Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

into the water, to the depth of three or four feet, between the joints of the trees which composed the raft; these, being raised or lowered according to the wish of the untutored pilot, were found, by experience, to aid him considerably in the management of his vessel.

Besides the Egyptians, to whom the original invention has been attributed, the same contrivance appears to have been adopted by the Phonicians and Ethiopians, the latter of whom are said to have undertaken what, speaking comparatively, might be considered very distant voyages, with no better means of maritime conveyance. Sicily, Corsica, and various other islands in the Mediterranean, are said to have been first colonised by navigators who had no other means of transporting themselves. Instances are not wanting, if any dependence can be placed on the terms used by the ancients, of the application of such vessels to the purposes of war.

Floats, exactly answering the same description with those in use among the ancients, have been found in the South Seas within the last century. While genius applied itself to the improvement of this rude system in those quarters, where, from the peculiarity of situation, and their approximation to the ocean, it had first gained footing, the contemporary inhabitants of countries very far distant struck out boldly at once into a more scientific, though more contracted scale; for a single tree only, artificially hollowed, served them for every purpose which either their necessities or their ambition appeared to require. The invention is supposed by Pliny and others to have originated with the inhabitants of Germany, who, being little known, were considered even by the Romans themselves as barbarians and savages. These boats or vessels, varying very little from the modern canoes, found, almost without exception, throughout all the newly discovered islands, were in many instances so capacious as to contain thirty persons, and were on that account either extremely formidable or useful, according to the tempers of the navigators. -Vide Pliny, lib. xvi. cap. 31

The Romans were little inclined to expeditions of mere discovery, and sought not to become acquainted with any country whose remote situation appeared to defy their arms; they hesitated not to bestow the name of barbarians on the inhabitants of all those districts whose manners or customs differed from their own. This fact is a sufficient reason why a people, whose judgment, taste, and consummate knowledge, in what were considered the polite arts, should have so little knowledge of the science of ship-building, which might have gratified their ambition to the greatest

extent.

The strict analogy the galleys of the Romans and Grecians bore to those possessed by the inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands, in the South Seas, seems to prove that they must have originally gone thither from Athens or from Rome. Although ignorant of the principles of the science, the ancients soon discovered, without much investigation, many of those essential points which, even at the present time, are considered among the most valuable and interesting that relate to it. They found out, without much

enquiry, and probably without a knowledge of the cause, that the breadth of a vessel, extended beyond a certain proportion, materially retarded her progress through the water: they discovered that a rotundity of shape caused their galleys to roll; and that, while the extension of breadth retarded their motion, too great a diminution of it produced an inconvenience of greater consequence, rendering their vessels so constructed extremely liable to be upset by any sudden shock, either from the wind or any enemy. In short, by comparing the knowledge of the ancients with improvements of the moderns, it plainly appears that not only this, but almost all the sciences may be considerably simplified by a strict attention to what has been the practice of times far remote; and the modern artist will find, by looking back, that those ideas which he fancied were his own, had been promulgated to the world long before he was in existence: hence he will find his labors considerably shortened by data established on actual experiment, on which he may raise a superstructure without tormenting himself about rendering the foundation of it secure.

The discovery of ship-building, or rather the invention of it is attributed by the ancients to a casual observation on the facility with which a split reed (in Latin, canna) floated on the surface of the water, and from that term is derived the Indian word canoe. This vessel of the North American, called by him periague, which serves him as a fishing-boat on the coast, and with which he travels and trades along his rivers, is made of bark. The aborigines of Canada used the bark of the birch, and sometimes constructed them of a sufficient size to hold four or five persons. The raft and the canoe at length became inadequate to the wishes of the possessors, and ingenuity of course was stimulated to the contrivance of what was considered as a necessary extension. The variety of inconveniences to which the primary invention was liable, was afterwards much reduced by that more ingenious piece of mechanism called by the Romans navis oneraria, by the Grecians poprnyos, a ship of burden, built either for the purpose of commerce, or for the conveyance of troops and different warlike and other stores, which the frequent contentions between nations rendered in some measure indispensably necessary.

The use of the sail appears, from the most authentic testimony, to have been very particularly appropriated to this class of vessels.

Before entering farther on this subject, it may be necessary to state here concisely the various additions and progressive improvements made in the construction of a ship:-The hull consisted of three parts, viz. the prow, or head; the poop, or stern; and the body, or midship-frame: under the bottom, and along the centre of the latter, passed the carina, or keel, which, by dividing the element on which the vessel floated in an acute angle, was found to contribute, in a very great degree, towards increasing the celerity with which the hull passed through the water; at the same time it produced another good effect, serving as it does in modern use for the foundation of the ribs or timbers, which formed the

body, bearing no slight resemblance to the vertebræ of the back, in the animal and human frame; continuing up the head or bow of the vessel in a curve line, conforming to its shape, it became what is now called the stem; as well adding stability and firmness to the front most opposed to the assaults of the sea, as enabling it to divide and pass through the swell of it with greater ease and velocity than the adoption of any other form would have permitted..

The keel is reported to have been generally omitted during the early ages of navigation in vessels intended merely for commerce; but, as many inconveniences and dangers were soon discovered from this omission, the keel was universally and indiscriminately applied to them as well as to vessels of war. To this improvement of the keel, subsequent experience suggested the addition of what the Greeks call paλriç, or kelson, which confining the heads of the floor-timbers, then in two parts, joined into and divided by the keel, very materially contributed to strengthen the vessel. Close to the kelson was the well, contrived as a receptacle for all that bilge-water which the working of the vessel through a rough sea caused the admission of, added to the impossibility of closing the joints or seams so completely by caulking, but that under such circumstances some must find its way. The part immediately above the kelson was called the Kon, or hold, and from thence is derived the English word keel, which forms the bottom of it. Aloft beams were fixed, which naturally strengthened the vessel, and supported that necessary covering, the deck. The frame consisted of such timbers as formed the principal strength of the vessel, which might then have been considered as complete; but, if it be fair to give any pre-eminence where two distinct parts mutually contribute to the support and perfection of each other, that which may be deemed the most material is the rolμa, the side, or exterior planking of the vessel.

As the frame, especially in midships, rose at right angles from the keel, so was the planking in former times, as now, put on in a line nearly parallel to it, allowing, as was necessary for the curve, or sheer of the frame; it completely enclosed it, being closely as well as firmly attached and fastened to it by means of large nails or bolts, formed of iron, some of which, as necessity required, passing through both, were bent or clenched, thereby rendering the whole structure firm and compact. As it was found impossible, particularly in vessels of large dimensions, to procure planks of sufficient length to extend from the stem to the stern, the danger or inconvenience that might otherwise have arisen from the end of either starting, was in a very great measure obviated by the ingenious and useful introduction of a dovetail, which connected them so securely that little danger appeared to remain of their ever separating. The side was, as now, divided into different parts, and distinguished by different appellations; the lowest was termed Cáλauos, or the floor-timber; the second, corresponding to that part of the hull now distinguished by the name of second futtock, was styled úyos, so termed from the junction of the timber at that

part; the upper division Opávos, signifying a bench or seat; the deck, which was called karaσтwμa, was thrown over at the part now termed the top timber. In each of these divisions that particular class of warlike vessels called triremes, which, as they were the most frequent in use, so were they most commonly noticed; and from which all deductions or descriptions relative to the ancient marine have been usually drawn, had, as is now commonly thought, a tier or range of oars. The opening in the side of the vessel, through which these were worked, was called rpaon, probably from rpéπw, to turn, and are now, when adopted in modern use, styled row, or row-lock ports.

There exists some difference of opinion relative to the form and disposition of these ports; some asserting that the aperture was continued through the whole range, while others, with much more reason on their side, attribute a distinct port to each oar. It is evident this supposition is correct from the term which we find frequently bestowed on them by the ancients themselves, of columbaria, or pigeon-holes, a term so congruous to their form as to prevent all possibility of doubt or dispute. These different tiers were distinguished in the trireme by terms analogous to their situation; the lower being called Oaλauia; the second vyla; the upper Opavia.

Historians and others have been so extremely vague, irregular, and contradictory in the accounts they have afforded, not only of the particular form in which the galley was constructed, but also as to other points not less consequential, that investigation, were they to be implicitly relied on, would be extremely difficult. In aid of this enquiry the curious have therefore had recourse to the very indeterminate information of coins, and such remnants of sculpture as the ravages of time, and the barbarous fury of invaders, have left to treasure up in the cabinets of the curious. The information they afford, though founded, perhaps, on the most respectable evidence now existing, is at best extremely imperfect. Among the most probable and the most rational explanations that have yet been given, is one by Monsieur Lescallier. It solves many of those strange assertions made by the ancients of the magnitude of particular vessels, which, throwing an air of fiction and romance on their descriptions, consequently induce posterity to doubt, if not totally discredit them. We have, for a long time,' says he, treated as a kind of visionary chimera, the account of three, four, five, and even eight tiers of oars, one above the other, by which the curious, who are unacquainted with naval matters, wish to explain the different appellations bestowed on ancient galleys, called triremes, quadriremes, quinquiremes, and octoremes. Whoever will give himself the least trouble to reflect on the subject, will very easily perceive the absolute impossibility of any vessel being able to carry even four rows or ranks of oars thus disposed. In modern galleys, which have only one tier, and are in length equal to a ship carrying sixty-four guns, the oars, though the supporting point, or row-lock port, is as near the water-line as possible, are forty-four feet long. Allowing a space of four feet and a half between

[ocr errors]

214

SHIP-BUILDING.

the lower tier of row-ports, and that immedi-
ately above it, the oars of the second must, pur-
suing this rule, be seventy-seven feet in length;
those of the third 110; those of the fourth 143,
&c.' Where can we, as judiciously remarked
by this author, either find wood proper for the
formation of these oars, or men powerful enough
Even the third tier could not be
to use them?
managed properly, were not the vessel perfectly
straight, or, according to the English term, wall-
sided. The oars of the lower rank, too, must
have been extremely short, so as to act on the
surface of the water at a very small distance from
the side of the vessel, in which case it must be
remarked that it is very evident they could not
be of any service except in a dead calm. As to
the quadragintiremes, or vessels usually described
as having forty ranks or tiers of oars, we cannot
reconcile the report to our understandings, except
by supposing them nothing more than galleys fitted
with as many oars in each rank. Those who pretend
to give any other interpretation may as well at-
tempt to prove that a modern ship of war,
mounting 100 guns, had as many tiers of cannon,
one above the other.

It may be probably interesting,' says Les-
callier, to explain this opinion more fully;
even should it be deemed erroneous, it will be
some consolation to reflect it is not the first error
the investigation of this subject has given birth
to. The uniremes may be supposed to have
been those galleys or vessels which had only one
row of oars extending between their masts, or,
perhaps, the entire length of the vessel, like the
modern feluccas of Barbary; and, consequently,
The bi-
required only one rank of rowers.
remes had one tier of oars between their masts,
and another abaft the main-mast. The triremes
appear to have been galleys of a still more for-
midable description than the preceding, having
one tier of oars extending between the masts, a
second abaft the main-mast, and a third forward,
near the prow or stem, before the fore-mast. The
quadriremes had their oars ranged like the tri-
remes, with the difference of having two tiers of
oars one above the other abaft the main-mast.
The quinquiremes were also of the same descrip-
tion, with the addition of a second tier of oars
forward. The octoremes had two tiers of oars
in the midships, and three at the stem and stern,
making in the whole eight. It cannot be denied
that some vessels had three entire tiers of oars ;
this is, indeed, established to have been the case
from the evidence of a multitude of ancient
sculptures; but there is no certain proof of any
having been constructed with a greater number.
With regard to the octoremes, they were enor-
mous floating structures, built merely for the
purposes of luxury, and to gratify a ridiculous
ostentation; so unfit for war, or even navigation,
that they could not venture to sea without mani-
fest danger. Of this description was the cele-
brated galley of Philopater; such also was that
constructed by Archimedes, for Hiero, king of
Syracuse, and presented to Ptolemy; and lastly,
of the same class may that built in the reign of
the emperor Caligula be supposed to have been,
which foundered in the reign of Claudius, and
was irrecoverably lost in the port of Ostia.'

The foregoing, which appears a perfectly sim-
ple and reasonable explanation, enlarges our
ideas of the marine of the ancients, which has
The galleys of war when the custom of naval
hitherto been very much misunderstood.
hostility was introduced, and gradually advanced
in general practice, were certainly improved, and
perhaps enlarged; but the peculiar exigences of
the state, and the mode of fighting then practised,
have become necessary since the revival of the
not requiring an attention to those points which
science in modern times, the ease with which
vessels were at that time built, rendered it pos-
mament as formidable, in respect to numbers, as
sible for a powerful nation to send forth an ar-
it thought proper, or could find persons to navi-
The gradual diminution in the
numbers of vessels composing fleets, as the im-
gate and man it.
provement in the construction of those vessels
gradually advanced, forms no slight internal evi-
dence in favor of the correctness with which
as, at first sight, may have been considered as
The same points per-
historians have given such numerical statements,
vade the chronology of naval war, and serve
exaggerated and untrue.
for at least circumstantial evidence, as well in
the support of the historians of antiquity, as of
those in modern Europe, whose accounts have
been rejected by many as legendary tales, fit
only for the extravagance of romance, or the al-
lowed effusions of poetical fancy. To conclude,
we may venture to assert that the galleys of the
ancients were as long as any modern ships of
war, though very narrow, and much less raised
from the surface of the water, if we except the
octoremes, vessels with eight ranks, or, as some
will have it, distinct tiers of oars.

Though in the time of action the success of
every manœuvre, and the event of the encounter
itself, in a great measure depended on the dis-
cipline and strength of the rowers, yet it is not
other times deprived of the use of the mast and
thence to be concluded that galleys were not at
sail. When the wind was fair they constantly
made use of the sails, and worked their vessels
either with those only, or aided by the oars also,
to afford any supplementary assistance: this
if it was so nearly a calm as to enable the latter
custom has been continued in the Mediterraneap
even to the present time.
among vessels still retaining the same name up

Some of the ancient vessels were of won-
derful magnitude, if we may credit the testimony
of authors. In particular, Hiero, king of Syra-
cuse, is said to have possessed one, intended for
was of 4000 tons burden: and the Egyptians
the sole purpose of carrying merchandise, which
at a still earlier period, built a ship which they
called the Isis, that was 180 feet in length, forty-
five in breadth, and forty-three in perpendicular
height from the upper-deck to the bottom of the
pump-well. The inhabitants of Alexandria were
also much noticed, in ages somewhat later, on ac-
count of the immense size of the vessels which
they constructed for similar service to that last-
mentioned.

After making all possible allowance for the exfairly conclude that the science of naval architravagant notions of ancient writers, we may

[ocr errors]

tecture very rapidly advanced, in some particular countries, soon after its first discovery; for, though we may doubt some particulars, still there will remain behind firm and immoveable facts, fully sufficient to convince us that it must, in point of strength, at least, have been conducted on fixed and determinate principles, established by close attention and considerable experience. The principal proportions, if those of the Isis are to be taken as a pattern, differed not very materially from those even of our own times but we are much in the dark as to any other of those more minute particulars, the knowledge of which would enable us to form that perfect representation of their vessels, which future ages, no matter how remote, will be able to amuse themselves with, of those built at the present time.

:

At a period no farther distant than the fifteenth century, there is some doubt and much obscurity among writers in their descriptions of the form of particula celebrated ships; and historians have also given extravagant accounts of vessels constructed even in these times, which appear to be derived more from fancy than from fact.

Our Henry VII., who from his long residence on the continent had opportunities of acquiring greater skill in maritime affairs than most of his predecessors, and seems to have been the first king that thaght of raising such a naval force as might be at all times sufficient for the services of the state, built a ship called the Great Harry, which cost him about £14,000, and which, properly speaking, was the first ship of the royal navy. She was burnt by accident, at Woolwich, in 1553. See Derrick's Memoirs of the Rise and Progress of the Royal Navy. Henry VIII., in the year 1515, built at Erith the Henry Grace-de-Dieu, of 1000 tons burden; she carried nineteen brass and 103 iron pieces of ordnance, was manned with 350 soldiers, 300 mariners, and fifty gunners; and is of very different force from that which the drawing preserved in the Pepysian library seems to convey the idea of. Taken in a strict sense, it can no more be considered as an actual portrait of a ship, rudely as vessels might then be constructed, than can the uncouth figures of vessels which are so frequently seen on the reverse of ancient coins, be taken as the actual and correct records of the form of galleys. Not to speak contemptuously of so curious a document, it can only be esteemed as the general resemblance of a ship, such as might be sketched by the most artless hand, upon mere recollection, and at a very remote period from actual inspection. It is evident that, at the period now treated of, there were two distinct fashions in ship-building observed by marine architects, particularly those in Britain. In the tapestry woven to commemorate in this country the destruction of the Spanish Armada, this point, when joined with other confirming evidence, appears established almost beyond controversy. The first of these fashions, derived originally from the Venetians, and transmitted from them to the English, was certainly adopted by the constructor of the ship in question. There are very many in the hangings

just mentioned, which bear so close a resemblance, in the principal particulars, to the Pepysian drawing, as may silence those who boldly reject the drawing in question, because some parts of it are incorrect and absurd. On the other hand, there is a second description of vessels, which appear to have been peculiar to the English, and contrived as a very wise improvement on the ridiculous height of the first, which bears so great a similitude to a print published by a person of the name of Allen, in 1756, and professed to be a representation of the Great Harry, that it may also serve to convince us this print is not so bad a representation of the ship as many persons have considered it. In fact, it seems certain that such vessels, so differing from each other, were actually contemporary, and engaged at one and the same time, in the same line of service; therefore, taking the whole of the evidence into consideration, it seems but fair to assert that the drawing and the print were both of them tolerably correct, that one was the production of a very inferior, and the other of a much more polished, artist.

The historical accounts of the Spanish Armada in respect to the vessels of which it consisted, compared to the English fleet opposed to it, represents their magnitude and lofty appearance nearly as far superior as a vessel is to a boat she carries to attend her; yet it will be found, on examination, that there were only four ships in the whole Spanish fleet superior to the Triumph, commanded by Sir Martin Frobisher. Although, in the comparative statement of the two armaments, that of England was certainly very far inferior in respect to tonnage, yet the terms made use of to excite wonder and applause were undoubtedly carried beyond the bounds of truth and propriety. Of the same nature, and probably owing to the same cause, are the accounts of the fleets of Darius, Xerxes, and of Anthony. Another circumstance exactly in point will be found in different portraits of the Sovereign of the Seas, which was built at Woolwich, in the year 1637, in the reign of king Charles I. According to Mr. Thomas Heywood's publication, addressed at that time to the king, the Sovereign of the Seas was in length by the keel 128 feet, within some few inches; her main breadth fortyeight feet; in length from the fore-end of the beak-head to the after-end of the stern, à prora ad puppim, 232 feet; and in height, from the bottom of her keel to the top of her lantern, seventy-six feet: bore five lanterns, the largest of which would hold ten persons upright; had three flush decks, a forecastle, half-deck, quarter deck, and round-house. Her lower tier had thirty ports for cannon and demi-cannon, Middle tier, Third tier, Forecastle,

30 for culverines and demi ditto.
26 for other ordnance.
12, and two

Half-decks had thirteen or fourteen ports more within-board, for murdering pieces, besides ten pieces of chase-ordnance forward, and ten right aft, and many loop-holes in the cabins, for musket-shot. She had eleven anchors, one of 4400 lbs.; was of 1637 tons burden; and built by Peter Pett, esq., under the direction of his

father, captain Phineas Pett, one of the principal officers of the navy. She had two galleries besides, all of most curious carved work, and all sides of the ship carved with trophies of artillery and types of honor, as well belonging to sea as land, with symbols appertaining to navigation; also their two sacred majesties' badges of honor; arms, with several angels holding their letters in compartments; all which works were gilded over, and no other color but gold and black. One tree, or oak, made four of the principal beams, which was forty-four feet, of strong serviceable timber, in length; three feet in diameter at the top, and ten feet at the bottom. She was the largest ship that had ever been built in England, and is said to have been designed only for splendor and magnificence: but, being taken down a deck lower, she became, according to report, one of the best men of war in the world. Sir Walter Raleigh, speaking of the ability and knowledge possessed by the British shipwrights, observes, 'To say the truth, a miserable shame and dishonor it were for our shipwrights, if they did not exceed all others in the setting up of our royal ships, the errors of other nations being far more excusable than ours; for the kings of England have for many years been at the charge to build and to furnish a navy of powerful ships for their own defence, and for war only; whereas the French, the Spaniards, the Portuguese, and the Hollanders, till of late, have had no proper fleet belonging to their principal state.'

It may be necessary to mention here the different methods that have been practised in the sheathing of ships, from the original adoption of the measure to the present time: the first was a thin covering of deal, or fir plank, into which the worm penetrated; but which, consequently, preserved the bottom itself till they so far demolished the covering as to acquire an easy passage into the interior part, an injury which took them some time to effect. An attempt was made in the year 1675 to introduce sheet lead for thin deal, as a more lasting substitute; but, after some experiments, the project was totally abandoned, and the original method persevered in. Some few years afterwards an addition was made to the wood covering, from which much advantage was looked for, and no inconsiderable benefit derived: the bottom of the ship having first received a coat of pitch, the whole was completely covered with brown paper, which, of course, closely adhered to it; a second paying of pitch, mixed with tar, was then laid on the paper; and fourth coating of short hair carefully attached to the tar; the deal sheathing was then brought over the whole, and, being firmly fastened to the bottom by a great number of nails, the whole operation was rendered complete. A number of experiments, with various materials introduced between the wood sheathing and the bottom, among which that of coating the latter with lime is to be remembered, have been tried at different times; but none of them have proved so effectual or useful as that just described.

In 1758 a trial was made on a small British frigate called the Alarm, of the effect which a

sheathing of copper woula produce in the double purposes of preserving the bottom from the injury occasioned by the worm, and contributing to the swift sailing of the vessel. It was proved that no adhesion of barnacles, or any other substances, could take place on the copper; so that not only the expense as well as time of graving and cleaning them would be saved, but that they might remain, so long as they continued fit for service in other respects in the same condition with respect to sailing, as they were the first hour when they were sent to sea. The hope was realised in every respect; and in the course of the war with America, which terminated in 1783, our ships of every class were coppered; and it was ordered by the government, in November of that year, that, in future, all ships should be copper-fastened under the load draught of water.

The custom of sheathing, however, is certainly of very ancient date, which has been fully proved by the discovery and rescue of Trajan's galley from the lake Riccio, where it had remained under water for more than thirteen centuries. Leo Baptisti Alberti, who records the circumstance, states, on his own inspection and knowledge, that the pine and cypress of which it was built, had endured, and were then in so sound a state as to be nearly incredible: the bottom was, according to the modern, doubled: the seams had been evidently caulked with linen, and the whole of the external part carefully smeared, or payed, with a coat of Greek pitch, over which was brought a sheathing, formed of lead, rolled or beaten to a proper thinness, and closely attached to the bottom by a sufficient number of small copper nails.' For further particulars see Charnock's History of Marine Architecture. Locke, who has noticed the above circumstance in his History of Navigation, observes, here we have caulking and sheathing together above 1600 years ago; for,' adds our author, I suppose no man can doubt that the sheets of lead nailed over the outside with copper nails was sheathing, and that in great perfection; the copper nails being used rather than iron, which, when once rusted in water with the working of the ship, soon lose their hold, and drop out.'

PART II.

MODERN STATE OF THE ART.

Modern naval architecture, or ship-building, may be distinguished into three principal parts: 1. To give the ship such an exterior form as may be most suitable to the service for which she is designed.

2. To give the various pieces of a ship their proper figures, and unite them into a firm and compact frame, so that by their combination and disposition they may form a solid fabric, sufficient to answer all the purposes for which it is intended.

3. To provide convenient accommodations for the officers and crew, and also suitable places of stowage for the cargo, furniture, provisions, artillery, ammunition, &c.

The exterior figure of a ship may be divided into the bottom and upper works. The figure

« AnteriorContinuar »