|
|
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 Royal Navy considered that Sidney Smith was a bit flashy and shallow,
a bit of a braggard who considered that others didn't recognise his shining
talents. For example his knighthood was given not by the British Crown but the
Swedish Crown for a battle in which Smith led the Swedish Fleet against the
Russians, many British officers were sailing with the Russians and were killled.
Smith got censured for that. Both set of officers were on half pay and so took
service with foreign countries.
Now Nelson also accepted foreign titles etc. so it wasn't just that. Somehow
he had other characteristics that caused many of his naval contemporaries to
detest him. Pocock makes the case that he did have a lot of ability and was
very similar to Nelson in many ways.
The unicorn story wasn't in Pocock's book, my only source, but you can see
how such a story might arise, whether Smith expected people to believe it or
was just pulling someone's leg and the subject of his joke took it seriously
as Stephen took Clonfert's story, who knows. as I recall Clonfert was the one
who claimed he was there with Smith hunting the unicorn in person.
In my eternal fear to duplicate I searched the archives, but didn't find previous
posts on this:
What do the lillies in Captain Fortescue's garden stand for? (HarperCollins
edition p. 136-137) Since POB very often uses symbols to make a point, I wonder
what they mean. They appear in the midst of a bunch of images related to fertility
- Diana's pregnancy, Fortescue's biblical quote about "increase and multiply",
the happily increasing and multiplying beetles ("Oh god, they're at it again!")
, Jack's statement that three kids are enough, and finally, Miss Smith' letter
telling Jack that she is expecting his child. Why suddenly the lillies, such
a strong symbol for innocence?
Nina
Some thoughts regarding Nina's post on the symbolism of the lilies (which
are a flower I associate with funerals - is that merely in America?):
The beetles are reproducing, but their reproduction threatens the lilies (which
are a symbol of purity).
If Jack were to reproduce with Miss Smith (decidedly impure), this would threaten
his relationship with Sophie (a symbol of purity in her own right.)
Diana's pregnancy makes her feel she cannot marry Stephen, and threatens her
reputation (such as it may be) and her happiness.
But Miss Smith is not really pregnant (evidently), and marries someone, thereby
removing the threat to Jack.Diana loses her child, and marries Stephen.
I've just had a couple of bottles of ale, and I have no idea what any of this
symbolizes. -RD, glad there's no mandaretto here
A lovely song from the 1500's picks up on the lily as a symbol for innocence.
The "I" of the song is a maiden on her wedding morning. I don't suggest any
direct use of this song to drive the scene in SM, but it wd not surprise me
at all to find that POB had it somewhere in his mind, and I get to the point
in the last line of this posting.
The maidens came when I was in my mother's bower;
The silver is white, red is the gold;
And through the glass window shines the sun. Charlezzzzz, and isn't this one of the finest poems in the language, just?
Ain't it prime? And wonderful for singing? And so sweetly innocent, and so innocently
wicked with "lay" repeated four times? And all those wonderful echoes of sounds:
baily/beareth/bell; love/bailey/bell/lily/lay. And the silver and gold reference,
because wealth mattered so much, and the bridal robes waiting in the fold, and
the glass window--surely at that time only the rich had glass; and she so young?
But it goes further, if you want to follow the point that the lily, especially
at Eastertide, stands for Jesus--shines the sun. (The lily is also a symbol
of the Virgin Mary--"my mother's bower.") Every line is a marvel. It's springtime,
innit? And, now consider the Admiral's garden, isn't it all a corruption of
this Eden?
and isn't this one of the finest poems in the language, just?
Yes, it is, and it reminds me of a beautiful picture. Sargent's "Carnation,
Lily, Lily, Rose," with two little girls in a garden.
http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/John_Singer_Sargent_prints_Carnation_Lily_Lily_Rose.html
Lilies are a symbol of innocence, but there is also something phallic about
them, which may be why they are associated with fertility and resurrection.
I'm sure POB had something up his sleeve.
Katherine T
And,
now consider the Admiral's garden, isn't it all acorruption of this Eden?
Yes, that makes sense. But what an absolutely lovely song. I would love to
know the melody!
Nina
I am just now reading something about the use of love symbols in the 19th
century, and it says here that lilies were a symbol of "love revived" ... POB
using Victorian flower language?? But this interpretation would make the lilies
a good omen for poor Stephen.
Nina
Rosemary wrote:
Some thoughts regarding Nina's post on the symbolism of the lilies (which
are a flower I associate with funerals - is that merely in America?):
The "funeral" association of lilies is not a funeral association, as such.
It's an association with resurrection and with Christ himself (think: Easter
lilies). But perhaps in some places the flower has remained as a "funeral" flower
without it's accompanying spiritual symbolism.
Marian
I associate chrysanthemums with funerals, myself - pity, 'cause they're a lovely
flower.
And have a vague association of corpses as "holding a lily in their hands"
though I can't think why, I've never actually seen it, I guess I've seen it
in cartoons, though not often.
(pokes her way offstage, sadly associating)
Mary S I believe lilies as flowers for deaths or funerals must be an American or
Anglosaxon thing. I always thought white carnations are for funerals. Thinking
about it some more ... every single painting of the Anunciation I have ever
seen (about 300 during my last visit to Rome) had lilies in it. It's always
Mary, the kneeling angel, and lilies. Don't they stand for the immaculate conception?
Nina
On Tuesday 23 April 2002 11:35 am, Nina Froehlich wrote:
I believe lilies as flowers for deaths or funeralsmust be an American or
Anglosaxon thing.
In Poland it's chrysanthemums. And white lilies are supposed to symbolize virginity
and purity, and are often part of a bride's dress.
Pawel
Lilies stand for a number of things, the way many symbols do, depending on
context. In their whiteness and their beauty, they stand for the Virgin Mary,
and for innocence.
They also stand for Resurrection, and so are an Easter flower. It's an easy
jump from there to be a funeral flower: the idea behind this is that the glorious
white flower can spring up from a bulb--brown, withered in appearance, corpselike.
So what does it mean that my spring bulbs popped up early this year, bloomed
for about half the usual time, and now have started to flop. Weather? It was
in the 90's (F) a couple of days ago.
Now it's 50 degrees cooler. We even had a bit of frost two nights ago. Should
I worry? Is Doylestown selected to be one of the new Cities on the Plain, marked
for destruction because of the goings-on of its inhabitants? The place is full
of lawyers.
Charlezzzzz
Nina, what wonderful associations you point out!
This seems to be one of those (many) passages where the more you look the more
there is to find. From the Old Testament, there is an extra-Biblical tradition
that lilies sprang from the repentant tears of Eve as she fled with Adam from
the Garden [Benet's Reader's Encyclopedia (1948) s.v. lily]. Part of the consequence
of the Fall laid upon Eve is that childbirth will be hard, very hard, but she
will still desire after her husband [Gen3:16]. After the Fall, Adam and Eve
begin to procreate, begetting Cain and Able. And then of course there is the
imagery in Song of Songs, where lilies meld into the beloved's body.
From the New Testament, in pictures of the Annunciation, a lily in a vase often
stands before the Virgin, and Gabriel carries a lily-branch [Benet again]. Could
it perhaps be added that lilies as Eve's repentant tears are brought back into
right relationship through Mary's bringing Jesus into the world? Lilies celebrate
the "Word made flesh" and consequent rescue from Old Testament consequences
of the Fall.
There is also Jesus' teaching about not worrying about our bodies, what we
will eat or wear, using the example of the lilies of the field, which do not
labor or spin, but are clothed in all the glory of Solomon [Matt6:25 ff.]. Above
all, do not worry.
Captain Fortescue's lilies tie back to the scene Stephen and Diana have just
left. There the plain and coarse Mrs Fortescue dresses with inappropriate ribbons,
brooches, and pins. She ill judges Stephen by his surgeon's coat and worries
about Diana's looks. When her husband enters, she gives him a look of pure love.
Meanwhile her two boys (C & A) are struggling next to and then knock over an
apparently empty flower stand, all latter day annunciations long past. When
Captain Fortescue finds Diana and Stephen, he makes it clear these are his lilies
in his garden, to be kept safely away from all animal progeneration, not to
mention his wife and family, Word and Flesh quite separate.
On the side of Diana and Stephen, it is among the lilies that he announces
her release from "this revolting house", and then agrees without a murmur to
take her with him to Paris. We then jump to an idyllic Paris, an opera stage
where the soldiers' uniforms are described with flower-like overtones, and Diana
fits right in. A Google search for Fortescue gives us Eleanor Fortescue-Brickdale,
a Pre-Raphaelite whose pictures embedded their characters in flowers, often
with an ironic edge; one is They Toil Not, Neither Do They Spin. http://www.artmagick.com/artists/fortescue.aspx
Tom Collin
on 4/24/02 12:48 AM, Tom Collin at tcollin@WI.RR.COM wrote:
This seems to be one of those (many) passages where the more you look the
more there is to find.
Brilliant, Sir, brilliant. Illuminating. Thankee. God set a flower on your
head.
Charlezzzzz
In a message dated 4/23/02 11:48:59 PM Central Daylight Time, tcollin@WI.RR.COM
writes:
And then of course there is the imagery in Song of Songs, where lilies
meld into the beloved's body.
See: The Song of Solomon Illustrated
http://www.acts17-11.com/snip_song.html
The Pre-Raphaelites were great men for lilies; which Gilbert ridicules in PATIENCE:
"If you walk down Piccadilly, with a poppy or a lily ("And if he's content with vegetable loves If this is a joke, sir, a God-damned pleasantry, I am not amused. [HMSS 377]
Mary S I am currently reading Mary Renault's "The Persian Boy" which follows the
exploits of Alexander the Great. At one point, the narrator, a ... well, a Persian
boy, associates lilies with a funeral. This would be before the Easter story
and he would not likely have been away of the Hebrew Bible stories. I do not
want to believe that Ms. Renault goofed. I was given to understand that she
was POBian in her attention to historical accuracy.
Mike, not wanting fallible authors
"heavy, graceless, dark-faced, rude, domineering, inefficient, rich and mean,"
[THD p. 45 describing Captain Ward]
40° 05' 27" N 088° 16' 57" W
So the thing I often wonder is, all of these discoveries of ours - amazingly
obscure bits of historical trivia, events that actually happened but are recorded
in only *one* book printed 200 years ago, references to just about *every* major
work of literature in the past 2000 years - all of this we of the gunroom (well,
Charlezzzzz, Don, Bruce, and many others too numerous to mention) continually
discover in the beloved Canon. Well, as I say, I often wonder, *how* did O'Brian
*know* all this stuff? It's like (I believe apostrophe 's' is appropriate here)
he was salting the books with clues for the past 30 years just for us to discover.
Did this man know everything?
Reading them again for the third time-round - each time with more background
information to add insight thanks to the Gunroom.
I have a couple of books: The Bluffer's Guide to Cricket, and The Bluffer's
Guide to Spies, which gives away the technique. Basically you don't have to
know everything, but you do have to know something. You find a few obscure facts
and trot them out as if you have a never ending supply. Oh I haven't seen such
sweet tactical sailing since Bob Brown won the start of the Sydney to Hobart
in 1975, you remember he forced Meg Lees in Balance of Power off the end of
the start line and she ran aground and dropped her skirtings? He was the skipper
of Green Buck that year, didn't win, but it wasn't for lack of skill - the big
NonFaction Maxi just blew past him in Bass Strait and almost set a new record.
Say it with enough authority and people think you are fair dinkum, as of course
you are - they can check it all they like and it's all true. But if they want
details or some evidence that you actually know any more you just change the
subject. My round I think, what are you having? Pink Gin? Splendid! Look here's
Linois sailing up our wake with a 74, we'd best clear for action, what?
And so it is with Himself. He was a deep old file, to be sure, but he wasn't
an authority on everything. Just looked up a reference book or two for a good
factoid and wove it into the story, or wove the story around it.
At 10:54 PM 4/20/02 -0700, Jeffrey wrote:
Well, as I say, I often wonder, *how* did O'Brian *know* all this stuff?
It's like (I believe apostrophe 's' is appropriate here) he was salting the
books with clues for the past 30 years just for us to discover. Did thisman
know everything?
He not only knew everything, he was completely self taught. As near as I can
make out from his biography, he never attended any higher education, never even
took Martha Stewart 101.
All the more extraordinary. My theory, you can't make someone into a prodigy,
but if someone is born that way, there is no adversity that can keep the genius
in the bottle.
Robin
Thirty-something North on 4/21/02 2:33 AM, Peter Mackay at peter.mackay@BIGPOND.COM wrote:
And so it is with Himself. He was a deep old file, to be sure, but he wasn't
an authority on everything. Just looked up a reference book or two for a good
factoid and wove it into the story, or wove the story around it.
I wonder if Stephen Potter's wonderful Gamesmanship books were in his library--How
to Win Without Absolutely Cheating.
Or maybe he had a wormhole access to the internet, and cd look into the Gunroom's
archives for the information wch we "discover" in him.
Charlezzzzz
My theory, you can't make someone into a prodigy,
Susan Wenger might disagree on that.
Here "Dummies Guide to Being a Genius" will be published shortly.
It's already out.
Or maybe he had a wormhole access to the internet, and cd look into the
Gunroom's archives for the information wch we "discover" in him.
Quite possibly, on the final leg of his voyage, when Norton was running the
barky, mainly by lashing the wheel and going below to tend to slush, he was
able to see what we were saying, at least to some small degree. If there were
a discussion list devoted to my life's work, I'd be all agog to see what folk
were saying.
on 4/20/02 9:56 AM, Mary Arndt at mlaktb@NETSCAPE.NET wrote:
I rather like "coincidence" myself. It is something weird to ruminate on,
but I can't quite attach any cosmic importance to it.
"And, as I raise my hand to knock on this door, a man in China dies."
My copy of SM is in the trunk of my car. I'd give Maturin's exact words, but
of course It's from his fine aria on coincidence as he and Diana stroll through
Paris.
Charlezzzzz, working on the operatic version now. Jack is a fine baritone;
Maturin a tenor; Killick a basso buffo. I don't need to write the music: I'm
setting the words to one of Mozart's coffee cantati.
Charlezzzzz wrote (on the "Sept 11" thread):
"And, as I raise my hand to knock on this door, a man in China dies." My
copy of SM is in the trunk of my car. I'd give Maturin's exact words, but of
course It's from his fine aria on coincidence as he and Diana stroll through
Paris.
The quote is from p. 141 (Norton pb), Stephen has remarked on a number of
coincidences to Diana, and concludes, "You may object that the overwhelming
majority of these coincidences are undetected, which is eminently true; but
they are there for all that, and as I raise this knocker, some man in China
breathes his last."
I too was struck by this passage, and what struck me was the thought, Was it
--? Could it be --?
The last bit only seems to be a throw-away phrase, but when O'Brian throws
something away, it's often worth the catching:
The Surgeons's Mate is from 1980; but in his 1956 book The Golden Ocean PO'B
put in another apparent throw-away line (by which I mean the bit after the dash
in the final sentence):
"On the bank of the Pearl River, with its back to the teeming city of Canton,
a Chinese sage contemplated the innumerable sampans and junks. By his side his
grandson, a sharp child of six winters, tended a caged cricket and gambolled
in the mud -- a child destined, it may be added, for a public death by boiling
just forty years on." (TGO, p. 257)
Could this be the man in China who breaths his last? 'Tis certainly true that
most authors wouldn't take 24 years from set-up to punch-line, but PO'B ain't
most authors, of course...
In case you're wondering, the math doesn't work out*: TGO's scene takes place
in December, 1742 (or perhaps the beginning of 1743), so forty years on would
be 1782 (or '83), whereas SM takes place in 1813 (I believe), but PO'B may very
well have had his earlier scene in mind when he wrote his later one. I wouldn't
put it past the man at all.
John Finneran
*Unless Stephen's doing the calculation?
on 4/21/02 5:52 AM, John Finneran at John.Finneran@PILEOFSHIRTS.COM wrote:
a child destined, it may be added, for a public death by boiling just forty
years on." (TGO, p. 257)
I think this is the *only* place in any of POB's seagoing books where he foretells
the future like this.
Charlezzzzz
@@@@This is a spoiler for first time readers who have not yet finished SM@@@
Maybe someone can help me with this coincidence concept?
Does Stephen use the concept of coincidence as totally unconnected things happening
at the same time ?
I can certainly see the coincidence involved in the fact that their(Stephen's
& Diana's) walk through Paris brought them,unknown to Stephen to Diana's old
home.
But what,for example, in the coincidence (in the accepted usage of the word
today) between Jack mounting his horse and Stephen and Diana entering a courtyard
in Paris?
When I was reading this passage this time around I tried really,really hard
to see the coincidences.
My already 'fertile' imagination was working overtime and got carried away-
The only one I could come anywhere near to 'analysing was to do with the China
man- breathing his last as Stephen raised the knocker.
I thought to myself the fact that a person dies somewhere in the world as I
read this passage, is not really a 'coincidence'.
So I moved on and I asked myself was Stephen knocking on 'Death's' door??
Then later it transpired that this was the door of the house Diana stayed in
when she lost her baby?
Was he predicting a 'Death' in this house?
In reality I don't think so but it goes to show how far a (strange) mind will
go( mine in this case ) to try to square the circle!
alec
I think this is the *only* place in any of POB's seagoing books where he
foretells the future like this.
Obviously the mechanism jarred, for he never repeated it. I think that he used
it to indicate the "foreign-ness" of the culture. If you think on it, it is
the only place where Anson touches that is unlike Europe. Here they are on the
far side of the world in a place where they boil cricket players alive and they
have the hide to call the British strange and barbaric.
If you think through the canon, people in strange places die trivially. Look
at Dil. And in TUS, an infant is killed for very little reason by the Patagonians.
Very Very Minor Spoiler for Surgeon's Mate
In SM Stephen makes mentionof the fact he may have lost his toothbrush the
town of Athenry in County Galway.
Athenry was a small nondescript town -with no great claim to fame until some
12/14 years ago (rough guess) Pete St John wrote a song entitled 'The Fields
of Athenry'.
This is a haunting ballad with a great sing along chorus and it immediately
became a 'hit' and then subsequently an anthem for all things Irish
By the way in spite of its lyrics it is sung without any political baggage.
By a lonely prison wall
Chorus
Its popularity, rather then diminishing over the years, has increased.
First it became (understandably) a 'County Galway' anthem and as the Galway
Hurling and Football teams progressed through the All Ireland championships,
they would do so to the chorus of Fields of Athenry echoing throughout the
stands/terraces.
By a lonely prison wall
Then it was adopted by the Irish International Soccer team supporters who
travelled Europe speading the Athenry Gospel. A strange side effect of this
is that many Glasgow(Celtic) folk also support the Irish soccer team and
they brought the song back to Glasgow with them.
So nowadays when Glasgow Celtic play their deadly rivals Rangers in Celtic
Park the song the reverberates around the ground(60,000 spectators) is
By a lonely harbor wall
And next Saturday as Munster(a province in Ireland) take on Castres in
France in the semi finals of the European Rugby Cup-the song that will be
sung by the Munster supporters will be 'Athenry' --even though Athenry is
in Connaught another and traditionally rival province.
I wonder if any body down there has Stephen's Toothbrush?
Snippet of the song here if you are interested.
http://www.petestjohn.com/fields.htm
alec
From: Susan Wenger at my "away" mailbox:
Before I leave for vacation, I have two parting remarks about "The Surgeon's
Mate." Sadly, I won't be around to read responses in a timely manner, but will
get them in a few weeks.
1. We've commented on the black band about Diana's thorax at the ball. I have
a suggestion about that:
Diana said, "It came to me at the very last moment; that is why I was so late."
What we don't know yet, but Stephen and Diana both know already, is that she's
in her third-fourth month of pregnancy. She's starting to show, we thought she
was seasick on Shannon but it was more likely morning sickness, which typically
starts late in the third month. Stephen has seen the changes in her skin and
eyes, Diana certainly knows or suspects, and we saw her asking Jack Aubrey about
Sophie's experience giving birth to George, so we know she isn't altogether
unaware. My guess is, she's starting to "show." She is unmarried, pregnant,
and surrounded by catty women who are jealous of her looks, and she knows from
experience how cruel their barbs can be. Tying a band around her thorax, yes
her thorax, will pull the gown up a bit, fashionably, and it won't be tight
around her slightly bulging midsection. It will look like a stylish A-line gown,
and no-one will be the wiser.
2. We've commented many, many times about Jack Aubrey's infidelity. I never
suspect Jack of being unfaithful deliberately. He is often taken advantage of
by women with various agendas, but I don't think he seeks out opportunities
for this. In "The Surgeon's Mate," Amanda Smith is absolutely flirting with
him, and there's no doubt in my mind or Stephen's that she's a willing bedmate,
and Jack certainly recognizes the signs, but on page 50, Diana appears, and
Amanda asks who she is, and Jack COULD say "She is Diana Villiers, my friend's
affiance," but he says "She is Diana Villiers, my wife's cousin."
There was no necessity for Jack to bring the fact of his marriage into the
discussion. Honest, forthright, straight and bluff Jack Aubrey, he let the lady
know his status early on. He wouldn't have mentioned a pre-existing wife if
he was trying to bed the woman. He was just having a good time at the ball,
is all, is all. What came later was deliberate seduction by Amanda, taking advantage
of poor Jack's intoxicated state, poor lad.
- Susan
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:35:59 -0700, Susan Wenger Temporary Box My guess is, she's starting to "show." She is unmarried, pregnant, and
surrounded by catty women who are jealous of her looks, and she knows from experience
how cruel their barbs can be. Tying a band around her thorax, yes her thorax,
will pull the gown up a bit, fashionably, and it won't be tight around her slightly
bulging midsection. It will look like a stylish A-line gown, and no-one will
be the wiser.
Very well thought out. I'm sure you're right.
2. We've commented many, many times about Jack Aubrey's infidelity. I never
suspect Jack of being unfaithful deliberately. He is often taken advantage of
by women with various agendas, but I don't think he seeks out opportunities
for this.
I'd just been thinking about Jack's pattern of misbehavior. He is never shown
as being predatory or even going out of his way to look for trouble. In his
relationships with Molly Harte as well as Miss Smith, he was being used, however
willingly. There isn't enough detail about his relations with Diana to tell
who was the initiator, but she would certainly have been capable of it. There
are references in several books to the many husbands Jack has cuckolded, but
these activities take place offstage, and before his marriage, if they occurred
at all. Probably, like the reports of his prizes, his conquests were somewhat
inflated by rumor.
on 4/25/02 1:35 PM, Susan Wenger Temporary Box at swtemp@YAHOO.COM wrote:
He wouldn't have mentioned a pre-existing wife if he was trying to bed the
woman. He was just having a good time at the ball, is all, is all. What came
later was deliberate seduction by Amanda, taking advantage of poor Jack's intoxicated
state, poor lad.
Susan, it's marvelous how precisely you understand the sailor's view of such
matters. Many a time have I seen seagoing gentlemen become intoxicated in waterfront
museums, only to have Amandas of the limicole world rush to take advantage of
them and drag them upstairs, poor lads.
Charlezzzzz
On April 24, Charlezzzzz wrote:
Susan, it's marvelous how precisely you understand the sailor's view of
such matters. Many a time have I seen seagoing gentlemen become intoxicated
in waterfront museums, only to have Amandas of the limicole world rush to take
advantage of them and drag them upstairs, poor lads.
Poor guys: Thirteen chances to say No, as we were told in bootcamp. It never
seemed enough.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:50:35 -0700, Katherine T I'd just been thinking about Jack's pattern of misbehavior. He is never
shown as being predatory or even going out of his way to look for trouble. In
his relationships with Molly Harte as well as Miss Smith, he was being used,
however willingly.
Upon further review, he was a little guiltier than I thought. I went back a
few pages to the scene where he encounters a soldier who mentions having seen
Sophie dancing at an assembly back home. And due to a mixup Jack hasn't yet
gotten any mail from her, and pictures her heartlessly dancing away, not giving
him a second thought. So there's a sense of grievance that makes him somewhat
more susceptible to Miss Smith's wiles.
Katherine T
There's also that passage in FOW in which the captain of the Fleche describes
his visit to Sophie and how she came tripping down the stairs at Ashbrook Cottage,
a brand new baby in her arms. Jack is more than a little perturbed until it
is explained that the infant was Sohie's niece or nephew.
Gerry Strey Jack is more than a little perturbed until it is explained that the infant
was Sohie's niece or nephew.
Yeah, right. I can just see Sophie having a fling and a child. She wasn't too
keen on getting George, if I read between the lines. If she is reluctant with
her own husband who she loves dearly, then what chance does some smooth talking
projector have?
Himself was having a bit of a lend of his readers, I suspect. Jack wouldn't
have been at all perturbed.
Jack wouldn't have been at all perturbed.
I'm not sure if this is tongue in cheek.
Are you suggesting Peter,that Jack wouldn't have been perturbed if Sophie had
produced a child that wasn't his?
alec
No, he wouldn't have believed that Sophie could lie with another. Remember
TMC, where Sophie and Jack are lovers, but not in the physical sense, except
for his last night at home?
If she "refuses the bull" with her own beloved husband, then what chance does
Jack have of believing that she would make the beast with two backs with anybody
else?
And on that word "beloved", I have been looking at some German words from Bach.
At one point we have "Herzliebster Jesu", tanslated as "O beloved Jesus" in
English, "Jesu, mon bien aime" in French, and "Liefdevolle Jesus" in Dutch.
I'm not too sure about the Dutch, but the English and French translations don't
seem to capture the spirit of the German word. "Herz-liebster" what a wonderful
word!
My recollection is and it agrees with Gerry's words above is that Jack was
initially 'perturbed' when informed that Sophie was holding a new born baby.
Why would he have been perturbed unless somewhere in his soul he felt that
while he as away that Sophie might have 'played offside'?
Whereas it appears that Sophie was often less than enthusiastic in her physical
expression of love for Jack -I bet he had nagging doubts about her fidelity
while he was away-
And as mentioned already here, this was at a time when (O Brian had written
to ensure) his mail from Sophie has been misfiled.
He's a dead honest guy. And in his mind he would have to concede that these
things work both ways. He would hate to think of Sophie being unfaithful. But
if she was he would have forgiven her.
But if there was a child...now...sin sceal eile
alec
I'm not sure if this is tongue in cheek. Are you suggesting Peter,that
Jack wouldn't have been perturbed if Sophie had produced a child that wasn't
his?
I'm not really responding to the above sentence, but to some of the other
posts that responded that I've already deleted.
It seems we often talk about morality here and some people are driven to elevating
the characters' morality, or sticking up for the characters.
All of POB's characters have flaws. If they didn't, we'd be criticizing his
character development, or not reading the books at all. Why would I want to
read about a "Sears Underwear Model" (my personal term of endearment for a male
bimbo with no hair on his chest).
Jack is a "doer," while Stephen is a thinker. Jack is physical. If presented
with Amanda Smith, wearing, um, those special shoes we were talking about, Jack
is not going to sit down and have a little talk with himself about whether he
should or shouldn't, what are the potential ramifications of this act............if
he were THAT type, he wouldn't be a sea captain. So it seems silly to say that,
well, Jack is not really the cheating type, etc. etc..........he was seduced,
it's not his fault, etc. etc. It IS his fault, he isn't Mother Teresa, and that's
what lifts his character off the page and makes us want to talk about it.
Likewise, Sophie's shrewishness set against Jack's character is a perfect setup
for the joke about coming down the stairs carrying a new baby. I don't see any
point in sticking up for Sophie, rooting for Sophie or feeling sorry for Sophie.
Her characterization is just another extreme form, as is Diana's, that provides
a contrast for other characters, makes them all seem more real, provides a structure
on which to build humor, etc.
robin
Thorax.
O'Brian also used that word in M&C when describing the mantis copulation/cannibalism
'Ten minutes later the female took off three pieces of her mate's long thorax.....and
ate them with every appearance of appetite...' 'The male copulated on,..'
Then Very shortly afterwards Stephen advises Jack 'You do not need a head,nor
even a heart,to be all that a female can require'.
I think the mantis scene is interpteted by some as a prediction of Stephen's
later treatment by Diana.
But I suppose the episode, and Stephen's comments ,could be applied to a lesser
degree to Jack and Amanda.
Amanda wasn't looking for intelligence or 'love'.
And she may have been setting a trap,which would later cost him,into which
his physical desires led him,headlong.
alec
Thinking a bit more about the passage with Sophie and the baby, I wonder if
the captain of the Fleche was perhaps practicing on Jack just a bit?
Gerry Strey Surgeons Mate tiny spoiler
It has been a long week. (Away from home).
It's Friday evening and I'm back home with the flock.
But somehow I just can't get Stephen's lost toothbrush out of my mind.
'I left my toothbrush in Tuam or Athenry and a valuable pair of list slippers
in Dublin itself.'
MMmM
I somehow don't think that you poor innocent folk have heard the end of this.
alec
Stephen knew Johnson.
He knew the way his mind worked.
He stole his papers.
He stole (back) his woman, and with her those diamonds.
He had the protection of bodyguards in Halifax.
But surely he knew the seas were a far more dangerous prospect.
Yet he boarded that ship with Jack, Diana, the diamonds and the papers.
He must have known the risks.
But the reward of placing Johnson's papers in front of Blaine was the over-riding
consideration.
Intersting guy, our Stephen.
alec
Well, I've seen the =Ariel= to her heartbreak (what price "Lucky Jack" now?)
Along the way, Jack was sending up blue lights like mad in the hopes of luring
other ships who could attack the =Me'duse.=
Could it be that those "blue light captains" we've talked about used to send
up blue lights to indicate that services were to be held aboard? Would that
make sense?
Stephen has acquired a surprising amount of nautical knowledge in this book;
he retails it, ostensibly for Jagiello's benefit, and of course for us.
A sad, brutish grobian, [IM, p45]
Mary S 35° 58' 11" N 86° 48' 57" W
Which I finished it last night.
There's a curious remark during the journey with Duhamel. Stephen prescribes
for him and thinks that in his phial he had "enough to deal with fifty Duhamels
and plenty to spare; but with such an escort it would have served no good purpose
and in any case he had never, as a physician, intentionally injured any man:
he doubted that he could bring himself to it, whatever the extremity."
The operative words here have to be "AS A PHYSICIAN" - I mean, we've just come
off the last book in which he killed two men in a row without turning a hair.
Later we are told that Stephen's "dark-green phial" is safe unless they "search
his vitals." He certainly has great confidence in the seal or lid of his dark-green
phial and that the phial itself will not break. I say no more!
What a wonder the ending here is, with its many parallels and allusions to
marriage, from Oedipus to hammers and tongs - only a couple of courting birds
have been left out, Stephen being busy below decks with no time to observe.
How happy we are that everyone's honour is saved: Diana, whose honour has often
been in question, comes off magnificent, and Jack is so proud to know her and
be her relation. Jack's own rescue attempt, though abandoned, is not botched,
but came off finely and would have, we are sure, succeeded and done him credit.
Stephen goes down into the pit but comes back unmarred. He is not forced to
do murder; Diana has not murdered her child, either.
And if I have read aright, to think that Stephen and Diana are married with
the episcopal ring of Msgr. de Talleyrand! What a jape.
"Gravity, but with great happiness showing through it."
One of the happiest endings in the series, sure.
An unabashed romantic,
Mary S On Wednesday 01 May 2002 11:14 am, Mary S wrote:
One of the happiest endings in the series, sure.
I wonder whether at one point POB didn't consider ending the series here. The
Canon can be divided into several large story arcs, spanning several volumes.
This is clearly an ending to one of them. DI, FOW and SM form a whole and complete
story. But, on the other hand, Mr. Wray is still waiting in the wings...
Pawel
Pawel wrote:
The Canon can be divided into several large story arcs, spanning volumes.
This is clearly an ending to one of them. DI, FOW and SM form a whole complete
story. But, on the other hand, Mr. Wray still waiting in wings...
Yes indeed; and yet again this book contains (as, of course, do all of them)
a number of parallel "arcs" of their own. I am still following out the traces
of the revival of Stephen's love in TSM, from its reappearance in spectral form
("perhaps its ghost," p. 39 Norton) to the joie de vivre of the Halifax ball
(the scene with the "green-backed girl") to the final completion of the circle
with the wedding ceremony at the end.
And isn't it remarkable with what a light touch POB lays on the individual
strokes of this picture throughout the book, with scenes such as the one in
which Stephen insists that Diana must marry him for practical reasons alone,
while insisting that he still feels for her, even though he believes himself
to be lying (he has not yet recognized the reawakening of his love). At the
end of this scene (pp. 70-71 Norton), Stephen and Diana are called to board
the Diligence packet in the words of the sailor, "She has the blue peter flying."
And of course, the Blue Peter is the name of Diana's beloved jewel, which she
will eventually part with to free Stephen; hence a true token of her love. Neither
he nor she, nor we the readers, know this yet; but when (p. 82 Norton) its name
"suddenly" comes to Stephen's mind, we are told it has "the pleasing associations
of fresh departure, new regions, new creatures of the world, new lives, perhaps
new life." Yes, and newly revived love.
Yet even the Doctor is still unaware of that revival (even this sage who has
so acutely said, p. 63, "Gnosce teipsum is very well, but how to come to it?"!)
. . . until a point very near the end, where he is faced with torture, perhaps
with execution, at the hands of his French captors: "although he had long thought
prayer in time of danger indecent, prayers sang in his mind, the long hypnotic
cadences of plainchant imploring protection for his love," p. 366. (Is he praying
protection only for Diana, his beloved, or also for the new life that has awakened
inside him?)
And then, paralleling all of this, is the story of Jack's foolhardiness in
endangering his marriage and the mutual love between him and Sophie, with his
thoughtless liaison with Miss Smith. For most of the book Jack is miserable
over this, until he gets the news that she has finally found a husband and is
unlikely to bother him again. But POB manages to link Jack's love and that of
Stephen at the very end, by having Sophie "virtually" present at the concluding
wedding ceremony: "Jack listened to the familiar, intensely moving words: at
'till death us do part' his eyes clouded; and when it came to Do you Stephen
and Do you Diana his mind ran back so strongly to his own wedding that Sophie
might have been there at his side."
As Mary said, "One of the happiest endings in the series, sure."
----------------------- Steve Ross I wonder whether at one point POB didn't consider ending the series here.
(SM)
Maybe, but if he did he changed his mind pretty quickly: IM was published just
one year later. Actually, there seems to be no bigger gap than two years between
any two novels from MC(4th) all the way to TC(17th). Astonishing!
Alex In a message dated 5/1/02 1:03:10 PM Central Daylight Time, skross@LSU.EDU
writes:
his thoughtless liaison with Miss Smith.
OH! I forgot to mention that this morning! I hope nobody missed the marvelous
touches (both of 'em) in =her= marriage notice:
"...daughter of J. Smith, of Knocking Hall, Rutland, Esquire."
Like ... a galvanized manatee, or dugong, [RoM, p. 224]
Mary S I got the "Rutland" part, but is "knocking" also a term for having sex?
Isabelle Hayes
Yep. And while on the subject, let's not forget that bucolic locale, "Swiving
Monachorum."
Gerry Strey Madison, Wisconsin
In a message dated 5/2/02 11:51:57 AM Central Daylight Time, gestrey@WHS.WISC.EDU
writes:
is "knocking" also a term for having sex?
Usually in the noun phrase "knocking-shop," I believe, though I get my information
strictly from literary sources :)
leering like a mole with the palsy [MC 309]
Mary S Yes it is - especially as in the euphemism for a brothel , a "knocking shop"
see also POB's useof "Swiving Monachorum" as a fictional village - very rude.
Cheers!
Ray@theBay
55° 02' 38" N I know it as "knocking boots"
Are "knocking boots" the same as FMPs?
Rosemary Davis wrote:
OK, I'll admit my ignorance - will someone please explain "Swiving Monachorum"
to me (offlist if it's likely to offend the faint) as I haven't a clue. I hate
to miss a double entendre.-RD
It's a combination of Old English and Latin means "the f**king of the monks"
- the Latin genitive here connoting that the monks are the actors, not recipients
(though......).
Rutland, by the bye, is a perfectly real place, an English county famous for
hunting and shooting, but now incorporated into Leicestershire.
Gary,
who used to have a girlfriend in Dorset's own Toller Porcorum, just a short
drive from Piddletrentide................
Certainly is in the UK at least!.
To 'knock someone up' is to make them pregnant!
Ian
Perhaps the use of the term "knocking someone up" for making them pregnant
is relatively recent. It was also used to mean "wake someone up." I shall never
forget the face of an American woman friend who, on checking into a small English
hotel was asked by the male proprietor; "When should I knock you up in the morning?"
Kevin in TO.
43° 38' 44" N Did POB mean us to remember Mozart's Cherubino when we meet Jagiello?
On p. 131 (Harper Collins) Sir Joseph Blaine invites Stephen to dine with him
"and then we could look in at Covent Garden: there is a most exquisite young
person singing Cherubino - a truly angelic voice".
(As opera-lovers will know, Cherubino is the young page in the Marriage of
Figaro, a part traditionally played by a woman.)
I was still humming "Non piu andrai", when on p. 182, in walks Jagiello. "Such
a sweet young gentleman" observed Lucy, the maid at the Grapes. He has "a complexion
that any girl might have envied" and after consuming a due amount of port wine,
he sings in "a pure, true-pitched tenor."
I'm sure lissuns more learned than me could take this idea further, as I'm
only half way through the book at the moment.
Elaine Jones I think Elaine's idea is a very good one, and will only add (for those who
don't know the opera) that Cherubino is, yes, a page, but during the course
of the opera he goes into the military... like our Lithuanian friend.
gluppit the prawling strangles, there, [FoW8]
Mary S I'm sure you're right, and I'm really impressed that you thought of it. You'll
love the scene at the end of Letter of Marque (but I won't say why - it's a
Surprise ending).
Katherine
Elaine's right on the mark about this, I agree. And there's so much comedy
in most of the sequences involving Jagiello. Is there a Gentlemen's Relish in
The Marriage of Figaro? (I know there isn't but can't help remembering her!)
~~ Linnea Hoot toot, the nautical mind
Mary S wrote:
I think Elaine's idea is a very good one, and will only add (for those who
don't know the opera) that Cherubino is, yes, a page, but during the course
of the opera he goes into the military... like our Lithuanian friend
And makes love to the Countess and maybe Figaro's beloved too (can't remember
her name for the moment); and in fact, in another opera the Countess has given
birth to Cherubino's child, if I remember rightly.
Isabelle Hayes
Sorry I see That Ionian Mission is underway but I'm running a bit behind.
I just wondered if there is any historical basis for the agressive 'chasing'
of the Minnie by the Ariel as if she was under attack. Or is this scene totally
an invention of O Brian?
alec
Other authors have used the same ruse frequently, Alexander Kent in particular.
I'm stumped trying to think of an actual RN episode, though I would be surprised
if it hadn't occurred to naval officers of the time.
Charlezzzz, an expert on the galley battle of Salamis, could tell us of an
ancient variant on the technique.
Don Seltzer
Very Minor Spoilers but not of plot
Stephen to Jack on his return from Ireland-' .. and all could have been done
as well or even better by post. I left my toothbrush in Tuam or Athenry and
a valuable pair of list slippers in Dublin itself.'
Somehow that poor toothbrush lost in Tuam or Athenry got into my mind!
Part 1(hehehe)
Tales of a Toothbrush
He bought me in the Royal Leg-not far from TCD Not long after- the good Doctor-he packed me in a hurry If truth be told, life for us both, was really up and down Then he packed me up again -this time with toothy smiles Times were hard initially -no food between his teeth And then he got that offer-to join Jack on board his ship One day he held me in front of Jack, - a brush of bluish green Next week bristling tension in-
The Toothbrush and the Cacafuego
alec
I've looked up the Archives under 'longitude' on this but got bogged down
and made no headway.
On page 277 Jack, while borrowing Stephen's(stolen) Breguet, is explaining
how time and longitude are related .
Can I ask the naval experts among us -was he a bit ahead of his time?
I thought the' battle' over the calculation of longitude was not settled for
another few years.
If this is the subject of a previous thread -please point me in the right direction.
thanks
alec
It was known that time could be used for determining longitude for centuries,
but no one believed an accurate enough clock could be made until Harrison did
it, and even then it took 40 years to get people to believe. But by the time
of the canon Harrison had produced working chronometers that were accurate enough,
and there were several other chronometers in use.
Harrison finally received the prize in 1773, 20 years after chronometers were
in widespread use. Damaging a chronometer, BTW, was a capital offense at sea.
I highly recommend Dava Sobel's "Longitude," the story of Harrison's achievement.
There is also a TV special on it that is pretty good.
Larry
Can I ask the naval experts among us -was he a bit ahead of his time?
Not a bit. By 1813, the use of chronometers was fairly standard within the
Royal Navy, and any navigator understood the relationship between time and longitude.
A good navigator would also know how to do lunars as a double check of the chronometer's
accuracy.
It was the policy of the Admiralty to issue a captain one chronometer. If a
captain like Jack bought a second chronometer with his own money (I think they
cost about £100 at the time), the Admiralty would reward such initiative by
providing a third instrument.
Two chronometers are not much better than one, because if they differ, you
don't know which one is closer to the real time. With three chronometers, you
rely on the two that are in close agreement.
Don Seltzer
POB mentions Jack tormenting his squeakers with calculating the average of
the three chronometers' readings, but he might have been doing that mostly to
beat some arithmetics into their heads.
Pawel
In a message dated 5/6/2002 5:02:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dseltzer@DRAPER.COM
writes:
Two chronometers are not much better than one, because if they differ, you
don't know which one is closer to the real time. With three chronometers, you
rely on the two that are in close agreement
This is similar reasoning that was used on early FBM subs,(among others I presume).
Sperry had 3 positioning gyroscopes on board, and they read the three and used
the two that agreed best.(They were aiming for ship's position in open oceaan
within feet! The satellite system was not yet perfected. the joke was Why did
we have three gyroscopes? because we didn't have room for four.
There was another anomaly on SSBN586( Geo. Washington). I guess they were unsure
of its ability to stay stable while firing, so they put on a 10 ton stabilizing
gyro, called the "nodding idiot". They dispensed with it on later boats, I believe.
Blatherin' John B
I have to say I was rather shocked by Jack's sinking of the boat full of French
officers escaping from the Minnie (p. 239). Could he not have sent a well-armed
boat in pursuit, take them alive and have them questioned? They could easily
have been overhauled by a trained boat's crew, as they were "pulling inexpertly
for the land". I found it brutal and out of character, especially since one
of the men in the boat appeared to be surrendering (although, to be fair Jack
only had a split second to notice the possible waving of a handkerchief - too
late to stop the carnage).
Jack seems to be feeling some remorse when he asks Stephen about the wounded
survivor. Stephen, unable to obtain any information from the young French subaltern,
says "Besides, such a wild dash was surely the act of boys rather than of sober,
reflecting senior officers." Jack replies (perhaps a little sheepishly?) "I
don't know. If I had command of a place like Grimsholm, I think I might have
tried for a horse on shore - it is not many hours ride. But I am very certain
that I should have pulled away on the blind side for a mile or two." He is interrupted
(rescued?) from what seems a rather uncomfortable exchange by Mr. Rowbotham
and POB gives us the thrice-repeated "bitter-end" like a comment on the whole
sorry episode (p. 241).
"If you please, sir, the spare anchor is new-puddened." Elaine Jones Good Post
I thought the same when I read it.And I read it again as it did seem out of
character for Jack.
The only message of any sense I could get out of it was the need for the 'Captain'
to make split second decisions. Which may in retrospect appear flawed.
Jack's instinct was to act on instinct-and mostly he got it right.
This time,and I agree, he feels some sense of remorse -after the event.
But faced with the same choices again with the same level of knowledge I reckon
his actions would be the same.
alec
The shore was not far away, the pursuit hot, and potential damage if these
were indeed French officers destined for Grimsholm enormous. Assembling a party
and lowering a boat takes some time too. Jack had to weigh the risks and made
a decision. He still gave the French officers a warning shot or two, he had
no choice. Also the fact, that Stephen's life was at stake, with a vivid memory
of Port-Mahon, als played a role.
And don't we learn later, when Jack and Stephen are in the Temple, that a high-ranking
French officer was indeed killed at Grimsholm (I'll check the quotation when
I get back from work)?
This is yet another example of how POB shows us that war is a dirty and bloody
business, not a romantic adventure.
Pawel
Just another post on the same point
I'm reading the books with more interest now in the group reads and as well
as that as it's a third read(in my case) and similar for others So we probably
think we know what the main characters should/would do or more precisely what
we would like them to do(in our perfect world)
A few of us were shocked by Stephen's ruthlessness in the double murder in
FOW. But(in my mind) O Brian created this brilliant sense of Stephen being in
another 'zone' when this episode ocurred.
But nontheless for us complacent readers-it was a wake up call -THIS IS A DIRTY
BUSINESS-people get killed by your hero. Not by codes or clever talk. With A
surgeons knife.
Now it's Jack's turn -our red faced smiling Lucky Jack-dogwatch hahahahaha
Lesser of two weevils haahahaa
'Full on' Mr Hyde-said Jack in a harsh voice Yep I think this young O'Brian writer might just make the grade.
alec
Alec wrote: . . .
But nontheless for us complacent readers-it was a wake up call -THIS IS
A DIRTY BUSINESS-people get killed by your hero. Not by codes or clever talk.
With A surgeons knife.
You betcha. The bit that always wakes me up to the reality of the times is
the description of boarding parties.
I would not like to have Awkward Davies swinging at me with a cleaver. Or anyone
else for that matter.
Kerry
I agree.
There was a big row between Nelson and one of the Smith Bros. about allowing
French troops in the Levant to return to France unmolested. Nelson was enraged,
and prohibited any thought of allowing these troops any future but death or
surrender.
War is a hard business.
* * * * J B K * * * *
San Francisco
who brought the Shannon into Halifax.
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/bulletin/num20/lord1_image1.html
Well, what a ve-ry pret-ty fel-low (imagine Joan Greenwood saying this). And
a single epaullet on the right shoulder, let us note.
Gerry Strey Tom Jones (the movie), right?
Bob Fleisher Yes, "Tom Jones." The ineffable Joan, with that wicked, deliberate utterance.
"The Importance of Being Ernest," "The Man in the White Suit," and most recently
in a "Miss Marple" Mystery segment. Changed, ruinous almost, but the voice was
unmistakable.
Gerry Strey As the reaction to Brad's original inquiry has shown, there may not be as
much of a psychological divide between the sexes as one might assume, in terms
of our choices of reading material and what we find compelling in POB (perhaps
that is only to be expected given the nature of this group; after all, this
is not the Harlequin Romances Fan Club!).
Certainly wit, rich and sensuous descriptions, and mastery of the language;
all three, but especially this last item, are among the most important factors
in my own appreciation of the guy. But POB (as mentioned by others) also knows
exactly what and how much to leave out, as well as what to include. The following
wonderful passage from SM is just an example of the deftness of treatment that
helps make the novels appealing to people who value stories of human relationships
as much as, or more than, action/adventure:
--------------- '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.'
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.'
'God bless you too,' she replied, kissing him. 'Give my love to Jack and to
Sophie; and pray, Stephen, pray take care of yourself.'
----------------------- **** POB non-sighting: There was some discussion recently about which vessel was pictured in the
Geoff Hunt illustration for the cover of SM. As I seem to recall, Don Seltzer
came down on the side of its being the Ariel. No sane person would disagree
with any such conclusion on Don's part without strong countervailing evidence;
hence I am relieved to find that my own observations seem to support rather
than to contradict him. Specifically, I like to imagine that Geoff was painting
exactly the scene described here (p. 288 Norton):
"Without any warning but three black squalls in quick succession the wind
chopped about into the west, blowing right into their teeth and bringing very
heavy rain. 'We were so nearly clear,' said Jack. 'Another hour and I should
have stood south: such a run it would have been! However, whining will do no
good, and at least we have a couple of hundred miles under our lee.' He tied
his sou'wester firmly under his chin, advised Stephen to make all fast, and
returned to the streaming deck."
The wind certainly does seem to be blowing "into their teeth" in the picture,
and the sou'westers and the streaming deck are also there. A couple of other
observations are possible:
1. Jack advises Stephen to "make all fast," which he should have known from
past experience was a feat beyond Stephen's meagre abilities! On the other hand,
as someone observed, Stephen in this book seems to be much more of a seaman
than he does in others. He is able, for one thing, to give Jagiello very detailed
explanations of the problems of leeway, the ship's sailing properties, etc.--a
seeming inconsistency in his character. It seems clear, however, what POB is
doing here; he finds it a useful device to have a landsman on board so that
a more experienced sailor can explain things to him--it makes it much more readable
than if the author gave us all these details in his own voice, and of course
Stephen has served often enough in the lubber's role before. More importantly,
though, it is a clue to the fact that we shouldn't necessarily expect perfect
consistency; characters, and their roles, change depending on the author's requirements
in the course of writing the books. An example is the passage, often noted,
where Stephen hears Jack's playing and realizes that Jack is actually a much
better violinist than he had realized. Also Sophie's attitude to sex, which
seems to evolve over the course of the Canon.
2. On the cover again: FWIW, this is actually one of my least favorite covers,
and I think it is because of those oilskins. These guys remind me of Maine lobstermen--not
that I have anything against pictures of lobstermen, but I have seen plenty
of them, and I don't get a "period" feel from this picture as much as most of
the others (as someone else observed, the people in this one look more "modern").
Just a thought.
Apologies for not properly identifying the original sources of some comments
I have picked up....
Lazy and forgetful ...
Steve Ross At 9:08 AM -0700 5/7/2002, Steve Ross wrote:
There was some discussion recently about which vessel was pictured in the
Geoff Hunt illustration for the cover of SM. As I seem to recall, Don Seltzer
came down on the side of its being the Ariel. No sane person would disagree
with any such conclusion on Don's part without strong countervailing evidence;
hence I am relieved to find that my own observations seem to support rather
than to contradict him. Specifically, I like to imagine that Geoff was painting
exactly the scene described here (p. 288 Norton):
No, it was Adam Quinan who suggested it was the Ariel. I thought it might
be the packet brig Diligence, from Halifax to England, based in part upon the
location of the wheel abaft the mast (which I now realize is totally wrong).
Looking at the hatless fellow with short cropped hair by the taffrail, I think
it likely that he is Geoff Hunt's best (and only?) portrayal of Stephen.
Don Seltzer
Jack has been chasing the Minnie for all he is worth when she suddenly changes
course, having sighted the "Humbug", a British man-of-war (p. 235-6). Jack "gazed
at the Minnie: she was jammed in a clinch like Jackson." Would this be a reference
to Andrew Jackson? The Battle of New Orleans was fought round about this time,
was it not? Please would someone help me out of my ignorance! Elaine Jones Andrew Jackson's success at the Battle of New Orleans will not occur until
near the end of TYA. But Gary Brown's PASC offers this possibility: 'Gentleman'
John Jackson [1769-1845] ran London's foremost boxing -gym, at No.13 Bond Street,
from about 1797 onwards. The club had a very distinguished clientele, with the
poet Lord *Byron being just one of Jackson's close friends and admirers. The
fight with *Mendoza for the Championship of England (which took place in 1795)
ended when Jackson seized his opponent's pigtail and then battered him senseless,
a scene somewhat reminiscent of Barret *Bonden's defeat by Black *Evans in YA.
Curiously Jackson then never defended his crown in the ring itself, being in
1803 displaced as Champion by the active, young Jem *Belcher. In later life
Jackson became a publican and appears to have died in sadly reduced circumstances.
Don Seltzer
Probably Gentleman Jackson, prominent boxer and promoter. Byron was a great
admirer. Marion
Somewhat embarrassingly, in PASC I say that the original 'Jackson' reference
in SM remained obscure to me. But as Don and another lissun have suggested,
probably Gentleman Jackson is the intended reference - it never occurred to
me at the time of writing! By the way, in a flight of fancy my editor made a
crucial last-minute change to my final sentence. Being American, and presumably
unused to English drinking parlance, in the published version she added 're'
to the word 'publican'!
Gary I would think an American well-read enough to be an editor would know what
the word "publican." It's not *that* rare. Which reminds me of a publican joke:
Termite in a bar: "Is the bar tender here?"
bs
Sometimes we see a small error in the canon and wonder if POB made a mistake
or if it was a typo. There's a clear and unmistakeable typo in "The Surgeon's
Mate," page 189, mid page: He took half a dozen turns on the little qBuarterdeck
. . . Homer may nod, but this one lands on HarperCollins' qBuality control.
- Susan
I have been noticing quite a few minor typos in SM, which seems to be worse
in this respect than most of the earlier novels. Often it is an extraneous closing
quotation mark (or "inverted comma"), as in the following example (p. 168 Norton):
" . . . London Bridge already,' he cried, looking out of the window.' " Steve
Ross
I've just checked my 1980 Fontana edition (Pages 158 and 139 respectively)
and neither of these typos occur. They were obviously inserted when the edition
was reset and repaginated. Martin @ home: Also, in HMSS Diana leaves with a Mr. Johnstone, while in DI, FOW and SM he
is known as Johnson. Was it a common spelling variant, or just sloppy editing?
Pawel
Well, I'd picked that up too, but I've been skipping around so, I'm not sure
of the difference between Diana and Sophia, err Diane and Sophie, ummm.
One would imagine that Diana stayed with the same chap, given O'Brian's propensity
for setting up something in one book to be used a few down the track, and he
just forgot his name. Or possibly he knew someone called Johnstone (or his publishers
did) and the name was changed to a more common variant to deflect legal criticism.
My naval ancestors were born Thomson but the Navy and their contemporaries
always put in the P to make them ThomPson. I suspect that even by that time
spelling of names was not always tied down; after all Sir John Jervis took to
spelling his name St. Vincent.
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
From: Nina Froehlich
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 5:43 AM
Subject: SM: lillies
From: Rosemary Davis
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 8:55 PM
Subject: GRP SM lilies
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: SM: lilies in the Admiral's garden
I had all that I would.
The bailey beareth the bell away;
The lily, the rose, the rose I lay.
The robes they lay in fold.
The bailey beareth the bell away;
The lily, the rose, the rose I lay.
How should I love, and I so young?
The bailey beareth the bell away;
The lily, the rose, the rose I lay.
From: Katherine T
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: SM: lilies in the Admiral's garden
30Nx90W
From: Nina Froehlich
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: SM: lilies in the Admiral's garden
From: Nina Froehlich
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM lilies
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM lilies
From: Mary S
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM lilies
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Nina Froehlich
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM lilies
From: Pawel Golik
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM lilies
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM lilies
From: Tom Collin
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: SM: lilies
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: SM: lilies
From: Mary S
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: SM: lilies
In your medieval hand..."
Which would certainly not suit =me="...)
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Michael R. Ward
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: SM: lilies
From: Jeffrey Charles
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Spies
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Spies
From: Robin Welch
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Spies
A Hundred Twenty-something West
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Spies
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Spies
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Spies
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Spies
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Sept 11
From: John Finneran
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 2:52 AM
Subject: GRP: SM: A Dying Man in China, was Sept 11
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: SM: A Dying Man in China, was Sept 11
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: SM: A Dying Man in China-Coincidences
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: SM: A Dying Man in China, was Sept 11
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 7:08 AM
Subject: Stephen's Toothbrush and Athenry Trivia
I heard a young girl calling
Micheal they are taking you away
For you stole Trevelyn's corn
So the young might see the morn.
Now a prison ship lies waiting in the bay.
Low lie the Fields of Athenry
Where once we watched the small free birds fly.
Our love was on the wing; we had dreams and songs to sing
It's so lonely 'round the Fields of Athenry
I heard a young man calling
Nothing matters Mary when your free,
Against the Famine and the Crown
I rebelled: they ran me down
Now you must raise our child with dignity.
She watched the last star falling
As that prison ship sailed out against the sky
Sure she'll wait and hope and pray
For her love in Botany Bay
It's so lonely 'round the Fields of Athenry.
From: Susan Wenger Temporary Box
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 10:35 AM
Subject: GroupRead:TSM:thorax band, Aubrey's fidelity
From: Katherine T
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: GroupRead:TSM:thorax band, Aubrey's fidelity
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: GroupRead:TSM:thorax band, Aubrey's fidelity
From: Tom Collin
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: GroupRead:TSM:thorax band, Aubrey's fidelity
From: Katherine T
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: GroupRead:TSM:thorax band, Aubrey's fidelity
From: Gerry Strey
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: GroupRead:TSM:thorax band, Aubrey's fidelity
Madison, Wisconsin
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: GroupRead:TSM:thorax band, Aubrey's fidelity
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: GroupRead:TSM:thorax band, Aubrey's fidelity
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: GroupRead:TSM:thorax band, Aubrey's fidelity
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: GroupRead:TSM:thorax band, Aubrey's fidelity
From: Robin Welch
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: GroupRead:TSM:thorax band, Aubrey's fidelity
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: GroupRead:TSM:thorax band, Aubrey's fidelity
From: Gerry Strey
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: GroupRead:TSM:thorax band, Aubrey's fidelity
Madison, Wisconsin
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 4:43 PM
Subject: Stephen's Toothbrush mmmm
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: Group:TSM:Stephen -Risk & Reward
From: Mary S
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 6:24 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM blue light
From: Mary S
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM spoilers for end of book
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Pawel Golik
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM spoilers for end of book
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 11:01 AM
Subject: GRP SM New Life, New Love (WAS spoilers for end of book)
"I believe you are aware that I am myself a bastard."
-- SM p. 70
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Alejandro Benavente
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM spoilers for end of book
43º 32' N 05º 40' W
From: Mary S
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM New Life, New Love (WAS spoilers for end of book)
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Isabelle Hayes
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM New Life, New Love (WAS spoilers for end of book)
From: Gerry Strey
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM New Life, New Love (WAS spoilers for end of book)
From: Mary S
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM New Life, New Love (WAS spoilers for end of book)
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Ray Martin
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM New Life, New Love (WAS spoilers for end of book)
01° 29' 24" W
From: Vanessa Brown
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM New Life, New Love (WAS spoilers for end of book)
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM New Life, New Love (WAS spoilers for end of book)
From: Gary Brown
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: rude place names in the Canon
From: Fitzhenry, Ian
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 12:38 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM New Life, New Love (WAS spoilers for end of book )
From: Kevin
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM New Life, New Love (WAS spoilers for end of book )
79° 22' 33" W
From: DJONES01
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 7:51 AM
Subject: GRP SM: Cherubino/Jagiello
Walsall, England
52° 36' 01" N 1° 55' 46" W
From: Mary S
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Cherubino/Jagiello
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Katherine T
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Cherubino/Jagiello
From: Linnea
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Cherubino/Jagiello
From: Isabelle Hayes
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: Cherubino/Jagiello
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 2:23 AM
Subject: GRP:SM Ariel and Minnie
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Ariel and Minnie
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:54 AM
Subject: Tales of a Toothbrush
The year it was ninety-eight and I cost him one and three
'Thank you Dr Maturin' the merchantman did say
As he wrapped me in brown paper-'your 3d change -good day'.
A brush with the Crown it seems, was a cause for worry
He escaped(by the skin of his teeth)- and headed off by sea
-Sadly-no more of Dublin's Saliva alivo - for me
As we tried to make our way in dear old London town
Stephen down in the mouth; with neither pounds nar pence
This even while he filled in as medic to the famous Duke (Clarence)
'Goodbye London' he was heard to say -'Hello Balearic Isles'
We were off to attend a Mr Brown; this a post of last resort
And soon we were to come ashore at sunny Mahon port
All this changed when at the Crown -Jack Aubrey he did meet
The remnants of Ragoo'd mutton, the boar, and that swine-
-That evening to dislodge- sure took all my brushing time.
He chewed it over in mind - so many cons to an Ocean trip
But pros : pay and three square meals -this after his upheavals
So to the Sophie it was then-as the lesser of two evils
' Do you mind Jack- if I say a word on the topic- tooth hygiene'
'I notice that you masticate a lot and therefore I assume...'.
Stephen would have continued ......-but Jack had left the room.
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 1:43 PM
Subject: GRP:SM Longitude
From: Larry & Wanda Finch
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Longitude
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Longitude
From: Pawel Golik
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Longitude
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Longitude
From: DJONES01
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 2:02 PM
Subject: GRP:SM Firing on Escaping French Officers
"Very good, very good: then bend the bitter-end to it. The bitter-end, Mr. Rowbotham."
"Oh yes, sir: the bitter-end it is."
Walsall, England
52° 36' 01" N 1° 55' 46" W
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Firing on Escaping French Officers
From: Pawel Golik
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Firing on Escaping French Officers
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Firing on Escaping French Officers
The ship was broadside on-
'from forward aft-deliberate fire'
From: Kerry Webb
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Firing on Escaping French Officers
From: Jim Klein
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Firing on Escaping French Officers
From: EB
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Portrait of Lt. Wallis
From: Gerry Strey
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Portrait of Lt. Wallis
Madison, Wisconsin
From: Bob Fleisher
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Portrait of Lt. Wallis
Houston, TX
From: Gerry Strey
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Portrait of Lt. Wallis
Madison, Wisconsin
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 8:39 AM
Subject: GRP SM: What Men and Women like in O'Brian (also: POB non-sighting)
p. 160 Norton (Stephen to Diana upon his departure from Paris):
End of chapter. No swooning and moaning; no "after the door shut behind him
with a grim echo, she fell prostrate in her grief; she knew she would never
see the love of her life again . . . " With a few words POB has sketched a world
of emotion, leaving the rest to our imagination.
Today's New York Times "Vacation" section has a piece on vacation reading suggestions.
Of course the article concentrates on new/recent bestsellers, a category in
which, alas, we will never again find a POB book. But in an accompanying sidebar,
a group of authors were asked what THEY planned to read over the vacation. Surprisingly,
most (though not all) of their responses also focused on potboilers of various
kinds--though I may be reacting a little ungenerously here; I haven't read many
of the books that were mentioned. I would dearly have loved to find that at
least one of these writers planned to reread the entire Canon, or at least one
book by our favorite author. But no such luck! What's wrong with those people???
Steve Ross
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 9:08 AM
Subject: GRP SM: The Cover, and other observations
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: GRP SM: The Cover, and other observations
From: DJONES01
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 11:55 AM
Subject: GRP:SM Chasing the Minnie
Walsall,
England
52° 36' 01" N
1° 55' 46" W
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Chasing the Minnie
From: MMarch5235@AOL.COM
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Chasing the Minnie
From: Anthony Gary Brown
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Chasing the Minnie
who'll get his own CD fixed somehow...........
From: Bob Saldeen
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:SM Chasing the Minnie
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 5:31 PM
Subject: Typo in POB
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 7:59 AM
Subject: Typo in POB
From: Martin
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: Typo in POB
50° 44' 58" N
1° 58' 35" W
From: Pawel Golik
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: Typos/Errors in POB (spoilers for HMSS and FOW/SM)
From: Pete the Surgeon's Mate
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Typos/Errors in POB (spoilers for HMSS and FOW/SM)
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: Typos/Errors in POB (spoilers for HMSS and FOW/SM)
Return to Main Page
