7HFKQLFDO([SHULPHQWDWLRQLQ6KLS'HVLJQGXULQJWKH /DVW'HFDGHVRIWKH6HUHQLVVLPD*HURODPR0DULD%DOEL૷V *DOHDDOOD3RQHQWLQD /LOLD&DPSDQD Technology and Culture, Volume 57, Number 1, January 2016, pp. 144-182 (Article) 3XEOLVKHGE\-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV DOI: 10.1353/tech.2016.0034 For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/tech/summary/v057/57.1.campana.html Access provided by Texas A __ACCESS_STATEMENT__ M University (21 Mar 2016 13:23 GMT) INSIDE THE BLACK BOX Technical Experimentation in Ship Design during the Last Decades of the Serenissima Gerolamo Maria Balbi’s Galea alla Ponentina LILIA CAMPANA ABSTRACT : In 1744, the Venetian sea captain Gerolamo Maria Balbi (1693– 1761) presented the Senate with a project to build a galea alla ponentina (“galley of Western design”) that would join the Venetian fleet based in Corfu. The Senate approved Balbi’s project hoping that the galley of new design would restore Venice’s maritime reputation after the losses of the war against the Ottomans in 1718. The construction of the galley by the Venetian shipwright Giovan Battista Fausto lasted more than two years and was sent to Corfu in 1746. However, the newly built galley proved to be unseaworthy due to its faulty design and was sent back to Venice where it lay abandoned in the Arsenal until its dismissal in 1753. This article discusses Balbi’s galley, which offers a unique glimpse into the technical experimentation in ship design in the Arsenal during the last decades of the Republic of Venice. Introduction The cessation of hostilities between the Serenissima—the Most Serene Republic of Venice—and the Ottoman Empire, which was signed at Passarowitz in 1718, marked the last decades of Venetian naval history.1 The anti-Ottoman alliance that Venice established with Austria at the beginning of the eighteenth century dissolved after 1718, and on the eve of the Austrian–Ottoman War (1735–38) the republic refused to participate in Lilia Campana is an instructional assistant professor of history of art at the Department of Visualization, Texas A&M University. The present research has been supported by the Institute of Nautical Archaeology and the Melbern G. Glasscock Center for Humanities Research. She is currently working on a monograph on the Venetian naval architect Vettor Fausto (1490–1546). This article is dedicated to my late mother to whom I owe everything. ©2016 by the Society for the History of Technology. All rights reserved. 0040-165X/16/5701-0006/144–82 1. See Charles Ingrao, Nikola Samardžić, and Jovan Pešalj, eds., The Peace of Passarowitz, 1718; and Kenneth M. Setton, Venice, Austria, and the Turks in the Seventeenth Century, 389–461. 144 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima the conflict, despite pressure from the Hapsburg emperor. With the exception of the war against Tunisia during 1784–92 in which the Venetian fleet played a minor role, Venice did not engage in any naval conflicts and maintained the political status quo until its fall in 1797.2 Although the republic did not deploy its navy from 1718 onward, its Arsenal continued experimenting with new ship designs for its armada, consisting of sailing vessels (armata grossa) and oared galleys and galleasses (armata sottile). Whereas the technical developments of the armata grossa are well-known, very little, if anything, is known about the design of Venetian oared galleys during the last centuries of the Serenissima.3 The abundance of manuscripts recording detailed instructions for building galleys dating from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries—the glorious age of the galley as the primary warship used in Venetian naval warfare—is countered by the complete absence of such documentation during later centuries due to standardization in the design of Venetian galleys. On 2 November 1619 the Venetian Senate established the measurements for light galleys as follows: 25 paces in length, 15¾ feet in width, and 5¼ feet in depth.4 However, the recent discovery in the State Archives of Venice of a 1744 shipbuilding manuscript, consisting of a proposal for building a galea alla ponentina (“galley of Western design”) by Venetian nobleman Gerolamo Maria Balbi (1693–1761) (fig. 1), is an exceptional source for investigating the design of galleys during the eighteenth century.5 This document is unique because Balbi listed the detailed measurements of his galea alla 2. Guido Candiani, I vascelli della Serenissima, 575–82. 3. On the armata grossa, see ibid., 207–41, 415–574. See also Guido Candiani, “Vascelli, fregate e navi pubbliche da trasporto,” 177–83, and “Dal remo alla vela,” 129– 38; and Alberto Secco, “Navi della Repubblica veneta nei fondi italiani dei disegni navali,” 185–91. 4. The manuscript Architettura navale (1686) by Stefano de Zuanne (British Library, Manuscripts Additional, no. 38,655), although written in the seventeenth century, provides standardized measurements as approved by the Senate on 2 November 1619. For the decree see Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Senato, Deliberazioni, Mar (ASVe, SDM), reg. 77, fols. 178v–180r, 2 November 1619 (same as ASVe, Senato, Deliberazioni, Arsenal [SDA], filza 73, same date). The Venetian foot (pie’ or piede) was the basic unit in the Venetian linear system of measurements, equal to 34.8 cm. The pace (passo) measured 5 feet (173.9 cm). The fingerbreadth (dedo or dea) was of two types: small and big. The small one was equal to one-sixteenth of a foot (2.2 cm); the big one, one-twelfth of a foot (2.9 cm). For light galleys the small fingerbreadth was used. See Angelo Martini, Manuale di metrologia, 817. Measurements are provided according to the Venetian linear system of measurements. The Venetian year started on 1 March, and dates are provided according to the Venetian custom (more veneto [m.v.]). 5. ASVe, Senato, Deliberazioni, Rettori (SDR), filza 265, 9 August 1744. Gerolamo Maria Balbi, the son of Marco, belonged to one of the most powerful Venetian families, whose imposing palace is still standing alla Carità. He was born on 10 August 1693 and died in 1761 after a brilliant career with the Venetian fleet. See ASVe, Marco Barbaro, Arbori de’ patritii veneti, 2:151. Gerolamo Maria Balbi should not be confused with the later Gerolamo Maria Balbi-Valier (1778–1855). 145 T E C H N O L O G Y A N D C U L T U R E JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 FIG. 1 Portrait of Gerolamo Maria Balbi (ca.1740–42), pastel on paper, by Marianna Carlevaris (1703–50). (Source: Ca’ Rezzonico, Museo del Settecento, Venice/Cameraphoto Arte Venezia/Bridgeman Art Library, London.) ponentina and those of a standard galley, thus allowing a theoretical reconstruction of both galleys, as well as providing a vital understanding of the technical developments in galley design at the Arsenal during the early modern period (see table 1). In addition to this exceptional manuscript, a folder compiled by Balbi, which is now in the Correr Museum Library of Venice (Biblioteca del Museo Correr, Venezia), containing several documents related to his galley, such as personal notes, calculations, copies of decrees, draft letters, and unprecedented records documenting the preparatory design study conducted by him, adds to the wealth of documentation on the galea alla ponentina.6 As indicated by Balbi, Western galleys were those built in the western Mediterranean: namely, the Genoese, French, Spanish, Tuscan, papal, and Maltese galleys.7 Balbi specifically took as a model the papal galleys, which he compared to Venetian galleys in terms 6. Biblioteca del Museo Correr, Venezia, Provenienze Diverse, manuscript 582.C (BCV, PD, ms. 582.C). It is of interest to note that in 1748 the Senate asked Balbi to produce all the documents pertaining to his galley. See ASVe, SDA, filza 73, 25 May 1748 (same as ASVe, Provveditori all’Armar, Deliberazioni del Senato [PA, DdS], filza 51, doc. 182; BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 211r–v). 7. ASVe, SDA, filza 66, 10 March 1744 (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 59r–60v). 146 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima of design and naval architecture.8 The present research is further enriched by the only drawing that has surfaced thus far depicting the galea alla ponentina—here presented and discussed for the first time—which was made in Corfu by Antonio d’Annibale in 1746 and is now part of the outstanding drawings collection in the Venetian archives 9 (fig. 2). While discussing the conception, design, construction, and performance of the galea alla ponentina, this article offers a unique view into the technical experimentation in galley design at the Arsenal during the last decades of the Serenissima. It demonstrates that the vitality of the Arsenal did not decline after the conclusion of the last war fought against the Ottomans in 1718, regardless of the fact that Venetian galleys did not engage in any major naval war thereafter. However, it had always been difficult for innovation in the conservative art of shipbuilding to penetrate the thick walls of the Arsenal due to opposition from both the reluctant shipwrights, who acted as a secretive lobby, and the political class. Due to its faulty design—or to a conspiracy by the shipwrights, as claimed by Balbi—galea alla ponentina proved to be a failure and was eventually abandoned. In a broader perspective, however, the story of the galley documents the debate between practice and theory at the Arsenal: between the world of shipbuilding practice and empirical methods to which the shipwrights belonged and the world of naval architecture as a theoretical discipline of scientific principles advocated by sea captains. A technical study of Venetian ship design focusing on how shipbuilding practice evolved into naval architecture and how it played a substantial role in determining the course of Venice’s maritime history is still a desideratum, although valuable works have been produced that have contributed to our knowledge.10 However, the history of Venetian ship design 8. Balbi compared the measurements for the main mast, mizzen mast, and crow’snests (BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 164r–167v), the wooden framework for the awning (fols. 169r–v), the sails (fols. 167r–v, 171r, 176r), and the rigging and anchors’ cables (fols. 172r, 389r). 9. ASVe, Senato, Dispacci, Provveditori di Terra e da Mar (SD, PTM), drawing attached to dispatch 110, 10 August 1746. This drawing has been published in black and white by Gilberto Penzo, with no comment or reference to Gerolamo Balbi’s galley; see Gilberto Penzo, Navi veneziane, 22, drawing 8. There is a copy of this drawing in the archive of the University of Padua library (Biblioteca universitaria di Padova, Scaff. II A 34 57); see Guido Ercole, Le galee mediterranee, XI, fig. 38). 10. Among the literature devoted to the present topic, the 1934 study by Frederic C. Lane, Venetian Ships and Shipbuilders of the Renaissance, stands out for its innovative approach in combining maritime and economic history with naval architecture. For more technical studies, see Ulrich Alertz, “The Venetian Merchant Galley and the System of Partisoni” and “Naval Architecture Digitalized”; Roger C. Anderson, “Italian Naval Architecture about 1445” and “Jal’s Memoire no. 5 and the Manuscript Fabrica di galere”; Sergio Bellabarba, “The Square Rigged Ship of the ‘Fabrica di Galere’ Manuscript”; Mauro Bondioli, “The Arsenal of Venice and the Art of Building Ships,” “The Art of Designing and Building Venetian Galleys from the Fifteenth to the Sixteenth Century,” and “Early Shipbuilding Records and the Book of Michael of Rhodes”; Bon- 147 T E C H N O L O G Y JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 148 TABLE 1 SHIPBUILDING INSTRUCTION FOR A GALLEY OF STANDARD DESIGN AND GEROLAMO MARIA BALBI’S GALEA PONENTINA1 Galley to be built according to the new design proposed by the nobleman Gerolamo Maria Balbi, former Provveditor dell’Armata; light galley based on the (wooden model) 25 Length overall, paces 25 Maximum width, feet 16 Maximum width, feet 18 Depth in the hold, feet 5, fingerbreadths 4 Depth in the hold, feet 5, fingerbreadths 12 Flat portion of the midship frame, feet 8 Flat portion of the midship frame, feet 8, fingerbreadths 2 Height of the stem measured vertically, feet 7, fingerbreadths 12 Height of the stem measured vertically, feet 8, fingerbreadths 2 Raking of the stem, feet 12 Raking of the stem, feet 12 Height of the sternpost measured vertically up to the transom, feet 13 Height of the sternpost measured vertically up to the transom, feet 13 Raking of the sternpost, feet 8 8 Raking of the sternpost, feet Narrowing of the frames from the midship frame to the last molded forward frame, feet 2, fingerbreadths 2 Narrowing of the frames from the midship frame to the last molded forward frame, feet 2 Overlapping of the floor timber with the futtock 12 fingerbreadths Overlapping of the floor timber with the futtock 14 fingerbreadths Raising of the futtock (toward the bow) 16 fingerbreadths Raising of the futtock (toward the bow) 17 fingerbreadths Raising of the floor timbers toward the bow 8 fingerbreadths Raising of the floor timbers toward the bow 9 fingerbreadths Narrowing of the flat portion of the frames from the midship frame to the last molded after frame, feet Narrowing of the flat portion of the frames from the midship 2, fingerbreadths 12 frame to the last molded after frame, feet 2, fingerbreadths 8 Raising of the futtock (toward the stern) 10 fingerbreadths Raising of the futtock (toward the stern) 12 fingerbreadths Overlapping of the floor timber with the futtock 8 fingerbreadths Overlapping of the floor timber with the futtock 10 fingerbreadths Raising of the floor timbers toward the bow 12 fingerbreadths Raising of the floor timbers toward the bow 12 fingerbreadths C U L T U R E Length overall, paces A N D Galley built according to the old design used in the past; galley built according to the traditional design ALLA Frames to be placed at every fourth station toward the bow total 7, which are in total frames Frames to be placed at every fourth station toward the stern total 9, which are in total frames 35 Frames to be placed at every fourth station toward the bow total 7, which are in total frames 24, as they are wider than standard ones 24 36 Total number of the frames toward the bow and the stern, comprising the midship frame 81 Total number of the frames toward the bow and the stern, comprising the midship frame 61 Room between the frames 15 fingerbreadths Room between the frames 18 fingerbreadths The ferir da prova, that is the distance between the last molded forward frame and the stem, feet 20 The ferir da prova, that is the distance between the last molded forward frame and the stem, feet 20 The ferir da puppa, that is the distance between the last molded after frame and the sternpost, feet 30 The ferir da puppa, that is the distance between the last molded after frame and the sternpost, feet 30 Width of the wale running from the midship frame to stem 14 fingerbreadths Width of the wale running from the midship frame to stem 16 fingerbreadths Number of upward curving extensions of the deck beams between the yokes, comprising those of the yokes 50 The upward curving extensions of the deck beams are removed in present design, as opposed to standard design —— Number of outrigger knees between the yokes 48 Number of outrigger knees between the yokes 39 Height of the forward yoke from the deck, feet 2, fingerbreadths 8 Height of the forward yoke from the deck, feet 2 Height of the after yoke from the deck, feet 1, fingerbreadths 8 Height of the after yoke from the deck, feet 1, fingerbreadths 2 From the gangway to the grado, that is the distance (from the gangway) to the outrigger, feet 10, fingerbreadths 8 From the gangway to the grado, that is the distance (from the gangway) to the outrigger, feet 10, fingerbreadths 8 Length of the short side of the outrigger of the galley, feet 24 Length of the short side of the outrigger of the galley, feet 24 149 Note that in this new design, the galley has to be built without the fault of the bottazzo, so to increase the dimensions of the hull below the waterline; in order to safely secure the outrigger knee, a 1½-feet high pin should be placed on every other frame and in total there would be 39 pins so the outrigger knees would match the pins. On top of each outrigger knee, there should be placed an 8-fingerbreadth wide longitudinal timber of oak running along the yokes and it should be nailed to the pin and notched underneath so as to accommodate the outrigger knee. 1In ASVe, Senato, Deliberazioni, Rettori, filza 265, 9 August 1744. CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima 45 Frames to be placed at every fourth station toward the stern total 9, which are in total frames 36, as they are wider than standard ones T E C H N O L O G Y JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 150 A N D C U L T U R E FIG. 2 Balbi’s galea alla ponentina as depicted in a drawing made by Antonio d’Annibale in Corfu (10 August 1746). Black and red ink drawing on paper with black and yellow watercolor (roll measuring 1,469 × 339 cm). (Source: ASVe, SD, PTM, filza 990, dispatch 1. Publication [no. 50/2013] granted by the Archivio di Stato di Venezia, protocol no. 4185/28.13.07.) CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima is limited by the fact that of the many Venetian shipbuilding manuscripts known thus far, only a few have been published.11 Among these, the magisterial three-volume publication edited by Pamela Long, David McGee, and Alan Stahl, The Book of Michael of Rhodes: A Fifteenth-Century Maritime Manuscript (2009), lays the foundation for future investigations of such cryptic texts. Further comprehensive studies of Venetian shipbuilding manuscripts would also help to delineate the birth and proliferation of a technical literature devoted to ship design and nautical topics, and to understand the complex processes of knowledge exchange in the dynamic arena of the Mediterranean basin. This article aims to complement the corpus of shipbuilding manuscripts by incorporating Balbi’s material and demonstrating how Venice elected to introduce at the Arsenal a “galley of Western design,” thus striving to emulate and reproduce the design of a type of warship in service in the fleets of the contemporaneously most successful Mediterranean maritime powers. Shipbuilding Practice in the Arsenal of Venice Before discussing the details of Balbi’s galea alla ponentina, a brief description of the general aspects of Venetian shipbuilding and ship design may be useful. Galleys were built, as were other ships during this period, on the skeleton-first (or frame-first) method of construction, a technique used by Mediterranean shipwrights since at least the eleventh century.12 This method of construction consisted of first installing a number of predesigned frames (corbe) on the keel—the midship frame and a few others dioli and Gilberto Penzo, “Teodoro Baxon e Nicola Palopano proti delle galee sottili”; Frederick Hocker and John McManamon, “Medieval Shipbuilding in the Mediterranean and the Written Culture at Venice”; Frederic C. Lane, “Venetian Naval Architecture about 1550”; David McGee, “The Shipbuilding Text of Michael of Rhodes”; Horst Nowacki and Matteo Valleriani, eds., Shipbuilding Practice and Ship Design Methods from the Renaissance to the 18th Century; and Eric Rieth, “Les illustrations d’un ‘livre de recettes techniques’ d’architecture navale du milieu du XVe siècle” and “Mediterranean Ship Design in the Middle Ages.” 11. Among these, there are the fifteenth-century manuscript Ragioni antique (Alvise Chiggiato, “Le ‘ragioni antique’ dell’architettura navale”); the sixteenth-century manuscript Visione del Drachio (ASVe, Archivio Proprio Contarini 25), translated into English and edited by Louis T. Lehmann (Baldissera Quinto Drachio); Navili sottili, cioè vele latine, galeotte, fuste . . . (ASVe, “Memorie antiche che possono supplire ai vacui dei Commemoriali,” vol. 1, fols. 186–88, ca.1550), published by Mauro Bondioli (“L’arte della costruzione navale veneziana tra il XV e il XVI secolo”); and the sixteenth-century Misure di vascelli di . . . etc. proto dell’Arsenale di Venetia, published by Ugo Tucci (“Architettura navale veneziana”). With the exception of the Visione del Drachio, none of these manuscripts has been translated into English. 12. The earliest archaeological evidence for the frame-first construction in ship design is the eleventh-century Byzantine wreck excavated at Serçe Limani, Turkey, by the Institute of Nautical Archaeology; see George F. Bass, Sheila D. Matthews, J. Richard Steffy, and Frederick H. van Doorninck Jr., Serçe Limani. 151 T E C H N O L O G Y JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 A N D C U L T U R E placed at key locations—and then fastening the hull planking around these frames. Thus the skeletal structure of the hull formed by the framework provided the ship with significant structural strength. The shipwright divided the ship’s length into sections by establishing stations (campi) that marked the location of the frames necessary to obtain a reasonable spacing between the framing and achieve a balance between the hull’s weight and structural integrity. The hull form was essentially determined by the shape of the predesigned frames, which consisted of floor timbers (madieri) and futtocks (staminali); thus the design of the frames was a crucial aspect of construction. Since at least the second half of the fourteenth century, Venetian shipwrights designed the frames of their ships by means of a mold (sesto) and a gauge (morello) incised with progressive marks.13 The marks on the mold and gauge were generated by simple geometrical methods that were often graphically represented in shipbuilding manuscripts, such as those in Libro di Zorzi Trombetta da Modon (The notebook of Zorzi Trombetta from Modon) (1444–49).14 The shipwright moved the mold and gauge progressively along each sequential frame, thus obtaining the required narrowing and rising of each. Only the frames installed between the cao da sesto da prora and the cao da sesto da poppa (literally the “end of the mold” at the bow and stern, respectively) were thus designed. In building a galley the shipwright first laid down the keel and attached to either end the ship’s end-posts (fig. 3). The next step was to install on the keel the predesigned midship frame (corba da mezzo) and two tail frames, one placed at the cao da sesto da prora and the other at the cao da sesto da poppa, respectively (fig. 4). The shipwright proceeded to fasten to the keel a number of designed intermediary frames (corbe da onza), generally one at every fourth frame station, and then extend longitudinal ribbands (maistre) over this framework, running the full length of the galley from one end-post to the other (fig. 5). Once the hull shape was faired with the help of the ribbands, the shipwright installed the remaining frames (imboscamento) and completed the hull by fastening the planks to them (figs. 6–7). As documented by Venetian shipbuilding manuscripts, the overall shape of a galley was defined by three basic measurements: the overall length between end-posts, the maximum width (bocca), and the depth in the hold (pontale) (fig. 8). From these three fundamental measurements all 13. The mold was basically a template in the shape of the midship frames on which were engraved lines marking the incremental shortening or narrowing of the frames; the gauge was a wooden stick on which the engraved lines marked the incremental rising of the frames of a ship. 14. British Library, Cotton manuscript, Titus A XXVI, fol. 45r. It is unfortunate that this important manuscript has yet to be fully studied and published. The two main articles about it are those by Anderson, “Italian Naval Architecture about 1445” (with some excusable inaccuracies in the transcriptions), and Rieth, “Les illustrations d’un ‘livre de recettes techniques.’” 152 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima FIG. 3 Shipbuilding sequence of a generic Venetian galley, step 1: The keel and end-posts attached to the keel’s extremities are laid down. (Source: Drawing by the author.) FIG. 4 Shipbuilding sequence of a generic Venetian galley, step 2: The predesigned midship frame (corba da mezzo) and two tail frames are installed on the keel. (Source: Drawing by the author.) the others were derived proportionally. The length of the galley was divided into five main portions: the central portion (sometimes referred to as mezzo), comprising the midship frame and a few others identical in design to it; the portion of the hull comprising the molded frames toward the bow (partison da prora) delimited by the cao da sesto da prora, which indicated the location of the last molded forward frame; the portion comprising the molded frames toward the stern (partison da poppa) delimited by the cao da sesto da poppa, marking the location of the last molded after frame; the portion between the last molded forward frame at the bow and 153 T E C H N O L O G Y A N D C U L T U R E JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 FIG. 5 Shipbuilding sequence of a generic Venetian galley, step 3: Intermediary frames (corbe da onza) are installed on the keel, one at every fourth frame station; longitudinal ribbands (maistre), running the full length of the galley, are extended over this framework. (Source: Drawing by the author.) FIG. 6 Shipbuilding sequence of a generic Venetian galley, step 4: The remaining frames are installed on the keel (imboscamento). (Source: Drawing by the author.) the stem (ferir da prora); and the portion between the last molded after frame at the stern and the sternpost (ferir da poppa). The portion between the last molded forward frame and the stem also included the location of the forward yoke (zovo da prora) of the rowing outrigger, and the portion between the last molded after frame included the location of the after yoke (zovo da poppa). Thus both the ferir da prora and the ferir da poppa were 154 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima FIG. 7 Shipbuilding sequence of a generic Venetian galley, step 5: The planks are fastened to the frames. (Source: Drawing by the author.) FIG. 8 The three basic measurements defining the overall shape of a Venetian galley: the overall length between end-posts, the maximum width (bocca), and the depth in the hold (pontale). (Source: Drawing by the author.) divided into two further portions: the former comprised the portion between the last molded forward frame and the forward yoke, and another between the forward yoke and the stem—that is, the foredeck (palmetta da prora); likewise, the ferir da poppa comprised the portion between the last molded after frame and the after yoke, and another between the after yoke and the sternpost, or aftdeck (palmetta da poppa) (fig. 9). 155 T E C H N O L O G Y A N D C U L T U R E JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 FIG. 9 The breadth (top) and sheer plan (below) of a Venetian galley showing key locations and main portions. (Source: Drawing by the author.) Gerolamo Maria Balbi’s Galea alla Ponentina: Conception and Design On 19 March 1744 the Senate issued a decree establishing the construction of fifteen new galleys for the permanent squadron based at Corfu, whose duty was to protect the entrance of the Adriatic Sea from any armed forces attempting to access the Gulf of Venice.15 The arming of a new contingent in Corfu was dictated not only by the need to replace the old galleys, but also by the urgency of solving the long-standing issue regarding the poor performance of galleys due to their faulty design.16 The main problem concerned their lack of stability and buoyancy that resulted from a disproportionate geometry of the hull, as the depth in the hold was too shallow and the maximum width too narrow. To compensate for this Venetian shipwrights arbitrarily widened the maximum width a few fingerbreadths and added onto the hull’s exterior a bottazzo—a longitudinal thick timber running along the hull at the sheer level.17 As indicated in the archival sources, shipwright Nadalin Zampin was the first to alter the 15. ASVe, SDA, filza 66, 19 March 1744 (same as ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 50, doc. 13; BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 20r–v). On Corfu under the Venetian dominion, see Ruthy Gertwagen, “The Island of Corfu in Venetian Policy in the Fourteenth and Early Fifteenth Centuries.” 16. For example, in 1744 the galley commanded by Alvise Foscari was sent back to the Arsenal because it was deemed unseaworthy and finally demolished; see ASVe, SDM, reg. 210, fol. 7r, 19 March 1744. 17. ASVe, SDA, filza 66, 14 March 1744 (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 61r– 64v), which is a letter by Balbi addressed to the doge (a draft copy of this is in BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 313r–316r). In Venetian shipbuilding the term bottazzo is generic, indicating any additional timber that has been put in place on the hull in order to improve the ship’s stability and buoyancy. 156 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima measurement of the maximum width by widening it. Despite the fact that these alterations did not conform to the standards set forth in the 1619 decree, the Senate approved the design in 1690. The standard measurements for light galleys established in 1690 were 25 paces in length, 16 feet in width, and 5 feet and 4 fingerbreadths in depth in the hold.18 However, the hull became too heavy, causing the waterline to rise, slowing down navigation, and causing the ship to sag leeward. The ergonomics of rowing were also compromised as the outrigger (telaro)—the rectangular wooden structure superimposed on the galley that allowed for a multipowered oar system—became too close to the water, causing the oars to be dipped too much and making it difficult for the oarsmen to row.19 In March 1744 Venetian shipwright Cristoforo Zampin, the son of Nadalin, proposed a new design for galleys whose measurements differed slightly from those standardized in 1619. He suggested enlarging the maximum width by 1½ feet and increasing the depth by 4 fingerbreadths to raise the outrigger. According to Zampin, these proportions would improve the galley’s ability to sail windward (fig. 10).20 In order to evaluate the project, on 10 March 1744 the Arsenal’s superintendents summoned twenty-five shipwrights, along with noblemen Antonio Loredan and Balbi, who had recently returned from Corfu where they served as Provveditore General da Mar and Provveditore d’Armata, respectively. If approved by the Senate the Arsenal intended to build fifteen galleys according to Zampin’s design.21 Among the shipwrights, eight disapproved the project, claiming that galleys ought to be built based on the 1619 standard measurements, whereas the other seventeen, led by Loredan, expressed a favorable opinion 18. The 1690 standards are listed by Balbi in his 1744 proposal to the Senate for building a galley “of Western design” (ASVe, SDR, filza 265, 9 August 1744); see also tables 1–2. On Nadalin Zampin, see ASVe, Patroni e Provveditori all’Arsenal, Parti del Senato (PPA, PdS), reg. 159, fols. 203v–204v, 14 April 1754, where it is said that the Senate approved his design with two decrees, issued on 26 April and 14 September 1690. 19. The ergonomic principle governing the rowing action required that the inboard portion of the oar be one-third the total length of the oar, while the outboard portion corresponded to two-thirds. This simple rule is also mentioned by Balbi in an undated letter, where he asserted that on eighteenth-century Venetian galleys, oars were thirtythree feet long. See ASVe, SDA, filza 73, n.d. (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 75r– 78v). Regarding rowing (voga) in Venetian galleys, see ASVe, SDM, reg. 211, fols. 145r– v (same as ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 93, 27 November 1745) in which it is mentioned that the oars dipped too far into the water. 20. ASVe, SDA, filza 66, 10 March 1744. Cristoforo Zampin, the son of Nadalin, was a Venetian shipwright of the Arsenal, like his father and his brother Alvise. He became proto dei marangoni (master shipbuilder) on 29 May 1751, replacing the aged Antonio Massarini; see ASVe, PPA, PdS, reg. 158, fols. 39r–v. In his letters Balbi spelled Zampin as Zappin. See also Gilberto Penzo, Navi veneziane, 24, drawing 10. 21. ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 50, 10 March 1744, attachment to doc. 13, dated 19 March 1744 (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fol. 21r). This document is part of ASVe, SDA, filza 66, doc. 2, 10 March 1744. 157 T E C H N O L O G Y A N D C U L T U R E JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 FIG. 10 Cristoforo Zampin’s drawing representing the midship cross-section of his galley (10 March 1744). (Source: ASVe, SDA, filza 66, dispatch 1. Publication [no. 50/2013] granted by the Archivio di Stato di Venezia, protocol no. 4185/ 28.13.07.) of Zampin’s design. Balbi, however, distanced himself from these two parties, arguing that none of these solutions would prove decisive in solving the faulty design of galleys. Zampin’s project solved the faults only partially, whereas the 1619 standard measurements needed complete revision. Therefore, during the official meeting on 10 March, Balbi announced that he would propose a new design for galleys, and a few days later, on 14 March, he wrote a letter to Doge Pietro Grimani (1677–1752) criticizing Zampin’s design and presenting his new galea alla ponentina.22 As Balbi stated, the idea of building a galley based on the design of Western ones stemmed from an episode that occurred in a naval engagement during the war against the Ottomans (1714–18). In 1717, while serving as Sopracomito (galley captain), Balbi experienced serious difficulties while attempting to escape the Ottoman navy in the waters off Crete, and Venetian galleys could not take refuge in Zante until the papal and Maltese 22. ASVe, SDA, filza 66, 14 March 1744 (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 61r– 64v) (a draft copy of this letter is in BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 313r–316r). 158 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima auxiliary galleys towed them to their destination.23 In this episode Balbi noticed that the absence of the bottazzi in papal galleys made them better, faster, and more seaworthy. As an incentive to build his galea alla ponentina, which he meant to serve as a model for the fifteen new galleys, Balbi assured the Senate that its construction was much cheaper compared to standard galleys. Upon consulting Giovan Battista Fausto, a Venetian shipwright who had returned from the Venetian naval base in Corfu, Balbi asserted that by completely removing the bottazzi the Arsenal would save 400 ducats for each galley, hence amounting to 6,000 ducats for fifteen galleys.24 The galea alla ponentina was a two-masted, lateen-rigged galley, twenty-five paces long. It was powered alla scaloccio by 192 rowers, with twenty-four benches of four rowers each, pulling with a single long sweep. On 7 August Balbi presented to the Arsenal’s superintendents a wooden model of his galley, built by Fausto.25 Two days later Balbi also submitted the measurements for building his galley, and in order to foster an appreciation of his new design he listed the measurements of a standard galley next to his own.26 The comparison of these data revealed that the design of the galea alla ponentina was significantly different from that of a standard one; despite the fact that both galleys were the same length, Balbi’s was beamier, deeper, and flatter at the bottom.27 According to him, a wider, flatter bottom would have conferred more buoyancy and stability. However, because the galley of Western design was beamier it required greater effort to row, hence the length of the oars would also have to be increased. A striking feature of the galea alla ponentina was its light build. The 23. The episode is also recorded in a dispatch dated 14 November 1717 and sent by Capitano Generale da Mar Andrea Pisani from Preveza; see BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 138r–139v. 24. ASVe, SDA, filza 66, 14 March 1744 (docs. 1–2). A detailed report written by Giovan Battista Fausto listing expenses for the construction of the galley’s hull is in ibid., doc. 3. Fausto was the son of Domenico Fausto and descended from the famous naval architect and humanist Vettor Fausto, who designed the quinqueremis in 1529. He was appointed proto dei marangoni on 23 December 1744, after the death of proto dei marangoni Michele de Stefano Conti. See ASVe, PPA, Terminazioni (T), filza 235, doc. 140 and ASVe, SDA, filza 67, both dated 23 December 1744. The Senate officially approved Fausto’s appointment in mid-February 1745; see ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 91, 11 February 1744. Giovan Fausto had a son who was also named Domenico and was also a shipwright of the Arsenal and helped his father in the construction of the galea alla ponentina; see ASVe, Provveditori all’Armar, Scritture al Senato (PA, SaS), reg. 194, fols. unnumbered, 23 December 1749. In this document Domenico asserts that neither his father nor he had been paid for the building of the galley. 25. ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 50, attachment to doc. 88, 7 August 1744; ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 91, 7 August 1744. In 1746 the Senate decreed the preservation of the wooden model of the galley of Western design; see ASVe, SDM, reg. 212, fols. 41v–43r, 14 May 1746 (same as ASVe, SDM, filza 1024; ASVe, SDA, filza 71, same date). 26. ASVe, SDR, filza 265, doc. 3, 9 August 1744; see also tables 1–2. 27. Ibid. A detailed study of the technical features of the galea alla ponentina and its theoretical reconstruction is forthcoming by the author. Additional timbers’ dimensions for the galea alla ponentina are in BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fol. 175v. 159 T E C H N O L O G Y JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 A N D C U L T U R E frames in the portion of the hull comprising the predesigned framework and delimited by the last molded frame toward the end-posts numbered only sixty-one, while the standard galley contained eighty-one. Despite the fact that the length of the portion of the hull comprising the predesigned frames in both galleys was the same (seventy-five feet), the skeleton of Balbi’s galley was considerably lighter than the standard one. This construction feature was compensated by the robustness of the frames, which were wider than those of a standard galley. The major changes proposed by Balbi were the removal of the latte, which were upward-curving extensions of the deck beams supporting the baccalari (outrigger knees) and the removal of the bottazzi. In addition, the baccalari of his galley totaled only thirty-nine, as opposed to the forty-eight of a standard galley. According to Balbi, these changes would lighten the galley and save a great deal of timber, which was one of his main concerns. However, given the lack of the upward-curving extensions of the deck beams onto which the baccalari were fastened in standard galleys, the baccalari were a weak point in the galley. Thus, Balbi specified a longitudinal timber running between the yokes to be placed atop the baccalari, notched on its bottom so as to accommodate them. Furthermore, in order to better secure the placement of the baccalari, each knee was pinned onto its corresponding futtock. For his galea alla ponentina Balbi also designed two lateen sails, which were also rooted in Western design. His notes and calculations document a carefully detailed study comparing the design of Venetian sails with those hoisted in papal galleys.28 On 11 August the Arsenal’s superintendents examined Balbi’s proposal and wrote an enthusiastic report to the doge, praising the new design because, unlike Zampin’s, it would have definitely solved the faulty design of Venetian galleys. Therefore on 20 August the senators unanimously voted in favor of Balbi’s design.29 His solid, respected reputation established over his thirty-year-long naval career, as well as his political connections among the voting senators, played a significant role in this decision. Nonetheless, the unanimous vote is striking and points to a rejuvenated Venice experimenting with new design during a period of peace, although characterized by the looming, ever-present Ottoman threat. The Senate decreed the building of the new galley under Balbi’s direction, and appointed Provveditore all’Armar (Superintendent of the Arming) Antonio Marino Capello as the general supervisor. Once the galley was completed Capello would have tested its performance in the lagoon, and if successful it would then be sent to the Levant to join the fleet in Corfu.30 28. Ibid., fol. 171r, 9 June 1745, and fol. 176r, 1 August 1745. 29. ASVe, SDR, filza 265, doc. 2, 11 August 1744. 30. ASVe, SDR, filza 265, doc. 1, 20 August 1744 (same as ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 91, same date; ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 50, doc. 88; BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 18r–v). See also ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 50, attachment to doc. 88; and ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 91—both dated 7 August 1744. 160 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima The Construction of the Galea alla Ponentina After the senatorial decree of 20 August Balbi appointed Fausto as the shipwright in charge of construction of the galea alla ponentina, and by December the latter started shaping the timbers and predesigned frames. Interestingly, the beginning of the galley’s construction coincided with Fausto’s promotion to master shipbuilder on 23 December 1744.31 Early in the following year (9 January) the Senate granted master carpenter Zuanne Pedrol six miara of rough iron for forging the fastenings of the hull and deck.32 By the end of the month the galley’s framework was installed on the keel.33 Shortly thereafter, in early February, Balbi submitted to the Arsenal a document on the organization of the galley’s inner space, specifying the number of the various storerooms and compartments to be made and their respective dimensions.34 By the beginning of June the hull’s structure was built and its exterior caulked.35 Once Capello carefully examined the galea alla ponentina and ascertained that Fausto had conformed to Balbi’s design, the Senate authorized launching the galley near the Arsenal, where the remaining work would be done. The galea alla ponentina was scheduled for completion by the following October, along with the arming of five new galleys to be sent to Corfu.36 On 25 June 1745 the Arsenal appointed woodcarver Lorenzo Fanoli to decorate the stern.37 As seen from the drawing depicting the starboard side of the galea alla ponentina, Fanoli’s finely decorated carving (intaglio) included several floral motifs, the winged Lion of Saint Mark, shields, trumpets, and Triton—half-human, half–sea monster—the latter supporting the poop with a twisted fishtail ending in a trefoil. The marine scene in the central panel represented Neptune on a chariot—a shell with spoked wheels—pulled by hippocampi (seahorses). The sea god held a trident in 31. ASVe, PPA, T, filza 235, doc. 140; ASVe, SDA, filza 67—both dated 23 December 1744. 32. ASVe, PPA, T, filza 235, doc. 149, 9 January 1744. One miara (or migliara) was equal to 1,000 Venetian libbre and corresponded to 476 kg; see Martini, Manuale di metrologia, 818. 33. ASVe, SDA, filza 67, doc. 1, 28 January 1745 (same as ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 50, doc. 120; ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 91, same date; BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 16r–v). See also ASVe, SDA, filza 67, doc. 2, 25 January 1745 (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 58r–v). 34. BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fol. 56v, 3 February 1745. 35. ASVe, SDA, filza 68, doc. 2, 9 June 1745 (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 10r– 15v). 36. ASVe, SDA, filza 68, 10 June 1745, doc. 1 (same as ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 92, same date; ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 50, doc. 166; BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 168r–v). 37. ASVe, PPA, PdS, reg. 155, fols. 36v–37r, 25 June 1745 (same as ASVe, PPA, T, filza 236, doc. 69); see also ASVe, PPA, T, filza 236, attachment to doc. 69, 22 June 1745. Lorenzo Fanoli was one of the most famous woodcarvers in the Arsenal and created the carvings for the sterns of several ships, including the doge’s Bucintoro; see ASVe, PPA, PdS, reg. 158, fols. 50v–51r, 12 July 1751, and ASVe, PPA, PdS, reg. 158, fol. 16v, 2 June 1752. 161 T E C H N O L O G Y A N D C U L T U R E JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 FIG. 11 Detail of the stern’s carvings of Balbi’s galea alla ponentina as depicted in a drawing made by Antonio d’Annibale in Corfu (10 August 1746). Black and red ink drawing on paper with black and yellow watercolor (roll measuring 1469 × 339 cm). (Source: ASVe, SD, PTM, filza 990, dispatch 1. Publication [no. 50/2013] granted by the Archivio di Stato di Venezia, protocol no. 4185/28.13.07.) his right hand, while his left arm was raised in the gesture of biding the four winds, represented as winged putti 38 (fig. 11). However, a handwritten note of Balbi indicated that Fanoli’s carvings were far more elaborate and richly decorated than those shown in the drawing. The panel on the starboard side also included a carving of Venice, represented as a bejeweled goddess sitting on a lion and surrounded by mermaids and tritons. The panel on the port side depicted the personification of Europe as a crowned goddess between two overflowing cornucopias. Her right hand held a temple while her left pointed to royal symbols, trophies, various musical instruments, brushes, chisels, and a book surmounted by an owl. Next to Europe, Mars offered his arms to the god Military Value, who was followed by the god Volcano and the Cyclops forging weapons and shields on a brazier. Finally, on the transom the goddess Truth was depicted in the act of educating children.39 This richly dec38. The panel celebrated the passage from Virgil’s Aeneid (1.135–56) describing how Neptune, crying out the aposiopesis “Quos ego—” (“Whom I—”), calmed the winds, thus saving Aeneas from shipwreck on his voyage from Troy. In Venice and elsewhere, the Virgilian theme of Neptune was celebrated by several famous artists. See Reuben A. Brower, “Visual and Verbal Translation of Myth”; and Luba Freedman, “Neptune in Classical and Renaissance Visual Art.” For the reception of Virgil in Venice and how he shaped Renaissance Venetian culture, see the most authoritative study on this subject, Craig Kallendorf’s Vergil and the Myth of Venice. 39. BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 317r–v, n.d.. 162 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima orated area at the stern was exclusively reserved for the noblemen onboard—the captain and other officials—and sheltered from the sun by a squared wooden structure measuring thirteen feet on each side, which was surmounted by a thick awning.40 The elaborate construction of the galea alla ponentina proceeded slowly and problems encountered by Balbi delayed its scheduled completion by October. Furthermore, the launching of the new galley was delayed because of two major factors. The first concerned the galley’s command. In August the Arsenal’s inquisitors suspended construction because Capello had not yet appointed a captain.41 Consequently, in early September four of the five galleys intending to sail to Corfu by October were ready, whereas the galea alla ponentina was still far from completion.42 This captaincy was a delicate matter because the appointment was prestigious and therefore had to be assigned to the highest officer of the armata sottile— the Provveditore d’Armata—but the Senate explicitly required that the galley had to be extensively tested on the sea, and the officer who would best serve this purpose was the Governatore dei Condannati. Finally, on 17 September Capello assigned the captaincy to the Provveditore d’Armata.43 The second factor delaying the launch of the galley was that in October 1745 Balbi was appointed Provveditore Estraordinario in Terraferma—the superintendent of Venice’s mainland domains with extraordinary power. In order to assume office he had to leave Venice and move to Brescia and therefore could not attend the last phases of the galley’s construction.44 On 24 September the Senate had urged Balbi to provide the Arsenal with instructions for making the masts, rigging, sails, and anchors before departing for Brescia.45 Once the galley’s equipment was completed it had to be consigned to master shipbuilder Fausto so that he could properly arm and fit the new galley.46 As the construction of the galley resumed, further issues arose over the next months. An important problem concerned the two lateen sails, which were also of Western design. In September the commission for the two 40. Ibid., fols. 169r–v, 10 June 1745. 41. ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 50, doc. 184, 28 August 1745 (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fol. 5r). 42. On the new fleet being ready by October, see ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 93, 11 September 1745 (same as ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 50, doc. 191); see also ASVe, SDM, reg. 211, fols. 118r–v. 43. BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 182r–183r, 17 September 1745. Capello’s decision was approved by the Senate at the beginning of October; see ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 50, doc. 198, 2 October 1745 (same as ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 93, same date; ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 50, doc. 203; BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 184r–v). 44. ASVe, SDM, filza 1,023, 23 October and 13 January 1745. 45. ASVe, SDA, filza 69, 24 September 1745; see also ibid., filza 66, 10 March 1744 (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 59r–60v). 46. ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 93, 16 October 1745 (same as ASVe, SDM, reg. 211, fols. 134v–135r; BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fol. 186r); see also ASVe, PA, SaS, reg. 192, fols. 146r– v, 12 October 1745. 163 T E C H N O L O G Y JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 A N D C U L T U R E sails was granted to Andrea Salvin, the master sailmaker of the Arsenal who claimed he was not able to fabricate them because he was accustomed to cutting sails only according to the Venetian design.47 Therefore in October the Arsenal ordered Balbi to find a sailmaker capable of cutting the sails according to the Western design, but being in the Terraferma and thus far from Venice, this was not an easy task. Eventually, Balbi entrusted Antonio Scamparin and his son with the manufacture of the two lateen sails.48 Despite the many senatorial decrees ordering the completion of the galea alla ponentina by October, there was this critical delay of two months in its construction, and it was not until 2 December that the galley was launched in the waters off the Arsenal.49 Although the carvings were promptly delivered by Fanoli and ready to be installed, the stern area reserved for the captain and officers on board (piziol) and the hull’s internal compartments (serraglie) were unfinished.50 While the galley was nearing completion an additional, more complex issue arose. In December 1745 the Senate appointed a nobleman, Domenico Condulmer, as Provveditore d’Armata, who would be in charge of the galea alla ponentina for the next three years.51 Although he accepted the prestigious office, on 15 January 1746 Condulmer filed a complaint with the Senate, explaining that the office was onerous in many respects.52 First, he expressed concern that the design’s longer oars would expose his rowers to a more physically demanding task. More importantly, however, an old decree (issued on 22 December 1586) established that sea captains would be responsible for the expense of the military paraphernalia on their galleys, including the stern’s carvings. At the end of their service, therefore, sea captains removed these carvings and often displayed them, along with the lanterns, in the halls of their palaces. This 1586 decree established that the cost of the carvings for a Provveditore d’Armata galley would be 150 ducats.53 Since the 47. ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 93, 2 October 1745 (same as ASVe, SDA, filza 69, same date). 48. ASVe, SDA, filza 69, 24 September and 2 October 1745. The sails were delivered a few days before the performance test on 29 April 1746; see ASVe, SDM, filza 1024, 30 April 1746. On the sails manufacture, see ASVe, SDM, filza 1025, 18 April 1746; ASVe, PPA, T, filza 236, 1 June 1746; ASVe, PPA, PdS, reg. 155, fol. 173v, 1 June 1746; ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 93, 10 February 1745; ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 50, doc. 244, 10 February 1745; and ASVe, PPA, T, filza 239, 10 July 1747. 49. ASVe, SDM, reg. 211, fols. 148r–v, 2 December 1745; see also ASVe, PA, SaS, reg. 192, fol. 10v, 27 November 1745. 50. Regarding the completion of the carvings, see ASVe, SDM, reg. 211, fols. 134v– 135r, 16 October 1745. On the piziol and serraglie, see ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 50, doc. 231, 17 January 1745; see also ASVe, PA, SaS, reg. 192, fols. 153v–154v (undated, but this document is similar to the previous one and it is likely that the two are coeval). 51. ASVe, SDM, reg. 211, fol. 156r, 16 December 1745. On Domenico Condulmer, born in 1670, see ASVe, Barbaro, Arbori de’ patritii veneti, 2:419. 52. ASVe, SDM, filza 1023, 15 January 1745. 53. ASVe, SDM, reg. 47, fols. 258v–260r, 22 December 1586. 164 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima decree of 2 October 1745 established that the cost of the stern’s carvings for the galley would be entirely charged to the Provveditore d’Armata, Condulmer had to pay a much greater amount than 150 ducats. Moreover, this expense was unnecessary because he already possessed his own carvings from the galley he formerly commanded as Capitano al Golfo.54 The issue was twofold: the stern’s carvings for the galea alla ponentina were custom-made and therefore Condulmer could not re-use them in future standard galleys. However, if he had to purchase the stern’s carvings and remove them at the end of his service in accordance with the 1586 decree, then the Arsenal had to create anew the stern’s carvings every three years for each newly appointed Provveditore d’Armata, which would, of course, be a great waste of effort and money.55 Therefore in his complaint to the Senate Condulmer suggested that rather than purchasing the stern’s carvings, he would rent them for the fixed amount of 150 ducats; in this way, at the end of his service he would return the stern’s carvings to the Arsenal so that they could be re-used by the next Provveditore, and in turn the Arsenal would reimburse his 150 ducats. Capello and the superintendents of the Arsenal endorsed Condulmer’s petition and consequently sent two separate letters to the senators, who on 12 February 1746 approved it.56 Two days later Condulmer submitted to the senators a list of the equipment he needed for the galea alla ponentina. Regarding armaments, his list included: one colubrina of 20 libbers; two falconetti of 6 libbers; two cannoni of 12 libbers; two petriere of 14 libbers; twelve petriere of 12 libbers; and four petriere of 6 libbers—all made of bronze.57 By the beginning of March 1746 feverish preparations were being made at the Arsenal for the newly armed fleet of two galleasses, five galleys, and the galea alla ponentina, whose departure to Corfu was scheduled for midmonth.58 However, it was not until 23 March that the galea alla ponentina was completed in all its parts, and on that same day, Capello filed a report to the Senate detailing all expenses incurred during construction.59 Balbi 54. On the stern’s carvings owned by Condulmer when he was Capitano al Golfo, see ASVe, SDM, filza 1023, 21 January 1745. 55. ASVe, SDM, filza 1023, 15 January 1745. 56. On Capello’s letter to the Senate, see ASVe, SDM, filza 1023, 21 January 1745 (same as ASVe, PA, SaS, reg. 192, fols. 166r–167v). On the superintendents of the Arsenal’s letter, see ASVe, SDM, filza 1023, 5 February 1745. On the Senate’s decree accepting Condulmer’s petition, see ASVe, SDM, reg. 211, fol. 183v, 12 February 1745 (same as ASVe, SDM, filza 1023; ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 93). 57. ASVe, SDM, filza 1025, 14 February 1745. In Venetian artillery the libbra sottile, which was used for bigger guns, was equal to 0.3 kg. See Martini, Manuale di metrologia, 818; and Marco Morin, “Artiglierie navali in ambito veneziano,” 20. 58. ASVe, SDM, filza 1025, 3 March 1746 (same as ASVe, SDM, reg. 212, fol. 1v); see also ASVe, SDM, filza 1025, 27 February 1745, and ASVe, SDM, filza 1024, 9 May 1746. On the preparation of the new fleet by the Arsenal, see ASVe, PPA, PdS, reg. 155, fols. 139r–v, 10 March 1746 (same as ASVe, PPA, T, filza 236, doc. 3). 59. ASVe, SDM, filza 1025, 23 March 1746. 165 T E C H N O L O G Y JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 A N D C U L T U R E initially ensured that the construction of his galley’s hull would be 400 ducats less than the 600 ducats of a standard galley; thus the total expense would be only one-third of that of a standard galley—in other words, 200 ducats.60 But the cost of his galea alla ponentina ended up being 612 ducats. The initial 200 ducats the Senate allocated for construction costs did not cover all expenses, so therefore Capello requested an additional 400 ducats, of which 130 were needed for the salaries of workers who painted the galley red coral (pittura a coral), and decorated the stern’s carvings with fine paintings (miniatura).61 In addition, on 30 April Capello requested a further 12 ducats for covering the cost of the materials used and the salaries of the soldiers who guarded the galea alla ponentina from the day it was launched, 2 December 1745, until it was officially consigned to Condulmer on 26 March of the following year.62 Waiting for the galea alla ponentina’s completion, the rest of the fleet was still in Venice, well beyond the date of its scheduled departure in midMarch.63 Finally, on 10 April Capello informed the senators that the new galley was now fully armed, rigged, and outfitted.64 The insignia of the winged Lion of Saint Mark waving from the top of its masts, the galea alla ponentina was ready to set sail for Corfu.65 60. ASVe, SDA, filza 66, doc. 2, 14 March 1744; ASVe, SDA, filza 73, 8 July 1748 (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 212r–218r). It seems that the 600 ducats would have covered only the expenses for building the hull and not the entire construction of the galley with its arming and fitting, as the building costs for a galley were many thousands of ducats. 61. ASVe, SDM, filza 1025, 23 March 1746. A few days later the Senate granted the additional 400 ducats to Capello; see ASVe, SDM, reg. 212, fol. 20v, 2 April 1746 (same as ASVe, SDM, filza 1025, same date). As recalled by Capello, his choice of painting the stern’s carvings rather than gilding them was in accordance with the senatorial decree of 18 February 1683 prohibiting the gilding of galleys’ poops; see ASVe, SDM, reg. 149, fols. 178r–v, 18 February 1683. 62. ASVe, SDM, filza 1024, doc. 1, 30 April 1746. Condulmer took responsibility for the safety of the galea alla ponentina on 26 March 1746, when the ship’s logbook was officially consigned to him; see ASVe, SDM, reg. 212, fol. 18r, 26 March 1746 (same as ASVe, SDM, filza 1025, same date). A few days later, on 31 March, Antonio Fasoi was appointed the Sottocomito of Condulmer’s galley; see ASVe, SDM, filza 1025, 31 March 1746. The Sottocomito was the officer ranked below the Comito and helped him in handling the sails and the galley’s equipment. 63. ASVe, PPA, PdS, reg. 155, fols. 139r–v, 10 March 1746 (same as ASVe, PPA, T, filza 236, doc. 3). 64. ASVe, SDM, filza 1025, 10 April 1746. 65. The insignia were commissioned to Piero de Francesco and consisted of six patches representing the winged Lion of Saint Mark: two to be sewn on the sails, one on the flag atop the main mast, one on the flag atop the foremast, and the other two on the banner at the stern and the pennant at the bow. See ASVe, PPA, T, filza 236, doc. 64, 27 May 1746, and filza 239, doc. 119, 7 July 1746. 166 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima The Performance of the Galea alla Ponentina in Venice Before the fleet could depart, the galea alla ponentina needed to be tested, both by oar in the Grand Canal and by sail toward Istria, as originally established by the senatorial decrees in August 1744 and October 1745.66 After the galley was fully armed and outfitted, on 16 April 1746 the Senate ordered Capello to undertake the testing of the galley’s seaworthiness, and then to prepare the fleet to depart immediately afterward.67 The performance trials of the galea alla ponentina were scheduled for two separate days, 27 and 29 April.68 The main question was whether the galley ought to be rowed by four men on each bench, as were the galleys of the Sopracomiti, or by five men like the galleys of the Capi da Mar (admirals), as initially suggested by Balbi.69 On 27 April, in order to test the galley’s efficiency under oars, Capello organized a race between the galea alla ponentina, commanded by Condulmer, and the galley commanded by Giacomo da Riva, Governatore dei condannati (governor of the convicts). The galleys were supposed to be rowed by a team of 240—five on each bench—but only 211 were on board each galley because the others were ill. The race took place early in the afternoon; the galleys left from the Grand Canal, near the Church of Santa Marta, and rowed eastward to the Lido and back. According to Capello’s report Riva’s galley won the race—due, however, to two unexpected accidents experienced by Condulmer’s galley. First, three castagnole—the wooden chocks on which the tholepins were inserted—broke and therefore the galley was forced to stop in order to fix them. Then, after passing la Motta of Sant’Antonio in the Castello district, the galley had to stop again in order to avoid colliding with a gondola. Two days later, on 29 April, Capello organized a second race, on the same route, between Condulmer’s galley and the galley of the Sopracomito, Antonio Maria Riva. Both galleys had 192 rowers, who were arranged four to a bench. This time, Capello enthusiastically wrote the senators, there were no accidents and the galea alla ponentina won the race by about a half-kilometer. Concerning the sailing trial ordered by the Senate, Capello reported that the winds were not favorable for sailing in the open sea during this time. Nonetheless, on 27 April—the same day of the first race— with a most propitious wind blowing from the southwest, he ordered 66. ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 50, doc. 88, 20 August 1744, and doc. 198, 2 October 1745. 67. ASVe, SDM, reg. 212, fols. 27r–v, 16 April 1746 (same as ASVe, SDM, filza 1025; ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 94―both dated 16 April 1746). 68. Capello wrote a detailed report to the senators on the galley’s seaworthiness; see ASVe, SDM, filza 1024, 30 April 1746. 69. On Balbi’s intention to allot the galea alla ponentina to a Capo da Mar, see his letter to the doge in ASVe, SDA, filza 68, 9 June 1745 (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 10r–15v). 167 T E C H N O L O G Y JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 A N D C U L T U R E Condulmer and Riva to unfurl their sails and race in the Grand Canal, with the result that the former won the race by about eighty meters.70 Capello wrote a positive report on the galea alla ponentina, which proved to be swift, robust, and seaworthy. The only issue he cited about the first race concerned the length of the oars (palamento): they seemed too short, hence unsuitable for the galea alla ponentina, which had larger proportions than a standard Venetian galley. Therefore before the 29 April race Capello summoned Fausto and the master oar-maker of the Arsenal for an opinion and explanation. Both Fausto and the oar-maker had attended the race and admitted that the oars were indeed too short. Their explanation was that there was a shortage of logs split into wedges (stelle grezze) for making new oars at the Arsenal, and because the Senate urged the immediate departure of the galea alla ponentina, they had to use the oars from a standard galley.71 Consequently, on 14 May the Senate ordered the master oar-maker of the Arsenal to make a set of forty-eight oars for the new galley. In order to expedite the work the Senate also decreed that as many oar-makers as possible assist in the task.72 Making the new oars took more than two weeks, and as a result the departure of the fleet was further postponed. After a delay of two-and-ahalf months, on 1 June 1746 the Provveditore d’Armata Condulmer finally set sail for Corfu aboard the galea alla ponentina.73 The Performance of the Galea alla Ponentina in Corfu The day after his arrival in Corfu on 21 June Condulmer sent an alarming dispatch to Provveditore Generale da Mar Daniele Dolfin IV, reporting the perilous voyage of the galea alla ponentina.74 After safe navigation to Lalzit Bay near Durazzo, on 20 June the galley, while sailing past Sazan Island on stormy seas, began rolling heavily. As the storm raged more powerfully the galley could not withstand the increasing winds thrashing the bow. Condulmer steered the galley, attempting to rotate it to catch the wind from the stern, but this maneuver proved ineffective because the winds suddenly changed direction, and as a result the galley began rolling 70. ASVe, SDM, filza 1024, 30 April 1746. 71. Long and straight logs of beech were used to make oars. They were split into wedges (stelle grezze, or simply stelle or stele) from which each oar was then shaped; see Giovanni Cerni, “Le stele da remo del Cansiglio e il progetto del remo da galea.” 72. ASVe, SDM, reg. 212, fols. 41v–43r, 14 May 1746 (same as ASVe, SDM, filza 1024; ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 94―both dated 16 April 1746; BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 187r–188r). 73. ASVe, SD, PTM, filza 990, dispatch 104, 22 June 1756. On the delay of the fleet, see Capello’s report in ASVe, SDM, filza 1026, 28 May 1746. 74. ASVe, SD, PTM, filza 990, attachment to dispatch 104, 22 June 1746 (same as ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 94, attachment to doc. 179; BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 189r–v). On Daniele Dolfin IV (b. 1689), see ASVe, Barbaro, Arbori de’ patritii veneti, 3:274. 168 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima even more and almost sank. After surviving this near disaster, Condulmer, shaken, resolved to exchange his galley with Piero Alvise Diedo’s. Consequently, on 26 June Dolfin, who was then in Cephalonia patrolling the seas against the corsairs, sent a report to the Senate in Venice regarding the serious incident that occurred to Condulmer and the galea alla ponentina, which now lay moored in the Mandracchio—the wharf for galleys in Corfu’s harbor.75 Dolfin was aware of the senatorial decrees concerning the testing of the galley’s performance on the high seas, and he assured the senators that upon his return to Corfu he would personally take command of the galea alla ponentina in order to ascertain its seaworthiness and stability, and would also have the galley examined by experts so as to identify faults in its design. As soon as he returned to Corfu, Dolfin commissioned master shipbuilder Antonio d’Annibale to assess the galley’s design. To this end, d’Annibale conducted an accurate survey and wrote a technical report listing in detail the galley’s good qualities and faults, as well as suggesting possible ways to fix the latter in order to make the galley seaworthy.76 D’Annibale accompanied his report with a drawing labeled in color showing the galley’s starboard side, as well as two cross-sections at the midship frame 77 (figs. 12–13). In the report he praised four design features of the galea alla ponentina: the short raking of the sternpost that allowed for better steering of the galley (provizo); the absence of the bulwark (pavesata) that saved both timber and fastenings; the plank sheathing (fodra) of the outrigger knees’ outer surface that prevented water from coming in; and the robust poles (sbarre) supporting the longitudinal rail (perteghetta), which was a key feature because the galley lacked a bulwark. However, d’Annibale also noticed that one of the main issues in the galley’s design consisted of the deck’s transversal curvature; the arc of the deck was too steep, resulting in too great an incline for the benches and causing the outboard portion of the oars to be dipped too far into the water, thus preventing the third and fourth outermost rowers—the terzichio and the quartichio, respectively—from completing a full cycle of rowing. Therefore d’Annibale suggested raising the tholepins (schermadura) by adding a longitudinal timber measuring eight fingerbreadths in height beneath the outriggers, which the drawing highlighted in yellow and labeled “F.a 3.” In order to balance the benches correctly, he also suggested raising the corda —the longitudinal timber running beneath the outermost side of each bench and on which the outrigger knees were fastened—by adding a second longitudinal timber, which was also colored yellow and labeled “B” (fig. 14). 75. ASVe, SD, PTM, filza 990, dispatch 104, 26 June 1746 (same as BCV, PD, ms 582.C, fols. 192r–v). On the harbor of Corfu and the Mandracchio, see Martino Ferrari Bravo and Stefano Tosato, Gli Arsenali oltremarini della Serenissima, 292–93, and the bibliography cited therein. 76. ASVe, SD, PTM, filza 990, dispatch 110, 25 July 1746 (same as ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 51, attachment to doc. 57). 77. Ibid., drawing 2, attachment to dispatch 110. 169 T E C H N O L O G Y A N D C U L T U R E JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 FIG. 12 One of the two midship cross-sections of Balbi’s galea alla ponentina as depicted in a drawing made by Antonio d’Annibale in Corfu (10 August 1746). Black and red ink drawing on paper with black and yellow watercolor (roll measuring 1469 × 339 cm). (Source: ASVe, SD, PTM, filza 990, dispatch 1. Publication [no. 50/2013] granted by the Archivio di Stato di Venezia, protocol no. 4185/28.13.07.) FIG. 13 One of the two midship cross-sections of Balbi’s galea alla ponentina as depicted in a drawing made by Antonio d’Annibale in Corfu (10 August 1746). Black and red ink drawing on paper with black and yellow watercolor (roll measuring 1469 × 339 cm). (Source: ASVe, SD, PTM, filza 990, dispatch 1. Publication [no. 50/2013] granted by the Archivio di Stato di Venezia, protocol no. 4185/28.13.07.) Once he completed his analysis of the exterior of the galley, d’Annibale went on to examine the interior, noticing several flaws there. First, he pointed out that there was no ceiling planking covering the bottom and walls of the hull. He reported that although this might have saved lumber, it meant that consequently the hull was not sturdily built and thus could be easily damaged. His recommendation was to add ceiling planks to the galley’s interior. Next, d’Annibale proceeded to record the galley’s cross-section at the midship frame. The bocca, which was the maximum width of the midship frame (A-A) measured from its outer surface (P and R), was 18½ feet wide; the pontal, or depth in the hold measured from the midship 170 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima INSIDE THE BLACK BOX FIG. 14 Antonio d’Annibale’s corrections at point F.a 3 and B of Balbi’s galea alla ponentina as depicted in his drawing made in Corfu (10 August 1746). Black and red ink drawing on paper with black and yellow watercolor (roll measuring 1469 × 339 cm). (Source: ASVe, SD, PTM, filza 990, dispatch 1. Publication [no. 50/2013] granted by the Archivio di Stato di Venezia, protocol no. 4185/28.13.07.) FIG. 15 Antonio d’Annibale’s recording of the midship cross-section of Balbi’s galea alla ponentina as depicted in his drawing made in Corfu (10 August 1746). Note the measurements at points A-A (maximum width), Z-O (flat portion of the midship frame), and C-D (depth in the hold). Black and red ink drawing on paper with black and yellow watercolor (roll measuring 1469 × 339 cm). (Source: ASVe, SD, PTM, filza 990, dispatch 1. Publication [no. 50/2013] granted by the Archivio di Stato di Venezia, protocol no. 4185/28.13.07.) frame’s outer surface (C) to its bottom surface (D), was 6 feet high; and the fondo, the flat central portion of the midship frame measured from the two parascossole (Z-O), was 9½ feet wide (fig. 15). Strikingly, the measurements he recorded were significantly different from those provided by Balbi in his shipbuilding manuscript. Moreover, according to d’Annibale, 171 T E C H N O L O G Y A N D C U L T U R E JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 FIG. 16 Antonio d’Annibale’s corrections at point F.a-F, F.a-E, and the false keel (not originally labeled) of Balbi’s galea alla ponentina as depicted in his drawing made in Corfu (10 August 1746). Black and red ink drawing on paper with black and yellow watercolor (roll measuring 1469 × 339 cm). (Source: ASVe, SD, PTM, filza 990, dispatch 1. Publication [no. 50/2013] granted by the Archivio di Stato di Venezia, protocol no. 4185/28.13.07.) two more flaws jeopardized the seaworthiness of the galea alla ponentina. First, its bottom (piano) was too wide, and therefore he suggested adding both a wedge beneath the bottom measuring 2½ feet in length (“F.a-E”) and a false keel measuring half a foot attached to the bottom of the keel. The second issue concerned the profile of the midship frame, which curved inward rather than out. In order to solve this d’Annibale suggested adding two strakes at either sides of the wale (“F.a-F”), which would redefine the upper curvature of the midship frame (fig. 16). He concluded his report by asserting that his corrections would improve the seaworthiness of the galley—if not completely, at least in part. After d’Annibale submitted his assessment, Dolfin ordered the Armiraglii (admirals) and the Comiti (second-in-command after the Sopracomiti) serving in Corfu to examine, in their turn, the galea alla ponentina with d’Annibale’s report and drawing in hand. Thus on 4 August 1746 three Armiraglii and seven Comiti, accompanied by Dolfin himself, examined the galley and submitted their report. They not only agreed with everything asserted by d’Annibale, but even went further and recommended that no future galleys be built based on Balbi’s flawed design.78 A few days later, on 10 August, Dolfin sent a letter to the Senate with both reports and d’Annibale’s drawing.79 Accordingly, on 20 August the senators, astonished to learn about the poor performance of the galea alla 78. Ibid., dispatch 110, 4 August 1746 (same as ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 51, attachment to doc. 57). The Armiraglio was an officer in charge of the navigation of a squadron or the superintendence of an arsenal. 79. Ibid., 10 August 1746 (same as ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 51, attachment to doc. 57; BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 193r–194v). 172 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima ponentina, issued a decree ordering that Condulmer leave the galley in Corfu until the end of his service, at which point he would bring it back to Venice. In the meantime a new galley would be delivered to Corfu in exchange.80 In spite of this decree, however, Condulmer did not receive a second galley until about a year later, in May 1747.81 Secretly, after Dolfin sent his dispatch to the senators, a second letter was delivered from Corfu to Venice. On 13 September Pellegrino Pasqualigo, a Venetian nobleman in Corfu, wrote Balbi to inform him of the disapproval by Provveditore Dolfin and other officials of the galea alla ponentina. In his letter Pasqualigo called the unanimous rejection a conspiracy against Balbi, but advised him to be prudent and moderate in response.82 Meanwhile, early in 1747 the Senate opened an official inquiry at the Arsenal about the galea alla ponentina’s design. Primarily, Capello questioned Fausto about its construction and faulty design, since he was its master builder. Fausto defended himself by arguing that those who examined the galley in Corfu had no knowledge in the matter of Western galley design, and that the adjustments they suggested would compromise the stability of the galley rather than improve it. Furthermore, he claimed that he built the galley by strictly adhering to the measurements provided by Balbi, so therefore any blame for its design faults should be directed at Balbi and not himself.83 A few days later Capello questioned thirteen of the Arsenal’s shipwrights about possible ways to fix the galea alla ponentina’s design, but they deferred, saying it could not be examined because it had not yet returned to Venice.84 Nothing substantial resulted from the inquiry except that the galea alla ponentina, which was envisioned as the means to restore the republic’s reputation as a maritime power, was in truth a complete failure. Fausto died a few days after his deposition, and his death marked the end of the technological dream of the galea alla ponentina.85 80. ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 94, doc. 179, 20 August 1746. See also ibid., doc. 289, 12 January 1746 and doc. 317, 18 February 1746 (same as ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 51, doc. 79; ASVe, SDM, reg. 212, fol. 139v and filza 1029, same date). 81. ASVe, SDA, filza 71, 4 May 1747 (same as ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 95, same date). On the preparation, arming, and outfitting of Condulmer’s second galley, see ibid., 3, 9 March 1747 (same as ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 95, 9 March 1747); ibid., 18, 24 March 1747 (same as ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 95, 24 March 1747; ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 51, doc. 89); ibid., 20 April 1747 (same as ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 95, same date); and ASVe, SDA, filza 71, 2 May 1747. 82. BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 204r–v, 13 September 1746. 83. ASVe, SDM, filza 1029, 20 January 1746. 84. Ibid., 24 January. See also Capello’s report in ibid., 1 February. 85. ASVe, PPA, T, filza 238, 1 February 1746, which is the announcement of the competition for a new master shipbuilder to replace Fausto, who had died at the end of January of the same year. Among the shipwrights participating in the competition on 17 February were Vincenzo Veruda, Iseppo di Domenico, and Nadalin Veruda, and on 27 February the latter was selected; see ibid., 17, 27 February 1746. 173 INSIDE THE BLACK BOX T E C H N O L O G Y A N D C U L T U R E Tradition versus Innovation in Ship Design: The Dismissal of the Galea alla Ponentina JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 While the galea alla ponentina was still in Corfu and waiting to be sent back to Venice, a debate raged at the Arsenal about tradition versus innovation in ship design. Based on the senatorial decree of 19 March 1744, fifteen galleys were to be made available for the periodic replacement of the old galleys in the Corfu fleet. However, by April 1747 only seven galleys had been built by the Arsenal, and therefore the Senate ordered the construction of five more.86 The debate was whether to build these galleys according to the measurements provided by the 1619 senatorial decree; to retain Zampin’s design, approved in 1690; or to adopt a new design. Eventually, the senators decided to build the new galleys according to Zampin’s design, and further to stipulate that they should serve as the model for the future.87 During the following months the Senate closely monitored the construction of the galleys. In January 1748, after the hulls were built, the Arsenal’s patron Giovan Battista Albrizzi formed a committee of former naval officers, including Balbi, in order to examine the galleys and establish if the design could be used as a model for the future.88 After the committee finished its inspection Balbi inveighed against the shipwrights, denouncing them because the measurements of their galleys neither conformed to the 1619 design nor to the one approved in 1690. Because of this, he asserted that their design could not be used as a model. Therefore Balbi, not yet accepting the dismissal of his galea alla ponentina, suggested that before identifying a correct design the Arsenal and its shipwrights should wait for his galley to return to Venice so as to examine its design once again, this time more carefully. He suggested that his design, which could be improved on and would be easy to modify, might still be suitable for the future model.89 In a second letter, which was no less vindictive than the first, Balbi argued that he was the victim of a conspiracy by the shipwrights of the Arsenal. According to him, the shipwrights purportedly altered the design of his galley in order to ensure his failure, thus taking revenge for 86. ASVe, SDA, filza 71, 19 April and 9 May 1747 (same as ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 95, 9 May 1747). 87. ASVe, PPA, PdS, reg. 156, fols. 71v–72r, 14 July 1747. 88. ASVe, SDM, reg. 213, fols. 85r–v, 18 January 1747 (same as ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 95, same date). Concerning the committee, see ASVe, SDA, filza 73, 7, 17 February 1747 and 8, 14 March 1748. The five galleys under construction were also recorded; see ibid., 13 April 1748 (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 225r–226v), 17, 18 April 1748 (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 205r–208v), and esp. 5 February 1747, which provides the measurements of the five galleys under construction. 89. Ibid., n.d. (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 75r–78v). A draft copy of this letter, with a much more aggressive tone than the one submitted, is in BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 391r–394r. 174 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima the fact that the project of their colleague Zampin was rejected in favor of his own. As d’Annibale recorded different measurements from those initially provided in 1744, Balbi called for a new inspection of his galley in order to determine if the shipwrights conformed to his instructions.90 Balbi and the senators belonged to the same patrician class, and probably by virtue of this, as well as his honorable naval career in the service of the Serenissima, this new inspection was granted. The Senate agreed to wait for the return of the galea alla ponentina to examine it again.91 After three years in Corfu the galea alla ponentina finally returned to Venice in May 1748. However, due to the requisite quarantine period after returning from abroad, the galley did not become available until the end of August.92 Albrizzi formed a committee of thirteen shipwrights, who were commissioned to examine the galea alla ponentina and deliver a report on its design. The committee was also tasked to suggest ways that the design could be improved on, as well as to determine whether it could serve as a model for future galleys. At the end of August the committee’s shipwrights laid the galley on its side and proceeded with the inspection. In order to disprove Balbi’s accusation that they had altered its measurements the inspectors carefully recorded the midship frame and reconstructed the mold, which they compared to that used by Fausto, and they asserted that the two molds were identical. Further, they pointed out the same faults highlighted by d’Annibale and repeated his suggestions, asserting, however, that the sheathing of the outer surface of the outrigger knee was useful and could be replicated on other galleys. The committee concluded its report by unanimously stating that the flawed design of the galea alla ponentina could not be fixed and therefore could not serve as a model.93 Despite this negative verdict Albrizzi asked Marco Nobile, who was one of the most expert shipwrights of the Arsenal, to again examine the galley. However, Nobile’s report was also negative: the galea alla ponentina had so many faults in its design that it would be easier to dismantle it than to attempt a fix.94 The galea alla ponentina was not dismantled, but kept inactive for four years in the Arsenal’s sheds. In Venice, old galleys were disassembled and 90. ASVe, SDA, filza 73, 8 July 1748 (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 202r–208r). A similar though harsher letter is in BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 329r–338v, n.d. 91. ASVe, SDA, filza 73, 4 April 1748 (same as ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 96, same date); see also ibid., 11 July 1748 (same as ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 51, doc. 196; BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fol. 227r). 92. ASVe, SDA, filza 74, 6, 19 September 1748. The galea alla ponentina was not sailed back to Venice by Condulmer, who returned much later, in November 1748, aboard his second galley after he departed from Corfu on 21 October. See ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 51, doc. 231, 15 November 1748, and doc. 224, 30 November 1748. 93. ASVe, SDA, filza 74, 7 September 1748 (same as BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 230r– 232r). 94. BCV, PD, ms. 582.C, fols. 228r–229r, 7 September 1748. 175 INSIDE THE BLACK BOX T E C H N O L O G Y JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 A N D C U L T U R E the timbers re-used for building causeways, or more frequently were donated to convents or churches along the lagoon and submerged to replace foundations that were eroded by water. The galea alla ponentina could not be modified in its design and was unseaworthy, although relatively new. Therefore, in 1749 the Senate decreed that the galley be converted into a fusta di condannati after removing its finely decorated stern carvings. A fusta di condannati was a sort of floating prison permanently moored in the Grand Canal where chained convicts were trained for service before being distributed among fleet under the terms of their convictions. This conversion of the galea alla ponentina, however, was not implemented until 1753.95 The galley could accommodate up to 270 people—a significant number considering the poor hygienic conditions, which in 1759 spread into a lethal plague.96 In 1759 the Arsenal proposed that the Senate sell the stern’s wooden panels and carvings that had been removed after being converted into a fusta. This proposal was accepted, and in 1760 nobleman Angelo Diedo, son of Antonio, who was then arming his own galley, bought the panels and carvings for 175 ducats, a much higher price than their original cost.97 Conclusion Regardless of the fact that Venice did not deploy any of its oared vessels to a major naval engagement after 1718, the vitality of the Arsenal— one of the most active shipyards in Europe—did not decline, and the debate over the design of galleys did not cease with Balbi’s efforts. In 1748 the Arsenal formed another committee of former Sopracomiti to regulate the design of galleys, which were being arbitrarily built by shipwrights. Many other committees were formed during the following years, and after much debate, in 1754 the Senate decreed that the best design was that of shipwright Nadalin Zampin and hence all galleys built thereafter should conform to this.98 This decision might seem like a regression rather than a progression. 95. On the 1749 proposal, see ASVe, SDA, filza 75, 22, 28 August 1749. On the effective conversion, see ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 101, 30 August 1753 (same as ASVe, SDA, filza 83, same date); see also ASVe, SDA, filza 83, 28 July and 3 August 1753. The stern’s carvings were returned by Condulmer upon his return to Venice, and the Arsenal reimbursed his 150 ducats; see ibid., filza 73, 3 June, 14 July, and 2 August 1747. 96. Ibid., filza 96, 29, 31 December 1759. 97. On the proposed selling of the stern’s carvings, see ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 103, 5 January 1759 (same as ASVe, SDA, filza 96, same date); and ASVe, SDA, filza 96, 29 December 1759. On Angelo Diedo, see ASVe, PPA, PdS, reg. 162, fols. 103r–v, 21 January 1759 and fol. 145r, 6 June 1760. 98. Concerning the 1748 committee, see ibid., filza 96, 21 December 1748 (same as ASVe, PA, DdS, filza 51, doc. 229). For Zampin’s design, see ibid., reg. 159, fols. 203v– 204v, 19 April 1754. 176 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima INSIDE THE BLACK BOX FIG. 17 Portrait of Gerolamo Maria Balbi, 1751–53, pastel on paper, by Mari- anna Carlevaris (1703–50). (Source: Ca’ Rezzonico, Museo del Settecento, Venice, Italy/Cameraphoto Arte Venezia/The Bridgeman Art Library.) Paradoxically, this coup de théâtre marked the victory of the shipwrights over the Venetian Sopracomiti. Finally, Cristoforo Zampin, whose project was rejected in favor of Balbi’s, was satisfied that his father’s design was decreed to be best. The failure of the galea alla ponentina, however, neither tarnished Balbi’s reputation nor affected his naval career; in fact, in 1751 he was elected the Provveditore Generale of Dalmatia and Albania (fig. 17). Balbi’s galea alla ponentina and the debate over ship design during the years 1748 to 1754 indicate that the republic’s will to introduce innovation in the technological context exceeded its capacity to do so. From an epistemological perspective this inability to innovate resulted from a dichotomy between obsolete Venetian institutions and the way in which shipbuilding knowledge (both practical and theoretical) was structured and organized. Beginning in the last decades of the seventeenth century—the years of the Morean War (1684–99)—the Arsenal initiated a complex process of innovation involving its reorganization, including the development and implementation of new technologies. This process was greatly influenced by 177 T E C H N O L O G Y JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 A N D C U L T U R E Galileo’s new science (and the Galilean school established at the University of Padua), and was encouraged by the cultural elite of Venetian noblemen adhering to Galileo’s scientific method.99 However, this process of innovation faced obstruction by the conservative and traditionalist institutions, which were instrumental in driving the innovation process. In particular, with regard to new ship designs, the institutions involved were rarely inclined to engage in any significant financial risk. In fact, in 1690 the Senate established the measurements for the design of a standard galley, thus implicitly preventing any proposals for new ship designs. In this sense it is significant that Balbi stressed the fact that his galea alla ponentina was less expensive than a standard galley, and that after all it was a profitable enterprise for the republic. Furthermore, Balbi’s galley indicates that the mechanisms regulating the applicable Venetian institutions were inadequate when introducing innovation. After Balbi’s ship design was approved by the Senate and consequently his galley was built and launched by the Arsenal, neither the Senate nor the Arsenal was able to apply the requisite quality controls. Normally, once a newly designed galley was built, a race between the new galley and another was held in the Grand Canal. The sailing conditions in the protected lagoon did little to replicate those of the open sea, and therefore the real strategy adopted by the republic in order to test the seaworthiness of a new galley was to send it out to sea, thus risking the lives of its crew, as happened in the case of the galea alla ponentina. After the sea trial the commander of a newly designed galley was required to report to the Venetian authorities on the ship’s performance: if the galley proved seaworthy its design was replicated; if not, the design was discarded and the galley eventually dismantled. Such was the practice in testing new galleys, which remained in use until the end of the Serenissima, and no other solutions were adopted or even seemed feasible at that time. Nonetheless, when a newly designed galley proved successful, especially during warfare, the maritime power of the republic and its institutions both expanded and consolidated, since the ability to introduce these new technologies lay solely in the hands of Venetian political institutions. Representative in this sense is Vettor Fausto’s quinqueremis, a galley powered alla sensile by five rowers on a single bench, each pulling his own oar. Launched in 1529 the quinqueremis later evolved into the galleass, which was basically a floating fortress rowed alla scaloccio by five individuals pulling together in a single sweep; it was so powerful that it gained the victory of the Christian fleet over the Ottomans at Lepanto in 1571. During the sixteenth century, investing in product innovation (for example, in a new type of warship) proved to be a crucial factor in technological competitiveness; however, the maritime supremacy of Venice during its glorious sixteenth century was a faded memory by the eighteenth. In this period 99. Ennio Concina, L’Arsenale della Repubblica di Venezia, 189–91. 178 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima the fact that the republic did not invest in the development of new galley designs, due mainly to a lack of financial resources, over time might have affected its technological competitiveness with regard to its rowing fleet. After the rejection of Balbi’s galley, however, the Arsenal experimented with another innovative design. In 1758 Venetian nobleman and sea captain Giacomo da Riva, who raced against the galea alla ponentina in 1746, presented the Arsenal with a proposal for building the galee riformate, a hybrid between a light galley and a galleass. A year later the Arsenal built two prototypes based on da Riva’s design, but they were dismissed in 1766 because of their expense. Regardless, da Riva was more farsighted than Balbi, and his case is indicative of a new strategy of merging the scientific approach with practical knowledge. Indeed, da Riva appointed d’Annibale to be in charge of construction of his galee riformate and involved professor of naval architecture Zuanne Siron as a supervisor of the design, thus attempting to conciliate the realm of practice with the realm of theory. More importantly, da Riva’s pragmatism also informed his vital decision to ensure future success: perhaps having learned from Balbi’s tribulations and the alleged conspiracy against him by the shipwrights, da Riva chose to win their favor by considerably increasing their salaries.100 Bibliography Archival Sources Archivio di Stato di Venezia (ASVe) Archivio Proprio Contarini Barbaro, Marco. Arbori de’ patritii veneti. Miscellanea Codici, I, Storia veneta, 23 vols. Patroni e Provveditori all’Arsenal, Parti del Senato (PPA, PdS) Patroni e Provveditori all’Arsenal, Terminazioni (PPA, T) Provveditori all’Armar, Deliberazioni del Senato (PA, DdS) Provveditori all’Armar, Scritture al Senato (PA, SaS) Senato, Deliberazioni, Arsenal (SDA) Senato, Deliberazioni, Mar (SDM) Senato, Deliberazioni, Rettori (SDR) Senato, Dispacci, Provveditori di Terra e da Mar (SD, PTM) Biblioteca del Museo Correr, Venezia (BCV), Provenienze Diverse, manuscript 582.C Biblioteca universitaria di Padova (Archive of the University of Padua library) 100. On da Riva’s galee riformate, see ASVe, SDA, filza 96, 29 December 1759; ASVe, PPA, PdS, filza 103, 19 April, 9 August, 20 October 1759, 28 May, 19 July 1760; ibid., filza 104, 22 April 1764; ibid., reg. 162, fols. 74v–76v, 28 September 1759, and fol. 94v, 24 December 1759. The shipwright d’Annibale returned from Corfu in 1755; see ASVe, SDA, filza 87, 23 October 1754 and ASVe, PPA, PdS, reg. 159, fol. 254v, 24 January 1754. 179 INSIDE THE BLACK BOX T E C H N O L O G Y A N D C U L T U R E British Library, London Cotton manuscript, Titus A XXVI Manuscripts Additional, no. 38,655 Published Sources JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 Alertz, Ulrich. “The Venetian Merchant Galley and the System of Partisoni—Initial Steps towards Modern Ship Design.” In Boats, Ships and Shipyards: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Venice 2000, edited by Carlo Beltrame, 212–21. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2003. _____. “Naval Architecture Digitalized—Introducing Arithmetic and Geometry into Mediaeval Shipwrightry.” In Creating Shapes in Civil and Naval Architecture: A Cross-Disciplinary Comparison, edited by Horst Nowacki and Wolfgang Lefèvre, 251–77. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Anderson, Roger C. “Italian Naval Architecture about 1445.” Mariner’s Mirror 11 (1925): 135–63. _____. “Jal’s Memoire no. 5 and the Manuscript Fabrica di galere.” Mariner’s Mirror 31 (1945): 160–67. Bass, George F., Sheila D. Matthews, J. Richard Steffy, and Frederick H. van Doorninck Jr. Serçe Limanı: An Eleventh-Century Shipwreck, vol. 1: The Ship and Its Anchorage, Crew and Passengers. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2004. Bellabarba, Sergio. “The Square Rigged Ship of the ‘Fabrica di Galere’ Manuscript.” Mariner’s Mirror 74 (1988): 113–30. Bondioli, Mauro. “L’arte della costruzione navale veneziana tra il XV e il XVI secolo: riflessioni e nuovi documenti.” In Navalia. Archeologia e storia, edited by F. Ciciliot, 139–55. Savona, Italy: International Propeller Club, 1996. _____. “The Arsenal of Venice and the Art of Building Ships.” In Boats, Ships and Shipyards: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Venice 2000, edited by Carlo Beltrame, 10–13. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2003. _____. “The Art of Designing and Building Venetian Galleys from the 15th to the 16th Century.” In Boats, Ships and Shipyards: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Venice 2000, edited by Carlo Beltrame, 222–27. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2003. _____. “Early Shipbuilding Records and the Book of Michael of Rhodes.” In The Book of Michael of Rhodes: A Fifteenth-Century Maritime Manuscript, 3 vols., edited by Pamela O. Long, David McGee, and Alan M. Stahl, 3:243–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009. _____, and Gilberto Penzo. “Teodoro Baxon e Nicola Palopano proti delle galee sottili. L’influsso greco nelle costruzioni navali veneziane della prima metà del XV secolo.” Archeologia delle Acque 1 (1999): 67–80. 180 CAMPANAK|KExperimentation in Ship Design during the Serenissima Brower, Reuben A. “Visual and Verbal Translation of Myth: Neptune in Vergil, Rubens, Dryden.” Daedalus 101 (1972): 155–82. Candiani, Guido. I vascelli della Serenissima: guerra, politica e costruzioni navali a Venezia nell’età moderna. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2009. _____. “Dal remo alla vela: l’evoluzione della marina veneziana nel corso del XVII secolo.” In Gli Arsenali oltremarini della Serenissima: approvvigionamenti e strutture cantieristiche per la flotta veneziana (secoli XVI–XVII), edited by Martino Ferrari Bravo and Stefano Tosato, 129– 38. Milan: Biblion Edizioni, 2010. _____. “Vascelli, fregate e navi pubbliche da trasporto: la ricerca di un modello polivalente e i primi disegni di navi da guerra a vela veneziane (1687–1697).” In NAVIS: Atti del convegno mazionale, Cesenatico 4–5 April 2008, edited by S. Medas, G. d’Agostino, and G. Caniato, 173–83. Cesenatico: Istituto Italiano di Archeologia e Etnologia Navale, 2010. Cerni, Giovanni. “Le stele da remo del Cansiglio e il progetto del remo da galea.” In L’arte dei remèri. I 700 anni dello statuto dei costruttori di remi, edited by G. Caniato, 147–57. Verona: Cierre Edizioni, 2007. Chiggiato, Alvise. “Le ‘ragioni antique’ dell’architettura navale.” In Ragioni antique spettanti all’arte del mare et fabriche de vasselli, edited by G. Bonfiglio Dosio, 56–79. Venice: Comitato per la Pubblicazione delle Fonti Relative alla Storia di Venezia, 1987. Concina, Ennio. L’Arsenale della Repubblica di Venezia. Tecniche e istituzioni. Milan: Electa, 2006. Ferrari Bravo, Martino, and Stefano Tosato. Gli Arsenali oltremarini della Serenissima: approvvigionamenti e strutture cantieristiche per la flotta veneziana (secoli XVI–XVII). Milan: Biblion Edizioni, 2010. Freedman, Luba. “Neptune in Classical and Renaissance Visual Art.” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 2, no. 2 (1995): 219–37. Gertwagen, Ruthy. “The Island of Corfu in Venetian Policy in the Fourteenth and Early Fifteenth Centuries.” International Journal of Maritime History 19, no. 1 (2007): 181–210. Hocker, Frederick, and John McManamon. “Medieval Shipbuilding in the Mediterranean and the Written Culture at Venice.” Mediterranean Historical Review 21, no. 1 (2006): 1–37. Ingrao, Charles, Nikola Samardžić, and Jovan Pešalj, eds. The Peace of Passarowitz, 1718. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2011. Kallendorf, Craig. Vergil and the Myth of Venice: Books and Readers in the Italian Renaissance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Lane, Frederic C. “Venetian Naval Architecture about 1550.” Mariner’s Mirror 20 (1934): 24–49. _____. Venetian Ships and Shipbuilders of the Renaissance. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1934. 181 INSIDE THE BLACK BOX T E C H N O L O G Y JANUARY 2016 VOL. 57 A N D C U L T U R E Lehmann, Louis T., ed. and trans. Baldissera Quinto Drachio, la Visione del Drachio. Amsterdam: S.N., 1992. Long, Pamela O., David McGee, and Alan M. Stahl, eds. The Book of Michael of Rhodes: A Fifteenth-Century Maritime Manuscript, 3 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009. Martini, Angelo. Manuale di metrologia, ossia misure, pesi e monete in uso attualmente e anticamente presso tutti i popoli. Turin: Loescher, 1883. McGee, David. “The Shipbuilding Text of Michael of Rhodes.” In The Book of Michael of Rhodes: A Fifteenth-Century Maritime Manuscript, 3 vols., edited by Pamela O. Long, David McGee, and Alan M. Stahl, 3:211–41. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009. Morin, Marco. “Artiglierie navali in ambito veneziano: tipologia e tecniche di realizzazione.” Quaderni di Oplologia 23 (2006): 3–28. Nowacki, Horst, and Matteo Valleriani, eds. Shipbuilding Practice and Ship Design Methods from the Renaissance to the 18th Century. Berlin: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, 2003. Penzo, Gilberto. Navi veneziane. Catalogo illustrato dei piani di costruzione. Trieste: Lint, 2000. Rieth, Eric. “Les illustrations d’un ‘livre de ricettes techniques’ d’architecture navale du milieu du XVe siècle: le Libro de Zorzi Trombetta de Modon.” In Pour une histoire du fait maritime. Sources et champ de recherches, edited by Christiane Villain-Gandossi and Eric Rieth, 81–104. Paris: Editions du CTHS, 2001. _____. “Mediterranean Ship Design in the Middle Ages.” In The Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology, edited by Alexis Catsambis, Ben Ford, and Donny L. Hamilton, 406–25. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Secco, Alberto. “Navi della Repubblica veneta nei fondi italiani dei disegni navali.” In NAVIS: Atti del convegno mazionale, Cesenatico 4–5 April 2008, edited by S. Medas, G. d’Agostino, and G. Caniato, 185–91. Cesenatico: Istituto Italiano di Archeologia e Etnologia Navale, 2010. Setton, Kenneth M. Venice, Austria, and the Turks in the Seventeenth Century. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1991. Tucci Ugo. “Architettura navale veneziana. Misure di vascelli della metà del cinquecento.” Bollettino dell’Atlante Linguistico Mediterraneo 5–6 (1963–64): 227–93. 182