"almost-squared-thing"-mystery in William Bass´s "Constitution - Super Frigateof many Faces - Second phase 1802 - 07"

Marcus:

"The Captain's Clerk" is Tyrone Martin. He is the one with whom you corresponded about the tie rods. I have corresponded with him through that website on several occasions.

First of all, this question about what were those little square things cannot be answered. There is simply not enough primary source evidence to say one way or the other. That should be enough to end the inquiry right there. I do not wish to dampen your obvious enthusiasm for this investigation, but you need to be realistic. Martin, Bass, and a host of others have been over this ground with far greater access than anyone else to the available primary sources. Much as we would like to think they missed something or that some long lost source exists that could answer all these questions, that is simply not the case. Maybe something will surface in the future, but for now, there are no sources that have not been scrupulously examined by the finest minds.  

However, if you are looking for pure speculation, then I would say that Corne' gave far too much prominence to a minor detail that caught his eye.  He had a tendency to do that in this painting. Provided Corne' placed them properly on the ship's hull, they cannot be scuppers. They are in the wrong place. No air ports at that time, so that is out as well. Martin says the tie rods (even though they were used by the Royal Navy years before) did not come into use on Constitution until several decades later. In any event, there is no evidence of their use before the 1850s at least so that is out as well. 

In Building a Legend, Martin does talk about several heavy timbers such as knees and diagonal riders that were through fastened in the Constitution's construction. That might have something to do with it or not. Since we will never know for sure what those square things are, it is all just speculation. Until, of course, someone finds some long lost documents in Grandad's sea chest in the attic under the pile of old clothes. We can always hope.

Russ

Hi Marcus,

I saw the painting last summer when I visited the ship's museum, but I was not looking specifically at the "square things", I was more interested in the colors.  I was surprised at how small the painting is, about 15 x 20 inches, as I was expecting a much larger work.  As you might guess the painting is not well lit, and I don't think one could see enough detail to draw any further conclusions about the "square things" just looking at it in the museum. 

Personally, I accept Bass's (and Martin's) conclusuon that these are probably backing plates and nuts for iron tie rods and I will probably show them as such on my model. If you look at a cross section of the ship, their locations seem to fall right at the level of the supporting structure of the gun deck, which is where you would expect tie rods to be.  Conversely, that would not be where you would expect to find scuppers, air ports, sweep ports, etc. Admittedly, such tie rods do not appear to be common features of ships during this period, and they were apparently not previously thought to have been a feature on Constitution's construction. 

There are several more features that are unique to Corne's portrait of the ship, such as the "adam's apple" stem profile and the heavy horizontal battens on the bulwarks. Others, such as the prominent main wales, show on the original draughts, but would be gone within a few years. I think it is somewhat odd that the 1797 draughts and the 1812 Hull model both show gangway steps on the hull, but the 1803 Corne painting does not  Why would those have been removed and put back within such a short space of time? But then I guess a crew of carpenters could change the details of a wooden ship's appearance fairly rapidly and often. Bass makes a fairly good case for relying on Corne's eye for detail, but Russ 39 is correct that, barring discovery of further contemporary documents, we will probably never know for sure what the "square things" actually were.

I had not forgotten, by the way, about posting some photos of my in (slow) progress model, but my camera broke and I have had to order a new one.  As soon as it comes I will take some photos and post them.

Hello Steve, hello Russ,

thanks for your comments.

Please do not misunderstand. I am sure, that there is no one having more knowledge about the big frigate than Tyrone Martin (I guessed its him, but when I once asked, he replied that he wished to be adressed as "Captains Clerk" .. and so it stayed for me until today - although he signs his mails different today ;-)) ). And the Bass´s beautiful monograph is a very important source for me - extraordinary work, very interesting approach.

Of course you are right in indicating, that we probably never will know precise what was - and that the two men (with Bass´s wife of course) have done more work on the subject than most of us will be able to do in this life.

But:
I learned that there is nothing sure - even if an expert tells you so. And - even experts do interpret - conform to the knowledge they had when judging the detail.

Examples:
Several years ago every expert in historic ships would have sworn that the Wasa was painted blue. Today we know, it was (was it really?) red. O.k lets say "modern technology results indicate: the ships decor was red".
Howard Chapelle was an indisputalbe expert for the American navy - but his drawing for the big frigate(s) shows bridle ports - which have not been intended  in the beginning and which were added later in service (at least for the USS Constitution).
K.-H. Marquardts interpretation of the USS Constitution in his AOTS-book. Big question mark, right?

I very often have the feeling, that some expertes tell you something about details and let you "feel" that these statements are facts - although it is possible, that the detail only "became" fact in the experts mind - since he found evidence for the fact beeing real. And - in general - the higher the respect for an expert, the more his "opinion" will be handeled by non-experts as beeing a fact. And in some cases even experts begin to believe in facts which they never proved - but believing (having evidence) that something might be in a certain way sometimes leads to the event that you finally do not question this "fact" anymore.

Therefore I try to figure out which sources to trust how far. One important fact for me to judge this is, how precise an expert shows his sources. Even if I do not investigate in those sources then (I would if I could!) the author indicates to me, that I COULD contercheck his conclusion.

For example:
Ian Tolls "six frigates" is a very interesting and thrilling report about the early US Navy. He even sketches USS Constitutions first design - with paint scheme!!! But I could find no hint where he got that information from - and since non of the other experts dares to describe the ships colours that precise ... I begin to mistrust these sentences.

Howard Chapelle for example also does give no (or not very often) his sources - except a simple (although long) list of references. But there is no clue to which detail he got from which source. Its probaly impossible to countercheck any of his statements - since there is just too much reference in the list to countercheck.

Donald L. Canney for example does give precises sources - just were he stated somehting - and makes it much easier for me, to trust his conclusions.

In Tyrone Martin I trust a lot - although his books usually do have only a list of reference. But first of all: he is by fare the one having read and studied most of the papers and books concerning the ship - and second: in his "Close-Up" he mentioned the sources precisely.

To explain my "mistrust" - I am no historian. I even did not really start building the model. But WHEN I once start, I want the ship to be as close to what I believe it has looked like, as I can. And I never will say "this IS the ship in 1803" but I will say: "This is, how I interpret the ship, based on W. Bass ... but the "almost squared things" are air vent-openings in my opinion because .. " ...

You might think: why worring about things one never will find out anyway. But I have to say that I began to have even more fun in trying to find out, trying to learn - than I ever had with building models.

So TGM´s and W. & E. Bass´s findings are important sources for me. I just wondered that T. Martin never mentioned these features - and I came to the conclusion, that W. Bass might have liked HIS solution more than any other - beside any other possible evidence - because having dealed with a problem for several months is easier to justify (most of all for one self!), if the reason for this hard work is something extraordinary. And since TGM´s e-mails to me indicated that he does not really faviour Basses conclusion - I am careful with simply believing it.

What also made me sceptical was: IF the tie rod / butt plate was something the US Navy took over by newly british habbits - especially before around 1850 (when it seems to be mentioned), it would have been something extraordinary. THEN there must have been written remarks and notes. But there aren´t ..

Concerning the positions:
As far as I learened gun-deck scuppers usually had their outer opening in about the height of the gun-deck-planking - or within thick hull-walls even a bit below. That would be exactly "at the level of the supporting structure of the gun deck", am I am wrong? In a longitudonal cut scuppers and air-vent-opening would be within the clearances of the gun-deck supporting beams. So their positions is not that far away.

AND:
in the paintings existing by french artist you can see very similar details - "almost squared things" - but clearly beeing air-vent-openings. In one of them you can see them open ...

Steves observations concering possible "question marks" also indicates for me not just to trust everything even given by an accredited expert. I think one should open the eyes and trust his mind - and of course be sceptical concering the own conclusions.

Important of course: one should not pretent to be "a more qualified expert" .. that is only possible, if one has the time and money to study the subject of interest much deeper! - which I not have of course.

So please do not condemn me for discussing things I never will be able to prove or abandon. But discussing todays knowledge with you experts gives me more indicators for the evident of my conclusions. Thats all I seek for.

Marcus:

As a historian, it is very important for me to evaluate source material. That is the evidence that will either prove or disprove something. In this case, you go with the writer who has the best evidence upon which he relies for his research. In this case, that is clearly Tyrone Martin. He has the bibliography to support his claim to decades of primary source research on the Constitution.

Chapelle is a secondary source. The fact that he redrew the original builder's draught in a certain way means nothing, since we have the original builder's draught.

Corne's painting in 1803, while a primary source, also requires some evaluation to determine its usefulness. What does Corne's painting tell us and how much of that information is reliable? That is the question we must ask before using that source to reconstruct Constitution's 1803 appearance.

Bass's work is important for its use of microphotography to uncover some of the details such as the details of the Hercules figurehead etc. However, there are areas of Bass's work that are just insane. At one point in the book, he claims that the ship was actually larger than it was designed to be. That would be interesting were it not for the fact that he is just plain wrong. We have the ship to study and she measures out exactly according to the design draught. Why he came to that conclusion is beyond me.

There are some things in Bass's book that are useful and other things that should be discounted. Bass's work on the Corne's painting tells us that the ship was rigged a certain way that it was painted with certain colors, that the figurehead looked a certain way, that the ship had hammock stanchions from the waist forward with netting, and that the guns on the forward part of the spar deck had been removed since she last sailed. These are all things that can be verified through other contemporary sources, thus they are very useful in a reconstruction of the ship's appearance.

Corne' obviously paid too much attention to small details because he painted them far beyond their relative proportion given the distance between him and the ship in the painting. So, those details require some corroboration before we can know how useful his work really is. The figurehead we can say is a pretty good representation of the original because we have another primary source that tells us what the figurehead was designed to look like years before Corne' painted his painting. The little square things, however, have no other such corroborating evidence. There is simply not any source that tells us what they might be in that painting. Until such a source does tell us, then we must set them aside and hope for further sources to emerge later on.

Now, where were the scuppers located? The scuppers were located in the waterways of the gundeck. They were drilled right through the face of the waterways along the side of the ship where the deck meets the side at a downward angle to the outside of the hull. If Corne's has them properly placed they might be scuppers. If so, then all that proves is that the ship had a feature that we already knew she had. Nothing new there.

Air vents. Show me a primary source that says they were there in 1803 and your idea that the square things are air vents works fine. However, the record tells us that they were installed several years later. That is the best primary source information we have for the air vents and therefore that is all we have to work with. As far as we know (from the evidence), they cannot be air vents.  

As for what the trust in a historical inquiry. We must trust the evidence. Trust it first, trust it second, trust it last. In order to do this, we must evaluate evidence to determine what is reliable and what is not.  I am all for arguing the evidence. That is a useful exercise. However, once you go beyond the evidence, then it is mere speculation.

Russ

Russ, I very much agree with your professional and precise point of view. You just sound like a german historian in another forum which I visit very often - he also argues very often with the amateur like approach of many model builders - who - of course - want to show something in their models. And I very much appreciate your correction - the last thing I want to do is to spread or even create new myths ... Everything I learned the last days tells me, that I have to mistrust Bass´s thesis with tie rods and butt plates. Concerning the air-vent-theory. You argue that their first written describtion is done in 1810 - and therefore they can not have existed in 1803. As far as we know (from the evidence), they cannot be air vents. But that text says "added air vents" ... which leaves it open wether there have been some before or not. Or am I wrong here? Would paintings of several artists (both very accuarte and detailed pictures) showing air vents in about the same lokation and of about the same shape be an evidence for air vents in Constitution too?  Please look at this painting of Roux done in 1805 or 1806. If you use the zoom function, you will be able to see a lot details - scuppers of gun- and spar-deck (even the dirt) - and some details very compareable with the Corne almost-squared-things. http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchdetail.cfm?trg=1&strucID=118350&imageID=54296&total=1&num=0&word=president%20roux&s=1&notword=&d=&c=&f=&k=0&lWord=&lField=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&imgs=20&pos=1&e=w If you compare these with an etching done by Baugean (I can not find a link, sorry) you will understand them as air vents, since they are clearly opened - just alike tiny gun port lids. What do you think? Is this already speculation? Or is there any evidence? I know, its not a proof - but isn´t it at least a good hint?

Marcus:

All I can say about the air vents on Constitution is that the first primary source evidence for them is in about 1810. There is no primary source evidence for their use before that.

First of all, the Roux painting is of the President. Sistership yes, but simply because they show something there (we do not know [evidence] what that is) is no reason to simply assume that whatever those things are in the Roux painting were also on Constitution. Second, keep in mind that the caption on that link puts a question mark after the dates. I do not know (evidence) when that painting was done.  

Russ 

Marcus.K. wrote:

Everything I learned the last days tells me, that I have to mistrust Bass´s thesis with tie rods and butt plates.

Marcus,

You may want to read again what Bass wrote and what you so meticulously transcribed in your first post.  Both the "discovery" of the square things in the painting, and the theory that they may be tie rods, were attributed to Tyrone Martin.  This appears to be Martin's thesis, not Bass's. 

Well - but I guess now I force you to do the same "mistake" as Bass did. Its a tiny detail in Corne´s painting. And Bass created a "mystery" ..

As I said: I agree that there is no proof for or against air vents nor scuppers nor Tie rods / butt plates. We probaly will never know.

My personal guess is for air vents - and all my "proofs" (which are not really reliable!) are some paintings by two french artists of another ship which show (at least at Baugaens etching) opened air ventilations ..

So thank you for your point of view and your time to discuss. It helped me to evaluate probabilites better.. Nothing more - nothing less!