This article is further noticed in commenting on No. 57.
24.
How to increase the strength of a Spring to such an height,[5] as to shoot Bumbasses and Bullets of an hundred pound weight a Steeple-height, and a quarter of a mile off and more, Stone-bow-wise, admirable for Fire-works and astonishing of besieged Cities, when without warning given by noise they find themselves so forcibly and dangerously surprised.
Footnote
[5]degree—for height. P.
[A Strength-increasing Spring.] The technical term Bumbasses, or probably bombasses, here used, has escaped the attention of all compilers of Archaic Dictionaries. By the context we may presume it was applied to the large stones usually fired from bombards, and differing only from bullets in these last being made of lead or iron.
Ancient cannon appear to have consisted of two kinds; a large one for discharging stones, called a Bombard, and a lesser one for darts. In 1388, a stone bullet, weighing 195 pounds, is related, according to Meyrick, to have been discharged from a Bombard, called the Trevisan. Such stone missiles may have been of the kind called by the Marquis “bumbasses,” and would be perhaps more properly named bombasses. The Stone-bow was the Prodd; probably the Slurbowe was furnished with a barrel through a slit, in which the string slided, when the trigger was pulled. Three kinds are mentioned by Du Cange. See Fosbroke’s Encyclopædia of Antiquities, 8vo. 1840.
Bishop Wilkins, treating on Catapultæ in his Mathematicall Magick, 1648, observes that their usual form was “after the manner of great bows placed on carriages, and wound up by the strength of several persons;” adding: “These were sometimes framed for the discharging of two or three arrows together.”
As the Marquis wrote the Century in 1655, only seven years after Wilkins’ publication, it is not at all unlikely that he seriously contemplated the contriving of a most useful warlike implement; and this appears the more reasonable when we find the worthy and learned prelate advancing, as it appeared to him, cogent reasons in his 19th chapter, in favour of the “Military offensive engines used amongst the ancients,” as compared to cannon; gravely summing up his observations with the remark—“that the force of these Engines does rather exceed than come short of our gun-powder inventions.” Then again on the ground of expense he shows an advantage in favour of Ballistæ and Catapultæ. Thus: “the price of these gun-powder instruments is extremely expensive.” This is proved from “a whole Cannon weighing commonly 8,000 pounds, a half Cannon 5,000, a Culverin 4,500, a Demi-culverin 3,000,” which “must needs be very costly,” amounting “to several hundred pounds,” for which sum “at least 10 of the ancient timber made engines might be purchased”!
Then their transport was a serious matter, for “a whole Cannon does require at the least 90 men, or 16 horses,” and so in proportion for others. But the timber made engines are light, and their “materials to be found everywhere.”