THE ‘CONSPIRACY’ DELIVERS A COMPREHENSIVE VERDICT

THE VERDICT
‘Conspiracy on the Bounty’ tables a great deal more on Bligh, Christian, and the Bounty than was ever published, indeed was ever known before. Without heading into a labyrinth of critiques let us compare the verdicts of five recognized works:

1. Caroline Alexander’s exhaustive ‘The Bounty’ is a well-written 450-page book of what’s already been said. Her only conclusion of what caused the mutiny is an oversimplification to say the least: “The seductions of Tahiti, Bligh’s harsh tongue – perhaps. But more compellingly, a night of drinking and a poor man’s pride, a low moment on one grey dawn, a momentary and fatal slip in a gentleman’s code of discipline – and then the rush of consequences to be lived out for a lifetime.” That’s the verdict in full. The root cause here is pride and passion underscored by Christian’s alcoholic depression: any expectation of a revelation is unapologetically squashed.

2. In ‘Fragile Paradise’ – a book to which Alexander had recourse – Glynn Christian came a bit closer to the facts: “The mutiny aboard Bounty on 28 April 1789 was the revolt of one man against another, Fletcher Christian against William Bligh. It was their relationship which caused the mutiny and, on balance of the evidence of the men who were aboard Bounty – the only men we should heed – it was Bligh’s treatment of Christian which drove Christian to it.” Here the underlying causation is singular and literal — the devil made me do it.

3. In ‘Studia Bountyana’, Madge Darby concluded that only fear of being accused of an “unnatural and detestable Sin”, could account for Christian betraying his trust as officer of the watch; thus he led a group to mutiny and became a hunted criminal in the process. Darby’s greatly Freudian homosexual theory is a meaningful, scholarly, welcome departure from other more clichéd theories, but not strong enough to stand alone as the sole cause, and falls down through lack of evidence. Whatever Christian’s motive to mutiny, Darby was correct about this much; “although the mutiny was erratically executed, it was very skilfully planned.”

4. In ‘What happened on the Bounty’, Bengt Danielsson viewed the mutiny as being entirely unplanned: Christian had acted on impulse and the mutiny was so badly organized, it was the worst ever recorded in the British Navy. Was Danielsson suggesting that even a mutiny should be conducted with navy-like stricture? He did, however, believe that for the majority of the men who took part, their rebelliousness was more a sign of class struggle: “A revolt of the oppressed, neglected, poverty-stricken and homeless seamen against a privileged and overbearing gentlemen-class, the chief representative of which in their eyes was Captain Bligh.”

5. In ‘The Life of Vice-Admiral William Bligh’ it should come with little surprise that Bligh’s biographer and staunch proponent, George Mackaness, generally agreed with Bligh’s stated cause that there was a conspiracy to mutiny to enable the sailors to return to their dusky damsels at Tahiti. In attempting to uphold Bligh’s status as a popular hero, Mackaness’s only censure was to add that in “neglecting no part of his own duty, was undoubtedly over-exacting and overbearing in his requirements.”

The paucity of these verdicts indicates how nothing truly new was added to make more informed judgments from. Arising out of non-scientific representations of Bligh and his cargo of breadfruits, and a lack of appreciation of strategic purposes behind Bligh’s breadfruit Commission/s, has led researchers down this impasse. The ‘Conspiracy’ follows a very different, more telling trail and delivers a convincing and far more comprehensive verdict.

**********