History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 1 (of 4)

by W. S. Lindsay

CHAPTER III.

Egypt—Commerce—Sesostris—Naucratis—The Nile—Sailors of Egypt—Their boats—How navigated—Mode of building them—Cargo barges—Their rig—Steering—Passage and cargo boats—Boat for the conveyance of the dead—Variety of boats, and their superiority—Prosperity of Egypt under the Ptolemies, B.C. 283—Canal over the Isthmus—Ptolemy’s great ship—Analysis of her dimensions—The Thalamegus, her size and splendour—Great size of other Egyptian monuments—Probability of such vessels having been constructed—Hiero’s great ship—Not unlike a modern inland American steamer—Details of her construction, accommodation, outfit, and decorations—Greek ships—Habits of piracy—Corinth—Athens—The size of her ships as described by Herodotus—Discrepancy between the different accounts.

Egypt.

The ancient history of Egypt is to be found almost exclusively in the works of Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus; but it has been materially supplemented, and in many respects confirmed by the researches of modern scholars. Moreover, from the time when Young[152] discovered the key to the hieroglyphical writings, a flood of light has been thrown upon it by the labours of Champollion, Lepsius, Bunsen, Birch, De Rougé, Chabas, Goodwin and Wilkinson; the works of the last-named writer being especially full of information with reference to its ships and commerce.

Of the period of the commencement of civilization in Egypt there is no reliable information, nor are modern scholars at all agreed as to the evidence deducible from Herodotus, as compared with the monuments. There is no certainty about the age of Menes, or about the reign in which the Exodus took place; even the date of the invasion of Judæa by Shishak is not undisputed; and it would require more materials than are yet at our disposal to harmonize all the Biblical with the Monumental records. There can be no doubt, however, that the country was richly cultivated and fully peopled many centuries before the classical nations, or even the Phœnicians, were known as merchants or warriors. As already noticed, there is further reason for believing that the populations depicted on the sculptures were not originally natives of the Valley of the Nile, but immigrants thither from Chaldæa and its neighbourhood.

The skulls of Egyptians from the mummy-pits are Caucasian, and have no affinity with those of Africa, and the grammar of their language is not Semitic. Again, the name “Egypt” is not found on any of the early monuments: the country is simply called “Cheme,” the “black-land”; the “land of Ham,” the “Caphtorim” (Genesis x. 14). Moreover, the complexion and features of the people prove that the immigrants did not appreciably mingle with the primitive population, the lineaments of many of even the existing inhabitants still showing these marks of Asiatic origin.

Commerce.

Egypt under the Pharaohs was almost entirely an agricultural country; commerce and manufactures (excepting in the case of cloths of various descriptions) were neglected. With a soil of unexampled richness, annually renewed by the Nile floods, the Egyptians acted wisely in devoting their attention chiefly to the development of their own vast natural resources.

The paintings on the walls of their tombs, and other monuments, suffice to show the attention the early population paid to agricultural pursuits; for there was obviously no higher tribute to the memory of a deceased landowner than to represent him overlooking his labourers in the field, cultivating the soil, or reaping, and carrying, in nets and baskets, the produce to the thrashing floor. In fact, apart from the records of Herodotus, valuable as they undoubtedly are, the monuments furnish a great amount of information, with regard to the state and progress of the arts and sciences among this ancient people. To measure and to calculate the fitting seasons for their various religious ceremonies, they observed, with much accuracy, the courses of the heavenly bodies, especially those of the sun and stars; at the same time keeping a careful registry of their movements, little, if at all, inferior to that of the Chaldæans. But while a practical acquaintance with geometry was a necessity to the men who constructed the Pyramids and the great dams and dykes required for the complete utilizing of the periodical inundations of the Nile, the study of this exact science was still more stimulated by the mechanism necessary to enable them to transport from the quarries the enormous blocks of stone of which the Pyramids and temples were constructed, some of these having to be brought for more than five hundred miles. Such works could not have failed to demand considerable mechanical invention.

Nor indeed is this all. Remains still existing show that the Egyptians were well skilled in the use of metals, and in their application to delicate as well as rough work. The paintings in the tombs, and abundant drawings preserved on the Egyptian papyri, demonstrate also their knowledge of at least the elementary branches of the Fine Arts; while their colossal statues exhibit great power in the working of sculptures in a very hard and untractable material.

Sesostris.

During the earliest periods there is no record of any large vessels having been in use, for those employed for the conveyance of the huge blocks of stone from the quarries were doubtless rather rafts or barges than boats. In the reign, however, of Rameses II. (the Sesostris of the Greeks) we hear of vessels of large dimensions; these, however, it is most likely were all of Phœnician origin, and simply hired for use during his foreign expeditions. Prodigious sculptured memorials of this king exist all over Egypt, and there is still a curious relief of him at the Nahr el Kelb near Beyrût, which was seen by Herodotus.[153] Tacitus[154] further tells us that others were shown to Germanicus when in Egypt. It is not necessary here to discuss the vexed question of the conquests of Sesostris; it is enough to suggest that, in whatever extensive expeditions by sea he may have been engaged, he was indebted to the Phœnicians for his fleet—and that, by their agency if at all, he was able to destroy “the Khairetans of the sea and the Tokhari” (probably the Cretans and Carians), nautical races, who, from the mythical till the commencement of the historical period, were highly esteemed by the Greeks for their skill as sailors. A figure discovered by the Rev. G. C. Renouard, and engraved in Texier’s “Asie Mineure”[155] is almost certainly the Sesostris of Herodotus. It is on the highway from Sardes to Smyrna, but the inscriptions on it are no longer legible.

Naucratis.

There seems no reason to suppose that the native population of Egypt was at any time of its history accustomed to nautical pursuits. As the Phœnicians supplied the navy of Sesostris, so other foreign shipping were engaged in the later times of Egyptian history. Hence it was that the famous port of Naucratis was founded on the Canopic mouth of the Nile, foreign merchants and sailors being restricted to this and to one or two other places: a practice recalling the custom of the Chinese up to a very recent period. Herodotus says that the abodes of these foreign settlers were generally called “Camps;”[156] and gives some details which show how jealously the Egyptians provided against the advent of strangers to any but the one port of Naucratis. “There was,” he says, “no other in Egypt for them” (the merchants). “If a merchant or a ship-owner entered any other branch of the Nile than that of the Canopic mouth, he was compelled to swear he had come there against his will through stress of weather; and he was required to sail in his own ship to the Canopic mouth, or to have his cargo transported in barges, should the winds prove adverse, round the Delta, to the factory at the port of Naucratis, which had an exclusive privilege.”[157]

In the reign of Amasis (B.C. 556) special privileges were granted to the Greeks by that king, with protection to those who made Naucratis their place of abode; while for those who did not care to reside there permanently, but were simply sea-faring traders, he appropriated sites for temples and altars to their gods, and sanctuaries where their lives and properties would at all times be secure. But these privileges seem to have been restricted to the Greeks; for when another nation claimed a similar protection, Herodotus[158] simply remarks that “they claim what does not belong to them.”

Thus the Greeks became the sole agents and ship brokers through whom business could be transacted at Naucratis, and, though at first reluctantly admitted within its sacred soil, they, in the end, largely aided in promoting the wealth and prosperity of Egypt. The merchandise imported by them gave rise to new fashions and new wants, and by degrees, the introduction of Greek manners and customs produced an influence over nearly the whole of Egypt, and prevailed in spite of numerous revolutions throughout the rule of the Persians till the time of Alexander the Great.

The Nile.

But the Nile itself was, after all, the chief source or cause of the wealth of Egypt. Although the only river in the world which has during so long a course so few tributaries of any magnitude, it has, or rather had, several mouths, and these, with various canals, were the principal high roads for Egyptian traffic. The external character of the greatest of these canals (the Bahr-Jusuf, or “River of Joseph”), which runs parallel with the Nile on its western side from a little below Cairo for three hundred and fifty miles, though now no longer navigable, rendered it, up to the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, the most important work of the kind in Egypt. Nor were there wanting canals which received the surplus of the inundations of the great river.

Sailors of Egypt.

The sailors of Egypt—a numerous class—were chiefly boatmen employed on the Nile and the canals—bargemen rather than seamen. So vast, however, was the trade on this river that, according to Herodotus, no fewer than seven hundred thousand sailors (persons, we must presume) assembled on board different vessels on the occasion of one of the principal festivals;[159] while, then as now, during the periodical inundations, a large portion of the population were compelled to live in boats and barges, where fairs and markets were also held, giving fresh impulse to trade and navigation.

Their boats.

How navigated.

Herodotus has furnished an interesting description of how the Egyptian boats and barges were built. From the acantha[160] tree the Egyptians cut planks about two cubits in length, arranging them like bricks. “They attach them,”[161] he adds, “to a number of long poles till the hull is complete, when they lay the cross planks on the top from side to side. They make no use of ribs, but caulk the seams with the papyrus; they make only one rudder, and that is driven through the keel. They use a mast of acantha and sails of papyrus. These vessels are unable to sail up the stream unless they have a brisk breeze, but are towed from the shore. They are thus carried down the stream. There is to each a raft made of tamarisk, wattled with a band of reeds, and a stone, bored through the middle, of about two talents[162] in weight; the raft is fastened to the vessel by a cable, and allowed to float down in front, while the stone is held by another cable at the stern; by this means the raft, by the stream bearing hard upon it, moves quickly, and draws along the ‘baris’ (for this is the name given to these vessels); but the stone being dragged at the stern, and sunk to the bottom, keeps the vessel straight. They have very many of these vessels, and some of them carry many thousand talents.”

Mode of building them.

The following drawing, taken from Champollion’s “Description de l’Egypte,” furnishes monumental proof of the accuracy of Herodotus, in his description of their construction.[163]

Men may be seen building a boat, much resembling a modern barge, with a high poop, and a long bow, apparently binding bands of papyrus round the boards, while others are bringing, on their backs, baskets filled with reeds, to be twisted into similar bands. But the larger vessels must have been fastened together (though Herodotus does not mention this) by either metal bolts, or trenails.

Cargo barges.

Herodotus, therefore, probably refers to the smaller craft employed upon the Nile.

Many interesting drawings of these river boats are to be found in Wilkinson’s “Manners and Customs” of that ancient people. Most of them have been copied from ancient monuments, and have evidently had their imperfections corrected, as far as practicable, by a reference to the boats and barges of modern times, similarly employed. For instance, the following sketch, taken originally from one of the paintings on a tomb at Kom-el-Ahmars,[164] near Minieh, represents, in many respects, one of the large Nile barges still in use. From having twenty-two oars on each side, her length could hardly have been less than from eighty to one hundred feet, and her form shows considerable capacity for cargo.

Their rig.

Like the other boats of the Nile, this vessel has only one sail, but the mast appears to have been composed of two spars of similar size, secured by backstays to her after-part. It is not easy to understand why two spars should have been used; but it is possible that by these means a large and heavy sail might in stormy weather be lowered on either side, according to the direction of the wind; this, however, would require some mechanical contrivance not indicated. If the yard was a fixture aloft, moving on a pivot, the sail may have been triced up and furled to it: the cross bars, at the top of the masts, serving to enable the sailors more easily to furl the sail, tend to confirm this supposition. Although such a mode of furling the sail would be inconvenient and full of risk, if the ship were exposed to heavy seas, it would answer very well for barges on the Nile, as the yard and sail, when furled, would be entirely clear of the cargo while loading or unloading. It has been supposed that the sail, in this vessel, was made of papyrus, as noticed by Herodotus; but it may be doubted whether papyrus could be manufactured into a material sufficiently tough to form a large sail. The braces are apparently worked by a man seated in the stern.

Steering.

The mode of steering here depicted is different from that usually seen on the monuments, for, instead of a single oar, passing through the stern frames, or one on each quarter, there are, in this instance, three on the same quarter; and how this was managed it is not easy to discern. Nor does the drawing show the mode in which the propelling oars were triced up when not in use.

Tacitus[165] speaks of Germanic tribes who used a rudder at each end; but the practice was not general, and none of the Egyptian boats or barges were thus fitted, or had more than one sail, in these respects resembling the earliest of the Greek vessels. Sometimes a single rudder, instead of working in a rowlock, or in a porthole through the stern, was applied outside, merely over the stern-rail, and held in its place by a stout thong. This imperfect mode of steering was, however, confined to the rudest river craft, and of these we have a model in the museum at Berlin, as well as a painting at Thebes. The Berlin model shows also the position of the rowers, the arrangements of the mast, yard, and rigging, the place of the pegs and mallet, for fastening the vessel to the shore, and the landing planks, which were always kept in readiness at the bow, in charge of the man stationed there, to fathom and report the depth of the water. This boat is decked, the cabins occupying only a portion of the middle, like the pleasure vessels of the Nile, or the passage-boats at Diarbekr. But in most of the larger boats the cabin resembled our “round house,” extending from one side to the other, and was often sufficiently spacious to contain cattle, horses, and general stores.

Passage and cargo boats.

In another drawing, Wilkinson exhibits another description of Nile boat. Here there is a single rudder or paddle, passing through the counter, and evidently worked by some kind of machine attached to the post against which its handle rests. Or it may be worked on the one side, as the drawing is not very distinct, somewhat after the style in use in large boats or river barges of the present day. Its general character suggests that it is a passage-boat, as it has a round house, with windows at each end and a semblance of decoration for the upper yard. This yard is fitted with lines, for the purpose of drawing it down with the sail when furled to the lower yard.

One of the illustrations subjoined, taken from a bas-relief at Thebes, represents a double cattle-boat;[166] in other words, two canal boats lashed together when descending the Nile, much like the “monkey-boats,” or “wussers,” employed on the Thames or Severn. In the cabin a man is represented, inflicting the bastinado on a boatman; an occurrence probably not unusual, as we find it on the ordinary cattle-barge of the period. In the same boat a cow eats hay out of a net, precisely resembling the sherif now used in Egypt. These boats are without masts. The “house” appears to be of a light and a temporary character, and as the sailors on the top are evidently making a rope fast to bind it together, it may be inferred that such houses were chiefly used when these vessels were employed in the conveyance of cattle, and that they could be removed at pleasure.

Boat for the conveyance of the dead.

In Champollion’s great work, we find a sketch of another boat, in this instance carrying a bier. It is taken from a bas-relief on the tomb of Beni-Hassan. Here two rudders, one on each quarter, are clearly represented. Their upper extremities are, by some mode not easily understood, attached to separate upright posts, and the helmsmen appear to hold lanyards or bow-lines for the regulation of the rudders, proving that mechanical appliances of one sort or another were then in use as tillers to assist the steerage.

Although a tolerably accurate impression may be formed from the monuments of the various kinds of vessels employed on the great river and the canals, there is, beyond these, no evidence of the form and dimensions of their other vessels. We may, however, presume that, till the times of the Ptolemies, the Egyptians did not build any large sea-going ships; one reason of this probably being, that Egypt, within her own territory, had no forest timber adapted for such a purpose. Hence, indeed, as is well known, arose the sanguinary wars so long and so fiercely waged between the Ptolemies and the Seleucidæ—the inheritors from the Tyrians of the forests of Lebanon, who, mindful of the elder times, as well as of the value of this property, were little inclined to give the Egyptians the means of becoming a powerful maritime people.

Variety of boats, and their superiority.

But though, from the scarcity of suitable timber,[167] and the repugnance of its people to sea-faring pursuits, Egypt was never destined to occupy a position of any influence as a maritime nation, it surpassed all others of the old world in the number, variety, and excellence of its boats for inland navigation. Beyond those already described there were others of the most fanciful description, in form and rig. The mode of keeping the sail flat introduced only a few years ago by the famous yacht America, whose sails were lashed to spars to prevent them from bellying, was, after all, only the double yard used by the Egyptians four thousand years ago. The painted eye upon the bow, still so common in the Mediterranean, was a favourite mode of decorating the boats of ancient Egypt. Modern ship-owners of all nations have adopted their plan of deck-houses; and the decoration of the stems and sterns of their ships are in some respects not unlike those of the Nile during the reign of the Pharaohs. But the ancient Egyptians carried the decorations of their vessels sometimes to a ludicrous extent. They were frequently wont to paint even the masts, sails, and yards in the most variegated and gaudy colours. A lotus leaf usually adorned the blade of the rudder, and some other design that of the oars, the prevailing colours being, red, yellow, or green.[168]

Prosperity of Egypt under the Ptolemies, B.C. 283.

The conquest of Egypt by Alexander put an end to the internal convulsions which had so long disturbed that country, and gave new life to its trade, and Alexandria became the entrepôt of the trade of India and the West. Favoured after his death by wise counsellors and enterprising monarchs, Egypt flourished under the rule of the Ptolemies, and devoted more attention to maritime commerce than she had hitherto done. Ptolemy, son of Lagos, by a judicious exercise of sovereign authority, and by encouraging by all means in his power sea-faring pursuits and free intercourse with other nations, collected a considerable body of traders at the new city; and perceiving what had been the intentions and policy of Alexander, steadily endeavoured to follow in his footsteps.

It was during this long and prosperous reign that the celebrated Pharos at Alexandria was erected by Sostratus of Cnidus,[169] at the cost, it is said, of eight hundred talents; and though Pliny doubts the value of such buildings, and seems to think of them rather as snares to the navigator,[170] Cæsar fully approved of the Alexandrian one.[171] The upper storeys had windows, looking seaward; and fires therein at night lighted ships into the harbour. A few similar structures are mentioned in ancient history as those at Ostia, Ravenna, Brundusium, Capreæ, and Gessoriacum (Boulogne). In England, it is believed that we have remains of two similar structures—the Pharos in Dover Castle, and at Moel Van in Flintshire.

Upon the front of the Alexandrian Pharos there was written the appropriate inscription: “King Ptolemy to the God the Saviour, for the benefit of sailors.”

Canal over the Isthmus.

More than one of the followers of Ptolemy I. pursued the same course, and encouraged their subjects in the promotion of commerce. Thus Philadelphus, his son, made a fresh attempt to cut a canal a hundred cubits in breadth, between Arsinoe (on the Red Sea, not far from Suez) to the Pelusiac or eastern branch of the Nile. But though he failed to carry out his plan, as Necho had done two centuries before,[172] he built on the south-western shores of the Red Sea the port of Berenice, so that goods from Alexandria could be carried on camels’ backs for shipment, either from Myos Hormus, or from this new port; while stations were erected on the road, so as to facilitate the commercial intercourse between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, Thus Egypt, mainly through his instrumentality, enjoyed a line of commerce to India uninterruptedly until the period of Augustus Cæsar, when Egypt became a province of the Roman Empire.

Although, as we have seen, the Egyptians were not naturally fond of maritime occupations, it is certain that, during the sway of the Ptolemies, an Egyptian fleet was maintained in the Mediterranean of sufficient size to command that sea, and to afford effectual protection to their merchants and ship-owners. Appian, in his preface, enumerating the naval and military forces of Ptolemy, the son of Lagos, says that he had five hundred galleys, two thousand smaller vessels, and eight hundred thalamegi, or pleasure boats; and Lucian[173] states that he saw in Egypt a vessel of the country, one hundred and twenty cubits long, thirty broad, and twenty-nine deep.

Again, another Ptolemy (Philopator) appears to have been no common enthusiast in ship-building, for he constructed vessels of a size far in excess of any before his day, either in his own or in any other country—ships, indeed, as much larger than any then known, as the Great Eastern is larger than any vessel built in modern times.

Ptolemy’s great ship.

One of these extraordinary vessels is described at length in Athenæus,[174] from an Alexandrian historian named Callixenus. The following are some of her chief peculiarities: she is said to have been two hundred and eighty cubits long, thirty-eight broad, and fifty-three from the highest part of the stern to the water; she had four rudders, each thirty cubits long; and the oars of the thranitæ were thirty-eight cubits long, with handles necessarily weighted with lead. She had two heads, two sterns, and no fewer than seven beaks, one of them much larger than the rest. She carried on board four thousand rowers, and about three thousand mariners, besides a large body of men under her decks, and a vast quantity of stores and provisions. She was launched by means of a contrivance invented by a Phœnician, one, indeed, which might probably have been adopted with success for the launching of the Great Eastern, and, assuredly, at less cost.

GREAT SHIP OF PTOLEMY PHILOPATOR.

Analysis of her dimensions.

Various imaginary drawings have been made of Ptolemy’s great vessel; but as none of them appear to answer the only description of her which has been preserved, or to fulfil the requirements of a structure meant to float in safety, an endeavour has been made, in the drawing annexed, to illustrate this remarkable ship, which was “well proportioned in an extraordinary degree.”[175] If the cubit be taken at eighteen inches, Ptolemy’s ship was four hundred and twenty feet in length, fifty-seven feet beam, and had seventy-two feet depth of hold: proportions which, as far as regards the length and breadth, accord very well with those of the large steam-ships of our own time; but the depth is so great and so much out of proportion to the length and breadth, that there is no doubt a mistake in the figures. The depth was much more likely to have been twenty-eight cubits, for which forty-eight has, through some misapprehension, been substituted. There is no doubt, also, a mistake in the height of the stern above the water, for though the ships of the ancients had frequently very high poops or enormous castles erected aft, a practice which prevailed up to the seventeenth century, it is hardly possible to conceive that the highest portion of the poop of Ptolemy’s ship was fifty-three cubits, or about eighty feet above the water. The object of having so many as seven beaks is not easily understood; two of them may, however, have been placed at the bluff, or rounds of the bows, so as to protect, in some measure, the oars from being destroyed by the ship of an enemy sheering alongside. “Some of them,” we are informed, “were fixed to the ears of the ship.”

Nor is it easy to understand what is meant by the “ears,” unless they represent that portion of the head or bow where the cat-heads are now placed. A beak in that place would protect the upper bank of oars, while another below it, a little above the water-line, would guard the lower banks. Though inferior in length, breadth, and capacity to our modern wonder, the Great Eastern, Ptolemy’s huge vessel could hardly have been meant for sea-going purposes, if the dimensions given of her depth, and the height of her poop, are accurate; nor could seven or eight thousand men, besides a “large number under deck,” have been accommodated in her ’tween decks; but, though the nautical knowledge of the present day renders it difficult to accept all the recorded details of this extraordinary vessel, it is not necessary to agree with the writers who altogether deny her existence. The four thousand rowers could perfectly well have been placed at their stations, though it is most likely that she was never used except for display, or as an object of ornament or luxury.

Other writers insist that the oars, by reason of their length, would be unmanageable; but in approaching the question of rowing such ponderous vessels, which more properly belongs to and shall be treated of in a subsequent portion of this work, it will be found that the oars described by Callixenus are not longer than those which have been used in galleys, of which authentic accounts exist. It may be denied that four thousand men could have been made available as oarsmen in any vessel; but if it be possible to work the upper bank of oars, which shall hereafter be shown to be practicable, it will be found on examining the drawing and number of oar-ports, that with ten men to each oar, two thousand rowers could be placed at their stations on each side of the vessel, or, in all, “four thousand rowers,” as described by Callixenus.

The Thalamegus, her size and splendour.

Nor was this the only vessel of huge dimensions constructed during the reign of the Ptolemies. Callixenus describes another, the Thalamegus, or the “carrier of the bed-chamber” which was half a stadium (three hundred feet) in length, thirty cubits wide, and forty cubits high. From his elaborate description we learn that she was fitted with every conceivable luxury, and in a style of magnificence much superior to that of any other ship or floating structure of the period; with “colonnades,” “marble stairs,” and “gardens,” whence it may safely be concluded that this vessel was never meant for sea-going purposes. But there is no reason to question her existence. Such a vessel might have remained moored on the Nile, or on one of the great lakes or canals, as a pleasant place of resort during the hottest months of an Egyptian summer.

Great size of other Egyptian monuments.

When, indeed, the colossal character of all Egyptian monuments (more especially those of the Pyramids, now known to have been in some cases tombs, as that of Mycerinus,) and that, too, of their temples, statues, and canals, is borne in mind, the presumption is strong that this love of the colossal extended to other Egyptian works, and further, that in a country where so much mechanical genius was displayed, the construction of one or two great ships would not form an exception, even though a seafaring life may have been repugnant to the habits and tastes of a majority of the people. Plutarch, in speaking of the great war-ships built by Demetrius, observes, that while these could really be used, the still larger ship of Philopator “was a mere matter of curiosity, for she differed very little from an immovable building, and was calculated more for show, as she could not be put in motion without great difficulty and danger.”

Probability of such vessels having been constructed.

During the last three thousand years the steady tendency of commercial enterprise has been towards the West, and may, in its circuit from New York to California, even cross the Pacific and restore commercial life to Assyria, Phœnicia, and Egypt. Three thousand years hence London may have become a city of ruins, which an Egyptian antiquary may, in the interests of science, consider worthy of a visit. By the year 4873 all references to Ptolemy’s ship, constructed five thousand years before, may have been destroyed, but some account of the Great Eastern, built on the banks of the Thames in the nineteenth century of the Christian era, may have endured. The supposed Egyptian traveller may seek diligently for some proof that such a vessel was really built and launched, yet all he may ascertain, by a careful measurement of the ruined docks, will be that not one of them was large enough to receive her: he will, therefore, conclude that what he has read about her was but the vainglorious romance of the historian of the day.

Hiero’s great ship.

The Egyptian monarchs were, however, not alone in their desire of building ships of gigantic proportions; but found a worthy rival in Hiero, king of Syracuse; nay, more, while the Syracusan ruler constructed a vessel scarcely if at all inferior to that of Ptolemy, this ship surpassed the Egyptian one in accomplishing at least one successful voyage. No details have been preserved of the dimensions of Hiero’s ship; but from the description of the cargo she carried, of the number of her decks, and of the structures of various kinds above her hold, she must have been of even greater cubic contents than Ptolemy’s ship.[176]

Not unlike a modern inland American steamer.

The probability is that Hiero’s vessel was simply an enormous barge, and that, on this barge or hulk there were erected, much after the fashion of the steam-vessels on the rivers and inland waters of America, one or more decks or tiers of houses, suited to carry wool or other kinds of light cargo, or capable of being fitted up for passengers, as occasion might require. It is, however, more likely from the description we have of her, that the decks immediately above the hold were reserved entirely for cargo, and that the houses upon deck were appropriated to the passengers and the crew.

Details of her construction; accommodation, outfit, and decorations.

It is stated that, for the construction of this magnificent vessel, Hiero cut down on Mount Etna trees enough to have built sixty triremes; procuring stores of trenails, &c., from Italy and Sicily, ropes from Spain, and hemp and pitch from the banks of the Rhone; and watching himself over the progress of the works. To launch her effectively, Archimedes invented a screw of great power; and the building was pushed on with such rapidity, that, in six months from the time she was commenced, great progress had been made, every part as it was finished (referring no doubt to the sheathing of the bottom and to the interstices on the upper decks or houses) being covered with sheets of lead. She is further said to have had twenty banks of oars, and three entrances, the lowest leading to the hold, the next to the eating-rooms, while the third was appropriated to the armed men. On both sides of the middle entrance thirty rooms, each containing four couches, were assigned to the soldiers; the sailors’ supper-room held fifteen, and there were, besides, three cabins, each containing three couches. The floors of these rooms were composed of stone mosaic work, bearing on it a pictorial representation of the whole story of the Iliad. There was also a temple to Venus of cypress inlaid with ivory, furnished with rich and valuable goblets and vases. This great ship was fitted with four wooden and eight iron anchors; and the mainmast, of a single tree, was procured after much search from the mountains of the Bruttii.

But the most remarkable part of the story is that relating to her freight, as it is stated that one or two of the launches belonging to this ship, built, it may be presumed to attend upon her, were able themselves to carry three thousand talents (about eighty tons); and these tenders are said to have put on board of the Alexandrian “sixty thousand measures of corn, ten thousand jars of Sicilian salt fish, twenty thousand talents’ weight of wool, and of other cargo twenty thousand talents, all of which was in addition to the provisions required for the crew.” It is further stated that she was sent to Alexandria, partly because Hiero discovered he had no harbours in Sicily that could contain her, and partly because he had heard that at that time there was a dearth of corn in Egypt. She bore upon her the following curious inscription: “Hiero, the son of Hierocles the Dorian, who wields the sceptre of Sicily (sends this ship), bearing in her the fruits of the earth—a rich gift to all Greece and her islands. Do thou, O Neptune! preserve in safety this ship over the blue waves.”

There is no more reason for doubting the existence of this ship than there is for questioning the vessel constructed by the Egyptian king; though, in each case, there may be some exaggeration in the description preserved. Vessels not differing much from her in form may be seen on the Mississippi and traverse the stormy lakes of America; they even trade along her shores, exposed to the boisterous waves of the Atlantic; and hence it may be reasonably inferred that, though not well adapted for sea-going purposes, Hiero’s ship may have made, in perfect safety, voyages to both Greece and Alexandria.

Greek ships.

Although the Greeks were for many centuries well known alike for their intellectual abilities and for their zeal as merchants and traders, Herodotus speaks with some contempt of their geographical knowledge in the time of Xerxes, and says they were so ignorant of the position and distance of places, that they could with difficulty be prevailed upon to advance as far as Delos,[177] and that all the countries beyond that island and in the vicinity of Ionia were avoided by them. “They believed,” he adds, “that it was as far from Ægina to Samos as from Ægina to Gibraltar.”

Habits of piracy.

On the other hand, history clearly demonstrates that each Greek power, as it became famous, turned its attention to the sea as a source of wealth and greatness; and that, during the struggles between the Lacedæmonians and Athenians, Philip of Macedon, with a powerful fleet under his command, swept the seas of the pirates and marauders, enriching himself by the spoils. The Greeks, moreover, paid a marked attention to the mode of conducting their local commerce, forbidding their vessels to sail with more than a specified number of men on board. Plutarch, quoting from a more ancient author,[178] names a limit of five persons only to each vessel; while others, referring to later periods, speak of a general law applicable to all Greece, which fixed the maximum crew of its merchant ships at one hundred men. These restrictive navigation laws were passed professedly for the suppression of piracy; but in those days, the strong were generally held to be right and the weak to be wrong, for even Philip resorted to the practice he had denounced, to recruit his finances at the siege of Byzantium. Nor, indeed, are such principles wholly forgotten at the present day; for, even now, while Great Britain captures and destroys at sea the private property of the people with whom she may happen to be at war (which is simply the right of the strong confirmed by ancient usage and unhappily still sanctioned by international maritime law), she does not allow depredations similar in their character to be perpetrated by nations that sell their prisoners as captives of war. We, like Philip of Macedon, denounce in others what we ourselves practise, because it is sanctioned by usage and by law. Who will say that the destruction at sea of the goods of private individuals is not as barbarous as the practice which still prevails among illiterate African chiefs? England, in this matter, simply overlooks the beam in her own eye, though sacrificing much to extract the mote in that of other and less civilized nations.

Corinth.

Corinth, once so celebrated, was among the first of the Greek states to avail herself of the many advantages nature had given her. Built a little to the west of the isthmus connecting the Peloponnesus with northern Greece, she was destined by her position to be the entrepôt of both. Nor did her people fail to appreciate this, for, contrary to what Herodotus states generally of the Greeks, the Corinthians are known to have been expert sailors, and to have made navigation and ship-building their study, being, as Thucydides remarks (i. 13), the inventors of the trireme.[179] In maritime pursuits, and by an extensive commercial intercourse with the neighbouring states, they amassed great wealth. Corinth also affords a striking instance that the cultivation of commerce can be successfully combined with a taste for the most refined arts, for the Corinthian column continues to this day the finest type of architectural beauty; while Corinth was famous in antiquity for her celebrated artists, and their works.[180]

B.C. 326.

The writers, however, of ancient Greece have left but few particulars either of the merchant vessels or of the trade in which they were engaged. Of the character and habits of its seamen, or of the remuneration they received, the accounts are brief and fragmentary, though we know that after the time of Demosthenes their wages were provided for by a tax upon property. In cases of emergency, it would seem that men of substance in Greece, besides paying the whole of this special tax, fitted out at their own expense numerous vessels for the service of the state, and that a patriotic and generous rivalry prevailed among them, inducing them to do their utmost for the good of their country. From this laudable public spirit arose, in a great measure, that enlarged and enlightened system of commerce with foreign nations, for which the Greeks have been in all times conspicuous, and which still largely prevails among the leading Greek merchants resident in England.

Athens.

Athens, too, though in a less degree than Corinth, was also a place of commercial importance; for though at some distance from the sea, it possessed three harbours—the Piræeus, Munychia, and Phalerum, themselves forming a city as large as, if not larger than, Athens herself. From the harbour of the Piræeus a large foreign trade, chiefly in corn, was carried on with the countries bordering on the Black Sea and the Crimea, as well as with Palestine and Egypt. The Piræeus contained extensive warehouses for the reception of various descriptions of produce, as well as a large portico or arcade, where, after the fashion of eastern bazaars, manufactures of every description were exposed for sale.

This portico (technically called the Deigma, or Show-Place) was in fact the Royal Exchange of Athens, where her merchants transacted business with those of Syria and of Asia Minor, who resorted thither in great numbers; and though Athenian commerce, even at its best times, was small when compared with that of Tyre, Carthage, or Miletus, Athenian merchants held a high position in ancient times.[181]

But, if commercially inferior to some other states, Athens maintained the highest rank among the naval cities of the ancient world, though it is difficult from such records as still exist to determine either the size or the number of the vessels belonging to her or to other Greek states.[182]

The size of her ships as described by Herodotus.

The superiority of Athens was, however, due to political rather than commercial causes; and her people were chiefly famed for their daring and prowess as warriors at sea. To the Athenians, Greece was mainly indebted for her freedom from the Persian yoke. It was the Athenian fleet that resisted successfully the gigantic navy of Xerxes; and the description of this fleet, by Herodotus, is almost the only information we possess with regard to the size of Greek ships, and of the relative maritime power of the different Greek states. Describing the naval force which defeated the Persian fleet off the promontory of Artemisium, Herodotus states:[183]—“The Greeks engaged in the sea-service were these. The Athenians furnished one hundred and twenty-seven vessels to the fleet; but the Platæans, from a spirit of valour and zeal, though inexperienced in the sea-service, assisted the Athenians in manning the ships. The Corinthians furnished forty ships, the Megarians twenty; the Chalcideans manned twenty, the Athenians having furnished them with ships; the Æginetans eighteen; the Sicyonians twelve; the Lacedæmonians ten; the Epidaurians eight; the Eretrians seven; the Trœzenians five; the Styreans two; and the Cêans two ships, and two penteconters; the Opuntian Locrians also came to their assistance with seven penteconters.” Of the individual size of these vessels no mention is however made; but speaking, in another portion of his history, of the preparations made to resist the invasion of Xerxes, Herodotus[184] says: “Now the Grecians from Thrace, and the islands contiguous to Thrace, furnished one hundred and twenty ships; with crews in number amounting to twenty-four thousand men,” equivalent to two hundred fighting-men a ship. The same author further remarks,[185] that “Clinias,[186] son of Alcibiades, at his own expense, joined the fleet with two hundred men and a ship of his own:” on the other hand, Xenophon states that the Athenians in this celebrated war put on board a fleet of a hundred sail only one thousand marines, and four hundred archers, which is only fourteen men to each vessel, besides the rowers.

B.C. 481.

The fleet of Xerxes, Herodotus adds,[187] amounted to twelve hundred and seven triremes, carrying two hundred and forty-one thousand four hundred men, or two hundred men to each vessel, exclusive of Persians, Medes, and Sacæ, who served as marines, thirty to each ship, in addition to the crew. The vessels must, therefore, have been larger than those of the Athenians, described by Herodotus and Xenophon. But besides the twelve hundred and seven triremes, Xerxes is said to have brought with him three thousand transports and penteconters, with many light boats, and long horse-transports, so that his whole naval force must have consisted of four thousand two hundred and seven vessels of one sort and another: a number almost as inconceivable as the reputed catalogue of his combined land and sea force, even though he brought, as was said of him, “all Asia in his train.”

This vast fleet had the misfortune to encounter a great storm on the coast of Magnesia, in which four hundred vessels, besides store ships, were totally wrecked; and so great were the spoils from the derelict ships that, according to the testimony of Herodotus,[188] one Ameinocles, who owned the land on the coast, became immensely rich from the quantity of gold and silver Persian cups which were afterwards found. Having described the coast of Magnesia, Herodotus says:[189] “The ships of the first row were moored to the land, while the others behind rode at anchor; and as the beach extended but a little way, they had to anchor off the shore in eight rows. Thus they passed the night, but at daybreak, after serene and tranquil weather, the sea began to swell, and a heavy storm, with a violent gale from the east, which those who inhabit these parts call Hellespontias, burst upon them. As many of them, then, as perceived the gale increasing and were able from their position to do so, avoided the storm by hauling their ships upon the beach, and both they and their ships escaped. But such of the ships as the storm caught at sea were driven ashore; some near the place called Ipni, “the Ovens,” at the foot of Pelion, others on the beach; some were dashed on Cape Sepias itself; some were wrecked near the cities of Melibœa and of Casthanæa. The storm was indeed irresistible.”

Hauling the ships on shore seems to have been customary in those days; for, in another place, (when referring to the ship-canal Xerxes[190] had ordered to be cut to the north of the headland of Athos,) Herodotus[191] remarks that “it was possible, without any great labour, to have drawn his ships over the isthmus.”

Discrepancy between the different accounts.

It is not easy to account for the discrepancy in the statements about the number of men each of the vessels carried, or to comprehend the facility with which they were drawn up on a beach in the face of an approaching storm, or how they could, as Herodotus suggests, have been transported across the isthmus. Possibly Herodotus was misinformed as to the number of men in each of the vessels. Curiously enough, the descriptions preserved of the fleets and maritime exploits of Cyrus, and of other great conquerors, partake of the same character as these recorded of Xerxes, and are equally inconsistent, when we look to the capacity of the vessels as compared with the apparent ease with which they could be moved about on dry land. Although the ancients had capstans, of which Herodotus speaks, and were conversant with pulleys, and with the best mode of transporting, by means of manual labour, aided by blocks and rollers, heavy weights across land, it is difficult to understand how any vessels competent to convey between two and three hundred men each, could, just as a storm was coming on, have been hauled high and dry upon a beach with sufficient speed.[192]

A vessel of size sufficient to take that number of men even for a short distance and across a smooth sea, must have been, according to the present mode of measurement, of at least seventy tons register. But no vessel of that tonnage, or of three-fourths that size, could be drawn up on a beach, much less across an isthmus, with the facility the narrative of Herodotus presumes, unless the ancients had methods for transporting their vessels on shore of which no accounts have been preserved. A vessel of fifty-five tons register might hold between two and three hundred men, and transport them, in a calm, across the smooth and narrow waters of the Hellespont; but to attempt to make a voyage of no greater distance than from Constantinople to Athens, in the craft of those days, measuring fifty-five tons, with so many men on board, would be attended with very considerable risk, and, this too, without taking into consideration the convenience of the troops, or the space required for their stores and accoutrements.