This time, the Admiralty clearly formulated the goal of the expedition - to discover sea ​​route from the Atlantic to the Pacific through North America. As you know, the result of Cook's second expedition was to stop searching for new lands in the southern latitudes. Everything that could be opened was already open.

The route of the third expedition of James Cook

The expedition this time also consisted of 2 ships: the proven flagship "Resolution" and the second ship, a smaller displacement - "Discovery". The ships started on different dates in the middle of the summer of 1776. They connected in Cape Town and on December 1 set off for the Pacific Ocean. On January 26, 1777, both ships were already in Tasmania. Then, through New Zealand went to the Friendship Islands and then to Tahiti, which became almost native to Kuku, where they arrived on August 12.

And on December 7, 1777, the ships headed north. December 22 crossed the equator. Two days later, on December 24, the expedition discovered Christmas Island. A solar eclipse was observed on this island.

Hawaiian Islands

On January 18, 1778, the expedition discovered the Hawaiian Islands, fatal for its commander. Cook named from Sandwich, not in honor of the sandwich, but in honor of one of the inspirers of his travels, the First Lord of the Admiralty Jonah Sandwich A. (Alas, the lord was unlucky - the name did not stick.)

A week later, they moved to the coast of North America, got into a storm and, approaching the coast, in the area of ​​\u200b\u200bnow Vancouver, they began to repair. April 26 moved on. In Alaska, they again began to repair. Then, in early August, they passed the strait separating Asia and America, crossed the Arctic Circle and entered the Chukchi Sea. And then the ships ran into ice hummocks. It was impossible to go any further. Winter was coming, so Cook decided to turn to warmer climes.

Meeting with Russians

On October 2, 1778, in the Aleutian Islands, Cook met Russian industrialists for the first time. , which turned out to be much more accurate than the maps that he himself had. Cook redrawn this map and named the strait between Asia and America.

November 26, 1778 both ships safely reached the Hawaiian Islands. On the shore they were met by thousands of natives, who apparently mistook Cook for one of their deities.

Good neighborly relations were established with the islanders, but the natives turned out to be a thieving people, dragging everything that came to hand. In order not to aggravate relations, Cook left the bay, but, unfortunately, the Resolution was caught in a storm, the rigging was seriously damaged and needed to be repaired. The expedition had no choice but to return to the ill-fated islands, because there was no other parking nearby. Everything that needed repair was pulled ashore - sails, rigging, and so on. Meanwhile, the attitude of the natives was becoming openly hostile. “And everyone was incited by the sorcerer, the cunning and wicked one! Atu guys, grab Cook!

Why did the natives eat Cook?

On February 14, 1778, the natives stole a longboat. The commander's patience came to an end, Cook decided to take hostage one of the native leaders. With a group of armed sailors, he went to the village, invited the leader to the ship. He pretended to accept the invitation, but then rested. And his compatriots in large numbers surrounded the squad. Who exactly started the fight is silent, the natives in the clash killed Cook himself and several of his comrades.

So the third circumnavigation turned out to be the last for James Cook. He, like Fernando Magellan, died at the hands of the natives in the Pacific Islands. It happened on the evening of February 14, 1779. Turns out it's Valentine's Day.

Captain Clerk took command of the expedition. He tried to obtain the issuance of Cook's body from the natives through negotiations. Did not work out. Then Clerk organized an armed raid against the invaders, burned several settlements and drove the natives into the mountains. Nothing to do, the Hawaiians returned to the "Resolution" forty kilograms of meat and a human head without a lower jaw.

On February 22, 1779, the remains of the great navigator James Cook, as befits a naval officer, were buried at sea.

Results of Cook's third expedition

Hawaiian Islands discovered

Northwest Way around North America has not been opened

Great Navigator Cook found perished at the hands of the natives.

More pages about James Cook and his expedition

P Travelers of the era of the Great Geographical Discoveries

February 14, 1779 on the island of Hawaii during an unexpected skirmish with the natives, Captain James Cook (1728-1779) was killed - one of the greatest discoverers new lands that lived in the 18th century. No one knows what really happened that morning at Kealakekua Bay. It is known, however, that the Hawaiians did not eat Cook, contrary to the well-known song of Vysotsky: it was customary for the natives to bury especially important people in a special way. The bones were buried in secret place, and the meat was returned to the "relatives" of the captain. Historians argue whether the Hawaiians considered Cook a god (more precisely, the incarnation of the deity of abundance and agriculture, Lono) or simply a presumptuous stranger.

But we will talk about something else: how did the team even allow the death of their captain? How did envy, anger, pride, thieves, cowardice and passivity lead to a tragic set of circumstances? Fortunately (and unfortunately), more than 40 conflicting accounts of Cook's death have survived: this does not unequivocally clarify the course of events, but it details the motives and motivations of the team. About how the death of one captain blew up the ship's microcosm of the heroic navigators of the 18th century - in the historical investigation of Lenta.ru.

Clash with the Hawaiians

The background is as follows: Cook's third circumnavigation began in 1776. On the ships Resolution and Discovery, the British were to find the Northwest Passage: a waterway north of Canada connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. rounding South Africa, the sailors sailed to New Zealand and from there headed north, discovering the Hawaiian Islands along the way (in January 1778). Having regained strength, the expedition went to Alaska and Chukotka, however solid ice and the approach of winter forced Cook to return to Hawaii to the parking lot (December-January 1779).

The Hawaiians greeted the British sailors very cordially. However, over time, the free treatment of local women and too active replenishment of water and food caused discontent, and on February 4, Cook decided to prudently set sail. Alas, on the same night, a storm damaged the foremast of the Resolution, and the ships returned to Kealakekua Bay. Openly hostile Hawaiians stole pincers from one of the ships: in retaliation, the British stole a canoe, which they refused to return as a result of negotiations.

Then on February 14, the longboat disappeared from the Resolution: and then Cook armed himself with a gun and, together with a detachment of ten marines (led by Lieutenant Molesworth Phillips), demanded one of the local leaders to come on the ship (either as a hostage, or, more likely to negotiate in a more relaxed atmosphere).
At first the leader agreed, then, yielding to the entreaties of his wife, refused to go. Meanwhile, thousands of armed Hawaiians gathered on the shore and pushed Cook to the shore. For some unknown reason, the crowd went into action, and in the ensuing turmoil, someone hit Cook on the back with a stick. The captain fired in retaliation, but did not kill the Hawaiian - and then the natives rushed at the British from all sides.

Already in the water, Cook was hit in the back with a spear or a throwing dagger, and the captain (along with several sailors) died. Cooke's body was dragged ashore, while the British retreated in disorder to the ships.

After another fight, negotiations took place that ended in peace: the Hawaiians solemnly returned Cook's body (in the form of pieces of meat), which infuriated the team. A mistake in intercultural communication(the British did not understand that locals buried the captain with maximum dignity) caused a punitive raid: the coastal settlement was burned, the Hawaiians were killed, and as a result, the islanders returned the remaining parts of Cook's body, buried at sea on February 21. The position of expedition leader passed to Discovery's captain Charles Clerk, and when he died of tuberculosis off Kamchatka, to Resolution's second mate James King.

Who is guilty?

But what really happened that morning at Kealakekua Bay? How was the fight in which Cook died?

Here is what First Officer James Burney writes: “Through binoculars we saw Captain Cook get hit with a club and fall off a cliff into the water.” Bernie was most likely standing on the deck of the Discovery. And here is what the captain of the ship Clark said about the death of Cook: “It was exactly 8 o'clock when we were alarmed by a gun salvo, given by people Captain Cook, and there were strong cries of the Indians. Through the spyglass, I clearly saw that our people were running towards the boats, but I could not see exactly who was running in the confused crowd.

The ships of the 18th century were not very spacious: the Clerk was hardly far from Burney, but he did not see individual people. What's the matter? The members of the Cook expedition left behind a huge number of texts: historians count 45 manuscripts of diaries, ship logs and notes, as well as 7 books printed back in the 18th century.

But that's not all: the ship's log of James King (author official history third expedition) was accidentally found in government archives in the 1970s. And not all texts were written by members of the wardroom: the captivating memoirs of the German Hans Zimmermann speak about the life of sailors, and historians learned a lot from the complete plagiarism of the book of a half-educated student John Ledyard, Corporal of the Marines.

So, 45 memoirs tell about the events of the morning of February 14, and the differences between them are not pure coincidence, the result of gaps in the memory of sailors trying to recreate the terrible events. What the British “saw with their own eyes” is dictated by complex relationships on the ship: envy, patronage and loyalty, personal ambitions, rumors and slander.

The memoirs themselves were written not only out of a desire to bask in the glory of Captain Cook or make money: the texts of the team members are replete with insinuations, irritated hints of hiding the truth, and, in general, do not look like old friends' memories of wonderful trip.

The tension in the team had been accumulating for a long time: it was inevitable during the long voyage on cramped ships, the abundance of orders, the reasonableness of which was obvious only to the captain and his inner circle, and the expectation of inevitable hardships during the coming search for the Northwest Passage in subpolar waters. However, the conflicts poured into an open form one and only time - with the participation of two heroes of the future drama in Kealakekua Bay: a duel took place in Tahiti between Marine Lieutenant Phillips and Resolution's third assistant John Williamson. All that is known about the duel is that three bullets passed over the heads of its participants without harming them.

The character of both Irishmen was not sugar. Phillips, heroically injured by Hawaiian weapons (he was wounded while retreating to the boats), ended his life as a London bum, playing cards on trifles and beating his wife. Williamson, on the other hand, was disliked by many officers. “This is a scoundrel who was hated and feared by subordinates, hated by equals and despised by superiors,” one of the midshipmen wrote in his diary.

But the hatred of the team hit Williamson only after Cook's death: all eyewitnesses agree that at the very beginning of the collision, the captain gave some kind of signal to Williamson's people who were in boats off the coast. What Cook wanted to express with this unknown gesture will forever remain a mystery. The lieutenant stated that he understood him as "Save yourself, swim away!" and gave the appropriate command.

Unfortunately for him, the rest of the officers were sure that Cook was desperately calling for help. The sailors could provide fire support, drag the captain into the boat, or at least recapture the corpse from the Hawaiians ... Williamson was opposed by a dozen officers and marines from both ships. Phillips, according to Ledyard's recollection, was even ready to shoot the lieutenant on the spot.

Clark (the new captain) was immediately required to investigate. However, the main witnesses (we do not know who they are - most likely the chiefs on the pinnass and skiff, who were also under the shore under Williamson's command) withdrew their testimony and accusations against the third mate. Did they do it sincerely, not wanting to ruin an officer who got into a difficult and ambiguous situation? Or were they pressured by the authorities? We are unlikely to know this - the sources are very scarce. In 1779, while on his deathbed, Captain Clark destroyed all papers related to the investigation.

There is only the fact that the leaders of the expedition (King and Clark) decided not to blame Williamson for the death of Cook. However, rumors immediately circulated on the ships that Williamson had stolen documents from Clark's locker after the captain's death, or even earlier issued brandy to all Marines and sailors to keep them quiet about the lieutenant's cowardice upon their return to England.

The truth of these rumors cannot be confirmed: but it is important that they went for the reason that Williamson not only avoided the tribunal, but also succeeded in every possible way. Already in 1779 he was promoted to the second, and then to the first assistant to the captain. His successful career in the navy was interrupted only by an incident in 1797: as captain of the Agincourt, in the battle of Camperdown, he once again misinterpreted a signal (this time by sea), evaded an attack on enemy ships and went to court for dereliction of duty. He died a year later.

In his diary, Clark describes what happened to Cook on the shore according to Philips: the whole story boils down to the misadventures of a wounded marine, and not a word is said about the behavior of other team members. James King also showed favor to Williamson: in the official history of the voyage, Cook's gesture was described as a act of philanthropy: the captain tried to keep his people from brutally shooting the unfortunate Hawaiians. Moreover, King places the blame for the tragic collision on Lieutenant of the Marine Corps Rickman, who shot the Hawaiian on the other side of the bay (which infuriated the natives).

It would seem that everything is clear: the authorities are covering up the obvious culprit in Cook's death - for some reason of their own. And then, using his connections, he makes a stunning career. However, the situation is not so clear cut. It is curious that the team was divided into haters and defenders of Williamson approximately equally - and the composition of each group deserves close attention.

British navy: hopes and disappointments

The officers of Resolution and Discovery were not at all pleased with the great scientific significance expeditions: for the most part, they were ambitious young people who were not at all eager to spend best years on the sidelines in cramped cabins. In the 18th century, promotion was mainly given by wars: at the beginning of each conflict, the "demand" for officers increased - assistants were promoted to captains, midshipmen - to assistants. It is not surprising that the members of the crew sailed longingly from Plymouth in 1776: literally before their eyes, conflict with the American colonists flared up, and they had to “rot” for four years in the dubious search for the Northwest Passage.

The British Navy, by the standards of the 18th century, was a relatively democratic institution: people who were far from power, wealth and noble blood could serve and rise to commanding heights there. To go far for examples, one can recall Cook himself, the son of a Scottish farm laborer, who began his maritime biography as a cabin boy on a coal-burning brig.

However, one should not think that the system automatically selected the most worthy: the price for relative democracy “at the entrance” was the leading role of patronage. All officers built networks of support, looked for loyal patrons in the team and in the Admiralty, earning a reputation for themselves. That is why the death of Cook and Clark meant that all contacts and agreements reached with the captains during the voyage went to dust.

Having reached Canton, the officers learned that the war with the rebellious colonies was in full swing, and all the ships were already completed. But to failure ( Northwest Passage not found, Cook died) no one really cares about the geographical expedition. “The team felt how much it would lose in rank and wealth, also having lost the consolation that it was being led home by an old commander whose well-known merits could help matters last voyage to be heard and appreciated even in those troubled times,” writes King in his journal (December 1779). In the 1780s, the war with Napoleon was still far away, and only a few were promoted. Many junior officers followed the example of midshipman James Trevenen and went to serve in the Russian fleet (which, we recall, fought against the Swedes and Turks in the 1780s).

In this regard, it is curious that midshipmen and master's assistants, who were at the very beginning of their careers in the Navy, spoke out loudest of all against Williamson. They missed their luck (the war with the American colonies), and even a single vacancy was a valuable enough prize. The rank of Williamson (third mate) did not yet give him great opportunities to take revenge on his accusers, and his trial would create an excellent opportunity to remove a competitor. Combined with a personal dislike of Williamson, this more than explains why he was reviled and called the main villain who killed Cook. Meanwhile, many senior members of the team (Bernie, although he was a close friend of Phillips, draftsman William Ellis, Resolution's first assistant John Gore, Discovery master Thomas Edgar) did not find anything reprehensible in Williamson's actions.

For approximately the same reasons (career future), in the end, part of the blame was shifted to Rickman: he was much older than most of the members of the wardroom, he began his service already in 1760, “missed” the beginning Seven Years' War and for 16 years has not received a promotion. That is, he did not have strong patrons in the fleet, and his age did not allow him to make friends with a company of young officers. As a result, Rickman turned out to be almost the only member of the team who did not receive any more titles at all.

In addition, by attacking Williamson, many officers, of course, tried to avoid uncomfortable questions: on the morning of February 14, many of them were on the island or in boats and could act more proactively, having heard the shots, and retreat to the ships without trying to recapture the bodies of the dead as well looks suspicious. The future captain of the Bounty, William Bly (master on the Resolution), directly accused the Phillips Marines of fleeing the battlefield. The fact that 11 of the 17 Marines on the Resolution were subjected to corporal punishment during the voyage (on Cook's personal order) also makes one wonder how willing they were to sacrifice their lives for the captain.

None of the surviving members of the team was to be the scapegoat guilty of tragic death great captain: circumstances were to blame, vile natives and (as is read between the lines of memoirs) the arrogance and recklessness of Cook himself, who hoped almost single-handedly to take the local leader hostage. “There is good reason to believe that the natives would not have gone so far if, unfortunately, Captain Cook had not fired at them: a few minutes before this they began to clear the way for the soldiers so that the latter could reach that place on the shore , against which the boats stood (I already mentioned this), thus giving Captain Cook the opportunity to get away from them, ”the Clerk’s diaries say.

Now it becomes clearer why Clerk and Bernie saw such different scenes through their telescopes. This was determined by the place in the complex system of "checks and balances", the status hierarchy and the struggle for a place under the sun, which was going on board the ships of the scientific expedition. What prevented the Clerk from seeing (or talking about) the captain's death was not so much the "confused crowd" as the officer's desire to remain above the fray and ignore the evidence of the guilt of individual members of the team (many of whom were his protégés, and others were the protégés of his London superiors).

What is the meaning of what happened?

History is not just objective events that happened or didn't happen. We know about the past only from the stories of the participants in these events, stories that are often fragmentary, confused and contradict each other. However, one should not draw a conclusion from this about the fundamental incompatibility of individual points of view, which allegedly represent autonomous and incompatible pictures of the world. Scientists, if not able to authoritatively state how "it really was," can find probable causes, common interests, and other solid layers of reality behind the apparent chaos of "testimony."

This is what we tried to do - to unravel a little the network of motives, to discern the elements of the system that forced the team members to act, see and remember in this way and not otherwise.

Personal relationships, career interests. But there is another layer: the national-ethnic level. Cook's ships were a cross section of imperial society: representatives of the peoples and, most importantly, regions, in varying degrees remote from the metropolis (London), in which all the main issues were resolved and the process of "civilization" of the British took place. Cornish and Scots, natives of the American colonies and the West Indies, Northern England and Ireland, the Germans and the Welsh ... Their relationship during and after the voyage, the influence of prejudices and stereotypes on what is happening, scientists have yet to understand.

But history is not a criminal investigation either: the last thing I wanted to do was to finally identify the person responsible for the death of Captain Cook: be it the “coward” Williamson, the “uninitiative” sailors and marines on the shore, the “evil” natives, or the “arrogant” navigator himself.

It would be naive to consider Cook's team a detachment of science heroes, "white people" in identical uniforms. This is a complex system of personal and official relations, with its own crises and conflict situations, passions and prudent actions. And by chance this structure in dynamics explodes with an event. The death of Cook confused all the maps of the expedition members, but made them burst into passionate, emotional notes and memoirs, and thus shed light on relationships and patterns that, with a more favorable outcome of the voyage, would have remained in the darkness of obscurity.

But the death of Captain Cook can also be a useful lesson in the 21st century: often only similar emergency events (accident, death, explosion, escape, leak) can manifest internal organization and the modus operandi of secret (or at least non-public) organizations, be it a submarine crew or a diplomatic corps.

The third circumnavigation of the famous navigator James Cook took place in mid-1776. A year later, after the second Cook expedition, the Resolution ship again leaves the port of Plymouth on July 12 and lays its course for Cape Town, where a meeting with the second ship included in the expedition, Discovery, was to take place. The ship "Resolution", as in the previous voyage, was the flagship of the company, was under the command of Cook, and the ship "Discovery" was controlled by Charles Clerk. aim Cook's third expedition was to find Northwest Passage from the Pacific to the Atlantic. By the way, William Bly participated in the expedition, who gained his fame as the captain of the rebellious ship Bounty.

December 1, 1777, after a successful meeting, the ships left Cape Town and in two months visited the Kerguelen Islands, Tasmania, Tahiti (which was visited on the first Cook expedition) and the Friendship Islands. Then they crossed the equator on December 22 and in mid-January they reached Hawaii, which at first were called the Sandwich Islands, but this name did not take root and now they are called Hawaiian. The sailors stayed there until the beginning of February, and then went to North America, to its western part. But on the way, the ships got into a strong storm, which seriously battered the ships, so the crew had to look for a place to repair.

In the first days of August, Resolution and Discovery passed the Bering Strait and reached the Arctic Circle. Then they went to the Chukchi Sea and this was the end of their further advance - the ships met a huge ice field, which forced Cook to turn back. on the reverse course James Cook met Russians who were engaged in fishing near the Aleutian Islands. It is noteworthy that the industrialists, in conversation with the British, showed them their maps. It turned out that they are significantly superior to the maps of the British in accuracy, specificity and quality. And Cook did not miss the moment to redraw them.

Meanwhile, winter was approaching. It was decided to go to the Hawaiian Islands and wait out the cold. At first, nothing promised trouble, the local residents willingly accepted the travelers. But after a while, conflicts began due to petty theft, and the last straw of patience was the abduction of ticks of interest to science.

The captain decides to capture the Aboriginal king and demand an exchange. Cook lands on the island, calls him to his ship, but the population feels a catch and tries to prevent their leader from getting into the boat. A fight breaks out, the British begin to retreat into the boat, and James Cook, covering the retreat of his team, does not have time to dodge the stone and it hits him in the back of the head. Ultimately, this was the cause of death.

After 2 weeks of waiting for at least some news from his commander, Captain Clerk decided to attack the island and get the necessary information. After a successful operation, a few days later, natives swam up to the ships and gave away everything that was left of Cook: a few kilograms of meat and eaten bones. He was buried at sea on February 21, 1779. The expedition returned to England on 4 February the following year. During the voyage, the main goal was not achieved.

Test tasks.

1. Why did no one know about the discovery of the Southern Continent by the Dutch?

a) the Dutch were not sure of their discovery

b) did not have time, as James Cook was ahead of them

c) the Dutch wanted to solely own the new mainland

d) discovery data was lost

2. Named after Abel Tasman

a) an island

c) island and sea

d) island and strait

3. After which circumnavigation did James Cook announce the discovery of a new continent?

a) first

b) second

c) third

d) fourth

4. The name of the mainland Australia in translation means

a) South

b) Unknown

5. James Cook set sail around the world when he was

a) 12 years old

6. From the proposed list, select words and terms related to the first journey of James Cook. Write down their letters.

a) Abel Tasman

b) New Holland

c) kangaroo

d) an astronomical phenomenon

e) Drakkar

f) Unknown Southern Land

Thematic workshop.

Read the section of the paragraph "James Cook's first voyage" and answer the questions.

1. Why did James Cook only receive the rank of captain at the age of 40?

The rank of captain Cook could receive at 27 years old, but it was the rank of captain of the merchant marine within England. Cook dreamed of a military career, oh long voyages and traveling, so he, having extensive experience in navigation, signed up as a simple sailor on a warship, went from sailor, boatswain, master to captain. By the age of 40, he became a captain.

2. How would you tell an Australian that you do not understand him, but at the same time in such a way that he understands you?

3. Why did James Cook name the mainland Australia?

The name "Australia" comes from the Latin. australis, which means southern. Legends of the "unknown southern land» ( terra australis incognita) come from the time of the Romans, were commonplace medieval geography, however, were not based on real knowledge. The Dutch have been using this term for all newly discovered southern lands since 1638.

4. Why do you think James Cook went on a second voyage, deciding that his task was to find southern mainland— has not been resolved?

The point is that on sea ​​spaces competitors were breathing down the back of Britain's head. Intelligence reported that France equipped more and more expeditions in south seas, and other expansion colleagues did not doze off. Therefore, Cook was given only three weeks of rest after the first expedition and was offered to lead the next one. Cook didn't mind. He had already tasted the incomparable joys of a discoverer, and he was simply unable to refuse such a tempting one.

Cartographic workshop.

Name those shown on the map geographic features, with which are associated world travel James Cook.

1 - Hawaiian Islands.

2 - Aleutian Islands.

3 - Island of New Guinea.

4 - Tasman Sea.

5 - Antarctic Peninsula.

6 - Kerguelen Island.

7 - Island Tierra del Fuego.

8 - Chukchi Sea.

9 - Port of Keytown.

10. Island of Great Britain.

On February 14, 1779, Captain James Cook (1728-1779), one of the greatest discoverers of new lands who lived in the 18th century, was killed on the island of Hawaii during an unexpected skirmish with the natives. No one knows what really happened that morning at Kealakekua Bay. It is known, however, that the Hawaiians did not eat Cook, contrary to Vysotsky's well-known song: it was customary for the natives to bury especially important people in a special way. The bones were buried in a secret place, and the meat was returned to the "relatives" of the captain. Historians argue whether the Hawaiians considered Cook a god (more precisely, the incarnation of the deity of abundance and agriculture, Lono) or simply a presumptuous stranger.

Painting by George Carter "Death of Captain James Cook"

But we will talk about something else: how did the team even allow the death of their captain? How did envy, anger, pride, thieves, cowardice and passivity lead to a tragic set of circumstances? Fortunately (and unfortunately), more than 40 conflicting accounts of Cook's death have survived: this does not unequivocally clarify the course of events, but it details the motives and motivations of the team. About how the death of one captain blew up the ship's microcosm of the heroic navigators of the 18th century - in the historical investigation of Lenta.ru.

Clash with the Hawaiians

The background is as follows: Cook's third circumnavigation began in 1776. On the ships Resolution and Discovery, the British were to find the Northwest Passage: a waterway north of Canada connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Rounding South Africa, the sailors sailed to New Zealand and from there headed north, discovering the Hawaiian Islands along the way (in January 1778). Having regained strength, the expedition went to Alaska and Chukotka, but solid ice and the approach of winter forced Cook to return to Hawaii to the parking lot (December-January 1779).

The Hawaiians greeted the British sailors very cordially. However, over time, the free treatment of local women and too active replenishment of water and food caused discontent, and on February 4, Cook decided to prudently set sail. Alas, on the same night, a storm damaged the foremast of the Resolution, and the ships returned to Kealakekua Bay. Openly hostile Hawaiians stole pincers from one of the ships: in retaliation, the British stole a canoe, which they refused to return as a result of negotiations.

"The Death of Captain Cook" (John Webber, 1784)

Then on February 14, the longboat disappeared from the Resolution: and then Cook armed himself with a gun and, together with a detachment of ten marines (led by Lieutenant Molesworth Phillips), demanded one of the local leaders to come on the ship (either as a hostage, or, more likely to negotiate in a more relaxed atmosphere).

At first the leader agreed, then, yielding to the entreaties of his wife, refused to go. Meanwhile, thousands of armed Hawaiians gathered on the shore and pushed Cook to the shore. For some unknown reason, the crowd went into action, and in the ensuing turmoil, someone hit Cook on the back with a stick. The captain fired in retaliation, but did not kill the Hawaiian - and then the natives rushed at the British from all sides.

Already in the water, Cook was hit in the back with a spear or a throwing dagger, and the captain (along with several sailors) died. Cooke's body was dragged ashore, while the British retreated in disorder to the ships.

Death of Cook. Engraving from 1790. Image: Schaengel89 / Wikipedia

After another fight, negotiations took place that ended in peace: the Hawaiians solemnly returned Cook's body (in the form of pieces of meat), which infuriated the team. An error in intercultural communication (the British did not understand that the locals buried the captain with maximum dignity) caused a punitive raid: the coastal settlement was burned, the Hawaiians were killed, and as a result, the islanders returned the remaining parts of Cook's body, buried at sea on February 21. The position of the head of the expedition passed to the captain of the Discovery, Charles Clerk, and when he died of tuberculosis near Kamchatka, to the second assistant to the captain of the Resolution, James King.

Who is guilty?

But what really happened that morning at Kealakekua Bay? How was the fight in which Cook died?

Here is what First Officer James Burney writes: “Through binoculars we saw Captain Cook get hit with a club and fall off a cliff into the water.” Bernie was most likely standing on the deck of the Discovery. And here is what the captain of the ship Clark said about the death of Cook: “It was exactly 8 o'clock when we were alarmed by a gun salvo given by Captain Cook's people, and strong cries of the Indians were heard. Through the spyglass, I clearly saw that our people were running towards the boats, but I could not see exactly who was running in the confused crowd.

The ships of the 18th century were not very spacious: the Clerk was hardly far from Burney, but he did not see individual people. What's the matter? The members of the Cook expedition left behind a huge number of texts: historians count 45 manuscripts of diaries, ship logs and notes, as well as 7 books printed back in the 18th century.

But that's not all: the logbook of James King (the author of the official history of the third expedition) was accidentally found in government archives in the 1970s. And not all texts were written by members of the wardroom: the captivating memoirs of the German Hans Zimmermann speak about the life of sailors, and historians learned a lot from the complete plagiarism of the book of a half-educated student John Ledyard, Corporal of the Marines.

So, 45 memoirs tell about the events of the morning of February 14, and the differences between them are not pure coincidence, the result of gaps in the memory of sailors trying to recreate the terrible events. What the British “saw with their own eyes” is dictated by complex relationships on the ship: envy, patronage and loyalty, personal ambitions, rumors and slander.

The memoirs themselves were written not only out of a desire to bask in the glory of Captain Cook or make money: the texts of the team members are replete with insinuations, irritated hints at hiding the truth, and, in general, do not look like old friends' memories of a wonderful trip.

Death of Cook. Canvas by Anglo-German artist Johann Zoffany (1795). Image: Hohum/Wikipedia

The tension in the team had been accumulating for a long time: it was inevitable during the long voyage on cramped ships, the abundance of orders, the reasonableness of which was obvious only to the captain and his inner circle, and the expectation of inevitable hardships during the coming search for the Northwest Passage in subpolar waters. However, the conflicts poured into an open form one and only time - with the participation of two heroes of the future drama in Kealakekua Bay: a duel took place in Tahiti between Marine Lieutenant Phillips and Resolution's third assistant John Williamson. All that is known about the duel is that three bullets passed over the heads of its participants without harming them.

The character of both Irishmen was not sugar. Phillips, heroically injured by Hawaiian weapons (he was wounded while retreating to the boats), ended his life as a London bum, playing cards on trifles and beating his wife. Williamson, on the other hand, was disliked by many officers. “This is a scoundrel who was hated and feared by subordinates, hated by equals and despised by superiors,” one of the midshipmen wrote in his diary.

But the hatred of the team hit Williamson only after Cook's death: all eyewitnesses agree that at the very beginning of the collision, the captain gave some kind of signal to Williamson's people who were in boats off the coast. What Cook wanted to express with this unknown gesture will forever remain a mystery. The lieutenant stated that he understood him as "Save yourself, swim away!" and gave the appropriate command.

Unfortunately for him, the rest of the officers were sure that Cook was desperately calling for help. The sailors could provide fire support, drag the captain into the boat, or at least recapture the corpse from the Hawaiians ... Williamson was opposed by a dozen officers and marines from both ships. Phillips, according to Ledyard's recollection, was even ready to shoot the lieutenant on the spot.

Clark (the new captain) was immediately required to investigate. However, the main witnesses (we do not know who they are - most likely the chiefs on the pinnass and skiff, who were also under the shore under Williamson's command) withdrew their testimony and accusations against the third mate. Did they do it sincerely, not wanting to ruin an officer who got into a difficult and ambiguous situation? Or were they pressured by the authorities? We are unlikely to know this - the sources are very scarce. In 1779, while on his deathbed, Captain Clark destroyed all papers related to the investigation.

There is only the fact that the leaders of the expedition (King and Clark) decided not to blame Williamson for the death of Cook. However, rumors immediately circulated on the ships that Williamson had stolen documents from Clark's locker after the captain's death, or even earlier issued brandy to all Marines and sailors to keep them quiet about the lieutenant's cowardice upon their return to England.

The truth of these rumors cannot be confirmed: but it is important that they went for the reason that Williamson not only avoided the tribunal, but also succeeded in every possible way. Already in 1779 he was promoted to the second, and then to the first assistant to the captain. His successful career in the navy was interrupted only by an incident in 1797: as captain of the Agincourt, in the battle of Camperdown, he once again misinterpreted a signal (this time by sea), evaded an attack on enemy ships and went to court for dereliction of duty. He died a year later.

In his diary, Clark describes what happened to Cook on the shore according to Philips: the whole story boils down to the misadventures of a wounded marine, and not a word is said about the behavior of other team members. James King also showed favor to Williamson: in the official history of the voyage, Cook's gesture was described as a act of philanthropy: the captain tried to keep his people from brutally shooting the unfortunate Hawaiians. Moreover, King places the blame for the tragic collision on Lieutenant of the Marine Corps Rickman, who shot the Hawaiian on the other side of the bay (which infuriated the natives).

It would seem that everything is clear: the authorities are covering up the obvious culprit in Cook's death - for some reason of their own. And then, using his connections, he makes a stunning career. However, the situation is not so clear cut. It is curious that the team was divided into haters and defenders of Williamson approximately equally - and the composition of each group deserves close attention.

British navy: hopes and disappointments

The officers of the Resolution and Discovery were not at all pleased with the great scientific significance of the expedition: for the most part they were ambitious young people who did not at all crave to spend their best years on the sidelines in cramped cabins. In the 18th century, promotion was mainly given by wars: at the beginning of each conflict, the "demand" for officers increased - assistants were promoted to captains, midshipmen - to assistants. It is not surprising that the members of the crew sailed longingly from Plymouth in 1776: literally before their eyes, conflict with the American colonists flared up, and they had to “rot” for four years in the dubious search for the Northwest Passage.

The British Navy, by the standards of the 18th century, was a relatively democratic institution: people who were far from power, wealth and noble blood could serve and rise to commanding heights there. In order not to go far for examples, one can recall Cook himself, the son of a Scottish farm laborer, who began his maritime biography as a cabin boy on a coal-burning brig.

However, one should not think that the system automatically selected the most worthy: the price for relative democracy “at the entrance” was the leading role of patronage. All the officers built networks of support, looked for loyal patrons in the team and in the Admiralty, earning a reputation for themselves. That is why the death of Cook and Clark meant that all contacts and agreements reached with the captains during the voyage went to dust.

Having reached Canton, the officers learned that the war with the rebellious colonies was in full swing, and all the ships were already completed. But before the disastrous (the Northwest Passage was not found, Cook died) geographical expedition, no one really cares. “The crew felt how much they would lose in rank and wealth, also deprived of the consolation that they were being led home by an old commander whose known merits could help the deeds of the last voyage be heard and appreciated even in those troubled times,” writes King in his journal (December 1779). In the 1780s, the war with Napoleon was still far away, and only a few were promoted. Many junior officers followed the example of midshipman James Trevenen and went to serve in the Russian fleet (which, we recall, fought against the Swedes and Turks in the 1780s).

Ship "Endeavor" (modern copy) in Sydney. Photo: Greg Wood / AFP

In this regard, it is curious that midshipmen and master's assistants, who were at the very beginning of their careers in the Navy, spoke out loudest of all against Williamson. They missed their luck (the war with the American colonies), and even a single vacancy was a valuable enough prize. The rank of Williamson (third assistant) did not yet give him much opportunity to avenge his accusers, and his trial would create an excellent opportunity to remove a competitor. Combined with a personal dislike of Williamson, this more than explains why he was reviled and called the main villain who killed Cook. Meanwhile, many senior members of the team (Bernie, although he was a close friend of Phillips, draftsman William Ellis, Resolution's first assistant John Gore, Discovery master Thomas Edgar) did not find anything reprehensible in Williamson's actions.

For approximately the same reasons (career future), in the end, part of the blame was shifted to Rickman: he was much older than most of the members of the wardroom, began serving as early as 1760, "missed" the start of the Seven Years' War and did not receive a promotion in 16 years. That is, he did not have strong patrons in the fleet, and his age did not allow him to make friends with a company of young officers. As a result, Rickman turned out to be almost the only member of the team who did not receive any more titles at all.

In addition, by attacking Williamson, many officers, of course, tried to avoid uncomfortable questions: on the morning of February 14, many of them were on the island or in boats and could act more proactively, having heard the shots, and retreat to the ships without trying to recapture the bodies of the dead as well looks suspicious. The future captain of the Bounty, William Bly (master on the Resolution), directly accused the Phillips Marines of fleeing the battlefield. The fact that 11 of the 17 Marines on the Resolution were subjected to corporal punishment during the voyage (on Cook's personal order) also makes one wonder how willing they were to sacrifice their lives for the captain.

"Landing at Tanna". Painting by William Hodges. One of the characteristic episodes of British contact with the inhabitants of Oceania.

But, one way or another, the authorities put an end to the proceedings: King and Clark made it clear that no one should be given to the tribunal. Most likely, even if the trial of Williamson did not take place thanks to the influential patrons of the ambitious Irishman (even his longtime foe Philips refused to testify against him at the Admiralty - under the far-fetched pretext that he had a bad personal relationship with the accused), the captains preferred to take the Solomonic decision .

None of the remaining living members of the team was to become a scapegoat, guilty of the tragic death of the great captain: circumstances were to blame, vile natives and (as read between the lines of memoirs) the arrogance and recklessness of Cook himself, who hoped almost single-handedly to take the local leader hostage . “There is good reason to believe that the natives would not have gone so far if, unfortunately, Captain Cook had not fired at them: a few minutes before this they began to clear the way for the soldiers so that the latter could reach that place on the shore , against which the boats stood (I already mentioned this), thus giving Captain Cook the opportunity to get away from them, ”the Clerk’s diaries say.

Now it becomes clearer why Clerk and Bernie saw such different scenes through their telescopes. This was determined by the place in the complex system of "checks and balances", the status hierarchy and the struggle for a place under the sun, which was going on board the ships of the scientific expedition. What prevented the Clerk from seeing (or talking about) the captain's death was not so much the "confused crowd" as the officer's desire to remain above the fray and ignore the evidence of the guilt of individual members of the team (many of whom were his protégés, and others were the protégés of his London superiors).

Cook observes human sacrifice in Tahiti (1773). Image: Wmpearl/Wikipedia

What is the meaning of what happened?

History is not just objective events that happened or didn't happen. We know about the past only from the stories of the participants in these events, stories that are often fragmentary, confused and contradict each other. However, one should not draw a conclusion from this about the fundamental incompatibility of individual points of view, which allegedly represent autonomous and incompatible pictures of the world. Scientists, if not able to authoritatively state how "it really was," can find probable causes, common interests, and other solid layers of reality behind the apparent chaos of "testimony."

This is what we tried to do - to unravel a little the network of motives, to discern the elements of the system that forced the team members to act, see and remember in this way and not otherwise.

Personal relationships, career interests. But there is another layer: the national-ethnic level. Cook's ships were a cross-section of imperial society: representatives of the peoples and, most importantly, regions, to varying degrees removed from the metropolis (London), sailed there, in which all the main issues were resolved and the process of "civilizing" the British took place. Cornish and Scots, natives of the American colonies and the West Indies, Northern England and Ireland, Germans and Welsh ... Their relationship during and after the voyage, the influence of prejudices and stereotypes on what is happening, scientists have yet to understand.

But history is not a criminal investigation either: the last thing I wanted to do was to finally identify the person responsible for the death of Captain Cook: be it the “coward” Williamson, the “uninitiative” sailors and marines on the shore, the “evil” natives, or the “arrogant” navigator himself.

It would be naive to consider Cook's team a detachment of science heroes, "white people" in identical uniforms. This is a complex system of personal and official relations, with its own crises and conflict situations, passions and prudent actions. And by chance this structure in dynamics explodes with an event. The death of Cook confused all the maps of the expedition members, but made them burst into passionate, emotional notes and memoirs, and thus shed light on relationships and patterns that, with a more favorable outcome of the voyage, would have remained in the darkness of obscurity.

But the death of Captain Cook can also be a useful lesson in the 21st century: often only similar emergency events (accident, death, explosion, escape, leak) can reveal the internal structure and modus operandi of secret (or at least not advertising their principles) organizations. , whether it be the crew of a submarine or the diplomatic corps.