|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
As you might imagine, I was very happy with Jack and Sophie. First they were incoherent, enraptured, interrupted by kisses. I love the image of them holding hands across the table, in silence, just looking at each other. I think they have finally become the "buddies" that Jack has always wanted them to be.
Have they just gotten used to each other? Or does Sophie have more confidence, coming out of her shell, since she is the one running the family and protecting them from Kimber - maybe they are more nearly peers?
Linda
One of my favorite scenes in the canon is Jack moving through the silent house. The way POB conveys how unsettling this is to Jack. "...he was not an imaginative man, yet it was as though he had returned from the dead only to find still, sunlit death waiting for him."
And then the reunion:
"His own room, and there was Sophie sitting at his desk with a sea of papers in front of her; and in the second before she looked up from her sum he saw that her face was sad, worried, thinner than before.
Radiant joy, a delight as great as his own - innumerable question, almost all unanswered, incoherent fragmentary accounts on either side, interrupted by kisses, exclamations, enraptured or amazed."
Absolute genius. That scene alone would hook me on POB.
Greg
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, at 07:06:19 -0400, Greg White wrote:
One of my favorite scenes in the canon is Jack moving through the silent house.
And this brings to mind one of my favorite scenes, Stephen in "Post Captain" moving through the empty house recently vacated by Diana: "Silence; anonymous perfection; unstirring air - never a waft or a movement; silence. The smell of bare boards. A tallboy with its face turned to the wall. In her room the same trim bare sterility; even the looking-glass was shrouded. It was not so much severe, for the grey light was too soft, as meaningless. There was no waiting in this silence, no tension of any kind:the creaking of the boards under his feet contained no threat, no sort of passion: he could have leapt or shrieked without affecting the inhuman vacuum of sense. It was as meaningless as total death, a skull in a dim thicket, the future gone, its past wiped out. "
Bob Kegel
46°59'18.661"N 123°49'29.827"W
I believe it is the 10th and therefore fair to open discussion of The Surgeon's Mate. As I have yet to post my several observations on FOW (they're coming by the mail coach and should be here by tomorrow) I will begin with just this simple linguistic question:
Seamanlike?
Norton p. 11
[The Admiral, visiting the triumphant Shannon asks the lieutenant on duty:]
"Where is Mr. Watt?" referring to the first lieutenant, once a midshipman of
his.
"Dead sir," said Wallis.
"Dead," said the Admiral looking down. "I am most heartily sorry for it -- a
fine seamanlike officer."
Seamanlike.
A common (in this context!), simple adjective.
We immediately understand it to be high praise, to, I think, indicate bottom
& reliability among other solid characteristics. Here it is intended as very
high praise.
But what really is meant by it? Wouldn't it seem redundant to call a ship's
officer "seamanlike," being that he's a seaman? Isn't it odd to praise him
by comparing him to a common seaman ("a good man, so like the foremast
hands") if that's where the term is nodding?
Aari, musing
I take it as a compliment of his seamanship abilities. Officers were expected to be Gentlemen and leaders. Good seamanship skills were desirable, but some officers did not have them, particularly those who had seen rapid promotion through patronage. The warrant rank of sailing master was left over from the earlier years of the navy, when the commissioned officers were not expected to be accomplished navigators. With a good First Lt. and set of experienced warrant officers to run the ship, a captain did not have to be a good seaman to be successful. At least one of Nelson's "Band of Brothers" remarked that for all of his brilliance as an Admiral, Nelson was no seaman.
Don Seltzer
doesn't the story go that he carried a note in his pocket that said "Port is Left !"
Blatherin' John B
Speaking of which...
Does anyone know when the transition from "larboard" to "port", happened? It seems to me I recall seeing "port" used once or twice in the canon, although "larboard" is, by far, more common.
Norm
At 11:09 AM -0700 4/11/2002, Norm wrote:
Speaking of which... Does anyone know when the transition from "larboard" to "port", happened?
Because of the possible confusion between the similarly sounding Larboard and Starboard, "Port" was used as a command for the helmsman as early as the 1600's. So, although Jack would refer to the larboard watch and larboard side of the ship, he would command the helmsman to "Port the helm".
By the mid-19th century, the RN officially declared that Port was to replace Larboard in all uses.
Don Seltzer
Not connected, but I saw here some time ago that the term POSH meant (P)ort (O)utward bound, (S)tarboard ,(H)omeward. the interpretation was that that side was the most comfortable .
Blatherin' John B
In a message dated 4/11/02 1:10:11 PM, norm@SAGATECH.COM writes:
Speaking of which... Does anyone know when the transition from "larboard" to "port", happened?
I don't know the answer, Norm, but I'm about 95% certain that there has been a looong discussion about this, as well as some discussion about the origin of the terms, in the last two or three years. You might find a look in the archives to be of some help. It seems to me that both Anthony Clover and John Harland offered interesting details, though at the time I still thought port was something to drink and larboard was some kind of Norwegian bread, and therefore didn't follow it very well.
Rowen
www.Snopes.com comment on POSH (it was actually buried in the long discussion of where 'fuck' originated).
'Acronymic explanations catch our fancy due to the "hidden knowledge" factor. Most of us feel a bit of a glow when we think we're in possession of information others aren't privy to, and when a titillating or apt story is thrown in behind the trivia, these things just take off. "Tips" does not come from "To insure prompt service," yet that canard is widely believed. Likewise, "golf" didn't spring to life out of "Gentlemen only; ladies forbidden," and "posh" did not take its place in our vocabulary from a shortening of "Port out; starboard home." '
AFU talks about 'posh' in more detail:
http://www.urbanlegends.com/language/etymology/posh_etymology_of.html:
'This re-emergence of POSH has caused me to dig into one of the best books (IMNSHO) on the etymology of words, The Browser's Dictionary by John Ciardi.
I quote (of course without permission):
---
posh Swanky. Deluxe. [A direct borrowing of the form but not the sense of Romany 'posh', half. Brit. Gypsies commonly, if warily, worked with Brit. rogues. 'Shiv', Romany for "knife," came into Eng. through this association. Similarly 'rum go' is at root 'Rom go', "a Gypsy thing," hence a queer thing. Brit. rogues came to know posh in such compounds as 'posh-houri,' half pence, and 'posh-kooroona,' half crown, so associating it with money, and from XVII to mid XIX 'posh' meant "money" in thieve's cant, the sense then shifting to "swank, fashionable, expensive" ("the good things money can buy")]
NOTE. A pervasive folk etymology renders the term as an acronym of p(ort) o(out), s(tarboard) h(ome), with ref. to the ideal accomodations on the passage to India by way of the Suez Canal, a packet service provided by the Peninsula and Eastern steamship line. The acronym is said to explain the right placement of one's stateroom for being on the shady or the lee side of the ship. On the east-west passage it is true, the ship being north of the sun, that the acronym will locate the shady side (though time of year will make a substantial difference). The lee side, however, is determined by the monsoon winds, and since they blow into the Asian heartland all summer and out all winter, only the season can determine which side will be sheltered. The earlier dating of 'posh' as glossed above sufficently refutes the ingenious (but too late) acronymic invention. And as a clincher, veterans of the Peninsula and Eastern, questioned about the term, replied that they had never heard it in the acronymic sense. --- '
Larry
On 4/10/2002, at 4:59 PM -0400, Aari Ludvigsen wrote:
Wouldn't it seem redundant to call a ship's officer "seamanlike," being that he's a seaman?
An officer's commission did not make one a seaman. The Canon is replete with characters described, with pity or contempt, as "he was no seaman." No seaman myself, I have a hard time defining what makes a one. I offer this passage from "The Letter of Marque" describing the selection process for crewman of Surprise: "They had to lay aloft, timed by a log-glass, loose and furl a topgallant sail, then traverse and point a great gun, fire a musket at a bottle hanging from the foreyardarm, and tie a crowned double wall-knot before the eyes of a crowd of thorough-going seamen."
Bob Kegel
46°59'18.661"N 123°49'29.827"W
If I'm not confusing FOW with SM, Stephen, Jack and Diana are on the packet ship back home, and Diana is seasick.
Jack reflects that he hasn't been seasick in 30 years or so.
But I distinctly remember reading recently (DI, or FOW) that Jack stepped to the leeward rail and 'heaved a biscuit and maderia with practised ease' or something like that. The way I read that passage (which I don't have at hand right now), Jack had consumed said maderia and biscuit, and was vomiting.
While certainly not incapacitated like some who are afflicted with seasickness, I certainly wouldn't call this 'never being seasick'
Does anyone else remember this passage?
--
David V. Phillips sasdvp@unx.sas.com SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room.
RKBA! DVC 35* 46' 33.024" N 078* 48' 48.161.89"
Ah, but you must remember that most people's memory of prior instances of seasickness is very poor, especially when describing sea voyages to others after the fact. Jeremy K. Jeremy discussed this amazing phenomenon at length in "Three Men in a Boat (not to mention the dog)," possibly the funniest book ever written in the English language.
Larry
--
Larry Finch
::finches@bellatlantic.net larry@prolifics.com
::LarryFinch@aol.com (whew!)
N 40° 53' 47"
W 74° 03' 56"
I certainly do remember that passage and interpreted it the same way you did - that he was vomiting. Never connected it to the passage where he claims to never be seasick - nice catch.
While not believing that Himself was above making errors, this doesn't seem to be one he would make. The vomiting "with practiced ease" implies that it was something that sailors become proficient at - a fact that POB seemingly would have gotten from some research. Also, it would seem to follow that it was fairly common (i.e. not a select unfortunate few).
At the same time, it has always seemed to me that POB made JA a prototypical seamen - albeit a better than average one (swimming abilities excepted). So he would not be impervious to this "flaw."
Therefore, I believe that POB would argue that vomiting is not the proof of seasickness - if it is not accompanied by the necessary nausea, incapacitation, etc.
Keep in mind, I've never been in the open sea in my life - so all of the above is pure supposition/inference/deduction/etc. I'm interested to hear what the more learned coves have to say.
Nathan
Jeremy K. Jeremy discussed this amazing phenomenon
My spell checker has a mind of its own. That should be Jerome K. Jerome.
David:
On the defense, here, I recall the passage as something to the effect of Jack didn't 'remember' being seasick in 30 years. He might have been feeling queasy but didn't recollect the experience. Perhaps the biscuit and madiera were unimportant in his mind and the incident was instantly forgotten. It could be that in Jack's definition seasickness is only when a person is completely incapacitated, nacreous yellow and green. Our friend the commercial fisherman admits to barfing occasionally, particularly during crab season and in choppy waters. Says every commercial fisherman urps and is willing to admit it. He added that it's okay when he does it, but if his deckhand is doing it and is unable to do his job, then they have a problem.
I do recall the biscuit heaving and for a split second wondered to whom or what was Jack heaving a biscuit. Did he throw it like a frisbee to a waiting gull? A quick reread and engagement of the brain proved that idea to be, perhaps, _wrong_!
Karen von Bargen
San Martin, CA
Yes, FOW, I think. But, without looking it up, wasn't it over-indulgence rather than sea-sickness?
R.
Well, it seems that POB never set foot in so much as a rowboat until near the end, as I recently learned, and I'm always amazed at his ability to accurately describe things he never personally experienced. But anyway, one of the vivid memories I have of my own 4 months at sea, was leaving Hawaii in 45 knot winds and being pretty uncomfortable for a few days, then acclimating really well and being perfectly comfortable for 2 weeks, then after spending a mere 24 hours ashore on Santa Cruz Is. in the Galapagos, being slightly queasy again for another 2 or 3 days, despite much calmer seas. It doesn't take long to lose those sea legs. I was amazed.
Robin
wasn't it over-indulgence rather than sea-sickness?
That was my take on it as well. Given the quantity and quality of the food, I would imagine that sailors would be adept at "heaving".
Greg
42º32'34.5" N
71º20'13.2" W
In a message dated 4/11/2002 10:44:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, finches@BELLATLANTIC.NET writes:
Jeremy K. Jeremy discussed this amazing phenomenon at length in "Three Men in a Boat (not to mention the dog)," possibly the funniest book ever written in the English language.
Finally am able to correct you erudite types (BIG SMILE HERE :-) Ran to my local library site and was able to pull up reference- but the book is by Jerome K. Jerome, ( Jerome Klapka,1859-1927)
Blatherin' John B
In a message dated 4/11/2002 10:47:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, NVarnum@ARKAYINDUSTRIES.COM writes:
While certainly not incapacitated like some who are afflicted with seasickness, I certainly wouldn't call this 'never being seasick'
This is not really seasickness, which starts from the ocean/motion- whatever you have or have not eaten-- A bad mixture of wine and weevils could upset stomach and after a quick "vomification". the incident is over. From one who really had bouts of semi-seasickness on a DE years ago-Still cannot ride a carousel or whip- the -whip . though rollercoasters do not faze me.
Blatherin' John B
In a message dated 4/11/2002 11:08:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, finches@BELLATLANTIC.NET writes:
My spell checker has a mind of its own. That should be Jerome K. Jerome
and again you have out corrected me- great!
Blatherin' John B
Jerome K Jerome. I've got a copy of his classic up for sail, and within a week or so I'll have an expanded edition on line - Three Men in an Omnibus. $5
And yes, it is a very funny book. A gentle sort of humor. I've got a talking book version around somewhere, but it ain't the same.
I do not usually feel seasick on small boats, no matter how storm tossed they may be, unless I have to go below when i start to feel a bit nauseous. Similarly on larger ships I usually am OK in quite rough weather so long as I can get a bit of air.
When I joined the Rose in Bermuda (lovely casual throway line), I found that I was still feeling a bit uncomfortable my first evening meal and the following morning, though I was OK on watch and sleeping. The sea was not particularly rough but after a mug of lemonade, I suddenly couldn't take it any longer, threw the lemonade back up again over the side and was fine for the rest of the week. That strikes me as being analogous to Jack's practiced ease with the madeira and biscuit.
Adam Quinan
"Three Men in a Boat (not to mention the dog),"
Tom Stoppard wrote a screenplay of it for TV also. It was excellent.
Larry
on 4/11/02 12:16 PM, Greg White at blue@THEMIZZEN.COM wrote:
That was my take on it as well. Given the quantity and quality of the food, I would imagine that sailors would be adept at "heaving".
What follows is dreadful. And absy true. Weak stomachs shd avert their eyes.
I rode during dive bombing training in the bilge of my torpedo bomber, twisted around, peeking out of the stinger gun position so I cd tell my pilot, Ensign Oops, where his bomb hit.
One day, my gunner having quit (as one cd do during operational training,) we let one of the base chaplains go for a ride in the turret, wch was nearly over my head.
We climbed to altitude. The temperature fell. We dove. The temperature rose. I reported. And ditto and ditto and ditto. Each time we dove it was like developing an instant fever; the plane, wheels and flaps down, bomb doors open, shuddered, shook, and trembled during each dive. We were flying in worn-out warbirds back from the fleet; now and then one wd fall apart.
After the fourth dive, I saw the chaplain in the turret making horrified gestures, obviously trying to get my attention. We hadn't given him a microphone. He was pointing. There was a pinky-blue fluid on the overhead. Jeez! Hydraulic fluid! The reservoir must have burst; the fluid must have poured upward during the negatives G's at the start of the dive. Oh dear: I had never seen hydraulic fluid. Or maybe it was engine oil. Oil wd be worse. Our engine wd stop any minute.
I had to tell Oops, but what wd I tell him? What fluid was that? I reached up to the overhead, rubbed my fingers in it, and tasted it. It wasn't oil. I reached for my mike, and then I saw that horrid chaplain, his face twisted, leaning over again.
Throwing up again.
Charlezzzzz, never as who should say completely seasick, never as who should say completely airsick, but I came close that time.
Yes, I remember it, and because it is the only reference to Jack's being seasick that I can recall, it has always struck me as being somewhat odd. Was it really seasickness or was it perhaps a hangover?
Gerry Strey
Madison, Wisconsin
Can anyone explain to me why the funeral/burial of of Capt.Lawrence took place in Halifax?
Would the body not have been repatriated so he could be buried 'at home'?
Would his family/American colleagues have attended the Halifax funeral?
alec
I can't answer Alec's earlier question, but I just noted that the British officers are described as feeling respect for the American captain's "officerlike conduct."
This wd be like the earlier discussion of the adjective "seamanlike."
One should just BE what one is, and do it right, I reckon.
I do not pretend to teach you to sail your sloop or poop or whatever you call the damned machine...[HMSS 76]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
I thought that Faith would have answered this, as I know that she is keen on the subject. Lawrence was originally buried in Halifax, much as was described in SM. When news reached the US, many Americans thought it improper that he should be buried on foreign soil. A private cartel was organized to sail to Halifax and reclaim his body.
Upon return to the US, he was reburied in Salem, but soon dug up again, to be taken to his final resting place in the Trinity Church graveyard in lower Manhatten.
Don Seltzer
Thank you very much for that reply. I appreciate it all the more because I had felt the question may have appeared 'stupid ' in the first instance and thought twice about posting it.
But now I am glad I asked it.
Thanks
alec
In a message dated 4/13/02 7:57:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dseltzer@DRAPER.COM writes: re: Captain Lawrence' s funeral--
I thought that Faith would have answered this, as I know that she is keen on the subject.
I knew you'd be there, Don, our resident historian. I had finals to write and did little but delete messages to keep Bill Nyden from scolding me because of my overloaded mailbox. Walking around Halifax was made more special to me by Pob's moving account of Lawrence's funeral there..As I said earlier, I was grateful that the burial site in New York was not damaged in the 9/11 tragedy.
Another historical tidbit in this month's Sea History magazine of the National Maritime Historical Society: an article about John Paul Jones--nothing we don't already know but always nice to read about him. And his wonderful appeal to young seamen worth repeating here: "Sign on, young man, and sail with me. the stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong and the free. Heed my call. Come to the sea. Come sail with me."
Faith
Gosh, Faith, that's worth setting to music... why don't you?
Something like "Fanfare for the Common Seaman" :)
a wicked contumelious discontented froward mutinous dog,[FSW1]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
What a perfectly marvelous scene this is. Miss Smith pinned out like a butterfly in a case, and the shifting feelings of Stephen for Diana portrayed =a merveille=.
In honor of Miss Smith, here's a link to Miss Bailey, also seduced, also of Halifax. This was an old Kingston Trio song:
http://www.litgothic.com/Texts/DigiTrad/bailygho.html
By the way there's a typo on p. 69 (Norton pb). Diana turning down the marriage once again (how angry she makes me!) says "By my dear, you do not want to marry me..."
It should of course be "But..."
I am wondering too about money matters. Diana cadges a gown from Stephen (and he lets her do it) by saying she has hardly five cents to rub together. A bit later, we learn that she has [without his help] "a hundred and twenty-five dollars." (p. 36)
I imagine we can multiply this =at least= by ten in terms of today's money: $1250. So how much, in the name of all that's holy, did the milliner want for the blue lutestring, wh Diana thought she could not afford.
(It is so amusing when Stephen compliments her on the "black band about your thorax" (p. 47) - who but a naturalist could have expressed himself in such terms!)
Listening to Britten's SPRING SYMPHONY, and more than a bit flown in wine (but I think these observations are still valid),
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
Another probably silly question from alec.
But does Diana dress in the house/mansion where the ball is being held?
Would she not have arrived by coach?
Stephen is waiting for her to come down the stairs as if it was their own house?
alec
wondering what it was I google'd "lutestring dress". The text accompanying this image assures us that the dress on the left is a light blue lutestring dress, though perhaps a bit different from Diana's being something like 50 years earlier.
http://www.costumes.org/history/18thcent/general/mcclellan/fig228-231.jpg
Is the lutestring a dress design type such that it would always be recognizable down through the ages?
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 08:32:49PM -0400, Mary S wrote:
I imagine we can multiply this =at least= by ten in terms of today's money: $1250. So how much, in the name of all that's holy, did the milliner want for the blue lutestring, wh Diana thought she could not afford.
No clothing historian I, though I like a good, well-cut suit when I can afford 'em.
--
Jeffrey Charles
N 37* 69' 30"
W 122* 44' 06"
GPG Public Key: http://www.zoiks.com/jeff/gpg.html
Lutestring is a type of fabric, not the design of the dress. Don't your remember your Beatrix Potter?
"All day long while the light lasted he sewed and snippetted, piecing out his satin, and pompadour, and lutestring; stuffs had strange names, and were very expensive in the days of the Tailor of Gloucester."
Lutestring is a nice workable light material that comes in various forms. Has been brocaded, embroidered, watered, and mucked about with in various ways. I'm trying to think of a modern equivalent, and I'm coming up blank!
Cheers,
Susan
At 08:32 PM 4/13/02 -0400, Mary wrote:
I am wondering too about money matters. Diana cadges a gown from Stephen (and he lets her do it) by saying she has hardly five cents to rub together. A bit later, we learn that she has [without his help] "a hundred and twenty-five dollars." (p. 36)
I think that we just have to accept this. A couple of books later, she is apparently quite wealthy - independently of Stephen. Presumably as a result of the jewels that she took from Johnson.
Homer nodded, and we just have to live with it.
Kerry
Kerry Webb
Canberra, Australia http://www.alia.org.au/~kwebb/
Excellent post, sober or no, Mary! As for the dressing - wasn't it sometimes the custom for women to travel to the ball along with their maids, etc. and then dress (upstairs) there? Being that if they rode in a carriage in some of those getups, they'd get crushed out of all recognition. It's been a while since I read any other works set in the same time period, but I seem to recall this occurring in some of them. So if that were the case, then Stephen would be waiting to see her in the dress, which she had just put on after arriving at the ball. I don't have the book so I sit ready to be corrected. -RD, not exactly what would be called sober my own self
From http://www.bartleby.com/81/10657.html
E. Cobham Brewer 1810–1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898. Lutestring.
A glossy silk; a corruption of the French word lustrine (from lustre). 1 To speak in lutestring. Flash, highly-polished oratory. The expression was first used in Junius. Shakespeare has “taffeta phrases and silken terms precise.” We call inflated speech “fustian” (q.v.) or “bombast” (q.v.); say a man talks stuff; term a book or speech made up of other men’s brains, shoddy (q.v.); sailors call telling a story “spinning a yarn,” etc. etc.
See also the OED online at http://www.wlu.edu/~hblackme/oed/lutestring.html
Lutestrings are also the common name for a variety of moth. Alas, I believe they do not spin silk.
Alice
Was not the ball held at Lady Harriet's house, where Diana was staying?
It was equally apparent at the port-admiral's, with a gay and sprightly Colpoys who sang as he went up the stairs, and a cheerful, talkative mistress of the house, intensely pleased with life in spite of the anxieties of the great ball she was to give at such short notive. The universal lightness of heart had infected Diana too - few women loved a ball more than she - and she greeted Stephen most affectionately, kissing him on both cheeks. 'I am so glad you are come,' she said. 'Now I can give you your card instead of sending it. I have been helping Lady Harriet write them since breakfast time. Half the Navy list, and countless soldiers.'
pp 32/33, The Surgeon's Mate. Norton paperback.
Susan
In a message dated 4/13/02 8:05:55 PM Central Daylight Time, oflahertyalec@HOTMAIL.COM writes:
But does Diana dress in the house/mansion where the ball is being held?
Would she not have arrived by coach?
Stephen is waiting for her to come down the stairs as if it was their own house?
She was staying there as a guest of the Admiral and his wife (p. 15).
Stephen arrives from his inn.
For intelligence, there is nothing like a keen-witted, handsome woman, [DI 2]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
In a message dated 4/13/02 9:15:25 PM Central Daylight Time, kwebb@ALIANET.ALIA.ORG.AU writes:
how much, in the name of all that's holy, did the milliner want for the blue lutestring, wh Diana thought she could not afford.
I think that we just have to accept this.
Well, yes. If I had only $125 (or modern equivalent) to my name, stranded far from home, and no idea where the next was coming from, I would husband my resources carefully and probably not spend them on party clothes - but Diana doesn't seem to be a careful kind of person at all.
It would be nice, though, to know what an elegant dress cost in 1812 or thereabouts.
a wicked contumelious discontented froward mutinous dog,[FSW1]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
But does Diana dress in the house/mansion where the ball is being held?
Mary S replied:
She was staying there as a guest of the Admiral and his wife (p. 15). Stephen arrives from his inn.
Oops -I missed that bit-sorry & thanks
alec
OK, what does this mean?
"She had set a square foretopsail and she was coming down goosewinged; but no schooner could show her best paces before the wind, goosewinged or not..."
SM, p. 73 Norton pb, at opening of Ch 2
A sad, brutish grobian, [IM, p45]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
I think it means the same as what in modern sailing terms is called "wing & wing".......that is, the wind is directly on the beam, and the sails are spread both port and starboard to catch maximum wind. Boats don't look pretty in this position. They look much prettier going to weather with sails trimmed tight.
Robin
I meant stern, not beam.
At 9:37 PM -0700 4/13/02, Robin Welch wrote:
I think it means the same as what in modern sailing terms is called "wing & wing"
That was my thought, as well, though I'm waiting for some of the sailing experts to weigh in. The only relatively modern use of goosewing that I know, if my memory is right, is a jibe of a gaff rig in which the boom goes to one side of the mast, and the gaff to the other. Highly undesirable, I gather, although I've never sailed a gaff rig.
- EAL
I think the master nodded here. Eric has the right of it with regard to a goosewinged gaffed sail. Not a pretty sight, and dangerous. It often results in a torn sail; and is very difficult to undo. It's as embarrassing to a sailor as a twisted spinnaker. The term is as old as gaff-rigs, which have been around a long time.
Wing-and-wing is the proper term for sails hauled out to either side of the center with the wind astern. It is not uncommon to see on modern sloop-rigged boats, but not so often on vessels with two or more masts.
In a modern yacht, to have the mainsail off to one side at the full forward allowance of the boom, and with the genoa on the other side taken out as far as possible with the spinnaker pole. Wind from astern, of course.
T
Tom Lewis, in beautiful Jervis Bay, NSW, Oz
also on the Internet at tom.lewis@defence.gov.au
Family web site: http://www.users.bigpond.com/talewis/tklr_at_home.html
Might we need to be careful to check that we are not being confused by differences in US and British usages here? I know there are a few.
Rick
--
Aboard Invincible
Off Woodham (by 4in)
51 Deg 20 Min 33 Sec N
00 Deg 30 Min 14 Sec W
I think you have it right about goosewinged, Robin. In my opinion, though, at least for modern sloops, there is no prettier a sight than when the sails are set wing-on-wing. But I don't think that is what the second half of the sentence is saying. For both sloop and schooner, sailing downwind is the slowest point of sail, whether the sails are set wing-on-wing or not.
If I have misinterpreted your comments on beauty, please accept my apologies.
Doug Essinger-Hileman
Drowsy Frowsy List Greeter, Rated Able
39°51'06"N 79°54'01"W
Hi, Eric - nice to see you weighing in now and again.
If I read your note correctly (no guarantee there), this sounds something like the sails on American Pride - had to go look at my t-shirt to see. (Those without t-shirts can check her sails at http://americanpride.org/)
She has three masts, four gaff-rigged sails - the mizzenmast has two sails - is this the "goosewing"? They run parallel to the ship - does "goosewing" mean running perpendicular to the ship?
Even though the sails were up, we sailed under engine power, so I don't know how effective/desireable/dangerous/ this is.
Alice, hoping the sail and mast terms are accurate - feel free to correct
I did some searching on google this morning and came across the following:
Goosewing
(Goose"wing`) n. (Naut.) One of the clews or lower corners of a course or a
topsail when the middle part or the rest of the sail is furled.
Goosewinged
(Goose"winged`) a. (Naut.) (a) Having a "goosewing." (b) Said of a
fore-and-aft rigged vessel with foresail set on one side and mainsail on the
other; wing and wing.
And- It may be desirable to have two independent winch systems whereby one operates the jibs and another the booms. This will help when running before the wind in "Goose Wing" fashion where the jib(s) are out on the port side and the boom(s) on the starboard side.
And from Sailing terms for lubbers;-
When the wind is directly astern (behind) a vessel, the boat is running away from the wind,an experienced crew (this seems to apply to a smaller boat)would have watched the jib collapse and whisker-poled it out on the opposite side for the vessel to goose-wing (sails either side).
A useful site for a lubber like me-
http://users.aol.com/MUMBLESAIL/jargon.html
alec
If anyone has nodded, it is the entire modern North American continent! Wing and wing is a North American term for British goosewinged. When I was first learning to sail in the UK I learned the lingo from my father who like POB learned his sailing in Ireland ;-). I never heard that W&W term used, we used just goosewinged for having the jib of a fore and aft sail set on one side and the mainsail on the other. Actually as shown below, the term has had a number of different meanings at different times and places.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :
Goosewinged \Goose"winged`\, a. (Naut.)
(a) Having a ``goosewing.''
(b) Said of a fore-and-aft rigged vessel with foresail set on
one side and mainsail on the other; wing and wing.
From "The Seaman's Friend: Containing a Treatise on Practical Seamanship, with Plates; A Dictionary of Sea Terms; Customs and Usages of the Merchant Service; Laws Relating to the Practical Duties of Master and Mariners. by R. H. Dana, Jr.
GOOSE-WINGED.
The situation of a course when the buntlines and lee clew are hauled up, and
the weather clew down.
Read's Nautical Companion
Goose-winged When running with the aftersail out on the side opposite to the foresail.
And here is a Welsh boat picture sailing goosewinged, two masts, two sails one set each side. http://www.swallowboats.com/kittiphotos1.htm
Adam Quinan
That was my thought, as well, though I'm waiting for some of the sailing experts to weigh in. The only relatively modern use of goosewing that I know, if my memory is right, is a jibe of a gaff rig in which the boom goes to one side of the mast, and the gaff to the other. Highly undesirable, I gather, although I've never sailed a gaff rig.
That wouldn't be 'sailing' goosewinged, though.
If your gaff is to one side, and your boom to the other, you'd be well and truly f----d, I'd think. You would have to come up into the wind to get things straightened back out.
David
At 06:27 AM 4/14/02 -0400, you wrote:
I think you have it right about goosewinged, Robin. In my opinion, though, at least for modern sloops, there is no prettier a sight than when the sails are set wing-on-wing.
It might look pretty if you're not sailing the boat, and it might even be fun on a lake or in San Francisco Bay, but in Monterey Bay, with the chronically huge swell, wing & wing is a pain for the crew. The boom is constantly swinging as the attitude of the boat changes, the sails constantly filling and slacking, and the crew having to prevent a jibe. It's not really a beer drinking course.
Here's what Sea of Words says:
"goose-wing: On a square-rigged ship, having the buntlines and lee-clew of a course hauled up and the weather-clew down for scudging under, when the wind is too strong to set the entire sail."
That's different from what we were all thinking, I think.
Robin
Partly in summary of what Bill, Alec, Adam, Martin, and others have already written, yes, POB nodded here. In 1813, "goosewing" was a term applied to a method of shortening squaresails, usually the fore or main course. To goosewing a square sail meant, in simple terms, to furl up one side, leaving the other lower corner in place.
This would not have applied to the the privateer, a schooner with two large fore-and-aft sails, which was furthermore setting all available sail, not shortening any. What POB certainly meant was "wing and wing", as used by Fenimore Cooper later in the 19th century, with the foresail boomed out to one side, and the mainsail boomed out to the other.
I'm guessing that with the gradual demise of squaresail vessels, the term "goosewing" took on the same meaning as the earlier "wing and wing".
Don Seltzer
Oh, I think it looks pretty even when I am sailing the boat. But you are right that it is not a way to set the sails when there is any swell, let along a chronically huge one. I have never sailed Monterey Bay, but from your description, I would never choose wing-and-wing there.
Doug Essinger-Hileman
Drowsy Frowsy List Greeter, Rated Able
39°51'06"N 79°54'01"W
Goose-wing is used in the UK to refer to the practice of sailing with the main out to one side and the jib or genoa to the other side. This makes you go faster downwind, and allows you too look smug, as it can be quite hard to achieve. It's the sensible alternative to a spinnaker :-)
Since I have sailed gaff rigs many times, I can confirm that it is indeed possible to gybe the boom while not gybing the gaff. In any case, once this has been done, it is impossible to gybe over the remaining spar - you have to fall back onto the original tack and try again.
Gaff rigs have a number of advantages (beyond looks) over Bermuda rigs, but this isn't one of them.
Just because some American misused the term later in the 19th century ;-) doesn't mean that the term wasn't used in the British sense earlier for the fore and aft rig as well as the other sense for the square rig. Anyone got their OED handy?
Adam Quinan
In a message dated 4/14/2002 12:33:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, turdus@PEOPLEPC.COM writes:
I meant stern, not beam.
I guess in that case, it would be termed "buffalo-winged)!" :)
Blatherin' John B
I stand corrected... with an explanation-- I learned to sail from an ancient Jamaican sailor who used the terms as I wrote. One of his tales involved a boat that was dismasted during an accidental gibe (and according to him, a gibe was an accident: if done on purpose, it was wearing).
--
Bill Nyden
Here is the OED entry:
"2. Naut.
1606 Capt. Smith *Accid. Yng. Sea-men* 29 Put out a goose-winge, or a hullocke of a sail. 1607--*Seaman's Gram.* ix. 41 For more haste vnparrel the mizen yard and lanch it, and the sail ouer her Lee quarter, and fit giues at the further end to keepe the yard steady, and with a Boome boome it out; this we call a Goose-wing. 1769 Falconer *Dict. Marine* (1780) Goose-wings of a sail, the clues or lower corners of a ship's main-sail or fore-sail,when the middle part is furled or tied up to the yard. 1836 Marryat *Midsh. Easy* xxvi, Those on deck were setting the goose-wings of the mainsail, to prevent the frigate from being pooped a second time. 1867 Smyth *Sailor's Word-bk.,* Goose-wings of a sail, the situation of a course when the bunt-lines and lee-clue are hauled up, and the weather-clue down...Also applied to the fore and main sails of a schooner or other two-masted fore-and-aft vessel; when running before the wind, she has these sails set on opposite sides."
That certainly clears that up. Just remember to vnparrel your mizen yard and lanch it, for all love.
EB
32º 33'N
94º 22'W
Harper page 14
Jack talking to the Admiral about Stephen, says '..and my particular friend: we have sailed together since the year two..'
Initially I took the view that this is O Brian's way of showing that Jack may be a bit forgetful when it comes to matters which had happened 11/13 yrs previously.
But on reflection- surely Jack would have remembered the year he was made 'Captain' in Port Mahon and associated that immediately with the date when he met Stephen ie 1800 ?
Nor could it have been that O Brian confused the dates-that April day in 1800 must have been etched into his brain.
Does anyone have a theory?
By the way if you are trying to learn the 'real' history as you go along like me, you might like to visit the following sites which relate to the Chesapeake/Shannon battle
http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/ches.htm
http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/ches2.htm
and there is a drawing here
http://www.multied.com/1812/chesapeake.html
alec
And so Alec asked:
Does anyone have a theory?
Could it be to a change of calender? Isn't it around this time that there was all that confusion with the two different calenders (Gergorian and Julian?)? People used the two different calenders side by side for some time afterwards, I believe. Some learned lissun will oblige I am sure.
Sam
No, England had changed in 1752.
pragmatical and absolute, [FoW8]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
My experience is that important dates don't necessarily become etched into the brain. I work for the state archives of Wisconsin, whose records include criminal case and pardon files. We get requests for copies of these records from the offenders and the pardoned, and it's surprising how many don't know the year ("Uh, I think it was sometime in the 70s". . . .) of the conviction or pardon.
Gerry Strey
Mladison, Wisconsin
I used to think that it was the brig too, but the weather seemed more like the stormy voyage of the Ariel than the foggy one of the Diligence.
Adam Quinan
At 1:16 PM -0400 4/14/2, Adam Quinan wrote:
I'm with Sam here. The Surgeon's Mate is the cover that appeals to me most. I think its the combination of action and detail. I believe that it is a scene aboard the Ariel.
When we started the groupread for SM, I studied the cover for clues as to the ship's identity. Not much to go on. Both the Ariel and the Diligence had carronades, though the ones on the cover seem a bit small to my eye to be 32-lbers. Nothing stands out to mark it as either a RN man-of-war, or a private packet ship.
But the location of the wheel, abaft the mast, makes me believe it is the brig Diligence, rather than the 3-masted Ariel.
Don Seltzer
Yesterday, I wrote, regarding the cover of SM:
But the location of the wheel, abaft the mast, makes me believe it is the brig Diligence, rather than the 3-masted Ariel.
I'll retract that statement. I've found several examples of 3-masted sloops that had their wheel abaft the mizzen mast.
One other note about the cover; could that fellow in the background, with no hat, be Stephen?
At 10:19 PM -0500 4/14/2002, John Berg wrote:
3. I'm sorry to have missed the discussion of Geoff Hunt prints which Sea Room sells. If my PC hadn't taken up half the day just to keep it chugging, I would have boasted about the fact that we now have for sale prints 1 and 2 of both the brand new Fireships on the Hudson and Launching of the USS America. We discount all prints 10%. They will be on the web page as soon as possible.
John, would this be the fireship attack upon the Rose and Phoenix?
Don Seltzer
"we have sat together as mumchance as a couple of gib cats"
Brewer's PHRASE AND FABLE:
A tom-cat. The male cat used to be called Gilbert. Nares says that Tibert or Tybalt is the French form of Gilbert, and hence Chaucer in his Romance of the Rose, renders “Thibert le Cas” by “Gibbe, our Cat” (v. 6204). Generally used for a castrated cat. (See TYBALT.)
1 “I am as melancholy as a gib cat or a lugged bear.”—Shakespeare: 1 Henry IV., i. 2.
(A bear lugged through the Pyrenees?)
A sad, brutish grobian, [IM, p45]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
"Stephen, what is marelle in English?" p. 138, Norton PB
If you didn't figure it out, I find from dear Google that the English for "marelle" is "hopscotch," though the game seems slightly different (we never had a square called "heaven" when I played it).
gluppit the prawling strangles, there, [FoW8]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
On 13 Apr 2002 at 20:32, Mary S wrote:
(It is so amusing when Stephen compliments her on the "black band about your thorax" (p. 47) - who but a naturalist could have expressed himself in such terms!)
The most recent time I read that, my first thought was "wait a minute, shouldn't that be 'larynx'"?
In a message dated 4/14/02 11:10:35 AM Central Daylight Time, skydaver@EARTHLINK.NET writes:
The most recent time I read that, my first thought was "wait a minute, shouldn't that be 'larynx'"?
Well, I think it would =look= better... and be more of the period... but I doubt that either O'Brian, his editor supposing he nodded momentarily, or Stephen would mistake a larynx for a thorax!
Still, I like your idea :)
Deeply, obstinately ignorant, self-opinionated, and ill-informed,
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
Deeply, obstinately ignorant, self-opinionated, and ill-informed,
It's also possible that *I* am one to whom the above could be applied.
Ain't the larynx the throat, about which a black band would look lovely, esp. above the Blue Peter. If the thorax is as the I thought, the chest, I can't imagine why a black band would look good.
Dammit Jim, I'm a computer programmer, not a doctor!
In a message dated 4/14/02 6:41:24 PM Central Daylight Time, skydaver@EARTHLINK.NET writes:
If the thorax is as the I thought, the chest, I can't imagine why a black band would look good.
Webster's says "the part between the neck and the abdomen." I =think= Stephen means a waist-band, or, since we are in the Empire period (sorry to allude to Boney), a band beneath the breasts where Empire ladies pretended to keep their waists.
Any higher up than that, I agree, wd look mighty silly.
Deeply, obstinately ignorant, self-opinionated, and ill-informed,
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
Funny, now that this is being discussed I realize that I've always read "thorax" as "larynx" also. I pictured a black velvet choker.
But Mary's undoubtedly right. "Pretended to keep their waists ...beneath their breasts." He he. Good one, Mary. An Empire waist lets a woman hide her waist. Which is somewhat advisable for some of us.
Marian
An Empire waist lets a woman hide her waist. Which is somewhat advisable for some of us.
Especially if you are pregnant as Diana was supposed to be at this time.
Adam Quinan
Would Diana have spent *all* her money on a single dress? I imagine that she would have kept a sizeable reserve for emergencies, or at the very least to return to England so she could sell her jewels for a reasonable amount.
Having said that, she seems to have spent most of her life from Post Captain onwards "under the protection" of one gent or another, and Stephen is just the latest - presumably he will pay her way in the world.
Is Diana Villiers modelled on any person, I wonder, or indeed any recognisable role in Nineteenth Century society? Did widows wander around the world as the companions of wealthy men?
A lady's formal gown of 1813 would have a high waist just under the bosom. It seem quite feasible that Diana could have accented the waistline with black ribbon, adding a bit of pizzazz to what apparently was a somewhat undistinguished dress.
Gerry Strey
Madison, Wisconsin (who could figure quite well as Lady Harriet Colpoys, has she the emeralds as big as soup plates)
You know, with Diana's reputation plus her dubious legal status (re citizenship), even though her pregnancy is not yet known to the world, I was somewhat surprised that she was a welcome guest at the finest house in Halifax, just at this time.
a wicked contumelious discontented froward mutinous dog,[FSW1]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
Diana is staying with the Colpoys in thyeir house.
Gerry Strey
Madison, Wisconsin
I find the whole episode of Jack, Stephen, and Jagiello in the French prison to be one of the most compelling sequences in the early books; I remember it more vividly than anything except the Music Room scene that opens the canon and the sinking of the Waak....(help!). Two things about it, though:
First, I have never been able to visualize the alcove(?)/vestibule(?)/privy(?) where the prisoners are trying to break out. I know it extends over the wall, and I know it hangs out over empty space, but as many times as I've read the description of the space, and of the stones that make up the flooring, I can't up together a mental image of the place. As a result, the details of their effort to break out don't really make sense to me; I know they've rigged some sort of block-and-tackle system to pry up the flooring stones, but I just can't see it. Is this just me, or did anybody else have this difficulty?
Second, I suspect that O'Brian introduced Jagiello and his absurd beauty just so he could use him in this sequence. The byplay earlier in the book with the chambermaids and with his clumsiness on the ship, and his involvement with Diana later, it seems to me, are incidental. I have no problem with that; I think Jagiello is a delightful, and basically very amusing character.
Finally, I very much enjoyed O'Brian's out-of-left-field misdirection. Here's the scene: The French, and Johnson, are closing in on Stephen, and there is little time left. The prison deconstruction is rapidly approaching their area, when they will, at best, be moved. Their only hope is to break out, and their best hope, to remove the blocks in their privy (?), has apparently failed for want of a pin in the block. We've focused on this escape plan for pages and pages, and just when all is lost, Duhamel flies in on Deus Ex Machina Airlines and saves them. I should have been outraged at O'Brian's effrontery in manipulating us like that; instead, I loved it. That's the way life goes sometimes, and one of the very best things about O'Brian's story lines is that they're not straight lines from A to B.
Bob Fleisher
Houston, TX
Somewhat like the earlier escape scene in FOW, in which Jack and Herapath devise a complicated rescue plan for Stephen and Diana, with laundry basket, blackface, and getaway coach, only to have them simply walk out the door unchallenged.
POB had several historical precedents in mind when he placed them in the Temple prison. As he mentions, there was Sir Sidney Smith, who successfully escaped along with protege John Wesley Wright. A few years later, Wright was captured and imprisoned in the Temple again, where he died under suspicious circumstances.
When POB mentions Lt. Hyde's previous imprisonment in Verdun, and escape to the Adriatic, he is likely thinking of a young officer named O'Brien.
Don Seltzer
I've done a little picture to show the way I would imagine the privy was supported, If anyone wants me to send it to them, email me offlist, subject privy
Peace
John
I agree with Bob on this scene. Did anybody else cry when the widow set the birds free? I cried buckets. -RD
The ball near the beginning of the novel is, indeed, a delightful scene; others have commented on various aspects already, and I would like to ask a few more questions. In particular, I am wondering whether anyone shared my feeling that this is an especially significant turning point in our characters' private lives.
Of course, it is a tight spot for Jack, as he manages to get himself caught up against a lee shore with Miss Smith. But is it not even more important for Stephen and Diana? It seems to me that before this, their relationship has been at a crisis. Of course, Diana has promised (in FOW) to marry Stephen, but that promise, it has seemed, came "too late;" Stephen's proposal was presented merely as an expedient to help her out of her tricky situation vis-a-vis her citizenship. When he met her in Boston, he found that his love for her had died, and had not been "eternal" at all. But now, their relationship is moving into a different phase, one that has Stephen wonder more than once if this is not the way married people feel about each other. It is a more mature love, one that does not need to be described in terms of lust or infatuation, as Stephen's feelings for Diana so often did before (yes, there has always been a strong element of the physical in those feelings). And then, on page 160 (Norton), we find the following:
"He looked at her, standing there straight, her head held high, and his heart moved in him as it had not moved this great while: he said 'God bless, my dear. I am away.' "
Stephen's love has revived! But why do I focus on the ball as the turning point in this process? For a number of reasons, including Diana's delight in finding that Stephen is a graceful (or at least a competent) dancer. But, above all, it is because of the vivid image of the "girl with green on her back" (p. 59). This girl (who has, of course, been misbehaving out-of-doors) seems to me an unmistakable image POB uses to put us in mind of rebirth and/or revival, or at least of springtime. Not so?
--Related to all this is a subject I have been meaning to bring up since FOW: The question of Diana's sincerity. I am glad I saved it until now, because her behavior in SM would surely have come into the discussion. In FOW, she reacts warmly to Stephen's proposal, even though he is only being "pragmatic" in suggesting that they get married. In fact, she seems to say that she has wanted to marry Stephen all along; at least she voices regret at having run off with Johnson. But then, after they get "clean away" from the States at the end of FOW, when Stephen raises the question again, she backtracks and temporizes. She would not marry a man while pregnant by another, she says; but is this just an excuse? Did she mean it when she said she would be glad to marry him? Does she feel anything more than friendship for Stephen, or has she been "playing" him all along? (it seems that Stephen sometimes suspects she has.)
I am sure these topics have been mulled over repeatedly, but I would still like to have other people's opinions. FWIW, I will state mine: at each stage, Diana is being perfectly sincere, or at least thinks she is. Her memory of events in India (HMSS) may be colored by the difficult circumstances she finds herself in now; but at least as she remembers it, when she ran off with Johnson to America it went against her true feelings for Stephen (I don't think her note to Stephen is decisive one way or the other on this question).
As has often been said in this forum, Diana's actions are sometimes dictated by her circumstances; but what are her *feelings?* (N.B. I am deliberately omitting any reference to events in the second half of the book; that is another discussion.)
--------------------
"These are mere whimsies, my dear, vapours, megrims." -- DI p. 67
Steve Ross
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
Well done indeed, Steve. I am quite of your way of thinking.
But, above all, it is because of the vivid image of the "girl with green on her back" (p. 59). This girl (who has, of course, been misbehaving out-of-doors) seems to me an unmistakable image POB uses to put us in mind of rebirth and/or revival, or at least of springtime. Not so?
Exactly. She is a Botticelli girl, emblematic of spring. And also a real young girl, skipping high.
Related to all this is a subject I have been meaning to bring up since FOW: The question of Diana's sincerity.
Does she feel anything more than friendship for Stephen, or has she been "playing" him all along? (it seems that Stephen sometimes suspects she has.)
I doubt she has been playing him, but Diana is no solid person: thinks this, thinks that, and is blown about by the wind of what she needs today. Think of her, that gentlemanly being, as Shakespeare says (merely inverting the sex):
Sigh no more, ladies, sigh no more,
Men were deceivers ever;
One foot in sea and one on shore;
To one thing constant never.
Then sigh not so,
But let them go,
And be you blithe and bonny;
Converting all your sounds of woe
Into Hey nonny, nonny.
Pity the poor men, it seems, who simply cannot be constant. Or Diana. And so...
Diana is being perfectly sincere, or at least thinks she is. Her memory of events in India (HMSS) may be colored by the difficult circumstances she finds herself in now; but at least as she remembers it, when she ran off with Johnson to America it went against her true feelings for Stephen (I don't think her note to Stephen is decisive one way or the other on this question). As has often been said in this forum, Diana's actions are sometimes dictated by her circumstances; but what are her *feelings?
Goddess if the moon, "th'inconstant moon," as Juliet calls her. That's Diana. Never boring.
Charlezzzzz, avoiding working on income tax for a bit. Hey nonny, nonny. Will I have it done ten minutes before the post office closes?
Speaking of the "girl with green on her back" and spring in the same breath reminds me of a madrigal by Thomas Morley (1558-1603) which would make Jack smile broadly; and oh, I can hear him singing it *lustily*! It having a fun bass part being but one of the reasons:
Now is the month of Maying
When merry lads are playing (fa la la, la la la la la la, etc. etc.)
Each with his bonny lass
Upon the greeny grass. (fa la la, la la la la la la, etc. etc.)
And the rest of it...
The spring clad all in gladness
Doth laugh at winter's sadness; (fa la la, la la la la la la, etc. etc.)
And to the bagpipe's sound,
Te nymphs tread out their ground. (fa la la, la la la la la la etc. etc.)
Fie, then, why sit we musing
Youth's delight refusing? (fa la la, la la la la la la etc. etc.)
Say dainty nymphs and speak,
Shall we play barley break? (fa la la, la la la la la la etc. etc.)
Marian
I think Diana would have been capable of spending all her money on a dress. She was necessarily an opportunist. She knew her face was her fortune, and must have seen the ball as a chance to show herself to her best advantage. And if someone more eligible than Stephen or Jack had come along, she would have been happy to make his acquaintance.
There weren't a lot of options for indigent widows (or spinsters)in those days. She could have lived as a poor relation under the thumb of Mrs. Williams or babysitting Cousin Teapot, she could make a good marriage, or she could ply the oar, so to speak.
I agree. A ball was a splendid opportunity for Diana to establish or solidify her future, and she'd have spent her every cent (shilling) to show well for it. I mean no disrespect for Diana in this. It would never do for her to look shabby, and it wasn't her style to skimp on her appearance. She'd rather go hungry for a month or year after than that.
- Susan
I liked the new Diana that emerged at the end of FOW, but I don't know quite how I feel about the version in Halifax in SM. At least she is kinder to Stephen (though a cynic might say that she is often nice to the gentleman supporting her at the moment). But I also find her shallow. It is so glaringly hypocritical of her to condemn the women spreading gossip about her checkered past, just moments after she has been trashing Amanda Smith: "I knew her in India when I was a girl. She came out with the fishing-fleet - stayed with her aunt, a woman with just the same long nose and just the same idea of laying on the paint with a trowel. They come from Rutland, a raffish set: slow horses and fast women..." Even her earlier catty comments about Amanda are an echo of Mrs. Williams at a ball in PC, "Her dress is rather outre and she uses altogether too much paint..."
I don't know whether to believe her excuse for again breaking her engagement to Stephen. Did she not know that she was pregnant when she first accepted his proposal? Stephen was able to figure it out just a few days later, aboard the Shannon. Is she simply stalling, while she considers her other options?
Don Seltzer
In a message dated 4/15/02 5:37:35 PM Central Daylight Time, susanwenger@YAHOO.COM writes:
I agree. A ball was a splendid opportunity for Diana to establish or solidify her future, and she'd have spent her every cent (shilling) to show well for it
But she =had= turned down the lutestring when it was first shown to her. And apparently meant not to go to the ball.
Or do you think that was dishonesty from the word go - that she was confident Stephen wd come across? How could she know for sure that he was in funds?
Deeply, obstinately ignorant, self-opinionated, and ill-informed,
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
At 03:37 PM 4/15/02 -0700, you wrote:
I agree. A ball was a splendid opportunity for Diana to establish or solidify her future, and she'd have spent her every cent (shilling) to show well for it. I mean no disrespect for Diana in this. It would never do for her to look shabby, and it wasn't her style to skimp on her appearance. She'd rather go hungry for a month or yearafter than that.
Reminds me of a line from AbFab:
Adena to Patsy: When did you eat last?
Patsy: 1972
'It is so far from natural for a man and woman to live in a state of marriage, that we find all the motives which they have for remaining in that connection, and the restraints which civilized society imposes to prevent separation, are hardly sufficient to keep them together.' - Page 28.
It was in another book that O'Brian wrote my all-time favorite: 'Other people's marriages are a perpetual source of amazement.'
- Susan
That is a great line. For another, earlier in TSM I cracked up at Admiral Colpoys saying
I don't take myself for God the Father, you know, although I have my flag.
Yes, that was a good one!
In the humor line, I also liked:
Dr. Maturin was proud of his nautical expressions: sometimes he got them right,
but right or wrong he always brought them out with a slight emphasis of satisfaction,
much as others might utter a particularly apt Greek or Latin quatation. "And
brought him up with a round stern."
- page 28
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:13:50 -0400, Don Seltzer wrote:
POB had several historical precedents in mind when he placed them in the Temple prison. As he mentions, there was Sir Sidney Smith, who successfully escaped along with protege John Wesley Wright.
Are details of this actual escape from the Temple known?
Marshall Rafferty
________
At, or about:
47°40'54"N. 122°22'8"W.
I believe a girl friend sold a large blue diamond to pay for the escape. Actually I have the Tom Pocock book on Sir Sidney Smith and I'll look up the details and post tomorrow, if I remember!
In TSM Diana told Stephen
You are the only man I have known who never asks questions, who is never impertinent even when he has the right to be.
This repeats a POB theme of questions being impertinent but it is more significant because it shows that Diana recognizes Stephen's good points and starts to admire and love him.
From: Steve Ross the vivid image of the "girl with green on her back" (p. 59). This girl
(who has, of course, been misbehaving out-of-doors) seems to me an unmistakable
image POB uses to put us in mind of rebirth and/or revival, or at least of springtime.
Not so?
I must admit that I did not get the same sense that the Greenbacked girl
was a sign of rebirth/revival.
I saw her a humourous introduction by POB to relieve the mounting tension
as we saw the inevitability of Jack's 'betrayal' of Sophie and the ongoing
developments between Stephen and Di.
I could conjour up the image of her dancing in my mind and smile. A further
inward if not leery smile is induced at the thought of the furtive activity
which caused the 'greenback'.
Then there is the 'cringe feeling' as we imagine her embarrassment when she
must later find out her folly.
But at the same time the POB theme of friendship is not far from the
surface. And a real tinge of sadness.
Nobody at the ball informs her of her 'green back'.She dances through the
evening,no doubt being quietly ridiculed, but no one has the decency to
inform her.
She has no friend in the room. She is alone.
It also re-inforces what Stephen at some earlier stage said (paraphrase) 'We
do seem to take pleasure at other people's misfortune',----while at the same
time showing the value of a true friend.
alec
Yes indeed (FOW p. 72):
'There is always something in the misfortune of others that does not
displease us.'
But do you really sense that this is what is going on here? Personally
I get a much more joyous, carefree sense from the description of that
night's goings-on. For example:
"The band was deep in a minuet, a Clementi minuet in C major that Jack
and he had arranged for the violin and 'cello, one that they had often
played together; and now that he was in it, in it for the first time as
a dancer, the familiar music took on a new dimension; he was part of the
music, right in its heart as one of the formally moving figures whose
pattern it created--he lived in a new world, entirely in the present.
'I love that girl with the green on her back,' she said again over the
deep throb of the 'cello, 'she is having such fun. Oh, Stephen, how I
wish this night would last for ever.'"
To allude to a song that was much-quoted in here recently, it's the
"Lusty Month of May" again (and the same love of music that underlies
Jack's and Stephen's friendship is much in evidence here too).
That's what it seems like to me, anyway!
--------------------
Steve Ross
Stepnen Ross in reply to alec
But do you really sense that this is what is going on here? Personally
I get a much more joyous, carefree sense from the description of that night's
goings-on
I'm coming round to way of thinking. I did not understand originally what
you meant by rebirth/renewal.
A similar echo by Maturin can be found in Ionian Mission, p.132,
where he approves of a quotation from Lucretius:
'suave mare magno' which continues 'turbantibus aequora ventis e
terra magnum alterius spectare laborem', i.e.
"It is agreeable to be safe ashore, watching a fellow struggling
to survive in a gale-whipped sea"
Now Lucretius here is not really saying 'Hey, guys, let's watch
old Joe drown!', and nor I think is Maturin approving of such a
sentiment either. Lucretius is saying that you most appreciate
safey and security (in his context, of beliefs) when you see
someone else in trouble. And I wonder if this is at least some
of the sense of the FoW quote, i.e. the pleasure is derived from
'there but for the grace of God go I". Cruelty and insecurity
can go hand in hand.
Gary
I have finally jumped into the groupread and was going to post on Diana's
admiration for the greenback girl, but Mr. Ross has beaten me to it. But
two passages that delighted me:
P. 54, Norton paperback. Miss Smith and Jack are in the garden during the
ball, and she is frightened by a toad: "Then she laughed in a way that Jack
would have thought unsteady had she been a plain woman..."
And the next morning, Stephen is attempting to talk to Jack while Jack is
reading his mail. P. 63 "'Gnosce teipsum is very well, but how to come to
it? We are fallible creatures, Jack, and adepts at self-deception.'
'So my old nurse used to tell me,' said Jack: Stephen could be prosy at
times..." -RD
on 4/16/02 4:13 PM, Steve Ross at skross@LSU.EDU wrote:
'There is always something in the misfortune of others that does not displease
us.'
And this, I believe, is a rather free translation of a saying by that
Frenchy feller La Rochefacould.
Charlezzzzz
'There is always something in the misfortune of others that does not displease
us.'
Has anyone else posted the word schadenfreude in relation to this? I always
thought it translated as "joy at the misfortunes of others". But I don't use
it -- much.
Jan
Ah! I spot a chance to show off my knowledge! Schadenfreude translates quite
literally as "harm-joy". The meaning is exactly as you describe. A wonderful
German word.
Nina
As promised I have reread Tom Pocock's description of Sir Sidney Smith's sojourn
and escape from the Temple. It is quite as interesting as Jack Aubrey's.
Smith was captured in April 1796 when he was leading a boarding party to cut
out a French privateer lugger. Unfortuanetly after taking her, the wind died
and the ship drifted close to shore with Smith's frigate Diamond a helpless
watcher. Boats of soldiers came out from the shore and recaptured the lugger
and Smith was not exchanged, because it was claimed that he was not a true officer
but a spy and arsonist because the French wanted revenge on the man who was
known to have burned a good deal of the fleet at Toulon. He was sent to Paris
with his "French-Canadian" servant, who was actually a Royalist French officer,
Lieutenant de Tromelin. The other prisoner was a midshipman Wright, he was years
later recaptured and held by the French as a suspected spy and died a suspicious
death.
On arrival, they were held at L'Abbaye St Germaine and managed to communicate
with three French girls by signalling out of the window. they managed to obtain
funds, but were soon transferred to the Temple under threat of a trial for espionage.
The Temple was a secure prison where the King had been held before his trip
to visit La Guillotine. He was able to get letters out asking the British government
to help. The Admiralty was willing to exchange 1000 prisoners for him but the
Directory wanted 4000. Meanwhile, Smith's French girls took a room which he
could see from his tower apartment and signalling resumed. They were able to
arrange for Lieutenant de Tromelin to meet his wife who was still living in
France.
There were attempts by the French Royalists to free Smith, including a failed
tunnel under the walls from a nearby house. De Tromelin was then exchanged as
he was still thought to be a servant. He went to England in a cartel and then
returned to be with his wife. Smith remained in the Temple still trying to be
exchanged. He had a number of love letters from a French aristocratic girl but
no diamonds exchanged.
Then in February1798, two officers came with a forged order for Smith to be
turned over to them for transfer to a secure central prison for all the British,
the officers were French Royalist agents. They made their escape and were convyed
secretly first to Rouen and then aboard a fishing vessel which sailed to meet
a British frigate in the Channel.
Tom Pocock's "A Thirst for Glory - The Life of Admiral Sir Sidney Smith" a
very good read for some more possible inspiration for Jack Aubrey, even if Jack
himself did not like the Swedish knight.
Adam Quinan
Thanks very much for the account, Adam. I did some googling but could find
no particulars. There's a great deal of material (most of it, in fact) which
is not available on the internet.
This incident is fascinating; French girls, too! All it would have
taken was a few flooring stones loosened before the forged
papers arrived and we'd have had a very close match.
Marshall Rafferty At 9:49 PM -0400 4/16/2002, Adam Quinan wrote:
The other prisoner was a midshipman Wright, he was years later recaptured
and held by the French as a suspected spy and died a suspicious death.
At the time of his second capture, Wright was commander of a little quarterdecked
brig named Vincejo. POB mentions that the Sophie was formerly the Vincejo.
Wright was high on Napoleon's hit list for his earlier escape, and for his
close association with Sir Sidney Smith, who had ruined his plans in the mideast.
Wright's greatest offense, however, was that he had transported some French
Royalist agents who intended to assassinate Napoleon.
Don Seltzer
Wright was an odd character - a multi-linguist who joined the Royal Navy,
as a midshipman and captain's clerk, at the advanced age of 25, under Sir Sidney
Smith's patronage. (Wright had also served rather briefly in the Navy between
the ages 11 and 13). There has always been a suggestion that when he rejoined
in 1794 he was already a full-time British intelligence agent, working for the
Foreign Office and that his assignment to Smith's command was for a continuation
of these activities. This suggestion was very much confirmed by Dr Michael Duffy
at Colin White's POB Seminar last fall, and more fully accounts for Wright's
treatment and fate when he was captured by the French - they saw him as a bang-up
spy, masquerading as a naval officer (though he was a pretty decent sailor too).
Lissuns interested in this and other affairs - including bold escapes - might
try "Napoleon and his British Captives' by Michael Lewis.
Much discussion has occurred regarding Diana's treatment of, and feelings
for, Stephen, and since I am relatively new on board, please forgive me if
this point has been raised previously. Diana's so-called change of heart in
this book, where she first refuses Stephen's offer of marriage because she
is pregnant with Johnson's child. Stephen obtains safe passage for her to
Paris, so that she need not suffer the embarrassment of remaining in England
while she is obviously pregnant and unmarried, and it is unclear whether she
is using him. But consider the following passages.
Before Stephen is to deliver his address in Paris, he is nervously waiting
with Diana. She hands him (p. 153, Norton paperback) the Blue Peter, is
admiring it, says she loves her diamonds passionately, should not part with
them for anything, wishes to be buried with them. Yet after Stephen, Jack
and Jagiello are taken prisoner by the French, she willingly trades the Blue
Peter for their release. On page 375, when Diana and Stephen are reunited,
Stephen says, "Dearest Diana, how profoundly I thank you, but I have cost
you the Blue Peter." Her response is "Be damned to the necklace; you will
be my diamond." Why the change?
I think that her true feelings became clear when Stephen was threatened. We
often don't appreciate what we have - as someone remarked very recently -
until we see ourselves in danger of losing it. I think that when Diana saw
Stephen in danger, she realized how much he truly meant to her. This became
obvious to me because at the end of last summer, I had become estranged from
someone very dear to me. It seemed hopeless. Then after the events of
September 11, suddenly the only thing that seemed important was the fact
that we loved each other, and how easily everything could end, and nothing
else seemed important, and we are dear to each other once again, and I think
that is what happened to Diana. -RD
I forgot the bit at the middle...
After Stephen's address, he tells Diana that he will be leaving the next day
(pages 159-160, Norton paperback) and she is disappointed. He then
instructs her on what to say should she be questioned by the authorities,
and she begins to realize how much danger he may be in. Stephen says: "'And
listen: should you ever be questioned about me you are to say that we are
old acquaintances, no more; that I advise you as a medical man; and that
there is nothing between us whatsoever, nothing between us at all.' He saw
the flash of anger, the cruelly wounded pride on her face, took her hand,
and said, 'You are to lie, my dear. You are to tell a black lie.' Her eyes
grew gentle again. 'I will SAY it, Stephen,' she said, with her best
attempt at a smile, 'but I shall find it hard to be very convincing.'"
We see the beginning of the change in Diana's feelings toward Stephen here.
Other lissuns have often cited the wonderful passage on pages 364-365, so I
will shut up and go to bed now. -RD
Interesting, isn't it, how much we find to say about Diana's feelings, and
how little about Sophie's.
Diana forever! Sophie now and then!
Charlezzzzz
I think that her true feelings became clear when Stephen was threatened.
We often don't appreciate what have - as someone remarked very recently until
see ourselves in danger of losing it. I Diana saw danger, she realized how much
he truly meant to her.
I think this an excellent hypothesis. May I offer another? She suffered a miscarriage
in the same time period. Whether or not the child was wanted, the physical side
effects of losing it may have been playing on her mind. Could she not have been
suffering post-partum depression, causing her to cling to Stephen? This would
also explain her reluctance to marry later - she might have recovered.
Greg
42º32'34.5" N
In a message dated 4/17/02 12:06:30 AM, Charlezzzzz@COMCAST.NET writes:
Diana forever! Sophie now and then!
Sophie when you want your
shirts ironed and your dinner on the table and the yard work done and the finances
attended to and your children raised properly. The rest of the time you men
would rather be in bed with Diana.
Rowen
Here, now, you mustn't group all of us in one fell sloop.
I found the reunion scenes with Jack and Sophie to be very touching. I think
the Jack/Sophie relationship in TSM is a stable one, one where the passions
may not be so high, but the depths of love are much greater.
The Stephen/Diana relationship is still very mercurial, with greater swings
in feelings.
I think that we would not be as enthralled with the four of them if both couples
had an easy relationship.
'Sides, I like Sophie very much. Tall blondes, ummmm. ;-)
Heck. Short blondes. Short brunettes, tall/short redheads, whatever, ummmm.
--
G'day Rowen,
Sophie when you want your shirts ironed and your dinner on the table and
the yard work done and the finances attended to and your children raised properly.
The rest of the time you men would rather be in bed with Diana.
Contrary to many a female's much cherished suspicion, men have - well above
their rude bits but quite near their livers ... hearts. All the froward rogering
in the world couldn't pay the price of an inevitably regularly broken heart
(although I allow it passes the time tolerably well). I think a chap would be
lucky to have the dizzy highs and wise-making lows that the world's Dianas provide
somewhere in his youthful past. But the chap, duly chastened, would do well
soon to seek out a Sophie. We are a much inflated gender, and too easily burst.
That said, I make no doubt POB hands us Diana and Sophie as ideal types of
their class in their time and place. The choice was one between being wife or
slut, each offering its own freedom at its own price. To depend on one man or
to depend on many, that was the question. Slings and arrows either way ...
Yours partially reinflated, Charming post, Rob. Can we sidewise-glancing, females see your picture in
the lissuns' gallery?
Anonymous
G'day Anonymous,
Charming post, Rob. Can we sidewise-glancing, females see your picture
in the lissuns' gallery?
The Canberra Surprises keep an uncommon tight manifest and I am already snapped,
ma'am. Don't know if the ghastly truth (albeit fetchingly wrapped in the glorious
lime green of the Canberra Raiders) has yet made its way to Mistress Connor's
gallery, though.
Your blushing servant, No man except Stephen has ever had Diana's welfare at heart before. Not her
father who took her to India for his convenience, not her Indian husband, not
Johnson, not Canning, certainly not Jack Aubrey.
Gunroom has shown that Diana used men. Men used Diana too. When Stephen was
nice to her she didn't believe it because it had never happened before. Now
she sees for the first time how much he truly loves her and cares for her. It
was there before but she didn't recognize it.
In a message dated 4/17/02 9:17:22 AM, sasdvp@UNX.SAS.COM writes:
Here, now, you mustn't group all of us in one fell sloop
- long snip of insincere ::grin:: stuff, meant to divert us from the real
objective, then we get down to the truth:
Sides, I like Sophie very much. Tall blondes, ummmm. ;-) Heck. Short blondes.
Short brunettes, tall/short redheads, whatever, ummmm.
ummm indeed. I believe you've made my point. That's one full sloop.
Rowen, In message Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:34:14 EDT, Rowen 84 wrote:
ummm indeed. I believe you've made my point. That's one full sloop.
It occurred to me this morning that this would be a swell sloop.
-- At 04/17/2002 09:47 AM -0700, Rowen wrote:
Sophie when you want your shirts ironed and your dinner on the table and
the yard work done and the finances attended to and your children raised properly.
The rest of the time you men would rather be in bed with Diana.
Rowen The rest of the time we men would rather flirt and banter, tease and
tickle with Diana. Perhaps she has developed more expertise in bed, but speculation
here can be dangerous. However, I know that getting there would be much more
interesting with Diana. That is what makes her so attractive.
I am reminded of the joke that young Republican boys will often date Democratic
girls. They marry Republican girls but want to have some fun first.
Mike In a message dated 4/17/02 2:28:15 PM, ward1@UX6.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes:
Which my wife ain't gonna read none of this, right?
What did you say her email address was, Mike?
Rowen
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, at 08:56:30, Rowan wrote:
Sophie when you want your shirts ironed and your dinner on the table and
the yard work done and the finances attended to and your children raised properly.
The Diana solution:
(1) hire a laundress The rest of the time you men would rather be in bed with Diana.
There's also dancing, conversation, billiards, and enjoying a good cigar.
Bob Kegel Bob K., you forgot horseback riding, for all love! (Though perhaps not driving.)
Bambi, thank you for making that most excellent point about Diana. You are
absolutely right: Stephen was the first man who loved her as a person, for herself,
not as an object; and no wonder it took her some time to believe he was sincere.
Been there, done that. -RD
Jagiello joins the discussion between Rowen and Mr Phillips regarding men
and women (TSM, p 198):
"There is no friendship between enemies, even in a truce; they are always watching.
And if you are not friends, where is the real knowledge?"
"Some speak of love," suggested Stephen.
"Love?" cried the young man. "But love is a creature of time, whereas friendship
is not. Your own Shakespeare says..."
Which this very morning I was about to suggest to Rowen that he says
"Sigh no more, ladies, sigh no more, But while some have adverted to the growth of love between Jack and Sophie,
and their rapturous reunion, I was sad to notice that POB still puts that little
canker in the rose:
"...in its physical aspects even the domesticated strand [of love] was of no
great interest to her..." p. 104
and now, how is she to feel, now that he is whirled away up-channel without
even the chance to say farewell to her?
Sighing for the mischances of love,
Mary S Put another way, Sophie by daylight, Diana by night.
Gary, this is an appropriate moment for you to tell us again about British
spy James Robertson and the Marquis de La Romana.
Don Seltzer
Although I researched these chappies fairly thoroughly for PASC, I do believe
it was the good Adam Quinan who first drew our attention to them. So I shall
stand aside.
I did draw Gunroom attention to POB's modeling Professor Ebenezer Graham's
undercover activities to some extent on those of the Scottish historian and
secret service agent Hugh Cleghorn, associate of the Swiss mercenary de Meuron
brothers, who subverted Ceylon from Dutch to British rule, perhaps assisted
by a cheese. Cleghorn's diaries are quite revealing of the practicalities of
intelligence work - secret inks and codes included - during the period, but
I don't see much evidence that POB was directly familiar with them.
Indeed, POB's knowledge of early 19th century intelligence does seem a tad
eccentric, in that he seems to have been pretty unfamiliar with the available
sources of information (though many a person who should know testifies to POB's
insights into the general mind-set of intelligence operatives).
Just for example, the Royal Navy Captain (and later Rear-Admiral) Philip d'Auvergne,
titular Duc de Bouillon, a Jerseyman of French origins, was the Head of Naval
Intelligence for the European theatre, yet is identified by POB as a 'French
Royalist' officer serving in the RN, with no intelligence connection mentioned.
POB seems to me also to be oddly unfamiliar with the reams of documentation
on Royal Navy intelligence activities on the South American station (some of
which has been long published by the Navy Records Society).
I don't know if the good Dr Duffy of Exeter University will repeat his excellent
turn at the next Colin White POB seminar, but it's an excellent talk on the
scope and detail of naval intelligence in 'our' period.
Gary furtive in Dallas
From: "Gary Brown" Although I researched these chappies fairly thoroughly for PASC, I do believe
it was the good Adam Quinan who first drew our attention to them. So I shall
stand aside.
http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/JUN0597/0126.html
Not me, but Iain Rowan back in 1997. Then in 1999 Bruce Trinque also passed
on some info.
http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/JAN1699/0227.html
Ever since Google became aware of the Gunroom archives, I've noticed that
searches for historical information are very often circular, referring me back
to previous discussions in the Gunroom. Sometimes, these provide the only "hit".
Putting together the story from a few different sources:
Bruce Trinque's post from 1999:
Knowning that POB often uses historical incidents as the seed for the fictional
exploits of Aubrey and Maturin, I had wondered if there might be some factual
underpinnings for Stephen's mission to the island of Grimsholm in "The Surgeon's
Mate" to convince the Spanish (Catalan) forces there to throw aside their allegiance
to Napoleon and accept transportation by the Royal Navy back to Spain.
Not long ago I came across a reference to an incident of the Napoleonic Wars
which seems to be largely forgotten today. In Mark Lloyd's "The Guiness Book
of Espionage" (published in 1994 in the UK by Guiness Publishing and in the
US by De Capo Press). Together with information I subsequently gleaned from
"The Dictionary of National Biography" (Oxford University),this is the story:
James Robertson, a native of Scotland was taken at an early age by his uncle,
Father Marianus Brockie, to the Scottish Benedictine abbey at Regensburg (Ratisbon),
Germany. There, Robertson eventually became a father of the order with the name
of Gallus (although he seems to have been popularly known as "Brother James".
He was described as a "short, stout, merry little monk [who] was always jesting
and poking fun." The Dictionary of National Biography notes that "as he did
not promise well at Ratisbon, he was sent home on the mission" (perhaps merry
monks were not quite the thing at Regensburg), and by 1797 he was chaplain at
Munshes in Galloway, Scotland.
Before Napoleon had launched his surprise attack on Spain, he had convinced
the Spanish government to send 15,000 of their best soldiers to Denmark to protect
that country from a possible British invasion. By 1808 these troops had been
fragmented and stranded on small coastal islands.
At Wellington's suggestion (no mention is made of how Wellington knew the Benedictine
monk), Robertson was sent on a secret mission to contact these Spanish forces.
He was first dispatched to a British Intelligence covert post on Heligoland,
then smuggled on a small craft up the Weser River into Germany.
Disguised as "Adam Rohrauer", a dealer in cigars and chocolate, he made his
way through French forces to the Danish island of Funen, where he met the Spanish
commander, the Marquis de la Romana, who accepted the offer of safe passage
home for himself and his men. Robertson escaped back to Heglioland and communicated
the agreement to Admiral Keates.
Within a few days 9000 Spanish soldiers had been embarked Royal Navy vessels.
Robertson's adventure was detailed in his later book, "Narrative of a Secret
Mission to the Danish Islands in 1808 by the Rev. James Robertson".
Anthony Clover answered the question of how Wellington linked up with Roberston:
Wellington was helped by having his brother the Earl of Wellesley in the Foreign
Office, and James Robertson, who did important work in Germany as 'Brother James',
was discovered by him : a Scottish Benedictine monk who had spent most of his
life in a monastery in Regensburg, before starting on the highly unlikely mission
of providing an answer to the 15,000 Spanish troops trapped in Denmark.
And to complete the story, here is an excerpt from Gary Brown's PASC:
"...and was given a Royal Navy transport fleet - initially lead by Rear Admiral
Keats in his HMS Superb - to take himself and his men southwards. The entire
force arrived in Spain without incident, but was soon defeated and dismembered
by the French and their local allies. In 1810 Romana was appointed Commander-in-Chief
of a new, independent Spanish army, operating alongside Wellington's forces
in Portugal, but the Marquis died of illness in the following year. James Robertson
lived in Dublin from 1809-13, but in that latter year returned to diplomatic
and intelligence service with Wellington in Spain. In 1815 he was given a large
pension by the British government and then retired to his home monastery - which
lay in Bavaria - to take up a final career as a successful educator of the deaf
and dumb. In 1863 his nephew, Alexander Clinton Fraser, published Robertson's
Narrative of a Secret Mission to the Danish Islands in 1808."
Don Seltzer
on 4/18/02 4:31 PM, Don Seltzer at dseltzer@DRAPER.COM wrote:
Ever since Google became aware of the Gunroom archives, I've noticed that
searches for historical information are very often circular, referring me back
to previous discussions in the Gunroom. Sometimes, these provide the only "hit".
I've noticed the same thing. And since the circle is the most perfect shape
(ask any ancient Greek) such circular references must also be perfect: it therefore
follows that such Gunroom-Gunroom references must be correct.
Charlezzzzz. QED, and SPQR
At the time of his second capture, Wright was commander of a little quarterdecked
brig named Vincejo. POB mentions that the Sophie was formerly the Vincejo.
The author, Showell Styles, fictionalised the tale of the Vincejo in his book
"Vincey Joe at Quiberon", if my memory serves me wrightly.
Yes, Styles is a prolific Welsh author of nautical fiction, whose books are
generally hard to find in the US. He is of the same generation as POB. Possibly,
POB knew him when he lived in Wales.
Styles enjoyed fictionalizing little known naval heroes of the Napoleonic Wars,
such as Wright. One of his favorite characters, Lt. Michael Fitton, makes several
cameo appearances in the POB canon. And in "Malta Frigate", set in the Mediterranean
in 1800, the title frigate 'Success' is in one place misprinted as 'Surprise'.
Don Seltzer
In a message dated 4/17/02 3:38:14 PM Central Daylight Time, dseltzer@DRAPER.COM
writes:
Yes, Styles is a prolific Welsh author of nautical fiction, whose books
are generally hard to find in the US
His Midshipman Quinn series is coming out currently in the US, useful perhaps
for turning on your squeakers to nautical fiction :)
This volume contains four books:
http://www.ignatius.com/acb_ip/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Product_ID=920&CATID=3
For intelligence, there is nothing like a keen-witted, handsome woman, [DI
2]
Mary S The Green-Backed Girl
The =Shannon= beat the =Chesapeake=,
The Admiral gave a noble ball
She walked me up, she walked me down,
O many a glistening stone was there,
O ladies, whisper not in scorn,
Our anchor's weighed, our sails are set Which it needs a tune in course, but you can't expect me to do everything,
now, can you?
A sad, brutish grobian, [IM, p45]
Mary S 35° 58' 11" N 86° 48' 57" W
Hehehehe brilliant -I LUVIT
(sorry I'm no good in the 'appropriate tune' department-but no doubt that
will follow).
alec
on 4/17/02 5:34 PM, Mary S at Stolzi@AOL.COM wrote:
Which it needs a tune in course, but you can't expect me to do everything,
now, can you?
But surely you were thinking of "The Wabash Cannonball?"
Charlezzzzz, and that's how I sang it right off my screen, and the cat ran
out of the room
In a message dated 4/17/2002 5:42:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Charlezzzzz@COMCAST.NET
writes:
But surely you were thinking of "The Wabash Cannonball?"
Or the "Waspish Canon Ball" I guess she was greenbacked from spending so much
tiime in that position in the dewy grass !:)
Blatherin' John B
Excellent. Delightful. "The Girl I Left Behind Me" works nicely for a tune.
EB
Speaking of Sir Sidney Smith....
I don't remember this very well, and I'm not in a position to look it up just
now, but didn't Lord Clonfert, in Mauritius Command, say that Sir Sidney claimed
to have a unicorn horn--or that he had claimed to have hunted or killed a unicorn,
something like that? I remember Stephen assuming that it must have been a narwhal
horn, but is there any basis in history--assuming I'm remembering this even
close to correctly--for Clonfert's statement, anything POB might have come across?
(I mean, did Smith make such a claim?) Or did O'Brian just invent it?
This is one of my least articulate notes, but I plead the lateness of the hour.
Bob Fleisher Most of the R
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Stephen/ Diana/ Ball/Greenbacked Girl
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Stephen/ Diana/ Ball/Greenbacked Girl
From: Gary Brown
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Stephen/ Diana/ Ball/Greenbacked Girl
noting that Maturin's "mare" should really be "mari"......
From: Rosemary Davis
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 7:08 PM
Subject: GRP TSM: Miss Smith, Stephen
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Stephen/ Diana/ Ball/Greenbacked Girl
From: Jan Hatwell
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Stephen/ Diana/ Ball/Greenbacked Girl
From: Nina Froehlich
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Stephen/ Diana/ Ball/Greenbacked Girl
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 6:49 PM
Subject: Sidney Smith and the escape from the Temple
From: Marshall Rafferty
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: Sidney Smith and the escape from the Temple
________
At, or about:
47°40'54"N. 122°22'8"W.
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 6:24 AM
Subject: Re: Sidney Smith and the escape from the Temple
From: Gary Brown
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: Sidney Smith and the escape from the Temple
From: Rosemary Davis
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 9:19 PM
Subject: GRP TSM: Diana's feelings for Stephen
From: Rosemary Davis
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 9:40 PM
Subject: GRP TSM: More of Diana's feelings
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: More of Diana's feelings
From: Greg White
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: Diana's feelings for Stephen
71º20'13.2" W
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: More of Diana's feelings
From: David Phillips
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: More of Diana's feelings
David V. Phillips sasdvp@unx.sas.com SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC
If you're
not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room.
RKBA! DVC 35* 46' 33.024"
N 078* 48' 48.161.89" W
From: Rob Schaap
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: More of Diana's feelings
Rob.
From: Gerry Strey
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: More of Diana's feelings
From: Rob Schaap
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: More of Diana's feelings
Rob.
From: Bambi Dextrous
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 9:47 AM
Subject: GRP TSM: More of Diana's feelings
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: More of Diana's feelings
(teasing, you understand)
From: David Phillips
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 6:24 AM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: More of Diana's feelings
David V. Phillips sasdvp@unx.sas.com SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC
From: Michael R. Ward
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: More of Diana's feelings
Which my wife ain't gonna read none of this, right?
40° 05' 27" N
088° 16' 57" W
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: More of Diana's feelings
From: Bob Kegel
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: More of Diana's feelings
(2) hire a cook
(3) hire a gardener
(4) hock the jewelry
(5) hire Clarissa Oakes
46°59'18.661"N
123°49'29.827"W
From: Rosemary Davis
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 8:36 PM
Subject: Diana's virtues
From: Mary S
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: More of Diana's feelings; Sophie and Jack
Men were inconstant ever..."
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Jeffrey Charles
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: More of Diana's feelings
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: GRP SM: Spies
From: Gary Brown
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Spies
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 3:19
PM Subject: Re: GRP SM: Spies
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Spies
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Spies
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: Sidney Smith and the escape from the Temple
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Sidney Smith and the escape from the Temple
From: Mary S
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Sidney Smith and the escape from the Temple
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Mary S
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: The Green-Backed Girl
The best day of the year,
And brought her into Halifax
While all the folks did cheer.
Where all did dance and twirl,
And there my eye did chance to fall
On my lovely green-backed girl.
And then behind a tree,
And there upon the grass she made
A happy man of me.
And many a glowing pearl;
But no jewel there that could compare
With my lovely green-backed girl.
Or laugh behind your fan.
My lovely girl will not be spurned
By a true-born Englishman.
For the far side of the world;
But never, friends, will I forget
My lovely green-backed girl.
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: The Green-Backed Girl
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: The Green-Backed Girl
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: The Green-Backed Girl
From: Edmund Burton
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: GRP TSM: The Green-Backed Girl
From: Bob Fleisher
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Sidney Smith
Houston, TX
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: Sidney Smith
