It is amusing, if anything connected with this stupid catastrophe19 can be amusing, to see the secretly crestfallen20 attitude of technicians. They are the high priests of the modern cult21 of perfected material and of mechanical appliances, and would fain forbid the profane22 from inquiring into its mysteries. We are the masters of progress, they say, and you should remain respectfully silent. And they take refuge behind their mathematics. I have the greatest regard for mathematics as an exercise of mind. It is the only manner of thinking which approaches the Divine. But mere23 calculations, of which these men make so much, when unassisted by imagination and when they have gained mastery over common sense, are the most deceptive24 exercises of intellect. Two and two are four, and two are six. That is immutable25; you may trust your soul to that; but you must be certain first of your quantities. I know how the strength of materials can be calculated away, and also the evidence of one’s senses. For it is by some sort of calculation involving weights and levels that the technicians responsible for the Titanic persuaded themselves that a ship not divided by water-tight compartments27 could be “unsinkable.” Because, you know, she was not divided. You and I, and our little boys, when we want to divide, say, a box, take care to procure28 a piece of wood which will reach from the bottom to the lid. We know that if it does not reach all the way up, the box will not be divided into two compartments. It will be only partly divided. The Titanic was only partly divided. She was just sufficiently29 divided to drown some poor devils like rats in a trap. It is probable that they would have perished in any case, but it is a particularly horrible fate to die boxed up like this. Yes, she was sufficiently divided for that, but not sufficiently divided to prevent the water flowing over.
Therefore to a plain man who knows something of mathematics but is not bemused by calculations, she was, from the point of view of “unsinkability,” not divided at all. What would you say of people who would boast of a fireproof building, an hotel, for instance, saying, “Oh, we have it divided by fireproof bulkheads which would localise any outbreak,” and if you were to discover on closer inspection30 that these bulkheads closed no more than two-thirds of the openings they were meant to close, leaving above an open space through which draught31, smoke, and fire could rush from one end of the building to the other? And, furthermore, that those partitions, being too high to climb over, the people confined in each menaced compartment26 had to stay there and become asphyxiated32 or roasted, because no exits to the outside, say to the roof, had been provided! What would you think of the intelligence or candour of these advertising33 people? What would you think of them? And yet, apart from the obvious difference in the action of fire and water, the cases are essentially34 the same.
It would strike you and me and our little boys (who are not engineers yet) that to approach — I won’t say attain35 — somewhere near absolute safety, the divisions to keep out water should extend from the bottom right up to the uppermost deck of the hull36. I repeat, the hull, because there are above the hull the decks of the superstructures of which we need not take account. And further, as a provision of the commonest humanity, that each of these compartments should have a perfectly37 independent and free access to that uppermost deck: that is, into the open. Nothing less will do. Division by bulkheads that really divide, and free access to the deck from every water-tight compartment. Then the responsible man in the moment of danger and in the exercise of his judgment38 could close all the doors of these water-tight bulkheads by whatever clever contrivance has been invented for the purpose, without a qualm at the awful thought that he may be shutting up some of his fellow creatures in a death-trap; that he may be sacrificing the lives of men who, down there, are sticking to the posts of duty as the engine-room staffs of the Merchant Service have never failed to do. I know very well that the engineers of a ship in a moment of emergency are not quaking for their lives, but, as far as I have known them, attend calmly to their duty. We all must die; but, hang it all, a man ought to be given a chance, if not for his life, then at least to die decently. It’s bad enough to have to stick down there when something disastrous39 is going on and any moment may be your last; but to be drowned shut up under deck is too bad. Some men of the Titanic died like that, it is to be feared. Compartmented, so to speak. Just think what it means! Nothing can approach the horror of that fate except being buried alive in a cave, or in a mine, or in your family vault40.
So, once more: continuous bulkheads — a clear way of escape to the deck out of each water-tight compartment. Nothing less. And if specialists, the precious specialists of the sort that builds “unsinkable ships,” tell you that it cannot be done, don’t you believe them. It can be done, and they are quite clever enough to do it too. The objections they will raise, however disguised in the solemn mystery of technical phrases, will not be technical, but commercial. I assure you that there is not much mystery about a ship of that sort. She is a tank. She is a tank ribbed, joisted, stayed, but she is no greater mystery than a tank. The Titanic was a tank eight hundred feet long, fitted as an hotel, with corridors, bed-rooms, halls, and so on (not a very mysterious arrangement truly), and for the hazards of her existence I should think about as strong as a Huntley and Palmer biscuit-tin. I make this comparison because Huntley and Palmer biscuit-tins, being almost a national institution, are probably known to all my readers. Well, about that strong, and perhaps not quite so strong. Just look at the side of such a tin, and then think of a 50,000 ton ship, and try to imagine what the thickness of her plates should be to approach anywhere the relative solidity of that biscuit-tin. In my varied41 and adventurous42 career I have been thrilled by the sight of a Huntley and Palmer biscuit-tin kicked by a mule44 sky-high, as the saying is. It came back to earth smiling, with only a sort of dimple on one of its cheeks. A proportionately severe blow would have burst the side of the Titanic or any other “triumph of modern naval architecture” like brown paper — I am willing to bet.
I am not saying this by way of disparagement45. There is reason in things. You can’t make a 50,000 ton ship as strong as a Huntley and Palmer biscuit-tin. But there is also reason in the way one accepts facts, and I refuse to be awed46 by the size of a tank bigger than any other tank that ever went afloat to its doom47. The people responsible for her, though disconcerted in their hearts by the exposure of that disaster, are giving themselves airs of superiority — priests of an Oracle48 which has failed, but still must remain the Oracle. The assumption is that they are ministers of progress. But the mere increase of size is not progress. If it were, elephantiasis, which causes a man’s legs to become as large as tree-trunks, would be a sort of progress, whereas it is nothing but a very ugly disease. Yet directly this very disconcerting catastrophe happened, the servants of the silly Oracle began to cry: “It’s no use! You can’t resist progress. The big ship has come to stay.” Well, let her stay on, then, in God’s name! But she isn’t a servant of progress in any sense. She is the servant of commercialism. For progress, if dealing49 with the problems of a material world, has some sort of moral aspect — if only, say, that of conquest, which has its distinct value since man is a conquering animal. But bigness is mere exaggeration. The men responsible for these big ships have been moved by considerations of profit to be made by the questionable50 means of pandering51 to an absurd and vulgar demand for banal52 luxury — the seaside hotel luxury. One even asks oneself whether there was such a demand? It is inconceivable to think that there are people who can’t spend five days of their life without a suite53 of apartments, cafes, bands, and such-like refined delights. I suspect that the public is not so very guilty in this matter. These things were pushed on to it in the usual course of trade competition. If to-morrow you were to take all these luxuries away, the public would still travel. I don’t despair of mankind. I believe that if, by some catastrophic miracle all ships of every kind were to disappear off the face of the waters, together with the means of replacing them, there would be found, before the end of the week, men (millionaires, perhaps) cheerfully putting out to sea in bath-tubs for a fresh start. We are all like that. This sort of spirit lives in mankind still uncorrupted by the so-called refinements55, the ingenuity56 of tradesmen, who look always for something new to sell, offers to the public.
Let her stay — I mean the big ship — since she has come to stay. I only object to the attitude of the people, who, having called her into being and having romanced (to speak politely) about her, assume a detached sort of superiority, goodness only knows why, and raise difficulties in the way of every suggestion — difficulties about boats, about bulkheads, about discipline, about davits, all sorts of difficulties. To most of them the only answer would be: “Where there’s a will there’s a way”— the most wise of proverbs. But some of these objections are really too stupid for anything. I shall try to give an instance of what I mean.
This Inquiry is admirably conducted. I am not alluding57 to the lawyers representing “various interests,” who are trying to earn their fees by casting all sorts of mean aspersions on the characters of all sorts of people not a bit worse than themselves. It is honest to give value for your wages; and the “bravos” of ancient Venice who kept their stilettos in good order and never failed to deliver the stab bargained for with their employers, considered themselves an honest body of professional men, no doubt. But they don’t compel my admiration58, whereas the conduct of this Inquiry does. And as it is pretty certain to be attacked, I take this opportunity to deposit here my nickel of appreciation59. Well, lately, there came before it witnesses responsible for the designing of the ship. One of them was asked whether it would not be advisable to make each coal-bunker of the ship a water-tight compartment by means of a suitable door.
The answer to such a question should have been, “Certainly,” for it is obvious to the simplest intelligence that the more water-tight spaces you provide in a ship (consistently with having her workable) the nearer you approach safety. But instead of admitting the expediency60 of the suggestion, this witness at once raised an objection as to the possibility of closing tightly the door of a bunker on account of the slope of coal. This with the true expert’s attitude of “My dear man, you don’t know what you are talking about.”
Now would you believe that the objection put forward was absolutely futile61? I don’t know whether the distinguished62 President of the Court perceived this. Very likely he did, though I don’t suppose he was ever on terms of familiarity with a ship’s bunker. But I have. I have been inside; and you may take it that what I say of them is correct. I don’t wish to be wearisome to the benevolent63 reader, but I want to put his finger, so to speak, on the inanity64 of the objection raised by the expert. A bunker is an enclosed space for holding coals, generally located against the ship’s side, and having an opening, a doorway65 in fact, into the stokehold. Men called trimmers go in there, and by means of implements66 called slices make the coal run through that opening on to the floor of the stokehold, where it is within reach of the stokers’ (firemen’s) shovels67. This being so, you will easily understand that there is constantly a more or less thick layer of coal generally shaped in a slope lying in that doorway. And the objection of the expert was: that because of this obstruction68 it would be impossible to close the water-tight door, and therefore that the thing could not be done. And that objection was inane69. A water-tight door in a bulkhead may be defined as a metal plate which is made to close a given opening by some mechanical means. And if there were a law of Medes and Persians that a water-tight door should always slide downwards70 and never otherwise, the objection would be to a great extent valid71. But what is there to prevent those doors to be fitted so as to move upwards72, or horizontally, or slantwise? In which case they would go through the obstructing73 layer of coal as easily as a knife goes through butter. Anyone may convince himself of it by experimenting with a light piece of board and a heap of stones anywhere along our roads. Probably the joint74 of such a door would weep a little — and there is no necessity for its being hermetically tight — but the object of converting bunkers into spaces of safety would be attained75. You may take my word for it that this could be done without any great effort of ingenuity. And that is why I have qualified76 the expert’s objection as inane.
Of course, these doors must not be operated from the bridge because of the risk of trapping the coal-trimmers inside the bunker; but on the signal of all other water-tight doors in the ship being closed (as would be done in case of a collision) they too could be closed on the order of the engineer of the watch, who would see to the safety of the trimmers. If the rent in the ship’s side were within the bunker itself, that would become manifest enough without any signal, and the rush of water into the stokehold could be cut off directly the doorplate came into its place. Say a minute at the very outside. Naturally, if the blow of a right-angled collision, for instance, were heavy enough to smash through the inner bulkhead of the bunker, why, there would be then nothing to do but for the stokers and trimmers and everybody in there to clear out of the stoke-room. But that does not mean that the precaution of having water-tight doors to the bunkers is useless, superfluous77, or impossible. 7
7 Since writing the above, I am told that such doors are fitted in the bunkers of more than one ship in the Atlantic trade.
And talking of stokeholds, firemen, and trimmers, men whose heavy labour has not a single redeeming78 feature; which is unhealthy, uninspiring, arduous79, without the reward of personal pride in it; sheer, hard, brutalising toil80, belonging neither to earth nor sea, I greet with joy the advent43 for marine81 purposes of the internal combustion82 engine. The disappearance83 of the marine boiler84 will be a real progress, which anybody in sympathy with his kind must welcome. Instead of the unthrifty, unruly, nondescript crowd the boilers85 require, a crowd of men in the ship but not of her, we shall have comparatively small crews of disciplined, intelligent workers, able to steer86 the ship, handle anchors, man boats, and at the same time competent to take their place at a bench as fitters and repairers; the resourceful and skilled seamen87 — mechanics of the future, the legitimate88 successors of these seamen — sailors of the past, who had their own kind of skill, hardihood, and tradition, and whose last days it has been my lot to share.
One lives and learns and hears very surprising things — things that one hardly knows how to take, whether seriously or jocularly, how to meet — with indignation or with contempt? Things said by solemn experts, by exalted89 directors, by glorified90 ticket-sellers, by officials of all sorts. I suppose that one of the uses of such an inquiry is to give such people enough rope to hang themselves with. And I hope that some of them won’t neglect to do so. One of them declared two days ago that there was “nothing to learn from the catastrophe of the Titanic.” That he had been “giving his best consideration” to certain rules for ten years, and had come to the conclusion that nothing ever happened at sea, and that rules and regulations, boats and sailors, were unnecessary; that what was really wrong with the Titanic was that she carried too many boats.
No; I am not joking. If you don’t believe me, pray look back through the reports and you will find it all there. I don’t recollect91 the official’s name, but it ought to have been Pooh-Bah. Well, Pooh-Bah said all these things, and when asked whether he really meant it, intimated his readiness to give the subject more of “his best consideration”— for another ten years or so apparently92 — but he believed, oh yes! he was certain, that had there been fewer boats there would have been more people saved. Really, when reading the report of this admirably conducted inquiry one isn’t certain at times whether it is an Admirable Inquiry or a felicitous93 Opera-bouffe of the Gilbertian type — with a rather grim subject, to be sure.
Yes, rather grim — but the comic treatment never fails. My readers will remember that in the number of The English Review for May, 1912, I quoted the old case of the Arizona, and went on from that to prophesy94 the coming of a new seamanship (in a spirit of irony95 far removed from fun) at the call of the sublime96 builders of unsinkable ships. I thought that, as a small boy of my acquaintance says, I was “doing a sarcasm97,” and regarded it as a rather wild sort of sarcasm at that. Well, I am blessed (excuse the vulgarism) if a witness has not turned up who seems to have been inspired by the same thought, and evidently longs in his heart for the advent of the new seamanship. He is an expert, of course, and I rather believe he’s the same gentleman who did not see his way to fit water-tight doors to bunkers. With ludicrous earnestness he assured the Commission of his intense belief that had only the Titanic struck end-on she would have come into port all right. And in the whole tone of his insistent98 statement there was suggested the regret that the officer in charge (who is dead now, and mercifully outside the comic scope of this inquiry) was so ill-advised as to try to pass clear of the ice. Thus my sarcastic99 prophecy, that such a suggestion was sure to turn up, receives an unexpected fulfilment. You will see yet that in deference100 to the demands of “progress” the theory of the new seamanship will become established: “Whatever you see in front of you — ram101 it fair . . . ” The new seamanship! Looks simple, doesn’t it? But it will be a very exact art indeed. The proper handling of an unsinkable ship, you see, will demand that she should be made to hit the iceberg102 very accurately103 with her nose, because should you perchance scrape the bluff104 of the bow instead, she may, without ceasing to be as unsinkable as before, find her way to the bottom. I congratulate the future Transatlantic passengers on the new and vigorous sensations in store for them. They shall go bounding across from iceberg to iceberg at twenty-five knots with precision and safety, and a “cheerful bumpy105 sound”— as the immortal106 poem has it. It will be a teeth-loosening, exhilarating experience. The decorations will be Louis-Quinze, of course, and the cafe shall remain open all night. But what about the priceless Sevres porcelain107 and the Venetian glass provided for the service of Transatlantic passengers? Well, I am afraid all that will have to be replaced by silver goblets108 and plates. Nasty, common, cheap silver. But those who will go to sea must be prepared to put up with a certain amount of hardship.
And there shall be no boats. Why should there be no boats? Because Pooh-Bah has said that the fewer the boats, the more people can be saved; and therefore with no boats at all, no one need be lost. But even if there was a flaw in this argument, pray look at the other advantages the absence of boats gives you. There can’t be the annoyance109 of having to go into them in the middle of the night, and the unpleasantness, after saving your life by the skin of your teeth, of being hauled over the coals by irreproachable110 members of the Bar with hints that you are no better than a cowardly scoundrel and your wife a heartless monster. Less Boats. No boats! Great should be the gratitude111 of passage-selling Combines to Pooh-Bah; and they ought to cherish his memory when he dies. But no fear of that. His kind never dies. All you have to do, O Combine, is to knock at the door of the Marine Department, look in, and beckon112 to the first man you see. That will be he, very much at your service — prepared to affirm after “ten years of my best consideration” and a bundle of statistics in hand, that: “There’s no lesson to be learned, and that there is nothing to be done!”
On an earlier day there was another witness before the Court of Inquiry. A mighty113 official of the White Star Line. The impression of his testimony114 which the Report gave is of an almost scornful impatience115 with all this fuss and pother. Boats! Of course we have crowded our decks with them in answer to this ignorant clamour. Mere lumber116! How can we handle so many boats with our davits? Your people don’t know the conditions of the problem. We have given these matters our best consideration, and we have done what we thought reasonable. We have done more than our duty. We are wise, and good, and impeccable. And whoever says otherwise is either ignorant or wicked.
This is the gist117 of these scornful answers which disclose the psychology118 of commercial undertakings119. It is the same psychology which fifty or so years ago, before Samuel Plimsoll uplifted his voice, sent overloaded120 ships to sea. “Why shouldn’t we cram121 in as much cargo122 as our ships will hold? Look how few, how very few of them get lost, after all.”
Men don’t change. Not very much. And the only answer to be given to this manager who came out, impatient and indignant, from behind the plate-glass windows of his shop to be discovered by this inquiry, and to tell us that he, they, the whole three million (or thirty million, for all I know) capital Organisation123 for selling passages has considered the problem of boats — the only answer to give him is: that this is not a problem of boats at all. It is the problem of decent behaviour. If you can’t carry or handle so many boats, then don’t cram quite so many people on board. It is as simple as that — this problem of right feeling and right conduct, the real nature of which seems beyond the comprehension of ticket-providers. Don’t sell so many tickets, my virtuous124 dignitary. After all, men and women (unless considered from a purely125 commercial point of view) are not exactly the cattle of the Western-ocean trade, that used some twenty years ago to be thrown overboard on an emergency and left to swim round and round before they sank. If you can’t get more boats, then sell less tickets. Don’t drown so many people on the finest, calmest night that was ever known in the North Atlantic — even if you have provided them with a little music to get drowned by. Sell less tickets! That’s the solution of the problem, your Mercantile Highness.
But there would be a cry, “Oh! This requires consideration!” (Ten years of it — eh?) Well, no! This does not require consideration. This is the very first thing to do. At once. Limit the number of people by the boats you can handle. That’s honesty. And then you may go on fumbling126 for years about these precious davits which are such a stumbling-block to your humanity. These fascinating patent davits. These davits that refuse to do three times as much work as they were meant to do. Oh! The wickedness of these davits!
One of the great discoveries of this admirable Inquiry is the fascination127 of the davits. All these people positively128 can’t get away from them. They shuffle129 about and groan130 around their davits. Whereas the obvious thing to do is to eliminate the man-handled davits altogether. Don’t you think that with all the mechanical contrivances, with all the generated power on board these ships, it is about time to get rid of the hundred-years-old, man-power appliances? Cranes are what is wanted; low, compact cranes with adjustable131 heads, one to each set of six or nine boats. And if people tell you of insuperable difficulties, if they tell you of the swing and spin of spanned boats, don’t you believe them. The heads of the cranes need not be any higher than the heads of the davits. The lift required would be only a couple of inches. As to the spin, there is a way to prevent that if you have in each boat two men who know what they are about. I have taken up on board a heavy ship’s boat, in the open sea (the ship rolling heavily), with a common cargo derrick. And a cargo derrick is very much like a crane; but a crane devised ad hoc would be infinitely132 easier to work. We must remember that the loss of this ship has altered the moral atmosphere. As long as the Titanic is remembered, an ugly rush for the boats may be feared in case of some accident. You can’t hope to drill into perfect discipline a casual mob of six hundred firemen and waiters, but in a ship like the Titanic you can keep on a permanent trustworthy crew of one hundred intelligent seamen and mechanics who would know their stations for abandoning ship and would do the work efficiently133. The boats could be lowered with sufficient dispatch. One does not want to let rip one’s boats by the run all at the same time. With six boat-cranes, six boats would be simultaneously134 swung, filled, and got away from the side; and if any sort of order is kept, the ship could be cleared of the passengers in a quite short time. For there must be boats enough for the passengers and crew, whether you increase the number of boats or limit the number of passengers, irrespective of the size of the ship. That is the only honest course. Any other would be rather worse than putting sand in the sugar, for which a tradesman gets fined or imprisoned135. Do not let us take a romantic view of the so-called progress. A company selling passages is a tradesman; though from the way these people talk and behave you would think they are benefactors136 of mankind in some mysterious way, engaged in some lofty and amazing enterprise.
All these boats should have a motor-engine in them. And, of course, the glorified tradesman, the mummified official, the technicians, and all these secretly disconcerted hangers-on to the enormous ticket-selling enterprise, will raise objections to it with every air of superiority. But don’t believe them. Doesn’t it strike you as absurd that in this age of mechanical propulsion, of generated power, the boats of such ultra-modern ships are fitted with oars137 and sails, implements more than three thousand years old? Old as the siege of Troy. Older! . . . And I know what I am talking about. Only six weeks ago I was on the river in an ancient, rough, ship’s boat, fitted with a two-cylinder motor-engine of 7.5 h.p. Just a common ship’s boat, which the man who owns her uses for taking the workmen and stevedores138 to and from the ships loading at the buoys139 off Greenhithe. She would have carried some thirty people. No doubt has carried as many daily for many months. And she can tow a twenty-five ton water barge141 — which is also part of that man’s business.
It was a boisterous142 day, half a gale143 of wind against the flood tide. Two fellows managed her. A youngster of seventeen was cox (and a first-rate cox he was too); a fellow in a torn blue jersey144, not much older, of the usual riverside type, looked after the engine. I spent an hour and a half in her, running up and down and across that reach. She handled perfectly. With eight or twelve oars out she could not have done anything like as well. These two youngsters at my request kept her stationary145 for ten minutes, with a touch of engine and helm now and then, within three feet of a big, ugly mooring146 buoy140 over which the water broke and the spray flew in sheets, and which would have holed her if she had bumped against it. But she kept her position, it seemed to me, to an inch, without apparently any trouble to these boys. You could not have done it with oars. And her engine did not take up the space of three men, even on the assumption that you would pack people as tight as sardines147 in a box.
Not the room of three people, I tell you! But no one would want to pack a boat like a sardine-box. There must be room enough to handle the oars. But in that old ship’s boat, even if she had been desperately148 overcrowded, there was power (manageable by two riverside youngsters) to get away quickly from a ship’s side (very important for your safety and to make room for other boats), the power to keep her easily head to sea, the power to move at five to seven knots towards a rescuing ship, the power to come safely alongside. And all that in an engine which did not take up the room of three people.
A poor boatman who had to scrape together painfully the few sovereigns of the price had the idea of putting that engine into his boat. But all these designers, directors, managers, constructors, and others whom we may include in the generic149 name of Yamsi, never thought of it for the boats of the biggest tank on earth, or rather on sea. And therefore they assume an air of impatient superiority and make objections — however sick at heart they may be. And I hope they are; at least, as much as a grocer who has sold a tin of imperfect salmon150 which destroyed only half a dozen people. And you know, the tinning of salmon was “progress” as much at least as the building of the Titanic. More, in fact. I am not attacking shipowners. I care neither more nor less for Lines, Companies, Combines, and generally for Trade arrayed in purple and fine linen151 than the Trade cares for me. But I am attacking foolish arrogance152, which is fair game; the offensive posture153 of superiority by which they hide the sense of their guilt54, while the echoes of the miserably154 hypocritical cries along the alley-ways of that ship: “Any more women? Any more women?” linger yet in our ears.
I have been expecting from one or the other of them all bearing the generic name of Yamsi, something, a sign of some sort, some sincere utterance155, in the course of this Admirable Inquiry, of manly156, of genuine compunction. In vain. All trade talk. Not a whisper — except for the conventional expression of regret at the beginning of the yearly report — which otherwise is a cheerful document. Dividends157, you know. The shop is doing well.
And the Admirable Inquiry goes on, punctuated158 by idiotic159 laughter, by paid-for cries of indignation from under legal wigs160, bringing to light the psychology of various commercial characters too stupid to know that they are giving themselves away — an admirably laborious161 inquiry into facts that speak, nay162 shout, for themselves.
I am not a soft-headed, humanitarian163 faddist164. I have been ordered in my time to do dangerous work; I have ordered, others to do dangerous work; I have never ordered a man to do any work I was not prepared to do myself. I attach no exaggerated value to human life. But I know it has a value for which the most generous contributions to the Mansion165 House and “Heroes” funds cannot pay. And they cannot pay for it, because people, even of the third class (excuse my plain speaking), are not cattle. Death has its sting. If Yamsi’s manager’s head were forcibly held under the water of his bath for some little time, he would soon discover that it has. Some people can only learn from that sort of experience which comes home to their own dear selves.
I am not a sentimentalist; therefore it is not a great consolation166 to me to see all these people breveted as “Heroes” by the penny and halfpenny Press. It is no consolation at all. In extremity167, in the worst extremity, the majority of people, even of common people, will behave decently. It’s a fact of which only the journalists don’t seem aware. Hence their enthusiasm, I suppose. But I, who am not a sentimentalist, think it would have been finer if the band of the Titanic had been quietly saved, instead of being drowned while playing — whatever tune168 they were playing, the poor devils. I would rather they had been saved to support their families than to see their families supported by the magnificent generosity169 of the subscribers. I am not consoled by the false, written-up, Drury Lane aspects of that event, which is neither drama, nor melodrama170, nor tragedy, but the exposure of arrogant171 folly172. There is nothing more heroic in being drowned very much against your will, off a holed, helpless, big tank in which you bought your passage, than in dying of colic caused by the imperfect salmon in the tin you bought from your grocer.
And that’s the truth. The unsentimental truth stripped of the romantic garment the Press has wrapped around this most unnecessary disaster.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
titanic
|
|
| adj.巨人的，庞大的，强大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
retract
|
|
| vt.缩回，撤回收回，取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
zealous
|
|
| adj.狂热的，热心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
zeal
|
|
| n.热心，热情，热忱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
exertions
|
|
| n.努力( exertion的名词复数 )；费力；（能力、权力等的）运用；行使 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
gasping
|
|
| adj. 气喘的, 痉挛的 动词gasp的现在分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
scant
|
|
| adj.不充分的，不足的；v.减缩，限制，忽略 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
extolled
|
|
| v.赞颂，赞扬，赞美( extol的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
tariffs
|
|
| 关税制度； 关税( tariff的名词复数 )； 关税表； （旅馆或饭店等的）收费表； 量刑标准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
reverence
|
|
| n.敬畏，尊敬，尊严；Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称；v.尊敬，敬畏，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
apparatus
|
|
| n.装置，器械；器具，设备 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
attachments
|
|
| n.（用电子邮件发送的）附件( attachment的名词复数 )；附着；连接；附属物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
farce
|
|
| n.闹剧，笑剧，滑稽戏；胡闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
catastrophe
|
|
| n.大灾难，大祸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
crestfallen
|
|
| adj. 挫败的，失望的，沮丧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
cult
|
|
| n.异教，邪教；时尚，狂热的崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
profane
|
|
| adj.亵神的，亵渎的；vt.亵渎，玷污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
deceptive
|
|
| adj.骗人的，造成假象的，靠不住的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
immutable
|
|
| adj.不可改变的，永恒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
compartment
|
|
| n.卧车包房，隔间；分隔的空间 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
compartments
|
|
| n.间隔( compartment的名词复数 )；（列车车厢的）隔间；（家具或设备等的）分隔间；隔层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
inspection
|
|
| n.检查，审查，检阅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
draught
|
|
| n.拉，牵引，拖；一网（饮，吸，阵)；顿服药量，通风；v.起草，设计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
asphyxiated
|
|
| v.渴望的，有抱负的，追求名誉或地位的( aspirant的过去式和过去分词 )；有志向或渴望获得…的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
advertising
|
|
| n.广告业；广告活动 a.广告的；广告业务的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
attain
|
|
| vt.达到，获得，完成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
hull
|
|
| n.船身；(果、实等的)外壳；vt.去(谷物等)壳 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
disastrous
|
|
| adj.灾难性的，造成灾害的；极坏的，很糟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
vault
|
|
| n.拱形圆顶，地窖，地下室 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
varied
|
|
| adj.多样的，多变化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
adventurous
|
|
| adj.爱冒险的；惊心动魄的，惊险的，刺激的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
advent
|
|
| n.(重要事件等的)到来，来临 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
mule
|
|
| n.骡子，杂种，执拗的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
disparagement
|
|
| n.轻视，轻蔑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
awed
|
|
| adj.充满敬畏的，表示敬畏的v.使敬畏，使惊惧( awe的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
doom
|
|
| n.厄运，劫数；v.注定，命定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
oracle
|
|
| n.神谕，神谕处，预言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
questionable
|
|
| adj.可疑的，有问题的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
pandering
|
|
| v.迎合（他人的低级趣味或淫欲）( pander的现在分词 )；纵容某人；迁就某事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
banal
|
|
| adj.陈腐的，平庸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
suite
|
|
| n.一套(家具)；套房；随从人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
guilt
|
|
| n.犯罪；内疚；过失，罪责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
refinements
|
|
| n.（生活）风雅；精炼( refinement的名词复数 )；改良品；细微的改良；优雅或高贵的动作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
ingenuity
|
|
| n.别出心裁；善于发明创造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
alluding
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
admiration
|
|
| n.钦佩，赞美，羡慕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
appreciation
|
|
| n.评价；欣赏；感谢；领会，理解；价格上涨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
expediency
|
|
| n.适宜；方便；合算；利己 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
futile
|
|
| adj.无效的，无用的，无希望的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
benevolent
|
|
| adj.仁慈的，乐善好施的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
inanity
|
|
| n.无意义，无聊 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
doorway
|
|
| n.门口，(喻)入门；门路，途径 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
implements
|
|
| n.工具( implement的名词复数 )；家具；手段；[法律]履行（契约等）v.实现( implement的第三人称单数 )；执行；贯彻；使生效 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
shovels
|
|
| n.铲子( shovel的名词复数 )；锹；推土机、挖土机等的)铲；铲形部份v.铲子( shovel的第三人称单数 )；锹；推土机、挖土机等的)铲；铲形部份 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
obstruction
|
|
| n.阻塞，堵塞；障碍物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
inane
|
|
| adj.空虚的，愚蠢的，空洞的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
downwards
|
|
| adj./adv.向下的（地），下行的（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
valid
|
|
| adj.有确实根据的；有效的；正当的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
upwards
|
|
| adv.向上，在更高处...以上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
obstructing
|
|
| 阻塞( obstruct的现在分词 )； 堵塞； 阻碍； 阻止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
joint
|
|
| adj.联合的，共同的；n.关节，接合处；v.连接，贴合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
attained
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
qualified
|
|
| adj.合格的，有资格的，胜任的，有限制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
superfluous
|
|
| adj.过多的，过剩的，多余的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
redeeming
|
|
| 补偿的，弥补的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
arduous
|
|
| adj.艰苦的，费力的，陡峭的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
toil
|
|
| vi.辛劳工作，艰难地行动；n.苦工，难事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
marine
|
|
| adj.海的；海生的；航海的；海事的；n.水兵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
combustion
|
|
| n.燃烧；氧化；骚动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
disappearance
|
|
| n.消失，消散，失踪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
boiler
|
|
| n.锅炉；煮器(壶，锅等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
boilers
|
|
| 锅炉，烧水器，水壶( boiler的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
steer
|
|
| vt.驾驶，为…操舵；引导；vi.驾驶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
seamen
|
|
| n.海员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
exalted
|
|
| adj.(地位等)高的，崇高的；尊贵的，高尚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
glorified
|
|
| 美其名的，变荣耀的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
recollect
|
|
| v.回忆，想起，记起，忆起，记得 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
felicitous
|
|
| adj.恰当的，巧妙的；n.恰当，贴切 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
prophesy
|
|
| v.预言；预示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
irony
|
|
| n.反语，冷嘲；具有讽刺意味的事，嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
sublime
|
|
| adj.崇高的，伟大的；极度的，不顾后果的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
sarcasm
|
|
| n.讥讽，讽刺，嘲弄，反话 （adj.sarcastic） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
insistent
|
|
| adj.迫切的，坚持的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
sarcastic
|
|
| adj.讥讽的，讽刺的，嘲弄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
deference
|
|
| n.尊重，顺从；敬意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
ram
|
|
| (random access memory)随机存取存储器 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
iceberg
|
|
| n.冰山，流冰，冷冰冰的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
accurately
|
|
| adv.准确地，精确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
bluff
|
|
| v.虚张声势，用假象骗人；n.虚张声势，欺骗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
bumpy
|
|
| adj.颠簸不平的，崎岖的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
immortal
|
|
| adj.不朽的；永生的，不死的；神的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
porcelain
|
|
| n.瓷；adj.瓷的，瓷制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
goblets
|
|
| n.高脚酒杯( goblet的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
annoyance
|
|
| n.恼怒，生气，烦恼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
irreproachable
|
|
| adj.不可指责的，无过失的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
gratitude
|
|
| adj.感激，感谢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
beckon
|
|
| v.(以点头或打手势)向...示意，召唤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
mighty
|
|
| adj.强有力的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
impatience
|
|
| n.不耐烦，急躁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
lumber
|
|
| n.木材，木料；v.以破旧东西堆满；伐木；笨重移动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
gist
|
|
| n.要旨；梗概 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
psychology
|
|
| n.心理，心理学，心理状态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
undertakings
|
|
| 企业( undertaking的名词复数 )； 保证； 殡仪业； 任务 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
overloaded
|
|
| a.超载的，超负荷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
cram
|
|
| v.填塞，塞满，临时抱佛脚，为考试而学习 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
cargo
|
|
| n.(一只船或一架飞机运载的)货物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
organisation
|
|
| n.组织，安排，团体，有机休 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
virtuous
|
|
| adj.有品德的，善良的，贞洁的，有效力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
fumbling
|
|
| n. 摸索,漏接 v. 摸索,摸弄,笨拙的处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
fascination
|
|
| n.令人着迷的事物，魅力，迷恋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
positively
|
|
| adv.明确地，断然，坚决地；实在，确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
shuffle
|
|
| n.拖著脚走，洗纸牌；v.拖曳，慢吞吞地走 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
groan
|
|
| vi./n.呻吟，抱怨；(发出)呻吟般的声音 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
adjustable
|
|
| adj.可调整的，可校准的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
efficiently
|
|
| adv.高效率地，有能力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
simultaneously
|
|
| adv.同时发生地，同时进行地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
imprisoned
|
|
| 下狱，监禁( imprison的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
benefactors
|
|
| n.捐助者，施主( benefactor的名词复数 )；恩人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
oars
|
|
| n.桨，橹( oar的名词复数 )；划手v.划（行）( oar的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
stevedores
|
|
| n.码头装卸工人，搬运工( stevedore的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
buoys
|
|
| n.浮标( buoy的名词复数 )；航标；救生圈；救生衣v.使浮起( buoy的第三人称单数 )；支持；为…设浮标；振奋…的精神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
buoy
|
|
| n.浮标；救生圈；v.支持，鼓励 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
barge
|
|
| n.平底载货船，驳船 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
boisterous
|
|
| adj.喧闹的，欢闹的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
gale
|
|
| n.大风，强风，一阵闹声（尤指笑声等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
jersey
|
|
| n.运动衫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
stationary
|
|
| adj.固定的，静止不动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
mooring
|
|
| n.停泊处；系泊用具，系船具；下锚v.停泊，系泊（船只）(moor的现在分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
sardines
|
|
| n. 沙丁鱼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
desperately
|
|
| adv.极度渴望地，绝望地，孤注一掷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
generic
|
|
| adj.一般的，普通的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
salmon
|
|
| n.鲑，大马哈鱼，橙红色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
linen
|
|
| n.亚麻布，亚麻线，亚麻制品；adj.亚麻布制的，亚麻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
arrogance
|
|
| n.傲慢，自大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
posture
|
|
| n.姿势，姿态，心态，态度；v.作出某种姿势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
miserably
|
|
| adv.痛苦地；悲惨地；糟糕地；极度地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
utterance
|
|
| n.用言语表达，话语，言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
manly
|
|
| adj.有男子气概的；adv.男子般地，果断地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
dividends
|
|
| 红利( dividend的名词复数 )； 股息； 被除数； （足球彩票的）彩金 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
punctuated
|
|
| v.（在文字中）加标点符号，加标点( punctuate的过去式和过去分词 )；不时打断某事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
idiotic
|
|
| adj.白痴的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
wigs
|
|
| n.假发，法官帽( wig的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
laborious
|
|
| adj.吃力的，努力的，不流畅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
nay
|
|
| adv.不；n.反对票，投反对票者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
humanitarian
|
|
| n.人道主义者，博爱者，基督凡人论者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
faddist
|
|
| n.趋于时尚者，好新奇的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
165
mansion
|
|
| n.大厦，大楼；宅第 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
consolation
|
|
| n.安慰，慰问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
extremity
|
|
| n.末端，尽头；尽力；终极；极度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
tune
|
|
| n.调子；和谐，协调；v.调音，调节，调整 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
generosity
|
|
| n.大度，慷慨，慷慨的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
melodrama
|
|
| n.音乐剧；情节剧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
arrogant
|
|
| adj.傲慢的，自大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
folly
|
|
| n.愚笨，愚蠢，蠢事，蠢行，傻话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |