But, speaking for myself, I am bound to say that the three battles of Yalu, Manila, and Santiago, have shaken my faith in the historical method more than any occurrences of modern times. I had certainly imagined that surrender would precede destruction, and I had even gone so far as to suppose that it would be killed and wounded that would determine surrender, as it certainly did in old days; and yet here are three battles where there has been no real surrender, and otherwise, all destruction. One of the ablest of my rising naval friends comforts me by remarking that the nearness of the shore has in each of these cases had to do with the results; and that in a sea-fight out of sight of land, the old rule might remain intact. There may be something in the remark, though some of the Chinese ships, when beaten, went down in deep water without making a sign. And then I am afraid we must allow that we have descended from the courtesies to the barbarities of war. The old rule certainly was that when the result became assured, when prolonging the dispute could but be a waste of life, the commander bowed to fate, and surrendered the fruits of victory to the conqueror. We seem to say now, that the fruits of victory must be denied to the conqueror at all hazards, and that the spirit of the savage under the guise of gallantry, is to dominate. If this is a lesson of the war, I fear it is a very sad one. Perhaps it is my feeling that turns me from this view, and makes me think of other points.
Потрясающий текст. Шевалье Коломб, человек раньшего времени, печалится о том, что ни испанцы, ни китайцы не стали сдавать свои корабли противнику, предпочитая смерть плену. Это кажется ему - ни много ни мало - признаком варваризации морской войны. Британский теоретик не дожил до Цусимы. Иначе его вера в куртуазность была бы спасена. А подчёркнутый текст мог бы украсить надгробный камень Небогатова.