A Small Errata Page

(October 2007; February 2008)

(Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 2006)

With thanks to many contributors – most of them members of The Gunroom – here’s a mercifully short Errata and Comments List for my 2006 Muster Book. If you have any comments at all, please do

e-mail me.

** Errata from October 2007 are in BLACK; Errata added in February 2008 are in RED **

Acknowledgements, p. vii

Now, this first error is mortifying! I acknowledge the help of, amongst others, one “Bill Nyman”. Nyden. Nyden. Nyden. Bill NYDEN. I’m happy to say that Bill (Bill NYDEN, that is) was rather less upset by this howler than was I, but it was a shoddy slip that embarrasses me even as I now write.

Acknowledgements, p. vii

Francis Miles. I was puzzled, during the Muster Book writing process, that I was unable to re-establish contact with Francis, and more recently was saddened to discover that he had died quite suddenly in late 2000, only a few hours after our final e-mail exchange on an O’Brian topic.

Acknowledgements, p. vii

Michael Schuyler. The source of Michael’s generous contributions to the Muster Book revision is now available on-line as “The Butcher’s Bill: an accounting of wounds, illness, deaths, and other milestones in the Aubrey-Maturin sea novels of Patrick O’Brian”. A corresponding Muster Book entry should also ideally be made at Bibliography: Internet Resources, p. 385.

The Historical Background: The Surgeon’s Mate, p 14

Babbington, William, pp. 52 – 53

Maturin, Stephen, at p. 245

Oedipus, HMS, p. 276

Villiers, Diana, at pp. 360 – 361

Stephen Maturin and Diana Villiers are married aboard his HMS Oedipus by Commander William Babbington, somewhere between France and England (SM 11): at p. 14, I doubt Babbington’s authority to conduct such a marriage. I still do, but for slightly different reasons. At the time of writing I felt that the much vaunted authority of Royal Navy Captains to perform weddings at sea was quite simply a myth. Further research (which I hope to publish separately in due course….) leads me to conclude otherwise. It’s clear that, in certain narrow circumstances, a Navy Captain (and, I dare say, Commander) could perform a wholly legal British marriage. However his authority came not from being a commissioned Captain, the lord and ruler of a floating piece of England, but from simply finding himself to be the most senior Crown official present in some far-away location where – and here’s the crucial thing – no Church of England vicar was readily available (and perhaps the local British Consul – if there was one – was “out of town”). English law certainly made provision for those circumstances where a British subject might wish – or need – to marry but might be prevented from so doing by being, for example, in a remote, Catholic country: if there was no reasonably prompt way of locating an accredited vicar, application could be made to any senior Crown official, civil or military, who could then – if he so agreed – perform the ceremony. However, every circumstance I have located in our period really did feature circumstances of hardship, whereas the Maturin-Villiers briny marriage seems to be merely opportunistic, in a ship only a few miles from a plentiful supply of regular English churches. Moreover, even if the circumstances had been more pressing, I believe that the authority to marry went by pure seniority: Jack Aubrey, not William Babbington, is the senior Crown officer present, the ship herself having no relevance.

Anne, Queen, p. 33

In my note, I query whether the reference in M&C 2 to “Queen Anne’s Gift”, a supplementary payment to naval surgeons, is correct. Previously the single quasi-contemporary reference I had found to the Gift was in Admiral *Smyth’s Sailor’s Word Book of 1867 (a frequent source for O’Brian’s nautical detail, and occasionally a misleading one as most of Smyth direct experience had been well after ‘our’ period), and the absence of any other – and especially any other earlier – mention in the literature led me to suspect that Smyth had mis-recalled the reasonably well-known “Queen Anne’s Bounty” to impoverished clergy ashore.

However, Don Seltzer has turned up a definitive reference to the existence of the Gift in the early 19^th century in *Steel’s Navy List of 1800, and various other folk have noticed a similar reference in Captain Isacc Schomberg’s 1802 Naval Chronology. The continued existence of the Gift – at exactly the same rates established in Queen Anne’s reign, nearly a century beforehand - is also supported in a recent biography of Lord *Nelson’s regular ship’s surgeon, James Beatty (Nelson’s Surgeon by Laurence Brockliss, OUP 2005).

So, once again, O’Brian is right, and I am wrong! We are now left with Don Seltzer’s further suggestion – so far unconfirmed – that the Gift was abolished in 1805, as part of the complete revision of surgeons’ pay in that year.

Bosville and Boswell, p. 72

In Gunroom discussion, Don Seltzer and others pointed out that Bosville is almost certainly either a disguise for or a mis-transcription of Boswell. James Boswell became an outspoken proponent of slavery, partly on purely commercial grounds, and partly in the belief that the condition actually improved the lot of wretched Africans (see, for example, his “No Abolition of Slavery, Or the Universal Empire of Love: A poem” of 1791). His published views – and his exact words are given by O’Brian to “Bosville” – were in strong contrast to those of Dr Samuel Johnson, an ardent abolitionist, and might also explain the disobliging reference to Boswell as a “scrub” in NC 3. However we should note that Boswell, though a considerable traveller, did not visit Barbados or the New World and so his altercation with Maturin is doubly fictional.

Broad #1, p. 76

Grapes, the, p. 164

In PC 12 Jack holds a brief conversation at the bar of the inn with “the Grapes”, whom I take to be Mr Broad, the landlord. However in PC 14 – at most a couple of months later - Mrs Broad gives the sodden Stephen a dry garment belonging to her late husband, with no further reference being made to his recent demise.

Christy-Pallière, Guillaume, p. 98

I regretted that I had been able to discover little of the undoubted historical basis of this attractive character. Fortunately Elke Mueller did find more.

Jean-Anne Christy de la Pallière (1755-1829; variants of the form and spelling of his surname are seen) was the son of a naval Captain, but started his sea-career as a volunteer in the fleet of the French East India Company, travelling to China amongst other places. He joined the King’s service as Lieutenant in 1778 and rose to the equivalent of Commander in 1793. As a member of the old nobility he was dismissed the service as the Revolution progressed but restored – with many others, there soon being a need for experience – and “made Post” in late 1794. After a period in frigates, in 1796 he rose to command Desaix, 74-gun, in the Mediterranean but soon thereafter went ashore as a port military commander, first at Brest (1803) and then at Toulon (1805-c.1810). Thereafter he served as an occasional Maritime Prefect until his retirement at the end of the wars in 1815; he died at Toulon, having been promoted Rear-Admiral on the retired list in 1816. Christy de la Pallière was awarded the Legion of Honour in 1804, one of the eight members of his family, from the 18^th to the present century, to receive the distinction.

Clonfert, Lord, pp.101-102

With regard to Clonfert’s death, there should be a cross-reference to the entry for Corbett, Robert, p. 110, where Corbett’s possible demise is noted as perhaps an inspiration for that of the naval Lord.

Commisioner of Halifax Dockyard, the, p. 107

That should be Commissioner (with two ‘s’), not Commisioner (with one) ! For which thanks to Gary W. Sims.

Endymion, HMS, p. 138

I state that Endymion was dismasted, but Bruce Trinque points out that, whilst USS President’s gunnery reduced her sails to shreds, the British ship lost neither mast nor yard in the sharp battle.

Goliath, HMS, p. 161

Smith #3, p. 331

“Snookum Pete”, an Amazon.com reviewer, noted that in many editions of HMS Surprise (including the very earliest) Mr Smith’s ship is given as HMS Goliah, not Goliath. Yet some editions / printings – including the one I happened to work from – of the book do have Goliath. Goliah and Goliath are perfectly good alternatives of the same ancient name, and both forms are seen as ship names in contemporary naval records. The biblical Goliath is referred to elsewhere in the Canon in that form, and other HMS Goliaths also appear in that spelling. Yet it is likely that in the original HMS, POB preferred the Goliah version, which a later editor then 'corrected' to Goliath, not knowing of the variant forms.

Habachtsthal, Duke of, p. 168

Bach, p. 53

Fleischhacker, p. 150

Fugger, p. 154

Strumff, p. 340

O’Brian says that Habachtsthal is a “Dutch Duke”. Jaap Fabriek points out that the Dutch didn’t have Dukes, and that the name is clearly German: presumably O’Brian is using – as folks of the period did – ‘Dutch’ for ‘Deutsch’, and the Duke is a minor Hanoverian. Oliver Mundy notes that Jack Aubrey refers to Bach’s “Passion” being in “High Dutch” (IM 2), and David Pacek recalled the reference to the (German) Fugger family as “High Dutch” bankers (TGS 1). Likewise Fleischhacker and Strumpff (PC 6) write in “High Dutch”, and Jaap notes that I further compound the confusion by referring to the impeccable Dutchness of the former’s curious name: again, it is of course German.

Maturin, Stephen, at p. 242, lines 11-13 of second column

Cochrane #1, p. 103

David Cordingly, promoting his new biography of Cochrane (“Cochrane the Dauntless”, London: Bloomsbury, 2007) notes, as do I, that O’Brian took some inspiration for the Aubrey-Maturin relationship from James Guthrie’s role in the dashing Scot’s HMS Speedy. Cordingly has now discovered amongst unpublished family papers what O’Brian could not have known, that Surgeon Guthrie and Captain Cochrane in fact remained life-long colleagues, friends and correspondents.

Pulo Prabang, Sultan of, p. 302

Rose of Delight, p. 314

(also Kesegaran, p. 210)

John Gosden noted an oddity or two in the Sultan’s exotic titles. “Rose of Delight” should be “mawar kegemaran” in Malay (O’Brian’s printed “kesegaran mawar” being bad Malay for “Rose of Invigoration / Strength”); and “Nutmeg of Consolation” should be “buah pala hiburan” (not the printed “hiburan buah pala”, word order being all-important in Malay grammar). However Jaap Fabriek – married to an Indonesian lady – observes that Malay speakers (and there are many dialects….) have trouble with the authenticity of all O’Brian’s efforts in this regard. Don Seltzer, from his work referred to at Bibliography: Internet Resources vii, p. 385, found amongst O’Brian’s notes for WDS an unsigned fax , forwarded to him on the subject of these names: but the note promises more later enlightenment than it in fact offers on the page.

Seine, HMS, p. 325

Vengeance, p. 358

“Snookum Pete”, an Amazon.com reviewer, alerted me to an ugly typo in the fist line of the HMS Seine entry: ‘La Vengence’ should be ‘La Vengeance’, as it is correctly spelled in the Vengeance headline entry.

Sivaji, p. 331

Jesse Strader believes this is not, as I have it, an honorific reference by to the god Siva / Shiva, but rather a reference to King Sivaji / Shivaji (1627-1680), the great folk hero and founder of the Maratha Empire of Western India (where O’Brian set the passage).

Ussher, Bishop, p. 356

Adam Quinan notes a careless typo on my part: Ussher’s date for the creation was of course October 23^rd 4004 BC, not 2004 BC as I wrote.

Webster #1, p. 368

Jaap Fabriek notes two errors in my entry: Webster was a fore-mast lookout, not a Midshipman; and in any case Surprise at this point was of course not His Majesty’s Ship anyway, but a Letter of Marque, owned by Stephen Maturin.

October 2007; February 2008