Название:
Автор:
Жанр:
Серия:
Издательство:
Berchet obtained the following indication:-- "No. 94. Marco Galetti invests Marco Polo S. of Nicolo with the ownership of his possessions (beni) in S. Giovanni Grisostomo; 10 September, 1319; drawn up by the Notary Nicolo, priest of S. Canciano." This document would perhaps have thrown light on the matter, but unfortunately recent search by several parties has failed to trace it. [The document has been discovered since: see vol. ii., Calendar, No. 6.--H. C.] [2] --"Sua casa che era posta nel confin di S. Giovanni Chrisostomo, che hor fa l'anno s'abbrugio totalmente, con gran danno di molti." (Doglioni, Hist. Venetiana, Ven. 1598, pp. 161-162.) "1596. 7 Nov. Senato (Arsenal ... ix c. 159 t). "Essendo conveniente usar qualche ricognizione a quelli della maestranza del-l'Arsenal nostro, che prontamente sono concorsi all' incendio occorso ultimamente a S. Zuane Grizostomo nelli stabeli detti di CA' MILION dove per la relazion fatta nell collegio nostro dalli patroni di esso Arsenal hanno nell' estinguere il foco prestato ogni buon servitio...."--(Comm. by Cav. Cecchetti through Comm. Berchet.) [3] See a paper by G. C. (the Engineer Giovanni Casoni) in Teatro Emeronitio Almanacco par l'Anno 1835. [4] This Cross is engraved by Mr. Ruskin in vol. ii. of the Stones of Venice: see p. 139, and Pl. xi. Fig. 4. [5] Casoni's only doubt was whether the Corte del Millioni was what is now the Sabbionera, or the interior area of the theatre. The latter seems most probable. One Illustration of this volume, p. 1, shows the archway in the Corte Sabbionera, and also the decorations of the soffit. [6] See Ruskin, iii. 320. [7] Comm. Barozzi writes: "Among us, contracts between husband and wife are and were very common, and recognized by law. The wife sells to the husband property not included in dowry, or that she may have inherited, just as any third person might." [8] See Appendix C, No. 16. V. DIGRESSION CONCERNING THE WAR-GALLEYS OF THE MEDITERRANEAN STATES IN THE MIDDLE AGES. [Sidenote: Arrangement of the Rowers in Mediaeval Galleys: a separate oar to every man.] 25. And before entering on this new phase of the Traveller's biography it may not be without interest that we say something regarding the equipment of those galleys which are so prominent in the mediaeval history of the Mediterranean.[1] Eschewing that "Serbonian Bog, where armies whole have sunk" of Books and Commentators, the theory of the classification of the Biremes and Triremes of the Ancients, we can at least assert on secure grounds that in mediaeval armament, up to the middle of the 16th century or thereabouts, the characteristic distinction of galleys of different calibres, so far as such differences existed, 73 was based on the number of rowers that sat on one bench pulling each his separate oar, but through one portella or rowlock-port.[2] And to the classes of galleys so distinguished the Italians, of the later Middle Age at least, did certainly apply, rightly or wrongly, the classical terms of Bireme, Trireme, and Quinquereme, in the sense of galleys having two men and two oars to a bench, three men and three oars to a bench, and five men and five oars to a bench.[3] That this was the mediaeval arrangement is very certain from the details afforded by Marino Sanudo the Elder, confirmed by later writers and by works of art. Previous to 1290, Sanudo tells us, almost all the galleys that went to the Levant had but two oars and men to a bench; but as it had been found that three oars and men to a bench could be employed with great advantage, after that date nearly all galleys adopted this arrangement, which was called ai Terzaruoli.[4] Moreover experiments made by the Venetians in 1316 had shown that four rowers to a bench could be employed still more advanta-geously. And where the galleys could be used on inland waters, and could be made more bulky, Sanudo would even recommend five to a bench, or have gangs of rowers on two decks with either three or four men to the bench on each deck. [Sidenote: Change of System in the 16th century.] 26. This system of grouping the oars, and putting only one man to an oar, continued down to the 16th century, during the first half of which came in the more modern system of using great oars, equally spaced, and requiring from four to seven men each to ply them, in the manner which endured till late in the last century, when galleys became altogether obsolete. Captain Pantero Pantera, the author of a work on Naval Tactics (1616), says he had heard, from veterans who had commanded galleys equipped in the antiquated fashion, that three men to a bench, with separate oars, answered better than three men to one great oar, but four men to one great oar (he says) were certainly more efficient than four men with separate oars. The new-fashioned great oars, he tells us, were styled Remi di Scaloccio, the old grouped oars Remi a Zenzile,--terms the etymology of which I cannot explain.[5] It may be doubted whether the four-banked and five-banked galleys, of which Marino Sanudo speaks, really then came into practical use. A great five-banked galley on this system, built in 1529 in the Venice Arsenal by Vettor Fausto, was the subject of so much talk and excitement, that it must evidently have been something quite new and unheard of.[6] So late as 1567 indeed the King of Spain built at Barcelona a galley of thirty-six benches to the side, and seven men to the bench, with a separate oar to each in the old fashion. But it proved a failure.[7] Down to the introduction of the great oars the usual system appears to have been three oars to a bench for the larger galleys, and two oars for lighter ones. The fuste or lighter galleys of the Venetians, even to about the middle of the 16th century, had their oars in pairs from the stern to the mast, and single oars only from the mast forward.[8] [Sidenote: Some details of the 13th century Galleys.] 27. Returning then to the three-banked and two-banked galleys of the latter part of the 13th century, the number of benches on each side seems to have run from twenty-five to twenty-eight, at least as I interpret Sanudo's calculations. The 100-oared vessels often mentioned (e.g. by Muntaner, p. 419) were probably two-banked vessels with twenty-five benches to a side. [Illustration] The galleys were very narrow, only 15-1/2 feet in beam.[9] But to give room for the play of the oars and the passage of the fighting-men, &c., this width was largely augmented by an opera-morta, or outrigger deck, projecting much beyond the ship's sides and supported by timber brackets.[10] I do not find it stated how great this projection was in the mediaeval galleys, but in those of the 17th century it was on each side as much as 2/9ths of the true beam. And if it was as great in the 13th-century galleys the total width between the false gunnels would be about 22-1/4 feet. In the centre line of the deck ran, the whole length of the vessel, a raised gangway called the corsia, for passage clear of the oars. [Illustration] The benches were arranged as in this diagram. The part of the bench next the gunnel was at right angles to it, but the other two-thirds of the bench were thrown forward obliquely, a, b, c, indicate the position of the three rowers. The shortest oar a was called Terlicchio, the middle one b Posticcio, the long oar c Piamero.[11] [Illustration: Galley-Fight, from a Mediaeval Fresco at Siena. (See p. 36)] 74 I do not find any information as to how the oars worked on the gunnels. The Siena fresco (see p. 35) appears to show them attached by loops and pins, which is the usual practice in boats of the Mediterranean now. In the cut from D. Tintoretto (p. 37) the groups of oars protrude through regular ports in the bulwarks, but this probably represents the use of a later day. In any case the oars of each bench must have worked in very close proximity. Sanudo states the length of the galleys of his time (1300-1320) as 117 feet. This was doubtless length of keel, for that is specified ("da ruoda a ruoda") in other Venetian measurements, but the whole oar space could scarcely have been so much, and with twenty-eight benches to a side there could not have been more than 4 feet gunnel-space to each bench. And as one of the objects of the grouping of the oars was to allow room between the benches for the action of crossbowmen, &c., it is plain that the rowlock space for the three oars must have been very much compressed.[12] The rowers were divided into three classes, with graduated pay. The highest class, who pulled the poop or stroke oars, were called Portolati; those at the bow, called Prodieri, formed the second class.[13] Some elucidation of the arrangements that we have tried to describe will be found in our cuts. That at p. 35 is from a drawing, by the aid of a very imperfect photograph, of part of one of the frescoes of Spinello Aretini in the Municipal Palace at Siena, representing a victory of the Venetians over the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa's fleet, commanded by his son Otho, in 1176; but no doubt the galleys, &c., are of the artist's own age, the middle of the 14th century.[14] In this we see plainly the projecting opera-morta, and the rowers sitting two to a bench, each with his oar, for these are two-banked. We can also discern the Latin rudder on the quarter. (See this volume, p. 119.) In a picture in the Uffizj, at Florence, of about the same date, by Pietro Laurato (it is in the corridor near the entrance), may be seen a small figure of a galley with the oars also very distinctly coupled.[15] Casoni has engraved, after Cristoforo Canale, a pictorial plan of a Venetian trireme of the 16th century, which shows the arrangement of the oars in triplets very plainly. The following cut has been sketched from an engraving of a picture by Domenico Tintoretto in the Doge's palace, representing, I believe, the same action (real or imaginary) as Spinello's
