Acushnet |
On a clear,
bright morning in November 1820, a giant bull whale rammed and sank the 238-ton
American ship Essex, stranding the
20-man crew in a remote tract of the equatorial Pacific, 2250 kilometres (1400
miles) from the nearest land.
This kind
of disaster, while certainly unusual, was not unknown. Alexander Starbuck, the great 19th-century
chronicler of American whaling, itemised six instances of vessels being sunk by
whales. Three factors lifted the Essex disaster out of the common run of
such incidents, however.
First, the
whale’s attack was a deliberate act of revenge for the harpooning of three
members of his pod. “He came directly
from the shoal which we had just before entered — and in which we had struck
three of his companions,” wrote the first mate, Owen Chase, “as if he were
fixed with revenge for their sufferings.”
Second,
five survivors of the appalling three-month whaleboat voyage that followed kept
themselves alive by eating the bodies of dead companions — one of whom was shot
after lots had been drawn to determine who would be sacrificed to feed the
rest.
Third, the Essex incident provided much of the
inspiration for the dramatic ending of Herman Melville’s epic novel, Moby-Dick.
It was not
just the ending that gave the novel its resonance with the reading public,
however. The descriptions, incidents,
and characters that populate the book were inspired by Melville’s own experiences
on the whaleship Acushnet, and the
tales he heard from whalemen on other ships and in shoreside taverns. And it was through this that he achieved
something remarkable.
Up until
1851, when Moby-Dick was published,
the whaling business had been largely
ignored by the American public. If they knew anything about it at all, they regarded it as dirty but necessary work, and that the people involved in it were equivalent to common laborers (unless, of course, you were in Nantucket
or New Bedford, where money, oil, and religion were the three tenets of the
town).
Melville’s
novel changed all that, because he made people aware of the sheer scope of the
whaling venture — the immensity of the oceans traversed, the long months of
waiting for prey, the frictions of life on board the small, cramped vessel, the
brute strength, stamina and courage required to harpoon and kill great whales,
and the grinding hard work and stench of turning those whales into oil for
lamps and machinery, and elastic bone for buggy whips and corset stays.
Up until
then, it would be fair to say that whaling had been glamorized, with its
promise of adventure and tropical isles.
Melville, instead, told the truth — that whaling in the days of sail was
a grim and primitive struggle, which tested men to the limit. He did not have to describe the small-boat
ordeal of the survivors of the sinking of his fictional Pequod, because he had already made his point.
Illustrations by Ron Druett
2 comments:
Very well said, Joan. Great insight. And yes, we Americans do over-analyze Melville!
Wonderfully insightful Joan - Nathaniel Philbrick should have had you do an introduction to his 2000 book "In the Heart of the Sea."
Post a Comment