The Rigging of Ships

in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast, 1600-1720

R. C. Anderson

• Publisher: Dover Publications
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9780486138015
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: Marine Transportation
• Index: Technology & Engineering

For ship model-makers and students and enthusiasts of historic sailing ships, this generously illustrated book is essential reading and a valuable reference. It describes and depicts in detail how seventeenth-century English, French, Dutch, and other European trading ships and warships were rigged from stem to stern throughout this colorful period in maritime history.
The book begins in 1600, the earliest date of our detailed knowledge of ships’ rigging, and the earliest to which that characteristic seventeenth-century fitting, the spritsail topmast, has been traced. It ends in 1720, roughly the time when the spritsail topmast was superseded by the jib boom and other innovations of eighteenth-century rigging. The book’s 12 chapters cover every aspect of the ship’s rigging of the period, from the lower masts and bowsprit to the running rigging of the topsails and topgallants. Over 350 fine line drawings illustrate every item used in the rigging. Twenty-five halftones, extensively annotated, illustrate typical ships that plied the seas in the days of the bowsprit mast — English merchantmen and gun ships, French and Dutch men-of-war, and more.
In compiling this volume, R. C. Anderson consulted not only the literature of the period, listed in the extensive bibliography, but also famous ship models created throughout the seventeenth century — some with contemporary rigging in almost perfect condition. The result is an indispensable resource for model builders, maritime historians, sailing ship buffs — anyone interested in authentic documentation of ships’ rigging during a crucial period in the history of sailing vessels.

CHAPTER I

THE LOWER MASTS AND BOWSPRIT

I. Their Positions

WHEN what may be described as a ready-made model is to be rigged, the positions of the masts are decided beforehand and there is nothing to do except to conform to what one finds. The same holds good if one builds a model from drawings which have the masts marked. On the other hand, if drawings have to be made, the positions of the masts have to be settled early in the process, because many other details of the hull depend on them.

The first and most natural tendency is to say that the mainmast should be amidships. Within reasonable limits this is true enough, but on investigation it will be found that the matter is not quite so simple. Thomas Miller, who wrote a small book on rigging under the deceptive title “The Complete Modellist,” in 1655, is very emphatic in saying that everyone knows the mainmast should be stepped in the middle of the keel, but plans both before and after his date are equally emphatic in contradicting him. Sir Anthony Deane, one of the leading English shipbuilders, prepared a manuscript on shipbuilding for Samuel Pepys, in 1670, and in all his plans (Plates 12 and 13) he puts the mainmast either at the middle of the gundeck or about its own diameter further aft. This means that the mast is well before the middle of the keel, because the gundeck obviously overhangs the keel far more forward than aft. Another plan of similar date published in “The Mariner’s Mirror” in 1925 also shows the mainmast about its own diameter abaft the middle of the gundeck. Still, there are cases where it is stepped at the middle point of the keel. I have two models in my own collection where this is so; one, a 3-decker of about 1670-5, has had too much done to her at various times to be a very reliable authority; but the other, a 2-decker of about 1695, is quite convincing. Later on, about 1720, English plans put the mainmast about 1/25 of the length of the gundeck abaft its middle point. Even then it is well before the middle of the keel.

Really this is a question to which it is impossible to give a definite answer. One can say that the middle of the gundeck marks the forward limit and the middle of the keel the after; one can also say that in a general way the mast moved aft as time went on, but the exceptions must always have been numerous and it would only be misleading to lay down a hard and fast rule of any kind.

With foreign ships the matter is a little different. In them the length was nearly always measured between perpendiculars dropped from the heads of the stem and sternpost. Witsen, whose book on Dutch shipbuilding, published in 1671, is one of the classics of the subject, contradicts himself a good deal, but does say clearly that the step (in his typical ship of 134 ft. long) should be 5½ or 6 ft. abaft the middle of the ship. This agrees with his plan, though there the mast is shown with the incredible rake of about 1 in 5. Van Yk, in 1697, says the mainmast should be exactly amidships, but the so-called “William Rex” model of a year later and Allard’s section of a Dutch 3-decker of the same period, both show it about 1/20 of the length between perpendiculars further aft. This is a trifle more than the proportion in Witsen’s ship or in the Dutch model of 1665 in the Hohenzollern Museum in Berlin (Plate 11), in which it works out to about 1/22 of the length abaft the middle point. Probably, therefore, this position, about 1/20 to 1/25 of the length abaft the middle point between stem and sternpost was normal in Dutch ships for a long time.

For other countries there is not so much information. The Couronne of 1638, the French reply to the famous Sovereign of the Seas, seems to have had her mainmast just abaft the middle point and the Royal Louis model of 1692, in the Louvre, shows it about 1/20 of the length abaft the middle. In Furttenbach’s German book of 1629, the fore side of the mainmast is just abaft the middle point between stem and sternpost (Plate 4). Against this Dassié, writing of French naval architecture in 1677, shows the mast about its own diameter before the middle point. I doubt if this is correct. I fancy it would be safe to look on a point half way between the stem and sternpost as the forward limit for foreign ships and a point about 1/20 of the length further aft as marking the after limit.

The foremast changed its position very decidedly in the course of the 17th century. The change was not quite as great as appears at first sight, because it is exaggerated by the reduction in the rake of the stem. The foremast might stay at the same distance from the stem-head and yet seem to move aft because of the gradual extension of the keel forward. Still, there is no doubt that it did move aft. The well-known engraving of the Sovereign, of 1637 (Plate 7), shows it so close to the stem-head that it must have met the stem very little below the waterline. Plans of 1670 and thereabouts show the foremast roughly half way between the end of the keel and the stem-head, a trifle further aft in the bigger ships (Plates 12 and 13). By 1720, with the shortening of the fore rake, the foremast, without moving further from the stem, came rather less than

of the way out from the end of the keel to the stem-head. If we put it

of the way out along the stem in 1630, half way in 1660,

of the way in 1700 and rather less after that, we shall not be far wrong.

Dutch fashions followed much the same course. An engraving of a French ship built in Holland in 1626 (Plate 6), shows the foremast quite as far forward as in the Sovereign. Witsen speaks of the foremast as being stepped 1/11 of the ship’s length abaft the stem-head, but shows it in his plan rather more than 1/9; this seems to indicate that he was preparing his book in a time of change. With the “William Rex” model of 1698 and Allard’s section of a 3-decker of a year or two earlier, the proportion rises to

or 2/15. It must, by the way, be noted that Dutch ships had usually much more upright stems than English, so that a position of the foremast which would have brought it on to the stem in an English ship might leave it well on the keel in a Dutchman.

No doubt other foreign nations did the same as the Dutch and English. Furttenbach, in 1629, shows the foremast more than half way out along the stem; in fact, he shows it stepped on the lower deck, as it probably was before it began to be an important mast at all (Plate 4). Dassié in 1677 and the Royal Louis model of 1692, agree in putting the foremast about 1/9 of the length abaft the stem-head. These two examples show very well how the keel grew forward underneath the mast, for the earlier ship has the mast very distinctly above the stem, while the other has it exactly above the junction of the stem and keel.

When we come to the mizzen, a quotation from Miller’s book of 1655 may serve to show the difficulties. “Now in placing your missen-mast, your judgment must be better there, then about any mast: because there is no just Rule to be given, but only your eye must be your best Rule.” To make things worse there is the fact that large ships in the first quarter of the 17th century usually had two mizzens. Probably few people will be bold enough to attempt a model of a big ship of this date; still, the double mizzen cannot be altogether ignored.

There are a few good authorities for the appearance of early 17th century ships with two mizzens. There is a plan in a manuscript in the Pepysian Library at Cambridge, England; personally I believe this to represent a Mediterranean vessel of about 1610, though others well able to judge think it is an English ship of ten or twenty years earlier. There is a fine print of a Danish ship of uncertain date but presumably between 1600 and 1630 (Plate 5). There are some paintings by Vroom, particularly those of Houtman’s return from the East Indies and of the arrival of the English Prince Royal at Flushing, in 1613. There is also an ivory model of 1620 at Dresden.

These representations differ widely. The Pepysian plan shows the after or “bonaventure” mizzen just about over the top of the sternpost and the main mizzen nearly half way from there to the mainmast. The Danish print has the after mizzen, if anything, further aft still and the main mizzen very much nearer to it than to the mainmast. This ship, by the way, has her mainmast very far aft and her foremast very far forward. The German model also has the bonaventure mast as far aft as it can possibly go, but its main mizzen is not nearly so far aft as in the Dane. Vroom, on the other hand, puts his after mizzens well inboard.

How late one should go on fitting two mizzens I do not know. It would almost certainly be safe to do so up to 1620 and I think it would be wrong to do so after 1630, but I will not pretend to be sure. The Sovereign of 1637 and the Couronne of 1638 both had single mizzens in spite of their great size. So, too, had the French ships built in Holland in 1626. These were not such large ships, but they were quite big enough to have had two mizzens in the old days. It may be mentioned that a list of masts and yards for the whole English fleet, in 1640, shows no sign of the survival of the second mizzen.

As far as one can judge from the print, the Sovereign had her mizzen nearly as far from the taffrail as it was from the mainmast. Under the Commonwealth the mizzen moved aft a little. In a model of mine, that can hardly be later than 1660 and may be earlier, the mizzen is placed exactly 2/5 of the way from the taffrail to the mainmast. In Deane’s plans of 1670, the proportion varies between 2/5 and 3/7 (Plates 12 and 13). On the other hand, the model of the Prince, of the same date, a ship built by Deane’s rival Pett, has its mizzen almost exactly half way between the mainmast and the taffrail. The St George model of 1701, now in the collection of Col. H. H. Rogers, has its mizzen very little more than

of the way from the taffrail to the mainmast, while plans of 1719 show it a little less than half way; about 8/17 or something of that sort.

As in the case of the mainmast, it is possible to give some sort of limits between which the mizzen ought to be stepped, but that is all. One can say fairly safely that it ought to be not less than

or more than half way from the taffrail to the middle of the mainmast. Whether there was any system in its movements is very doubtful ; they seem to have depended on individual fancy rather than on any gradual change of fashion.

Dutch mizzens moved almost as irregularly as English, but they tended on the whole to be stepped rather further forward. The Dutch-built Frenchman of 1626 (Plate 6), had her mizzen about half way from the taffrail to the mainmast, while the Prins Willem model of 1651, has hers little more than

way. This suggests that the mizzen began by moving aft as it did in English ships. After this it settled down somewhere about half way; sometimes it was less, as in the “William Rex” model of 1698 or in the model of about 1665 in the Scheepvaart Museum in Amsterdam; sometimes it was distinctly more, as in my own model of a Dutch 3-decker of about 1690 or in the Berlin model of 1665 (Plate 11) ; sometimes it was exactly half way, as in Allard’s section of a Dutch 3-decker. On the whole, for the period 1660-1700, half way between the taffrail and the mainmast is the safest rule.

At first, French ships seem to have carried their mizzens rather far aft. In the Couronne of 1638, the mizzen was 50 ft. fr...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• PREFACE
• Table of Contents
• LIST OF PLATES
• PLATE 20. KEY - (Spelling as in original)
• PLATE 21. KEY
• PLATE 24. KEY - (Spelling as in original)
• CHAPTER I - THE LOWER MASTS AND BOWSPRIT
• CHAPTER II - TRESTLE-TREES, CROSS-TREES, TOPS AND CAPS
• CHAPTER III - TOPMASTS, TOPGALLANTS AND FLAGSTAFFS
• CHAPTER IV - YARDS AND STUNSAIL BOOMS
• CHAPTER V - FITTINGS ON THE HULL
• CHAPTER VI - STANDING RIGGING
• CHAPTER VII - RUNNING RIGGING OF THE FORESAIL AND MAINSAIL
• CHAPTER VIII - RUNNING RIGGING OF THE TOPSAILS AND TOPGALLANTS
• CHAPTER IX - RUNNING RIGGING OF THE BOWSPRIT
• CHAPTER X - RUNNING RIGGING OF THE MIZZEN
• CHAPTER XI - STAYSAIL AND STUNSAIL GEAR
• CHAPTER XII - SAILS
• PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES
• INDEX