Summary
This book compiles surviving accounts of Ferdinand Magellan's first circumnavigation, primarily from Antonio Pigafetta's chronicle, as no original manuscript exists. It argues that early exploration of the South Land (Australia) and surrounding regions was riddled with error, secrecy, and guesswork, as Spanish and Portuguese maps often showed no separation between New Guinea and "La Grande Jave." The text demonstrates how Portuguese sailors may have seen parts of Australia's coast by 1542, but the Dutch East India Company concealed discoveries for policy reasons, rendering them effectively useless. It contrasts this with later navigators like Tasman, who in 1642 discovered Tasmania and New Zealand but still joined New Guinea to the South Land on his chart. The book also examines Captain Cook's meticulous record-keeping, including his confiscation of crew journals and deposition of a full journal at the Admiralty, highlighting the shift toward accurate, undisguised documentation. A reader takes away a concrete understanding of how early cartographic confusion, political secrecy, and evolving navigational practices shaped the gradual, contested mapping of Australia and the Pacific.
Key concepts
- La Grande Jave — A term used on pre-1542 maps to denote a great southern land, often conflated with New Guinea and lacking clear separation from it.
- Jave La Grande — A variant name for the same conjectured landmass, appearing on maps like those presented by Jean Rotz to Henry VIII in 1542.
- Tasman's chart (1642) — A map by Abel Tasman that erroneously represented New Guinea as joined to the South Land (Australia), despite his discoveries of Tasmania and New Zealand.
- Cook's Journal copies — Three extant copies of Captain Cook's journal, with the Admiralty copy containing the narrative of the voyage's close, not found in the others.
- Onrust near Batavia — The location where Cook sent a copy of his journal with charts on October 25, 1770, after confiscating crew logs to prevent disclosure of their route.
Popular questions readers ask
- Rusden asserts his aim is to provide a "correct narrative." What specific criteria or methodologies does he present that, in his view, would make his account uniquely "correct," and what challenges might this claim pose to historical objectivity?
- The author highlights his unique access to "confidential letters" and personal experience "on the scene." How do these sources and perspectives, according to Rusden, deepen understanding of historical events beyond official records, and what potential biases might such intimate access introduce?
- Rusden differentiates between the "authentic information" of official reports and the "opinions" requiring knowledge of writers' characters. Explain how this distinction might guide an historian's interpretation, and where the boundary between "fact" and "opinion" could become ambiguous even within "authentic" sources.
- Given that Rusden is writing while the "actors" of colonization are "rapidly passing away," what advantages and disadvantages does this temporal proximity offer his historical account, particularly concerning the judgment of what constitutes a "momentous" event?
- Rusden implies that only those "who have moved upon the scene" can truly grasp "how men's minds were disturbed." How would you explain the strengths and limitations of this assertion as a principle for historical inquiry, and what alternative methods might complement or challenge this claim today?