I watch for thee,-when on the eyes I watch for thee, hope of my heart ! The rain-bow of the storm to thee!'-pp. 394, 395. 6 Some stanzas, from the pen of the Reverend Mr. Dale, are prettily written, though rather dull in sentiment. Among the other contents of the work, we observe one or two sonnets by the Rev. Mr. Lisle Bowles, a ، Reflection' on the last words of Berengarius, by that prince of dreamers, S. T. Coleridge, several love-lorn strains by Miss Landon, and one or two songs by Barry Cornwall. Upon each and all of these we must leave it to the reader to form his own judgment; for after what we have said of the attractions of 'The Literary Souvenir,' we can hardly doubt that he will give it an immediate and distinguished place in his library. If he have a mind to make a new year's present to an intelligent niece or daughter, we know of no single volume better suited to his purpose. ART. VII. An Essay on the War-Gallies of the Ancients. By John 61. Edinburgh and London. Blackwood and Howell. 8vo. pp. Few mere objects of antiquarian research have already afforded a more fruitful harvest of conjectures and doubts, or still remain in a happier condition to provoke fresh inquiries, and repay them with new uncertainties, than the attempt to determine the construction of the ancient war-galley, and the arrangement of its oars. The question is one which, chiefly perhaps on account of its perplexities, antiquarians have specially delighted to honour; and we marvel whether it may not prove to have been the identical theme of that erudite and interminable correspondence between our friend Jonathan Oldbuck, of Monkbarns, and the Rev. Dr. Dryasdust, of York, which is obscurely referred to in the veracious memoirs of the former right excellent person. The investigation, indeed, is so felicitously full of difficulties, it suggests so many an apparent solution, "and ne'er a true one," it is so susceptible of new interpretation by every fortunate commentator, and affords him so obvious an occasion of exposing the ignorance and vituperating the stolidity of all previous inquirers, that its attractions for the genuine archæologist are perfectly irresistible. Accordingly, we find that essay upon essay, dissertation and commentary, reply and rejoinder, have all been put forth on this teeming subject: rival systems of explanation have been upheld and assailed with conflicting learning; texts have been wrested, and arguments perverted, to prove the truth of every successive position; and the advocates of each have very commendably struggled in turn for the victory of their opinions, with all the true zeal, intolerance, and obstinacy of good partizans. For our own parts, we are very far from being surprised at the continuance or revival of this notable controversy: for the inquiry, if not of deep importance, is in itself really curious, and is rendered doubly amusing by the very uncertainty in which it is involved. As one of the unsolved problems of antiquity, there is an excitement in its examination, which is strengthened by previous failures; and we can ourselves feel some portion of that increasing ardour of pursuit, which has been thrown into the subject, just in proportion as it has appeared to bid defiance to all elucidation. We have turned, therefore, more in the spirit of antiquarian affection, than of critical severity, to the perusal of the little essay before us; and it has amply repaid our attention, with half-an-hour of very agreeable and rational entertainment. Avoiding the common sins of such treatises, Mr. Howell has made his essay neither long, nor ponderous, nor dogmatical. He does not fatigue us with argumentative prolixity, nor overpower us with the multitude of his quotations and references; but at the same time he evinces all requisite learning and research. He is not dull, but neither is he superficial: he says all that his undertaking demands, and has the great merit of saying it concisely in some sixty pages. Moreover, though he, too, has his new and special explanation to propose, he advances it modestly, and with no vaunt of his superior acumen over preceding inquirers. He details the suggestions of others with accuracy and fairness; he briefly exposes what he conceives to be erroneous deductions, without violently distorting the meaning of authorities in an opposite direction; and his own manner of treating his theme altogether is as candid, simple, and clear as possible. With respect to the particular conclusions which he has been led to form on the construction of the war-galley, they are certainly novel, plausible, and ingenious; but, we are bound to confess, to our apprehension at least, not wholly satisfactory. We shall, however, be contented rather to sketch off a general estimate of the merits of the discussion, and to leave our readers to judge as they will, than to engage formally ourselves in the debateable points of the subject. And lest, in refusing our entire conviction to the truth of Mr. Howell's conjecture, we should be suspected of holding also in reserve any little favourite plan of our own, we are careful to disclaim to that gentleman, with all due solemnity, the least intention of setting up a rival system; protesting that we do not happen to have "made up our minds" on a matter of such grave deliberation. With this safe declaration of neutrality, we venture to proceed. The object of discussion on the nature of the ancient galley lies in a very narrow compass. It is familiarly known to every schoolboy, by the common allusions and universal agreement of classical authors, that the war-vessels of the ancients were designated and rated according to the number of the banks of oars by which they were impelled. There were, generally, two classes of war-gallies: one of a single line of oars, and the other with two or more banks. Of the former, the Liburnian were most famous for their lightness and swiftness: but the nature of all vessels of this order is sufficiently obvious and intelligible. The construction of the numerous class of gallies of more than one bank, is the point which has perplexed our modern world. Of these, there were the bireme, or galley of two banks, the trireme of three, the quadrireme of four, the quinquireme of five, the hexireme of six, the septireme of seven, and so on. All the rates here enumerated were at different epochs employed in naval engagements; though the quinquireme seems to have been the largest ever in very general use. It was the common galley of both Carthaginians and Romans in the Punic wars; but the Greeks, at the great epoch of the Peloponnesian war, used few larger gallies than the trireme; and this continued longest the favourite and usual rate for "line of battlegallies," if we may so term them just as seventy-four-gun ships have in modern warfare been much more frequently constructed than three-deckers, from their superior utility as compared with the expense of construction. Of the mode in which the banks of oars in all these rates were arranged, not a tittle of explicit and indubitable evidence has come down to us. No ancient treatise whatever on ship-building has been preserved; and the only source of our defective information on the subject is to be sought in the scanty and casual allusions. of historians and poets, who have naturally avoided to encumber their narration with technical details of construction. It is much more strange that neither painting, gem, nor sculptured delineation has been found to aid the inquiry. Upon Trajan's column, vessels indeed have been discovered; but here, with the incorrectness which, as Mitford observes, the ancient sculptors allowed themselves in such representations, the artist has been so regardless of mechanical proportions, and has so confused and crowded his figures, that nothing can be safely determined from his authority. So also, in the rostrated column of Duilius, erected to commemorate his naval victory over the Carthaginians, and which was dug up at Rome, about two centuries and a half ago, only the beaks of gallies are projected from the shaft of the pillar; and no part of the banks of oars is exhibited. In the absence of all direct evidence, then, recourse has necessarily been had to conjecture; and the first obvious idea which would occur to the mind of, perhaps, every man is, that the banks of oars in the different rates were placed one above another-if not perpendicularly, at least in a chequered or quincunx order. There would be no difficulty in imagining that three or five tiers should be so disposed; and we may even admit the possibility of raising six or seven tiers in the same manner, though with increased unwieldiness and inconvenience of action. Thus far the natural supposition might be carried without much outraging probability, if the rating of the gallies had ascended no higher. But here the difficulty only commences. It is as indubitable as any point of ancient testimony, that gallies were constructed and used in naval warfare, not only of seven or eight banks of oars, but even of twelve, by Alexander the Great; of fifteen, by Ptolomy Soter; and of sixteen, by Philip, father of Perseus. And finally, Ptolomy Philopater built one of no less than forty banks. This last was designed, doubtless, for mere pomp and extravagant display; but still it was used, and the gallies of fifteen or sixteen banks were certainly employed in actual warlike service. Of this we have the separate and concurrent testimony of various authors; and we perfectly agree with Mr. Howell, that nothing can be more idle than the attempt of some moderns to impugn the fact, for the mere sake of supporting a favourite conjecture. Now, on the absurdity of supposing-without taking other incongruities into account-that any oar could be constructed of sufficient dimensions to be worked at the height of forty, or even fifteen tiers from the water, it is utterly needless to dwell. The enormous length of oar, which such an arrangement would require, may be seen by a proportional diagram of three lines, and will at once render the idea perfectly incredible to any rational mind. In the same manner it is demonstrable, that an oar fifty-seven feet long cannot be placed to pull with any effect, if its row-lock be more than ten feet above the horizontal line of the water, without rising at the upper end to a strangely inconvenient height, while, with the blade or lower end, it will make a most immoderate and impracticable dip. Yet thirty-eight cubits, or fifty-seven feet, is the precise length assigned by Athenæus to the longest oars of Ptolomy's galley of forty banks. If these oars, then, could only have been ten feet above water in the highest tier, how are we possibly to imagine any consistent arrangement of forty, or even ten tiers below, ascending either perpendicularly, or obliquely in chequer? The laws of reason and mechanics will equally revolt at the supposition. Yet even the absurd opinion that the banks were tiers of oars placed in perpendicular ascent, one over the other, has not wanted some obstinate advocates. Mr. Howell has quoted the argument derived by Morisot from the Tactics of the emperor Leo, to prove that war-gallies had at least two tiers of oars, and might therefore have more. But he has omitted to observe, as he ought, that the naval practice of the Byzantine empire can prove nothing on this question. Since the victory of Actium, which Augustus ascribed to his Liburnian gallies of one bank, the naval science of antiquity had certainly declined. The galleys of many banks had been laid aside; and the dromones, (or vessels of two tiers,) of Leo, would bear only a faint resemblance to the majestic construction of more vigorous ages. The reasoning of Morisot scarcely deserves to be noticed; but it is singular, that the accurate spirit of inquiry, and the characteristic incredulity of Gibbon, did not reject the notion of "those stupendous machines," as he is satisfied to describe them, which displayed fifteen or sixteen ranges of oars, “rising above, or falling behind each other." It is to the palpable impossibility of applying to gallies of the larger rates this opinion, that the banks of oars were ranged one above another in parallel lines, that we owe all the controversy on the subject. The first idea that appears to have been started for the solution of the problem, (and here Mr. Howell shall speak for us) was 'That the different banks of oars were ranged, not one above another, but in one continuous line along the side of the galley; the first in her bows, the second in her waist, the third in her stern, when a trireme; and if of a greater rank, the different banks were still added on the same line from prow to poop, with intervals between. This opinion has many supporters of great learning and merit. Though maintained by Stewechius and Castilionius, it is not more tenable than the last, and the faint representations left on Trajan's column, are directly contrary to this hypothesis. It is not necessary here to quote the numerous passages in almost every author, which occur at variance with this theory, and not to be reconciled to it. One objection I shall only state, which I think sufficient for its refutation, as I mean this not so much a dissertation upon the ancient authors, as an essay upon the galleys themselves. 'In building a galley after this manner, the loss of power is great, and needlessly thrown away, by breaking up the continuous range of oars that otherwise would have been obtained along the sides of the vessel, to gain no apparent advantage. 'No doubt, the difficulty as to height and length of oar are (is) by this means, got rid of, but the sacrifice of space and power is too evident not to be perceived; and this arrangement is accordingly not supported by the monuments of antiquity, nor a consistent interpretation of those authors who make any mention of the galley. Finally, were a galley to be constructed of ten banks, and there were many of a greater number, their length must have been enormous, far exceeding what Athenæus ascribes to the tesseraconteres of Ptolomy. Her length, he says expressly, was 280 cubits, or 420 feet. Now, she had forty banks of oars, and her longest |