“The Titanic”
Artist: Simona Cantele
THE TITANIC BEFORE THE TITANIC
The Titanic, the vulnerable giant of the
British company ‘White Star Line’ was the first luxurious and grandiose
transatlantic liner of modern times, with a displacement of 60,000 tons.
Thanks to the innovative use of a double hull
and watertight compartments, this Colossus of the Sea should have been
extremely safe; for this motive the company didn’t think it necessary to
furnish the ship with an adequate number of lifeboats in relation to the number
of passengers.
This luxurious ‘Floating Palace’ sank miserably
during its maiden voyage on the night of 14th April 1912, after a
collision with an iceberg – 1500 passengers lost their lives. The tragedy hit
public opinion profoundly. For a ship with advanced safety systems, such a
calamity was unforeseeable.
Perhaps, though, unforeseeable isn’t such an
appropriate term, seeing as how 14 years previously in 1898 Morgan Robertson,
an American author of sea-going adventures, published a novel with the title
“FUTILITY” in which he described the sad future of the Titanic.
From the very beginning of the novel we find
very significant extracts like the following:-
“the steamship Titan was considered practically
unsinkable” –
“Unsinkable – indestructible, she carried as
few boats as would satisfy the laws”.
The astonishing similarities between the two
ships, the imaginary Titan and the real Titanic, continue throughout the
succeeding pages. Shortly we will examine them in greater detail.
Before though I would like to look at things
more precisely. To analyse this ‘anticipation’ of the future more scrupulously
I trawled through many sources and managed to obtain an English language copy
of Robertson’s book. I don’t believe an Italian language version exists,
moreover the original language version is preferable. But can we really trust
the original text? Especially as we are talking about a recent re-print. Could
it have received any alteration, to make it more like the fate of the Titanic?
My view
is that we can exclude this possibility
as the editor of this re-print is Martin Gardner. Gardner is
known also in Italy as the author of
‘Mathematical Games’ in the notable magazine ‘Scientific American’.
There is
also another reason we can trust
Gardner; he absolutely doesn’t believe that Robertson predicted the
future, and therefore would have no interest in modifying the text to make it
more similar to what befell the Titanic.
In his long introduction to the book (re-printed
with the title ‘The wreck of the Titanic foretold?’) Gardner maintains that the
coincidences are just that – coincidences within the bounds of normal
statistical laws of chance.
After this consideration we can finally examine
the extensive list of similarities without obviously neglecting the difference
between fact and fiction.
-
First of all the two ships had almost the same
name Titan and Titanic
-
The Titanic was 882.5 feet in length, the Titan
800 feet
-
Both were made of steel with 3 propellers and 2
masts
-
Both were considered unsinkable because of the
number of watertight compartments; 19 on the Titan 16 on the Titanic
-
The Titan had 92 watertight doors, the Titanic
12
-
Both were considered ‘the biggest passenger
ship ever built’
-
Both were equipped to carry 3,000 passengers
-
The Titan carried 3,000 the Titanic 2,235
-
The Titanic displaced 66,000 tons, the Titan
45,000
-
The horse power of the Titanic was 46,000 that
of the Titan 40,000
-
Both carried very few lifeboats- 20 the Titanic
24 the Titan
-
The Titan was travelling at 22.5 knots when it
hit the iceberg the Titan 25 knots
-
Both the ships began their voyages in April
-
Both ships hit the iceberg at midnight
-
It was a clear night without a moon for the
Titanic, but for the Titan it was a night of thick fog with moonlight
-
Both ships were hit on the starboard side
-
Both were travelling between New York and
England
-
The Titanic was making her maiden voyage from
England to New York. The Titan was going in the opposite direction and it was
her third round-trip.
-
Both ships were owned by companies in Britain
with offices in Liverpool
-
The Titanic lost c.1,500 passengers The Titan
3,000
I admit this long list of details could seem
boring, but I think it indispensable for readers, in this way everyone can form
their own opinion on this unusual series
of coincidences.
To make it easier to read, we have underlined
the differences between fact and fiction, in this way we can see they are few
in relation to the greater number of things in common.
Fortune-tellers and the like make a large
number of predictions, because they know that among their numerous errors
(benevolently forgotten by the public) there will be some rare cases which seem
by chance to appear like reality. But with the book we are analysing the
situation is somewhat diverse. The particulars which agree with reality greatly
outnumber the differences. Can we still see it as coincidence?
Gardner the sceptical editor of the re-print in
my possession, is totally convinced of this. Let’s follow his argument.
The coincidences between the Titanic and the
Titan are so numerous not just through a casual similarity but also because of
the logical reasoning followed by the author.
Desiring to write a novel based on a great
naval disaster, it was easy to choose a collision with an iceberg, as it was at
that time a danger feared by sailors.
The period most at risk of icebergs for sailing
was the spring, when the temperature rises and the polar regions began to thaw,
forming huge floating icebergs. Obvious therefore to choose April as the month
for the disaster. Logical also to then imagine that the ship should be
unsinkable to add a touch of irony to the tragedy.
As for the numerous technical details being
almost exactly alike?
Also here Gardner has no doubts; Morgan Robertson,
author of sea novels, was certainly well supplied with maritime technical
details and skills.
It is true that at the time ships didn’t yet
have the colossal characteristics of the Titanic, but companies were already
thinking of building bigger ships. In fact Gardner references the New York
Times of 17 September 1892, in which the construction of the ‘Gigantic’ was
announced, this in fact was never realised.
However the project announced in the article
contained many characteristics similar to those of the Titan. Robertson could
have read this article using it as an optimum source for the technical detail
contained in the novel. Are we then placing this ‘preview’ of the Titanic
behind a curtain of coincidence and technical knowledge of the author? Relax,
before that let’s look at it from another angle.
As a man of science I can at least appreciate
Gardner’s invitation to caution and rationality in the examination of the
surprising number of coincidences between Titan and Titanic.
In our analysis the laws of probability cannot
possibly be ignored and we mustn’t allow ourselves to become emotionally
involved in the fascinating story of the author that manages to predict the
future.
We make the same mistake however if we attribute
everything to the power of the laws of statistical probability. If a monkey
were to type the word ‘now’ on a type-writer we mustn’t be surprised. Hitting
any three letters on a keyboard at random could give this result. If however,
the monkey were to write ‘I’m hungry now’ we would be right to be astonished
because to hit that many keys and for them to make sense is extremely
improbable.
Returning to Robertson’s book, we are at pains
to accept the idea that so great a number of details are correct only due to
chance. As we have already seen, Gardner, apart from the fortuitousness,
invites us to consider the reasoning of the writer. It was logical to think of
collision with an iceberg. It was logical to imagine that the ship should be
unsinkable. Yes, all was logical, but I don’t think the writer forming the idea
for his book would be without alternatives. His Titan could have sunk after
colliding with another ship, or exploded following mechanical problems or
perhaps after hitting an uncharted rock. Hitting an iceberg wasn’t the only
possibility.
Regarding the number of coincidental technical
details between the two ships, Gardner has an ace up his sleeve. Robertson
could have read the New York Times article of 17 September 1892, the imminent
construction of the ‘Gigantic’, although never realised but with details
similar to the Titan.
So how similar is the Gigantic to the Titan?
To find out I had to read the said article of
1892, which was made possible by the great kindness and availability of John
Paul Eaton.
Eaton is one of the leading authorities in the
field of the study of the Titanic; he has written 5 books on the subject and is
a consultant for the National Geographic Society and 2 maritime museums. This
studious authority, more than just furnish me with useful historical
information about the Titanic, even went to the trouble of going to the library
of New York, to get me a photocopy of the article about the Gigantic. From
which I could compile the following table allowing us to compare the three ships:
NAME TITANIC TITAN GIGANTIC
LENGTH 882.5 FT 800 FT 700 FT
HORSEPOWER
46,000 40,000 4,500
SPEED 22.5 KNOTS 25 KNOTS 22-27KNOTS
PROPELLERS 3 3 3
There aren’t any other technical details
available for the Gigantic with which to compare the other two ships, however I cannot possibly agree with Gardner
when he says “ the figures given for the planned liner (Gigantic) are very
close to those Robertson used for his imaginary Titan”.
Reading the table you can see they are alike
only for the number of propellers and speed, while the length, horse-power, and
name are totally different.
I don’t believe therefore that Robertson
utilized the technical information for the Gigantic in his novel: the table
clearly shows that the Titan is much more like the Titanic than the Gigantic.
There is another affirmation by Gardner that
requires reflection; according to him it is possible that the White Star Line
company, when Robertson wrote his novel, had already announced the name Titanic
and had planned its construction.
It is a doubt that many could share, but the
super expert J.P. Eaton expressed to me his scepticism on this hypothesis by
informing that the name of the new ship (Titanic) was announced to the public
on 11 September 1907, while the novel is of 1898.
And if there was some indiscretion before the
official announcement?
Even if this ‘leak’ happened it couldn’t have
happened when Robertson was writing his book because the Titanic hadn’t yet
been thought of or designed. J.P. Eaton in fact informed me that the idea for
the Titanic came in the same year of its announcement 1907.
It was in this year when there was an
historical encounter between J.Bruce Ismay, president of White Star Line, and
Lord Pirrie, president of the shipbuilding company Harland and Wolff.
Here is
what the encyclopedic Eaton wrote to me regarding this encounter.
“The concept of Olympic, Titanic and a third vessel to be built later were initially discussed by Lord Pirrie and Bruce Ismay both during and after dinner at Pirrie’s London home Downshire in the year 1907. The date of the dinner is not known at this time.
The Cunard Line’s vessel Lusitania came into
service in September 1907.
In observing that liner’s performance, Pirrie
was able to discuss with Ismay the necessity of building new tonnage for the
White Star Line.”
This fundamental information completes my
‘Titanic dossier’ fruit of a long and scrupulously scientific inquiry. So what
conclusions can we draw from it all?
Without wishing to withdraw from the rigorous
science of the inquiry I prefer not to express any definitive opinion.
I wish
to leave the readers to form their own personal opinions of this singular
event: in light of the information given to me by J.P. Eaton, I find the
judgement of Gardner too categorical, totally convinced that we are seeing just
the curious coming together of coincidences.
It is true that Gardner could be right, though
it seems to me quite improbable that an author of the 19th century
could have found at random numerous details relative to the event of the
Titanic.
But we must take into account that ‘improbable’
doesn’t mean ‘impossible’.
There have been so many tales written of
imaginary disasters that some might by chance resemble a real disaster. But an
accidental similarity with so many precise details?
I leave you to decide for yourselves.
FLAVIO CENNI