not show how that number could have been worked,—he, for the reasons just quoted, arrived at the conclusion "that in the lower tier one man only was stationed to an oar, which being short, and but trivially elevated above the surface of the water, he might be able to work without much difficulty." He then explains that, in his opinion, as to which there can be no question, "the oars in all superior tiers, as they increased in height from the water, increased also in length, within board as well as without, leaving room for a greater number of rowers to work, each in progressive proportion to their length;" but he draws a false conclusion from right premises when he remarks that the difficulty consists "not in so many tiers, but in the number of seats of rowers comprised in one oblique tier."[1]
Such are the views of a few of the leading writers on this intricate question. While agreeing with Vossius in the opinion that the oar-ports were placed obliquely in the sides of the vessel, and that the number of men to an oar was regulated by its length and position, there are many objections to his theory that the galleys of the ancients were classed, either by the number of men or by the number of their seats; and any seaman who takes the trouble to put the theory into practice will find that even the principle of obliquity will not admit of the effective working of more than five tiers of oars.
Each theory, however, contains less or more
- ↑ In the course of our examination of this subject we have received from the Revd. J. O. W. Haweis, of Colwood, Crawley, in the county of Sussex, a paper so ingenious and original, that, though we doubt its practicability, we have much pleasure in printing it in the Appendix to this volume.—See Appendix No. 1, pp. 625-8.
