Nelson & His World

I have been reading Colin White's '1797 Nelson's Year of Destiny' in which he describes how John Sykes, Nelson's coxswain, saved Nelson's life during the boat action at the bombardment of Cadiz. His version is that after Sykes had already saved Nelson twice, "... then came a blow that even Sykes could not parry: a deadly descending sweep of a sabre or cutlass that could easily have severed Nelson's head. Reaching up, the sailor put his own hand in the path of the blow."

Some other accounts have a still more dramatic version, which seem to originate from Clarke & M'Arthur, in which Sykes "actually interposed his own head, to receive the full force of a Spanish sabre; which, fighting, as they were, hand to hand, he could not otherwise have prevented from falling on Sir Horatio".

Colin White also directly quotes the words of one of Sykes's comrades in other parts of the description. These quotes seem to originate from Frederick Chamier's 'Ben Brace, the last of Nelson's Agamemnons'. Chamier's Ben Brace anecdote also makes much of the fact that Sykes "interposed his own head" and that it was his willingness to sacrifice his life that inspired the English to rally and board the Spanish boat, however Colin White quotes only parts of Chamier's anecdote.

Although Colin White includes some notes on sources, and a bibliography, he does not explicitly identify the sources for this passage, and Frederick Chamier is not mentioned as a source at all.

So is Frederick Chamier quoting directly from an earlier source in his anecdote?

Is there another source for the version where Sykes puts his hand in the path of the blow?

If anyone can shed the tiniest bit of light on any of this, I would be most grateful.

Tony

The John Sykes tale, complete with his lifesaving head, appears in Volume I of James Harrison's (Emma Hamilton's) Life of Nelson (pages 116-117.) This was first published in 1806 and is the earliest date I can find for the story as told by both Chamier and Clarke & M'Arthur, though slightly different from Colin White's version of Sykes using his hand.

Harrison quotes a letter written by Nelson to St. Vincent dated July 4th 1797, in which he refers to Sykes' actions thus:



Harrison then goes on:



We're without email at home at the moment, but I'll forward a PM to you via this site re: digital versions of both Harrison and Chamier if you don't already have them.

Whether Chamier's Ben Brace is fact or fiction, or more specifically where fiction begins and fact ends, would be a super topic of conversation on this forum, as would the value and relevance of Harrison's work to the Nelson canon today.

I hope that helps.

Most helpful, thanks Mira. Now why didn't I think to look in Harrison? In fact I did, and then forgot - (early) senility setting in!

Clarke and M'Arthur's version would seem to be an amalgam of Nelson's own sketch of his life, sent to Clarke, the letter to St Vincent, and the account from Harrison, which seemes to be the earliest mention of the wound to Sykes's head.

There seems to be no mention in any of these early versions of Sykes using his hand, so where is the source for that?

Google Books does throw up Oliver Warner's 'Victory - The Life of Nelson' (1958) as providing another version, but this seems to be an exact quote of the words from Chamier's Ben Brace with the word 'hand' substituted for 'head' - is this just a simple mistake?

'Ben Brace - fact or fiction?' was a supplementary question I had in mind. In a preface to one of the editions, Chamier claimed all the details of Nelson's life were true, and came from officers that had served with him. But surely words from Ben Brace himself must be assumed to be a 'dramatisation'? Is it valid to quote Ben Brace's words as those of a comrade of Sykes?

Much here for other biographers to ponder!

From my own reading I believe that Sykes interposed his head. Surely the most telling account is from Nelson himself who said that this was the case, in his Sketch of My Life as later taken down by Clarke and McArthur, and was something which seemingly they didn't alter.

After the event and as Sykes lay badly wounded in the bottom of the boat, Nelson said to him 'Sykes I cannot forget this'. He didn't either, since he made this episode known to St Vincent who, I seem to remember from somewhere, gave him a gunner's warrant. Unfortunately Sykes was not to have much joy of it, since he died soon after - not from his wound, but from a gun exploding. I might be wrong here, since I don't have the reference to hand.

The two notable references I have been reading differ. Carola Oman implies, though doesn't say explicitly, that he used his head for - 'Sykes fell, with severe head injuries.' Tom Pocock is of the other opinion - 'Sykes saved him - he interposed his own hand!'

I wonder actually if is a question of delicacies here, some preferring hand as it is not so gruesome! It seems strange that Colin White should opt for the hand, even stranger that he does not appear to have followed through his sources.

Kester

Thanks, Kester, for the additional information on the alternative versions.

On a point of detail however, Nelson in his "Sketch of my Life" said that Sykes twice saved his life, but did not actually say that he had interposed his own head, and did not describe his injuries. Clarke & M'Arthur added the detail about him interposing his head in their own narrative, and as Mira points out, this had earlier been recorded by Harrison.

Nelson's words "Sykes, I cannot forget this" seem to originate from Chamier's novel "Ben Brace", first published in January 1836. I have not found any earlier reference to these words.

Oliver Warner's words "interposed his own hand" are indeed a mistake - they revert back to "interposed his own head" in a later edition in which Warner says he has corrected a few mistakes. Warner's source is not clear. His list of sources for that chapter contains nothing that seems likely to me to have contained a first hand account from a shipmate of Sykes. In the text, he says the account is written from first hand experience and that the "narrative is alas anonymous". It is an account about a page long, and differs only in a couple of phrases from the Ben Brace narrative.

I suspect (but cannot be sure) that all versions where Sykes interposes his hand probably originate from Warner's first edition containing the mistake.

Quite a number of books contain the words of Sykes's supposed shipmate, but most are reticent about the source.

Chamier's "Ben Brace" version contains the following:
Twice had Sykes saved him, and now he saw a blow descending which would have severed the head of Nelson. In that second of thought which a cool man possesses, Sykes saw that he could not ward the blow with his cutlass—the situation of the Spaniard rendered it impossible. He saw the danger; that moment expired, and Nelson would have been a corpse ; but Sykes saved him — he interposed his own head ! — his commander was so beloved, that his old follower (for Sykes was with us in the Captain) sought the death he could not otherwise have averted. We all saw it—we were witnesses to the gallant deed, and we gave in revenge one cheer and one tremendous rally. Eighteen of the Spaniards were killed, and we boarded and carried her; there not being one man left on board who was not either dead or wounded. " Sykes," said Nelson, as he caught the gallant fellow in his arms, " I cannot forget this." But my wounded shipmate only looked him in the face, and smiled as he said —" Thank God, sir, you are safe."

Sugden, however, quotes some of these words, and in his end notes quotes the source as the "Guiana Chronicle, 21/3/1836, which contains a statement supposed to have been made by a participant". It is interesting that this was published the other side of the Atlantic just a couple of months after Chamier published the first edition of "Ben Brace".

Did Chamier and the Guiana Chronicle both have a copy of the same statement, or did the Guiana Chronicle pinch an extract from Ben Brace as soon as the first copy arrived?

Kester, you are correct that Sykes was made a Gunner, and that he died from a gun exploding. Through Nelson's influence, Sykes transferred to Jervis's flagship, the Ville de Paris, and in October 1797, Jervis appointed him Gunner to the frigate Andromache, captained by my ancestor Charles Mansfield - hence my particular interest in him. On 1st May 1798 they fired four guns to bring to a merchant brig, and the foremost gun exploded, killing Sykes and another man, and wounding four others. I have confirmed this from the Captain's log.

His death is often reported as being in October 1799. This seems to originate from the fact that Nelson's sketch of his life written in October 1799 mentioned Sykes being "now no more". The statement that he had died "by October 1799" changed to "in October 1799" as it was transcribed from one account to another.

Another report was an obituary in the annual register in 1841, of a fishmonger in Greenwich, supposed to be the same John Sykes dying at the age of 80. However his death in 1798 is confirmed by his estate being paid to his mother.

Sugden's notes contain other information that Nelson offered to pay his medical expenses, and that Fanny, prompted by Maurice Nelson, sent Sykes an inscribed silver watch that is now at Monmouth.

The question however remains for me - is his shipmate's account, with Nelson's words, a valid or reliable account?

And why is everyone so reluctant to quote their source?

Tony,

Many thanks for your reply, correcting my assumption and confirming that I remembered aright regarding Sykes' warrant!

From the various sources you quote, some of which are new to me, it seems as though we are perhaps a little nearer getting at the truth.

Yes, I agree, it would help a great deal if authors could attribute their sources!

Kester.

Is there a record of Tom Allen being in the Spanish boat action with Nelson by any chance?

That may help link the threads together a bit more. I'm afraid I can't find a reference to Allen being present on this occasion, although he is recorded as being at Nelson's side at the Battle of St. Vincent, where he was severely wounded. Perhaps someone can help with that one?

Kester's reference to Tom Pocock had me intrigued, and flicking through the book, the pattern of the mysterious shipmate's tale continues with a virtual word for word retelling of the reminiscences of Ben Brace :



So the phantom hand also appears in Pocock's original 1988 version, and is still there in the 1999 reprint I have here. There is no reference to a source for the British crewman, but it looks to be directly from Ben Brace unless Pocock had also consulted the Guiana Chronicle of 1836?

It's well known that Chamier supposedly based Ben Brace on Nelson's long time manservant Tom Allen, and you must forgive me working from memory for a moment here. I distinctly remember reading that Chamier had visited Allen at Greenwich Hospital, and that on the publication of the book Allen was severely put out that his name, as the main character, had been changed to Brace. The source and veracity for that escapes me just now, and I'll try to rediscover it.

The book itself is a fascinating amalgam of fantasy and what could be taken as fact. There are two interwoven stories - one a highly romanticised fictional account of the adventures of a young lass called Susan, the other the highly romanticised high seas adventures of Ben Brace, a Norfolk lad who became 'wally de sham' to Nelson and stood by him, shoulder to shoulder, in every action of the hero's life.

It's perfectly possible that Chamier took Allen's memories, embroidered them, enlarged on them, and interspersed them with his own imagination. But how on earth do you separate what's real and what isn't, unless other evidence can be brought in ? Surely, that needs to be said if and when quoting from Chamier.

There's also an issue with Allen's own recollections. His story of missing the boat (literally) to Trafalgar is questionable in light of his prior departure from Nelson's household, and Nelson himself providing a poor character reference (the kiss of death for anyone in service) only a year prior to Trafalgar. There's an inkling that Allen could dine out on a good story and spin a good yarn when he needed to. And some of the statements he is on record as being responsible for must be taken onboard as fanciful.

Chamier's novel therefore, in all honesty, must be stretching it a bit. An intriguing 'what if' until something comes along that better enables us to quote, with real conviction, from the reminiscences of Ben Brace. Perhaps that's why he has appeared as shipmate, crew member etc., as often as he has?

Harrison; so often criticised and maligned (and like wading through treacle to read,) as far as I can tell, is the only writer here to attribute the story to Nelson himself.

Having said that, I'm on the side of the angels when it comes to good, honest, relevant, well argued, well written and well backed up speculation. The history of the material and motivation are the main diviners for me, and I'd always be willing to equally explore letters, dispatches, newpaper reports and anecdotes further if my interest was piqued and an accessible source available.

After all, what's the point in placing complete faith in a letter written by Nelson, Emma, Sir William, Fanny, Alexander Davison, St. Vincent, Spencer, Minto, Troubridge, or whoever, when they may, for many reasons, have good reason to be distorting the truth. Distortion itself raises questions requiring answers.

I'm constantly amazed at how the telling changes in line with the preferences and prejudices of the writer, the perceived audience, and the prevailing fashion.

The same, surely, must apply to books.

There's an excellent website devoted to Tom Allen here: http://www.joadrian.co.uk/TomAllenHome.htm

I am certainly with you (and the angels), Mira, on intelligent and honest speculation. And it is surely a biographer's duty to speculate on the possible distortion that any source introduces into the narrative, or at least alert the reader to the possibility of distortion. The art is to do it without spoiling the narrative.

Using Nelson's own words as the sole basis for a narrative certainly introduces the possibility of distortion of the truth! In this case Sugden points out (albeit in an end note, so as not to disrupt the narrative too much) that Nelson 'exaggerated his own exploit in Sketch of My Life by implying that his boat's crew captured the Spanish barge unaided'. In his text, Sugden includes the fact that Miller also boarded the Spanish boat from the other side and also quotes another slightly different version of events: 'John Lovell, one of Nelson's guard, remembered that 'the crew of the [British] barge, hardly waiting for orders, literally scrambled over Nelson, and in a few seconds possessed themselves of Don Miguel Tregoyen [Irigoyen] before Nelson had time to look about him.' Sugden includes the extracts from the first hand account in the 'Guiana Chronicle' (that are identical to the Ben Brace version) as from 'a Briton' and as from a friend of Sykes. He is also careful to prefix Nelson's words from the account as words 'he is said to have cried', and in his end note adds extra caution by saying the statement was 'supposed' to have been made by a participant.

In the other accounts that I have looked at, most other biographers seem to throw caution to the wind and include extracts from Warner / Ben Brace / Guiana Chronicle as a factual account from a shipmate or a crew member, with no attempt to acknowledge or identify the original source.

I would strongly suggest that Pocock's version comes verbatim from Warner's 1958 first edition. The extracts he quotes are identical, including the substitution of 'hand' for 'head'.

Sugden has clearly researched the episode very thoroughly, and quotes an extensive list of sources in his notes, but I am intrigued by his choice of the Guiana Chronicle as a source instead of Chamier's Ben Brace, which pre-dates the Guiana Chronicle by a couple of months. Given Sugden's thoroughness, he must surely have been aware that the words also appeared in Ben Brace, so there must be a reason for his choice. Is there something else in the Guiana Chronicle version that convinced Sugden it was not taken from Chamier? Or was Sugden not aware that Ben Brace pre-dated the Guiana Chronicle's publication? In which case, a newspaper might seem a more desirable source.

The danger is that the Ben Brace version is no more than an embellishment of Nelson's own version as told and retold by Harrison, Clarke & M'Arthur and Southey.

In some ways it doesn't matter - Nelson's account of Sykes's actions is backed up by Nelson's own actions after the event. Nelson was clearly very grateful to Sykes, and there is no reason to doubt that Sykes had saved his life.

But I like to know whether I am being served British Beef or just Bull....

P. J. van der Voort in 'The Pen and the Quarter-deck: A Study of the Life and Works of Captain Frederick Chamier R.N.' points out that the character of Ben Brace is a composite of a number of different seamen who had been close to Nelson at different times. He suggests that much material was drawn from Southey's Life of Nelson, and quotes six instances of different models found within Southey, including Allen, but also Fearney, Lovel and the quartermaster on the poop of the Victory at Trafalgar. He is also the source of my information that 'Ben Brace' was first published in January 1836.

My own analysis of both the content and the text of the Ben Brace version of the John Sykes anecdote is very revealing indeed. On the content, the test is whether the account includes any incidents not already in the public domain at that time, and the answer is no. Other than embellishment of detail, and words put into people's mouths, the account covers only what had previously appeared in Southey, Clarke & M'Arthur, Harrison and the Naval Chronicle. Incidents that have subsequently come to light are not included. Ben Brace makes no mention of the fact that his barge first attacked a Spanish mortar boat before being attacked by Don Miguel's barge. Like Nelson, he also makes no mention of Miller's boat also boarding Don Miguel's barge. Ben also makes no mention of the fact that Nelson's barge led the other British boats to meet the Spanish, the others refusing to move until Nelson leapt into his barge and it pulled away from the others. Surely Ben would have been proud of that? Perhaps most surprisingly of all, Ben Brace has nothing to say of his own part in the action! Are we to believe that Ben (or any living participant) would have been so reticent about their own part in the fight?

A textual analysis shows that many of Ben Brace's phrases are indeed remarkably similar to Southey's:

Southey: actually interposed his own head to receive the blow of a Spanish sabre, which he could not by any other means avert; — thus dearly was Nelson beloved.
Ben Brace: he interposed his own head ! — his commander was so beloved

Southey: This was a desperate service — hand to hand with swords...
Ben Brace: This was a hand-to hand-business... It was a desperate struggle...

Southey: ...twice saved the life of his admiral, by parrying the blows that were aimed at him...
Ben Brace: twice he parried blows which must have been fatal to Nelson...

Southey: Nelson would have asked for a lieutenancy for Sykes...
Ben Brace: he would have made him a lieutenant...

I would love whatever is in the Guiana Chronicle to prove this analysis wrong! Does anyone have any ideas where I might find a copy?

Tony,

Your link in the thoroughly readable and thought provoking 'Historical Fiction' thread (Inside Nelson) reminded me of the search for a copy of the Guiana Chronicle for 21st March 1836.

I think this series CO116 at the National Achives might contain the edition cited in Sugden's notes:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cata ... ssmethod=0

If you do succeed in tracing the reference, or indeed if any new information on the Sykes episode emerges, I'd be interested to know.

Thanks Mira, you are absolutely right. I'm still curious, so will put it on the list for the next visit - which may not be for some time, unfortunately.

I have found these exchanges on sources and versions of this event fascinating. Sykes undoubtedly saved Nelson's life in the scuffle. The fact that biographers have made different interpretations of how he did it and drawn different conclusions from the 'evidence' is not surprising as it seems to me the incident is full of uncertainties
1. For anyone to have made a perfect observation of an incident taking seconds in a quick and bloody scuffle is well nigh impossible and reportage can't be relied on
2. Sykes must have had wounds to both head and hand
3. Unless Nelson's coxswain was David Beckham, I do not see how anyone would have either the time or the leverage of the feet to 'interpose' his head in the way of a cutlass sweep.
4. Which arm/hand? If Sykes had been right handed (and Nelson was on his left) he might have used his left hand/arm to try to ward off the blow, his right - cutlass - hand/arm being presumably otherwise engaged.
5. But, the imposition of a hand (or even an arm) would surely have done nothing to stop the downward force of a cutlass sweep.
6. Sykes could however had jogged the arm of the assailant in some way and deflected his aim.
Were I were Nelson's biographer (which thank heaven I am not), I like Oman would forget the head theory and go for the arm.

Brian

I hesitate to make a comment here amongst such scholarship and wide reading. However, Colin White in 'The New Letters' quotes a letter from Nelson to John Sykes' mother, Mrs Hannah Huddlestone [no. 144, p.114] saying that her son John is 'quite recovered of his wounds.'

CW's footnote explains that Sykes 'twice saved his life by putting his hand in the way of a decending cutlass blow. He lost the hand and Nelson promised to look after him'. But he gives no sources, alas.

Nelson uses the word 'wounds': this could mean a wound to the hand (two blows, causing the loss of the hand, i.e. one wound) and another to the head.

You are much more charitable than I am in this case, Brian! I am going to grab the frying pan again and say that my guess is that most of those who have gone for the ‘hand’ version have not made their own interpretation, but have simply copied or elaborated the mistake in Warner’s first edition (which is the earliest mention of Sykes interposing his hand, and was corrected in the later edition). I hesitate to say it for obvious reasons, but I fear the worst even in the case of CW’s footnote, Anna. I fear it is the ‘Chinese Whispers’ problem that arises when using secondary sources.

I think the best authority is Sugden, who neatly avoids problems by saying Sykes “interposed himself in the path of a slashing Spanish sabre”, but goes on to say that “Sykes fell with wounds to head, shoulders and back”. In his references for the paragraph he includes the medical journal of the Theseus, and I am guessing that is where his information on the wounds comes from.

It would also be a little odd for Nelson to say that Sykes had ''quite recovered of his wounds'' without further qualification if in fact Sykes had lost his hand. He was wounded on the 3rd July, and returned to duty on the 23rd July (Sugden).

I also think there is a difference between interpretation and invented detail, and you raise a good point, Brian, about the spurious level of detail in the Ben Brace / Guiana Chronicle description. It actually seems self-contradictory to me. It was a descending cutlass blow, but it would have severed Nelson’s head - That is impossible unless Nelson was already bent double. But that ‘descending’ cutlass blow was elaboration by Chamier of Harrison’s ‘blow of a Spanish sabre, which this generous man plainly perceived must otherwise prove fatal to his beloved master’ – which doesn’t even state that it was aimed at his head or neck.

To join in the speculation, I would guess that Sykes simply barged Nelson out of the way, or jumped or twisted in front of him, which might tie in with Lovell’s version that the barge crew literally scrambled over Nelson.

Of course I may well have to eat my hat (or receive several clouts from the frying pan) when someone comes up with a proper source for Sykes interposing his hand!

Following Mira's tip, I have finally managed to take a look at the account of John Sykes saving Nelson’s life in the Guiana Chronicle for 21st March 1836. The piece is printed as an anonymous anecdote with the title ‘A Sailor’s Devotion to his Commander’. It is a word for word identical copy of the same account in Chamier’s ‘Ben Brace: The last of Nelson’s Agamemnons’. Other pieces in the same section of the newspaper are attributed extracts from other publications such as ‘Power’s America’ and ‘Bulwer’s France’, but the John Sykes anecdote is unattributed. ‘Ben Brace’ was published in England a couple of months earlier in January 1836, which just gives time for a copy to find its way across to Guiana, and I feel pretty sure that the Guiana Chronicle piece is copied from ‘Ben Brace’. Even apart from the fact that these two identical accounts are published almost 40 years after the event, what clinches it for me is that it is an identical copy of two whole pages of ‘Ben Brace’, even down to the punctuation with the same use of semi-colons, dashes, brackets and exclamation marks. Alternatively, and perhaps even more likely, another source for the Guiana Chronicle could have been the front page review of ‘Ben Brace’ printed in the London Literary Gazette issue of the 6th February 1836, which quoted the John Sykes episode in full.

I do find curious John Sugden’s choice of the Guiana Chronicle as the source of this anecdote. He relies heavily on it in his account of the incident, and quotes directly from it three times in his text, explicitly attributing one quote to ‘a Briton’: ‘”It was cut, thrust, fire and no load again — we had no tune for that,” one Briton recalled’, and another to a friend of John Sykes: ‘”We all saw it,” one of his friends recalled. “We were witnesses to the gallant deed, and we gave in revenge one cheer and one tremendous rally”’. He gives no hint of any doubt over the existence of these eyewitnesses in the text. He is only slightly more cautious when quoting Ben Brace’s account of Nelson’s words: ‘Nelson, it is said, caught him in his arms. “Sykes,” he is said to have cried, “I cannot forget this!”’.

Sugden is more cautious in his endnotes, where he says the Guiana Chronicle ‘contains a statement supposed to have been made by a participant’. But I find it unsatisfactory that Sugden does not mention the possibility that the Guiana Chronicle account was taken from Chamier’s novel.

Perhaps I am being over-censorious, but in my eyes, Sugden has strayed a little beyond the boundaries of biography into historical fiction. He has researched this incident in far greater detail than anyone else, and established that Sykes was not only off duty for three weeks with injuries to head, back and shoulders, but was also subsequently rewarded by Nelson after the event. But he has also introduced a fictional eyewitness into his account, and the three separate quotes even give the impression that he is quoting more than one eyewitness. The Ben Brace/Guiana Chronicle account is no more than a dramatic embellishment of Southey’s account, which is in turn entirely derived from Nelson’s own words in his ‘Sketch of his Life’ plus the detail added by Harrison, who quite clearly attributes his information to Nelson himself. Thus the dramatic description of the episode is entirely derived from Nelson’s own version of events. The one other eyewitness account that does stand up to scrutiny paints a slightly different picture - Sugden writes that ‘John Lovell, one of Nelson’s guard, remembered that “the crew of the [British] barge, hardly waiting for orders, literally scrambled over Nelson, and in a few seconds possessed themselves of Don Miguel Tregoyen [lrigoyen] before Nelson had time to look round him”’. But Sugden places far more emphasis on the eyewitness account from Ben Brace.

The Ben Brace anecdote of John Sykes has been widely quoted and misquoted by biographers for years. Given the thoroughness of Sugden’s research, I find it impossible to believe that he was unaware that the Guiana Chronicle version was identical. I assume that he missed the fact that ‘Ben Brace’ pre-dated it.

As for all the other biographers that copied Oliver Warner's misquote from Chamier’s novel that Sykes "interposed his own hand" (instead of his head), there is really very little that can be said in their defence.

I have in my posession copies of articles written about Thomas Allen, He was a faithful sailor/manservant of Nelson at the battle of Copenhaen & St Vincent & battle of the Nile. He is reputed as having saved Nelson's life on several occasions. As Coxswain. in these battles he insisted Nelson wore regular seaman's garb. Thomas was not at Trafalagar, consequently Nelson foolishly wore full dress & was picked of by a sniper.
It is also written Thomas Allen held Nelson's arm after being wounded while they removed the remains, then nursed him back to health. Have quite a bit more on these subjects. Thomas Allen's picture hangs in the hall at Greenwich. he is also buried there. His gravestone having been erected by Lord & Lady Hardy.
Hilary.