mander Del Santo: his deposition can scarcely fail to be interesting. He says that after the first Austrian charge, the "Ferdinand Max" "began a series of evolutions with the intention of sinking us; keeping up all the time a very hot fire of musketry and artillery, at a distance of only a few yards." It seems therefore that no attempt was made to turn the tables; the idea of sinking the "Max" did not occur to the Italians.
- Two or three times our men were called to repel boarders, as the enemy threatened our stern or broadside; and once the division of firemen, to extinguish the fire which an enemy's shell had kindled in the admiral's cabin. Our ship's company behaved splendidly, and especially those of them stationed on the poop, where they were quite without shelter. Amongst these was Boggio, the deputy, who, with his eyeglass in his eye, was firing away with his revolver, determined to sell his life as dearly as possible. All at once, as the smoke slightly lifted, I saw the "Ferdinand Max" coming down against us on our port side. I rushed to warn the captain of it. As our rudder had been rendered almost unserviceable by the enemy's fire, he gave the order, "Full speed astern!" but it was too late to prevent the enemy striking us just abreast the foremast. The ship did not feel any such shock as one would think the necessary consequence of the blow, but heeled over to port, very gradually, and sank.
With the "Rè d'Italia" sunk, and the "Palestro" at a distance trying to extinguish the flames, the action in the centre was at an end. The two fleets collected themselves, but in a changed position. The Austrians were now in shore and covering Lissa. The Italians had been pushed out to seaward; the "Palestro" blew up about two o'clock; and thoroughly cowed by the loss they had sustained, they were in no humor to attempt to regain their position. The Austrians, on the other hand, had accomplished their purpose; and there was no reason why they should hazard their advantage by a fresh attack on a force still numerically superior. They waited for a couple of hours, and seeing no intention on the part of the enemy to renew the engagement, they went into San Giorgio; the gun-vessels first, then the wooden frigates, the ironclads following; the "Ferdinand Max," the last of all, let go her anchor about sundown. Such in its broad facts was the battle of Lissa, concerning which — as I have already said — some curiously wrong ideas have got into circulation. These are assuredly not worth looking for and contradicting one by one: but perhaps the most common of them is, that an Austrian wooden line-of-battle ship rammed and sank an Italian ironclad; and from that the inference is drawn that a wooden ship can encounter an ironclad on fairly equal terms. As giving rise to and supporting such an inference, the mistake is therefore important. So far as it is possible to trace its origin, I think it arose from a confusion between the "Ferdinand Max," the "Kaiser Max" and the "Kaiser," three totally distinct ships; the two first were ironclads; the third a ninety-gun ship. What the "Ferdinand Max" and the "Kaiser" severally did, I have already told at length; but as opposed to the popular misrepresentation, I will say, in so many words: The ship which rammed and sunk the Italian ironclad was herself an ironclad of nearly the same size; and the line-of-battle ship, which rammed an ironclad, injured herself very much and her enemy very little. That of the whole Austrian loss of thirty-eight killed, thirty-five were on board the wooden ships, and twenty-four of them on board the "Kaiser" alone, shows how little the efficiency of the two classes of ships can be compared. As to other absurd stories that have been circulated, it would be trouble thrown away to repeat them or to contradict them.
As is very well known, the Italians were excessively disgusted with the result of the action, so different from what they had flattered themselves it would be. Persano was loudly accused of gross misconduct — of cowardice — of treason — of everything that was vile; and that so persistently, that after some delay it was determined to bring him to trial. But he was a senator — a peer of the realm, so to speak — and could not, according to the constitution, be tried by a court-martial. The whole Senate was therefore formed into a high court of justice. The trial lasted for several months: a vast number of witnesses were examined; and their evidence, joined to the detailed Austrian accounts, leaves us little to wish for so far as knowledge of the facts is concerned; a knowledge of motives can never perhaps be satisfactorily ascertained.[1]
- ↑ "Rendiconti delle udienze pubbliche dell' Alta Corte di Giustizia nel dibattimento della causa contro l'Ammiraglio Senatore Conte Carlo Pellion di Persano, preceduti dalla relazione della Commissione d'Istruttoria" (Firenze, 1867). The fullest Austrian account is in "Oesterreichs Kämpfe im Jahre 1866. Nach Feldacten bearbeitet durch das k. k. General-stabs. Bureau für Kriegs-Geschichte," vol. v. (Wien, 1869). As Tegetthoff was, in 1869, at the war office, I think it is probable that he revised this history of the naval campaign, and the sketch of his own life which
