1827.J 



Domestic and Foreign. 



305 



The difficulties of height and length may 

 be thus gotten rid of, but evidently at the 

 sacrifice of space and power ; and besides, 

 the polycrota would thus not essentially 

 be distinguishable from the monocrota. 



The third mode of arrangement is the 

 one suggested- by Sir Henry Savill, who 

 supposes the oars not to be placed one 

 above another, nor in a line from stem to 

 stern, but in an oblique manner from the 

 sides of the galley towards the middle of 

 it. The only advantage of this method 

 is, reducing the height, which the first 

 method required, but then it would re- 

 quire more width ; and from the great 

 distance from the side at which the rowers 

 of the upper tiers would be placed, the 

 range of the oar must be proportionally 

 lessened, or the oar lengthened beyond 

 ready management. 



The fourth hypothesis is quite distinct 

 from the rest. It supposes the names cf 

 the vessels to be derived, not from the 

 number of banks, or tiers of oars, but 

 the number of men who worked each oar. 

 Thus the trireme had its oars of a size to 

 be worked by three men, a quinquereme 

 by five, &c. The difficulties attending 

 this solution are obvious and insuperable. 

 It leaves no room for the known distinc- 

 tion between a monocroton and a poly- 

 croton ; and in the case of vessels of ten, 

 twenty, and forty how could so great a 

 number be advantageously employed at 

 one oar ? The man nearest the end of the 

 oar could pull no further than the full 

 stretch of his arms, and those near the 

 sides of the vessel would be absolutely 

 useless. The scheme, however, was spo- 

 ken of respectfully by many, and among 

 others by Isaac Vossius, whose imagina- 

 tion was, indeed, at all times, delighted 

 with paradox and novelty of any kind. 



But Vossius himself had a plan of his 

 own adopted also by Le Roy, and which 

 in one respect at least must be regarded 

 as suggesting to Mr. Howell his own 

 solution. These gentlemen place the 

 oars not directly over one another, but 

 obliquely and not like Sir H. Savill, 

 from the sides towards the middle, but 

 along the sides from the top to the bottom 

 still however making as many banks, 

 rising one higher than the other, as the 

 name of the vessel indicates. This of 

 course partakes of the difficulties of the 

 first solution particularly in the higher 

 numbers. 



There is still one more excogitated by 

 General Melville, and differing from Vos- 

 sius's only in this that he allows but 

 one man to each oar, and carries out a 

 galley from the side of the vessel at an 

 angle of 45 degrees for the rowers and 

 scalini, or rests of the oars an arrange- 

 ment which must render the vessel too 

 crank, that is apt to overset, and difficult 

 to trim. 



Now what is Mr. Howell's suggestion? 



MM. New Series. VoL.1V, No.20. 



To place the oars obliquely along the sides 

 as Vossius, Le Roy, and Melville ; but 

 never more than five in one tier. This is 

 a polycroton; a second oblique row placed 

 behind the first, just so far as to allow the 

 oars to play without intermingling with 

 those before them, constitutes a bireme 

 a third row, a trireme, &c. Thus the 

 vessels, whatever be the number of oars, 

 may be all of the same height none, in. 

 Mr. Howell's opinion, exceeded nine feet; 

 and all the oars were in the ship's waist 

 thus leaving the stern and prow, and a 

 gallery round the gunnel free for officers, 

 troops, and the rest of the crew. A tri- 

 reme will thus carry thirty oars, fifteen 

 of a side ; a quinquereme fifty, twenty- 

 five of a side. The crews of vessels are 

 occasionally mentioned in the old writers, 

 that of a trireme for instance, as consist- 

 ing of 150 or 160. Supposing then five 

 men to an oar, 30X5=150 ; and the re- 

 maining ten for casualties, steering, hand- 

 ling sails, &c., will makeup the number. 

 A quinquereme is spoken of as having 

 300 ; that is, 5X^0=250, or as the ves- 

 sel is larger, six to an oar, or five to some 

 and six to others, will make up the com- 

 plementwhich thus tallies better than 

 any solution that has ever been given. 

 The only difficulty in Mr. Howell's solu- 

 tion is to determine that a bank, bench, or 

 tier of oars always consisted of five 

 neither more nor les. Mr. Howell thinks 

 this may be proved, but does not himself 

 suggest any evidence towards it, and we 

 can recal nothing approaching the deci- 

 sive. That each vessel was named from, 

 the number of its sets of oars, each set 

 also determinate in number, is to our 

 minds clear from this remarkable circum- 

 stance, that no where is the number of 

 oars specified, whatever be the size of the 

 vessel as being a matter known to every 

 body, and requiring no mention. That 

 the oars again were worked by five or six 

 men is highly probable the modern gal- 

 lies of France and Spain are all so worked. 

 We give the author the benefit of his own 

 concluding words: 



If I have been successful, I have made it plain 

 that the ancient polycrota had not more than five 

 oars, ascending in an oblique line, which the an- 

 cient authors called a bank or rank of oars ; that 

 the vessel had her name from the number of these 

 extending from the prow to the poop ; that each 

 galley, according to her bulk, had a proportionate 

 number of rowers placed at each oar, classed ac- 

 cording to the place he pulled at that oar, and not 

 the place on the bank ; that the first ships (mean- 

 ing the monocrota) were entirely uncovered; and 

 that the objects the ancients had in view (in the 

 polycrota) was to obtain an elevated deck at prow 

 and poop, from whence to annoy the enemy. 



In our narrow space, and without the 

 aid of diagrams, we can give but a very 

 imperfect view of the matter; but we can 

 assure those of our readers, who feel any 

 curiosity about the subject, the book itself 

 will repay the trouble of perusal. 



2 R 



