Great info!

This testimony of Russell, coupled with his details, is thought provoking.

I too believe Russell when he says he didn't hear the word "chanty". But I am not sure what exactly that means for us.

Should we take it as some evidence that the word really was not common at sea ca. 1857-1865? Sure, that's possible. But though I am on board with the idea that the word didnt become common until relatively late (vagueness intended), it seems unlikely to me that it would go *this* late. If the first print mentions of chanty/shanty are 1867/1868, one could equally argue that terms are around awhile (e.g. at sea) before they get into print.

Or should we take it that 'chanty' was simply not in Russell's *personal* experience. Was he only in Navy ships? If so, that might explain why, if it was common, he did not come across it. Perhaps he heard sailors singing chanties but was not involved in them much.

It could also be that he sailed in British vessels and at that time 'chanty' was not there. This would inadvertently (?) help to prove his point about chanties originating in America. I think it was Steve Gardham who was investigating a while back the date at which shanties became prevalent in British ships.

It would be interesting to know how it is that now (i.e. 1880s -- he has earlier works with similar material) he knows the word 'chanty.' What has he been reading or hearing? (FWIW, the prominent 1868 and 1869 articles use the "shanty" spelling.) Has he since been observing sailors' speech? Or is his knowledge based in his reading?

I am not convinced (yet) that Russell knew much about chanteying from first hand experience, despite his nautical credentials in some areas. I prefer to read this for what it says (doesn't say?) *about* knowledge of chanteying.