Explore the vast range of titles available.

By uncovering new sources of research and applying innovative analysis, Reassessing the Rogue Tory challenges standard interpretations of Canadian foreign policy during the controversial Diefenbaker years.

By the 1850s, journalists and readers alike perceived Britain's search for the Northwest Passage as an ongoing story in the literary sense. Because this 'story' appeared, like so many nineteenth-century novels, in a series of installments in periodicals and reviews, it gained an appeal similar to that of fiction.Tracing the Connected Narrativeexamines written representations of nineteenth-century British expeditions to the Canadian Arctic. It places Arctic narratives in the broader context of the print culture of their time, especially periodical literature, which played an important role in shaping the public's understanding of Arctic exploration. Janice Cavell uncovers similarities between the presentation of exploration reports in periodicals and the serialized fiction that, she argues, predisposed readers to take an interest in the prolonged quest for the Northwest Passage. Cavell examines the same parallel in relation to the famous disappearance and subsequent search for the Franklin expedition. After the fate of Sir John Franklin had finally been revealed, theIllustrated London Newsprinted a list of earlier articles on the missing expedition, suggesting that the public might wish to re-read them in order to 'trace the connected narrative' of this chapter in the Arctic story. Through extensive research and reference to new archival material, Cavell undertakes this task and, in the process, recaptures and examines the experience of nineteenth-century readers.

In 1855 a parliamentary committee concluded that Robert McClure deserved to be rewarded as the discoverer of a Northwest Passage. Since then, various writers have put forward rival claims on behalf of Sir John Franklin, John Rae, and Roald Amundsen. This article examines the process of 19th-century European exploration in the Arctic Archipelago, the definition of discovering a passage that prevailed at the time, and the arguments for and against the various contenders. It concludes that while no one explorer was \"the\" discoverer, McClure's achievement deserves reconsideration. En 1855, un comité parlementaire a conclu que Robert McClure méritait de recevoir le titre de découvreur d'un passage du Nord-Ouest. Depuis lors, diverses personnes ont avancé des prétentions rivales à l'endroit de Sir John Franklin, de John Rae et de Roald Amundsen. Cet article se penche sur l'exploration européenne de l'archipel Arctique au XIXe siècle, sur la définition de la découverte d'un passage en vigueur à l'époque, de même que sur les arguments pour et contre les divers prétendants au titre. Nous concluons en affirmant que même si aucun des explorateurs n'a été « le » découvreur, les réalisations de Robert McClure méritent d'être considérées de nouveau.

Although European discovery in the Arctic began during the Middle Ages, sovereignty issues did not become a major concern until the early twentieth century. At that time, the controversial sector theory was taken up by Canada, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, but opposed by the United States and Norway. This article examines the sector theory in Canadian state practice, clarifying the version of the theory to which Canadian officials subscribed and the aims they hoped to achieve through its use. The international response to Canadian claims is also described. The article demonstrates that Canadian use of the sector principle during the 1920s was pragmatic and successful, but in later decades, confusion arose both inside and outside the government. Inconsistent public statements were made by government representatives in the 1950s and 1960s; these have puzzled and misled scholars ever since. Differences between the Canadian and Soviet versions of the sector theory, lack of adequate institutional memory in Ottawa, and partisan political rivalries all played a part in creating the confusion, but perhaps the key factor was the inherent difficulty of state control over this remote yet geopolitically crucial region.

It has become common for scholars to understand the Arctic framing narrative of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein as a commentary on the northern expeditions sent out by the British Admiralty after the Napoleonic Wars. According to this view, the character Robert Walton is a surrogate for John Barrow, the principal organizer of the Admiralty expeditions. This article demonstrates that chronological factors make such an interpretation untenable. Yet the process through which the far North became the setting for Frankenstein's opening and closing scenes is of great importance for understanding the evolution of the novel into its final complex form and with regard to broader considerations about the Arctic's place in Romantic literary culture. The article suggests other sources for the Arctic frame, most notably the 1815 plan by whaler William Scoresby for a sledge expedition toward the North Pole. Although Scoresby's lecture was not published until 1818, reports appeared in newspapers and periodicals soon after the lecture was given. There is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that Mary Shelley read these reports. By tracing the likely influence of Scoresby and other Arctic writers on Frankenstein, the article both sheds new light on the novel itself and demonstrates the extent of the Arctic's presence in European culture even before the famous Admiralty expeditions. Pour bien des érudits, la description narrative du cadre de l'Arctique faite par Mary Shelley dans son ouvrage Frankenstein fait figure de commentaire sur les expéditions nordiques organisées par l'Amirauté britannique après les guerres de Napoléon. D'après cette perspective, le personnage, Robert Walton, se veut le substitut de John Barrow, principal organisateur des expéditions de l'Amirauté. Le présent article montre que les facteurs chronologiques ne permettent pas de soutenir cette interprétation. Pourtant, la manière dont le Grand Nord est devenu la scène d'ouverture et de clôture de Frankenstein revêt une grande importance pour nous aider à comprendre l'évolution du roman dans sa forme complexe finale, à l'égard des considérations plus vastes quant à la place qu'occupe l'Arctique dans la culture littéraire romantique. Cet article suggère l'existence d'autres sources pour le cadre de l'Arctique, notamment le plan conçu par le baleinier William Scoresby en 1815 pour une expédition en traîneau vers le pôle Nord. Bien que l'exposé de William Scoresby n'ait été publié qu'en 1818, des reportages ont paru dans les journaux et les périodiques peu après la tenue de l'exposé. Il existe de fortes preuves circonstancielles suggérant que Mary Shelley avait lu ces reportages. En faisant le lien entre l'influence vraisemblable exercée sur Frankenstein par William Scoresby et d'autres auteurs sur l'Arctique, cet article jette une nouvelle lumière sur le roman même et montre l'étendue de la présence de l'Arctique dans la culture européenne avant l'avènement des célèbres expéditions de l'Amirauté.

The 1819–1822 overland Arctic expedition led by John Franklin was one of the most disastrous in polar history. In 1821, 20 men travelled to the Arctic Ocean by way of the Coppermine River; only nine of them survived. John Richardson's expedition journal, as published by C. Stuart Houston in 1984, is incomplete. There are no entries between 7 and 29 October 1821, even though five of the 11 deaths (some or possibly all of them by murder) occurred during this critical period. The omission of these events from the journal on which Houston's edition was based has raised suspicions that the account published in Franklin's 1823 narrative may be inaccurate. This article prints the ‘missing’ journal entries, which were located in the files of the Colonial Office, and analyses the differences between these previously unknown entries and the 1823 account.