Y Safle

There are a number of sites around which retell a piece of naval history. For instance this one on myspace:

It was necessary to keep a good supply of
cannonballs near the cannon on war ships. But how to
prevent them from rolling about the deck was the
problem. The best storage method devised was to stack
them as a square based pyramid, with one ball on top,
resting on four, resting on nine, which rested on
sixteen. Thus, a supply of 30 cannon balls could be
stacked in a small area right next to the cannon.

There was only one problem — how to prevent the
bottom layer from sliding/rolling from under the
others. The solution was a metal plate with 16 round
indentations, called a Monkey. But if this plate was
made of iron, the iron balls would quickly rust to it.

The solution to the rusting problem was to make Brass
Monkeys. Few landlubbers realize that brass contracts
much more and much faster than iron when chilled.
Consequently, when the temperature dropped too far,
the brass indentations would shrink so much that the
iron cannon balls would come right off the monkey.

Thus, it was quite literally, cold enough to freeze
the balls off a brass monkey. And all this time, you
thought that was a vulgar expression, didn’t you?

Similar stories can be found at Life with Larry and The Gray Monk. The latter even purports to have a picture of one of these.

The problem is, no such ships fittings ever existed.

The point I want to make is that we cannot always rely on the popular
explanations, just because someone we deem to be an authority has
proffered the information, and when we hold something to be true, it
is often necessary to undergo rather more research than to simply ask
a historian friend (or local pastor, or church website or whatever),
to verify that this thing is actually true.

You see, this explanation is wrong on
several points:

1. Stacks of cannon balls were held in garlands, not monkeys

2. These stacks were made from wood, attached to the edge of the ship. The balls were not piled in stacks, but each seated in the garland in such a way that they would not come loose when the ship was pitching and yawing at sea.

3. The thermal coefficient of expansion is such that, taking some
   reasonable values for the size of the brass plate and the size of the
   cannon balls, and allowing that they would not be stacked so
   precariously that they would fall at the slightest touch, let alone
   the movement of a ship’s deck, it has been calculated that the
   temperature would need to dip to minus several thousand degrees
   celsius to cause the stack to collapse (and we don’t really need to
   consider anything past absolute zero, obviously). A few degrees
   Celsius would not have a noticeable effect on the stack – it may not
   even be measurable.

4. There are no sources that verify the story. It seems to be a recent
   invention.

Another, slightly more plausible story is that the phrase referred to freezing a ball on a brass monkey. In this version, brass monkeys are lifting gear on ships used to raise cannon balls to the gun deck in the place of powder monkeys (small and agile boys who would fetch the gunpowder from the ship’s magazine in times of battle). The argument then is that the lifting gear (made from brass, so it did not rust) would get covered in saline sea water. In times of extreme cold, the water would freeze. A cannon ball would then be placed on the lifting gear, and because of its weight, the pressure would briefly melt the ice – but being so cold, the ice would re-melt by the time the ball was lifted to the gun deck. Thus the weather was cold enough to freeze the ball onto the brass monkey.

Sounds better, but it is also implausible, because:

1. I cannot find any clear evidence that such lifting equipment existed and was called a brass monkey.

2. Lifting gear for ships certainly did (and does exist), but why for cannonballs? Powder monkeys fetched gun powder from the magazine, hidden deep in the ships hull, behind a dampenned “fearnought screen”, because the worst thing that could happen in a sea battle would be to get so much as a spark in the magazine. Thus powder monkeys fetched powder on a just in time basis for safety. Cannon balls, on the other hand, were kept near the guns. Being large lumps of iron, there was no danger these would explode! Thus no lifting equipment required.

3. There are no sources that back up this explanation either.

The only source I have ever found was a secondary source that
suggested a monkey was a type of cannon. [The concise OED cites “Art,
Rendition Edinburgh Castle”, published 1650 which refers to “28 short
brass munkeys, alias dogs”. This would put the term in the civil war,
but the cannon, and not the ball or the stack is meant. I don’t have
any access to the original source material].

Thus all I am really certain of, regarding this phrase, is my ignorance.

But that is the point: We often believe things on trust. These blog writers have trusted some information they have been given about this term. I likewise have believed a similar explanation in the past.

But there comes a time, when a subject is important enough to us, that
we must move forwards – verify what we know, and treat critically that which
we believe.

And this is true in all walks of life. For instance, in our churches, we can go so far by
listening to the teachings of our church leaders, but how do we know
that the teaching is true? How do we know that a certain doctrine is
held by us to be correct, because it really is true, rather than
simply because we have been told it is true? (Yes, we can look at scripture – but my point is : how do we know that the interpretation we have accepted of that scripture is true)

Often we need to look past what we are told by people we trust, and
actually evaluate information as well as we are able from the primary
sources, or (if that is impossible) from secondary sources who do not
have a bias towards our own viewpoint.

Now this last matter is crucial, for if I read the works of a certain
respected preacher (Billy Graham perhaps), and I say, “yes, he is
quite correct on the need for evangelism” and such like, but then “he
is in error on the Holy Spirit”, then all I am saying is that I like
Billy Graham’s ideas when they agree with mine.

But if I read all he says on the Holy Spirit, and say “is his view
consistent?” then I am setting prejudgement aside, and exploring the
issue for myself.

We can do this with Brass Monkey’s, and we can do it with Christian
Doctrine. We can do it with current affairs and politics too.

When we do it well, I think we move closer to an appreciation of truth.

Be Sociable, Share!

•