by Stan Mason
Barry Pain was an author famous for his humorous works. He was convinced that the only theory available to resolve this mystery was capture and abduction. Not a piratical gesture but one of necessity. He was unable to concede that everyone on board went mad simultaneously and jumped overboard to abandon the vessel. His views were that a nefarious trading ship lost most of her crew from fever and the few men left were incapable of working her properly. At a critical period, the Mary Celeste came into view and, in desperation, the decimated crew boarded her, abducting the Captain and the crew at gun-point. Whatever the fate of the unfortunates is not in question. They may have died of fever before the voyage ended or were disposed of by the sailors. After all, seafaring men wishing to continue a life of crime would have murdered them in their endeavour not to be exposed as criminals. It all sounded so reasonable. Of particular importance was the fact that the solution submitted was simple, plausible, and provided a reason why no one remained on board the derelict. Certainly there would be no signs of a struggle if a pistol had been pointed at the head of, say, Sarah Briggs or her young daughter.
The last effort in the Strand Magazine was written by Arthur Morrison. He was a well-known English novelist and dramatist, and an early writer of detective stories. In those days, his claim to fame concerned his hero detective, Martin Hewitt, who ranked second only to the famous Sherlock Holmes. Pitifully, he ignored the facts of the case and reverted entirely to fiction, preferring to use the opportunity to produce a sea story rather than concentrate on the matter in hand. His tale related to a member of the crew who was a religious fanatic named Holy Joe. This man was portrayed as a homicidal maniac who threw the rest of the crew over the side one by one, eventually following them with the ship’s chronometer in his arms.
On reflection of the puerile efforts by the quartet of novelists, the editor of the Strand Magazine concluded with the challenge to readers: “that whether they themselves could suggest something more plausible now remained to be seen”. He wasn’t sure whether there would be any response to his comment .....but respond they did in plenty. Many letters merely retrod old ground, however, or tended to verge on the fantastic. The stimulation flowed over to other journals and magazines to make 1913 a bumper year for those who fancied their chances at solving a very difficult sea mystery.
In August of the same year, the Maritime Exchange Bulletin printed a letter from a Captain C.B. Parsons which gave an account of a conversation with Captain Boyce of the Dei Gratia some forty years earlier. The very mention of the name of Boyce, instead of Morehouse, was indicative of falsehood. In any case, the flurry of stories and solutions submitted by the general public pushed this minor account into the background.
In November, 1913, the Strand Magazine published the first fruits of their efforts earlier in the year. They announced a sensational development in that they had traced a survivor of the Mary Celeste through the challenge issued by the magazine. The catalyst proved to be the headmaster of the largest preparatory school in Hampstead. Mr. Linford was a scholastic man dedicated to the better teaching of mathematics and English. Peterborough Lodge had a very good record and many of its students were accepted into Westminster, Rugby and Harrow. Even more medals and prizes went to the students in the later years, while a number of pupils developed to become some of the most distinguished scientists in England and France. Consequently, Mr. Linford was a disciplinarian of high calibre, he held a good reputation and a useful talent for teaching. He wrote to the editor of the Strand Magazine after it had printed earlier stories referring to the Mary Celeste. In his submission, he suggested that certain facets of the mystery struck a familiar chord, although he was forced to admit that some time had elapsed before he could focus his attention on the points in question. Eventually, he recalled a moment past when an old servant in his employ was on his death-bed. The old man had placed all his possessions in three old boxes which contained, inter alia, a quantity of papers. Mr. Linford further admitted that the dying servant whispered to him that the account of the Mary Celeste would be found in the boxes. The headmaster denied, however, having any notion of the Mary Celeste.....believing the name to be that of a woman loved by the old servant. Whether Linford was so totally academic as to remain ignorant of the sea mystery or that he completely failed to connect the name with the derelict for a long time is questionable. He had an acute acumen, a good memory, and it is highly unlikely a man of his standing would be so dense. Equally, one surmises that it is just as well the servant did not refer to a woman because her legacy would never have reached her. The headmaster.....paying such little heed to the last words of the dying man.....sent the boxes away for safe-keeping in the belief they would never be opened again. Linford set buffers within his story, partly to safeguard his reputation and partly to emphasise that it was probably true, by using a negative approach. To do this, he commented that he was unable to vouch for the truth of the story mainly because the old servant was a man of exceptional reticence and self-control. However the man kept a “diary” which was enormous, comprising over twelve thousand words. That remark itself poured floods of doubt on the issue. Twelve thousand words was a remarkable work for a sailor-cum-servant who had probably failed to string more than a few words together in the past in letters sent to friends or relatives. Abel Fosdyk, as the servant was known, appeared to be quite a clandestine historian if his story was to be believed. He claimed to be a member of the crew of the Mary Celeste in 1872 and that he had served on that ship on previous voyages. However, the facts start to go awry from that moment onwards. Fosdyk related that, as an amicable person, he had befriended the Captain’s daughter who was seven or eight years old. (Sophia Matilda Briggs was nearly two years old). The ship’s complement rose to fourteen men and the tonnage to six hundred tons. The names of the crew mentioned by him were different to those who signed on in the official register in New York, and he coolly assumed the position of cook and steward for himself. During a period of bad storms, he noticed that Captain Briggs became strained through fatigue. Mrs. Briggs fell ill and her daughter nearly fell over the side. Abel Fosdyk constructed a barricade on the bowsprit (bearing in mind he was the cook/steward and not a carpenter) on which the child could sit. This was called “Baby’s quarter-deck”. One day they spied a derelict vessel (whose name is not given) on which there were two men. One was saved but died and the Mate failed to save the other for which the Captain criticised him fiercely. Further storms sent the Mary Celeste off course which caused Captain Briggs to founder on the edge of a nervous breakdown as they came within range of the Canary Islands. His attitude became one compared with a wild animal, observed Fosdyk, and then the vessel became becalmed. Apparently, the Captain and the Mate entered into an argument to determine the reason why the latter failed to save the second man on the derelict. This resulted in an admission by the Mate that it would have been difficult to remain afloat fully-dressed trying to save an injured man. Consequently, both the Captain and the Mate dived into the water in a swimming race around the becalmed ship while the Captain’s wife, daughter, and the crew watched them from “Baby’s quarter-deck”. The appearance of sharks suddenly heightened the intensity of the situation and, in their attempt to warn the swimmers, the piece of carpentry collapsed, throwing them all into the sea. After the sharks had done their worst, only Fosdyk survived, having clambered on to the wreckage of the “Baby’s quarter-deck” after it had hit the water. A breeze came up swiftly at that moment, moving the vessel away, and he was unable to reach her again. Some days later, he was washed up on the coast of Africa and travelled to the port of Algiers. From there, in 1874, he returned to Britain to work for Linford and despite the desire of the public to learn the secret of the mystery, he kept the story to himself.
The editor of Strand Magazine qualified the illustrations printed which consisted of eight sketches of “Baby at the age of two” (ALTHOUGH THE DIARY QUOTED HER AS BEING SEVEN OR EIGHTYEARS OLD) ,”Baby on her quarter-dec
k”, “The bereaved Captain sobbing”, “A view from the platform”, and so on. These, apparently, had been drawn by Linford’s son, a student at Harrow at the time, who sketched them under the directions of the reticent servant. It can be accepted that there is some merit of truth in that statement but did those illustrations really refer to the Mary Celeste or did they relate to something else in the old man’s mind? The truth will never be revealed but the letter accompanying the manuscript conjured up a certain amount of interest:
“.....as for the document, I let it speak for itself: but at the same time I must confess I have been greatly impressed by the following facts: A brig called ‘Marie Celeste’ sailing under Captain Griggs is under discussion. I find an account of a brigantine named ‘Mary Celeste’ sailing under a Captain Briggs. By your courtesy I have now seen the official report and find in every instance the papers in my possession are correct. Further, the official papers mention a peculiar damage to the bows and two square cuts on the outside. This, I think, has never till now been made public, yet here again the papers I send you enter most minutely into the alteration of the bows. Finally, I find, on inquiry, that the autumn of 1872 as famous for its extraordinary storms in the Atlantic, so much so that a leading article in The Times likes it to the period of storms so well known to have prevailed at Cromwell’s death. One can easily imagine a Captain working day and night in such conditions, going gradually out of his mind. Of course, minute errors will always creep in when relating facts a long time after their occurrence. It is evident to me these facts were written down nearly twenty years after they happened, and no one knows better than myself how easily dates may be forgottenor the sequence of events confused. I now leave the MS in your hands.
A. HOWARD LINFORD M.A.
(Magdalen College, Oxford)
Peterborough Lodge,
Finchley Road, N.W.
In all honesty, it had to be the work of an academic unable to suppress his feelings on the matter. A diary of twelve thousand words could not possibly have been completed by the marine-cum-servant. Even more important however was the fact that future writers had much to comment on the facts contained in the work.....as well as the style.
At the same time that the ‘lone survivor’ theory was coursing through the taverns of Europe in November 1913, The Daily Express in London reprinted the story of ‘The Skeleton’s Tale in a Bottle’ by R.E. Greenhough, originally published by the Liverpool Mercury in 1904. The Washington Post had the same idea and their edition emerged from the presses in the following months. Before that, however, the New York Times felt obliged to comment on Linford’s story and there was much comment and communication across the Atlantic Ocean of matters relating to the Mary Celeste. In fact, December 1913 was probably the busiest month ever with regard to the mystery. The Nautical Magazine was first in line, probably smarting at the success of the Strand Magazine, which had stolen its thunder, and it published two new versions. The first was rather mundane serving to introduce a new element which had avoided writers of fact or fiction so far.....contributed by a marine engineer by the name of William Bernstein. He suggested that the Mate had fallen passionately in love with Mrs. Briggs and subsequently impressed the crew for another vessel close-by which needed more men. The second vessel foundered with all hands, and the love-sick Mate drowned with the rest of them. With due respect, it was highly likely that the author himself did not believe in the truth of that story and might, in normal cases, have committed it willingly to the waste-paper basket, but such tales had by now become fashionable.....and there were many of them. The second story was far more adventurous and stimulating. It referred to a story by a Greek sailor named Demetrius Specioti who had narrated some of his experiences to Captain D. Lukhamanoff in 1884. The latter was an agent of the Russian Volunteer Fleet in Hong Kong and he had come across Specioti in a bar in a disreputable part of the town. The Greek sailor explained that he had been a member of the crew of the Mary Celeste and that some way out from Gibraltar they encountered a similar vessel bearing a signal which read: “Short of provisions - starving”. A boat was sent across and when made fast six men and the bearded Spaniard wearing a large sombrero at the tiller produced pistols and threatened the lives of the crew. The Mary Celeste was captured by the ‘slaver’ and one by one the villains died of fever. Eventually, Specioti successfully led a mutiny but the vessel was cut in two during a collision with an ocean steamer, and he was the lone survivor. This story was more than likely the greatest liquor-earning tale told in the bars of Hong Kong at the time and does little more than disgrace the honour of a ship which deserved a far better history.
The Buffalo Express printed an article by Mr. F.J. Shephard in December 1913 which comprised a review of some of the facts and referred to the details in Abel Fosdyk’s story. The Nautical Gazette had four bites of the cherry during that month in an attempt to capitalise on the fervour of the public. A Mr. K.N. Putman (who ended up as a deputised U.S. Marshal in Haiti on the demise of the Mary Celeste - and is mentioned in a later Chapter) began the spate from this magazine with “The End of the Mary Celeste”, followed by an article four days later entitled “The Mary Celeste”. On the last day of the year the series was concluded with “Sequel to Mary Celeste Mystery”, in which Putman believed that an explosion took place and the crew abandoned ship, losing their lives when the overloaded long-boat capsized during a storm. A week earlier, on Christmas Eve, the same journal recorded an interview with Winchester Noyes, the grandson of Captain James Winchester. He confirmed that the recently deceased Captain had always stuck to the same theory. The reason for abandonment by the crew was caused by fear of an explosion resulting from the fumes released from its cargo of alcohol.....and nothing else had given him any reason to change his mind. The New York Times published a letter by K.N. Putman on his theory which coincided with that held by the late Captain Winchester and, almost as if by magic, the mystery faded away once more to be replaced by more than four years of the horror of war and revolution between 1914 and 1918. The resting period for the Mary Celeste stories actually lasted for nearly eleven years, broken only by an item written in Lloyds Yesterday and Today by Henry M. Gray in 1922, in which a passing reference was made to the event.
The incident was practically beyond living memory by the end of the First World War and no participant of any description was likely to be alive, whether from the Mary Celeste or any other vessel which might have been involved with her at that time. Many amateurs had dabbled with a multitude of ideas and details, both true and false, and clearly the situation had been driven into a mess, full of inaccuracies, uncertainties and confusion. A new era of investigation was required to encourage writers to act in an analytical and clinical manner in order to sort out the main problems and provide a professional approach with regard to the mystery of the Mary Celeste. It did not take long to arrive!
The Professional Theorists
The new era began in 1924 and pursued a steady course of direction. Authors had more time to reflect on the incident in the years between the two wars, mainly stemming from the evidence of relatives of the survivors and the depth of information that had passed before them. The chapter re-opened in September 1924 when The Daily Express in London announced yet again that it was able to solve the mystery of the ‘Marie’ Celeste which had baffled investigators in every part of the world for fifty years. It seemed that a renowned sailor, whose reputation was respected in the Mediterranean and the Far East, a Captain H. Lucy, knew how the ‘Marie’ Celeste was abandoned. Unfortunately, although the matter was of prime importance to professional investigators and of public interest, he had been unable to divulge the information until his informant died. The recently departed, named Triggs, claimed to have been on the ship and spilled his version to the Captain in a sailor’s tavern in Melbourne. Triggs is alleged to have said that he was the Bosun who sighted a derelict tramp steamer about a day’s run off the coast of Portugal. The name cou
ld not be read due to the corrosive action of sea water on the bows. He boarded her to discover a sum of three thousand five hundred pounds in gold and silver in a large iron safe which was taken back to the ‘Marie’ Celeste and divided up so that the Captain received one thousand two hundred pounds, the Mate six hundred pounds, the Second Mate four hundred pounds, and Triggs three hundred pounds respectively, the other thousand pounds being shared by the crew. After they had scuttled the derelict, the realisation of their actions and its illegality forced them to consider scuttling their own vessel and escaping in the long-boat to Cadiz. Before this could take place, however, another ship hailed them to defer such action. Eventually, the decision to leave the ‘Marie’ Celeste was taken and they boarded three boats which had been removed from the derelict steamer. These boats were painted with the name of a London schooner and loaded with food, water, money and other belongings. By that time, Cadiz was only fifty miles away so that the felons arrived there on the following day. They explained the loss of their vessel.....which was reported to have struck a submerged wreck.....the name of which could be seen clearly painted on their boats. From there, some of the crew returned to London. The Captain, his wife and daughter, the two Mates and Triggs went to Marseilles.....the latter continuing his journey to Australia. Captain Lucy declared he had seen papers produced by Triggs, proving the man had signed on at Boston to board the ‘Marie’ Celeste adding that he always covered up his name which he had obviously changed to hide his true identity. Captain Lucy claimed he had carried out his own enquiries to learn that Triggs had not worked for many years. The man lived at the Bay View Hotel in Melbourne and there was a hundred pounds deposited with the Bank of Australia in his name. The Daily Express was delighted to present this exclusive scoop, showing a photograph of Captain Lucy, an illustration of the ‘Marie’ Celeste under full sail, and the deserted cabin of the vessel. It emphasised its admiration for the Captain’s reticence under oath, especially in view of some of the preposterous stories which had been published. The Triggs story became a focal point of the mystery. It was believed by many people and, astonishingly enough, also attracted dismay in some quarters that such a famous mystery had come to an end. There were many discrepancies in the story, however, which caused it to be challenged by many readers. This became more apparent after it reached the United States three weeks later when it was printed by the New York Times. The same newspaper went back into the fray two weeks later, after reporters made contact with a first cousin of Captain Briggs, a man by the name of Dr. Oliver Cobb. The doctor was infuriated by the tale told by Triggs, declaring it reflected unjustly on the character of his cousin, the Captain of the Mary Celeste. He reiterated the theory that fumes from the alcohol were the cause of abandonment, reasserting the comments of Captain Winchester that: