The Mayflower and Her Log; July 15, 1620-May 6, 1621 — Complete eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 484 pages of information about The Mayflower and Her Log; July 15, 1620-May 6, 1621 — Complete.

The Mayflower and Her Log; July 15, 1620-May 6, 1621 — Complete eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 484 pages of information about The Mayflower and Her Log; July 15, 1620-May 6, 1621 — Complete.

Dimensions of Vessel.  Length, over all, knightheads to taffrail, 82 feet; beam, 22 feet; depth, 14 feet; tonnage, 120; bowsprit, outboard, 40 feet 6 inches; spritsail yard, 34 feet 6 inches; foremast, main deck to top, 39 feet; total length, main [spar] deck to truck, 67 feet 6 inches; fore-yard, 47 feet 6 inches; foretopsail yard, 34 feet 1 2 inches; mainmast, deck to top, 46 feet; total, deck to truck, 81 feet; main yard, 53 feet; maintopsail yard, 38 feet 6 inches; mizzen mast, deck to top, 34 feet; total, deck to truck, 60 feet 6 inches; spanker yard, 54 feet 6 inches; boats, one on port side of deck, 17 feet long by 5 feet 2 inches wide; one on starboard side, 13 feet 6 inches long by 4 feet 9 inches wide.  The above description “worked out” by Captain Collins, and in conformity to which his putative model of the “May Flower” was constructed, rests, of course, for its correctness, primarily, upon the assumptions (which there is no reason to question) that the “plates” of Admiral Paris, his sketches, working plans, dimensions, etc., are reliable, and that Captain Collins’s mathematics are correct, in reducing and applying the Admiral’s data to a ship of 120 tons.  That there would be some considerable variance from the description given, in applying these data to a ship of 60 tons greater measurement (i.e. of 180 tons), goes without saying, though the changes would appear more largely in the hull dimensions than in the rigging.  That the description given, and its expression in the model depicted, present, with considerable fidelity, a ship of the may-FLOWER’S class and type, in her day,—­though of sixty tons less register, and amenable to changes otherwise,—­is altogether probable, and taken together, they afford a fairly accurate idea of the general appearance of such a craft.

In addition to mention of the enlargements which the increased tonnage certainly entails, the following features of the description seem to call for remark.

It is doubtful whether the vessels of this class had “open bulwarks to the main [spar] deck,” or “a succession of three quarter-decks or poops.”  Many models and prints of ships of that period and class show but two.  It is probable that if the jib was absent, as Captain Collins believes (though it was evidently in use upon some of the pinnaces and shallops of the time, and its utility therefore appreciated), there was a small squaresail on a “dandy” mast on the bowsprit, and very possibly the “sprit” or “water-sail” he describes.  The length of the vessel as given by Captain Collins, as well as her beam, being based on a measurement of but 120 tons, are both doubtless less than they should be, the depth probably also varying slightly, though there would very likely be but few and slight departures otherwise from his proximate figures.  The long-boat would be more likely to be lashed across the hatch amidships than stowed on the port side of the deck, unless in use for stowage purposes, as previously

Copyrights
Project Gutenberg
The Mayflower and Her Log; July 15, 1620-May 6, 1621 — Complete from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.