Nelson & His World

Who shot Nelson? According to a hitherto unknown novel, 'The Last Cavalier' by Alexandre Dumas (the elder), reviewed in today's Sunday Times, it was a swashbuckling hero named the Comte de Sainte-Hermine. He apparently 'left men stunned by his prowess with sword, pistol, lance and any other weapon to hand, and whom women needed only to glimpse to become prey to weak-kneed longing.'

The Dumas scholar Claude Schopp discovered 118 chapters of a serialised novel (unfinished) in the microfilmed copies of a Paris newspaper. Schlopp has edited the existing chapters and added supplementary suggestions of how the work might have been concluded. He declares 'The Last Cavalier' to be 'a lost masterpiece'. 'Well', says the ST reviewer, 'it's certainly been lost'.

I don't know how recent the discovery was. Presumably the novel has already been published in French.

The ST review is lukewarm. Though there is 'much to enjoy', the reviewer, Nick Rennison, concludes that 'digressions and diversions that in earlier novels seem the results of an unquenchable urge to give readers more stories, information and historical colour, feel like padding, thrust into the narrative by a writer desperate to meet deadlines and wordcounts.' He warns that 'amid all the excitement of discovery it's as well to remember which novels really were his masterpieces.'

If you feel like parting with £20, nonetheless, 'The Last Cavalier' is published by Fourth Estate.

Tycho,

Sorry, but I don't think I'll be spending £20 on this 'learned' work. I believe I know of some far better books about Nelson - and for much less!

Kester

Kester:

me neither! Won't even buy the paperback!

I thought you, and others, might be interested in this story from the NMM website about who shot the man who shot Nelson:

Who shot the man who shot Lord Nelson?

There were several Trafalgar veterans who claimed to have shot the Frenchman who killed Admiral Nelson, but the most well known is John Pollard who was serving as Signal Midshipman on HMS Victory at the battle of Trafalgar.

Sir William Beatty in his Authenic Narrative of the Death of Lord Nelson wrote 'There were only two Frenchmen left alive in the mizzen-top of the Redoutable at the time of his Lordship's being wounded and by the hands of these he fell…At length one of them was killed by a musket ball; and on the others then attempting to make his escape from the top down the rigging, Mr Pollard (Midshipman) fired his musket at him and shot him in the back when he fell dead from the shrouds on the Redoutable's poop'.

Robert Southey in his Life of Nelson (pub 1813) credited both John Pollard and Midshipman Francis Edward Collingwood as being the 'avenger of Nelson'. However in a letter to The Times 13 May 1863, John Pollard wrote 'It is true my old shipmate Collingwood who has now been dead some years came up on the poop for a short time. I had discovered the men crouching in the top of the Redoutable and pointed them out to him, when he took up his musket and fired once; he then left the poop, I conclude, to return to his station on the quarter deck……I remained firing till there was not a man to be seen in the top; the last one I saw coming down the mizzen rigging and he fell from my fire also…I was ushered into the ward room where Sir Thomas Hardy and other officers were assembled and complimented by them as the person who avenged Lord Nelson's death..'

Tycho,

Yes, my money's on John Pollard. I believe the story also goes that after Collingwood had left, the midshipman was supplied with fresh muskets by someone who reloaded them. I don't know how true that is.

Kester

Nonsense - It was Ben Brace. He was reloading the muskets, and he fired the fatal shot.

Apologies for my absence in recent days and the vagueness of this post - I am much occupied with hospital visiting again.

There was a short piece in the Times the other day which sadly, I forgot to keep, that repeated the suggestion which I have heard before, that Nelson was killed by a ricochet bullet rather than a direct shot from the Redoutable. What I had not heard before was the suggestion that the bullet could have been a British one, and that Nelson might have been killed by 'friendly fire'. This too, has been posited before, apparently. Indeed, it was hoped to settle the argument some years ago by examining the fatal bullet, which is in the possession of HM The Queen; however, a request for permission to examine the bullet was refused.

There was no doubt among the men who were there at the time that Nelson was killed by a shot from the Redoutable. I have just come across a report by Major Louis Rotely, of the Royal Marines, who wrote in his account of the battle, (published in the Nelson Dispatch of January 1999):

'our revered Chief fell, having received his mortal wound from a soldier in the mizzen top of the Redoutable. The Marines became exasperated. I was now in command [his senior officer having also just been killed] and the first order I gave was to clear the mizzen top, when every musket was levelled at that top, and in five minutes not a man was left alive in it. Some Frenchman has vaunted that he shot Nelson and survived the battle, and I have heard that a book had been published so stating, but it must be a romance, as I know the man was shot in five minutes after Nelson fell.'

Anna,

Very sorry to hear of your troubles, and I'm sure we all hope that things get better and easier for you.

As to the article, an interesting supposition, and I suppose possible. It is also perhaps a good thing to question what was accepted fact at the time, and has remained so until relatively recently. All the 'accepted facts' surrounding Nelson at Trafalgar, such as his famous signal and its wording, his last words, the spot where he died, and now the shot itself and where it came from, have all come under close scrutiny. In my view this is a good thing and removes a bit of the 'dross' and perhaps fabrication surrounding Nelson but it also, to a certain extent, removes some of the mystique. Some may not feel happy about that.

A pity the ball couldn't have been examined, as it may have provided some answers although one can understand, of course, the reluctance on the part of Windsor Castle to have such a valuable article tampered with (although, I'm sure, they would have done it with great care). I imagine HM was not personally involved, but probably the head of the collections.

However, there are so many accounts from the British side (leaving out the rather dubious French views) that Nelson was shot from the mizzen top of the Redoutable (which was not that far away from the Victory's quarterdeck), from John Pollard, those who were assisting him, Major Rotely and his marines, among others, that it scarcely seems possible that they were all wrong. They were, also, all there at the time - or was it a case of the heat of battle, when no-one could be sure of where the shot actually came from, but claimed that they did?

You comments about the difficulty of establishing exactly what happened and when in the heat of battle were echoed by the Duke of Wellington on more than one occasion. I came across these comments by chance only yesterday and thought they might prove some sort of challenge to Major Rotely's (or anyone else's) certainty about the precise sequence of events in any battle, on land or sea.

The history of a battle, is not unlike the history of a ball. Some individuals may recollect all the little events of which the great result is the battle won or lost, but no individual can recollect the order in which, or the exact moment at which, they occurred, which makes all the difference as to their value or importance. .. Letter to John Croker (8 August 1815), as quoted in The History of England from the Accession of James II (1848) by Thomas Babington Macaulay, Volume I Chapter 5; and in The Waterloo Letters (1891) edited by H. T. Sibome

Just to show you how little reliance can be placed even on what are supposed the best accounts of a battle, I mention that there are some circumstances mentioned in General —'s account which did not occur as he relates them. It is impossible to say when each important occurrence took place, or in what order. Wellington's papers (17 August 1815), as quoted in The History of England from the Accession of James II (1848) by Thomas Babington Macaulay

I wonder if the reluctance to grant permission to examine the fatal ball might stem from the, perhaps very remote, fear that it might prove conclusively that Nelson was killed by friendly fire, and that we might be better enjoying the bliss of ignorance, and continue to blame the French?

Anna,

Thanks for those insights. As to your last point, you may have a point!

I thought the angle of the entry/exit wound proved that the ball had come from high? Unless some one is stating that a musket ball 'bounced' of something in the masts and ricochet back I don't see how it could be friendly fire.

To many ifs and buts and maybes to make this a realistic possibility when you have hundreds of musket armed soldiers whose wish was to shoot the Admiral which is not improbably but entirely understandable.

Joss.

Joss,

Yes, I agree with you. I was only thinking that the looking at the question from all angles, was interesting.

I believe modern ballistic experts and others, have deduced that the ball came from above and from the directon of the Redoutable's mizzen top. That reduces the idea of 'friendly fire' and the idea of a ricochet therefore, to my mind too, seems unlikely. It also fits with the recorded accounts from witnesses at the time.

I'm not sure that there were exactly hundreds of armed soldiers wishing to shoot Nelson, since most probably had other jobs to do, much as they might have wished to in their hearts! The number was probably nearer a dozen, most of which were apparently finished off by John Pollard, the marines, or others.

I think the question that has also been posed, as to whether it was specifically Nelson himself or the quarter deck in general, that was being aimed at, has rather more validity.