This article was downloaded by: [American Public University System]On: 15 February 2014, At: 04:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Mariner's MirrorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmir20

A FRENCH NAVAL ARTISTSir Alan MoorePublished online: 22 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Sir Alan Moore (1928) A FRENCH NAVAL ARTIST, The Mariner'sMirror, 14:2, 101-107, DOI: 10.1080/00253359.1928.10655458

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00253359.1928.10655458

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

ublic

Uni

vers

ity S

yste

m]

at 0

4:13

15

Febr

uary

201

4

A FRENCH NAVAL ARTIST

13y Sir u11an Moore

JOSEPH JULIEN PIEDAGNEL, 1769-1844, Lieutenant de vaisseau, spent the years of his third captivity as a prisoner of war (I 803-14) at Leek, one of the towns appointed

for officer prisoners on local parole. A contemporary record speaks of him as "a most ingenious gentleman, a splendid draughtsman, and an artistic workman1." A scale model of a revenue cutter made by him, unfortunately now vanished, had great local fame. The subject of this article is two ink and sepia­wash drawings of men-of-war. Both are executed with great care and neatness, and, making allowance for their being the work of a professional seaman, the accuracy in technical details after the artist had been for several years confined to a spot as far from the sea as anywhere in England is remarkable. The drawing of a frigate on the starboard tack and with royal hal­yards let go (referred to hereafter as A r) and of a two-decker sailing large (A 2) is 51 em. by 29 em. Two boats are making for the frigate. On the lower margin is written "Piedagnel fecit. Leek. I 8o6." The other drawing is somewhat larger, 58 em. by 3 5 em. and shows a two-decker with main topsail aback (B I) and another on the port tack (B 2). The latter bears the name Titus on her stern. A topsail schooner with main topsail aback is seen in the middle distance. This drawing is signed" Piedagnel fecit" only. The two pictures remained in Leek till I 9 I 7, when they descended to Mr H. H. Brindley.

The treatment of the frigate is French in its vigour and in the unrestrained way in which the force of the wind is suggested. The artist evidently feels the artistic values of pressure and weight. The spritsail yard is in the grand manner. By the early years of the nineteenth century the spritsail yard was used more for staying the jibboom than for carrying sail, but here the artist is obviously inspired by the thought of it as sail carrier. The sail is bent and ready for use. Though guys from the jib boom come to the yard and must have tended with

I It is hoped to supplement this article by an account of Piedagnel's active career, based on the surviving documents relating to him.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

ublic

Uni

vers

ity S

yste

m]

at 0

4:13

15

Febr

uary

201

4

102 A FRENCH NAVAL ARTIST

the braces to support it, it nevertheless is shown with a slight droop in the yardarms which one would think was more charac­teristic of the time when its chief purpose was to carry sail.

The pictures belong to a time when change was relatively rapid. Men-of-war were beginning to lose their typical eigh­teenth-century appearance and to take on the likeness they bore within living memory. Two sorts of details may therefore especially be looked for, survivals and beginnings. In addition there are several noteworthy points in which the artist seems to have Frenchified what he intended for British ships. It may be that these points are more numerous than the writer is aware of, and here and there it is possible that he wrongly imputes what is unusual to the artist's natural mistakes.

jiBS

A I and A 2 carry two jibs. These are not the ordinary jib and flying jib but, whatever they may have been called, are an inner and outer jib. The outer jib seems to be the larger of the two. The halyards of both as well as those of the fore topmast staysail lead to the topmast head just as in merchant ships to-day. This may have been a French arrangement. The model of L'Artesien, 64, I774-86, is so fitted1•

B I has jib and flying jib, the latter with halyards leading to the topgallant masthead. The single martingale shows that there is no separate flying jib boom. The distance between the jib and the flying jib is less than was afterwards the rule. The flying jib is furled so that we cannot be certain of its size, but it looks smaller than the jib, as we should expect. The flying jibboom and the sail were officially ordered in 17942, but the sail seems sometimes not to have been used, and sometimes, when used, to have been set as here on the jib boom. By the time a thing is officially adopted it has generally been some time in use and B I 's flying jib would not by itself justify I 794 as a limiting date for the picture. A print after a painting by Robert Dodd published in I 794 representing H.M.S. Flora and four French

I Nance, R. M., Saili11g Ship Models, pl. 93· 2 Laughton, L. G. C., "Victory" Report, M.M. 1924, x, 190.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

ublic

Uni

vers

ity S

yste

m]

at 0

4:13

15

Febr

uary

201

4

~

"' 0 oc

..;

-.;

~ -.:: ~

i:: ....:.. ....:.. ;-,

..c tc

" -~

0

~

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

ublic

Uni

vers

ity S

yste

m]

at 0

4:13

15

Febr

uary

201

4

A FRENCH NAVAL ARTIST 103

frigates shows the flying jib set on the jib boom not far beyond the jib. The model of Lc Sans-Parcifl, 108, 1760, has a flying jib well beyond the jib on the same spar, but the model may have been re-rigged.

B 1 's fore topmast staysail is unexpectedly small.

DoLPHIN-STRIKER

A 1, B I, and B 2 have a short dolphin-striker. That of A I

is clearly seen to lie on the fore side of the bowsprit cap, almost exactly as shown in Darcy Lever. The order by which the dolphin-striker was fitted with jaws was not issued till I 8 I 52•

In A I the martingale ends at the dolphin-striker instead of being continued to the bowsprit.

In B 1 the martingale is continued past the dolphin-striker to the bowsprit. B 2 has two martingales, but only one comes abaft the dolphin-striker. It is possible that both in B I and B 2 we have not the martingale continued but a separate back­rope between the dolphin-striker and the bowsprit.

A 2 has no dolphin-striker. Clearly the pictures show a stage of transition. In a print called Gibraltar Bay, published December 3 Ist, 1 8o2, out of five or six ships one two-decker has the short dolphin-striker, the others none. The scene is dated July 12th, 1801. Though the spar is so often shown apparently rudimentary in the years round about 1 8oo, Steel in his first edition of 1794 shows it long and well developed, and Steel was certainly old-fashioned. Perhaps it was used first in small ships. The ship in Steel's plate is of no more than 20 guns.

LEECHLINES AND BuNTLINES

A 1 has topsail leechlines to all three topsails. B I has them at the fore and main and they seem to be drawn from the mizen topsail yard to the mast, though they cannot be seen before the sail. They can be seen between all three topsail yards and their masts in B 2. In the seventeenth century topsails had leech­lines and at the end of it buntlines as well3 • Then the leechlines

I Nance, op. cit. pl. 90.

2 Laughton, op. cit. p. 190.

3 Deane, Anthony, 1675; Battine, Edward, 1685.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

ublic

Uni

vers

ity S

yste

m]

at 0

4:13

15

Febr

uary

201

4

A FRENCH NAVAL ARTIST

seem to have become gradually rare. Here they are probably not survivals but a Frenchification. The model of L'Artesien has them.

A I and B I have each two buntlines to the fore and main topgallant sails. A single buntline with a span or none at all seems to have been usual.

LowER LIFTS

In B 2 the lower lift blocks are on the mastheads below the caps, and the fore and main topsail lifts, but not the mizen, are below the topmast caps. Lower lift blocks similarly placed are shown in a print of an East Indiaman of about I 8oo1.

In A 2 the topsail lifts appear to come below the lower cap.

RoYALs, ToPGALLANTSAILS, STuDDINGSAILS

Royals had been officially recognised since 17792, but here, some twenty years later, we find them still regarded as extras. The royals of A I have neither lifts, braces, nor foot ropes, though unexpectedly the fore and main royals have bowlines, while the mizen topgallantsail and royal have not. The fore and main royal look as though they had a buntline, but it is not shown. Perhaps a hand on the topgallant yard is gathering in the foot. The royals of A 2, though a larger ship, have even less gear.

In the seventeenth century, when topgallantsails had become part of the working canvas, men continued to speak of an admiral's flying his flag "in the main top," a phrase of almost medireval reminiscence. Similarly, the Act of Q!}een Victoria which orders merchantmen to strike to Her Majesty's ships recognises nothing higher than topgallantsails.

A 2 has a row of reef points in her fore and main topgallant­sails.

All four ships have studdingsail booms, or at least boom irons, on their crossjack yards. A I and B I have mizen topgallant studdingsail booms.

r Moore, Sir Alan, Sailing Ships of War, pl. 7· z Laughton, op. cit. p. 190.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

ublic

Uni

vers

ity S

yste

m]

at 0

4:13

15

Febr

uary

201

4

A FRENCH NAVAL ARTIST 105

FooT RoPES

At every visible yard arm, except the royal, of A I, B I, and B 2 is a loop of foot rope that looks at first sight like a Flemish horse, but since no single loop overlaps the main foot rope, each loop is perhaps part of the main rope separated from it by a very short stirrup. Steel, however, makes no allusion to the overlapping, nor of Flemish horses being peculiar to the topsail yards as was afterwards the custom. He says1 simply" Flemish­horses are small horses under the yards without the cleats."

MIZEN AND DRIVER

A 1 and B 2 have the driver set; A 2 and B I the mizen. The mizen can be readily distinguished by its brails. B I has a driver boom. The mizen is not sheeted to it. Each sail, where the method can be seen, is laced to its gaff. Each boom carries or is fitted for a ringtail boom. Here, as well as in the region of the bowsprit, we have signs of transition, and gear is probably not yet standardised. B 2 supports her gaff by a crowfoot from the lower masthead and a peak halyard from the topmast head. Unfortunately flags or sails prevent our seeing how the other gaffs are fitted, but those of A I and A 2 have a peak halyard to the topmast head.

None of the ships have a mizen yard. In line of battleships this was replaced by the gaff after 1796 and the change was nearly complete by 1798.

In British ships the mizen topsail and topgallant braces were at first led to the gaff as formerly to the mizen yard. In these ships all the braces of the mizen mast lead forward. No doubt the lead was often tried before it was the rule, but that all three line of battleships show it suggests at first sight a date well after I 8oo. It seems, however, that this may be another Frenchification. Lescallier shows it and so do the L'Artesien and Sans Pareil models and another of a frigate of Louis XVI2.

I Steel, D., Rigging and Stamanship, edition of I 794. I, I 67. :z Nance, op. cit. pl. 9r.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

ublic

Uni

vers

ity S

yste

m]

at 0

4:13

15

Febr

uary

201

4

106 A FRENCH NAVAL ARTIST

FLAGS

All the ships show woolding on the lower masts. By an Order of I 8oo iron hoops were substituted1. All the ensigns are without the Irish cross which followed the Act of Union of I 801. B I and B 2 carry vanes at all mastheads, A I and A 2 at the main only. All four wear the British pendant, whose dark fly suggests the Red or Blue Squadron.

Before turning to the hull, the schooner in B is worth noting. As was usual, she carries a square topsail at both masts. What is probably not usual is her running bowsprit rigged like a cutter's beside the stem and carrying only a single jib.

HuLL

None of the gun ports of the main (or upper) deck or of the decks above have lids.

HEAD

A I has three head rails. This is French. English frigates had two2• Another French feature is that the main rail, that is the uppermost, either comes up to the cathead forming its bracket, or else comes up abaft it. If the latter it would end in an ornamental boss. The anchor stock makes it uncertain which of these two positions the main rail assumes. The English practice was to bring the second rail to the cathead and the main rail up before it forming a timberhead on the forecastle. The figurehead of A I is an instance of the exceptional use of the lion (in French ships)3, which in this ship is seen holding a scutcheon bearing a chevron of lighter tincture than the field.

In B I the main rail seems to be double. The parts separate, the upper forms the cathead bracket and the lower vanishes abaft the cathead behind the anchor. This is more like the French fashion than the English. This ship carries a figure­head which calls to mind that of the Guillaume Tell, a warrior wearing what looks like a Greek helmet and tunic. 4

I Laughton, op. cit. p. I 89. z Laughton, Old Ships' Figurt-Htatis anti Sttrns, chap. iv. The criticism of

the heads and sterns is based entirely on this work. 3 Laughton, i6itl. p. 98. 4 16itl. p. 99·

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

ublic

Uni

vers

ity S

yste

m]

at 0

4:13

15

Febr

uary

201

4

A FRENCH NAVAL ARTIST I07

The fore end of B I 's main rail makes a reversed curve over the shoulders of the figure, becoming continuous with what looks like a cloak or a sailor collar, but which may be a palm branch. This arrangement looks French. In an English head the figure would be divided from the head rails by the hair bracket. This was continuous with the upper cheek. In B I

the upper cheek is seen to end behind the figure's knee. In both A I and B I the cheeks are below the hawse holes.

This is French. In an English ship one would be above and one below.

STERN

Both A 2 and B 2 have the horseshoe stern which was usual in French ships of the latter half of the eighteenth century. It is more pronounced in B 2 than in A 2 1• In B 2 the arch is unbroken down to the main (old upper) deck level.

A 2, which is the more old-fashioned in her rig, has an open gallery at the level of the quarterdeck. It projects consider­ably. B 2 has a close stern. She has a balustrade at the quarter­deck level, but the windows above it are flush with it. It does not project. In profile the two sterns would differ markedly.

Here again we have signs of transition. Close sterns were coming in between I795 and I8oo2• The stern ports on the poop of B 2 are unusual. All four ships have stern davits.

A 2 appears to have, and B 2 certainly has, four-sided stern lanterns. The standard pattern in the Royal Navy from the early eighteenth to the early nineteenth century was hexagonal. It remains uncertain whether French practice was regularised to this extent, and it has been suggested that alternative patterns may have been used concurrentlya.

DATE

It will be seen from the foregoing that in spite of the French element, the ships can be dated between I 796 and I 8o2 certainly, and that probably they belong to the last two or three years of the eighteenth century, I 798 to I Sao.

I Laughton, op. cit. p. I 2 3. 2 l!Jid. p. u6. 3 /!Jid. pp. 144, r6o.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

ublic

Uni

vers

ity S

yste

m]

at 0

4:13

15

Febr

uary

201

4