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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: Their boats.]
[Sidenote: 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.”
[Sidenote: 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.
[Illustration]
[Sidenote: 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.
[Illustration]
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: 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.”
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: Analysis of her dimensions.]
[Illustration: GREAT SHIP OF PTOLEMY PHILOPATOR.]
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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.”
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.”
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.”
[Sidenote: 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[152] Dr. Young, not Champollion, was the first to discover the true
method of deciphering the hieroglyphics by determining that “certain
characters in the Proper Names, whatever may have been their original
import, were employed to represent sounds.” This he published, in
1819, in the “Supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica.” Two years
later, in 1821, M. Champollion published at Grenoble a work in which
he still asserted “that hieroglyphics are not phonetic,” and “that
hieroglyphical symbols are the signs of things, and not the signs of
sounds.”
[153] Herod. ii. 109.
[154] Tacit. Ann. ii. 60.
[155] Texier, “Asie Mineure,” ii. p. 304. Cf. Herod. i. 106.
[156] Herod. i. 112, 154. Compare also Strabo, xvii. 1147. Joseph. Ant.
Jud. xiv. 8.
[157] Herod. ii. 179.
[158] Herod. ii. 178.
[159] Herod. ii. 60.
[160] The Acantha is a species of Mimosa, or Acacia, still common
in Egypt, and the origin of our “gum Arabic,” perhaps the same as
the Shittim wood of Exodus. The present boats are built of it. The
Egyptians exported “fine linen” for sail-cloths to Phœnicia (Ezek.
xxvii. 7). Hempen (Herod. vii. 25) and palm ropes (not papyrus) were
used for the tackle. The process of making them may be seen on the
tombs at Beni-Hassan and Thebes, and specimens of them have been often
found. The modern boatmen place a stone aft to keep the boat’s head to
the stream. Col. Chesney (ii., p. 640) found the Arabs using a bundle
of hurdles and a stone for the _kufahs_ on the Euphrates, exactly as
described by Herodotus. _Baris_ occurs in Æschylus, technically, as
an Egyptian boat (Suppl. 815 and 858); see also Plutarch, Isis, c.
18; Iamblichus De Myst. 5, 6. All their larger, and even their market
boats, had cabins. Wilkinson adds that there is as much difference now
as of old in the size of the boats; and that there are some (which
can only navigate the Nile during the inundation) which are rated as
high as twenty-four thousand bushels of corn. The war vessels of the
eighteenth and nineteenth Dynasties had a single row of twenty to fifty
oars, like the Greek _penteconters_.
[161] Herodotus, book ii. c. 96.
[162] A talent is about sixty-five pounds weight.
[163] See also Rawlinson’s “Herodotus,” vol. ii. p. 132.
[164] Rawlinson’s “Herodotus,” vol. ii. p. 156.
[165] Tacit. Annal. ii. 6, and De Morib. German, c. xliv.
[166] See also Rawlinson’s “Herodotus,” vol. ii. p. 137.
[167] Egypt produced no forest timber nor any lofty trees, except the
date-palm and sycamore, of which the mummy cases are made.
[168] See an elaborate drawing of a ship in Rawlinson’s “Herodotus,”
vol. ii. p. 157.
[169] Plin. xxxvi. 12.
[170] Plin. xxxvi. 86.
[171] Cæsar, Bell. Civil. iii. 93.
[172] Herod. iv. 42. The canal was really commenced by Rameses II.,
and, probably, only re-opened by Necho and Darius.
[173] Lucian, Navig. 5.
[174] Athen. v. 37.
[175] See a further examination of her by Leroy, Mémoires de l’Acad.
d’Inscriptions, t. xxxvii.
[176] A long account is given of her by Athenæus (v. 40-44), who makes
use of three distinct words for the trenails, the ribs, and the upright
supports of the side planks.
[177] This is surely an exaggeration, as the passage through the
islands to Asia Minor must have been familiar to them. Even the
Spartans were used to the voyage (Herod. i. 70, 152; iii. 47, 57). The
reason was rather, as Mr. Grote suggests, “fear of an enemy’s country,
where they could not calculate the risk beforehand” (vol. v. p. 198).
[178] Plutarch in Thes. c. 19, where “trireme” is used in the sense of
any vessel.
[179] Cicero, de leg. Agrar. ii. 32; Eurip. Troad. 1097; and Hor.
Od. i. 7, 2, exactly describe the geographical position of Corinth.
The Phœnicians must have been there early, as a mountain at Corinth
bore the name of the “Phœnician” (Ephor. ap. Steph. Byz.), and the
“Phœnician Athene” was also worshipped there (Tzetz. ap Lycophr. 658.)
The Corinthians, too, were the founders of Syracuse and Corcyra (Corfu)
and of many ports along the coast of Greece. The principal port of
Corinth (represented on a coin of Antoninus Pius) was called Cenchreæ,
and is noticed in Acts xviii. 18, and Romans xvi. 1.
[180] Plin. xxxiv. 7; xxxvii. 49; xxxv. 15, 151; xxxvi. 178; xxxv. 152,
&c.
[181] The actual boundary stone of the mercantile port of the Piræeus,
of the date of the Peloponnesian war, was found _in situ_ in 1842
(Ulrich’s Athen. 1843). Themistocles planned, and Pericles carried out
the building of this port-town (Paus. i. 1; Schol. Arist. Equit. 974;
ibid. 547).
[182] The few following facts are, perhaps, worth recording. Thus,
an oar cost 5 drachmæ (Andoc. p. 81); and Lucian, Dial. de Mort. 4,
charges the anchor for Charon’s boat at 3 dr. The _tropoter_ cost 2
obols; a needle for sewing the sail, 3 obols; and the pitch, wax,
nails, &c., 2 drachmæ more. Again, Demosthenes speaks of a _bottomry_
bond of 3000 drachmæ; and Polyænus states, generally, that a ship
cost a talent. Usually the State found the hull, and the trierarch
the fittings. In the naval service the pay and the provisions were
generally joined together: 20 minæ was good pay for a month, and the
complement of a trireme about 200 men; the proportion of sailors,
rowers, and fighting men varying considerably at different times. The
_thranitæ_ got the best pay (Arnold’s note, Thucyd. vi. 43). The whole
equipment of shipping (for war) was under the control of _trierarchs_
(Böckh, Publ. Economy of Athens, bk. iv. c. 11).
[183] Herodotus, book viii. ch. 1 and 2.
[184] Herodotus, book vii. ch. 185.
[185] Ibid. book viii. ch. 17.
[186] This Clinias, who was killed at the battle of Coronæa, in B.C.
447, was the father of the famous Alcibiades. Plut. Alcib.
[187] Herod. vii. 184.
[188] Herod. vii. 190.
[189] Ibid. vii. 188.
[190] Some ancient, as well as many modern writers, have questioned the
story of this canal (Cf. Juvenal, x. 173, 174); but later researches
have shown that there are undoubted remains of this great work.
Captain Spratt, R.N., has surveyed it thoroughly, and has published
an account and map thereof in the “Journ. Roy. Geogr. Soc.” v. 17.
The canal now forms a line of ponds, from 2 to 8 feet deep, and from
60 to 90 broad, extending from sea to sea. It is cut through tertiary
sands, which would naturally fall in, as Herodotus states (vii. 23).
Previously to Spratt, the genuineness of this work had been maintained
by Choiseul-Gouffier, Voy. Pittor. ii. i. 148; Colonel Leake, “Northern
Greece,” ii. 145; and Sir George Bowen, “Athos,” p. 57. Moreover, we
can hardly fancy that Herodotus could be in error about a work of such
magnitude, and executed only thirty-six years before he publicly read
his history at the Olympic Games, B.C. 445.
[191] Herod. vii. ch. 24.
[192] There is no doubt that the ancients did adopt this plan of
hauling vessels over land to a great extent; a portion of the Isthmus
of Corinth was called _Diolcus_—as the spot where the ships were so
drawn across. Hesych. ad voc. Cf. Thucyd. iii. 81; iv. 8. Horat. Od. i.
4, 2.