THE MAY-FLOWER--THE SHIP HERSELF
Unhappily the early chroniclers familiar with the MAY-FLOWER have left us
neither representation nor general description of her, and but few data
from which we may reconstruct her outlines and details for ourselves.
Tradition chiefly determines her place in one of the few classes into
which the merchant craft of her day were divided, her tonnage and service
being almost the only other authentic indices to this class.
Bradford helps us to little more than the statement, that a vessel, which
could have been no other, “was hired at London, being of burden about 9
score” [tons], while the same extraordinary silence, which we have
noticed as to her name, exists as to her description, with Smith,
Bradford, Winslow, Morton, and the other contemporaneous or early writers
of Pilgrim history. Her hundred and eighty tons register indicates in
general her size, and to some extent her probable model and rig.
Long search for a reliable, coetaneous picture of one of the larger ships
of the merchant service of England, in the Pilgrim period, has been
rewarded by the discovery of the excel lent “cut” of such a craft, taken
from M. Blundeville’s “New and Necessarie Treatise of Navigation,”
published early in the seventeenth century. Appearing in a work of so
high character, published by so competent a navigator and critic, and
(approximately) in the very time of the Pilgrim “exodus,” there can be no
doubt that it quite correctly, if roughly and insufficiently, depicts the
outlines, rig, and general cast of a vessel of the MAY-FLOWER type and
time, as she appeared to those of that day, familiar therewith.
It gives us a ship corresponding, in the chief essentials, to that which
careful study of the detail and minutiae of the meagre MAY-FLOWER history
and its collaterals had already permitted the author and others to
construct mentally, and one which confirms in general the conceptions
wrought out by the best artists and students who have attempted to
portray the historic ship herself.
Captain J. W. Collins, whose experience and labors in this relation are
further alluded to, and whose opinion is entitled to respect, writes the
author in this connection, as follows “The cut from Blundeville’s
treatise, which was published more or less contemporaneously with the
MAYFLOWER, is, in my judgment, misleading, since it doubtless represents
a ship of an earlier date, and is evidently [sic] reproduced from a
representation on tapestry, of which examples are still to be seen (with
similar ships) in England. The actual builder’s plans, reproduced by
Admiral Paris, from drawings still preserved, of ships of the MAYFLOWER’S
time, seem to me to offer more correct and conclusive data for accurately
determining what the famous ship of the Pilgrim Fathers was like.”
Decidedly one of the larger and better vessels of the merchant class of
her day, she presumably followed the prevalent lines of that class, no
doubt correctly represented, in the main, by the few coeval pictures of
such craft which have come down to us. No one can state with absolute
authority, her exact rig, model, or dimensions; but there can be no
question that all these are very closely determined from even the meagre
data and the prints we possess, so nearly did the ships of each class
correspond in their respective features in those days. There is a
notable similarity in certain points of the MAY-FLOWER, as she has been
represented by these different artists, which is evidence upon two
points: first, that all delineators have been obliged to study the type
of vessel to which she belonged from such representations of it as each
could find, as neither picture nor description of the vessel herself was
to be had; and second, that as the result of such independent study
nearly all are substantially agreed as to what the salient features of
her type and class were. A model of a ship [3 masts] of the MAY-FLOWER
type, and called in the Society’s catalogue “A Model of the MAY FLOWER,
after De Bry,” but itself labelled “Model of one of Sir Walter Raleigh’s
Ships,” is (mistakenly) exhibited by the Pilgrim Society at Plymouth.
It is by no means to be taken as a correct representation of the Pilgrim
bark. Few of the putative pictures of the MAY-FLOWER herself are at all
satisfactory,--apart from the environment or relation in which she is
usually depicted,--whether considered from an historical, a nautical,
or an artistic point of view. The only one of these found by the author
which has commanded (general, if qualified) approval is that entitled
“The MAY-FLOWER at Sea,” a reproduction of which, by permission, is the
frontispiece of this volume. It is from an engraving by the master hand
of W. J. Linton, from a drawing by Granville Perkins, and appeared in the
“New England Magazine” for April, 1898, as it has elsewhere. Its
comparative fidelity to fact, and its spirited treatment, alike commend
it to those familiar with the subject, as par excellence the modern
artistic picture of the MAY-FLOWER, although somewhat fanciful, and its
rig, as Captain Collies observes, “is that of a ship a century later than
the MAY-FLOWER; a square topsail on the mizzen,” he notes, “being unknown
in the early part of the seventeenth century, and a jib on a ship equally
rare.” Halsall’s picture of “The Arrival of the MAY-FLOWER in Plymouth
Harbor,” owned by the Pilgrim Society, of Plymouth, and hung in the
Society’s Hall, while presenting several historical inaccuracies,
undoubtedly more correctly portrays the ship herself, in model, rig,
etc., than do most of the well-known paintings which represent her.
It is much to be regretted that the artist, in woeful ignorance, or
disregard, of the recorded fact that the ship was not troubled with
either ice or snow on her entrance (at her successful second attempt) to
Plymouth harbor, should have covered and environed her with both.
Answering, as the MAY-FLOWER doubtless did, to her type, she was
certainly of rather “blocky,” though not unshapely, build, with high poop
and forecastle, broad of beam, short in the waist, low “between decks,”
and modelled far more upon the lines of the great nautical prototype, the
water-fowl, than the requirements of speed have permitted in the carrying
trade of more recent years. That she was of the “square rig” of her
time--when apparently no use was made of the “fore-and-aft” sails which
have so wholly banished the former from all vessels of her size--goes
without saying. She was too large for the lateen rig, so prevalent in
the Mediterranean, except upon her mizzenmast, where it was no doubt
employed.
The chief differences which appear in the several “counterfeit
presentments” of the historic ship are in the number of her masts and
the height of her poop and her forecastle. A few make her a brig or
“snow” of the oldest pattern, while others depict her as a full-rigged
ship, sometimes having the auxiliary rig of a small “jigger” or
“dandy-mast,” with square or lateen sail, on peak of stern, or on the
bow sprit, or both, though usually her mizzenmast is set well aft upon
the poop. There is no reason for thinking that the former of these
auxiliaries existed upon the MAY-FLOWER, though quite possible. Her 180
tons measurement indicates, by the general rule of the nautical
construction of that period, a length of from 90 to 100 feet, “from
taffrail to knighthead,” with about 24 feet beam, and with such a hull
as this, three masts would be far more likely than two. The fact that
she is always called a “ship”--to which name, as indicating a class,
three masts technically attach--is also somewhat significant, though the
term is often generically used. Mrs. Jane G. Austin calls the
MAY-FLOWER a “brig,” but there does not appear anywhere any warrant
for so doing.
At the Smithsonian Institution (National Museum) at Washington, D. C.,
there is exhibited a model of the MAY-FLOWER, constructed from the ratio
of measurements given in connection with the sketch and working plans of
a British ship of the merchant MAY-FLOWER class of the seventeenth
century, as laid down by Admiral Francois Edmond Paris, of France, in his
“Souvenirs de Marine.” The hull and rigging of this model were carefully
worked out by, and under the supervision of Captain Joseph W. Collins
(long in the service of the Smithsonian Institution, in nautical and
kindred matters, and now a member of the Massachusetts Commission of
Inland Fisheries and Game), but were calculated on the erroneous basis of
a ship of 120 instead of 180 tons measurement. This model, which is upon
a scale of 1/2 inch to 1 foot, bears a label designating it as “The
‘MAYFLOWER’ of the Puritans” [sic], and giving the following description
(written by Captain Collins) of such a vessel as the Pilgrim ship, if of
120 tons burthen, as figured from such data as that given by Admiral
Paris, must, approximately, have been. (See photographs of the model
presented herewith.) “A wooden, carvel-built, keel vessel, with full
bluff bow, strongly raking below water line; raking curved stem; large
open head; long round (nearly log-shaped) bottom; tumble in top side;
short run; very large and high square stern; quarter galleries; high
forecastle, square on forward end, with open rails on each side; open
bulwarks to main [spar] and quarter-decks; a succession of three
quarter-decks or poops, the after one being nearly 9 feet above main
[spar] deck; two boats stowed on deck; ship-rigged, with pole masts
[i.e. masts in one piece]; without jibs; square sprit sail (or water
sail under bowsprit); two square sails on fore and main masts, and
lateen sail on mizzenmast.”
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 suggested. Captain Collins very interestingly
notes in a letter to the author, concerning the measurements indicated
by his model: “Here we meet with a difficulty, even if it is not
insurmountable. This is found in the discrepancy which exists between
the dimensions--length, breadth, and depth--requisite to produce a
certain tonnage, as given by Admiral Paris and the British Admiralty.
Whether this is due to a difference in estimating tonnage between France
(or other countries) and Great Britain, I am unable to say, but it is a
somewhat remarkable fact that the National Museum model, which was made
for a vessel of 120 tons, as given by Admiral Paris who was a Frenchman,
has almost exactly the proportions of length, depth, and breadth that an
English ship of 180 tons would have, if we can accept as correct the
lists of measurements from the Admiralty records published by Charnock
. . . In the third volume of Charnock’s ‘History of Marine
Architecture,’ p. 274., I find that a supply transport of 175 tons,
built in 1759, and evidently a merchant ship originally, or at least a
vessel of that class, was 79.4 feet long (tonnage measure), 22.6 feet
beam, and 11.61 feet deep.” The correspondence is noticeable and of
much interest, but as the writer comments, all depends upon whether or
not “the measurement of the middle of the eighteenth century materially
differed in Great Britain from what it was in the early part of the
previous century.”
Like all vessels having high stems and sterns, she was unquestionably “a
wet ship,”--upon this voyage especially so, as Bradford shows, from being
overloaded, and hence lower than usual in the water. Captain John Smith
says: “But being pestered [vexed] nine weeks in this leaking,
unwholesome ship, lying wet in their cabins; most of them grew very weak
and weary of the sea.” Bradford says, quoting the master of the
MAY-FLOWER and others: “As for the decks and upper works they would caulk
them as well as they could, . . . though with the working of the ship,
they would not long keep staunch.” She was probably not an old craft, as
her captain and others declared they “knew her to be strong and firm
under water;” and the weakness of her upper works was doubtless due to
the strain of her overload, in the heavy weather of the autumnal gales.
Bradford says: “They met with many contrary winds and fierce storms with
which their ship was shrewdly shaken and her upper works made very
leaky.” That the confidence of her master in her soundness below the
water-line was well placed, is additionally proven by her excellent
voyages to America, already noted, in 1629, and 1630, when she was ten
years older.
That she was somewhat “blocky” above water was doubtless true of her, as
of most of her class; but that she was not unshapely below the water-line
is quite certain, for the re markable return passage she made to England
(in ballast) shows that her lower lines must have been good. She made
the run from Plymouth to London on her return voyage in just thirty-one
days, a passage that even with the “clipper ships” of later days would
have been respectable, and for a vessel of her model and rig was
exceptionally good. She was “light” (in ballast), as we know from the
correspondence of Weston and Bradford, the letter of the former to
Governor Carver--who died before it was received--upbraiding him for
sending her home “empty.” The terrible sickness and mortality of the
whole company, afloat and ashore, had, of course, made it impossible to
freight her as intended with “clapboards” [stave-stock], sassafras roots,
peltry, etc. No vessels of her class of that day were without the high
poop and its cabin possibilities,--admirably adapting them to passenger
service,--and the larger had the high and roomy topgallant forecastles so
necessary for their larger crews. The breadth of beam was always
considerably greater in that day than earlier, or until much later,
necessitated by the proportionately greater height (“topsides”), above
water, at stem and stern. The encroachments of her high poop and
forecastle left but short waist-room; her waist-ribs limited the height
of her “between decks;” while the “perked up” lines of her bow and stern
produced the resemblance noted, to the croup and neck of the wild duck.
That she was low “between decks” is demonstrated by the fact that it was
necessary to “cut down” the Pilgrims’ shallop--an open sloop, of
certainly not over 30 feet in length, some 10 tons burden, and not very
high “freeboard”--“to stow” her under the MAY-FLOWER’S spar deck. That
she was “square-rigged” follows, as noted, from the fact that it was the
only rig in use for ships of her class and size, and that she had
“topsails” is shown by the fact that the “top-saile halliards” were
pitched over board with John Howland, and saved his life. Bradford says:
“A lustie yonge man (called John Howland) coming upon some occasion above
ye grattings, was with a seele of ye shipe throwne into ye sea: but it
pleased God yt he caught hould of ye top-saile halliards which hunge over
board & rane out at length yet he held his hould . . . till he was
haled up,” etc. Howland had evidently just come from below upon the
poop-deck (as there would be no “grattings” open in the waist to receive
the heavy seas shipped). The ship was clearly experiencing “heavy
weather” and a great lurch (“seele”) which at the stern, and on the
high, swinging, tilting poop-deck would be most severely felt,
undoubtedly tossed him over the rail. The topsail halliards were
probably trailing alongside and saved him, as they have others under
like circumstances.
Whether or not the MAY-FLOWER had the “round house” under her poop-deck,
---a sort of circular-end deck-house, more especially the quarters, by
day, of the officers and favored passengers; common, but apparently not
universal, in vessels of her class,--we have no positive knowledge, but
the presumption is that she had, as passenger ships like the PARAGON (of
only 140 tons), and others of less tonnage, seem to have been so fitted!
It is plain that, in addition to the larger cabin space and the smaller
cabins,--“staterooms,” nowadays,--common to ships of the MAY-FLOWER’S
size and class, the large number of her passengers, and especially of
women and children, made it necessary to construct other cabins between
decks. Whether these were put up at London, or Southampton, or after the
SPEEDWELL’S additional passengers were taken aboard at Plymouth, does not
appear. The great majority of the men and boys were doubtless provided
with bunks only, “between decks,” but it seems that John Billington had a
cabin there. Bradford narrates of the gunpowder escapade of young
Francis Billington, that, “there being a fowling-piece, charged in his
father’s cabin [though why so inferior a person as Billington should have
a cabin when there could not have been enough for better men, is a query],
shot her off in the cabin, there being a little barrel of powder
half-full scattered in and about the cabin, the fire being within four
feet of the bed, between the decks, . . . and many people gathered
about the fire,” etc.
Whatever other deductions may be drawn from this very badly constructed
and ambiguous paragraph of Bradford, two things appear certain,--one,
that Billington had a “cabin” of his own “between decks;” and the other,
that there was a “fire between decks,” which “many people” were gathered
“about.” We can quite forgive the young scamp for the jeopardy in which
he placed the ship and her company, since it resulted in giving us so
much data concerning the MAY-FLOWER’S “interior.” Captain John Smith’s
remark, already quoted, as to the MAY-FLOWER’S people “lying wet in their
cabins,” is a hint of much value from an experienced navigator of that
time, as to the “interior” construction of ships and the bestowal of
passengers in them, in that day, doubtless applicable to the MAY-FLOWER.
While it was feasible, when lying quietly at anchor in a land-locked
harbor, with abundance of fire-wood at hand, to have a fire, about which
they could gather, even if only upon the “sand-hearth” of the early
navigators, when upon boisterous seas, in mid-ocean, “lying . . . in
their cabins” was the only means of keeping warm possible to voyagers.
In “Good Newes from New England,” we find the lines:--
“Close cabins being now prepared,
With bred, bief, beire, and fish,
The passengers prepare themselves,
That they might have their wish.”
Her magazine, carpenter’s and sailmaker’s lockers, etc., were doubtless
well forward under her forecastle, easily accessible from the spar-deck,
as was common to merchant vessels of her class and size. Dr. Young, in
his “Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers” (p. 86, note), says: “This vessel
was less than the average size of the fishing-smacks that go to the Grand
Banks. This seems a frail bark in which to cross a stormy ocean of three
thousand miles in extent. Yet it should be remembered that two of the
ships of Columbus on his first daring and perilous voyage of discovery,
were light vessels, without decks, little superior to the small craft
that ply on our rivers and along our coasts . . . . Frobisher’s fleet
consisted of two barks of twenty-five tons each and a pinnace of ten
tons, when he sailed in 1576 to discover a north-west passage to the
Indies. Sir Francis Drake, too, embarked on his voyage for
circumnavigating the globe, in 1577, with five vessels, of which the
largest was of one hundred, and the smallest fifteen tons. The bark in
which Sir Humphrey Gilbert perished was of ten tons only.” The LITTLE
JAMES, which the Company sent to Plymouth in July, 1623, was “a pinnace
of only forty-four tons,” and in a vessel of fifty tons (the SPEEDWELL),
Martin Pring, in 1603, coasted along the shores of New England. Goodwin
says: “In 1587 there were not in all England’s fleet more than five
merchant vessels exceeding two hundred tons.” The SPARROW-HAWK wrecked
on Cape Cod in 1626 was only 40 feet “over all.” The Dutch seem to have
built larger vessels. Winthrop records that as they came down the
Channel, on their way to New England (1630), they passed the wreck of
“a great Dutch merchantman of a thousand tons.”
The MAY-FLOWER’S galley, with its primitive conditions for cooking,
existed rather as a place for the preparation of food and the keeping of
utensils, than for the use of fire. The arrangements for the latter were
exceedingly crude, and were limited to the open “hearth-box” filled with
sand, the chief cooking appliance being the tripod-kettle of the early
navigators: This might indeed be set up in any part of the ship where the
“sand-hearth” could also go, and the smoke be cared for. It not
infrequently found space in the fore castle, between decks, and, when
fine weather prevailed, upon the open deck, as in the open caravels of
Columbus, a hundred years before. The bake-kettle and the frying-pan
held only less important places than the kettle for boiling. It must have
been rather a burst of the imagination that led Mrs. Austin, in “Standish
of Standish,” to make Peter Browne remind poor half-frozen Goodman--whom
he is urging to make an effort to reach home, when they had been lost,
but had got in sight of the MAY-FLOWER In the harbor--of “the good fires
aboard of her.” Moreover, on January 22, when Goodman was lost, the
company had occupied their “common-house” on shore. Her ordnance
doubtless comprised several heavy guns (as such were then reckoned),
mounted on the spar-deck amid ships, with lighter guns astern and on.
the rail, and a piece of longer range and larger calibre upon the
forecastle. Such was the general disposal of ordnance upon merchant
vessels of her size in that day, when an armament was a ‘sine qua non’.
Governor Winslow in his “Hypocrisie Unmasked,” 1646 (p. 91), says, in
writing of the departure of the Pilgrims from Delfshaven, upon the
SPEEDWELL: “The wind being fair we gave them a volley of small shot and
three pieces of ordnance,” by which it seems that the SPEEDWELL, of only
sixty tons, mounted at least “three pieces of ordnance” as, from the form
of expression, there seem to have been “three pieces,” rather than three
discharges of the same piece.
The inference is warranted that the MAY-FLOWER, being three times as
large, would carry a considerably heavier and proportionate armament.
The LADY ARBELLA, Winthrop’s ship, a vessel of 350 tons, carried
“twenty-eight pieces of ordnance;” but as “Admiral” of the fleet, at a
time when there was a state of war with others, and much piracy, she
would presumably mount more than a proportionate weight of metal,
especially as she convoyed smaller and lightly armed vessels, and
carried much value. There is no reason to suppose that the MAY-FLOWER,
in her excessively crowded condition, mounted more than eight or ten
guns, and these chiefly of small calibre. Her boats included her
“long-boat,” with which the experience of her company in “Cape Cod harbor”
have made us familiar, and perhaps other smaller boats,--besides the
Master’s “skiff” or “gig,” of whose existence and necessity there are
numerous proofs. “Monday the 27,” Bradford and Winslow state, “it
proved rough weather and cross winds, so as we were constrained, some in
the shallop and others in the long-boat,” etc. Bradford states, in
regard to the repeated springings-a-leak of the SPEEDWELL: “So the
Master of the bigger ship, called Master Jones, being consulted with;”
and again, “The Master of the small ship complained his ship was so
leaky . . . so they [Masters Jones and Reynolds] came to
consultation, again,” etc. It is evident that Jones was obliged to
visit the SPEEDWELL to inspect her and to consult with the leaders, who
were aboard her. For this purpose, as for others, a smaller boat than
the “long-boat” would often serve, while the number of passengers and
crew aboard would seem to demand still other boats. Winthrop notices
that their Captain (Melborne) frequently “had his skiff heaved out,” in
the course of their voyage. The Master’s small boat, called the “skiff”
or “gig,” was, no doubt, stowed (lashed) in the waist of the ship, while
the “long-boat” was probably lashed on deck forward, being hoisted out
and in, as the practice of those days was, by “whips,” from the
yardarms. It was early the habit to keep certain of the live-stock,
poultry, rabbits, etc., in the unused boats upon deck, and it is
possible that in the crowded state of the MAY-FLOWER this custom was
followed. Bradford remarks that their “goods or common store . . .
were long in unlading [at New Plimoth] for want of boats.” It seems
hardly possible that the Admiralty authorities,--though navigation laws
were then few, crude, and poorly enforced,--or that the Adventurers and
Pilgrim chiefs themselves, would permit a ship carrying some 130 souls
to cross the Atlantic in the stormy season, without a reasonable boat
provision. The capacity of the “long-boat” we know to have been about
twenty persons, as nearly that number is shown by Bradford and Winslow
to have gone in her on the early expeditions from the ship, at Cape Cod.
She would therefore accommodate only about one sixth of the ship’s
company. As the “gig” would carry only five or six persons,--while the
shallop was stowed between decks and could be of no service in case of
need upon the voyage,--the inference is warranted that other boats were
carried, which fail of specific mention, or that she was wofully
lacking. The want of boats for unlading, mentioned by Bradford, suggests
the possibility that some of the ship’s quota may have been lost or
destroyed on her boisterous voyage, though no such event appears of
record, or is suggested by any one. In the event of wreck, the Pilgrims
must have trusted, like the Apostle Paul and his associates when cast
away on the island of Melita, to get to shore, “some on boards and some
on broken pieces of the ship.” Her steering-gear, rigging, and the
mechanism for “getting her anchors,” “slinging,” “squaring,” and
“cockbilling” her yards; for “making” and “shortening” sail; “heaving
out” her boats and “handling” her cargo, were of course all of the crude
and simple patterns and construction of the time, usually so well
illustrating the ancient axiom in physics, that “what is lost [spent] in
power is gained in time.”
The compass-box and hanging-compass, invented by the English cleric,
William Barlow, but twelve years before the Pilgrim voyage, was almost
the only nautical appliance possessed by Captain Jones, of the
MAY-FLOWER, in which no radical improvement has since been made.
Few charts of much value--especially of western waters--had yet been
drafted, but the rough maps and diagrams of Cabot, Smith, Gosnold,
Pring, Champlain and Dermer, Jones was too good a navigator not to have
had. In speaking of the landing at Cape Cod, the expression is used by
Bradford in “Mourt’s Relation,” “We went round all points of the
compass,” proving that already the mariner’s compass had become familiar
to the speech even of those not using it professionally.
That the ship was “well-found” in anchors (with solid stocks), hemp
cables, “spare” spars, “boat-tackling” and the heavy “hoisting-gear” of
those days, we have the evidence of recorded use. “The MAY-FLOWER,”
writes Captain Collins, would have had a hemp cable about 9 inches in
circumference. Her anchors would probably weigh as follows: sheet anchor
(or best bower) 500 to 600 lbs.; stream anchor 350 to 400 lbs.; the spare
anchors same as the stream anchor.
“Charnock’s Illustrations” show that the anchors used in the MAY-FLOWER
period were shaped very much like the so called Cape Ann anchor now made
for our deep-sea fishing vessels. They had the conventional shaped
flukes, with broad pointed palms, and a long shank, the upper end passing
through a wooden stock. [Tory shows in his diagrams some of the anchors
of that period with the space between the shank and flukes nearly filled
up in the lower part with metal.] Such an anchor has the maximum of
holding powers, and bearing in mind the elasticity of the hemp cables
then used, would enable a vessel to ride safely even when exposed to
heavy winds and a racing sea: There is no doubt, according to the
British Admiralty Office,--which should be authority upon the matter,
--that the flag under which the MAY-FLOWER, and all other vessels of the
merchant marine of Great Britain, sailed, at the time she left England
(as noted concerning the SPEEDWELL), was what became known as the “Union
Jack,” as decreed by James the First, in 1606, supplanting the English
ensign, which had been the red cross of St. George upon a white field.
The new flag resulted from the “union” of the crowns and kingdoms of
England and Scotland, upon the accession of James VI. of Scotland to the
English throne, as James I. of England, upon the death of queen
Elizabeth. Its design was formed by superimposing the red cross of St.
George upon the white cross of St. Andrew, on a dark blue field; in other
words, by imposing the cross of St. George, taken from the English
ensign, upon the Scotch flag, and creating there by the new flag of Great
Britain.
In a little monograph on “The British Flag--Its Origin and History,” a
paper read by its author, Jona. F. Morris, Esq., before the Connecticut
Historical Society, June 7, 1881, and reprinted at Hartford (1889), Mr.
Morris, who has made much study of the matter, states (p. 4): “In 1603,
James VI. of Scotland was crowned James I. of England. The Scots, in
their pride that they had given a king to England, soon began to contend
that the cross of St. Andrew should take precedence of the cross of St.
George, that ships bearing the flag of the latter should salute that of
St. Andrew. To allay the contention, the King, on the 12th of April,
1606, ordered that all subjects of Great Britain travelling by sea shall
bear at the maintop the red cross of St. George and the white cross,
commonly called the cross of St. Andrew, joined together according to a
form made by his heralds besides this all vessels belonging to South
Britain or England might wear the cross of St. George at the peak or
fore, as they were wont, and all vessels belonging to North Britain or
Scotland might wear the cross of St. Andrew at the fore top, as they had
been accustomed; and all vessels were for bidden to wear any other flag
at their peril. The new flag thus designed by the heralds and proclaimed
by this order was called the ‘King’s Colors.’ For a long period the red
cross had been the colors of English navigators, as well as the badge of
English soldiery . . . . No permanent English settlement in America
was made until after the adoption of the ‘King’s Colors.’ Jamestown,
Plymouth, Salem, and Boston were settled under the new flag, though the
ships bringing over settlers, being English vessels, also carried the red
cross as permitted.” Mr. Barlow Cumberland, of Toronto, Canada, has also
given, in a little monograph entitled “The Union Jack” (published by
William Briggs of that city, 1898), an admirable account of the history
of the British jack, which confirms the foregoing conclusions. The early
English jack was later restored. Such, roughly sketched, was the Pilgrim
ship, the renowned MAY-FLOWER, as, drafted from the meagre but fairly
trustworthy and suggestive data available, she appears to us of to-day.
HER HISTORY:
In even the little we know of the later history of the ship, one cannot
always be quite sure of her identity in the records of vessels of her
name, of which there have been many. Dr. Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, of
Boston, says that “a vessel bearing this name was owned in England about
fifteen years or more before the voyage of our forefathers, but it would
be impossible to prove or disprove its identity with the renowned
MAY-FLOWER, however great such a probability might be. It is known,
nevertheless, that--the identical famous vessel afterwards hailed from
various English ports, such as London, Yarmouth, and Southampton, and
that it was much used in transporting immigrants to this country. What
eventually became of it and what was the end of its career, are equally
unknown to history.” Goodwin says: “It does not appear that the
MAY-FLOWER ever revisited Plymouth, but in 1629 she came to Salem,” with
a company of the Leyden people for Plymouth, under command of Captain
William Peirce, the warm friend of the Pilgrims, and in 1630 was one of
the large fleet that attended John Winthrop, under a different master,
discharging her passengers at Charlestown. Nothing is certainly known of
her after that time. In 1648 a ship [hereinafter mentioned by Hunter]
named the MAY-FLOWER was engaged in the slave trade, and the ill-informed
as well as the ill-disposed have sometimes sneeringly alleged that this
was our historic ship; but it is ascertained that the slaver was a vessel
of three hundred and fifty tons,--nearly twice the size of our ship of
happy memory. In 1588 the officials of Lynn (England) offered the
“MAY-FLOWER” (150 tons) to join the fleet against the dreaded Spanish
Armada. In 1657, Samuel Vassall, of London, complained that the
government had twice impressed his ship, MAY-FLOWER, which he had
“fitted out with sixty men, for the Straits.” Rev. Joseph Hunter,
author of “The Founders of New Plymouth,” one of the most eminent
antiquarians in England, and an indefatigable student of Pilgrim history
among British archives, says: “I have not observed the name of MAY
FLOWER [in which style he always writes it] before the year 1583 . . .
But the name soon became exceedingly popular among those to whom
belonged the giving of the names to vessels in the merchant-service.
Before the close of that century [the sixteenth] we have a MAY-FLOWER of
Hastings; a MAY-FLOWER of Rie; a MAY-FLOWER of Newcastle: a MAY FLOWER
of Lynn; and a MAY-FLOWER Of Yarmouth: both in 1589. Also a MAY-FLOWER
of Hull, 1599; a MAY FLOWER of London of eighty tons burden, 1587, and
1594, Of which Richard Ireland was the master, and another MAY-FLOWER of
the same port, of ninety tons burthen, of which Robert White was the
master in 1594, and a third MAY-FLOWER of London, unless it is the same
vessel with one of the two just spoken of, only with a different master,
William Morecock. In 1587 there was a MAY-FLOWER Of Dover, of which
John Tooke was the master. In 1593 there was a MAY-FLOWER of Yarmouth
of 120 tons, of which William Musgrove was the master. In 1608 there
was a MAY-FLOWER of Dartmouth, of which Nicholas Waterdonne was the
master; and in 1609 a MAY-FLOWER of Middleburgh entered an English
port.”
Later in the century we find a MAY-FLOWER of Ipswich, and another of
Newcastle in 1618; a MAY-FLOWER of York in 1621; a MAY-FLOWER of
Scarborough in 1630, Robert Hadock the master; a MAY-FLOWER of Sandwich
the same year, John Oliver the master; a MAY-FLOWER of Dover, 1633,
Walter Finnis, master, in which two sons of the Earl of Berkshire crossed
to Calais. “Which of these was the vessell which carried over the
precious [Pilgrim] freight cannot perhaps be told [apparently neither,
unless perhaps the MAY-FLOWER of Yarmouth of 1593, in which case her
tonnage is incorrectly given], but we learn from Mr. Sherley’s letter to
Governor Bradford’ that the same vessel was employed in 1629 in passing
between the two countries, a company of the church at Leyden, who had
joined in the first emigration, intending to pass in it to America; and
in the same author we find that the vessel arrived in the harbour of
Charlestown [N. E.] on July 1, 1630. There was a MAY-FLOWER which, in
1648, gained an unenviable notoriety as a slaver. But this was not the
MAY-FLOWER which had carried over the first settlers, it being a vessel
Of 350 tons, while the genuine MAY-FLOWER was of only 180 tons.” Of the
first of her two known visits, after her voyage with the Pilgrim company
from Leyden, Goodwin says: “In August, 1629, the renowned MAY-FLOWER came
from England to Salem under Plymouth’s old friend [William] Peirce, and
in her came thirty-five Leyden people, on their way to Plymouth.” The
number has been in dispute, but the large cost of bringing them, over
L500, would suggest that their families must have also come, as has been
alleged, but for the following from Governor Bradford’s Letter Book:
“These persons,” he says, “were in all thirty-five, which came at this
time unto us from Leyden, whose charge out of Holland into England, and
in England till the ship was ready, and then their transportation hither,
came to a great deal of money, for besides victuals and other expenses,
they were all newly apparelled.” Shirley, one of the Adventurers,
writing to Governor Bradford in 1629, says: “Here are now many of your
friends from Leyden coming over. With them also we have sent some
servants, or in the ship that went lately (I think called the TALBOT),
and this that these come in is the MAY-FLOWER.” All that Higginson’s
journal tells of her, as noted, is, that “she was of Yarmouth;” was
commanded by William Peirce, and carried provisions and passengers, but
the fact that she was under command of Captain Peirce of itself tells
much. On her next trip the MAY-FLOWER sailed from Southampton, in May,
1630, as part of Winthrop’s fleet, and arrived at Charlestown July 1.
She was, on this voyage, under command of a new master (perhaps a Captain
Weatherby), Captain Peirce having, at this time, command of the ship
LYON, apparently in the service of Plymouth Colony. A vessel of this
name [MAY-FLOWER] was sailing between England and Boston in 1656. Young
says: “The MAY-FLOWER is a ship of renown in the history of the
colonization of New England. She was one of the five vessels which, in
1629, conveyed Higginson’s company to Salem, and also one of the fleet
which, in 1630, brought over his colony to Massachusetts Bay.”
October 6, 1652, “Thomas Webber, Mr. of the good shipp called the
MAYFLOWER of the burden of Two hundred Tuns or there abouts . . . .
Rideing at Ancor in the Harber of Boston,” sold one-sixteenth of the ship
“for good & valluable Consideracons to Mr. John Pinchon of Springfield
Mrchant.” The next day, October 7, 1652, the same “Thomas Webber, Mr, of
the good Shipp called the MAY FLOWER of Boston in New England now bound
for the barbadoes and thence to London,” acknowledges an indebtedness to
Theodore Atkinson, a wealthy “hatter, felt-maker,” and merchant of
Boston, and the same day (October 7, 1652), the said “Thomas Webber, Mr.
of the good shipp called the MAY FLOWER of the burthen of Two hundred
tuns or thereabouts,” sold “unto Theodore Atkinson felt-maker
one-sixteenth part as well of said Shipp as of all & singular her masts
Sails Sail-yards Ancors Cables Ropes Cords Gunns Gunpowder Shott
Artillery Tackle Munition apparrell boate skiffe and furniture to the
same belonging.” It is of course possible that this was the historic
ship, though, if so, reappearing twenty two years after her last known
voyage to New England. If the same, she was apparently under both new
master and owner. From the facts that she is called “of Boston in New
England” and was trading between that port, “the Barbadoes” and London,
it is not impossible that she may have been built at Boston--a sort of
namesake descendant of the historic ship--and was that MAY-FLOWER
mentioned as belonging, in 1657, to Mr. Samuel Vassall; as he had large
interests alike in Boston, Barbadoes, and London. Masters of vessels
were often empowered to sell their ships or shares in them. Although we
know not where her keel was laid, by what master she was built, or where
she laid her timbers when her work was done, by virtue of her grand
service to humanity, her fame is secure, and her name written among the
few, the immortal names that were not born to die.