to the mark. In her handling a ship will not put up with a mere
pretender, as, for
instance, the public will do with Mr. X, the
popular
statesman, Mr. Y, the popular
scientist, or Mr. Z, the
popular - what shall we say? - anything from a teacher of high
morality to a bagman - who have won their little race. But I would
like (though not accustomed to betting) to wager a large sum that
not one of the few first-rate
skippers of racing yachts has ever
been a humbug. It would have been too difficult. The difficulty
arises from the fact that one does not deal with ships in a mob,
but with a ship as an individual. So we may have to do with men.
But in each of us there lurks some
particle of the mob spirit, of
the mob
temperament. No matter how
earnestly we
strive against
each other, we remain brothers on the lowest side of our intellect
and in the instability of our feelings. With ships it is not so.
Much as they are to us, they are nothing to each other. Those
sensitive creatures have no ears for our blandishments. It takes
something more than words to cajole them to do our will, to cover
us with glory. Luckily, too, or else there would have been more
shoddy
reputations for first-rate
seamanship. Ships have no ears,
I repeat, though, indeed, I think I have known ships who really
seemed to have had eyes, or else I cannot understand on what ground
a certain 1,000-ton barque of my
acquaintance on one particular
occasion refused to answer her helm,
thereby saving a frightful
smash to two ships and to a very good man's
reputation. I knew her
intimately for two years, and in no other
instance either before or
since have I known her to do that thing. The man she had served so
well (guessing, perhaps, at the depths of his
affection for her) I
have known much longer, and in bare justice to him I must say that
this confidence-shattering experience (though so fortunate) only
augmented his trust in her. Yes, our ships have no ears, and thus
they cannot be deceived. I would
illustrate my idea of
fidelity as
between man and ship, between the master and his art, by a
statement which, though it might appear shockingly sophisticated,
is really very simple. I would say that a racing-yacht
skipper who
thought of nothing else but the glory of
winning the race would
never
attain to any
eminence of
reputation. The
genuine masters of
their craft - I say this
confidently from my experience of ships -
have thought of nothing but of doing their very best by the
vesselunder their
charge. To forget one's self, to
surrender all
personal feeling in the service of that fine art, is the only way
for a
seaman to the
faithful dis
charge of his trust.
Such is the service of a fine art and of ships that sail the sea.
And
therein I think I can lay my finger upon the difference between
the seamen of
yesterday, who are still with us, and the seamen of
to-morrow, already entered upon the possession of their
inheritance. History repeats itself, but the special call of an
art which has passed away is never reproduced. It is as utterly
gone out of the world as the song of a destroyed wild bird.
Nothing will
awaken the same
response of pleasurable
emotion or
conscientious
endeavour. And the sailing of any
vesselafloat is
an art whose fine form seems already receding from us on its way to
the overshadowed Valley of Oblivion. The
taking of a modern
steamship about the world (though one would not
minimize its
responsibilities) has not the same quality of
intimacy with nature,
which, after all, is an
indispensable condition to the building up
of an art. It is less personal and a more exact
calling; less
arduous, but also less gratifying in the lack of close communion
between the artist and the
medium of his art. It is, in short,
less a matter of love. Its effects are measured exactly in time
and space as no effect of an art can be. It is an
occupation which
a man not
desperately subject to sea-sickness can be imagined to
follow with content, without
enthusiasm, with industry, without