صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

497, M. Attilius Regulus, and L. Manlius Volso, consuls, commanded another fleet, in which were above one hundred and forty thousand men; the Carthaginians had then in their fleet one hundred and fifty thousand men under the conduct of Hamilcar, who was entirely overthrown, fifty of his ships taken, and sixty-four sunk. Thus far the sea had proved favourable to the Romans; but in the year of Rome 499, having set out a fleet of quinqueremes, they lost one hundred and forty by storms, which made them resolve to lay aside all naval enterprizes, keeping only seventy sail of ships to serve as transports; till in the year 503, perceiving their affairs in Sicily decline, the Carthaginians being absolute masters at sea, they again set out two hundred sail, and the following year received a mighty overthrow, with the loss of ninety-three galleys. Resolving now to put an end to the war, they again fit out two hundred quinqueremes, built by the model of a Rhodian they had before taken, and with them gave the Carthaginians such a fatal overthrow, as reduced them to accept of a dishonourable peace. This was the rise of the Roman power at sea, which they after not only held, but increased as long as their empire subsisted. Their actions are too many and too great for this place; those that desire to see more may read them in Livy, Plutarch, Appian, and many other authors who deliver them at large; thus much having been said only to deduce the succession of navigation from one people to another. Now though the Romans at this time gained the sovereignty of the seas, and held it for some ages, yet we do not find that they applied themselves to new discoveries, or ever exceeded the bounds of what the Phoenicians had before made known, their greatest voyage being that which Pliny, lib. VI. cap. 23, gives an account of, being from Egypt to India beforementioned, to have been frequently performed by the Phoenicians, and therefore had nothing new in it. What occurs in this place is, to say something of the several sorts of galleys called triremes, quadriremes, quinqueremes, and so forth, whereof mention was made above. Herodotus, Thucydides, and Diodorus agree, that Aminocles the Corin

thian was the first that invented the trireme galley, about three hundred years after the destruction of Troy. Pliny will have it that Aristotle, a Carthaginian, first built a quadrireme, and Nesichton of Salamis a quinquereme; but Diodorus contradicts it, attributing the invention of the quinqueremes to Dionysius, the Sicilian. Pliny further adds, that Zenagoras, the Syracusan, built the first vessel of six ranks, Nesigiton one of ten; Alexander the Great is reported to have proceeded to twelve; Philostephanus makes Ptolomy Soter the first that made one of fifteen ranks, Demetrius the son of Antigonus of thirty, Ptolomy Philadelphus of forty, and Ptolomy Philopator of fifty. Thus we have the original of them all; but what sort of vessels these were, that is, how the several degrees or ranks of oars were disposed, has been much controverted, and is a most difficult point to be determined. The shortness of this discourse will not allow much canvassing of the point, yet a few words out of two or three learned authors will give some satisfaction to the curious. Morisotus in his Orbis Maritimus, p. 608. positively affirms that each of these vessels had its name from the number of ranks of oars placed one above another, so that the trireme had three, the quinquereme five ranks; and so every one according to its name, even till we come to Ptolomy Philopator's tesseraconteres, which he asserts, had forty ranks of oars placed one over another, wherein he agrees with Baifius, whom he quotes, as he does the emperor Leo, whose words are these: Every ship of war must be of its due length, having two ranks of oars, the one higher, and the other lower. This which to him seems concluding, to others appears of no force; for allowing there might be vessels that had two ranks of oars one above another, that does not at all prove the possibility of having twenty or forty, which must of necessity rise to such a height as would look more like a mountain than a ship; and those upper oars must be so long, and in proportion so large and unwieldy, that no strength of hands could ever manage them. Others will have these several ranks of oars to be taken lengthways, and not in

VOL. X.

BB

height; that is, so many in the prow, so many in the midships, and so many in the poop; whence will follow that Ptolomy's galley had forty several ranks in length, with intervals betwixt them, in one line from stem to stern, which allowing but a small number of oars to each of these ranks, will quite outrun the length assigned that vessel, being two hundred and eighty cubits. This opinion is followed by Stewechius, Castilionius, and several others; but sir Henry Savil is of another mind, and supposes these ranks not to lie in length from head to stern, nor in height one above another, but athwart; which must appear preposterous, because allowing so many ranks this way, that is, athwart the galley, its breadth would exceed all proportion. The fourth solution of this difficulty, and that very much received, is, that the vessel had its name from so many men tugging at one oar, that is, three in a trireme, five in a quinquereme, and so of the rest; which indeed as far as six or seven men to an oar has the most resemblance of truth; but when we come to forty or fifty men to an oar, it will be difficult either to reconcile either to the breadth of the vessel, not to be supposed capable of eighty men in a rank, or to the height of the men, because though the first man next the side of the galley had the oar under hand, yet the end of it when it came to the fortieth must of necessity rise above his reach. These two objections are again answered, the first by allowing each oar to reach quite athwart the galley, and so the forty men to fill up the whole breadth, rowing as they do in our wherries or barges; and the second by allowing an ascent from one side of the galley to the other for each seat or standing of those that rowed; and for the soldiers and sailors, we must imagine a deck over the heads of the slaves at the oar. This carries much of reason, but little of ancient authority, for we find no ancient monuments that describe any thing of this nature. We will conclude this matter with the opinion of Schefferus de militia navali, lib. II. cap. 2. where allowing a competent distance according to the length of the vessel betwixt each bank of oars, he supposes the first row to

be as in our galleys next the level of the water; then in the intervals another row, not distinguished by a deck, but raised so high by their seat that their feet rested against that which was the back of the bank below them, and so one above the other in those intervals, which takes off much of the height, that must have been, allowing them several decks, and consequently shortens the upper oars in proportion; yet cannot at all lessen the difficulty that will occur upon plying so many oars, which will come to dip so close together in the water, that it seems impracticable to avoid clattering of them, and falling into confusion, not to mention many more inconveniencies obvious. enough to every man's reason that has seen any vessels of this nature and therefore it is best to determine nothing amidst such uncertainties, but leave every one to approve that which shall best suit with his notion of the matter. Therefore leaving these obscurities, it is better to proceed upon the history of navigation where we left off, and see in what state it continued from the time of the Romans last spoken of, till the fortunate discovery of the magnetical needle, from which time is to be dated its greatest advancement, as will be visible in that place.

As long as the Roman empire continued in splendour, it supported what it had found of navigation, but added little or nothing to it, that people being altogether intent upon making new conquests, and finding still more work than they were able to compass upon dry land, without venturing far out to sea. But when the barbarous nations began to dismember that monarchy, this art instead of improving, doubtless declined, as did all others. The first of these barbarians were the Goths and Vandals, of whom no great actions appear on the sea, their farthest expeditions on this element being in the Mediterranean, betwixt Italy and Afric, Spain and the Islands, where nothing occurs worth mentioning. The Saracens were next to them as to order of time, though much superior in naval power, yet contained within the same bounds, and consequently did nothing more memorable. After the

Saracens may be reckoned the Normans, who for several years infested the coasts of Britain and France with their fleets from Norway, till having settled themselves in Normandy, they ran out plundering all the coasts of Spain, and entering the straits conquered a great part of the kingdom of Naples, and the whole island of Sicily. Still these, though they undertook longer voyages, were but coasters, and satisfied with what they found, did not endeavour to add any thing to the art of navigation, especially for that they were as then but rude and barbarous, war and rapine being their only profession. Other nations famous at sea were the Genoeses and Venetians, betwixt whom there were bloody wars for several years; and the latter, till the Portuguese discovered the way by sea to the East Indies, had all the trade of those parts in their own hands, either brought up the Red Sea into Egypt, or by caravans to the seaport towns of Asia. We might here mention the expeditions of English, French, Danes, Dutch, and other nations, but should find nothing new in them all. They all in their turns were powerful at sea, they all ventured sometimes far from home, either to rob, conquer, or trade, but all in the same manner creeping along the shores, without daring to venture far out to sea, having no guides out of sight of land but the stars which in cloudy nights must fail them. It is therefore time to leave these blind sailors and come to the magnet or loadstone, and to the compass or magnetical needle, which has opened ways in the unknown ocean, and made them as plain and easy in the blackest night as in the brightest day. To come then to the point.

The loadstone, or magnet, so called from the Latin word magnes, had this name given it because found in the country of Magnesia, which is a part of Lydia in Asia; or because the Magnesians first discovered its virtue of attracting iron: for both these reasons are given by the learned Bochartus, Geogr. Sacr. p. 717. What other virtues and qualities it has, does not belong to this place. But it is certain the magnet has two poles answering to the two poles of the world, and to

« السابقةمتابعة »