruments to Kew Observatory so that expedition members can practice with them. 4. Letter from [Charles] Chree to Shaw, dated 23 July 1901. Noting that the expedition members had not made much use of the opportunity to learn how to use the instruments. With a list of instruments sent to National Physical Laboratory at Kew by the Meteorological Office. 5. Letter from [William] Shackleton to Shaw, dated 14 June 1901. Asking questions about the possible use of certain instruments.

Reference number: MS/591/3/3

Concerning future publications of meteorological data from the 'Discovery' Expedition. Shaw notes there are still 'about 1,000 double-folio sheets of observation and maps of circum-polar observations, and the records of the autographic instruments at the winter quarters'. His understanding was that the maps would be printed as a second volume of meteorological work. Captain [Melville Willis Campbell] Hepworth is preparting a draft with the maps reduced to fit '12 maps on an opening'. The autographic records could be published as a normal scientific paper and the Meteorological Committee would likely publish it if the learned societies are not interested. Ends with a comment on the confusion over further publications: 'If the Geographical Society would prefer the 'balance' instead of the publication of the results of the expedition which they were at such pains to initiate, I should be delighted to transfer to them the material that we posess, to be dealt with by them in any way that they see fit'.

Reference number: MS/591/4/1

Geikie encloses a letter from Captain [Robert Falcon] Scott [concerning errors in the preface of the Meteorological Volume]. It has been considered by the officers of the Royal Society who would like Shaw's thoughts about it.

Reference number: MS/591/4/7

Shaw has read Scott's letter, which he says makes for 'very painful reading'. He says he has 'wasted' time drafting a reply, hoping 'to convince Captain Scott or other people that his protest is not justified'. Scott's criticisms are similar to those already raised by [Louis] Bernacchi, who mistakenly believes Shaw is deliberately attacking 'the conduct and capacity of the Expedition'. Shaw believes 'that the whirligig of time is now enabling two parties to bring in their revenges'. One group includes the critic in 'The Times' [who reviewed the Meteorological Volume] who 'were dissatisfied with the scientific arrangements and naturally wait for the issue of the scientific results to pounce'. The other group consists of the expedition members 'who might have been retained at a suitable salary to prepare the results for publication'. Shaw argues it was necessary to point out 'peculiarities' with the data collection in the volume to head off criticism from the first group. Shaw blames the Society for the issues with the second group, stating that 'the Royal Society is really responsible for the decision that Mr Bernacchi's estimate of his retaining fees was beyond its mean and we must put up with his efforts to revenge himself as best we can'.

Reference number: MS/591/4/8

Shaw describes Scott's letter as 'painful reading', and he believes it goes beyond ordinary criticism. 'It is based upon misconceptions which I will endeavour to remove'. The letter refutes Scott's protests point by point, with page references in the margins referring to specific pages in Scott's letter [see MS/591/4/5]. He states that his duty was to prepare the records for publication on behalf of the Royal Society and not for Scott, but contends that Expedition members were consulted on the work. When he had doubts about data, Shaw referred these to Lieutenant [Charles William Rawson] Royds as he was the officer in charge of meteorology on the expedition, stating that it was up to 'Mr. Royds to refer to his colleagues if he thought it necessary'. Shaw provides copies of correspondence at the end of the report [see below], which he refers to as proof that instructions were given for the instruments and there were ample opportunities to practice using them. The lack of an official diary or official narrative of the Expedition made it difficult for the Meteorological Office to correlate the data, particularly when working with records from the various sledging expeditions. Shaw regrets that the review in 'The Times' was an attack on the Expedition, but this is unrelated to Shaw's preface. However, Shaw does note that there were many 'unconventionalities of the work of the 'Discovery' Expedition' which any meteorologist would recognise, even if Scott and his staff were unaware of this. Shaw argues that being transparent about these shortcomings ensures that meteorological science can make the best use of the data collected. Shaw points to several issues with thermometer and barometer readings, and the misuse of the automated recording instruments, which limit the value of the data. Shaw also critcises the 'wholesale destruction of apparatus' which means readings cannot be interpreted with direct reference to the instruments they came from. Regarding readings of pressure and winds, in his preface Shaw only summarises the work of Captain [Melville Willis Campbell] Hepworth and [Richard H] Curtis. He has therefore referred the question, concerning the wind readings being true or magnetic north on one particular sledging journey, to Curtis. Shaw notes that there was a lack of clear instructions for readings taken on sledging expeditions. Shaw says that he and Scott are in agreement that data on the rise of the Barrier surface would be valuable, and the purpose of raising this is to consider whether future efforts could be directed towards this. It was not intended to reflect on the work of the 'Discovery' Expedition. Shaw concludes by stating that Scott's letter does not do justice to the work of meteorologists analysing the data. The observers on the expedition have been recognised for their heroism, and their work is being treated 'as a seirous contribution to Natural Knoweledge deserving immediate consideration'. Shaw believe his office deserves 'something better than a letter of angry reproach'. With copies of five letters appended regarding the use of instruments, as follows: 1. Letter from Scott to Shaw, dated 2 June 1901. Scott offers to send someone to learn about the use of the sunshine recorder. 2. Letter from Scott to Sir William Wharton, dated 10 June 1901. Scott has arranged for [William] Shackleton to go to the Meteorological Office to practice with the Dines anemometer and sunshine recorder. 3. Letter from Wharton to Shaw, dated 19 April 1901. Directing Shaw to send instruments to Kew Observatory so that expedition members can practice with them. 4. Letter from [Charles] Chree to Shaw, dated 23 July 1901. Noting that the expedition members had not made much use of the opportunity to learn how to use the instruments. With a list of instruments sent to National Physical Laboratory at Kew by the Meteorological Office. 5. Letter from [William] Shackleton to Shaw, dated 14 June 1901. Asking questions about the possible use of certain instruments.

Reference number: MS/591/4/13
1910

Shaw has received the proposed draft for the preface to the second Meteorological Volume of the 'Discovery' Expedition. Has no objections to the comments dealing with the wind observations on Lieutenant [Charles William Rawson] Royds' sledge journey. However, he disagrees with the suggestion that the Meteorological Office are responsible for the errors in the table of sledge journey positions. These were provided by Lieutenant [George Francis Arthur] Mulock, via the Royal Geographical Society. Shaw suggests publishing a table of errata if the correct position data can be supplied. He also states that, while he agrees that getting accurate information about the slope of the Great Barrier is challenging, 'the fact that it was nearly impossible to get it was not, in itself, reason for not trying'.

Reference number: MS/591/5/21
1913

Returning Geikie's copy of the preface [to the second Meteorological Volume from the 'Discovery' Expedition], with some suggested amendments. Shaw corrects an incorrect date which reads 1910, but should be 1908. He also points out that the last paragraph does not clearly explain that the incorrect position data was supplied by Lieutenant [George Francis Arthur] Mulock via the Royal Geographical Society, and was not calculated by the Meteorological Office.

Reference number: MS/591/5/24

Returning the corrected proofs [of the Meteorological Volume of the Discovery Expedition] with Captain [Melville Willis Campbell] Hepworth's remarks. He has written a new letter 'to record my own obligation in the matter', which is with the fly-leaf at the back of the title page.

Reference number: MS/591/5/26