I have seeral different versions of how she was found. Some say she was under full sail. Some say one or two sails half out , a jib out and a spinnaker out. Some say she was undamaged, some that a mast was broken and a spar was broken. What is the correct ersion of exactly how she was found?
Welcome, Fury…
…it’s always best to link to the column you’re talking about so that others can reference it quickly.
In this case, I believe this one is the one that applies.
The story was heavily embellished by the earliest tellers and newspaper accounts. I am pretty sure someone has a “best evidence” version out there, but some details are lost to inaccurate recording or confusion. “Under full sail” is much more picturesque and myssssteriousssssss.
Let’s just say that a ship under full sail and no helm control (1) would not have been able to keep sailing very long before capsizing [except under some highly ideal conditions] and (2) would have been a screaming bitch to catch and board. So I’d vote for partial sails, probably an emergency strike while they tried to fight the initial alcohol fire.
I have a copy here of Mysteries: Solved And Unsolved by Harold T. Wilkins. He quotes extensively from the records of the inquiry in Gibraltar into the Mary Celeste, where Oliver Deveau, first mate of the Dei Gratia testified:
I’m not entirely clear myself on what all of that means and implies, but I think the sworn testimony of the guy who was there at the time is about as authoritative as you’re going to get.
I didn’t want to make a cite from memory, but that matches what I’ve read in reliable analyses. The fire broke out, they brought the main sails down in a rush, and then abandoned ship.
I have to say, I’ve never seen any suggestion of a fire aboard the Mary Celeste (it would have appeared a good deal less mysterious if there’d been one).
There is the idea that fumes from the cargo of alcohol may have made the crew fear a potential fire or explosion, but I don’t think there’s any evidence for any actual flames.
Looking a bit later in Deveau’s testimony, he says: “… there were no signs of damage by fire, nor of fire or smoke in any part of the ship.”
Alcohol can burn without leaving traces; there could have been a flash fire that extinguished itself before it left any traces. Or, as you say, it could have been the fear of a fire that made them abandon the ship.
Something certainly made them leave in a panic, without taking proper precautions. I can’t see an alcohol leak or spill doing it. A cry of “Fire” on a wooden ship laden with grain alcohol… you betcha.
The wiki page seems pretty thorough.
Which wiki?
Powers &8^]
I like Skeptiod’s treatment, here.
It’s Skeptoid :), but yes, that’s an excellent and rational account that takes into account all known facts and dispenses with both Doyle’s and the wilder press accounts’ nonsense.
Thanks for the link.
The pedia one.