Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
were completely informed of our situation, thanks to the official letters I sent to you with a secure
messenger.
Webeganourdepartureonthe30thofMayatmidday,andinspiteofthegreatdifficultiesthatwere
easilyforeseen,andthedelays,wewereexcited.Mycommission,asIcommunicatedatthetime,was
reduced by circumstances to just fourteen men (the head of the mission, a helper, the doctor, one ser-
geant, six soldiers, and four workers), while that of Peru, which was complete, included among its
officers twenty-one men, not counting the laborers. This disparity seemed to me without importance.
The relations between the two commissions seemed very cordial: we had traveled out in total har-
mony, and thanks to this circumstance, we expected a successful journey, no matter how daunting it
might first have seemed.
Only on one point was there frank disagreement, the crossing of the varadouros . This culmination
of all our efforts was, even in Manaus, deemed impossible by the Peruvians. Better informed than
I by the patricians of the Ucayali and Upper Purús, Sr. Buenaño had for several months expounded
on the serious obstacles that would require that we turn back. It was an impressive inventory ranging
from the perils of the rapids and cataracts and the impassable routes to the fierceness of the indom-
itable Campa Indians. These future impediments took on such menacing contours that on the eve of
our departure he launched the idea of a memorandum signed beforehand by the two head officers.
By explaining the countless hazards and obstacles, this memo could explicate and attenuate the im-
plications of the inevitable retreat. I confess that in the beginning I was frankly in favor of this idea,
but I rejected it later—I rejected it precisely when we came together to work out the memorandum.
I explained my attitude, declaring to the head Peruvian officer ( comisário ) and the other colleagues
who were present that even though well intentioned, our memo could inspire negative and prejudicial
commentswhosemotivesandrepercussionswecouldnotforesee.IdonotregretwhatIdid.Unfortu-
nately,the incident seems to have displeased that officer (Buenaño), whomade constant references to
it, making clear his disappointment in veiled commentary. And always insisting on the impossibility
of reaching and crossing the varadouros , so that as we left the confluence of the Chandless, this was
the single source of discouragement.
Butweadvanced,engaginginourhydrographicworkwiththeLugeonlensformonitoringdistance
and the compass for direction. This process implied obligatory stops that we could carry out for only
a brief time—at the end of three days we had to abandon it because it implied a pace—three or four
miles a day—completely at odds with the length of our trip. The accuracy of the instruments them-
selvescouldnotjustifysuchadelay.Bymutualagreement, whichwashowwealwaysproceeded,we
changed the procedure—instead of using the distances provided by the lens, we measured instead the
speed of the canoes, calibrating the rate by direct measurement of the beaches that we moved along.
As Your Excellency will see, this method produced admirable results, far superior to the rough char-
acter of the technique.
We thus continued along in relative harmony, to which I contributed more than my colleague (Sr.
Buenaño)becauseImadetheconstantsacrificeoflisteningtohisendlesscomplaintsandbittergriev-
ances that alluded to our military successes in this zone in the period 1903-4. I tolerated them not
onlyoutofrespectforthoseforwhomhemournedbutalsosoasnottodisruptordestroysomuchef-
fort through an argument whose consequences could lead to a frank rupture. To avoid this at all costs
was for me a major consideration, and this stance, where I felt that even the slightest reference could
not be disputed, indicates very clearly that I carried this posture to its maximum limits, to the point
where I really had consider my own self-respect.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search