-
Главная
-
- Книги
-
- Авторы
-
- Герман Мелвилл
-
- Моби Дик
-
- Стр. 195/297
Для того чтобы воспользоваться озвучкой предложений, необходимо
Войти или зарегистрироваться
Озвучка предложений доступна при наличии PRO-доступа
Купить PRO-доступ
These
are
scientific
commentaries
;
but
the
commentaries
of
the
whalemen
themselves
sometimes
consist
in
hard
words
and
harder
knocks
--
the
Coke-upon-Littleton
of
the
fist
.
True
,
among
the
more
upright
and
honorable
whalemen
allowances
are
always
made
for
peculiar
cases
,
where
it
would
be
an
outrageous
moral
injustice
for
one
party
to
claim
possession
of
a
whale
previously
chased
or
killed
by
another
party
.
But
others
are
by
no
means
so
scrupulous
.
Some
fifty
years
ago
there
was
a
curious
case
of
whale-trover
litigated
in
England
,
wherein
the
plaintiffs
set
forth
that
after
a
hard
chase
of
a
whale
in
the
Northern
seas
;
and
when
indeed
they
(
the
plaintiffs
)
had
succeeded
in
harpooning
the
fish
;
they
were
at
last
,
through
peril
of
their
lives
,
obliged
to
forsake
not
only
their
lines
,
but
their
boat
itself
.
Ultimately
the
defendants
(
the
crew
of
another
ship
)
came
up
with
the
whale
,
struck
,
killed
,
seized
,
and
finally
appropriated
it
before
the
very
eyes
of
the
plaintiffs
.
And
when
those
defendants
were
remonstrated
with
,
their
captain
snapped
his
fingers
in
the
plaintiffs
'
teeth
,
and
assured
them
that
by
way
of
doxology
to
the
deed
he
had
done
,
he
would
now
retain
their
line
,
harpoons
,
and
boat
,
which
had
remained
attached
to
the
whale
at
the
time
of
the
seizure
.
Wherefore
the
plaintiffs
now
sued
for
the
recovery
of
the
value
of
their
whale
,
line
,
harpoons
,
and
boat
.
Mr.
Erskine
was
counsel
for
the
defendants
;
Lord
Ellenborough
was
the
judge
.
In
the
course
of
the
defence
,
the
witty
Erskine
went
on
to
illustrate
his
position
,
by
alluding
to
a
recent
crim
.
con
.
case
,
wherein
a
gentleman
,
after
in
vain
trying
to
bridle
his
wife
's
viciousness
,
had
at
last
abandoned
her
upon
the
seas
of
life
;
but
in
the
course
of
years
,
repenting
of
that
step
,
he
instituted
an
action
to
recover
possession
of
her
.
Erskine
was
on
the
other
side
;
and
he
then
supported
it
by
saying
,
that
though
the
gentleman
had
originally
harpooned
the
lady
,
and
had
once
had
her
fast
,
and
only
by
reason
of
the
great
stress
of
her
plunging
viciousness
,
had
at
last
abandoned
her
;
yet
abandon
her
he
did
,
so
that
she
became
a
loose-fish
;
and
therefore
when
a
subsequent
gentleman
re-harpooned
her
,
the
lady
then
became
that
subsequent
gentleman
's
property
,
along
with
whatever
harpoon
might
have
been
found
sticking
in
her
.
Now
in
the
present
case
Erskine
contended
that
the
examples
of
the
whale
and
the
lady
were
reciprocally
illustrative
to
each
other
.
These
pleadings
,
and
the
counter
pleadings
,
being
duly
heard
,
the
very
learned
Judge
in
set
terms
decided
,
to
wit
--
That
as
for
the
boat
,
he
awarded
it
to
the
plaintiffs
,
because
they
had
merely
abandoned
it
to
save
their
lives
;
but
that
with
regard
to
the
controverted
whale
,
harpoons
,
and
line
,
they
belonged
to
the
defendants
;
the
whale
,
because
it
was
a
Loose-Fish
at
the
time
of
the
final
capture
;
and
the
harpoons
and
line
because
when
the
fish
made
off
with
them
,
it
(
the
fish
)
acquired
a
property
in
those
articles
;
and
hence
anybody
who
afterwards
took
the
fish
had
a
right
to
them
.
Now
the
defendants
afterwards
took
the
fish
;
ergo
,
the
aforesaid
articles
were
theirs
.
A
common
man
looking
at
this
decision
of
the
very
learned
Judge
,
might
possibly
object
to
it
.
But
ploughed
up
to
the
primary
rock
of
the
matter
,
the
two
great
principles
laid
down
in
the
twin
whaling
laws
previously
quoted
,
and
applied
and
elucidated
by
Lord
Ellenborough
in
the
above
cited
case
;
these
two
laws
touching
Fast-Fish
and
Loose-Fish
,
I
say
,
will
on
reflection
,
be
found
the
fundamentals
of
all
human
jurisprudence
;
for
notwithstanding
its
complicated
tracery
of
sculpture
,
the
Temple
of
the
Law
,
like
the
Temple
of
the
Philistines
,
has
but
two
props
to
stand
on
.
Is
it
not
a
saying
in
every
one
's
mouth
,
Possession
is
half
of
the
law
:
that
is
,
regardless
of
how
the
thing
came
into
possession
?
But
often
possession
is
the
whole
of
the
law
.
What
are
the
sinews
and
souls
of
Russian
serfs
and
Republican
slaves
but
Fast-Fish
,
whereof
possession
is
the
whole
of
the
law
?
What
to
the
rapacious
landlord
is
the
widow
's
last
mite
but
a
Fast-Fish
?
What
is
yonder
undetected
villain
's
marble
mansion
with
a
doorplate
for
a
waif
;
what
is
that
but
a
Fast-Fish
?
What
is
the
ruinous
discount
which
Mordecai
,
the
broker
,
gets
from
the
poor
Woebegone
,
the
bankrupt
,
on
a
loan
to
keep
Woebegone
's
family
from
starvation
;
what
is
that
ruinous
discount
but
a
Fast-Fish
?
What
is
the
Archbishop
of
Savesoul
's
income
of
L100
,000
seized
from
the
scant
bread
and
cheese
of
hundreds
of
thousands
of
broken-backed
laborers
(
all
sure
of
heaven
without
any
of
Savesoul
's
help
)
what
is
that
globular
100,000
but
a
Fast-Fish
.
What
are
the
Duke
of
Dunder
's
hereditary
towns
and
hamlets
but
Fast-Fish
?
What
to
that
redoubted
harpooneer
,
John
Bull
,
is
poor
Ireland
,
but
a
Fast-Fish
?
What
to
that
apostolic
lancer
,
Brother
Jonathan
,
is
Texas
but
a
Fast-Fish
?
And
concerning
all
these
,
is
not
Possession
the
whole
of
the
law
?
But
if
the
doctrine
of
Fast-Fish
be
pretty
generally
applicable
,
the
kindred
doctrine
of
Loose-Fish
is
still
more
widely
so
.
That
is
internationally
and
universally
applicable
.
