by Dan Simmons
Uncoiling the different strands of rope over my shoulder, I now play out the shortest one. We all tie on at the waist, only about 20 feet separating us. There is no discussion of order. Jean-Claude goes first—he is strongest on snow and ice but also brilliant on sheer rock slabs such as we’re going to encounter in a minute—then I go second, the least experienced climber here but very strong with my arms, and finally the Deacon. The Deacon as sheet anchor. The Deacon as third man on the rope, responsible for belaying both Jean-Claude and me if we fall…a belay on this treacherous rock that would be beyond the abilities of almost any man on earth, as well as almost certainly far beyond the snapping point of our thin hemp rope.
But the brotherhood of the rope gives a strong sense of security even when the rope is thin to the point of being little more than a metaphor. And so does the fact of Richard Davis Deacon as our anchorman on the rope. We go over the Swiss edge of the summit and begin our descent.
When not placing my feet most carefully on the wet and downward-sloping narrow slabs, I notice that there are old fixed ropes and one metal cable hanging or pitoned in further away from the edge of the face: a few of the ropes strung by solicitous guides this summer; most of the others many years old and quickly turning to powder due to age, winter weather, and high-altitude sunlight hastening the chemical and physical processes of their own slow, certain disintegration. “Clients”—tourists to these high peaks, strangers to the way of rock, ice, rope, and sky—tie on to these fixed ropes, some using them for a quick rappel down this almost vertical and disturbingly exposed “bad bit” of the mountain, but while one rope might hold you in such a rappel, the one next to it might snap immediately and send you hurtling thousands of feet to the boulders and crevasses of the glacier below.
It’s almost impossible to tell, just by looking, which hemp ropes are new and reliable and which are ancient, rotten, and certain death to clip on to. That’s what guides are for.
The three of us stay clear of all the ropes as we descend, Jean-Claude angling us closer to the edge of the face, where rockfalls and small snow avalanches are more frequent, even in June. He is trading the slight chance of rockfall or avalanche during the minutes we’re on this part of the face for the definite advantage of more solid footing closer to the ridge.
But why come this way? Why reproduce the last steps of doomed Lord Francis Douglas and the other members of Edward Whymper’s summit party from July 14, 1865?
Most people even mildly interested in mountain climbing know that there are more serious accidents during the descent stages of a climb than during the ascent, but what they might not know is that a climber has a different relationship to the mountain, especially while climbing on rock, during each of the ascent/descent stages. Climbing up the mountain, the climber is leaning into the rock face, body intimately spread out against the rock, cheek touching rock, fingers groping for any ledge or handhold in the rock, the climber’s entire body seeking out even the smallest ledges, fissures, wedges, overhangs, slabs—it’s like making love to the mountain. During the descent stage, it’s usually more common for the climber to be facing outward, thus making it easier for the climber to see the tiny ledges and footholds in the yards and meters beneath and beside him; that way the climber’s back is against the rock, his face turned toward (and attention now on) the drop beneath him, much of the view now being the empty sky and beckoning void rather than the very solid and reassuring rock or snow mass.
So descending a mountain is almost always more frightening for the novice climber and more demanding of full attention for even the most experienced climber. Descents claim more lives than the mere climbing of a mountain. But even as I’m taking care to set my feet and hands and following J.C., even as I’m wondering why the Deacon seems to have suggested this particular death route that claimed more than half of Whymper’s party, much of my mind keeps turning over the question Why didn’t the Deacon ask me if I’d be willing to climb Mount Everest?
Of course, it would have been a silly and useless question: I have no money to join one of the Alpine Club’s Himalayan expeditions. (In a real sense, it is a sporting club for men of means, and I’ve already spent most of the modest inheritance I received when I turned twenty-one so that I could come to Europe to climb.) And it is the British Alpine Club—they don’t invite Americans along. British climbers and their Old Boy establishment consider Mount Everest—named for a British cartographer by a British surveyor—an English hill. They’d never invite an American, no matter how skilled he might be.
What’s more, I simply didn’t have the experience required for those heroes who attempt Everest. I had done a good deal of climbing during my years at Harvard—more climbing than studying, to be honest, including three small summer expeditions to Alaska—but that and my months here with Jean-Claude and the Deacon weren’t enough experience or training in advanced techniques to take on the tallest and perhaps fiercest unclimbed mountain in the world. I mean, George Leigh Mallory had just died on Everest, for God’s sake, and it might well have been his wonderfully physically fit but young and relatively novice high-climbing partner, Andrew “Sandy” Irvine, who’d fallen and pulled Mallory with him to his death.
And finally, I admit to myself as we edge another few meters lower, the rope connecting the three of us always properly a little slack, I don’t believe, when push comes to shove, that I have the nerve to go try Everest, even if the Alpine Club should suddenly decide to invite an underskilled and anxious impoverished Yank to accompany their next Everest expedition. (And I know there will be another expedition. Once the Brits get their teeth into some huge heroic expedition challenge, they simply don’t give up, even when their heroes—Robert Falcon Scott, George Mallory—die in the attempt. Stubborn people, those Englishmen.)
But suddenly Jean-Claude and I are at the precise point where four members of Whymper’s first successful summit party fell to their terrible deaths.
I have to interrupt my own narrative here to say that I know it seems strange that I am suddenly going to describe an accident that happened in July of 1865, 60 years previous to the adventure I hope to tell you of that took place in 1925. But as you’ll see, at least one of the seemingly irrelevant details of that tragedy of the Whymper party’s first successful ascent of the Matterhorn became the improbable element which allowed the very unofficial and almost totally unreported Deacon-Clairoux-Perry Himalayan Expedition of 1925.
The Whymper party had climbed the mountain roped together—all seven of them—but for some reason, they began the descent in two roped groups. Perhaps Edward Whymper’s group and the excellent guide Michel Croz’s were impeded by their giddiness and fatigue. On the first rope of four men, Croz—the best climber of them all—went first, followed by the true amateur, Douglas’s friend Hadow, then the fairly experienced mountaineer Hudson, and finally the 18-year-old gifted amateur climber, Lord Francis Douglas.
The three remaining men—still standing at the extreme Swiss edge of the summit as their fellows began to descend—then roped up together: first “Old Peter” Taugwalder, then “Young Peter” Taugwalder, and finally Edward Whymper. Two mediocre guides and one excellent climber. Thus the descending victorious summit party consisted of four British climbers—one a professional, one a gifted amateur, and two pure amateurs—two only moderately competent Valaisans (the Taugwalders), and one truly gifted Savoyard, Michel Croz. By all logic, the supremely experienced guide Croz should have led the expedition—making decisions as well as leading the way—but although he was in the lead of the descent through the “treacherous bit” above the sheer overhang, it was still Whymper who commanded the expedition. And Croz had his hands full; although Hudson was a great help, occasionally steadying or even physically setting the following Lord Francis Douglas’s feet on the proper niches and holds, Croz was doing the same to the more anxious and infinitely less physically capable Hadow for every step of this difficult descent. And Croz had to do this while finding the best and safe
st route down and then right to the easier summit ridge.
And so the seven descended the “treacherous bit” between the summit and the curving overhang which Jean-Claude, Deacon, and I had just come down.
But just above the spot where we now stood—the fatal spot, as it were—Lord Francis Douglas, the youngest among them, had the courage and brains to suggest that they all rope up and descend together, one team, just as they’d successfully ascended the mountain. I don’t know why Whymper or Croz had not suggested it earlier.
In point of fact, it offered almost no additional safety. This “treacherous bit” of the Matterhorn descent below the summit and above the wave-cresting overhang is difficult now in 1924 with fixed ropes, clear routes established, and a majority of the loose rock long since kicked free of the mountain by climbers. In Whymper’s day, the “treacherous bit” was even more treacherous, especially in terms of “objective danger” such as rockfall, but the greatest danger here—then and now—is that while the niches, fingerholds, and footholds are tiny and hard to find, the projecting boulders and flat areas where a man can brace himself for a belay are all but nonexistent.
So while the seven climbers, especially the amateurs, felt much more confident now that Whymper and the two Taugwalder guides were tied to their rope—by a totally inadequate rope connecting Old Peter and Lord Francis Douglas, it was discovered later—the new arrangement really didn’t offer much, if any, additional safety.
And then it all happened at once. Despite a legal inquest in Zermatt which questioned all the principals just days after the event, despite later articles and newspaper stories and books by Whymper and all the other survivors, and despite a thousand newspaper stories about the event, no one is completely sure what happened and in which sequence.
It seems most probable that the rankest amateur, the 19-year-old Douglas Hadow, missed his step—even with Croz’s guiding hands—and fell, hitting Croz hard and pulling the guide off his own perch. The combined weight of the suddenly plummeting Croz and Hadow must have plucked the more experienced Reverend Charles Hudson and the amazed Lord Francis Douglas off their tiny footholds in less than a second. In almost an instant, four of the seven roped men were bouncing and sliding toward their deaths.
The remaining three on the rope—“Old Peter” Taugwalder, still connected to Lord Francis Douglas and the other falling men by a cheap piece of rope, then “Young Peter,” then Edward Whymper himself—acted immediately out of instinct and years of experience.
Old Peter was the only one who had any real chance of stopping the fall by a strong belay. He had a good, comparatively broad foothold. More than that, he was standing below one of the very few rock outcroppings on this entire “treacherous bit” of descent, and he’d looped the climbing rope around it without even thinking about it. Above him, Young Peter and Whymper grabbed what rock they could with one hand and braced themselves for a desperate belay with their other hands on the rope.
The rope went as taut as an arrow in flight. The physical shock of impact from four falling and constantly accelerating human bodies on the three braced men—especially on Old Peter—was terrible. The rope whipped through Old Peter’s hands, leaving a terrible sear that remained for many weeks. (In his guilt and dismay, Old Peter would show anyone who would look his scarred hand.)
But despite the loop around the small outcropping above Old Peter—or perhaps because of it—the rope snapped in midair. Much later, Edward Whymper told a reporter that he had perfectly remembered the terrible sound of that snapping for twenty-five years and would until the moment of his own death.
In his book Whymper wrote:
For a few seconds, we saw our unfortunate companions sliding downwards on their backs, and spreading out their hands, endeavouring to save themselves. They passed from our sight uninjured, disappeared one by one, and fell from precipice to precipice on the Matterhorn-gletscher below, a distance of nearly 4,000 feet in height.
It takes a while for men to fall almost a mile. Luckily—if that’s the word—they are almost always dead and largely dismembered long before they reach the bottom. Many was the time that I’d heard climbers—both in the States and in Europe—describe the horrors of slowly descending for hours after a comrade or comrades had fallen. It was not pristine. Each described following intermittent trails, on rock and snow and ice, of blood—so very much blood—and shattered ice axes and shredded, bloody clothing and boots, and, always, fragments of rended body parts.
Whymper and the Taugwalders’ route—when they finally worked up the nerve to begin moving again, which was up to half an hour after their friends’ fall, according to Whymper (who blamed the blubbering, terrified Taugwalders for the delay)—was on the slab-stepped ridge itself. From that angle they had a clear view of the bloody path of their friends’ violent descent—bodies bouncing from boulder to boulder, ricocheting from precipice to precipice—down the sheer north face of the Matterhorn onto the unyielding ice of the Matterhorn Glacier.
In the end, it took Whymper more than two days to urge, cajole, threaten, bribe, and shame the Zermatt guides to climb back up to that glacier to “retrieve the bodies.” The local guides—members all of a strong guides’ trade union—obviously knew better than the gifted amateur British climber what “bodies” would consist of after such a fall. The guides also had a much better appreciation of what Whymper was calling “a simple climb to the base of the mountain.” The climb to the glacier at the base of the north face of the Matterhorn was a dangerous proposition—in some ways as dangerous as climbing the mountain—with hidden crevasses, seracs that could collapse at any time, unstable pinnacles and leaning towers of old ice, and a maze of ice boulders in which men could, and usually did, get lost for hours or days.
But eventually Whymper got his volunteers—paid “volunteers” in the case of most of the guides who grudgingly agreed to go on Monday (on Sunday they all had to stay in Zermatt for Mass)—and eventually they found the bodies.
Whymper later admitted that he’d fully hoped, through some miracle of soft snow and lucky sliding for almost a vertical mile, that he would find one or more of his climbing partners alive.
Not even close.
What was left of the three corpses was scattered on the ice and rock at the base of the north face. Rocks were falling all around the “rescuers” almost the entire time they were there, but when the guides fled for cover, Whymper and other Englishmen who’d joined him held their ground. Or, to be specific, the Brits stupidly and stubbornly held their spot on the glacier, with rocks and boulders slamming down all around like cold meteors.
At first no one, not even Whymper, could distinguish the bits of one corpse from another. But then the Englishman was able to identify his guide and friend Michel Croz by a bit of his beard. Croz’s arms and legs had been torn off, as well as most of his skull, but a fragment of his lower jaw remained, and the beard there was the color of Croz’s beard. One of the guides who returned when the rockfall let up, an old friend of Michel Croz’s, identified scars on a shattered forearm lying many yards away and a hand atop an ice boulder with more scars that Croz’s friend well remembered.
Oddly enough, there were slight tatters of trousers left around Croz’s dismembered trunk, and six gold coins had stayed in the pocket during his entire descent.
Someone noticed that Croz’s crucifix—without which he never climbed—had dug itself deep into the surviving fragment of the guide’s lower jaw, embedding itself as deep and solidly as a cross-shaped bullet. One of the men, Robertson, clicked open his penknife and dug it out, thinking that Croz’s family might want it.
Hudson’s remains were identified only by his wallet, and by a letter from his wife that had completed the descent with him when his arms, legs, and head had not. Whymper found one of Hudson’s gloves and, wandering wider on the bloodied glacier, picked up a broad-brimmed English sunhat that he, Whymper, had only recently given Croz.
The majority of Hadow’s remains were scat
tered between those of Croz and Hudson.
As the guides ran for shelter during another rock avalanche, Whymper stood by the bodies and noticed for the first time that the rope was still attached between what was left of the torsos of Croz and Hadow, and also between Hadow and Hudson.
There was no body of Lord Francis Douglas. Some records say that the men that day found one of Douglas’s boots—no human foot inside—while others say that it was a belt that Whymper had noticed Douglas wearing during the ascent. Another story says that it was a single glove.
Whymper’s realization at that moment was that the first three men had been secured by one of the thicker, more solid ropes, while Old Peter Taugwalder had tied Douglas to himself by a much thinner, lighter rope, not often used for roping the actual climbers. There was no doubt in Whymper’s mind at that moment that Old Peter had deliberately used a less secure rope in case the first four men should fall. In later years, the famous British climber came close to accusing the old guide of this in plain words and print.
In truth, though, all the ropes—even the thinner one Old Peter Taugwalder had around his shoulder when it came time to tie Lord Francis Douglas on to the common rope connecting all seven of them—had been used without any thought or undue concern as connecting ropes between the climbers during the descent that day and on many others. Edward Whymper simply didn’t concern himself with relative rope thicknesses, tensile strengths, and the mathematics of breaking points in different diameters and makes of rope until after the tragedy on his day of triumph on the Matterhorn.
No one ever did find the remains of 18-year-old Francis Douglas, and this fact gave rise to an odd little footnote to the tragedy.