Page 195 - Nicolaes Witsen & Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age

127. Ropes for the Rigging
As stated in the previous section, the tables for the sizes of rigging par ts (figs. 2.226 through 2.2 30) have been “borrowed” from E dward Hayward. This is confusing be- cause there were m any differences between Engli sh and Dutch rigging pr actices. For example, Dutch yards were hoisted using a r amshead, English yards were hoi sted with jeers. Witsen must have been aw are of this, and sometimes he c hanged the terms (and sometimes not), which explains why he did not adopt some of Hayward’s rope sizes. Furthermore, Witsen’s tables are somewh at odd because it was highly unusual for Dutch shipbuilders to work from t ables. Rather, they stuck to their formul as, as tables might make their work subject to interference by commissioners and, in the case of the Dutch Admiralties, by high-ranking officers. In contrast to English practices, the Dutch shipbuilders were kings of their profession, and they allowed no interference in their work. If a ship turned out to be a bad ship, they simply stated that it had “fallen off the axe that way”—and there was no changing that.
As Witsen borrowed his list of ropes from Hayward, it seemed appropriate to show his translation of the English terms along w ith Hayward’s terminology (in its original spelling), which has been added to the origin al tables in a right-hand column. I realize, of course, that the two sys- tems were not completely identical and th at comparing them may lead to wrong assumptions.
In Witsen’s tables the dimension in the middle column heading, “Mast of 27 inches,” was originally “20 inches”— which violated the increment al progression of the other mast dimensions. Although Witsen may have meant to place this column between the c olumns for 1 9-inch and 23-inch masts, the data seems to fit best in this location, so “20” is likely a misprint; it has been changed here to “27” (a logical progression from 26 to 28).
The drawing in figure 2.231, which is not complete, in- dicates the position of most of the ropes. At first glance, the rigging seems a chaotic whole. Yet it was a tightly organized system in which few fundamental changes oc- curred between the sevent eenth and nineteenth c entu- ries. One exception is the disappearance in the 16 20s of
Figure 2.230. (facing page) Rope thicknesses by rigging category (p. 125). Witsen’s original table has been digitally altered to show Hayward’s terminology in the source table (p. 9). The column heading “Mast of 27 inches” corrects a misprint (“Mast of 20 inches”) in the original text. (Scanned image modified by Emiel Hoving)
most of the complicated and decorative crowfeet and bri- dles, which are so apparent in Hendrik Cornelisz. Vroom’s paintings.
Rope thicknesses were of ten given in c ircumference, measured in inc hes. The diameter i s obtained by divid- ing the circumference by 3.14 (pi). The length was given in fathoms (1.698 meters).
In the following overview of the rigging for Witsen’s pi- nas, the parenthetical numbers refer to my rigging plan for the pinas model (see drawing 1 in appendix).
The ship’s rig has three mas ts and a bowsprit . The main mast (205) and forem ast (219) are leng thened with the main topmast (206) and the fore topm ast (220), and again with the m ain-topgallant mast (209) and the fore- topgallant mast (223). Above these flagpoles are carried (248 and 249). The mizzenmast (236) was lengthened with the mizz en topmast (244), topped w ith a fl agpole (258). The bowsprit (226) had a small vertical mast at the end, called the sprits ail topmast (233), with a fl agpole (251) on top.
The connections between m asts and topm asts, and between topmasts and topgallant masts, consisted of the trestletrees (207 and 221) and the mast caps on the mast- heads (204 and 211). These enabled the topmasts to be struck or housed (i. e., to be lowered when c ircumstances demanded).
The yards were n amed after the m ast to whic h they were attached and the s ail they carried. The main yard (252) was hung on the main mast, the main topsail yard (253) on the main topmast, the main-topgallant yard (254) on the main-topgallant mast. At the foremast we find the foreyard (255), at the fore topm ast the fore top sail yard (256), and at the fore-topgallant mast the fore-topgallant yard (257). The mizzenmast carried the lateen yard (258; the mizzen was a lateen sail) and the crossjack yard (259), which had no s ail but was used to spre ad the clews of the mizzen topsail, which hung from the mizz en topsail yard (260).Belowthebowsprit wasthes pritsail yard (261), and the sprits ail topmast carried the sprits ail top- sail yard (262).
The rigging, as stated before, had two functions: to stay or hold up the masts and to handle the yards and sails.
The “standing” part of the rigging st ayed the m asts: shrouds, stays, backstays, and pendants for the t ackles. These ropes were usually tarred. Furthermore, to protect them from c hafing and moi sture, they were often ser ved (i.e., wound with rope, spu n yarn, or houseline). B efore serving, the rope h ad to be wormed and parc eled: worm- ing consisted of filling in between the str ands of the rope with worming thread or houseline to obtain a more even surface; parceling involved wrapping the wormed rope
How Ships Are Built in Holland Today
177