"Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes."
William Prescott, the Battle of Bunker's Hill, June 17, 1775

It seems like a simple, straightforward order, but to understand the genesis of the command, one must hearken back to the colonization of America. The Colonists were British citizens who left England for a variety of reasons. What is important, however, is that the Colonists had their roots in England and, aside from the fact that the Colonists left family behind when they set out for the New World, they also left friends in England. On those occasions, when a British colonist returned to England, his friends would ply him with questions about friends and family in the Colonies. For example, a common question would be: "Do you know my Uncle George? He drives a cab in Brooklyn." For the purposes of this paper, however, it is only necessary to recognize that the British troops which were sent to suppress the American rebellion knew the families and friends of the Colonial troops. When they encountered one another on the street , warm greetings would be exchanged and the usual questions asked about family and friends on both sides of the Atlantic.

So it was in Boston when it became apparent that a battle was about to be fought . The British officers and soldiers and the American troops met in the local bars and caroused until the early hours of the morning, discussing mutual friends and discovering new distantly related family members. During the course of the night, the next day's battle was freely discussed and the Americans did not shy from revealing to their British cousins the fact that it was the American intention to fortify Breed's Hill because that position was thought by the Americans to be impregnable. The following morning, there was an abundance of hangovers, to be sure, and splitting headaches, sometimes attended by nausea. Bloodshot eyes and a staggering gait were the hallmarks of the party-goers. The outcome of this situation is known well.

The night's activities were not without their effect on the American officers who would command the battle. As the day of the battle dawned, the American officers discovered, to their chagrin, that, in their drink-impaired state, they had fortified the wrong hill! They were supposed to have fortified Breed's Hill, but they had, instead, fortified Bunker's Hill. You will recall that, in their inebriated condition, the British commanders had learned, without much effort, that Breed's Hill would be fortified. They knew, of course, that their American counterparts would not deceive them, but the British commanders were suffering with the same post-party hangovers and impairment of judgment as were the Americans. The British commander seemed to recall vaguely that the Americans had said that they were going to fortify Breed's Hill and he, accordingly, ordered an attack on the "unfortified" hill. In his stupor, he pointed out to his subordinates what he thought was Breed's Hill but which was, as we know, Bunker's Hill. The stage was now set for the inevitable fiasco.

As the British troops attacked up Bunker's Hill, it occurred to William Prescott, commanding the American forces, that his men would be reluctant to fire upon friends and friends of the families, but there would be no hesitance in shooting those British troops who were not. The question was how to distinguish one from the other. In a stroke of genius, Prescott realized that those who had not caroused, who would not be staggering, suffering with hangovers, or sporting bloodshot eyes were not friends or family. He thereupon ordered his troops to fire only on those British troops who had no bloodshot eyes. Thus the order was given to fire only when they saw white eyes.

* * * * * *

"Et tu, Brute? Then fall Caesar!"
Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, III.i

The above quotation is known to every high school student; the setting is familiar and the action is clear. But is it? This line has baffled historians for generations and no one has come up with an explanation which satisfies any significant number of historians or professors of English literature.

To begin with, it appears that no one in Rome spoke Latin, except Caesar. The others apparently spoke only English. The accuracy of this observation can be tested simply by picking up a volume of Shakespeare's plays and noticing that the characters speak only English. Why, then, was this utterance in Latin? One theory holds that when Caesar saw Brutus' dagger poised and he was about to strike Caesar, Caesar knew that he had only seconds to live and the Latin (Et tu, Brute?) is shorter than its English translation: "And you too, Brutus?" Some scholars reject this interpretation completely and insist that the question should properly be translated as "Have you eaten yet, Brutus?" Such a construction would comport more fully with Caesar's use of the familiar "tu" instead of the more formal "vous." While experts have debated that question, others have raised the question of why Caesar referred to his assailant as "Brute" (the Latin pronunciation of which is "Broo-TAY") instead of "Brutus." Could it be that Caesar either didn't recognize Brutus or was calling him a beast (brute)? There is something to be said for the last position because Caesar would have had every reason to be upset at Brutus as he watched Brutus' dagger swiftly descend toward his heart. What is the explanation for Caesar's use of the conjunction "and" to begin his question when even elementary school children are taught not to begin a sentence or question that way? Was Caesar talking to someone else when Brutus interrupted him (the "and" representing an effort to continue the conversation) or was he, perhaps, speaking to Brutus at the time?

Scholars have also noticed that, for some unexplained reason, Caesar switched from Latin to English. Why? Perhaps he knew or thought that Brutus understood no Latin. Moreover, no explanation is offered as to why Caesar used the term "then" unless he was expecting the assault at a time different than it was, in fact, delivered, i.e., "then" rather than "now." Yet another situation which has puzzled students and professors alike is the question of why he used the plural form of the infinitive "to fall"? Shouldn't he have said "falls" instead of "fall'? Maybe his English was not as good as he thought it was and he should have stuck to Latin. Finally, why did he call himself by his last name instead of using the normal form "I" or even "me", although he would have known that the latter would have been incorrect? A possible answer to that question is that he wanted to be sure that everyone knew who he was; politicians love name recognition!

All in all, this line has long bedeviled the experts, many of whom have stridently deplored the use of such a complex and enigmatic line. They have simply been unable to discover any rational explanations which do not raise more questions than they answer.

 * * * * *

If the proposition were advanced that E was greater than, or less than, mc2, it would garner significant support, even by those who harbor some doubts, but "equal?" Never! The late Professor Umgumlun Onsiddu of Tierra del Fuego School of Architecture even suggested that E equaled the square, but not the mc. It is difficult to refute such compelling logic.
In any event, the scholars must admit that serious questions have been raised requiring a reasoned response. In evolving the new formula, they need not disregard the value of the power of A to the 14th; it is merely suggested that they calculate the calibrated recalculations computed by using a pentagon instead of the square. Using the latest technology, researchers at Umlaut College in Bremen, believe that they have come up with a formula which more nearly approximates that of Dr. Einstein, but extreme caution must be exercised to see that, in evolving a new formula, none of the toxic substances which are used is permitted to boil over. With that admonition in mind, the following formula has been found to be an acceptable, if somewhat lengthier, replication of that published by the good Dr. Einstein:

AC (m3c +E) = FBI(NU) +ca±3,885,214m
G4M

 * * * * *

"England expects every man will do his duty"
Admiral Horatio Nelson at the beginning of the Battle of Trafalgar, 1805

The message touches the hearts of Englishmen everywhere and evokes romantic visions of two mighty fleets about to collide in a contest which will determine mastery of the seas for the next century. Aboard the flagship Victory, all was in readiness for the battle and the bridge was a model of British organization. Nelson realized the importance of the coming engagement and felt an urgent need for an inspirational message to the fleet. Accordingly, he summoned the Chief Signalman and instructed him as follows:

"Say to the fleet, England confides that every man will do his duty."

The Chief Signalman then handed the order to the First Signalman's Mate for proof-reading which, being done, was submitted to the Flag Lieutenant for editing. Captain Pasco, the Flag Lieutenant, perused the signal and cautiously suggested to the Admiral that "confides" be changed to "expects."

Nelson, eager to have the signal transmitted before the battle began, nodded his head in assent. The message was then distributed to the various ships' captains on a "For Comment" basis. As the fleets grew closer together, the comments were received, decoded, and referred to the Flag Lieutenant for consideration. Only one adverse comment was received and that was from Captain Blackwood, commanding Euryalus. The communication suggested

that "Nelson expects" be substituted for "England expects." Captain Pasco, being sensitive to the possibility of offending Blackwood, whose naval skill and fighting ability Pasco knew would be crucial in the coming battle, forwarded the suggested change to the Admiral with his supporting endorsement.

The Admiral impatiently read the papers and said: "Yes, yes. For God's sake, man, get this message out. We are almost within firing range". Pasco, in his hurry, by-passed his signal crew and handed the message to the closest Ordinary Seaman who had, at best, only a passing acquaintance with signal flags. Sensing the captain's urgency, the seaman prepared the signal for transmission to the fleet as best he could within the limits of his knowledge. It was only when the flags were about to be hoisted that Pasco noticed, to his horror, that the signal read:

"The Queen expects Nelson to do his duty."

Panicked, he sent an urgent summons to the Chief Signalman to come to the flag deck immediately, correct the signal flags, and run the proper signals up to the masthead. On the Signal Bridge, all was in chaos and the British aplomb and reserve were nowhere in evidence. The Ordinary Seaman, perhaps visualizing himself hanging from a yardarm because of his failure to comply with the Admiral's imperative order, gathered together an armful of signal flags and prepared to run them up to the masthead. Pasco took one look, read the message and screamed at the sailor "Idiot!". The message read:

"The Queen expects. Nelson did his duty."

It was at this point that the thunder of the enemy's first salvo was heard. Looking up to the masthead, Nelson saw no signals flying and , in order to avoid battle until his message had been sent, he immediately ordered his line of battle to reverse course to increase range. As the flagship veered sharply on its keel, Pasco and the crew on the signal bridge were thrown to the deck and the signal flags became hopelessly ensnarled. Pasco, now a desperate man and indifferent as to what the message would say, grabbed the line and, gathering signal flags at random from those scattered about the deck, ran a signal to the masthead, determined that a signal---any signal---would be transmitted. At last, Nelson saw a signal flying from the masthead. It read: "England expects every man will do his duty."

 * * * * *

It was in elementary school that I learned the basic patriotic songs, the pledge of allegiance, and a few prayers. It wasn't known at the time to my teachers, but, in retrospect, this was one of the most creative periods of my life. This creativity was occasioned by (1) the need to replace misunderstood words with familiar ones; (2) the need to replace unintelligible words by something; and (3) the need to use words that sounded like words which were not fully understandable. For example:

"My Con Tree Tizathee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing2 Land where my father died, etc."

The work which seems to have taken the worst beating was the Lord's Prayer, which ran something on this order:

"Our father who art in heh-ev-ven,
Hollow-ed be thy name.
Thy kingdom calm, thy wheel be done
In3 earth as it is in heh-ev-ven.
Give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us our dress passes
As we forgive those who dress past against us
And lead us not into tentation
But deliver us from eagles
For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever4,
A-A-Amen."

"America the Beautiful" fared only slightly better:

"Oh, beautiful for specious skies
Forever ways to gain. For pruple5 mountains' majesty
Above the fruity plain.
America! America! God shed His grace on me
And crown me good with motherhood
From sea to shiny sea.

"The Battle Hymn of the Republic" did very well with the exception of one word for which I can offer no explanation:

"Mine eine have seen the glory, etc."

Even Longfellow took some lumps, but it seems as if poems did better than songs:

"Under the spreading chessnut tree
The village Smith, he stands.
The Smith, a mighty man is he
With large and and sin you we hands;
And the muscles of his bony arms
Are strong as I run bands."

Stephen Foster represented a real challenge, for even when the words were correct, they often made no sense to an elementary school student:

"Camptown ladies sing dis song.
Do dah! Do dah!
Camptown racetrack
Five miles long.
O Do dah day.
Water run all night,
Water run all day,
Bet my money on a bobtail nag;
Somebody wet in the bay."

 * * * * *

This message was sent to General William Henry Harrison to inform him that Perry's naval force had encountered a British force under Commandant Barclay. Perry's message was, however, not a model of clarity and really gave Harrison no information that could have been of use to him. Let us, then, examine Perry's message.

The first word of the message was "we", but there is no indication whatsoever as to who was meant by "we." Was Perry using the royal "we"? If so, he alone "met" the enemy. This does not seem likely and the idea finds no support in the remainder of this inquiry. Did Perry, then, mean the officers and seamen aboard "Niagara" to the exclusion of the rest of the fleet? Could he have meant the entire American fleet as one would suppose? This aspect of the encounter will forever remain an enigma.

"Met" is, indeed, a word susceptible of many different interpretations, particularly as used in this context.The word implies that there was a meeting between the commanders and their staffs at which time they were introduced to one another. As used in this sense, the impression is conveyed that there was a friendly personal encounter. The use of "met" in the past tense presents the idea that there was a social gathering of sorts prior to the military engagement. When it is considered that Perry's dispatch to Harrison was sent at 4:00 PM without any notation as to whether it was standard time or daylight savings time, or central time or eastern time, it appears that the encounter took place shortly before dinner. If so, could this "meeting" have been a dinner party? But "met" is not used in the past tense; "have met" is the term which was, in fact, used and that is the past perfect tense, indicating that the action took place in the recent past. Read in this context, the implication is clear that some sort of ritual of meeting had taken place. The fact is that naval historians are totally ignorant of the existence of any such tradition.

A question arises as to why Perry apparently felt the need to inform Harrison that it was the enemy that he had met and not, for example, just some fishermen in pursuit of their calling. Even more striking is Perry's apparent need to inform the commanding general that it was "our" enemy whom he had met and nobody else's. It is difficult to comprehend the thinking which impels a commander in wartime to assure himself and his superiors that a force was a particular enemy's force when there was no reason at all to believe that there was more than one enemy, and that that one belonged to "us." Apparently, no one disputed whose enemy it was, or even cared; one enemy is usually enough for anybody and nobody other than Perry laid claim to that enemy. Is there any wonder that Harrison suspected that perhaps Perry had been drinking a little too much?

There are very few lessons to be learned from this episode except for the urgency of making messages clear and concise and, for Heaven's sake, don't send messages to your boss which he didn't ask for, doesn't want, and doesn't understand.

Politicians, moralists and the wealthy, among others, have, for centuries, been the targets of criticism, sarcasm, and ridicule, but this appears to have troubled them not at all. It may be instructive to review some of the enduring observations of their critics.

"So far, about morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after." Ernest Hemingway, Death in the Afternoon, Chapter 1.

"This is the first time I have ever heard of a party going into battle under the slogan, 'Throw the rascals in.'" Adlai Stevenson. Speech, Phoenix, Arizona, 1952.

"Politicians are marvels of energy and principle when they're out of office, but when they get in, they simply run behind the machine." John Galsworthy, Maid in Waiting, Chapter 3, 1931.

"O money, money, money, I'm not necessarily one of those who think thee holy, but I often stop to wonder how thou canst go out so fast when thou comest in so slowly." Ogden Nash, Hymn to the Thing That Makes the Wolf Go, 1934

"Bankers Are Just Like Anybody Else, Except Richer." Ogden Nash, I'm a Stranger Here Myself. I Have It on Good Authority.

"Rich or poor, it's good to have money." Anonymous.

"A rich man is nothing but a poor man with money." Anonymous.

Notes:
1. When one is immersed in academia, as is the case here, such words are used, correctly or incorrectly, to impress one's colleagues.
2. I sang "I", notwithstanding the fact that the rest of the class was singing "we."
3. "On" was optional and was used from time to time just for variety.
4. By this time, the class would be screaming the words.
5. I once saw "purple" misspelled "pruple" in the text of this song and it has been "pruple" ever since.

return to top