|
|
Yes, I know we're not up to TGS yet in the group read, but I happened to be going through it, and came across something that struck me as interesting, so...since we'll get there eventually, this way it will be properly labeled..)
On p. 61 Stephen quotes a poem by James Thomson (1700-1745) called "The Seasons: Spring" The quote he uses refers to educating the young: "Delightful task! to teach the young idea how to shoot." but it wafts right over Standish's head, who takes it as a reference to guncraft. (One suspects Stephen must have groaned inwardly, and shaken his head in dismay and echoed Jack's assessment: 'he is sadly foolish.')
Now I suspected it was a quote from somewhere, as it was in italics, and a quick Google search found it easily. But the search also turned up a number of quotes from Thomson's works that are absolutely delightful. His turn of phrase seems remarkably similar to some of O'Brian's writing.
In case I'm not the only Lissun to be unfamiliar with Mr. Thomson, may I offer a few samples below to whet your appetites:
(all are from http://www.xrefer.com/entry/249691)
A pleasing land of drowsyhead it was.
from: The Castle of Indolence ( (1748)) canto 1, st. 6
Soft quilts on quilts, on carpets carpets spread,
And couches stretch around in seemly band;
And endless pillows rise to prop the head.
The Castle of Indolence ( (1748)) canto 1, st. 33
Here lies a man who never lived,
Yet still from death was flying;
Who, if not sick, was never well;
And died--for fear of dying!
'Epitaph on Solomon Mendez' (published (1782))
Delightful task! to rear the tender thought,
To teach the young idea how to shoot. The Seasons ( (1746)) 'Spring' l. 1152
Ships, dim-discovered, dropping from the clouds.
The Seasons ( (1746)) 'Summer' l. 946
Even Light itself, which every thing displays,
Shone undiscovered, till his brighter mind
Untwisted all the shining robe of day.
'To the Memory of Sir Isaac Newton' ( (1727)) l. 96 (on Newton's Opticks)
Rowen
I should have added that the lines Stephen quoted have been used extensively, and that being unfamiliar with them is probably the sign of a poor education. ::grin::
At least three VERY well known authors include the same quote in works, while allusion to the quote appears in numerous places.
Perhaps Charlezzzzz would offer a few milliseconds of fame to the lissun(s) who can identify some of them WITHOUT using Google, or the equivilent, please?
Rowen
on 4/11/02 11:32 PM, Rowen 84 at Rowen84@AOL.COM wrote:
Perhaps Charlezzzzz would offer a few milliseconds of fame to the lissun(s) who can identify some of them WITHOUT using Google, or the equivilent, please?
I shd be delighted. Twenty milliseconds, or perhaps more.
But what, dear Rowen, are the lines? What is the quotation? What is it makes the world go round? Why is a fly when it spins?
Charlezzzzz
Thank you kindly, Charlezzzz. Perchance the packet carrying the first missive got stuck in the doldrums, and will come sailing in eventually.
I'd written about my ignorance in not recognizing these lines from TGS:
"On p. 61 Stephen quotes a poem by James Thomson (1700-1745) called "The Seasons: Spring" The quote he uses refers to educating the young: "Delightful task! to teach the young idea how to shoot." but it wafts right over Standish's head, who takes it as a reference to guncraft. (One suspects Stephen must have groaned inwardly, and shaken his head in dismay and echoed Jack's assessment: 'he is sadly foolish.')"
and then given some other examples of Mr. Thomson's clever turn of phrase.
As to the world going round, or the fly spinning, I'm afraid, sir, I cannot help. Have you consulted the Royal Society? Or the Astronomer Royal?
Rowen
on 4/12/02 10:20 AM, Rowen 84 at Rowen84@AOL.COM wrote:
The quote he uses refers to educating the young: "Delightful task! to teach the young idea how to shoot." but it wafts right over Standish's head, who takes it as a reference to guncraft.
Right! I remember your earlier posting.
"The young idea..." I have a vague feeling that Disraeli used the term, or was called the term, or something. And a slightly less vague feeling that Saki used it, or maybe it was Wodehouse. And even less slightly that it can be found in the Flashman canon.
How hard it is to be forbidden to whisper a question to Google!
Charlezzzzz
In a message dated 4/11/02 9:59:26 PM Central Daylight Time, Rowen84@AOL.COM writes:
Ships, dim-discovered, dropping from the clouds. The Seasons ( (1746)) 'Summer' l. 946
I must look that up. What kind of ships, one asks. Tennyson when he wrote of "airy navies grappling in the central blue" certainly foresaw airships, but in Thomson's time, it seems less likely.
A sad, brutish grobian, [IM, p45]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
Oh, Rowen, you left out the one about Rev Doug ;)
A little round, fat, oily man of God,
Was one I chiefly marked among the fry:
He had a roguish twinkle in his eye.
The Castle of Indolence ( (1748)) canto 1, st. 69
If this is a joke, sir, a God-damned pleasantry, I am not amused. [HMSS 377]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
Oh me, oh my. ;-}
Doug Essinger-Hileman
Drowsy Frowsy List Greeter, Rated Able
39°51'06"N 79°54'01"W
The 13 Gun Salute, I believe, contains a scene that stills makes me laugh just thinking about it. (Unfortunately I can't find it in skimming through the book, I'm hoping someone reading it this month might tell me where to find it?)
Stephen is in one of his trances when Jack asks him what's afoot. Stephen responds with some very romantic notion on parenthood and his forthcoming daughter. Jack just looks at him and says something like, "6 months of swaddling a crying baby will cure that."
As a parent of a toddler and an infant, I can imagine and relate to this scene perhaps more than any other. I can just see the way Jack looks at Stephen, remembering what it was like for him when Sophie was first pregnant, and then dosing the Doctor with a bit of reality. Once again, what POB can accomplish in just a few sentences is priceless!
Livin' and dyin' in 3/4 time,
Jordy McCall
Tacoma, Washington
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:06:48 -0800, Jordan wrote of Stephen's pre-natal (so to speak) joy:
Jack just looks at him and says something like, "6 months of swaddling a crying baby will cure that."
Jack: "A few months of roaring and bawling and swaddling clothes will soon cure you of that. You have to be a woman to bear babies."
Stephen: "So I have always understood."
Marshall Rafferty
________
At, or about:
47°40'54"N. 122°22'8"W.
I am always amazed at the difference between Jack Afloat and Jack Ashore, a phenomenon based on the numerous real-life examples of the period. Time and again we are reminded of it in the Canon w ith Aubrey's nautical expertise and his assessment of a situation as though his mind is computer-like, only to have it change gear, as it were, once ashore. At sea he believed what he saw with his own eyes and not what it appeared to be but once on land he reverted to the gullible gentleman who assumed everyone was as honest as himself.
POB captured this wonderfully
Tony Davison
from beautiful KwaZulu-Natal.
Martin to Stephen-(pge 30)
'except that I have been unable to find no more than this single case-bottle of laudanum, instead of all our usual five-gallon carboys.'
'There is only that one quart' said Stephen. I have decided to employ it no more, except in the greatest emergency.'
'It used to be your panacea' observed Martin, his mind drifting away to the builders at home: were they attending to the roof at the moment? He doubted it.
Is it not strange that Martin's would have this 'daydream' of roof repairs here in the middle of this passage about laudanum?
But then if we go back to the first page where the impending voyage is- ' a return to a simpler world, one in which the roof, or what passed for it was not expected to be universally waterproof..'
So was Martin' roof leaking?
If so I wonder what was being used to collect the dripping water?
A five gallon carboy or bucket or some such?
Any other theories on ' why the roof'?
alec
Is it not strange that Martin's would have this 'daydream' of roof repairs here in the middle of this passage about laudanum?>>
My memory is a bit fuzzy - does this passage occur after Jack has given Martin the church (not right way of putting it, I know)? If so, this is when Martin begins to be tiresome to Stephen and to me. He gets overly concerned with material possessions.
Again, if this is where this passage fits, I believe POB is showing, not so much a connection to the roof, but how little Martin now cares about the ship, Stephen, medicine. It could have been the roof it could have been the cellar, but Martin clearly does not have the same values as before.
If the passage does not belong to that period, I like your theory is pretty much, Alec.
Nathan
My memory is a bit fuzzy - does this passage occur after Jack has given Martin the church (not right way of putting it, I know)? If so, this is when Martin begins to be tiresome to Stephen and to me. He gets overly concerned with material possessions.
To tell the honest truth I'm confused as to when the Church was offered to Martin. But your theory is sound insofar as this is the esarly manifestation of Martin turning to material possessions.
Thanks
By the way there is no need to put 'Spoilers' on the Group Read topics -unless of course you felt you were giving a possible future storyline.
alec
The business with Jack offering Martin his choice of two livings does not occur until several books later (TL/CO?). But in TGS, Martin is attempting to cope with his newly acquired wealth from prize money.
Martin's wandering thoughts are probably due in part to changing values, but there is a resemblance to Jack in earlier books, when he is preoccuppied with the renovations being made to Ashcroft Cottage while he is at sea.
Don Seltzer
Don is it not true that Martin's troubles really begin with a pamphlet or two written about 'injustice' in the Royal Navy (& please forgive me if I'm way out on this)?
Very early in his career in the RN Martin is shocked by some RN Court Martials &, eventually, this essentially good person writes a fairly sensible, but utterly unacceptable tract, which means, in affect, his RN career is over.
In some ways is not Martin more admirable than Stephen, who also sees the injustice but says nothing unless he be directly involved?
Ted
(&, given, IIRC, they are both resent stuff on Jack's ship, they are both barking up a tree that is not too tall)
Very early in his career in the RN Martin is shocked by some RN Court Martials &, eventually, this essentially good person writes a fairly sensible, but utterly unacceptable tract, which means, in affect, his RN career is over.
Yes, in the preceding book, LOM.
In some ways is not Martin more admirable than Stephen, who also sees the injustice but says nothing unless he be directly involved?
For reasons that I can't really specify, I always found Martin a bit irritating. But I have to agree with your observations that there is much about him that is admirable. I'd like to say that he is too self-righteous, but that isn't quite accurate. He is generally harder on himself than others.
Yet I still can not like him, and I think that POB felt the same way in the end, contriving to get rid of him in WDS, and never looking back to tell us what eventually was Martin's fate.
Don Seltzer
But he could do wicked so well could POB. Just look at Diana.
Ted
I never quite warmed to Martin either. He is a bit righteous, without Stephen's intelligence to buffer his righteousness. Even if he isn't overly judgmental, he still endeavors to teach and opine on ethical issues, and being a "parson" his opinions have an unbecoming heaviness.
Jack was always uncomfortable with him (and "shipping parsons" in general), and my own feelings may betray a sympathy with Jack or some weird latent jealously because he occupies Stephen away from Jack.
I think we're intended to feel this way about him, I for one enjoyed his imaginary bout with a loathsome disease.
Khama Sir, Khama, such things were but seldom said aboard a Lancaster about to take off for Happy Valley, or even a Frigate bound Far Foreign...
Ted
We had a discussion about Martin a couple of months ago and I stated this very thing. Then someone (Linnea maybe?) mentioned Martin and Stephen in one of the earlier books frolicking in the woods, finding sundry wonders of nature. It reminded me that Martin *is* likeable in the beginning. A lot like Stephen, even. However he becomes less likeable in the end.
Why so easy to dislike him? Surely his faults are no worse than many of Stephens? I think Don was in the right of it about POB not liking him and perhaps that poisoned our minds. Also I agree with David that I might have had a "weird latent jealousy" of Martin's theft of Stephen's time.
Regardless, Martin makes an interesting study and the next time I read the Canon, I'll pay particular attention to his development.
Nathan
At 1:28 PM -0500 11/15/2002, Nathan Varnum wrote:
Regardless, Martin makes an interesting study and the next time I read the Canon, I'll pay particular attention to his development.
It seems to me that Martin's primary purpose is to provide a simple means for disguising straight narration as conversation. POB can define nautical terms for the reader by having Stephen "explain" them to landlubber Martin. Also, Maturin-Martin conversations permit lengthy discussions of bird-watching, other natural sciences, and medicine.
But even with that limited purpose in mind, POB still imparted a surprisingly 3 dimensional quality to his character.
Don Seltzer
Jack on sailing from Shelmerston.
'A lovely young woman indeed, Heaven,' said Jack 'Mrs Heaven if I do not mistake.'
'Why sir, in a manner of speaking, but some might say more in the porcupine-lay, the roving line, if you understand me.
'There is a great deal to be said for porcupines, Heaven. Solomon had a thousand, and Solomon knew what o clock it was, I believe. You will certainly see her again.'
Has anyone got a view on whether Jack is just homouring Heaven or whether he believes the correct word is porcupine?
Either way it's justa great passage.
Also can someone explain the term 'a dinner of two courses with five removes'?
thanks
alec
There is a great deal to be said for porcupines, Heaven. Solomon had a thousand, and Solomon knew what o clock it was, I believe. You will certainly see her again.? Has anyone got a view on whether Jack is just homouring Heaven or whether he believes the correct word is porcupine?
I'd guess Jack was thinking "concubines."
- Susan
YeaH Susan I realise that bit.I think I may be a bot confused here.
Did Honey mean porcupine or concubine? Does the phrase 'porcupine-lay' have a meaning in itself.
If so my quastion was redundant.
But did Heaven mean 'concubine'? If so my question stands?
King David and King Solomon
Led merry, merry lives,
With many, many concubines
And many, many wives.
But when old age came on them,
With fevers and with qualms,
Solomon wrote the Proverbs
And David wrote the Psalms.
- name of author forgotten
Maybe I can simpify my enquiry.
(1) Do we know/can we guess if Heaven mean to say Porcupine-way. If he did does anybody know/guess what the phrase mean.
(2) If he meant to say concubine did Jack make the same mistake or just go along with the word to 'humour' Heaven.
(3) Can somebody tell me what the phrase a meal of two courses with five removes means?
Naylor, James Ball (1860 - 1945)
See: http://www.xrefer.com/entry/249148
Also a variant form at:
http://www.rugbysongs.net/023%20Melarkie%20Sunday%20School.htm
NB: The URL contains the phrase "rugbysongs". These lyrics are not for the easily shocked.
Martin
I think the "two courses and five removes" means two sequences of food at the table, each consisting of five dishes. Early 19th century meals didn't follow today's sequence of appetizer/main course/sald/dessert, but mixed roasts, "made dishes" (ragouts, meat pies, for example), desserts and fruit together, all set on the table at the same time, so guests could take their pick. Sophie would have offered more than ten choices of food if she'd known the importance of the occasion.
Actually, the "everything on the table at once" style of serving is exactly how meals, from simple family fare to the grandest "company meals" were served in my youth. Roast meat, potatoes, salads, vegetables, rolls, pickles, jam, butter, olives, nuts--everything except the pie and cake on the table at once.
Gerry Strey
Madison, wisconsin
Then there's the old riddle:
How do porcupines make love? Very carefully.
I don't know how old it is, but POB was not above putting in small anachronisms.
porcupine//concubine is a Jack -ism, to be sure, but I strongly suspect that "on the porcupine lay" means (ahem ) full of pricks, which would be a bawdy reference to the said concubine/porcupine.
Which is germane to the joke about the difference between a porcupine and a Ford Cortina....?
The porcupine has pricks on the outside.
Which the term is at least 14th C, when "pricking" was hunting
Those reading TGS(Gough) and who wonder about Dillon's and Stephen's leanings towards the United Irishmen might like to read this 'timeline' type essay.
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/andrew/1798.html
alec
Page 59
'Jack spent more in barrels of powder than ever he would have made in prize-money if the snow had been taken.'
I just wonder if everytime a gun was used with gunpowder if 'shot' was used also? Or was that only occasionally for 'target practice' when the barrel-rafts were put out.
There never semes to be any concern about the amount/cost of shot.Not to mention what must have been the significant the weight of it if there was enough for all Jack's practice?
Would practice on the guns ever be carried out without powder?
alec
There was certainly practice without powder, running the guns in & out in 'dumbshow' as POB more than once mentions.
Ted
Yes, it is mentioned so many times, I wonder if Alec has actually read the canon?
In fact it is stated to be the normal gun exercise, and it is a special occasion when powder is used, and even more special when shot is added.
More than once Jack takes over a ship and finds that the guns look great, to the extent that they have been painted so many times that the vents are closed up.
One of my favorite episodes is where Jack's brass nines are kept in the great cabin, all painted up, but Killick and his mates take advantage of a trifle of wear near the touch hole to polish it up and expand it to the point where the gun is wholly stripped of paint and is a shining glory.
pete replied
Yes, it is mentioned so many times, I wonder if Alec has actually read the canon?
I aplogise for my stupidity. And thank you for your kind reply which you will be glad to hear has ensured that you will never have to put up ANY comments from me on the csnon in the future.
Alec, I for one -- and I am sure that there are many others who feel the same -- greatly enjoy your observations and questions about the Canon. I think perhaps Pete did not mean his comment in the way it came out. Besides, perhaps he had not yet had his daily ration of toasted cheese and was not quite himself yet.
I had thought that your inquiry as stated was a simple typo and that you had meant to write "shot" instead of "powder" in your question. That is a question which I have mused over myself, but have never reached a satisfactory conclusion: Were some practices conducted with powder but not shot?
Bruce Trinque
41°37'52"N 72°22'29"W
I agree with all the above. Your posts are very interesting Alec & I doubt very much that Pete meant to be rude.
Cheers
Ted
I'd like to encourage Alec to keep posting on POB topics as well--so few of us do(!).
I'm wondering if it would even be possible to practice with shot, and no powder. It seems like you'd have a devil of time getting the shot out of the cannon. Does a cannon tilt down enough to roll the shot back out?
And a second question--did they grease the interior walls of a cannon? Seems like you'd get better performance--but maybe there's a fire issue...
bs
Bruce wrote
I had thought that your inquiry as stated was a simple typo and that you had meant to write "shot" instead of "powder" in your question.
OOPS Yes Bruce
Sorry I now see why the question looked a bit stupid!!!
WHat I meant(and I think it's clear from the context)was 'Was practice ever carried out with Gunpowder and without shot'
I over-reacted earlier to Petes post
Sorry
Alec - don't do it.
I find your occasional wry little digs and iconoclastic humour highly entertaining. It would be a shame to lose you from this list.
Clive
No shot means no (or negligible) recoil. Once a gun crew has learned its duties and their sequence through "dumb show," the next lesson is staying out of the gun's way as it jumps back.
While I've never fired any kind of artillery, I've fired thousands of rounds in small arms practice over the past 25 years. No one has ever suggested there is any value to shooting blanks.
Bob Kegel
46°59'18.661"N 123°49'29.827"W
No one has ever suggested there is any value to shooting blanks.
Perhaps getting used to the noise? And the practicalities involved with gunpowder - how it felt to ram the cartridge home, etc. Just a vague idea.
Heather
If my comments were seen as rude, I heartily apologise. I meant to say something tolerably witty about canons and cannons - hah! Do you smoak it? - but it seems to have missed fire
No one has ever suggested there is any value to shooting blanks.
I will. With a crew-served weapon where the bore must be sponged and rammed, it is of immense value to get things right before battle and to accustom the crew to working in smoke and sound, with real powder and real wads demonstrating the importance of sponging out before reloading.
Even with small arms, battle tales abound with instances of soldiers who apparently know the drill getting confused, sending ramrods flying out towards the enemy and/or loading multiple charges (presumably because the first one misfired).
When there are six or eight or a dozen men in the crew, all working in a confined space, it is critical to get the experience.
What about exercises, there is often enough carnage without squaddies shooting each other all over the place. Mind you it would give the medics a lot of useful practise.:-)
Stephen Chambers
50° 48' 38"N 01° 09' 15"W
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
At 12:57 PM -0600 11/17/2002, Bob Saldeen wrote:
I'm wondering if it would even be possible to practice with shot, and no powder. It seems like you'd have a devil of time getting the shot out of the cannon. Does a cannon tilt down enough to roll the shot back out?
There was a generous amount of "windage" (clearance) between the round shot and the cannon bore. That is why a shot wad was rammed into the gun after the shot was loaded, to keep the shot in place as the ship rolled.
Guns were normally kept loaded, and thus needed to be unloaded upon occasion. Before a battle, Jack would often order the "charges be drawn." This was to replace possibly damp powder with fresh cartridges. The worm, a corkscrew-like tool, was used to remove wads and the cartridge, and the shot would simply be rolled out by tilting the barrel.
Unloading the guns was also considered to be good practice before firing a salute, both to remove the round shot, and to substitute smaller saluting charges.
How much did it cost Jack to practice live gunnery? About 8 guineas per barrel of powder, which was enough for about two and a half broadsides from the Surprise when armed with nine-pounders.
Don Seltzer
I hope I have the right book since I'm not reading it right now. TGS is the one where Stephen visits the monastery, right?
Some folks have pointed out that the monastery visit seems out of character with the rest of the books, and others have professed it is a favorite chapter. But I haven't heard anyone interpret the scene as "Stephen ascends to Heaven as the Garden of Eden." Any comments?
Robin
I agree with that interpretation whole-heartedly, and see it as a version of Pilgrim's Progress. The struggle to ascend the mountainous steps, reaching the top near exhausted (albeit accompanied by the charming orang utan) and finally "The trumpets sounded for him on the other side"
--
John R. Gosden
7*51'59"N / 98*20'28"E
I came across Arcturus again in The Thirteen Gun Salute, p. 50, and Stephen has asked if the Captain has gone to bed. "No. He [Jack] is in the cabin, pricking the chart. We had a very fine fix with Vega and Arcturus just now."
Since I first mentioned Arcturus in a post to the Group Read for "Desolation Island": Prefiguration, where I wrote:
~~~Now that I know enough to look deep deeply into that old file, POB, I was struck by Jack's remark (p. 35, DI Norton ppbk), as he ended his narration of his business ventures to Stephen: He sighed; and then, in a different tone, he said, 'Lord, Stephen, how Arcturus blazes! The orange star up there. We shall have such a blow from the south-west tomorrow, or I'm a Dutchman; still, 'tis an ill wind that spoils the broth, you know.' "
And of course they don't know then that they are to sail the horrible old Leopard to the southwest, down to the Antarctic seas, endeavoring to escape the Dutch ship Waakzaamheid.
'Arcturus takes its name from its nearness to the sky bears, Big and Little, otherwise known as Ursa Major (the constellation containing the Big Dipper) and Ursa Minor. "Arcturus" in Greek means "bear watcher" or "guardian of the bears." '
I'm sure that POB knew what connotation Arcturus had. Be alert to see if Arcturus is mentioned again later in the book--was Jack, the bear, guarded? This came from the web site:
http://www.arcturus.ca/statpage/thestar/thestar.htm ~~~~~
Then a Lissun (Stephen Chambers? My bad memory always mortifies me.) told me that indeed Arcturus will come up as the books proceed, and I've noticed several instances and forgot to write them down. We may assume that POB put these references in on purpose.
In TGS on page 50, above, Vega is also mentioned. Vega is also called The Lyre, which is a stringed instrument like a harp and in mythology was invented by Hermes as a gift to his half-brother Apollo, who gave it to Orpheus, the musician of the Argonauts. Vega's also known as Wega; Fidis; Harp Star.
http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/vega.html :
VEGA (Alpha Lyrae). One of the most famed stars of the sky, Vega is the luminary of the dim but exquisite constellation Lyra, the Lyre, which represents the harp of the great mythical musician Orpheus. Its name derives from an Arabic phrase that means "the swooping eagle." Vega is one of three brilliant stars that divide the northern heavens into thirds, the others Arcturus and Capella, and with Altair and Deneb forms the great Summer Triangle, lying at its northwestern apex.......
Of course a stringed instrument is also associated with Jack and his fiddle.
~~ Linnea
Thanks, Linnea, for bringing up one of my favorite stars. When I try to pass on the very basics of astronomy to my young campers on a clear night in the Summer up in Michigan at our YMCA camp Arcturus usually is the second single star I can teach them to find and identify. (Of course, Polaris is the first.) Navigators have a catch phrase "Follow the Arc to Arcturus," which is done by extending the natural curve of the handle of the Big Dipper. The very first noticable star is Arcturus. The second half of the phrase is "[T]hen speed on down to Spica." and, voila, the next large, identificable star on that extended curve is Spica.
The problem with the latter is that at our latitude in the Summer Spica is usually below the horizon, or behind the tall pine trees across the lake, at the hour I usually awaken sleeping campers, or bring relief to those valiantly struggling to stay awake and tell one more whispered joke, or trying to stifle laughter from the last told joke. We'll go outside, happily breaking the Taps rules, lie back on the grass and gaze at the millions of stars city kids rarely see. Their awe at seeing the real Milky Way alone makes up for their very Senior Counselors lost sleep. (I've chronicled a couple of these astral evening adventures at Camp earlier on the list.)
Just two morning ago I was able to "speed on down to Spica" when I was down at the shore of the Illiwimichiana Sea at Oh-Dark Thirty to watch the Leonids. It was nice to see that the saying still worked.
John Donohue
Evanston by the Illiwimichiana Sea
We've had at least two extended discussions over the years about when Stephen started his career as an intelligence agent. More specifically, the debates revolved around the question of whether Stephen was already working for Naval Intelligence at the time of Master and Commander, when he meets Jack and when he sails in the Sophie. It's always been my belief that O'Brian didn't decide to make him an intelligence agent until he started Post Captain; a few people seem to believe that he was already undercover when he met Jack (indeed, that the meeting was a setup to get Stephen in Jack's employ). Still others cite the incident when Stephen, landed on the coast of Spain (Catalonia?) and returned with information about the Cacafuego as evidence that either Stephen was already a spy, or that he was recruited during the first book, with O'Brian being non-explicit on the subject.
I've been listening to Thirteen Gun Salute, of late, and a passage I just heard brought me up with a round turn. As he does so often, twelve books after the event, O'Brian answers the question for us. How I missed it on my two previous passages I'm not sure.
On p. 110 (Norton edition), Stephen is going through his old diaries and musing how he and Jack had changed since those early days. And then:
"He turned the pages, running through his first contacts with naval intelligence--dear John Somerville, the fourth generation of a family of Barcelona merchants, a member of the Germandat, the Catalan brotherhood struggling against the Spanish, the Castilian, oppression of their country...[snip]...the appalling successes of Buonaparte's campaigns and Stephen's realization that the only hope for Europe was an English victory, which must be won at sea; and that this victory was a necessary condition for both Catalan autonomy and Irish independence. The diary recorded his connexion with Somerville after his early days in the Sophie and with Somerville's English chief, one of Blaine's best agents until his horrible death in France--recorded it in much too much detail, and though to be sure the code never had been broken some of the entires made him shudder even now. What insane risks he had run before he came to understand the true nature of intelligence!"
"after his early days in the Sophie" could, conceivably, be construed as "after he had been in the Sophie for some time, but before he left her"--i.e., the early days in the Sophie, but not the "later" days in the Sophie. But surely this is reaching too far; the only mention of a time when he could have met Somerville is during his brief trip ashore. Somerville is a "Barcelona merchant", not likely to be out in the countryside where Stephen grew up (he is familiar even with the stones and handhold branches in the path [Norton, M&C, p. 231]). And the friend he tells Jack he will be visiting is "a mere pretext" (p. 132). Stephen, the writing in this section makes clear, is merely going home for a visit, even to the extent of dancing in town.
So I think the only way to read the passage from Thirteen Gun Salute is at face value: that Stephen became involved with Somerville, and subsequently with his English chief and with Blaine, only after Master and Commander and before Post Captain. This passage, I think, answers the question.
Bob Fleisher
Houston, TX
I entirely agree with Bob - though there is still some wiggle room for doubters! (There are occasional allusions elsewhere in the canon to earlier intelligence work - or at least to vague connections with intelligence issues - but it does seem here that POB is quite deliberately tying up loose ends; even if John Somerville appears, as it were, as a rabbit from a hat....).
I had long harbored a vague suspicion that Maturin had been involved in *non-naval* intelligence work before the canon ever opens. Was his advice to Lord Edward FitzGerald of the behind-the-scenes sort? Had he been a mere medical student observer of the horrors of Paris and the Terror? But Bob is right that, in the passage he quote, POB seems to lay even that to rest by stating, right at the end, that those 'early days' were emphatically those of the trade-craft novice.
Gary
I agree, Bob. I don't think that POB at all had in mind Stephen being an intelligence agent in "Master and Commander" -- and in fact Stephen makes a rather forceful comment about not wishing to play a spy (yes, yes, I know -- this could have been just cover talk, but I don't hink so).
Bruce Trinque
41°37'52"N 72°22'29"W
Would it be fair to say that POB's 'concept' of Stephen being a spy in M&C would correspond with the 'concept' of Jack asking him to 'take the wheel' at any sea battle after M&C?
he changed-evolved.
alec
Curiously enough I have posted this very passage on several fora over the years, most recently on the Norton POB Forum a day or two ago. To me its quite conclusive that Stephen's first encounter with intelligence was either late in M&C, perhaps he even met John Somerville on his dancing trip or in the M&C PC intermission.
Nice find, Bob. It is a confirmation of what I've always believed, with one twist. I always felt that POB did not contemplate Stephen as an intelligence agent in M&C. Now it appears possible that the idea at least germinated in that book.
Nathan
I realize that this possibility can't be ruled out, but I don't think so. I think that if O'Brian had already decided by M&C to initiate Stephen's role as an intelligence agent, he would have given us more signs. There is nothing in the talk about his going ashore in Spain that suggests such a role except that he comes back with information about the Cacafuego. That's the sort of information that would have been generally available among his friends in a coastal town, and doesn't, to my way of thinking, imply that he did anything more than ask around, if that. In fact, the one time that the possibility of his acting as an intelligence agent comes up, he denies it vehemently. Any indication of Stephen being an agent comes only from reading between the lines, and while O'Brian is often subtle, he's not obtuse.
Bob Fleisher
Houston, TX
Thirteen Gun Salute. On page 49:
"Some great man had said, 'A thought ius like a flash between two dark nights.'"
What great man? Does anyone recognize this as a quotation from some great man O'Brian might have admired?
We know that Stephen missteps whenever he tries to climb up or down from a ship into a launch or skiff, often falls, and is ignominously hauled aboard dripping wet. The crew takes it for granted that Stephen isn't to be trusted in keeping himself dry so they hand him aboard like a package, and they kindly help him ascend and descend the rigging. We become used to it, too, and it is always a humorous theme that POB plays with.
But there seems to be a deeper theme of ascent and descent as the books go on. Stephen almost drowns in The Mauritius Command while trying to board the HMS Néréide and falls back into his habit of taking laudanum. He swarms up a rope into the hotel to hide in Diana's bed from the French agents in The Fortune of War and they are married aboard the ship. (His agility surprises us--why isn't it used when he climbs up the side of a ship?).
He makes several happy descents in his diving bell in Treason's Harbour, and then of course his memorable fall from the stern window of the "Surprise" at night in TFSOW. As David Garcia posted, the ensuing events are a kind of magic realism.
Later in that book, back aboard the "Surprise," he falls just a few feet but strikes his head on a cannon and is severely concussed. During much of this time, he is depressed about his relationship with Diana, and in The Letter of Marque he dreams about her ascent in a balloon. Diana is making such ascents (which are never fully explained). Stephen makes his way to her in Sweden, but they can't seem to get past their misunderstandings. Taking too much opium, he falls down the stairs of the tower that they climb in order to view her balloon being filled in the town, and while confined to bed with a broken leg he and Diana are finally able to reconcile, and it all ends happily.
[A small point is that while they climb up into the tower, Diana talks about her next balloon ascent which was to be on Saturday, and Stephen in a drug-induced state "...opened the door, said something indistinct about Saturday and pitched headlong into the void." This reminded me of our long discussion of the meaning of Stephen's remark: "Perhaps it was on Wednesday," as he leaned too far over the stern-window in FSOW. Was POB trying to echo something here? We never understood the context of that Wednesday remark. Be alert to see if the days of the week come up in later books when Stephen falls.]
In The Thirteen Gun Salute, Stephen is a new father. Diana had given birth to the baby daughter that Stephen longed for, but he won't know this until The Nutmeg of Consolation. The "Diane" which Jack commands has sailed to the South China Sea and eventually the ship is wrecked at the end of the book, and one wonders if this foretells the shipwreck of Diana's post-partum depression. (Does the obedient and helpful little female birds-nest gatherer symbolize anything?)
But before he learns of Diana's rejection of her strange daughter, Stephen makes his most famous ascent, up The Thousand Steps to the Buddhist temple at Kumai, where he feels that he has been to Eden.
I can't really find the grand, encompassing theme to fit all this, but there may be a pattern. I can't remember the events and their context well enough. Perhaps the only intentional symbolism is to be found in Diana's ascents, putting her beyond Stephen's reach in his imagination, and Stephen's fall in the tower and then his Thousand Steps.
~~ Linnea
As in all your posts, there's plenty of food for thought here. Stephen does have his ups and downs. There's also the occasion when Jack hauls the terrified Stephen up to look at the initials he had carved on the top mast of the Surprise in his youth,and says something like, "This will raise your heart,Stephen. It will raise it 100 feet above the deck, ha, ha, ha!"
Stephen spends a lot of time in the heights or in the depths emotionally. There's also his alternating use of laudanum and cocaine - a depressant and a mood elevator.
Katherine
As many others have said, fine post Linnea.
Another time ascent plays a role is in one of the later books when they are in port on a foggy morning. Jack and/or Stephen climb above the fog and see the disembodied masts from all the vessels in the yard. A beautiful scene and one of my favorites.
Symbolism? I don't remember the context well enough to say what it may symbolize, but it seems to go along with Linnea's observations.
Nathan
The following is a reposting of a discussion from the Searoom-l forum from two years ago, analyzing the notes from the POB collection held by the Lilly Library, Bloomington, IN.
***********
The notes for Thirteen Gun Salute begin with a four page outline, summarizing the proposed plot, apparently drawn up before POB started writing the book. Another dozen pages are more detailed chapter notes, created as the writing progressed. There is a single summary page, calculating chapter lengths and noting start/finish dates, with actual "working" days spent on writing. Approximately 30 pages of short, "scrap" notes are also included.
The first outline page is interesting in that it is labelled XIII and XIV for the two books that would become Thirteen Gun Salute and Nutmeg of Consolation. In fact POB begins with
"A tentative outline, dividing the main tale in two, ..." with both books to be a fairly short 90,000 words each.
The first book is to end with some type of disaster such as the ship running aground. To further enhance their predicament, they will have recently received a letter carrying the rumours of bank failures. But POB is already planning ahead by leaving someone such as Sir Joseph Blaine, or Sophie Aubrey, or Diana Villiers with a power of attorney, so that everything will be happily resolved when they return at the end of book XIV.
#1 They set sail with the Orkney seamen's song. A note about declaring the semi-offical nature of the cruise. The new seasick purser provides the foil for Stephen Maturin and Martin to explain the basics of seamanship. The Surprise is to chase a French ship, either a large privateer or a navy corvette, into the Irish Sea, culminating in its sinking or capture.
#2 The purpose of the chase is to make them late in arriving in Lisbon, giving time for Sir Joseph Blaine to arrive in time to change their plans. Some notes about Sam and the Patriarch of Lisbon. POB wonders what season it is, because of importance in specifying the butterflies, birds, and monsoon. Decides that it is to be June or July, and the monsoons will need to be revised.
#3 Blaine describes the revised plan, with the Surprise continuing on to Pacific to harass US whalers and fur traders. The frigate Diane, perhaps escorting an Indiaman, will carry out a mission to Pulo Prabang. The two ships would then rendezvous, maybe in the South China Sea. Returning eastward in the Surprise to Chile, Stephen would conduct an important mission. A note about Padeen.
#4 Having laid out the plan, they return to England for Jack's reinstatement and appointment to the Diane, maybe in the House of Parliament. A reference to a naval victory and a friend who had never seen any combat.
#5 The voyage to India and the East Indies. The beginning of letters carrying rumours of bank failures. A reference to Lord Macartney's journey, and whether accompanied by an envoy. A note that he should be a Malay expert that hates Ledward.
#6 Arrival at Pulo Prabang, with orchids, a Buddhist sanctuary, and court intrigues. A note to check Wallace for types of annuals and birds. A Dutch anatomist.
#7 The plotting continues, but the French run low on hard money because of Wray's embezzlement. A note on the Buddhist sanctuary, which is to have a lake and an island, with orangutangs and orchids, "the lot".
Don Seltzer
These original notes are provided by the courtesy of the Lilly Library, Bloomington, IN.
My apologies for being more than usually stupid, and further apologies if this has recently been discussed - I can't seem to connect to the archives this morning, and haven't been able to keep up with the discussions of late.
I am at a loss to understand the reference to one of the Articles of War mentioned p288-289 (Norton h/c) and its application to Mr Fox. Admittedly, it's taken me a prodigious long while to read through the book and my memory is all to seek: but a somewhat prolonged paging back has so far failed to elucidate the mystery.
Here's my problem: Stephen thinks Jack has laid some extra emphasis on Article XXIII (which can clearly be applied to Fox) and on XXVI 'care shall be taken in the conducting and steering of any of His Majesty's ships, that through wilfulness, negligence or other defaults, no ships be stranded, or run upon any rockes or sands, or split or hazarded ... ' - how does this bear upon Fox? or upon any significant event so far in the book? Assuredly it make the later fate of HMS Diane more ominous, but what is its backwards significance, so to speak?
Also, the men seem to take Article XXIX, forbidding sodomy and buggery, as having especial application to Mr Fox: would I be correct in supposing that this is because they think of him as a "bugger" for his rude disregard of their efforts in his behalf??
Many thanks for any enlightening of my uncommonly obtuse darkness
London Lois
51º 26' 22" N 000º 03' 05" E
Lois Anne du Toit wrote:
Here's my problem: Stephen thinks Jack has laid some extra emphasis on Article XXIII (which can clearly be applied to Fox) and on XXVI 'care shall be taken in the conducting and steering of any of His Majesty's ships, that through wilfulness, negligence or other defaults, no ships be stranded, or run upon any rockes or sands, or split or hazarded ... ' - how does this bear upon Fox? or upon any significant event so far in the book? Assuredly it make the later fate of HMS Diane more ominous, but what is its backwards significance, so to speak?
Also, the men seem to take Article XXIX, forbidding sodomy and buggery, as having especial application to Mr Fox: would I be correct in supposing that this is because they think of him as a "bugger" for his rude disregard of their efforts in his behalf??
I can't speak to the first two, as I haven't progressed that far in my re-reading, but the second doesn't seem to relate to Fox at all, and as he's not a member of the crew, neither would the first. As to Article XXIX, I think it's clear that the crew have recognized Fox as a pederast--"bugger" literally rather than figuratively. The description O'Brian gives of the men's reactions, it seems to me, admits of no other interpretation. That fits well with Stephen's sense that Fox has a dark secret that, at least once, he almost confides to Stephen (I'm working from memory here), and with Fox's consuming hatred for Ledward and Wray (the details of which, the bases of which, are never spelled out).
One question, though. In googling to find a copy of the Articles, I discovered that the articles cited by O'Brian are from the Articles of War as put forth in 1749. One site, however, indicated that they were revised again in 1757. In that version, Articles 23 and 26 refer to wasting powder and shot and to sleeping on watch, respectively, rather than to quarreling (22) and running a ship aground (25). The sodomy article, in the 1759 Articles, is #28, not #29. Why would O'Brian have used the older and apparently superseded Articles of 1749? Or is this one of those rare cases where the Great One nodded?
As to Article XXIX, I think it's clear that the crew have recognized Fox as a pederast--"bugger" literally rather than figuratively. The description O'Brian gives of the men's reactions, it seems to me, admits of no other interpretation. That fits well with Stephen's sense that Fox has a dark secret that, at least once, he almost confides to Stephen (I'm working from memory here), and with Fox's consuming hatred for Ledward and Wray
IIRC, that hatred was directed to either Ledward or Wray. On this read through, this hatred, which is never explained, really bothered me. I eventually came to the same conclusion that you have. Fox is homosexual and has been betrayed by his lover, Ledward or Wray. Hence the hatred.
This line of thinking could also help to explain Fox's mental decline throughout the book. The betrayal could be what sent him over the edge and seeing his ex lover again and triumphing over him could explain his extreme and unwarranted sense of glory in the treaty.
Greg
Why would O'Brian have used the older and apparently superseded Articles of 1749? Or is this one of those rare cases where the Great One nodded?
POB was relying upon the excellent website of former lissun Gibbons Burke http://www.io.com/gibbonsb/, and simply failed to notice that it listed the 1749 version. From a quick scan, it seems the major difference in the 1757 version was the elimination of Article 15, perhaps because it seems adequately covered by other articles.
Every person in or belonging to the fleet, who shall desert to the enemy, pirate, or rebel, or run away with any of His Majesty's ships or vessels of war, or any ordnance, ammunition, stores, or provision belonging thereto, to the weakening of the service, or yield up the same cowardly or treacherously to the enemy, pirate, or rebel, being convicted of any such offence by the sentence of the court martial, shall suffer death.
Don Seltzer
. .Running away with His Majesty's ammunition, stores, provisions, etc is punishabale by death? Surely this article was honored more in the breach than the observance? Doesn't POB have a word for this? I recall it as cappabarre or something similar, but can't find it in the OED or an unabridged dictionary.
Gerry Strey
Madison, Wisconsin
But it is further qualified:
(1) to the weakening of the service
(2) or yield up the same cowardly or treacherously to the
enemy, pirate, or rebel
Which makes some sense. Minor embezzlement might be considered a lessor offense (see Article 24 below). But any such trade with the enemy would be a treasonous capital offense. Interesting, though, that this article was eliminated in 1757.
24. There shall be no wasteful expence of any powder, shot, ammunition, or other stores in the fleet, nor any embezzlement thereof, but the stores and provisions shall be careful preserved , upon pain of such punishment to be inflicted upon the offenders, abettors, buyers and receivers (being persons subject to naval discipline) as shall be by a court martial found just in that behalf.
Don Seltzer
Also, the men seem to take Article XXIX, forbidding sodomy and buggery, as having especial application to Mr Fox
I took it to be a reference to the red faced and tiresome "Old Buggers" of his entourage whose only ability was to be able to stand around for hours in the heat wearing full uniform, rather than Fox himself.
In a message dated 12/4/02 11:48:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, gestrey@WHS.WISC.EDU writes:
I recall it as cappabarre or something similar, but can't find it in the OED or an unabridged dictionary.
Isn't that a cuddly little mammal?
mm
A capybara? It's the world's largest rodent. A 100 lb guinea pig.
bs
Oh no. I've seen capybaras. I've seen rats bigger. I've got a list of names somewhere.
I recall it as cappabarre or something similar, but can't find it in the OED or an unabridged dictionary.
I think the term is 'Cappabarr' or something like that. A Capybara is the worlds largest rodent, as big as a large dog. Stephen would have loved them.
Ted
http://www.rebsig.com/capybara/
At the beginning of TGS, Stephen is faced with a moral dillemma. He has spotted one his old comrades, a United Irishman now working for the French, on the deck of the ship Jack and company are eagerly pursuing. He wants nothing to do with the man's capture, feeling deep aversion at having to play the part of informer. So reluctant is Stephen to meet up with his old associate, that he comes damnably close to treason (flirting with the idea of sabotaging the ship's compass with his powerful magnet).
A few observations...
1. This is the same situation that James Dillon faces in M&C. And Dillon's contempt for himself and the way he handled the affair leads directly to his increasingly erratic behaviour and deathwish. POB lets Stephen off the hook, Stephen never has to look his old mate in the eye. Still the agonies Stephen suffers are very similar to those suffered by Dillon.
2. Shortly after this incident we find that S is looking through his old diaries, reliving conversations with Dillon. Is it this episode that made him look into his past? Or maybe POB had just reread M&C himself before beginning this book?
3. and lastly, a question... If Stephen had gone ahead and messed with the compass, and if he'd been caught, what would have been his fate? Could Jack have overlooked this grave an offence? Surely this is mutiny, treason even, and if anyone else did it, they'd be looking at a death sentence. Could their friendship have withstood Stephen's knowingly putting the ship and her crew's lives in danger, all to comfort a King's Enemy?
Vanessa, who feels that she's blathering, perhaps
Hmmm, tough question. Jack having to choose between his friendship, nay brothership, and a mutinous, treasonous action.
POB painted a pretty complete picture of Jack, so we *should* be able to come up with a definitive answer. I'm sure we'll all come to agreement on it :) (there, I did one).
At first blush my answer is he chooses Stephen. Why?
We've discussed the idea that a difference btw JA, SM is JA is more concerned with *fairness*, SM more with *justice*. Hence, could JA be induced to look at the situation with the more lenient, eyes-wide-open spectacles of fairness rather than the eyes-blindfolded scales of justice? I think he could.
We know JA is plagued with inconsistencies in his ideologies. Against Catholics, but then again, not so very against. In favor of what enclosures does for the country, but just not there in his own backyard. Even in cases of mutinies, while he recognizes the justice of the punishment, there are times he sympathizes with the mutineers. Not to the point of supporting them, not at all, but then, none of them are Stephen.
Additionally, while JA is not going to allow the Padeen rescue, he folds pretty quickly when SM's life is in danger.
Using these "clues," I'd say that if JA could see any sign that SM had a reasonable motive, he would cover it up as easily as kiss-my-hand. He may be angry with SM for a bit, but he'd cover for him.
Nathan
At 2:05 AM -0500 12/5/2002, HeyNessie@aol.com wrote:
So reluctant is Stephen to meet up with his old associate, that he comes damnably close to treason (flirting with the idea of sabotaging the ship's compass with his powerful magnet).
I think that you have correctly identified POB's intentions. In his notes for TGS, he proposes the iron filings near the compass scheme, and then follows up with a note about:
"This might be contained in SM's conversation (?in Lisbon, in Irish dissident? priest?..."
on intelligence vs spying - hatred of all tyranny but intelligent systematic state tyranny far above all."
It was apparently his intention to have a confrontation between Stephen and an Irishman over his apparent role as an informer for the English. Stephen would justify his actions by making a distinction between spying and intelligence, and by placing the defeat of Napoleon and his system of tyranny above all other moral concerns. This discussion was originally to take place when they touched in Lisbon, but POB added a note to defer it to book XIV. The same idea appears in a more developed form later in his notes, and is eventually used in NOC, when they reach Australia.
>3. and lastly, a question... If Stephen had gone ahead and messed with the >compass, and if he'd been caught, what would have been his fate? Could Jack >have overlooked this grave an offence? >Surely this is mutiny, treason even, and if anyone else did it, they'd be >looking at a death sentence. >Could their friendship have withstood Stephen's knowingly putting the ship >and her crew's lives in danger, all to comfort a King's Enemy?
Agreed, which may be why POB decided to have Stephen only think about it. He was, however, directing his plot to an eventual showdown between Jack and Stephen over Padeen in NSW, but that controversy sort of fizzled when he actually wrote about it.
Don Seltzer
POB notes are provided through the courtesy of the Lilly Library, Bloomington, IN
Well firstly POB is at home with morale problems, after all he faced a few himself.
Secondly I believe Jack could have overlooked Stephen's offence, because he is a basically good man & Stephen's friend besides. Jack's character is not one of those 'use the law as an excuse' types one sadly sometimes meets.
Indeed, if a real man of Jack's character had been asked by Stephen to lose the chase of purpose, it is my belief he would have done so, always providing -as was the case- no very great danger or anything vital to his Country or his Service was at stake. To have done less would make Jack a 'little' poor man & that is most certainly not my reading of the Character POB gives him.
Ted
I don't think Jack would have had much choice, when you come right to it. Stephen is the ship's rightful owner, "Surprise" is NOT a King's ship at this time, and Jack Aubrey was well aware of this. That is the excruciating part of Stephen's dilemma. He WOULDN'T demand that his captain abandon the chase.
- Susan
Good post Nathan.
Firstly I don't think Jack is really against Catholics at all. He has a very hazy idea they might not be entirely the thing, but it is a sort of absored without much attention at school thing, no real belief.
With regard to the Padeen rescue -& it has been a while since I read that book- if I remember right Jack's ship gets all sorts of unwelcome, not to say boorish, attention from the authorities in NSW & does not Jack give his own personal word of honour, he will not aid the escape of prisoners from there & allow his ship to be so used?
Jack's word is his bond, so in this case it is understandable, given the ideas of honour Jack held to.
Ted
I don't think Jack would have had much choice, when you come right to it. Stephen is the ship's rightful owner, "Surprise" is NOT a King's ship at this time, and Jack Aubrey was well aware of this. That is the excruciating part of Stephen's dilemma. He WOULDN'T demand that his captain abandon the chase.
But Stephen could have asked Jack too, though, of course he would be loath to do such a thing. And Jack, I believe would have aceeded to such a request from his friend.
But then again, we really are trying to get into POB's head here, though, perhaps his own history gives us a clue ot two to his thoughts.
Ted
With regard to the Padeen rescue -& it has been a while since I read that book- if I remember right Jack's ship gets all sorts of unwelcome, not to say boorish, attention from the authorities in NSW & does not Jack give his own personal word of honour, he will not aid the escape of prisoners from there & allow his ship to be so used?
Jack's word is his bond, so in this case it is understandable, given the ideas of honour Jack held to.
POB struggled with these same ideas, as revealed in his notes for NOC. He wrote himself into a corner, setting up a conflict between Jack and Stephen that he wasn't willing to push to the breaking point. I'll write more about this conflict next month when we move on to NOC.
But one of the fallouts from POB's conflict problem might have resulted in the creation of an unplanned book, TL/CO.
Don Seltzer
I shall certainly look forward to reading what you have to write about this Don.
It seems to me that POB gives Jack a basically generous character & to try & turn him into some kind of unbending martinet in that book would have been very difficult indeed, where a matter of no very great external import is concerned.
Ted
and lastly, a question... If Stephen had gone ahead and messed with the compass, and if he'd been caught, what would have been his fate? Could Jack have overlooked this grave an offence?
I think this sabotage would have been very hard for Jack to forgive. It would have directly interfered with Jack's relationship with his ship and with his sense of duty as a naval officer, which he retained even as a privateer. Jack's moral code was certainly flexible in some ways, but I don't think he could have accepted this. It would have been a horrific betrayal of Jack's trust, and I don't think I could have forgiven Stephen if he had followed through with this.
Katherine
It would have been a horrific betrayal of Jack's trust, and I don't think I could have forgiven Stephen if he had followed through with this.
I agree. It's mucking around with the steering of the ship, and isn't that specifically mentioned in the Articles of War?
It also smacks of a lack of trust in Jack - if Stephen really had such a need to avoid capturing that ship, why did he not approach Jack with that directly? Surely their friendship was strong enough to support such an action, and Jack could have easily issued orders allowing the chase to slip away during the night.
Greg
At 3:09 AM +1100 12/6/2002, Ted wrote:
It seems to me that POB gives Jack a basically generous character & to try & turn him into some kind of unbending martinet in that book would have been very difficult indeed, where a matter of no very great external import is concerned.
As it seemed to POB.
" ... And then I had always foreseen an end involving extreme tension between SM & JA on the subject of the rescue of Padeen, but when I came to look at it closely it seemed to me too obvious, direct contradiction between the JA I have described in all these books and the suddenly law-abiding prig I now propose."
Courtesy of the Lilly Library, Bloomington, IN
Don Seltzer
Firstly I don't think Jack is really against Catholics at all. He has a very hazy idea they might not be entirely the thing, but it is a sort of absored without much attention at school thing, no real belief.
I agree - a great way of putting it. Believes he's *supposed* to be against it, but can't really drag up any feeling about it.
Nathan
In a message dated 12/5/02 10:21:32 AM, blue@THEMIZZEN.COM writes:
it also smacks of a lack of trust in Jack - if Stephen really had such a need to avoid capturing that ship, why did he not approach Jack with that directly? Surely their friendship was strong enough to support such an action, and Jack could have easily issued orders allowing the chase to slip away during the night.
No! Stephen asking, or thinking Jack would do so without irreparable harm to their friendship are both so completely WRONG for either character! Even as owner, Stephen could hardly give Jack the command then take it back without mortal insult. And when did Stephen ever show a willingness to share a decision such as this?
This entire incident was one I found terribly uncomfortable, which I think is what O'Brian intended. Too many little things are 'off' here: Stephen's excessive fear of being connected with the capture; his uncharacteristic thoughts of immoral, indeed, dangerous, behavior with the magnet; his w andering about the ship, almost in a daze. To a large extent his behavior is similar to the muddled state he exhibited in HMSS while wandering around India. He has begun the voyage with a number of disturbing difficulties - intelligence leakages, banking problems, stress with Diana, a baby on the way. The later revelation of his confusion in the banking correspondence suggests his state of mind was not quite up to par. Then he is confronted with another situation, which apparently overwhelms his ability to cope. And how does this uncharacteristic behavior and almost treasonous situation resolve itself? With his inevitable return to laudanum. This resolution seems to signify that he is incapable of dealing with the stress without a drug. Some have suggested he had shaken his addiction, but I think this episode implies that, much as the later bit with the coca leaves, he is dishonest with himself, almost leading to dishonesty and betrayal with Jack, and O'Brian wants us to see that. It is a preview of his later betrayal of Jack with Padeen.
Those in the D-S party will see this as another criticism of their beloved Stephen, I fear, but I think it was important to O'Brian that we realize that Stephen has a terrible, basic flaw which, in the Greek tragedy line, makes him the cause of much of his misery. It's one of the reasons we find O'Brian's writing so compelling - this isn't the shallow character who is "our hero" or "our hero's sidekick", but is a complex, conflicting picture of a man who can't easily be pigeonholed; in other words, Stephen is human and darn few writers can create characters who are.
Rowen
Amongst many other fine things, Rowen 84 wrote:
but I think it was important to O'Brian that we realize that Stephen has a terrible, basic flaw which, in the Greek tragedy line, makes him the cause of much of his misery.
One of the curiosities of POB's portrayal of Stephen is that he is often said in the authorial voice (especially in the re-caps and scene setters at the start of the later novels) to be effective and successful as doctor, scientist, social figure and intelligence agent. Yet the actual portrayal through action to me paints a different figure, one of a man who fails to live to to other folk's expectations of him, and his own expectations of himself. As a doctor, he's a skillful cutter in emergency circumstances; but his 'reputation' as a grand physician seems based on nothing we are ever shown. As scientist, he seems more of a collector and cataloguer than creative thinker (I think our former lissun Jane Skinner touched a tender spot with POB himself when she queried him on this in an interview session). Socially, he occasionally rises to fame and admiration; though based on exactly 'what', eludes me... From the point of view of political activist and intelligence chappie, what does he ever accomplish? Perhaps some success against Johnson in Boston, but otherwise tolerably little against either France or, especially, Spain (his South American adventures are disasters from clew to earring....). As an Irish patriot, he seems to me never to lift, or have lifted, a finger in support of his native land; and he talks more of Catalonia than ever doing anything practical. He's, eventually, a decent father, of course; and he's a damn loyal friend to Jack and Sophie. Good husband? Well, insofar as Diana ever allows him to be.......
Mind you, I'm still glad to have known him!
Gary
a Jack man, through and through......
No! Stephen asking, or thinking Jack would do so without irreparable harm to their friendship are both so completely WRONG for either character
Not at all. If Stephen has a reasonable belief that catching the chase would jeopardize either his mission or his ability as an agent, he can ask Jack to discreetly lose the chase. He´s made some fairly wild requests of just this sort in the past. In PC, for example, when he asks Jack to drop him at the mouth of a river some ways off at little notice so that he can meet with Royalist French representatives.
In this case such a situation does exist. Catching the chase could reveal his being a member of the United Irishmen, which could be a problem for him. In fact it IS a problem for him in YA.
It's one of the reasons we find O'Brian's writing so compelling - this isn't the shallow character who is "our hero" or "our hero's sidekick", but is a complex, conflicting picture of a man who can't easily be pigeonholed; in other words, Stephen is human and darn few writers can create characters who are.
Very well said. It could well explain why he didn´t think of a simpler way out of his predicament.
Greg
One of the curiosities of POB's portrayal of Stephen is that he is often said in the authorial voice (especially in the re-caps and scene setters at the start of the later novels) to be effective and successful as doctor, scientist, social figure and intelligence agent. Yet the actual portrayal through action to me paints a different figure, one of a man who fails to live to to other folk's expectations of him, and his own expectations of himself.
Yet another interesting post in this thread. What you say is true, although I still tend to think that Stephen *was* all effective in those areas.
The one specific thing I would debate is Stephen's accomplishment as an intelligence agent. Surely his work against the French and Americans was significant. His handling of Wogans was masterful and led to some pretty fair results. Also, didn't he ultimately discover Ledward, Wray, and their shadowy friend (the Duke of Habachthal?)?
Nathan
Perhaps some success against Johnson in Boston, but otherwise tolerably little against either France or Spain
Agreed about Spain, but France? The Johnson papers were quite a coup, but the intelligence work the immediately preceeded it, the falisified papers passed via Wogan, was quite something. The diplomatic work in TGS, plying the French with false information in TH, bringing down Ledward and Wray, etc. I think there´s a fair bit of evidence of at least this aspect of his character.
Greg
We've discussed the idea that a difference btw JA, SM is JA is more concerned with *fairness*, SM more with *justice*. Hence, could JA be induced to look at the situation with the more lenient, eyes-wide-open spectacles of fairness rather than the eyes-blindfolded scales of justice? I think he could.
Remember how he tried to save Stephen during the infamous "gumbrils" episode?
In addition, Jack knows that Stephen may possibly have some remote connection with intelligence, and that actions which might, on the face of it, seem to fly in the face of naval reason, may have some higher strategical purpose.
We have been reminded of this by the juicy Mercedes. Jack is on the verge with her, when Stephen bursts in, drags him off her, prating there is not a moment to be lost, sails on the instant, steams past a likely looking prize and goes to meet...
Dr Gumbrils himself!
Perhaps some success against Johnson in Boston, but otherwise tolerably little against either France or Spain
One of Stephen's intelligence successes led to the interception of the Spanish treasure squadron just before Spain was about to enter the war against Britain (PC). Which indirectly led to Hornblower's promotion to post captain.
Although we are told little of Stephen's activities during the 3 year gap between HMSS and TMC, it seems likely that he was busy in Spain during part of the time. I like to think that he was partly responsible for Spain switching sides, uniting with Britain against Napoleon, and perhaps he set up the intelligence network that would later aid Wellington during the Pennisular War (who was that Irish priest in Salamanca who appears in the Sharpe novels?).
Not to mention his turning of the Spanish regiment in SM, though that was partly by luck of family relations.
Don Seltzer
But one of the fallouts from POB's conflict problem might have resulted in the creation of an unplanned book, TL/CO.
The bastard!
But this would explain why they seemed to be sailing around that bloody ocean for years and years without actually getting anywhere. While that bloody war with the Americans dragged on and on.
In a message dated 12/5/02 12:11:05 PM, dr_gary@AGBFINEBOOKS.COM writes:
As scientist, he seems more of a collector and cataloguer than creative thinker (I think our former lissun Jane Skinner touched a tender spot with POB himself when she queried him on this in an interview session).
Gary, can you elaborate?
Rowen
If memory serves, Jane asked the question in that on-line chat that Barnes&Noble did with POB. Does anybody have it archived, so I can look up the exchange?
Gary
Jane Skinner from Cambridge, England: Stephen's approach to natural history is largely observational, in true 18th-century style. If he lives to read the ORIGIN OF SPECIES in his old age, what will his reaction be? Straightforward admiration? Dismay that he, who had seen so much of the natural world, had not conceived of such an elegantly simple idea? Or religious disquiet?
PO: He began to perceive it, and he had distinct intuitions about the whole matter but he would have welcomed Darwin with immense enthusiasm, and he'd have gone right along with him, except that he would not have discarded his faith, when poor Darwin has to -- to the great disgust of Mrs. Darwin, I'm afraid.
Someone, perhaps Don himself, has commented that Stephen's effectiveness as an agent must be limited by the time he spends at sea, unable to communicate with his colleagues. In the Med and the English channel he would have the chance for visits ashore and messages sent by sloops and cartels, but what could he accomplish during six months isolated on the Pacific?
Am I correct in suspecting that most Naval intelligence activites took place on shore in the close proximity of harbors and shipyards, inns, taverns and brothels?
Gerry Strey
Madison, Wisconsin
Don wrote,
(who was that Irish priest in Salamanca who appears in the Sharpe novels?).
Though it's lovely to think of Stephen playing that part, I think the priest was actually Father Patrick Curtis, the genuine article. Cornwell used him in his novel because of his extraordinary part in the real war.
Terrijo,
who easily could be wrong...
Father Curtis is the one I was trying to remember. I can imagine the secret meetings in which Stephen approaches him, recruits him as an agent, and helps to set up a network which continues to operate long after Stephen has returned to his voyages with Jack.
Don Seltzer
And as a natural scientist, his (inaudible) presentations on aspects of
obscure anatomy are well received by the Royal Society and the French
Academy.
--
John R. Gosden
7*51'59"N / 98*20'28"E
Greg and others wrote:
It would have been a horrific betrayal of Jack's trust, and I don't think I could have forgiven Stephen if he had followed through with this.
(Greg's response:)
I agree. It's mucking around with the steering of the ship, and isn't that specifically mentioned in the Articles of War?
(My response:)
Could the above be the answer to London Lois's question about the emphasis on the reading of certain portions of the Articles of War? (Apart from the seemingly obvious ones that were already discussed.) -RD
Just as there are additional years - 1812a, 1812b and so on - inserted towards the end of the Canon, so too perhaps Patrick O'Brian inserted additional Stephens - Maturina, Maturinb etc. - to go about their business of intelligence-gathering, attending meetings of the Royal Society, practising surgery and all the rest of it while Maturin is otherwise in communicado. This would explain why Stephen can be as brown as a beetle when spending time in the fogs and damps of Ireland.
Maturins must be a common sight in London, turn a corner and you are confronted by yet another, even though you just saw him in your club, chatting away in forren to an odd gentleman. At the same time he is there in Lisbon, Dublin, Sydney Town and Old Sweeting's Isle.
Am I correct in suspecting that most Naval intelligence activites took place on shore in the close proximity of harbors and shipyards, inns, taverns and brothels?
No. This is quite wrong, otherwise Jack it would be who was the secret agent, not Stephen, who could be found amongst the goldsmiths, taxidermists and holy men.
Rowen 84 wrote:
but I think this episode implies that, much as the later bit with the coca leaves, he is dishonest with himself, almost leading to dishonesty and betrayal with Jack, and O'Brian wants us to see that. It is a preview of his later betrayal of Jack with Padeen. Those in the D-S party will see this as another criticism of their beloved Stephen, I fear, but I think it was important to O'Brian that we realize that Stephen has a terrible, basic flaw which, in the Greek tragedy line, makes him the cause of much of his misery. It's one of the reasons we find O'Brian's writing so compelling - this isn't the shallow character who is "our hero" or "our hero's sidekick", but is a complex, conflicting picture of a man who can't easily be pigeonholed; in other words, Stephen is human and darn few writers can create characters who are.
While I agree with the ending of the Post Rowen, I think it is also true that Stephen, is on one level, also behaving very honourably with regard to both his ex-comrades from the United Irishmen & with Padeen. He faces, as you say, conflicts between the strict letter of his duty & his own conscience & in Padeen's case humanity.
Ted
(Never in life a member of the Diana party)
Rowan wrote: "One of the curiosities of POB's portrayal of Stephen is that he is often said in the authorial voice (especially in the re-caps and scene setters at the start of the later novels) to be effective and successful as doctor, scientist, social figure and intelligence agent."
----------------------------------------------
A fine, thought-provoking post, Rowan (and I am a rabid Stephen fan, mind you); but IS he often said to be a remarkable social figure? I'm too darn lazy to go check all the intro passages, but I honestly can't recall that: unless it means in Catalonia where he does, of course, have quite a bit of social standing.
Successful as a doctor: he perfects the suprapubic cystotomy, for all love!! and is called upon to treat the Royal Family. He is the author of many excellent works upon medicine too.
As a scientist: not creative, no, but would that have been regarded as the summum bonum in the 18C? he succeeds in admirably describing several hitherto nondescript species. And does he not form some interesting geological theories? And what of his work on cryptogams? He addresses the Institut, let us not forget, on several occasions. Not to mention his membership of and contributions to the Royal Society.
And I must agree with those who point out that his intelligence activities are, when not foiled by double agents in London, very successful: in particular the Wogan coup that decimated the upper echelons in Paris, did it not?
London Lois, reaching for the laudanum
51º 26' 22" N 000º 03' 05" E
Lois, I did NOT write that. You've quoted a paragraph from, indeed, "a fine, thought provoking post" which _Gary Brown_ wrote in reply to an earlier post of mine.
Rowen
My profoundest apologies, ma'am. And, indeed, to Gary. Alas, scanning the posts in Digest format at speed can tend to give rise to these misattributions. As also can my increasingly poor eyesight. I shall apply my best endeavours to avoid any repetition.
Allow me to add that the post that *was* yours was most uncommon fine, indeed. A flower upon your head, and a glass with you.
London Lois
51º 26' 22" N 000º 03' 05" E
Pages 3 & 4 of the outline for TGS repeat many of the same points made in the first draft outline, but go into greater detail.
Outline page 3 is labelled XIII for book 13.
POB begins by asking,
"How plausible is this scheme?"
The Surprise sets off for its South American mission despite Stephen Maturin's doubts. Sir Joseph Blaine has ordered them to stop first at Lisbon for an update in their plans. When they arrive, Blaine is already there, having made the journey partly by land from Corunna. Problems have arisen because the ambassador from Spain has learned of reports of Surprise's mission to aid rebellion in its S. American colonies. The leak of this secret information is suspected to be from whomever protected Wray and Ledward. Blaine denied the report to the ambassador, sticking with the original cover story of an independent privateer seeking US whalers and the China trade.
Because of a small naval victory which might be tied into the escort ships for the French envoy's mission, it might be politically convenient to announce Jack Aubrey's reinstatement into the navy with his appointment to the frigate Diane.
Pulo Prabang is described as a"piratical seafaring potentate" ruled by a Sultan. The purpose of the French mission is to encourage the building of ships to prey on the Honourable East Indies Company ships, with the French supplying money, weapons, and shipwrights. Ledward and Wray have been sent as part of the mission because they are no longer of any value in Paris, where they are viewed with contempt. Ledward is useful as a negotiator and Malay translator.
Blaine's new plan is for the Surprise to continue on with its original cover story to the Pacific, but Aubrey and Maturin will carry the British envoy to Pulo Prabang in the Diane. Aubrey now has to quickly return to England, and assemble a scratch crew with just a handful of followers. Ashgrove cottage, the reinstatement, and uniforms.
This summary is based upon original notes provided by the courtesy of the Lilly Library, Bloomington, IN.
Don Seltzer
Outline page 4 continues on with the more detailed plan for book XIII
A note, carried over from the previous page, suggests that after the Surprise spends a convincing enough time harrassing US ships in S. America, it could chase a fur trading ship as far as the China Sea. That would set up a rendezvous with Aubrey and the Diane. Jointly, they could do battle with the French ships.
Jack Aubrey takes command of the Diane and they sail to Pulo Prabang. A series of short notes follows:
- check Wallace* for orchids, and orangutans
-famous anatomist van Buren, who is a leading authority on the spleen
- someone in Sultan's service, maybe a paederist {not clear if POB is
referring to van Buren here}
- the French entourage
- "SM dissects Wray (I have written a little piece of dialogue for this)*"
- Stephen uses some of his own money in the cause to discredit the French
mission
The Diane sets off for the agreed rendezvous with Surprise, but strikes on an uncharted reef. POB then notes that he should use Abbot's* version of the subsequent attacks of the Malays. Eventually, the Surprise comes to the rescue, summoned by either a long boat or a schooner built from the wreck. One possibility has the Surprise hauling the Diane off the rocks, so they can both set out happily in search of the French, ending with "many prizes, many prizes." {an echo of one of the sailors' songs from chapter 1}
*Further comments.
One of POB's sources was naturalist Alfred Wallace, a contemporary of Darwin.
Abbot was a midshipman aboard the Alceste, the 1817 historical basis for the wreck of the Diane
POB wrote a draft version of the dissection scene almost identical to that which appears in the book. A significant difference is that the draft refers to a bullet wound. For the book version, POB added the rifle distinction. It seems unlikely to me that van Buren could differentiate between a wound from a musket and a rifle, but POB probably wanted to drop a broad hint of who the assassins were.
This summary is based upon original notes provided by the courtesy of the Lilly Library, Bloomington, IN.
Thirteen was decided upon in the end as the 'shortname' wasn't it?
I found this (from Lisa G-1996) in the archives which I found interesting -if not over informative.
'I have been trying to remember where I heard PO'B himself address the Ledward/Wray question... and finally it came to me. I have just listened again to the NPR interview of PO'B (April 17, 1995), in which an audience member called in and asked the very question some of us have been debating, "Did Stephen Maturin arrange for their demise?"
It doesn't exactly settle anything... but here is PO'B's somewhat oracular reply:
"Oh, quite certainly.... As to the demise, to a certain degree he provoked it; and he certainly profited by it, in having two valuable cadavers for dissection..."
>From which I suppose we can reasonably infer that Stephen did _not_ pull the trigger - beyond that, though, I'd say we can infer whatever we please and no one can say us nay.
Lisa Grossman'
alec
53 23 N 006 35 W
There are no detailed notes specifically labelled for chapter 1, but there is a page regarding research of the sea shanties that were used in this chapter.
Among the sources listed at the top of the page are John Masefield's "Sea Songs" of 1906 and "A Sailor's Garland" of 1924.
The primary source seems to be Stan Hugill's "Shanties from the Seven Seas", published in 1961 by Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd. The following notes appear to include page references.
From p. 1 - doubts whether shanties sung ashore were ill-luck - for work only
From p. 4 - "Sea Songs & Shanties", by WB Whall, 1927 cites the 1549 "The Complaynt of Scotland"
The following was used when hoisting up the lower yard:
"Afore the wind, afore the wind,
God send, God send,
Fair weather, fair weather
Many prizes, many prizes"
A second hauling song or sing-out:
"Heisa, heisa
Vorsa, vorsa
Von, von
One long pull
More power
Young blood
More wind"
From page 5 - In Royal Navy ships, such hauling was done to the music of a fiddle, or to the bosun's pipe and the callout of numbers, such as the "two-six" chant still used today. Smyth notes a chant of one-two-three for hauling a bowline.
From page 7 - In 1804, "Off she goes" and "Drops of Brandy" were fifer's tunes for weighing, as quoted by Landsman (?) Hay (ed M O Hay 1953) Merchant sailors called Royal Navy seamen by the nickname "Johnny Haul-taut"
Note to also check "Shantying & Shanties", by Laughton, L.G. Carr, Mariner's Mirror 1923 A boxed-in note "I must read Dana again"
End of page
Courtesy of the Lilly Library, Bloomington, IN
-------------
Captain Whall's book has been republished many times, and is still in print. He was born in 1837 and died in the 1920's. Originally, he intended a career in the Church, and studied music at Oxford. In 1861, he went to sea and served with some veterans of the Napoleonic wars. He is quoted as saying, "Since 1872, I have not heard a Shanty or Song worth the name. Steam spoilt them."
The term Shanty or Chantey for a sailor's work song does not seem to go back to Jack Aubrey's time. The term was first used in the mid-1800's. Dana, for instance, does not use the expression.
Hugill's book is still in print in paperback, published by Mystic Seaport. Among the reviewers' comments are:
" The Shantyman's Bible Reviewer: A reader June 12, 1997 Stan Hugill was the last living shantyman in the United Kingdom, having sailed on board ships where shantying was still alive and well. He gained his information and his songs from primary sources, all of whom are no longer available. Every person who works to keep the maritime traditions alive, particularly the sailors' work songs of the 18th and 19th centuries, owes Stan a huge debt for developing an interest in a dying custom in time to preserve some of it. Stan was above all a meticulous scholar and born educator; Shanties from the Seven Seas is the outcome of an incredible amount of recollection substantiated by extensive research. Among professional shanty singers we refer to this book as Stan's Bible, and if one is interested on an enthusiast's level in maritime music, Shanties from the Seven Seas is a must-read. Stan has written many other books and papers, but this is the one that without fail will be found in a maritime historian's library.
Stan Hugill died in May 1992, but he has left us with a priceless legacy of knowledge "
I believe that Searoom carries both Hugill's book, and a CD, Stan Hugill in Concert.
Don Seltzer
There are two pages of notes pertaining to chapter IV. The first is dated 5 September 88. Because chapter II has been divided into two, the coming piece will be IV.
Much of this first page is concerned with word and page count. About 26 000 words have been written to this point, so the new chapter will begin on page 60 (typed) of the manuscript. Points to be covered in the chapter include returning to England, and the resulting astonishment at Ashgrove. The pregnant Diana Villiers has reached "a fine size", and Stephen goes to London, with diaries and reflexions.
The next notes are circled with the notation "this must necessarily, I think, be part of the next chapter"
Jack Aubrey is advised by Captain Dance* of the HEI on routes to Pulo Prabang and the Sunda Strait that bypass the Cape and India. Raffles provides information on the Sultan and a Buddhist sanctuary, possibly a lake with an island.
At some point, possibly dinner with Blaine, Fox, and Aubrey, Stephen will recall the retired van Buren, an expert on the spleen.
Next come specific writing goals: "The chapter must be short, 10 000 at the most i.e. about 33 manuscript pages"
2 or 3 pages for the trip through Portugal and Spain
5 for Ashgrove and Jack's gazette
2 or 3 for Jack to Houses of Parliament and frenzied activity to prepare
5 or 6 for Jack and Stephen's dinner with envoy at club
5 or 6 for Jack to be read in and organize officers and crew, "loose not a
minute" {uncharacteristic misspelling}
5 or 6 for Stephen to brood & reflect {crossed out}, and to find a journal
about van Buren, and read diaries.
Next chapter to begin with Tristan, no land having been seen.
This plan leaves a little leeway for his goal of 33 ms pp. A circled note at the bottom states 33 1/2 MS pp, perhaps added later to note the actual length.
---End of first page----
*Nathaniel Dance was the commodore of the HEI China fleet that fought off Admiral Linois's squadron, inspiring the similar events in HMS Surprise. In the actual text of TGS, POB chose to substitute Muffitt for Dance as he did in HMSS (Muffitt was actually the commander of the Ganges Indiaman in the Linois encounter). - This information obtained from "Persons, Animals, Ships, and Cannon of the Aubrey-Maturin Sea Novels of Patrick O'Brian" by Gary Brown.
These summaries are based upon original notes provided by the courtesy of the Lilly Library, Bloomington, IN.
Don Seltzer
There's a passage in chapter 5 of The Thirteen Gun Salute that puzzled me whenever I read it. It seemed backward-looking and unnecessary.
Stephen and Jack are alone with their coffee, and Stephen, "after a long brooding pause, said, 'Do you remember I once said of Clonfort that for him truth was what he could make others believe?'"
Now, the conversation on Clonfort was nine books in the past. Twelve years and eight intervening novels separated the publication of Mauritius and Salute. (It was a long brooding pause indeed, perhaps the longest in the entire canon.)
Something must have been preying on POB's mind. Here is the passage, in Maturin's words:
"I expressed myself badly. What I meant was that if he could induce others to believe what he said, then for him the statement acquired some degree of truth, a reflection of their belief that it was true; and this reflected truth might grow stronger with time and repetition until it became a conviction, indistinguishable from ordinary factual truth, or very nearly so."
I wondered why POB felt that Maturin's clarification was worth using in Salute, after such a delay. It might have some relevance to Fox' character, but surely POB might have found a more direct way to bring it in.
And then I read Don Seltzer's posting, wch read, in its entirety: "Today is the birthday of Richard Patrick Russ."
Charlezzzzz
It is my theory that after writing Letter of Marque (which could have been the end of the canon. On its last page our heroes are singing gaily 'ah tutti contenti...') POB took some time and went back and read his early books.
This would explain why there is so much in 13Gun that harkens to earlier books. At one point Stephen goes back over his diaries to investigate the man he was, his impressions of Jack and Dillon.
Charlezzz points out the out-of-the-blue reference to Clonfert. Stephen spends time in this book re-examining the past, perhaps because Himself had done the very same thing?
Good grief, Charlezzzzz, what are years when memory's fragments remain, and occasionally surface.
It's been a few decades since I sat in Sociology 101, but you've brought to mind that class, and Professor Stoodley's presentation of Charles Horton Cooley and his theory of the "looking-glass self"-though I doubt there's any direct connection with POB, but who knows:
"Cooley argued that a person's self grows out of a person's commerce with others. "The social origin of his life comes by the pathway of intercourse with other persons." The self, to Cooley, is not first individual and then social; it arises dialectically through communication. One's consciousness of himself is a reflection of the ideas about himself that he attributes to other minds; thus, there can be no isolated selves. "There is no sense of 'I' without its cor- relative sense of you, or he, or they. "
"In his attempt to illustrate the reflected character of the self, Cooley compared it to a looking glass:
Each to each a looking-glass
Reflects the other that doth pass.
"As we see our face, figure, and dress in the glass, and are interested in them because they are ours, and pleased or otherwise with them according as they do or do not answer to what we should like them to be, so in imagination we perceive in another's mind some thought of our appearance, manners, aims, deeds, character, friends, and so on, and are variously affected by it."
etc. from
http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/Cooley/COOLWRK.HTML
Lois
Indeed, Lois, you and Stoodley and Cooley have hit it bang on. Seems to me that POB was adverting almost exactly to the looking-glass self; and it wasn't Clonfort he was writing about: it was Mr. Russ convincing others (and almost convincing himself) that he was indeed Mr. POB.
Mr Charlezzzzz
There was more that Stephen had to say about Clonfert in TMC that has an autobiographical ring to it:
"Stephen, you should know all about Clonfert. He is a countryman of yours, an eminent chap, I dare say in Ireland."
"Sure, it is an Irish title, but Clonfert is as much an Englishman as you are yourself. The family name is Scroggs... Clonfert's grandfather, now, was a mere - [interrupted]"
Much later, Stephen writes in his diary, "Clonfert is more of an Irishman, with the exacerbated susceptibilities of a subject race, than I had supposed; more indeed than I gave Jack to understand. I find that as a boy he did not attend a great English public school, as did most of his kind I have known; nor did he go early to sea and thereby wash away the barrier... Far from it: he was brought up almost entirely by the servants at Jenkinsville (a desolate region). Squireen foster-parents too for a while, his own being so mad or so disreputable: and he seems to have sucked in the worst of both sides ... an uneasy awareness of his own distinction, a profound uncertainty of its real value, and a conviction that to validate its claims he should be twice as tall as other men .... He has surrounded himself with a strikingly inferior set of officers ... no doubt they provide him with the approval he longs for; but how much can a man of his understanding value their approval?"
Don Seltzer
The detailed notes for chapter V of TGS consist of just a single page. There are several references to dates and words written, even an excuse (coping with the wine harvest) for not writing more. There is the plan to jump ahead and do a retrospective of the events in between. A great deal of character development and social interaction is revealed. There is a subdivision and then reordering of some pieces. One of Jack's malapropisms and the seriousness of the Bells in the Tower piece. And even a thought to terminate poor Reade.
Dated 3 October [1988], there is the notation that chapter IV was started a month earlier on 5 September, "but I took a week coping with vendage & Pic foreword"*
* [refers to the wine grape harvest, and working on the forward to the second edition of POB's biography of Picasso]
40 000 words written so far, and another 10,000, corresponding to 25 -30 manuscript pages should be sufficient for reaching Batavia.
The chapter can pick up off Tristan de Cunha in July or August. Earlier events, such as being windbound in Torbay, and Jack Aubrey's decision to take a southerly route for the westerlies can be treated in retrospect. Jack is to be portrayed as a conscientious captain, seeing that the older midshipment tend to their official diaries. Stephen Maturin, officially a guest, becomes acting surgeon because the regular surgeon Graham was late, and was left behind at Torbay. Water supplies are adequate because of heavy rains while in the doldrums.
Relations with the official envoy are polite, but strained. They play some whist and backgammon, but the envoy has made some subtle remarks complaining about Jack and Stephen's music sessions. He has alienated his secretary, and in his loneliness he pretends to have medical ailments to converse with Stephen. He asks Stephen the author of
"When the bells jangle in the tower
The hollow night amid
Then on my tongue the taste is sour
Of all I ever did"
Stephen, reluctant to act the role of confessor, puts him off with "Some self-centered hypochondriac that should have been dowsed with calomel or hiera picra"
Jack, in comparing the Diane with the Surprise, wishes for the crew of the latter and the lack of formality. If still with the Surprise, he would not be burdened with the responsibility of looking after the midshipmen, trying to get them to complete their diaries.
Fox and Stephen pass the time in target practice with rifles, Fox shooting
albatross, and Stephen at bottles. Stephen is the better shooter.
------------
Eight days later, on 11 October, POB notes that 8 pages have been written,
covering the retrospect and the incident off Inaccessible Island.
The next section is in two columns. In the left column:
Next is to be the bit about Fox and Stephen's target practice, Fox's loneliness, the loan of texts in the Malay language for Stephen to study, and Jack's thoughts about the Diane vs Surprise. Whist, backgammon, and dining with the envoy. A note to include "Spotted Dick" Richardson, and the servant Ahmed who will read Arabic to Stephen, to learn the sounds of the vowels. The personal stores of the officers dwindle.
Jack voices some regrets to Stephen, "But no doubt I am not the only man who longs to count his cakes and eat them." To which Stephen replies "I believe men are naturally polygamous"
Arrival at Batavia will bring news, carried overland, of great financial unrest in London, with problems at many banks, including Smith's.
In the right column, next to the preceding:
"Suppose it is in 3 sections" First, calm weather and character development of the envoy, officers, midshipmen, and crew. When the latitude of the 40's is reached, stormy weather.
[reordering as the second and third section are swapped] black storm, lightning, difficult sailing, and midshipman Reade is lost. Then very slow, a world without end, rationing of food and water, until they pick up the SE trade winds. The piece about Fox and his loneliness. Amsterdam Island, and probably end with the sighting of Java Head.
The new third piece has them heading NE past St Paul's Island with the tail end of the monsoon(?), reaching Java Head, the Sunda Strait, and Batavia. Lt. Gov. Raffles's high opinion of Fox causes Jack and Stephen to alter their own.
---------
It was long ago observed by HR Greenberg that the author of Fox's poem,
whom he and Stephen can not quite recall, is in fact the future AE Housman,
and not published until after his death.
On a separate page, POB has written this short note. Is he expressing his own views/analysis of a character type, or is he just working on Stephen's dialogue for the end of the chapter? Was this in some way related to his work on Picasso?
"Bells in the tower
hypocondriac self-centered self-healer; & I have often observed, that your self-hater generally manages to retain his self-esteem in relation to others by means of a general denigration: it is as though he saw clearly & no doubt rightly that he was a worthless scrub but that nevertheless all the rest (or those in his immediate view) were even more worthless, even more scrublike.
They are I am told the bane of confessors in the old establishment - interminably wordy - the last & lowest of sinners, apart from any[?] [?] of humanity"
These summaries are based upon original notes provided through the courtesy of the Lilly Library, Bloomington, IN.
Don Seltzer
The episode of the shipwreck of the Diane is based upon the events befalling HMS Alceste in 1817. In his notes, POB makes several mentions of his references, M'Leod, Ellis, and Abbott.
John M'Leod was the ship's surgeon, who published "Voyage of his Majesty's Ship Alceste, to China, Corea, and the Island of Lewchew, with an Account of her Shipwreck" in 1818.
Ellis was secretary to Ambassador Lord Amherst ("I must get Ellis Proceedings of the late Embassy to China (1817)...").
Abbott joined the ship in the far East as a midshipman, along with other members of the ambassador's party. POB's used Abbott's journal, writing a note "Or shall I follow Abbott exactly? Probably not - no fighting - (or no battle) though it has a fine brooding menace."
On February 18, 1817, HMS Alceste ran aground on an uncharted reef in the Bangka Strait. The Alceste, Captain Murray Maxwell, was returning from a diplomatic mission to the Emperor of China and was carrying Ambassador Lord Amherst and his party.
Captain Maxwell evacuated the entire crew to a nearby island and salvaged what he could from the wreck of the frigate. The ambassador and his party were sent off in two of the ship's boats under the command of the first Lieutenant for Batavia, about 200 miles to the south. The remaining seamen set up camp on a hillside and began digging a well.
The wreck soon attracted the attention of sea-Dyacks in proas, some armed with swivels. The British built a stockade around their camp and armed everyone with weapons ranging from muskets to pikes. There were several skirmishes in which the Dyacks were driven off. After about two weeks, when rations were running low and the situation was becoming desperate, a relief ship finally arrived from Batavia.
Of the 200 men and one woman, only one died, from a prior illness. One seaman deserted into the jungle and was never seen again. No one was lost due to the attacks of the Dyacks.
POB notes provided through the courtesy of the Lilly Library, Bloomington, IN
Don Seltzer
Stephen spends his time mooning after swallows, but he could have more prifitably turned his attention to the Dyak fruit bat Dyacopterus spadiceus. http://www.dhushara.com/book/socio/diamondr.htm The male of the species is unique among mammals, for it suckles its young.
Patrick O'Brian began writing TGS on 14 July, 1988 and completed the manuscript on 22 February, 1989. He spent 160 working days writing, producing 110 000 words by his own estimate. At times he excused his lack of progress on the grape harvest, working on a forward to a second edition of "Picasso", and a "fortnight lost to Keegan."
When he began, he had in mind a tale that would span two books, each of about 90 000 words. His intention was that the first would end on a dismal note, with rumours of bank failures, and the ship running aground. The second book was to end with a happy return home. Although he kept fairly close to his original plan with TGS, the next book eventually developed into three, NOC, TL/CO, and WDS.
The only strong tie to a particular historical event is the wreck of the Diane, closely based upon the 1817 voyage of the Alceste carrying envoy Lord Jeffrey Amherst on a diplomatic mission to China. POB's sources for this story were the 1817 "Narrative of a Voyage in HMS Alceste" written by John M'Leod, ship's surgeon, and the journal of midshipman Abbott. Other references that POB used include Ellis Proceedings of the Late Embassy to China" (1817), Sir George Staunton's account of Lord Macartney's Embassy, and Alfred Russel Wallace for natural history. For sea shanties, he consulted Masefield's "Sea Songs" (1906),"A Sailor's Garland" (1924), W B Whall's "Sea Songs & Shanties", and "Shanties From The Seven Seas" S. Hugill (1961). He also has Fox trying to remember the author of a short poem that was actually written by AE Housman a century later.
POB's notes do not provide conclusive evidence of who shot Ledward and Wray. They do show that he planned from the beginning to write a piece on the dissection of Wray. Most of the plot followed his original plan, with a few ideas carried over to later books. A confrontation with an Irish priest over his role in working for the British was considered as early as the stop in Lisbon, but was postponed until New South Wales in NOC. Similarly for a piece on the distinction between spying and intelligence. A piece on the mythical island of Busjus by purser Adams was cut, but some aspects of Adams childhood spent with books of exploration were later used for John Daniel's background in THD. And early on, POB reminds himself "Do Not Forget the Platypus", for his ending of NOC.
These summaries are based upon original notes provided through the courtesy of the Lilly Library, Bloomington, IN.
Don Seltzer
Thank Don once again.
Have you any idea what the reference to 'Keegan' was?
alec
I think that he is referring to military historian John Keegan, probably reading him at the time. That was about the time that Price of Admiralty was published. Other possibilities include writing a forward or a review, but I suspect that in 1988 POB was not sufficiently well-known to do either for Keegan.
I believe that "Price of Admiralty" was John Keegan's only foray into naval history. In an interview a few years ago, Keegan was reported as saying that he generally steered clear of naval history (Price of Admiralty being the major exception) because it was so technically difficult. The slightest mistake and a hundred Patrick O'Brian fans would come down on him like a ton of bricks. And even POB took a shot at Keegan when writing an introduction for Brian Lavery's book, remarking on historians who did not know the best point of sailing of a ship of the line.
Don Seltzer
Why, and it would be The Face of Battle, maybe? A very useful examination of men at war, a great debunker of myths.
'Face of Battle', 'Mask of Command' & 'Price of Admiralty' all excellent books, though the naval book is the weakest of the three.
Ted
Probably one of the 'near-clasics' John Keegan has penned:
'The Face of Battle' (1976)
'The Mask of Command' (1988)
'The Price of Admiralty : The Evolution of Naval Warfare' (1989)
My money is on the latter, the time (if my poorly researched dates are correct) and subject is right.
Rick
Apologies if any of the following has been discussed before: I have not been able to follow the Group Read as closely as I would have liked this month.
An interesting snippet: The last sheep left on the Diane is called Agnes. An odd name for a sheep, you may have mused... St. Agnes is the saint concerned with shepherds, shepherdesses, sheep, etc. (possibly fairly low in the saintly pecking order).
When Jack and Stephen are discussing Ledward, and Stephen asks 'would you kick him?', am I correct in presuming that Stephen is asking if Jack hates him enough to attack him dishonourably, an equivalent perhaps to 'would you throttle him?' ?
Finally, is there any possibility of standardising the Group Read prefix, so that I can positively select for it, and so keep up to date with the consistantly high standard of posting the Group Read engenders? GR, for simplicity perhaps?
Sam.
Doesn't "agnus" mean something like "lamb" in Latin? That's what I'd understood from the section of the Mass titled "Agnus Dei", which I gather means "Lamb of God." That's what I thought POB was referring to in naming the sheep Agnes.
In the past, we've had discussions about the relationship between Fox and the traitors and about the question of, specifically, how Ledward and Wray were done in. My reading of 13GS this time around convinces me that, as usual, O'Brian gives us the answers if we read carefully.
It's been commented on that Fox clearly hates Ledward and Wray, and that it may (this isn't clear) have to do with a former love affair gone bad. But we haven't, as I understand, been clear on which of the two he hates, or both. On p. 240 (Norton), Stephen and Fox are standing on a balcony, watching all of the activity involved in Abdul's execution:
"The hoarse roaring horn again and the firelight turned blood-red as a powder was thrown on the blaze.
"'Someone is going to catch it," said Fox. 'I hope to God it is Ledward. I hope to God the sack is tying around his neck this moment.'"
As to who actually killed them, it has been noted that O'Brian points out the expertise of both Fox and Stephen with rifles, from the earliest part of the book. And he doesn't explicitly say who did the deed. But that day, after Abdul has been dispatched, Jack asks Stephen to play music with him that evening, and Stephen responds, "Tonight? I believe not; I shall almost certainly be engaged." (p. 252). That evening, when he arrives at Van Buren's house, he says, "I have brought you a cadaver. Wu Han's porters have it in a little cart in the lane." No mention of "we," and Wu Han has been working with Stephen, not with Fox. Finally (p. 253):
"Van Buren looked attentatively into Stephen's face, and after a moment he said, 'Have you arranged this with the Vizier, Maturin?'
'I have, too. He said that the court was in no way concerned; that the protection had been publicly and specifically withdrawn and notified to Duplessis; and that we might do whatever we pleased. But he was sure that we would be discreet--that there would be no recognizable remains."
So Stephen tells Jack he'll be out, he makes arrangements with the Vizier, whom he has already bribed, to do permit him to do whatever is needed (as long as it is discreet), and he enlists Wu Han's men to help carry the corpses. No mention of Fox, even implicitly; the "we" in the second part of the above paragraph refers to Stephen and Van Buren ("no recognizable remains"), not to the killing. I think this sequence makes it as clear as possible that it was Stephen alone who killed Ledward and Wray.
Bob Fleisher
Houston, TX
In a message dated 12/18/2002 6:43:06 PM Central Standard Time,
rlfleish@FLASH.NET writes:
Doesn't "agnus" mean something like "lamb" in Latin? That's what I'd understood from the section of the Mass titled "Agnus Dei", which I gather means "Lamb of God." That's what I thought POB was referring to in naming the sheep Agnes.
Yes, but the name Agnes, my reference informs me, is from a Greek word meaning something like "chaste" or "pure." The Greek word for "lamb" is different; but the lamb is the symbol of St Agnes in art.
And the Greek =recipe= for lamb..... Ahhhhhh....
For intelligence, there is nothing like a keen-witted, handsome woman, [DI 2]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
Yes... St. Agnes is mainly the patron saint of virgins I think. See Keat's 'The Eve of St. Agnes'.
Sam.
I think this sequence makes it as clear as possible that it was Stephen alone who killed Ledward and Wray.
Imaginary exchange, Stephen to Fox, "You must do what duty (and desire, he thought silently) calls you to do; I am a physician, Sir, and must stand by my dismal oath. Yet, with the aid of the excellent Wu Han, I shall ensure that the Vizier's other condition - that no evidence remain - is not only met, but advances the very calling that prevents me from doing more than drawing to your attention the remarkable , shall we say, fluency of that hunting piece on the table......"
Gary
I've expressed my opinion before. But if Anton Chekhov were a lissun, he would probably observe that POB significantly introduces not one, but two fine Joe Manton rifles early on, as well as two marksmen highly proficient in their use. Motive, opportunity, and the murder weapons are all there.
What I find interesting is Stephen's conversation with Jack, in which he half-heartedly attempts to justify what he is about to do. Stephen has always carried a sense of moral superiority with respect to Jack the warrior. But Jack would never kick an already defeated opponent. In Jack's kind of warfare, men battle honourably until one side is defeated. The victor then invites the vanquished leader to dinner. Not so in Stephen's dirty little world, and he recognizes that Jack has gained the moral advantage.
Don Seltzer
Whilst there's no use flogging a smoking gun, I'd demur from Don's implication here by saying that Stephen could be thought to make half-hearted attempts to justify **what he is about to be party to**; his complicity in the assassination would be, to him, morally similar whether he pulled the trigger or no.
But I do sometimes wonder why POB left this ambiguous - the ambiguity seems to serve no purpose with respect to either plot of character. Or is it that, in POB's own eyes, it wasn't ambiguous?
Gary
Have to say I agree with Don on this subject. The first time I read that book it seemed obvious enough to me that Stephen did it, with or without help.
I never noticed Stephen having any particular problems in the books with violence towards the enemy. He has a particular loathing of traitors. POB makes him a 'man of blood' who will kill a man -even a not bad man- in a duel. Why would he have a problem in killing the loathsome duo?
Ted
Stephen has killed before - he was a veritable mass murderer in Boston - so we know he won't shrink from the deed. I suspect that PO'B intended the true horror not to be in sniping from a safe distance, but in the cutting up later, with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
Don:
POB significantly introduces not one, but two fine Joe Manton rifles early on, as well as two marksmen highly proficient in their use. Motive, opportunity, and the murder weapons are all there.
True enough, but don't forget one was given to Abdul, leaving just one gun. However...
his complicity in the assassination would be, to him, morally similar whether he pulled the trigger or no. [Gary]
Yes, and we must surely all agree that Stephen was party to it in some way, which raises a lot of interesting character questions.
Gary still:
But I do sometimes wonder why POB left this ambiguous - the ambiguity seems to serve no purpose with respect to either plot of character. Or is it that, in POB's own eyes, it wasn't ambiguous?
S: the quote that was posted by Alec, I think, where POB was asked by a member of the audience the question we are discussing, shows that POB did think it was ambigous. Here it is, originally contributed by Linda Grossman:
"Did Stephen Maturin arrange for their demise?" It doesn't exactly settle anything... but here is PO'B's somewhat oracular reply: "Oh, quite certainly.... As to the demise, to a certain degree he provoked it; and he certainly profited by it, in having two valuable cadavers for dissection..."
Ted:
I never noticed Stephen having any particular problems in the books with violence towards the enemy. He has a particular loathing of traitors. POB makes him a 'man of blood' who will kill a man -even a not bad man- in a duel. Why would he have a problem in killing the loathsome duo?
The difference in killing in a duel is that he is bound by honour to do so - society and his personal concience demand that he fights. If you refer to Canning, Stephen did not mean to kill him, only wing him. I think Ted, that you are overestimating the ease with which Stephen kills. I would not describe him as a man of blood, and I didn't think POB would either, though doubtless that is a quote. If it is, could you enlighten me offlist?
Don added while I was typing:
Stephen has killed before - he was a veritable mass murderer in Boston - so we know he won't shrink from the deed.
Certainly he killed in Boston, but there was a clear need for him to do so. In the case of Wray and Ledward, I can see no strong intelligence need to kill them - they are failiures, who could never again be trusted by the French, and will probably never return home - other than a desire to mop up effectively. That's what makes this episode so interesting for me, that Stephen's killing (in however much he was a part of it) was motivated as much by a desire for revenge as anything else.This side of his character has been hinted at before, however, Stephen quickly recovers his stolen Breguet from the man he has just killed, somewhat chillingly, and while obviously not the main reason he for killing the man, doubt enters briefly. My theory is that Stephen is to a large extent a reflexion, an idealised one, of O'Brian. Perhaps POB did something similar in his intelligence work, and simply wanted to see Stephen slip, and fail by Stephen's standards of morality. I cannot really see how Stephen would have justified this to himself. I would advance this less cautiously were it not for the fact that Stephen never appears to regret this incident in later books.
Sam.
True enough, but don't forget one was given to Abdul, leaving just one gun.
Although Abdul coveted the rifle, he was actually given a fowling piece instead, leaving Fox with his two Joe Mantons.
Don added while I was typing:
Stephen has killed before - he was a veritable mass murderer in Boston - so we know he won't shrink from the deed.
I did not write that.
Don Seltzer
I did not write that.
Guilty!
I don't have a strong opinion about the exact nature of Stephen's involvement in this affair, however, I believe that killing Ledward and Wray would be in character for a person in Stephen's position.
Consider that Stephen grew up in an environment in which duels were commonplace (IIRC he commented to Jack on the number of times a young man would go out when he was growing up) and that surely death or at least the *desire* to kill were a normal ingredient of the duels.
Then consider also Stephen's work which involved treachery, lying, theft, etc.
Certainly the environment of his youth would have dulled the sensitivity to killing. Additionally, the intelligence work he performed would have dulled his sensitivity to the "code of honor" under which men lived - the same "code of honor" that said it was okay to kill in duels, but in ambush.
Also, not to answer for Ted, but Stephen was entirely ready to kill Jack in duel - a case of being willing to kill a "not bad man."
Nathan
Picking up on and adding to an old post by Bruce..
A few pages after the disections and after the meal where' discretion had flown out the window' and 'all the rules of good intelligence were disregarded' It's 260 in my Harper... Stephen is taking to himself as he passes the pissing Loder...
'But I am glad, right glad' he said 'that Jack know just how the brutes were betrayed, and by whom.'
It would appear that the details of Ledward's and Wray's betrayal were openly discussed at the table-and to me at least it would appear Stephen was not implicated.
(Minor spoilers below)
Since it is POB I will post it on the list:
Someone says something to Stephen about him being 'A man of Blood' (ie, a duellist) & I think it is about the time of his possible duel with Jack. Stephen, it turns out, has 'been out' more times than Jack.
I don't think Stephen's avowed profession hinders him in having the enemy killed, or in killing them, in any of the books. His unavowed profession positively requires it from time to time. Remember where Jack rescues Stephen & it is Stephen who tells Jack he must kill the French Officers?
Ted
Well, he shot Canning stone dead, under slightly different circumstances - but one who feels so strongly about his doctor's oath wouldn't engage in duels would he?
By the way, adding the volume numbers to the initials is a stroke of genius. Bravo
Johnny the Bassman
It was always my impression that Stephen had participated in, if not been solely responsible for, the killing of Ledward and Wray, and I believe that Bob Fleisher has very nicely presented some actual evidence to back up that belief. And the dissection is such a lovely touch! -RD
If they suspect me of intelligence, I am sure it will soon blow over (TFOW, p.184)
At 9:15 PM +0000 12/19/2, alec1@eircom.net wrote:
'But I am glad, right glad' he said 'that Jack know just how the brutes were betrayed, and by whom.'
It would appear that the details of Ledward's and Wray's betrayal were openly discussed at the table-and to me at least it would appear Stephen was not implicated.
I read this to mean the political defeat and betrayal of Abdul's involvement, and bribery of the clerk of the French mission. I don't think that the particulars of Ledward and Wray's disappearance ever went beyond the principle players involved.
Don Seltzer
Johnny wrote
Well, he shot Canning stone dead, under slightly different circumstances - but one who feels so strongly about his doctor's oath wouldn't engage in duels would he?
In this guy's humble opinion it's real important to separate Stephen's duellist and rat in a corner persona from his Stephen as a medical man plus a few steps
rereading
SM Page 322/3 While captured and travelling by coach-Duhamel ill
'He(Stephen) could at the same time put an end to Duhamel, for he had also renewed his store of sudden death and in one minute file he had enough to deal with fifty Duhamels and plenty to spare; but with this escort it would serve 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 do it, whatever extremity.
From alec-Don on re-reading and re-considering I think you are dead right. Thanks for replying
Don had written in reply to Alec
I read this to mean the political defeat and betrayal of Abdul's involvement, and bribery of the clerk of the French mission. I don't think that the particulars of Ledward and Wray's disappearance ever went beyond the principle players involved.
I agree with your point that we must separate Stephen's role as a physician from his other activities. To that end, I read your quotation to mean that, as Stephen was acting as a physician to dose Duhamel--for indigestion or bowel disorders from the bad crayfish, if I remember right--he was unwilling to take advantage of medical procedures to kill Duhamel. And from a practical standpoint it would serve no purpose; they had an armed guard.
Bob Fleisher
Houston, TX
So, like everyone else, Stephen has to wrestle with his conscience, rationalize his actions, and live with himself. So human. Just like me. Query - does Stephen become more warlike as the stories progress, or is his violent nature revealed to us slowly? Could the Stephen of 1M&C kill Ledward and Wray? He seemed willing enough to duel with Jack!
Johnny the Bassman (book out in November!)
Endeavour story
http://www.thehighbeams.com/endeavourtest.htm
Hey I thought this was a real good discussion.
But I will go to my grave believing that Stephen did NOT pull the trigger to kill our two 'friends'.
Cuttin' them up-well that's a Different story. That's Real pleasure!
a
I have read this passage a dozen times, it never fails to make me chortle.
Jack and Stephen are returning form dinner with the Sultan.
Stephen is
thinking of cup-bearer Abdul who is not only the Sultan's lover, but who
appears to be getting it on with Ledward as well:
"Jack" he said... "did you reflect upon Ganymede at all?"
"Yes" said Jack "I was up with him all last night... Such an endearing little
pale golden body as he peeps out- he is easily my favorite. But I shall have
him almost all night, once the Sultan is done with."
"Shall you though?" said Stephen, looking at his friend's pleased, well-fed
face, rather more florid than usual from the Sultan's wine; and after a
pause, "Brother, can we be talking about the same thing?"
How beautifully Jack, how wonderfully Stephen, how very very POB.
Recently we discussed Stephen's possible role in the murders of Ledward and Wray, having just today arrived at that part of the book, I read with special attention. I have come to the conclusion that Fox did the killing and Stephen only dispensed of the bodies for him. Stephen has proven his ability to be a cold-blooded killer, but he is not an assassin. L & W are ruined and can do him no harm, he seems quite content with that.
To wit:
(all pg numbers from Norton PB) pg 236
Fox to Stephen: "I wish to have them (Ledward and Wray) put to the same death as Abdul. The only thing I am afraid of is the Sultan's notion of honour. He gave them his safe-conduct..."
pg 251
Stephen to Jack: "Ledward is of course ruined, and Wray with him, but Fox's hatred is by no means lessened: far from it. He was bitterly dissappointed that Ledward was not put to the same hideous death as Abdul. There is a most inveterate, implacable emnity between them... At one time assassination could have been seen as a perfectly reasonable move... But now, in the present posture of affairs, it can effect nothing."
He is speaking of Ledward's attempts at assassination, but surely the logic is the same, Stephen here has clearly asserted that at this point in the game, the enemy is beaten, no further action is required.
Then there's Fox's egomaniacal, almost deranged behaviour after the signing of the treatise; could this not be attributed to his having attained his own revenge in cold-blooded murder?
To crown all (and this is where I think my point is really made), there is the quote on pg 270-271:
"...he (Fox) had been touchingly grateful for Stephen's help in the matter of Ledward and Wray"
Is Fox 'touchingly grateful' to Stephen for killing L & W? Or, rather, is he grateful because, having himself murdered two men who are under safe-conduct, Stephen's 'autopsy' discarded of all evidence and assured Fox's ill deed is never discovered?
I think the second is far more likely.
Ladies and gentleman of the Jury, I rest my case.
Vanessa
Stephen is talking with Van Buren about Ledward and Wray (p213 Harper Collins) and says:-
"Do you remember how I exulted over the rough draughts of Duplessis' journal?" asked Stephen, putting down his cup and wiping his lips. "It was the unwisest thing I ever did. Well, almost the unwisest ..."
Sooo... if that wasn't quite the unwisest thing he ever did, then what do you think was?
Elaine Jones
Longing to know!
Trusting Wray wholeheartedly?
Sam.
Falling in love with Diana? Falling in love with Mona? Some of his actions during the uprising? Falling off a ship into the sea?
This is a question that lends itself very well to spoilers : }
Sorry for posting again -
Or perhaps following Jack's advice in changing banks. Stephen was certainly peeved by loosing his money - to that extent?
When do we open negotiations on Nutmeg?
Sam.
Trusting Wray wholeheartedly?
I'm of the impression that Stephen didn't trust Wray very much, ever, but was forced by circumstances to use him. I very much doubt, after the early gambling discretion, that Stephen would ever have wholly trusted Wray, regardless of his position.
As to his most unwise action, how about his careless handling of laudanum and the subsequent corruption of Padeen?
Brad
Leaving those papers in the coach? Although a mistake, it was one that he condemned himself for time and again. Didnt he even worry at one point that Blaine would get rid of him as his usefulness declined?
Most unwise? Giving up his American citizenship in 1785 and pretending to be Irish-Catalan.
Wisest?
1) Becoming Talleyrand's best-paid agent in the French intelligence department -- the true source of his riches.
2) Faking a a degree from TCD, and then faking a medical education, helped by a cram course in dissection, held in the cellars of the Chateau d'If.
Charlezzzzz, who has read Maturin's "Phanograms of Ossery" and recognizes, from the style, that it was actually written by Dr. Johnson
Yes, Vanessa. This was something that cast a shadow over Stephen's opinion of himself for a very long time.
Indeed, yes. And I last read "The Zimmerman Telegram" years ago -- a most worthwhile book -- but if my memory is correct, von Ribbentrop, who was later Hitler's foreign minister, held a high position in the diplomatic during World War One (was he German ambassador to the US? or some such)...but, anyhow, he actually lost a batch of secret papers on the subway in New York -- simply walked away from them and left them behind.
Poor chap, the bastard.
Wch reminds me: my first job ashore was writing and editing secret material for the DEW Line, wch was a-building at the time. (It was the radar net in the Far North of Canada, aimed at detecting Russian bombers coming over the pole.) I worked with a staff of writers and artists in a building on Worth Street in far downtown New York, and our output was handled by McGraw Hill company in a strangely beautiful green building on 42nd street.
The first time I had to carry a chapter deeply secret material between the two buildings I asked my boss if there was any special way to handle the papers. "Just carry the damn stuff, Charlie," he said. "Don't lose it."
Can I get taxi fare? (I was making exactly $100 a week before taxes.)
"Take the subway."
"Isn't there a briefcase with a handcuff or something?"
"You might as well wear a sign that says you're carrying secret papers." (We had been warned that Russian agents hung around the door of our building, looking for the chance to do evil things.)
So I put the deeply-worrying secret material in an 8 x 12 envelope, put the envelope in my cheap plastic briefcase, and took the subway. I was apprehensive, worried that (simply because it was so important) I'd lose it because of some strange Freudian glitch -- leave the train at 42nd street and leave the papers behind. Freud's hilarious "The Psychopathology of Everyday Life" was one of my favorite books.
I jammed my fingers around the handle of that briefcase so hard that my nails dug into the palm, figuring that the pain wd keep me alert. It wasn't until years later that I came across Maturin's favorite study: palmar aponeurosis. I cd have been a candidate for it during those scary subway trips.
I believe the unwisest thing from an intelligence point of view was leaving some important stuff in a carriage. But probably the unwisest thrust in his nature is the proclivity for wild and crazy women, exciting objects as we say in the trade -- but that is what makes so much of the Diana Steven romance so wonderful. We have a fair number of references to Steven's unhappy entanglements before then, I believe.
Best. HR Greenberg MD ENDIT
While the evidence is ambiguous, and I am certain Fox shot Ledward, I always assumed that Stephen shot Wray simultaneously. Much is made of Stephen's use of Fox's second rifle, killing the two was both appropriate and necessary given Ledward's madness, and the sheer mechanics of the ambush (and cleanness of the result) would argue for two shooters.
An ingenious thought. And, given POB's tendency to create an animal parallel to his human actors, mightn't we think that the slaying of the two lions in Hundred Days might show how the shootings really happened? In that case, Van Horne's hypothesis wd be proven, and we cd all huzza for him three times three with a rumbelow.
Charlezzzzz, in duple time
Ingenious thinking on both parts, I would say. I don't believe I have previously encountered a suggestion of Fox and Stephen teaming up for the double hit on the dastardly duo of Ledward and Wray, but the idea makes good sense. Huzza, huzza, huzza!
Bruce Trinque
41°37'52"N 72°22'29"W
Like Charlezzzzz I have no need to review the archives to prove my assertions my memory of every post being infallible, but I am sure that the theory of the double shooting of Ledward and Wray by Fox and Maturin was raised here a number of years ago. But perhaps it was my own theory and i forgot to post it!
It may have been. We are a remarkably chattering bunch, and now and then some amazingly apt comment might have been lost.
It that's what happened here, I think we might assume that the message with the original theory was classified SECRET, and so we all instantly forgot it after reading it.
Charlezzzzz