HISTORY OF MARINE ARCHITECTURE.

77

appears, in a great measure, proved beyond controversy, by the model of aRoman vessel, found in the Villa Matthei, which, though very improperly termeda galley, partakes sufficiently of its peculiarities to leave very little doubt,that, though modern improvement in Marine Architecture may have suggestedsome alterations in the structure, the leading characters of it have never beenmaterially changed.

If this is really the fact, and, to speak very seriously, there seems but littleroom to doubt it, the mist, which has so long enveloped this controversy,will be greatly dispersed. Fig. 3, Plate 5, represents the demi-sectionof a modern galley, and of one which, supposing the idea just started to becorrect, may be considered as no very imperfect representation of its ancestor,which existed two thousand years before. The fashion of the modern vesselappears, as it were, to invite a triple tier of oars ; and the principle may certainlybe extended without risk, in proportion as the bottom of the vessel was enlargedbeyond that of a modern galley, which, it must be supposed, those were whichare commemorated as the wonderful floating structures, possessed by Ptolemy,and others. Taking this suggestion, A, Fig. 4, will be the xoi\!x, or hold;B the QctXxfios, or lower tier; C the gwyo ?; and D the vos, or upper tier.It is by no means impossible, that the number of tiers might, on particularoccasions, by adopting this principle, have been encreased, and considerably too,beyond that number which has just been provided for : but certainly not tosuch an extent as can completely solve this problematical enquiry.

Perplexing as the foregoing disquisition has invariably proved to all who have-attempted to pursue it, better success cannot be expefted than those verylearned persons have experienced, who have already attempted an enquiry,which has not proved satisfactory even to themselves. Before one difficulty iscompletely conquered, another starts up with a still more formidable aspect, and'precipitates into absurdity those points which inquisitive men, with much earn-estness, have laboured to establish: compelling them to retract with disgrace,,or obliging them to support, on the best foundation they can find, those theorieswhich have generally little to recommend them, but their novelty and boldcontradiction of what had before been received as certain facts. This partof the enquiry may therefore be dismissed, with observing, that the idea novessel had more than three tiers of oars is probably correct; for if, inpursuing this subject farther, that system, when applied to vessels in mostcommon use, as the Quinquireme, and those of still superior size, should be

thought