HISTORY OF MARINE ARCHITECTURE.

100

>

u Let the figures ABCD, (says Vossius, in his criticism on the MarineArchitecture of the ancients, and his account of the principles by which it wasgoverned) represent the horizontal section of a vessel, or ancient galley, ofwhich A is of course the stem, or prow, and B the stern. The swell of thesea, raised by the impulse or motion of the galley through it, will pass on,being divided but slowly, till it reaches C C, which is the point of extremebreadth, and consequently of resistance. It will then begin to acquire velocity,which will naturally encrease till it reaches the points D D, where it attainsits height. The course then becomes suddenly impeded by the eddy, occa-sioned in consequence of the fluid, which had before passed from D D to B,where it meets, and flying off* instantly as in dislike of so close a contact,forms an opposition at E E, which checks the currents that had previouslypassed from C to D. ,r

This explanation of that investigation, on which Vossius asserts the ancientsacted, in assigning a situation to the rudder, is the more entitled to presentattention, inasmuch as it coincides strictly with many philosophical points ofmodern enquiry, which the studious investigators of the present age, in manyinstances, have appeared to consider as a ground never before passed over.Perhaps no topics, if it be permitted to make a digression for a moment, andcourse with the rapidity of thought from the first to the eighteenth century, haveever more agitated the minds of contending artists, or the tempers of theo-retical investigators, professing opposite opinions, than the separate enquiries ofthe proper point where the extreme breadth of the vessel should be placed, andthe contour or shape which can be best given to the tail, or stern. The disputeis certainly of the utmost magnitude. The proper ascertainment of the points

bears