The Project Gutenberg eBook of Shipbuilding from its beginnings. Vol. 1 (of 3)
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Shipbuilding from its beginnings. Vol. 1 (of 3)
Author: E. van Konijnenburg
Release date: September 5, 2024 [eBook #74360]
Language: English
Original publication: Belgium: The Permanent International Association of Congress of Navigation, 1913
Credits: Chris Curnow, Rachael Schultz, Reiner Ruf, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SHIPBUILDING FROM ITS BEGINNINGS. VOL. 1 (OF 3) ***
####################################################################
Transcriber’s Notes
This e-text is based on the three-volume book ‘Shipbuilding from Its
Beginnings,’ from 1895. Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation have
been retained; punctuation and typographical errors have been
corrected.
The side notes refer to the corresponding illustrations in volumes
II and III. Footnotes have been moved to the end of the respective
section.
Two numerical values are obviously missing in the text; they could
not be retrieved from other sources. The missing numbers have been
highlighted by triple underscores (___).
Specific font styles have been marked by using the following special
characters:
italics: _underscores_
spaced: +plus signs+
small caps: ~tildes~
####################################################################
PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF
Navigation Congresses
38, Rue de Louvain, 38
BRUSSELS
[Illustration: SHIPBUILDING FROM ITS BEGINNINGS
~VOL.~ I]
[Illustration: NAVIGARE NECESSE]
SHIPBUILDING
FROM
ITS BEGINNINGS
[Illustration]
SHIPBUILDING FROM ITS BEGINNINGS
BY
E. VAN KONIJNENBURG, ~C.E.~,
_ENGINEER OF THE RIJKSWATERSTAAT OF THE NETHERLANDS_
1895-1905
PUBLISHED
BY
THE PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF
CONGRESSES OF NAVIGATION
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL
38, RUE DE LOUVAIN, 38
BRUSSELS
VOL. I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE 11
Division of Europe according to the shape of
vessels: Northern centre--Baltic Sea--Southern
centre--Mediterranean Sea.
SOUTHERN CENTRE.
~Chapter I~ 13
The Egyptians 13
The Phœnicians 17
The Greeks and Romans 19
The Mediterranean in the Middle Ages 23
Galleys 23
Types of ships in the XVIIIth century 28
NORTHERN CENTRE.
~Chapter II~ 33
Vikings’ vessel 34
The Cog 36
Influence of the Crusades 38
Use of the rudder 38
The galley in the Netherlands 39
Use of Artillery 40
Baertzen 40
Krayers and Hulken 41
Use of carvel laid planking 41
The ship in the XVIth century 44
Use of the square-stern ship 44
Use of the ports 45
The Flyboat 45
The Pinnace 46
The square-stern ship 47
The Flute--the Kuff--the Smack 47
Transition of the ship of the XVIth century
to that of the XVIIth century 49
The war ship (first war navy) 49
France 52
England 53
The Netherlands 54
Merchant marine of the Netherlands 57
Use of the frigate 58
Fireships 58
~Chapter III~ 61
_Classification of vessels_ 65
I.--War ships 65
II.--Merchant { for over seas navigation 66
vessels { for the coasting
{ trade 66
III.--Ferries 67
IV.--Vessels for sundry uses 67
V.--Boats intended for the upper rivers
(Bovenlanders) 68
VI.--Fishing vessels 70
~Chapter IV~ 71
_Description of the types of vessels_ 71
The Pinnace 71
The Flyboat 71
The Katship 72
Ship of the Dutch East India Company 72
The Boeier 72
The Howker 72
The Bush 72
The Hekboot 72
The Straetsvaerder 73
The Stokker 73
The Frigate 73
The Galliot 73
The Galeas 74
The Koff 74
The Smak 75
The Smalschip and the Wijdschip 75
The Damlooper 75
The Tjalk 76
The Schuit and the Poon 76
The Kaag 76
The Steigerschuit 77
The Yacht 77
The Boeierschuit 77
The Pleit 77
The Otter 77
The Mot 78
The Spitsche Mot 78
The Ever 78
The Bremerkahn 78
The Potten and the Pujen 78
The Snijboon and the Somp or Pegge 79
The Hoogeveensche Praam 79
The Praam (_pram_) 79
The Koftjalk 81
The Kraak 82
The Skiff 82
The Ponton 82
The Halve Pont or Pijper 83
The Gierpont 83
The Kabelveerpont 83
The Bok 84
The Snik 84
The Westlander 85
The Kaag 85
The Utrecht Pram 85
The Schouw 86
The Trekschuit 86
The Yacht 86
The Baggeraak 86
The Bagger- or Moddermolen 87
The Tjotter 88
The Laadbak and the Zolderschuit 88
The Onderlegger 88
THE BOVENLANDERS 89
_The Rhine_ 89
The Dorstensche Aak 89
The Stevenschip 90
The Turfijker and the Hagenaar 90
The Keen 90
The Keenaak 90
The Lahnaak and the Slof 91
_The Meuse_ 91
The Whalemajol, etc. 91
~Chapter V~ 93
_Fishing boats_ 93
The Egmonder Pink 93
The Bush 93
The Kwee and the Hoekerbuis 96
The Hoeker (_howker_) 96
The Haringjager and the Buisconvoyer 96
The Sloep (_sloop_) 96
The Logger (_lugger_) 97
The Bom 97
The Garnalenschuit 97
The Scholschuit or Bazaanschuit 97
The Zwartewaalsche Gaffelaar 97
The Schokker 98
The Haringschuit 99
The Punter and the Gondel 99
The Hoogaars 99
The Steekschuit 100
The Hengst 100
The Botter 100
The Blazer 100
The Lemmeraak 100
The Bolle and the Knots 100
The Jol 101
Use of fishing boats on the Zuiderzee 101
The Waterschip 102
~Chapter VI~ 103
Belgian craft 103
The Tournaisien 103
The Chaland 103
The Bélandre 103
The Pointu 104
The Prij 104
~Chapter VII~ 105
Development of the types of vessels in
the North-East of Europe in relation
to the first inhabitants of the Netherlands 105
[Illustration: PREFACE
De scheeps- en sterke bouw
’t heeft ons ’t gebruik geleert,
Dees gaf ons wet en reght
Hoe men de landen heert.[1]
(~Nic. Witsen.~)
]
Holland’s struggle for life has been a constant battle against the
invasion of water. If this has been, on the one hand, an enemy to be
feared, it has been, on the other, the natural line of communication
above all others which has made our ancestors, since time immemorial,
a nation of seamen. The boat was a necessity as indispensable as the
house.
It is impossible to say who invented the boat; every one has
contributed his mite to its building and this has given rise to its
gradual development. The discovery that wood would float was due,
evidently, to chance.
Use must have been made first of the trunk of a single tree, and
afterwards several must have been joined together to make a raft.
Then came the hollowed trunk which was followed, in its turn, by a boat
with a framework covered with skins from which the finished boat was
born.
Between the floating trunk of a tree and the most complete ship, there
have come into existence all sorts of intermediate forms, of which most
are still to be found even in our day.
[Sidenote: III 1]
Noah, according to the writers of antiquity, must have been the first
shipwright. The old authors enter into circumstantial details on
this subject and give various drawings of Noah’s “ark”. Several of
these drawings are reproduced in the atlas of this work. The only
value of these reproductions of the ark lies in the fact that they
probably represent a ship of the time of their author. It must also be
noted that the first shipbuilder is as entirely unknown as the first
inventor of the boat. That which is beyond any doubt is; that the
mutual influences of various nations have been important factors in the
evolution of the ship. This latter, on its side, served to bring into
contact nations widely separated by water and to open up countries as
yet unexplored.
Hence shipbuilding must first have shone forth, under these conditions,
among the most civilized races.
Mexico and Peru excepted, it may be said that civilization was
developed first among the Chinese in the valley of the Hoang-Ho, then
among the Babylonians in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, and
among the Egyptians in the valley of the Nile.
The question of knowing whether the Babylonians learned shipbuilding
from the Chinese, or the reverse, is one of minor importance. It is
certain however that reciprocal influences were at work among the races
of Asia Minor and there is no doubt that the Babylonians influenced
the Phœnicians, the pioneer shipwrights of the Mediterranean. The
Egyptians, who were not a seafaring people do not here enter into
consideration.
As the Netherlands lay under the action exercised in Europe, where
the development of naval architecture went on about two independent
centres, that of the Baltic and that of the Mediterranean, Asia may be
set aside in so far as its parts not bordering on the Mediterranean are
concerned.
After the Baltic, which will be called the _northern centre_, had
introduced shipbuilding among us, this centre, in so far as over seas
navigation is concerned, came into contact with the Mediterranean,
which will be called the _southern centre_, through the movements
of commerce and navigation, and finally the two became fused with each
other.
It is easy to see that the influence of the northern centre was
preponderant on our naval architecture, hence its importance is capital
for us.
The few vessels of ancient times which have been found show us what a
high degree of perfection shipbuilding had already reached in almost
prehistoric times; the finish of these vessels and the care given to
their ornamentation might also be noticed. These observations are not
extraordinary, when the large part played by the ship in the existence
of nations is borne in mind; the contrary would rather have caused
surprise. Nor is it astonishing that the chances of the sea should
have been faced with small boats. For are not the valiant fishermen
of to-day seen facing the waves of the sea, in still smaller boats
than those of the ancients, to ply their rude and perilous trade, and
that too during the entire year? For let it not be forgotten indeed,
that ocean navigation during the Middle Ages was, as a matter of fact,
carried on only in Summer. ~Nic. Witsen~ wrote in 1671, p. 195
of his book, on this subject: “dat men oulinckx in deze landen nimmer
’t zee ging als naer besloten boeken, besproken uiterste wille en met
God zich te hebben verzoent: wanneer men het gevaar meer ontzag als
heden nu dorst men althans zee kiezen zonder aanzien van tijdt of weer
van outs wiert de zee gesloten in de quaetste tijden van het jaar!”[2]
To know what we can do, to know of what we are capable, and, above
all, to know what there is still to be learned and even what has to be
imitated, are the most important demands of all individual education as
they are the fundamental requirements of a race which, after all, is
but an unit in the series of the nations.
May this book add its mite to a knowledge of the gradual evolution of
shipbuilding; may it also cause to disappear this ridiculous way in
which ancient ships used to be represented and, most of all, may it
awaken the love for the building of ships.
I am, in this connection, fully of the opinion expressed by ~Witsen~
as follows: “Zoo groot dunkt mij de waerdigheidt dezer wetenschap te
zijn dat niemant derzelve hier ten lande, daar de zeevaert de sterkste
zenuwe van den staet is, behoorde onkundig te zijn.”[3]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Necessity has taught us naval architecture and the art of war,
which give the means by which to dominate the nations.
[2] That, in this country, in former times, when greater fear was
felt of the dangers of the sea than is now the case when they are
faced in all kinds of weather, people never put off from shore
without first having settled their accounts, made their wills
and partaken of the Holy Communion. In the old days, the sea was
closed during the bad season.
[3] The value of this science seems to me so great that none of
my fellow countrymen can afford not to be acquainted with it, as
navigation is the nerve and sinew of the nation.
[Illustration: 1]
The Egyptians were not a nation of mariners. Their navigation, at
the beginning, was limited to the Nile alone; it was only later that
they ventured out to sea, preceded and assisted by the Phœnicians.
Their vessels were and continued to be river boats. The question of
knowing whether the Egyptians borrowed the art of building them from
the Babylonians, or whether their art was developed independently of
any other is of little importance here and, furthermore, it cannot
be solved by the nautical knowledge which we possess. (~Ermann~, p.
679.--Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann~, pp. 25-33.)
[Sidenote: II 1]
That which is certain is that the Babylonians and the Egyptians had
their vessels already in the most remote antiquity; this follows
(_L’Anthropologie_, 1899, Vol. X, p. 517, and ~Holmes~, 1900, p. 9)
from the decorations on ancient vases which are supposed to date from
6000 to 4000 years B. C.
[Sidenote: II 2]
Doubts have arisen at times--but wrongly in my opinion--as to the
question of knowing whether the decorations in question really do
represent vessels. Although the drawings are too primitive to furnish
any data relating to the form of the boats, it can surely be said,
however, that only vessels propelled by oars are there shown and
that sailing vessels were probably still unknown at this time. The
lines at the bottom of the boats, considered sometimes, but wrongly,
as indicating fishing apparatus (_Recherches sur les Origines de
l’Égypte_, ~De Morgan~, pp. 91 and 92), represent the propelling
oars, and the long strokes at the stern of the boat, the steering
oars. The boats were not moved forward by oars but by paddles, which
is the oldest mode of the propulsion used, as can still be seen by
the interrupted line of rowers found again, still later, among the
Egyptians.
The reasons for the almost exclusive use of the oar or the paddle for
propelling boats are to be sought in the mobility of the bottom and
hence in variations of the navigable passages of the Nile. To these
should also be added the great changes in the height of the water and
the sudden dead calms. Sails were used later, it is true, but rowing
and towing still continued to be employed along with the sails.
The shape of the vessel depended upon the use for which it was
intended, so that there can be distinguished among the Egyptians: boats
for transportation, boats for towing and boats for fishing. It is not
known whether they had any war vessels. Pleasure boats and boats used
for travelling by persons of rank formed a large flotilla. (Dr. ~Moritz
Rühlmann~, p. 25, and _Aegypten_ by ~Adolphe Ermann~, p. 639.)
The Egyptian boats were flat, as a rule, with the bow and stern rising
with a slight slope above the water, the stern generally higher than
the bow in order, so it seems, to give the steersmen a better purchase.
(_Aegypten_, ~Adolphe Ermann~, p. 637.)
[Sidenote: II 2]
[Sidenote: II 3]
[Sidenote: II 4]
[Sidenote: II 5]
[Sidenote: II 13]
Under the ancient Empire, about 5000 to 3200 B. C., boats were moved
by paddles, the boatmen facing the bow. Still, even in these distant
times, oars were already employed and, toward the end of this period,
they were in general use. This is shown clearly by figures on the
monuments of this age, where the rowers no longer face the bow but are
turned toward the stern. (~Holmes~, p. 13; ~Ermann~, p. 640; _Ancient
Ships_ by ~Cecil Tor~, 1894.) Paddling was kept in use only for boats
made of papyrus. When the boats were driven by oars, the latter passed
through the side of the vessel or through rings arranged for this
purpose. Each oar was worked by a single oarsman. The boat was steered
by means of oars, rather larger than the others, and handled also each
by a single man. The number of steering oars, as well as the number
of steersmen, depended on the number of oarsmen (~Ermann~, p. 641.)
For example: for eight oarsmen there were at least two steersmen; for
fourteen there were three steersmen, and four for twenty-one oarsmen,
etc.
[Sidenote: II 13]
[Sidenote: II 14]
Already, under the ancient Empire, the sail is shown alongside of the
oar. The mast, placed in the middle of the boat, was composed of two
posts placed crossways and fastened together at the top; this form of
procedure is characteristic of the time of the old Empire.
The rigging, set in the longitudinal axis of the vessel, was composed
of a heavy rope leading forward and of several lighter ones, generally
from six to twelve, leading aft.
The sail, which was rectangular in shape, was always attached between
two yards, one of which held the head, the other the foot of the sail,
a system followed exclusively in Egypt. Two ropes led aft from the
upper yard, which was fastened to the top of the mast, so as to give
the means to turn the sail to the wind.
Here are a few figures which will give some idea of the dimensions
which were in use.
A relatively large boat, 16 metres long, had ordinary oars 3 metres
long, steering oars of 6 metres, a mast 10 metres high with a yard of 6
metres. The area of the sail was about 60 to 70 square metres, hence it
was higher than it was wide. (~Ermann~, p. 639.) In calm weather, which
was not infrequent, the vessel was driven by oars or else was towed.
The mast was then lowered and wrapped in the sail.
In order to attach the rope which connected the vessel with the towing
boat, there was used generally a piece of wood set either in the bow
alone, or in the bow and the stern: this was the arrangement especially
for freight boats. These latter had no rigging, as a rule; they could
scarcely make room for a few oarsmen, because the greater part of the
boat was occupied by the cabin.
As a general rule, small rowboats were used for towing.
The art of shipbuilding made a great advance under the middle Empire
(B. C. 3200-2100). Except for the small papyrus boat, vessels were all
propelled by oars and no longer by paddles. The steering oars, which
were difficult to handle, were replaced by a single large rudder which
could be worked by one man.
The rigging was also changed. The upper yard no longer rested _on_
the mast; it was attached thereto in such a way that it could be
removed. The sail was less high, its width was increased and the mast
became relatively shorter; finally, the double mast, which was so
characteristic of the ancient Empire, was replaced by a single mast.
[Sidenote: II 8]
Under the new Empire, (inclusive of the interregnum of the Hyksos
B. C. 2100 to 1600) B. C. 1600 to 730, the art of shipbuilding made no
advance. Luxury only increased, especially for the cabins which had
already appeared during the time of the middle Empire.
The special feature of this period was the increasing width of the
sail. This width was so great that the yards had to be made of two
pieces joined near the mast. The following figures give an idea of this
constant increase of the sail. (~Ermann~, pp. 643 et suiv.)
[Sidenote: II 18 etc.]
Under the ancient Empire, the mast was 10 metres long and the yard was
6 metres. Under the middle Empire, these lengths were, respectively, 5
and 6 metres, and under the new Empire they were 5 and 10 metres.
As the result of this constant increase of the width of the sail, the
rigging became more complicated and a top was placed at the head of the
mast in order to handle the lines from there.
[Sidenote: II 4]
The scarceness of wood in Egypt was the cause, from the most distant
times, of recourse being had to other materials for the construction of
vessels. Papyrus answered this purpose very well. This aquatic plant
when cut, dried and made up in bundles, formed the material of which
the boats were made.
[Sidenote: II 5]
The papyri were laid side by side and a whole was made of them by ties
placed at close intervals. (~Ermann~, p. 593; ~Nicolas Witsen~, p. 6;
_Archéologie navale_, by ~A. Jal~, Vol. I, p. 91.)
Several drawings found on old monuments show us the Egyptians engaged
in this work.
The papyrus barks formed a sort of rafts of reeds, judging by these
drawings which represent the oarsmen standing upright on the boats.
These latter were small; attempts made later to build them of larger
size appear to have failed. As a general rule, the wood intended for
the construction of the larger vessels had to be imported.
The many pictures on monuments and the large number of models found,
enable a very fair idea of the shape of the ancient Egyptian ship to
be formed, and it can be seen at the same time that these shapes were
little changed.
Before describing these models, it will be rather interesting to
note that, as a general rule, the oldest ones are not reproduced
in accordance with the proportions adopted in practice; they are
too high and too broad for the length. Taken by themselves, the
stem and the sternpost are well shown, but the intermediate body is
too short. The cause of this must be sought in the fact that these
models are made from nature and not by taking the dimensions of the
boats from carefully prepared drawings. Proceeding in this way, it is
very difficult to give exactly the relative dimensions of the boats,
especially in the relations between length and breadth. This is why the
vessels are drawn so often with too little length. So, many old models
must be accepted with the necessary reserves.
The vessels shown in mural paintings are generally much better
proportioned than those represented by models. In the mural paintings,
when the boat is shown in profile, there was no reason to consider the
beam; all the same, the figures are often too large.
According to ~Belger~ (_“Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache und
Altertumskunde”_, XXXIII, p. 24), the models which have been found
should be placed in two classes:
_a_) solid models made from a massive piece of wood, and
_b_) hollow models which are, evidently, a more faithful reproduction
of the ship.
Belger also shows that, in group _a_, the parts painted _white_ must be
considered as not existing, while those painted _brown_ really do exist.
It appears, generally, from the examination of these models that the
Egyptian boats were not of deep draught; they had, necessarily, to draw
but little water on account of the small depth and the frequent changes
in the navigable portions of the river. The mural paintings, on their
side, show that the bottom length was one-third of the total length.
(~Ermann~, p. 637; ~Belger~, p. 25, XXXIII-1895, et id. p. 26.)
[Sidenote: II 8]
The boats were flat-bottomed with very low sides, so that, in order to
prevent the water from coming in, movable upper sides were often used.
The outside planking was smooth (all the models are worked in this way)
and the boats were finished with neither stem nor sternpost. The keel,
in like manner, was not shown on the models, but this would not allow
us to say, however, that it never really existed.
How then could the vessel have sufficient strength under these
conditions?
[Sidenote: II 10]
This explanation is given by the representation of an ancient boat,
exhumed about eleven years ago, shown in “Wassersport” of January 4,
1906, (No 1). The form of this boat shows that there were neither
frames nor keel; but, on the other hand, the planking is very thick
(36 millimetres) and is formed of joists close laid and dovetailed
together; the middle joist which takes the place of the keel is,
besides, thicker than the others but it does not project below the hull
of the boat. The latter is therefore perfectly smooth on the outside.
The keelson forms a whole with the floor and follows up to the very
ends of the bow and stern.
The benches for the rowers served as braces for the sides of the
vessel; and when this was quite large, the sides, by reason of their
greater length, were supported near the middle by a timber laid in the
longitudinal axis of the vessel.
At the point where the mast was put up, this timber was made double and
embraced the foot of the mast to which it gave the required support.
In smaller boats, where this beam is not met with, the support for the
mast was formed by a special arrangement which is found in the models.
The bow and stern are always shown to be solid (painted brown), which
allows it to be supposed that there were decks at the two ends.
The benches for the rowers passed through the planking and gave greater
stiffness to the boats; these benches are indicated on most of the
reliefs by small squares on the sides of the vessel. The steering oar
was supported, on the other hand, by a beam which passed across the
boat and which is shown by a small rectangle.
It has been sometimes believed, but wrongly, in my opinion, that these
rectangles were windows in the cabin. (See Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann~, p.
22.)
A very nearly identical method of proceeding can be noted in the
barks formerly used by the Arabs of the Black Sea, and reproduced in
~Paris~’s work, Vol. I, No 59 (see also the models from the Dutch East
Indies which appear in the collection of the Technical University at
Delft).
This wholly original mode of construction, which was never in use
in the North of Europe, bears witness to the fact that the art of
shipbuilding in Egypt was more closely related to that of Asia (India
and China) than to that of Northern Europe. But this should not be a
matter of astonishment.
[Sidenote: II 11]
The proof that these little rectangles, just mentioned, do not
represent windows is given by a figure, found in the temple of
Dês-el-Bahari (_Ancient and Modern Ships_, ~Holmes~, p. 20), which
reproduces a boat carrying an obelisk. In the side of this vessel,
there are not one, but three superposed rows of these little
rectangles. This ship was made exceptionally strong, in proportion to
the loads which it had to carry. It would be hard to admit that the
side would have been pierced by three superposed rows of windows. An
endeavor rather has been made to put in a suitable cross bracing. In
the boat which tows the larger vessel, furthermore, there is but one
row of rectangles, and these are placed below the gunwale, at the
points where the rowers sit. Here it has been considered enough to let
the benches of the oarsmen pass through.
_Boats intended for carrying freight_ were a little shorter and more
round than the others and were towed, as a rule. They had generally a
towing bitt at the top of the bow and sometimes even a second one at
the top of the stern. A few had sails and rigging, but generally they
could also be propelled by oars. The free space on deck was occupied
ordinarily by a cabin (made of laths and covered with cloth). Rather
flat at the bow, these boats rose sensibly toward the stern.
[Sidenote: II 20]
As has been said already, it is not known whether the Egyptians had any
vessels built exclusively for military purposes. It would seem not, if
it be remembered that most of the actions between vessels had no other
scene than the river. Furthermore, only one single representation of
a naval fight at sea is found, it having taken place under Ramses III
(B. C. 1180-1150). Here is another proof that the Egyptians were not a
race of seamen, and this is all the more marked as the war ships seen
are not of pure Egyptian type. The subject will be taken up again.
~Jal~ gives in his celebrated work, _Archéologie navale_, p. 68, a few
figures about the size of Egyptian boats. According to this author, the
largest boats were not more than 39.00 m. long nor more than 5.19 m.,
or say 5.20 m. wide. The width was to the length, therefore, as 1 to
7.5, a proportion which was maintained for vessels with oars up to the
middle ages.
In the matter of the speed of ships, the same author puts it at about 9
kilometres an hour (p. 110). In order to reduce the speed at the rapids
of the rivers, there was attached to the boat a rope of which the free
end was made fast to a block of stone. This stone slid along the bed
of the river and offered a sufficient resistance; although the anchor
was not known to the Egyptians, they were, as a matter of fact, its
inventors. (~Jal~, _Archéologie navale_, p. 103.)
Before ending this chapter, a few more remarks will be made which are
applicable to nearly all Egyptian vessels.
The benches for the oarsmen were always perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the boat, this being necessary in view of the
special construction of the vessels.
Under the Middle Empire, small extra elevations supplied with a
hand rail were erected on the forecastle and poop decks. They were,
respectively, the posts of the captain and helmsman.
[Sidenote: II 20]
[Sidenote: II 20]
The mast, erected near the middle of the ship, was movable on all
vessels. The double mast under the Old Empire rested in two shoes
set on either side of the longitudinal axis. The single mast (under
the Middle and New Empires) went down to the bottom of the hold and
rested against the beams which held up the rowers’ benches; it was
also fixed by ropes (this appears clearly on several reliefs), either
directly or by means of a step, as is shown on the model at Berlin.
(See ~Belger~, pp. 27-29.) In this latter case, the mast was fastened
to the step itself, a manner of consolidating which is still applied
even now. In this respect, a relief coming from a mortuary chamber and
now at the museum of Gizeh offers a great deal of interest. This relief
shows a mast being let down, and Belger, the author already quoted,
calls attention, in this connection, to the fact that the sculptor let
the extreme part of the mast fall behind the coat of the man who is
occupied with the task, probably because he did not know what to do
with it. Then too only two of the five oarsmen of this style of boat
appear in this reproduction, whereas, if the drawing were well made,
it would follow therefrom that the brackets shown on sundry models
abaft of the benches of the rowers, were only to serve as a support
to the backs of these last. The great length of the boats and their
relatively small immersed length, required special precautions against
the hogging of the ship. A rope was stretched from bow to stern along
the longitudinal axis of the vessel. This rope was supported on forks
and was fastened bow and stern to a cable which ran around the boat.
(Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann~, p. 32.)
[Sidenote: II 12]
The operation of putting up some of these forks is seen in a number
of the pictures. Ermann calls attention to the fact, but wrongly in
my opinion, that in one of these figures, the crew is occupied in
stretching the rope in order to give to the boat the desired curve.
(~Ermann~, p. 604.) That this is not so comes out clearly, for
me, first from the fact that the boat is already shored and hence has
already received its final shape. In the second place, the shores
would not be kept in position if the form of the ship were being
modified; hence, they would not have been drawn. Finally, it is hard
to admit that some of the hands should continue to work quietly on the
ship, as shown in the picture, while others are, so to speak, in the
act of strengthening its curve; because the sides must have spread,
necessarily, during this latter operation. Consequently the men are
employed merely in setting up the fork which is to carry the rope. It
is easy to understand, besides, that this should be done before the
shores are removed because after they are taken away the rope would
have become properly taut at the least bending of the ship.
[Sidenote: II 17]
[Sidenote: II 19]
It follows, from what precedes, that the Egyptian boat was not a sea
craft. Even the boats which went as far as Phœnicia, situated on the
Red Sea, and must have been real sea vessels, are represented in the
figures in absolutely the same way as are the ordinary river craft.
When King Necho (B. C. 612 to 596), who encouraged commerce, felt
the need for possessing a fleet, he applied to some Greeks for the
construction of sea-going ships, and Phœnicians, not Egyptians, were
employed for great maritime expeditions. (~Ermann~, p. 646; ~Holmes~,
p. 26; Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann~ p. 39; ~G. Masporo~, _Histoire Ancienne
des Peuples d’Orient_, 1893, pp. 536 and 537.) _It was the Phœnicians,
and not the Egyptians, who thus became the pioneers of shipbuilding in
the Mediterranean._
It is a general phenomenon to see nations, who enter into reciprocal
relations, copy very quickly, from each other whatever pertains to
the art of shipbuilding. And, could it be otherwise? The struggle
for life produces this phenomenon in a perfectly natural way both in
military and commercial affairs. When a fleet was not able to stand up
against that of the enemy, vessels similar to those of the adversary
or even stronger were built. So it was formerly, so it is to-day. But
the special features which in the past characterized the ships of
the different peoples have passed away, and at the present time the
nationality of vessels can no longer be recognized save by the flags
which they fly. It is not surprising, therefore, that the different
nations, which used to dwell on the shores of the Mediterranean and
which reached their prime almost simultaneously, or shortly after one
other, did not each have a type of boat belonging especially to its own
country.
Alas! little remains of the vessels of antiquity and most of the
pictures which have been found, are much less clear than are those
of the Egyptians. The sculptors devoted their attention more to the
beautiful lines of the ship than to the necessity of giving an exact
idea of its construction. Writers, on the other hand are distinguished
by exaggeration and emphasis when it is a question of the size of
vessels.
There is nothing certain known in regard to dimensions, to the form
of ships or to the number of oars. It is not likely that ships of
extraordinary dimensions existed. ~Jal~ expresses this so well, when he
says in his work already mentioned the “_Archéologie navale_”: “I do
not believe any more in the ‹_quadraginta ordinum_› galley, 143.43 m.
long, 15.27 m. wide and 23.38 m. high above the water than I believe
in the long horse which carried the four sons of Aymon” (p. 117.) (See
also _Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines_, part 36, p.
24; Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann~, p. 62; ~Jal~, _Archéologie Navale_, 1840,
Vol. I, p. 110.)
The art of shipbuilding was developed in the beginning among the
Phœnicians and allied peoples, but it is not possible to say exactly
which of these nations was its true promoter. The most primitive forms
were found at that time side by side with more perfect models. So it
is that Herodotus tells us that the peoples of Asia Minor (Armenians)
came down the river toward Babylon in small boats having a hull made
of linden branches covered with skins. (See ~Witsen~, pp. 9 and 16;
_Livre d’Hérodote_, I, 194; Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann~, p. 27; ~A. Jal~, p.
88.) Straw was laid on the bottom of the boat and one or two asses were
carried in addition to the cargo. Arrived at Babylon, the boatmen sold
their cargo, as well as the straw and the timbers of their boat, and,
with the skins loaded on the backs of the asses, made their way back
home. The current of the river was too strong to allow taking the boats
up stream.
[Sidenote: II 21]
At this same time more perfect boats were navigating the Mediterranean.
The oldest picture of boats of a certain tonnage dates from B. C.
1150 and shows the sea fight between the Egyptians and the Barbarians
to which allusion has already been made. (See, ~Rossellini~; ~Jal~,
_Archéologie navale_, 1845, Vol. I, p. 65; _Jahrbuch des Kaiserlichen
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts_, Vol. VII, 1892, p. 44.) So far
as the shape of the boats is concerned, this picture tells little.
It merely lets us see that the vessels of the belligerents differed
from each other. Moreover, it is seen at once that the Egyptian ships
were propelled by oars and that the others were not. Certain authors
have deduced from this fact that the vessels of the Barbarians were
sailing ships, which, from my view, is not evident. The Egyptians are,
in fact, armed with bows and arrows, and the Barbarians with swords.
If the former sought their might in quick movements, the latter could
only do battle by boarding; under these conditions, the oarsmen could
only have been in the way and this explains their absence, or else they
also swung the sword; whereas, among the Egyptians, the vanquished had,
probably to act as oarsmen and remained at their oars. (See ~Jal~,
_Archéologie navale_, Vol. I, pp. 52 et seq.) It is probable that the
sculptor wished to show that the Egyptians fought differently from
the other nations. Finally, the Egyptian vessels in question differed
sensibly from those described at the beginning of this work. It is more
than likely that these vessels were not Egyptian ships of war, but
ships built by more northern nations like the Phœnicians or copied from
their models. The rigging is not Egyptian; the sail has but one yard.
Let it be mentioned here that there is in the British Museum at London
an amphora coming from the Polledrara (the tomb of Vulci), which Munay
(Journal of Hell. Stud., 1889, p. 247) causes to date from the second
half of the VIIth century B. C., and on which is a drawing of a Greek
ship with Egyptian rigging; the sail is fastened to two yards, a custom
which is characteristic of Egypt. (_Jahrbuch des Kaiserlichen Deutschen
Archeologischen Instituts_, Vol. VII, 1892, p. 42.)
The Phœnicians had several kinds of boats and appear to have had more
pronounced ships of war. These latter were long and narrow for quick
movements; the others, on the contrary, were short and broad for large
cargo capacity. (Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann-Holmes~, p. 26.)
[Sidenote: II 23]
There are few data about the primitive Phœnician ships. The oldest
reproduction is the one given in Layard’s work. It is a drawing made
from a bas-relief preserved in the palace of Sennacherib (about
B. C. 700). But this drawing is rudimentary and the dimensions are
out of proportion, the drawing is exaggerated. It also contains some
apocryphal additions. Consequently, but little importance can be
attached to it.
This reproduction is remarkable under only two respects: in the first
place, because it represents biremes, although it may be doubted
whether the two banks of oars were used at the same time; secondly, the
ships have rams. This peculiarity differentiates the Phœnician ships
sensibly from those of the Egyptians. (_Dictionnaire des Antiquité
grecques et romaines_, p. 25; Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann~, p. 30.) _It is the
oldest reproduction known of boats having rams._
The Phœnicians, by their expeditions along the shores of the
Mediterranean, toward Greece, Italy, Africa and even as far as England,
according to some authors, while others take them even to the Baltic
Sea, exerted a great influence on the art of shipbuilding as it was
practised on the Mediterranean. This influence must have made itself
felt in the colonies which they founded, and among which Carthage was
the most important. There is no doubt that the naval architecture of
the Phœnicians differed little from that of the Greeks and from that
of the Romans. Let it be remembered, in this connection, that the old
models of ships in the Netherlands, for example, remained unchanged
for many centuries and that the same fact has been found everywhere
else. It is permissible, then, to assume that the types of boats which
existed in the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages do not depart greatly
from those which date from the time of the Romans.
If the progressive development of the ship through the ages be
considered, it is unlikely that the ancients built ships of fabulous
dimensions; on the contrary, their vessels must have been rather small.
The first important changes effected in ships were the consequence
of the invention of gunpowder, and are not directly related to
the evolution of nations. The new direction given to the art of
shipbuilding does not coincide therefore with the end of Ancient
History and the beginning of the History of the Middle Ages. It seems,
then, inexact, under these conditions, to speak of the art of the
ancients as of something which forms an isolated whole.
If, judging by the models exhumed, the Egyptian ship had already
reached a high degree of perfection, the Egyptians were still having
recourse to the lights of the Phœnicians, it is evident that the
Phœnician ship must have been the better. Therefore, all the old
reproductions, without distinction, leave much to be desired, the
result, doubtless, of the incapacity of the sculptor or the painter,
which still happens very often in our own time.
Layard’s reproduction shows that biremes have existed since the
earliest times. It must not be forgotten, in this connection, to invite
attention to the Greek “Dipylon” vases on which two banks of superposed
oarsmen are shown. These reproductions are, however, so primitive that
it seems to me hazardous to deduce any conclusions from them. As a
matter of fact, it may be assumed up to a certain point that the upper
bank of oarsmen represents the after bank and that, instead of being
superposed, one set of oarsmen followed after the other.
The oars of the upper bank are not drawn in full, which shows that
the rowers followed one another and were not placed the ones above
the others. It is deduced from this that all these drawings should be
accepted with the greatest circumspection.
In the Middle Ages, there were several oarsmen to an oar; more reliance
was placed on a more rapid movement of the oars than on the increase of
their numbers, to obtain a greater speed.
It cannot be said exactly when the transition was brought about. _But
the oldest method of propulsion is, in any case, the one in which each
oar was worked by a single man for a single oar_; it was taken, so it
would seem, from the boats using paddles, each paddle being handled by
one man.
The relative positions, which might be taken by the rowers who worked
superposed banks of oars, have given rise to many suppositions which it
is superfluous to examine in detail.
Nothing more will be done than to recall the trials of propulsion by
oars, undertaken on the initiative of the Emperor Napoleon III, on a
galley built especially for these experiments. It was shown that the
trireme was a possible thing but, that a boat of this sort was so
encumbered by rowers that no space was left for the cargo. (See the
work _Le Musée du Louvre_, “Constructions navales dans l’Antiquité.”)
The result of the researches made may be stated as follows:
All the ideas put forth in regard to the number of banks of oars and to
the respective places occupied by the oarsmen rest only on hypotheses.
There have been more than one bank of rowers, but it is probable,
however, that it was exceptional when there were more than two. Each
oar at the beginning was handled by a single man. (_Encyclopædia
Britannica_, 9th Edition, p. 806; ~Holmes~, p. 44; ~Torr~, p. 18;
~Witsen~, p. 13.)
As a general rule, vessels moved by oars underwent little change after
the invention of gunpowder. The propelling force could not be developed
because it was not possible to increase the number of oars without
trouble (_Archéologie Navale_, ~A. Jal~, Vol. I, p. 50; _Dictionnaire
des Antiquités grecques et romaines_, p. 40; idem p. 30).
So, ~Jal~, in the “_Archéologie Navale_”, refuses to admit that there
were ships as large as the “Great Eastern” in the times of the Greeks
and Romans.
According to the monument of Prora of Samothrace, thole pins may
already have been known to the ancients. Dr. ~Assmann~ gives much
information on this point (_Baumeister Denkmälen Seewesen_, p. 1632,
fig. 1693).
[Sidenote: II 24]
The habit, not yet wholly given up, of painting an eye at the bow,
on each side of the stem, proves how long old customs may last. It
was already a habit of the Phœnicians, the Greeks and the Romans, and
it is still found on a few Italian and Portuguese vessels (See: _Das
Seewesen, der Griechen und Römer_ by ~Dr. Emil Lübeck~, 1890, p. 43;
~Assmann~, _Seewesen_, p. 1597; _Jahrbuch des Deutsch._ _Archeol.
Instituts_, 1889, p. 99; _Archéologie Navale_, ~Jal~, p. 105; _Ancient
Ships_ by ~Torr~, p. 69).
These eyes were a symbol: they were intended to show that the ship was
seeking its own path, they have been considered sometimes, but wrongly,
to be hawse holes.
Old forms have also been long preserved, and among these the ram is the
most remarkable.
[Sidenote: II 54]
[Sidenote: II 59]
In this order of ideas, the _Speronara_ of Malta, which appears in
Paris’s work, Vol. IV, nᵒ 203 (nᵒ 164, etc.) is the most interesting
example of the Mediterranean. The stem of this boat rises vertically
from the water and is provided with a ram; even the eyes too are there.
Maltese boats without a ram are to be seen in the same figure, but
these vessels differ little from the _Speronara_.
By bringing Layard’s drawing above mentioned close to this one, there
will be seen in each some boats having a ram and a mast while others
have none, but have stems which rise vertically above the water.
It can be concluded from this that, as far back as the times of the
Phœnicians, ships already presented these same differences.
Hence there is no doubt that the _Speronara_ represents a Phœnician
type of boat, in which the steering oar is replaced by a rudder.
There is no entire agreement as to the place occupied by the ram. Some
persons place it above, others below the load-water line. Be this as
it may, it is found on all the ancient models and, in most cases, the
bottom line of the ship is prolonged in a straight or a slightly curved
line as far as the ram.
The constant presence of this latter element in the reproductions,
allows the conclusion that it was placed not _below_ but _above_ the
water. If the _contrary_ had been the case, the ram could not have made
so great an impression on the painters and sculptors. As for the rest,
all the ancient types, on which traces of a ram are found, carry this
element above the water line.
The fact that the bottom line ended in the ram, does not prove that
this latter was below the water, for this line was invisible, and the
draughtsmen, who were uninitiated in the art of shipbuilding, not
knowing any other means for representing it, cut the ship off at the
water line; but as the drawing then appeared rather strange, they added
a curved line joining the ram to the sternpost.
If several of the old pictures be considered from this standpoint
and if the curious bottom lines drawn by the draughtsmen be covered
by better lines borrowed from the _Speronara_ or from ancient
galleys, these reproductions acquire a wholly different meaning.
If little be known about the ancient Phœnician boat, a more thorough
knowledge of the Greek or Roman ship has been reached, through
researches, especially in the matter of dimensions.
It is settled that the Ancients had dock yards containing sheds for
the shelter of vessels from which the running rigging had been removed
while the standing parts were left. (See: _Das Seewezen der Gr. und R._
by Dr. ~Em. Lübeck~, 1890, p. 2.) These sheds give an idea of the sizes
of their ships.
The excavations made by Lieutenant von Alten (_Das Seewesen der
Gr. und R._, p. 5), attached to the Imperial German Archeological
Institute (1876-1877), have shown that the figures given by Graser
are inaccurate. The dimensions of eight docks could be measured at
Munichia, and these structures were 6.25 m. wide by 21.20 m. long.
Later excavations brought to light at Zoa some docks 5.50 m. wide and
about 40 metres long, measured along the bank. (_Das Seewesen der Gr.
und R._, idem p. 6.)
The dimensions of the ships must, therefore, have been relatively small.
It is generally granted that the beam of the Greek ship propelled by
oars is less than that of the galleys of the Middle Ages.
According to ~Jal~ (_Archéologie Navale_), the ratio of the beam to
the length, in the middle ages, was for war vessels: 1:8; for merchant
ships it was 1:7. Graser found that among the Greeks this ratio was
1:8¼, and according to ~Serre~ (_La Marine de guerre de l’Antiquité_,
p. 33) and ~Lemaître~ (_Revue archéologique_ 1833, Vol. 8, pp. 149 _et
seq._) its value was 1:9.
Hence the vessels were narrow as compared with their length, which
increased their degree of mobility.
Besides, the depth of the docks discovered shows that the boats drew
but little and, consequently, that the ships slid along in a way, on
the water.
In this respect too, the ancient boats did not differ much from those
of the Middle Ages. Neglecting this detail, among others, Graser
reaches a type of ship having far too great a draught.
Alongside of the war vessels, _naves longæ_, there were the merchant
vessels, _naves onerariæ_. It was natural that great mobility should be
sought for the former; it is this which explains the lengthened shape
of these boats, whereas the merchant ships were shorter and had more
beam.
Later, but still several centuries B. C., when the power of Rome was
developed, when its population increased and when the importation of
wheat and other provisions became more and more important and had to be
made more and more quickly, the ship with oars was used as a merchant
vessel in addition to the short, wide boat.
The Roman freight galleys seem, further on, to have been made broader,
like those of the Middle Ages, with a view to increasing their
capacity. But no _new_ type followed from this; it was merely a new
application of existing types.
It can be certified that no new type of boat was created later all at
once, and that this change was due not to the shifting of lines of
trade or to the construction of new ports. This latter condition could,
at most, have modified the accepted dimensions.
The different types of antiquity remained in use for centuries and are
still to be found to a great extent.
Nothing more will be done than to attract attention to certain ancient
pictures where are seen ships having rounded stems. A short time
ago, this peculiarity was still to be found in “la Muleta” a boat of
the Tagus, now disappeared. (Compare ~Paris~, Vol. V, fig. 268; and
_Jahrbuch der Deutsch. Archeol. Inst._, 1889, p. 91.)
The size of boats changed little. In order to develope more force,
the number of rowers was increased and, as the length of the ship was
reduced, the rowers had forcedly to be placed in banks, one above
another.
~Jal~ considers that a triple bank of oars must have been an exception,
and that the lowest bank must have been separated from the other two by
a deck. The celebrated trireme, built at Asnières in 1860, under orders
from Napoleon III, was carried out in accordance with this conception;
but, as has been said, the experiment tried with this boat did not
give satisfactory results. (See, _Das Seewesen der Gr. und R._, Dr.
~Lübeck~, p. 49.)
If, however, the experiment did not solve the question of the position
of the rowers, it showed sufficiently that, in the trireme, the ship
was filled up with rowers.
The ancient vessel had little space for provisions. Care was taken
consequently so to arrange matters as to be able to land every evening,
and it can be understood from this that most naval battles were fought
close to the shore.
But, in order to land everywhere, a small draught of water was
necessary. This, according to Assmann and Lemaître, must have been
about one metre. (_Das Seewesen der Gr. und R._, Dr. ~Emil Lübeck~, p.
10, note 5.)
The disposable space on board was so restricted that, when it was not
possible to go ashore at night, the oarsmen could only sleep in gangs.
While the boat was in motion they had, in order not to interfere with
each other, to make their movements absolutely together, and even when
coming on board a certain order of succession had to be observed. (_Das
Seewesen_, idem p. 10.)
It is not known exactly when the old method of propulsion, each oar
handled by a single man, gave place to the new in which heavy oars were
worked by several men. It appears however that the Liburnians already
had heavy oars of which the use seems to have been a consequence of the
battle of Actium, fought B. C. 31. (_Das Seewesen der Gr. und R._, Dr.
~Em. Lübeck~, p. 21.)
As has been seen, there were, alongside of the ships of war or _naves
longæ_, merchant ships or freight vessels, _naves onerariæ_. The
dimensions of these latter were also rather small; as can be judged by
their capacity. Their cargo, as shown by ancient documents, was stated
in Greek talents or in Roman amphora (1 amphora = 26.50 m.), and later
also in midimnes of Attica (1 midimne = 42.50 m.). (_Das Seewesen der
Gr. mid R._, Dr. ~Em. Lübeck~, p. 22.)
According to an arrangement regulating the size of merchant vessels,
made in the year B. C. 218, the boats which brought goods from the
senatorial possessions in Sicily and Sardinia to Rome, had a cargo
space of only 786 cubic feet. It is true that descriptions of much
larger vessels are found. These ships, from calculations made by
Assmann and other authors, must have had a capacity of 26,000 to
200,000 cubic feet. Graser even goes so far as to say, from the
quantity of freight carried, that the ship “Alexandreia” belonging
to Hiero of Syracuse must have had a capacity of 240,000 cubic feet.
Mention is even made of one ship having a length of 120 ells, while for
another a depth of 29 ells is given.
All these dimensions are not to be despised even now, but, considering
the small size of the ports and navigable highways of those days as
well as their lack of depth, they must have been an impossibility.
Furthermore, all these numerical data rest only on hypotheses, and
cannot be exact.
The short, bluff merchant ship of the Ancients was certainly not longer
than the vessel with oars and its average size does not seem to have
exceeded that of a “tialque”.
The progress of shipbuilding was gradual throughout Western Europe, and
as the same may be said of the Mediterranean, since the Middle Ages,
what reason is there, then, for supposing that the vessels of Antiquity
were of extraordinary dimensions?
In this order of ideas, the _Prora of Samothrace_, discovered in 1863
and dating from B. C. 306, gives an exact idea of the war ship of the
Ancients and proves that this vessel differed little in shape and size
from the ships of the Middle Ages.
The bottom was slightly curved near the middle and the hull was made
slender toward the ends. The mean draught of water was one metre, while
that of the largest vessels scarcely exceeded 1.50 m. (~Assmann~,
_Seewesen_, p. 1597, etc.) The stem and the sternpost were ornamented
with signs which are unimportant for this study.
Ships with oars of which the stern was rounded at the level of
the water line, carried at the bow a ram, which was used to sink
the enemy’s ships and to smash their oars. A heavy block of wood,
ornamented with the head of a ram, prevented the ram from penetrating
too far into the side of the ship which it attacked.
The arrangements of the ram varied a good deal as is shown by the
figures, but the form of the vessel itself was not influenced thereby.
This element was the emblem of power and was meant to inspire terror.
There is nothing astonishing then that, in most of the old drawings,
the draughtsman should have dwelt rather on this detail than on the
ship itself, thus causing the shape of this latter to become an
accessory.
The ram, which was already in use among the Phœnicians, did not
appear among the Greeks until B. C. 536. (Dr. ~Em. Lübeck~, p. 13.)
Whence it follows, and it cannot be repeated too often, that the art
of shipbuilding had reached a higher degree of perfection with the
Phœnicians than among the Greeks and that the former exercised a
preponderating influence over the peoples dwelling along the shores of
the Mediterranean.
Hence, the thesis of uniformity of the boats of the Mediterranean could
be sustained, but this would not imply that each people had known but
one type of vessel. Boats of sundry types existed at the same time;
there were the short bluff merchant ships side by side with the long
vessels driven by oars, and perfected types were crowded against the
primitive.
History tells us, that Cæsar put to sea with a fleet thirty days after
the cutting of the wood to be used in its construction. (~Nicolas
Witsen~, p. 12, col. 1.) It would be hard to grant that the boats which
composed this fleet were well finished ships moved by oars. They were,
doubtless flat bottomed vessels, of the type which is still found
in the Adriatic and which is so well reproduced in the “Rascona”.
(~Paris~, Vol. II, and _Das Seewesen der Gr. und R._ by Dr. ~Em.
Lübeck~, p. 39.)
The rapid construction of the fleet in question furnishes one proof
more in favor of the point raised regarding the small size of ships.
In order to show more clearly what is meant by uniformity in the
shape of vessels, attention will be called to the “tialque” type of
the Netherlands, which is found, with slight changes and under other
names, from Denmark to Belgium. All the boats of this type have a
common fundamental character; but with the tialque are met still other
types which are also found elsewhere.
So, from Denmark to Belgium, there is a series of well defined
fundamental types and hence we can speak of common forms.
This remark applies also to the Mediterranean (_Dictionnaire des
Antiquités grecques et romaines_, 36th part, p. 24; _Navis_),
where these fundamentals have been preserved for centuries: the old
types of wooden vessels to be met with at the present time still give
an exact idea of them, save in what relates to the rudder and rig.
Sundry types have evidently been set aside or have undergone changes
demanded by local conditions, so that, in order to find among them
the fundamental characters belonging to a given country, it is often
necessary to seek elsewhere.
So, for example, there are found in Holland, at ’s Gravenmoer (North
Brabant), an old Rhenish type; in Portugal, small fishing boats which
resemble greatly the ancient Egyptian vessels and, in the Arabian Sea,
a ship which, aside from the rudder and rigging, resembles, to an
astonishing degree, the primitive Roman vessel. And the Arabs claim
that they have the oldest and best ships (compare ~Paris~, Vol. III,
nᵒ 135, with the relief of the “port of the Tiber” which appears in
~Baumeister~, _Denkmäler des Klassischen Altertums_, fig. 1688).
If vessels moved by oars underwent no changes as the result of the
invention of gunpowder, the cause must be sought in the slenderness of
their construction required by the small motive power which they could
put forth. The number of oarsmen was limited and very soon a maximum
was reached which could not be exceeded.
In view of the fact that a practical vessel having more than
three banks of rowers could not be constructed, and that the old
reproductions which are known never show more than three, it seems
permissible to conclude that the ancient writers who speak of four
banks of oars and more, have allowed their imaginations to run away
with them or, which appears more exact, that they had a way of counting
other than the one adopted in our time? Doubtless, it was desired to
designate the number of oars which passed in banks through the side of
the ship.
Huys’s drawing, according to Breugel (dating from the middle of the
XVIth century), shows oars grouped thus in sets of threes, and the
same process is found in other old pictures; if these pictures show
triremes, the question would be simple to explain.
A reproduction of the trireme, often referred to, is that of the
bas-relief of the Acropolis at Athens. (_Baumeister Denkmäler des
klassischen Altertums_, fig. 1689.) Copies of it are found in all
the works, but they do not always agree and hence can offer nothing
certain. (Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann~, p. 62.)
Let a few more words be said now about merchantmen.
[Sidenote: II 26]
For these, the most beautiful drawing known is certainly the
aforementioned relief of the port of the Tiber, preserved in the
Torlonia Museum. In this is seen a large merchant ship with inclined
stem and rounded stern. At about two-thirds of the length of the ship
from the bow, the gunwale projects so as to give a support to the
steering oar. This mode of construction is still found on several
Indian boats, etc. The ordinary mast, set up near the middle of the
vessel and provided with a stay, is secured by strong ropes. The square
sail can be lowered by means of ropes running through rings fastened
thereto. Then the mast carries but a single yard; a jib is attached to
its upper end.
A mast called “dolon” stands forward; it was used, in the beginning, to
hoist in a small life boat. It is still called the “boat mast” probably
for this reason.
The cabin occupies all the available space aft of the mast.
The sails were generally square; they were sometimes of rectangular
shape on the Alexandria freight ships.
War ships, like important freight vessels, always had two masts. (Dr.
~Breusing~, _Die Nautik der Alten_, p. 56.) In action, the sails were
furled and the masts lowered, in order to save them from being reached
by the ram of the enemy’s ships. (Dr. ~Breusing~, p. 71.)
[Sidenote: II 31]
Attention should not bear alone on large ships, but also on the small
merchant vessels. The most beautiful picture of this sort of boat is,
unquestionably, the old relief of the Cathedral at Salerno. (_Jahrbuch
des Kaiserlichen Deutschen Archeol. Instituts_, Vol. IV, p. 103, fig.
1_c_.) Aside from the question of the rudder, the vessel there shown
would easily pass for a modern craft.
This boat is in course of being discharged; the bridge is lowered and
the forward panel is raised. The mast which is down had to be taken
from its step for this purpose; this method was still much in use in
our country in the XVIIIth century. The steering oars hang alongside of
the vessel, resting against the projecting side.
The boat itself is completed by a stem and a sternpost. The step of the
mast is about one-third of the length of the boat from the bow, and
abaft this is seen the hold. This last, as in our present river boats,
is closed by means of panels. Even the grooves (half-rounds), into
which the panels are set, can be made out and, in these grooves, even
the openings to let the water run off (shown by little marks) are to be
seen.
The panels are on a slope, as shown by the upper lines.
The meaning of these little half-circles was not understood by the
author of the Jahrbuch afore-named. (_Jahrbuch des Kais. Deutsch. Arch.
Instituts_, Vol. IV, 1889, p. 103.)
Two mooring bitts are seen near the bow and four near the stern; their
special form allows it to be assumed that they were to be used as a
support for oars, which gave the means for going ahead in a calm.
The mast, which is short and thick, is provided with cleats throughout
its entire height, hence it may be supposed that these pieces of wood
were placed there for climbing the mast. Hence it is probable that this
boat did not have rigging sufficiently strong for this purpose. It is
true that no ropes are seen in the figure in question, but it cannot be
concluded, however, that the vessel had none.
It is my opinion that this boat could not have been larger than a small
“tialque”. Here is another proof in support of the argument that,
in the course of ages, boats have been but little changed and that
their construction soon reached a high degree of perfection. There is
nothing surprising to be found in this assertion, if the masterpieces
bequeathed to us by the Greeks and Romans be considered.
It is matter of regret that no positive data exist in regard to the
position of the oarsmen among the Ancients, because it is just on this
point that vessels propelled by oars were modified in the Middle Ages.
It was at this period that the oars handled by one man, according to
the primitive fashion, gave place to a single bank of heavy oars each
of which was worked by several rowers.
This transition was not coïncident with the fall of the Western Roman
Empire (476). In fact, the Emperor Leo (886 to 911) advised the
construction of “dromon” biremes (~La Croix~, p. 75), and even in the
XIth century, a writer is seen to speak of a _chélandre_ or _sélandre_,
to which he attributes a very high speed and which had two banks of
oars superposed. (~La Croix~, pp. 75 and 79.)
The change came about gradually, in all probability.
In the XIIIth century, only vessels with one bank of oars, galleys, are
mentioned. (See, for banks, ~van Yk~, p. 11; ~Torr~, _Ancient Ships_,
pp. 19 et seq.)
Meanwhile, the rudder arose and its appearance brought about changes in
the stern of the vessel.
As a general rule, little is known about the condition of the art
of shipbuilding at the beginning of the Middle Ages. All the same,
however, this period must have seen an important marine on the
Mediterranean and, consequently, the art of shipbuilding must have been
flourishing. There is no doubt that the Crusades (1096-1291) had a
great influence on the old state of affairs. Venice became the centre
of progress and Genoa followed closely.
The importance of the navy at this time is attested by the famous navy
yards at Venice and by a great number of edicts which relate to the
construction of ships. Thus, there is found in the XIIIth century an
edict which determines the water line for the vessel loaded and for the
vessel empty. (~Jal~, p. 267, article 4.)
In regard to the construction of ships with oars, it is only necessary
to refer to the edicts of the Emperor Leo which were observed, even
to the Xth century. This Emperor ordered that the galleys should be
sufficiently strong and swift, involving thus great length and little
beam, but the latter was to be, however, proportioned to the length.
These edicts were simple, but categorical.
Later on, people were no longer free to build as they pleased. They had
to follow the rules laid down regarding the form of the ships which
bore a certain relation to the capacity and to the trips to be made.
The length of the boats was not extraordinary: ~Jal~ gives, for
example, a length of about 44 metres for vessels propelled by oars.
This figure, as one can see, differs little from that of the vessels of
antiquity, and was little exceeded later on.
Just as in the times of the Greeks and the Romans, the Middle Ages had
their galleys, and their merchant vessels of more rounded form. Thus,
for example, the city of Genoa sent to Pisa, in 1284, a fleet of eight
galleys and caravels. (~Jal~, p. 250.)
The galleys, however, were not used exclusively as vessels of war;
they also served generally, in the XIVth century, as merchantmen.
(~Jal~, p. 250.)
We have from the Middle Ages no drawings or pictures which give the
means of deducing with any certainty the shape of the ships. The oldest
picture comes to us from Pietro Laurentini, an artist of the XIVth
century; then there exists another by the hand of Raphaël (1483-1520),
and dating from the beginning of the XVIth century.
These two reproductions appear in ~Jal~’s work (_Archéologie navale_),
but their small scale almost destroys their value. They are remarkable
however from this that the first shows the double mast of the Ancients
and the cabin on the after deck, while Raphaël’s carries a castle at
the bow and stern, as well as the vessel’s rudder.
It follows from a comparative examination of old coins that the rudder
had come generally into use in the XIIIth century. It is superfluous,
however, to recall that, nevertheless, the steering oar was still used
on many vessels as a rudder.
The invention of gunpowder, near the middle of the XIVth century, made
no changes in the structure of the galleys, because the propelling
force was still limited to the strength of the rowers, which made a
slender shape a prime necessity for the boat and prevented the mounting
of any large number of guns on board.
The galleys reached their apogee in 1600. Shortly afterward, they
began to lose their value as war ships by reason of the increasing
power of the big, rounded sea-going vessels.
A striking example of the fighting inferiority of the galleys is found
in the naval action between the French ship “Le Bon” and 36 galleys,
on July 10, 1684. (~Paris~, Vol. III, no. 126.) This vessel was only
41.41 m. long from bow to stern, with a total width of 11.04 m. and a
depth of 5.03 m.; the keel was 37.03 long.
The galleys, on the other hand, were 48.77 m. long over all, 21.20 m.
on the keel, with a breadth of 5.90 m. on the deck (8.47 m. between the
apostis); the oars were 2.5 metres long.
The higher position of the artillery on “Le Bon”, as well as its more
solid frame and thicker planking, allowed this ship to hold the enemy
at bay and to escape when the wind rose.
If the strength of the crews be examined, the fighting inferiority
of the galleys stands out still more clearly; while the French ship
carried only 600 to 800 men, the galleys had on board from 12,000 to
14,000 all told. Consequently, from as far back as the XVIIth century,
the galleys were used in France almost exclusively for towing. Thus
we read that in 1688, the wind having fallen, Duquesne had his ships
brought by galleys under the walls of Algiers in order to bombard that
city.
The galleys continued to appear nevertheless in the French navy until
1773.
It was at the battle of Zierikzee, in 1302, where the Flemings fought
against the French, the Dutch and the Genoese, that, according to the
old Florentine historian Villani, the superiority of the broad-beamed
vessels of the North Sea, over the galleys, was first felt. The Count
of Flanders had fitted out, for this battle, eighty ships or “coques”,
built in accordance with the maritime demands of the place. (Villani
says: _ottantia navi, overo cahi, al medo di quello mare_.) According
to this historian it was also the first time that vessels of this kind
had to be fought.
The battle of Zierikzee was the cause, from this time on, of giving
more and more attention, in the Mediterranean, to the building of
broad-beamed ships. Besides, necessity forced it. The Crusades brought
about more frequent relations with the peoples of the North against
whom defense must needs be had.
In the beginning, the people from the North called upon the Genoese
and others along the shores of the Mediterranean to transport the
Crusaders to Palestine. The route by the Mediterranean became thus
known to them; but they very soon undertook to build ships themselves
so as to escape from the exorbitant transportation charges of the
Italians. Nevertheless, Venice, Genoa, etc. remained the principal
warehouses; and many ships were still built there, especially for
France. Philip the Handsome, in his struggle against Edward I of
England, in 1295, and Philip of Valois, in his war against Edward III,
in 1337, both made use of Genoese vessels. (~La Croix~, p. 92.)
Furthermore, as ~Jal~ has written (_Archéologie Navale_, Vol. II, p.
352), it can be granted with certainty that the vessels built in the
French ports of the Mediterranean, were identical with those used in
Italy. The mutual relations between maritime peoples and their common
interests inevitably brought about these imitations. Venice yielded
nothing to Genoa; Genoa was close on the heels of Pisa and, in the
improvements made in shipbuilding, this last city did not allow herself
to be out-done by Barcelona, Marseilles or Constantinople.
Under these circumstances, the writer just quoted was right, then, in
saying: “The basin of the Mediterranean had, therefore, but one navy,
at least so far as the principal vessels were concerned; it is so
to-day and it was certainly so in ancient times.” I add also for my
part that the characteristic differences offered by types of vessels
among themselves, have undergone no change in the course of ages
and this applies not only to the basin of the Mediterranean, but to
shipbuilding in general.
These old types, however, are not to be sought among the large vessels,
but rather among the small ones and, particularly, among fishing smacks.
Among all nations, even among all seafaring people, fishermen have
most preserved their ancient character and modified their manners and
customs least. The exercise of their hard calling on the sea has made
them hostile to any innovation coming from the shore and has been
unable, except in passing over their bodies, to make them give up the
old types of ships, the issue of tradition and usage. Hence, fishermen
have kept longest the antique forms and it is to them that we must
go to find them. Thus there are seen in Norway fishing boats which,
aside from the rudder, reproduce almost completely the ancient “Viking
ship”. The Dutch “Bom” is, in like manner, a remnant of the “cog”,
and Portugal offers barks which call to mind the old mural paintings
discovered in Italy.
Naturally many types have disappeared already, and their number is
constantly increasing through the use of steel in shipbuilding. Thus it
is that there now no longer exist any but a few rare specimens of the
galleys and they are used merely for festive occasions (examples: the
galley utilized for the naval review of the Hollandsche-Diep, and that
used in Portugal on certain holidays).
The oldest work which treats of galleys is called: “Fabbrica di
galere”. (~Jal~, _Archéologie Navale_, Vol. II, pp. 6 _et seq._) The
first complete information about them dates from the time of Louis XIV
and is given by the Chevalier Barras de la Penne (1698). Nor should
the work of Fürstenbach, dating from 1623, be passed by in silence.
(~Witsen~, p. 186.)
[Sidenote: II 24]
[Sidenote: II 38]
[Sidenote: II 46]
[Sidenote: II 47]
Although the galleys are sufficiently known, a few more words may
still be said about them. These boats were long and narrow and rose
but little above the water. Their beam was generally one-seventh or
one-eighth of their length and the part out of water rose to only 1 m.
to 1.50 m. in height. A galley 40.60 m. long, for example, had a beam
of only 5.27 m. The total length of the stem was 3.28 m. and of the
sternpost it was 3.62 m. The main frame was placed at three-sevenths
of the length of the vessel and was flattened on the under side. The
vessel narrowed forward and aft and the deck covered its entire length.
Near the middle was built the _corsia_ (guard bridge) into which were
let the benches of the rowers. On each side, close by the planking and
parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vessel, were the apostis,
heavy timbers into which were let the thole pins. The oars, arranged in
a single bank, were each worked by four or five men who rose from their
bench as they pushed forward on the loom of the oar, to prepare for a
stroke, and fell back on it as the stroke was completed. The oarsmen
were stark naked at this work. A man of average strength could stand
it, as a rule, for an hour, and yet this work had sometimes to go on
for twelve consecutive hours in time of war. What a painful situation,
when it is considered that these men were exposed to the inclemencies
of the air and to the fire of the enemy!
In order to strengthen the rowers at their work, bread steeped in
wine was put into their mouths. If they fell exhausted, they were
mercilessly flogged by the boatswain who walked up and down the
bridge, and if they did not rise, death awaited them: they were thrown
overboard.
If it be borne in mind, furthermore, that the rowers were rivetted to
the ship by irons which were rarely removed; that they generally lived
and died on their benches, it will be understood that the galleys were
a terror and a shame for the seafaring peoples.
It was rare to meet with volunteers for this trade which included, for
the matter of that, only slaves and prisoners of war. Still, the rowers
were not all equal; they were divided into three distinct classes: 1ᵒ
those condemned to the galleys, their hair and beard being shaved;
2ᵒ the slaves, among whom were Turks, Moors and Negroes, these last
considered to be the best rowers, their distinctive mark was a tuft of
hair on the head; 3ᵒ the “benevoglie” or volunteers among whom were men
who had served their time and been liberated, but who were not able to
find a place and so sought a refuge on the galleys, as well as bandits
and others who no longer had anything on which to live.
The clothing of the rowers was very simple: they received every year
two shirts, two pairs of breeches, a red cloth jacket a sou’wester for
winter, a red cap and two blankets per bench of oarsmen.
Rations were issued to them, but they could buy more if the food
supplied were not enough.
The part of the hold not occupied by ammunition was reserved for
provisions; it also included a bit of a cabin for the captain and
officers.
When the galley stopped, a large sail was stretched above and across
the ship, one side being raised so as to let the air enter.
Their slender build did not give the galleys sufficient stability at
sea, consequently the rowers were often very much tried by the waves.
The armament was simple: three guns were placed at the bow, the
principal one of which was in the middle (set in the longitudinal axis
of the ship); on the large galleys, there were found, as a rule 18, 48
and 12 pounders and, on the small ships, there were one 12-, one 24-and
one 8-pdr.
The fighting value was measured by the amount of iron which could be
thrown at once and per man. Take, for example, a galley throwing 44
kilogrammes of iron at once and carrying a crew of about 400 men. There
would be hurled, then, 0.110 m. per man. A galley cost 400,000 francs,
or 9090 francs per kilogramme of iron.
Compare this galley with an ordinary war ship, carrying 55 pieces of
artillery with a crew of 1100 men and able to throw 1000 kilogrammes
at once (or 0.910 m. per man), and assume its cost to be 3000 francs
per kg. The lower fighting efficiency, of the galleys and their much
greater relative cost can be clearly seen. This ordinary war ship
throws at once nine times more iron per man while its cost is less than
that of the galley considered.
In conclusion, it will be stated that the speed of the galleys was
2.50 m. per second or 5.6 miles per hour, and that sails were available
in addition to the oars. They carried two masts, one at the bow and the
other about midship, both provided with lateen sails (~Jal~, _Clos.
nautique_, p. 749), which were furled while the vessel was in action.
[Sidenote: II 43]
No further demonstration is necessary to show that the galley was not
suited to take the Ocean, which was more and more frequented. The
invention of gunpowder soon brought out this vessel’s inferiority for
fighting. Hence endeavors were made to improve it.
[Sidenote: II 45]
Thus there is seen to arise in the XVIth century a ship, the
“galliass”, of which the bow and stern recall the boats of broad beam,
and of which the intermediate part brings the galleys to mind. This
ship had more beam than the galleys; its breadth being to its length as
1 to 5½.
With a length of 50.01 m., the galliass had a beam of 9.01 m. and drew
3.35 m.; its greatest depth was 6.52 m. There were 25 oars on each side
and the benches of the rowers were 1.30 m. apart. The oars were handled
at times by 7 or 8 men and as the sides were higher above the water
than those of the galleys, the rowers were better protected against
waves.
The galliass carried generally from 700 to 1000 men. Fifty guns were
mounted in the towers and between the benches of the rowers.
The galliass was more stable on the water than the galley, protected
the rowers better and carried more guns; but, just on account of these
advantages, it was less agile as its propelling force was limited by
the restricted number of rowers.
The galliass, like the galleys carried three masts furnished with
lateen sails. These were very hard to work, so that in violent winds
the large sails were replaced by others of smaller size.
It is not astonishing that even the galliass should have been inferior
to the broad-beamed ships. Furthermore, they were never numerous; at
the end of the XVIth century, in the naval battle of the allied powers
against the Turks at Lepanto, only six of them could be assembled.
(~Jal~, _Archéologie Navale_, p. 394.) It is therefore very doubtful
whether the invincible “Armada”, the famous fleet of 1588, included a
division of twenty-two galliass; the greater part of these vessels were
undoubtedly galleys.
In the same way, there existed among the Ancients, beside the _naves
longæ_, broad beamed ships which were used in the beginning solely for
commerce and transportation.
The invention of gunpowder, and still more the closing by the Turks of
the old route to the Indies, at the end of the XVth century, made a
change in this situation. From this time, trade moves toward the ocean;
a new route to the Indies is sought and the New World is discovered.
Then too, the nations of the North greedy for riches and no longer
content with the Baltic Sea, take their chances toward the South.
All these circumstances brought in a turning point for the history of
the naval architecture of the Mediterranean. In spite of the efforts
made to preserve the supremacy of the old types of ships, by building
larger vessels with oars, such as the galliass etc., it was necessary
to retreat, not only in Italy but also in Spain and Portugal before the
more powerful fleets of the peoples of the North.
Hence it can be said, in the order of the ideas already expressed in
speaking of the battle of Zierikzee, which occurred in 1302, that the
XIVth and XVth centuries saw the naval architecture of the Ocean make
its way into the Mediterranean. On the other hand, the art of the
Mediterranean was not without its influence on the former.
It is not easy to reconstitute the types of ships inherent to the
Mediterranean; indeed, but few data remain concerning these vessels.
All that can be done is to refer to the contracts above mentioned of
Louis IX. The first reliable information dates from a period subsequent
to the middle ages, and notably from the XVIIth century.
All the old drawings known at present leave something to be desired and
are always out of proportion. The only conclusion to be drawn from them
is that there were several kinds of boats.
It is really to be regretted, as ~Jal~ says, that we have no more exact
information. There is no doubt, however, that, even in the middle ages,
there were good broad-beamed ships (~Jal~, _Clos. naut._, p. 1057;
~La Croix~, p. 86; idem, p. 96) which allowed at least five hundred
fighting men to be carried. (~Jal~, _Archéologie Navale_, p. 380, 2d
part, note.) Even horses were loaded on board. (~Jal~, _Archéologie
Navale_, p. 386, etc. ~Holmes~, p. 68.)
In order to reconstitute the types inherent to the Mediterranean, it is
necessary to find out, first of all, what models were still existing
at the end of the XVIIIth century, at the time when wooden vessels
exclusively were used.
It will be remarked, before beginning this examination, that boats were
constantly beached when not under way; let it also be noted that the
waters of the Mediterranean were calm, when compared with those of the
Ocean. This latter point especially explains why vessels with oars were
there so long in use. (~Paris~, Vol. IV, p. 206.)
In order to ground the boats, the bottom of the hull had to be flat
and, as a matter of fact, the centre body of the vessels under
consideration is wide and flat, wider even than that of the vessels
from the North. The beam of these latter was to the length as 1:4,
while in most of the Mediterranean vessels this proportion varies
between 1:2½ and 1:3½ (generally, 1:3).
The Mediterranean boats are pointed toward the stem and the sternpost,
which is the contrary of what exists for the Northern vessels and this
shape gives the former an appearance all their own. Furthermore, the
sides of these ships do not come at all together toward the top; at
most, they are vertical; in other words: the greatest width is at the
top.
Among the old models, some are found which have: 1ᵒ a straight sloping
stem; 2ᵒ a straight vertical stem, and 3ᵒ a curved stem which is convex
or concave at the top.
Alongside of the broad-beamed vessels, there are a few longer ones, of
which the beam is to the length as 1 to 5.
Intentionally, no mention has been made of the sternpost as this has
been modified in most cases by the adoption of the rudder.
[Sidenote: II 48]
Besides, many boats have a flat projection at the stern furnished with
a balustrade,--a detail which is found also on the Greek and Roman
vessels. This position was originally reserved for the helmsmen who
operated the steering oars.
[Sidenote: II 49]
[Sidenote: II 50]
Among the more important types must be counted the _Xebecs_, with
three masts furnished at the beginning with lateen sails. These latter
were replaced later on by square sails. The ship thus modified was
then called a _mystic Xebec_ or a _polacca Xebec_. The _Polacca_ also
existed at this time.
[Sidenote: II 53]
The length of these vessels--about 15 metres--was to the beam as 3½
to 1. The stem, sensibly straight at the top, becomes curved at the
foot and is provided with a ram similar to that of a “Galleon”. The
sternpost is straight but it leans back and the after deck projects.
This type of vessel can be compared to a broad-beamed galley, Astern,
the _Polacca_ more nearly resembles ocean vessels.
All these vessels are originally from the West of the Mediterranean.
(~Paris~, Vol. II, nᵒˢ 78 and 90; _idem_, Vol. I, nᵒ 25.) The
Genoese “pink” can be placed in the same category. (~Paris~, Vol. II,
no. 119.)
[Sidenote: II 35]
[Sidenote: II 37]
[Sidenote: II 40]
[Sidenote: II 39]
There is still found in Tunisia the “Carèbe”, from 12 to 15 metres long
with a beam of one-third of this length. This boat seems to have a
double stem (the plank sheer reenters). Let this type be compared with
the reproduction which appears on the tower of Pisa, etc. (~Paris~,
Vol. IV, nᵒ 201), which also shows a boat with a double stem.
Alongside of the “Carèbe”, are the Arabian “Sandales”, 12 metres long,
2.85 m. wide and 1.30 m. deep. Jal considers this kind of boat as one
of the oldest types.
The Arabian “Sandale” is a very slender vessel, narrower amidships than
most of the others.
[Sidenote: II 54]
[Sidenote: II 60]
The Maltese boats, the “Speronare”, are still more singular; they are
15 metres long, 4.40 m. beam, 1.20 m. draught with a capacity of about
17 tonnes. The stem and the sternpost are vertical. These boats have
sometimes at the stern a flat projection and at the bow a truncated ram.
The same type, 5.30 m. long, 1.95 m. beam and 1 metre deep, becomes a
“Tarella”. This boat has no ram. There is no doubt that these are very
ancient forms. (Compare, for example, the “Speronara” with Layard’s
reproduction.)
The “Schifarro” and “Laoutello” of Sicily, with their curved stem
and sternpost, are not less remarkable. These vessels also recall
reproductions of the middle ages which present the same characteristics.
On the East coast of Italy are found the “Tartana”, 17.90 m. long,
4.90 m. beam, and drawing 0.80 m. of water and the “Braca da
Pasca”, 12.20 m. long, 2.30 m. beam and 1.60 m. deep; both of them
flat-bottomed and solidly built. (~Paris~, Vol. II, pl. 85, 86 and 87.)
It should be noted that still other types of flat-bottomed boats are
met with on the Adriatic, among them are the “Rascona”, a very narrow
vessel for its length (1 to 5), and the “Topo”. The former is also
steered with the oar.
Greece and Turkey have between them many points of contact. Two types
are found there: one with a straight sloping stem, the other with a
curved stem: the “Scaphé” and the “Sacobeva”. (~Paris~, 3, nᵒˢ 91,
89 and 88.)
The Arabian Sea, to go no further, gives the “Baggala” and the
“Dungiyah”; the latter has probably now disappeared. These are very old
types with a strongly sloping stem. Allusion has been made above to
Greek figures in which the analogy with these vessels is complete.
Some types have shifted their ground. The best proof of this is the
“Balancella” of Spain which came originally in all probability from
Naples (~Paris~, Vol. II, nᵒ 61) and which resembles greatly the
“Trabocola”.
All these boats, and only the principal ones have been mentioned,
allow the reconstitution of a few fundamental types which are still to
be found now and which were in existence several centuries ago. The
development of trade, expeditions to points further and further away,
which had to be undertaken, have caused the old types to be replaced
long since by others intended for navigation beyond the seas. This
explains why the primitive types no longer exist except in vessels of
small importance. For these latter, it was not necessary to seek new
forms, because the small builders continued to follow traditions and
to work from models. Steel has gained ground very slowly among them,
and insensibly and only as the new generations come to replace the old,
will the types of the primitive boats disappear.
Although several types exist, it follows from what precedes that the
Mediterranean types are broad in comparison to their length, and flat
amidships; besides, they are pointed at bow and stern. With these
data, Fürstenbach’s work, which dates from 1629, acquires more value
in our eyes, because it contains reproductions of a Dutch ship and a
few Mediterranean vessels, in which can be discovered many known types,
although they are called by separate names.
The difference of form between the types of the North and those of
the South, already pointed out before, is shown there clearly; it
appears in all its force when the midship frames of the two boats
are brought together. (Compare “die Mittlere Stamenale”, fig. II,
with “die Stamenale” of fig. 16, as well as the plans of the ships.)
The difference in the height of the stem and sternpost is not less
noticeable, and indeed, the Mediterranean ships really appear higher
than ours. It will be seen further on that, under the influence of the
South (_i. e._ of the Mediterranean) the people of our country began to
make their vessels higher.
It was the South which inaugurated the system of castles which were
built on the ships in the Middle Ages. It is to be noticed that
already, in the Xth century, the Emperor Leo laid down rules concerning
their construction. (~La Croix~, p. 6.) Some castles are found even on
old Roman engravings. Hence, there is every authority for supposing
that these castles rose progressively.
The improvements of the means of defense, and hence the changes in
military tactics, after the invention of gunpowder, contributed a great
deal toward enhancing the importance given to these castles.
It was known in Holland that the Mediterranean vessels were more
pointed than ours, and a proof of it is found in the passage (p.
355) from van Yk’s well known work, where this author tells us that
the special qualities of our ships as sailers was attributed to the
greatly curved stern and hence to the full bow. And it is surely not
uninteresting, then, to read further on (p. 85~A~) that the father of
the author of the work, accompanied by his three sons, went to Genoa to
build vessels able to advance even against the wind, something unknown
until then in that city. Hence the art of tacking was not known at
Genoa at that period, a manœuvre, furthermore, which the lateen sails
did not allow. It was not until later that these sails were replaced
by square sails. Hence it was not at all strange that ships with oars
remained so long in use on the Mediterranean. On the other hand, it may
be considered as proved that, from the earliest times, there existed
broad vessels alongside of the long craft fitted with oars. (~Jal~,
_Glossaire nautique_, p. 1049.)
Still, the few ancient boats which have been exhumed, seem to have
reached such a high degree of perfection, that naval architecture must
have attained a wonderful development even in the most distant ages.
This should not surprise us, however, when we see the masterpieces left
by the Mediterranean races, masterpieces which bear witness to their
esthetic and practical sense.
As the progressive developments of the ship in the middle ages are
studied and as the dimensions of docks and other installations among
the Greeks and Romans are considered, it can be stated positively
that giant ships were unknown to Antiquity and that the descriptions
given thereof should be examined in the light of the conditions which
dictated them to the author. Just, for example, as the importance
of the city of Babylon, and the excavations made there show, it was
singularly exaggerated by the ancient writers. Besides, do we not daily
read communications about the extraordinary sizes of ships and engines,
sizes which, after a little while, are surpassed by others still more
extraordinary? And so will it ever be.
In conclusion, let it be said that the ancient models are still to be
found in small wooden vessels and in fishing smacks. These models have
come down through the course of the centuries without other changes
than those wrought by the rudder and by decoration.
If then an exact idea of the types of the ships of the Ancients be
desired, thorough investigations should be started so soon as possible
in order to find them, to measure them and to make of them drawings
with dimensions, as has been done for the Netherlands.
This rapid comparative study allows the mutual relations which exist
between the nations to be established and to show that the ancient
types special to Southern France, to Spain and to Portugal all belong
to the Mediterranean family, that is to say: to the Southern centre.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
[Illustration: 2]
Het varen met weynig volk, het nauw en zober behelpen in leeftocht en
ons ingeboren zindelijkheid, die de schepen langdurend macht, doet
den Nederlantschen scheepvaart bloeyen, en niet het scheepsfatzoen.
~Nicolas Witsen~, 1671.[4]
These remarkable words are characteristic and show that something
else than the determined forms of ships is necessary to make a people
prosperous and great. If this were not so, our types of vessels, says
Witsen, would have been copied immediately by other nations.
Sobriety and cleanliness are two capital virtues of the Dutch race,
but, beside these virtues, our ancestors possessed one other important
quality: they were builders of economical ships and our present
builders have preserved this quality.
Let us hope, with full confidence, that this will always be so in the
future.
Witsen maintained--and this fact acquires a certain significance if it
be compared with what goes before--that foreigners who have come to
Holland to learn our art of shipbuilding, could not after returning
home, imitate our processes. I am not surprised, therefore, to see
these foreigners write that they could not use our architecture or our
measures.
Many a ship, says the author mentioned, has been analyzed and measured
abroad, but never has it been imitated; nor have our builders ever
harvested any praise for their work.
What Witsen then says about the English is quite characteristic: “In
deze braveeren zy (de Engelschen) opentlyk allen Landaert en wanen
niemant huns gelyk in deze konst te hebben”[5]. He imputes this
unfavorable judgment on the Dutch to the fact, that nothing relating
to naval architecture has ever been published in the Netherlands. It
will be seen, further on, that, as a matter of fact, people abroad hold
another opinion.
Data, which may not be doubted, teach us that, even in the highest
antiquity, the peoples living on the shores of the Mediterranean were
acquainted with navigation. Again, at the present time, the most
savage, the least civilized nations, settled by the banks of rivers,
had their boats, however primitive their forms may have been. Several
ancient ships were exhumed in Northern Europe during the second half
of the last century. It may be concluded from this that the people who
lived near the water were familiar with navigation from the earliest
times.
Moreover, it is evident that the long, narrow “canoe” obtained from the
hollowed out trunk of a tree was the oldest form of boat. The pole,
which was the primitive mode of propulsion, was soon replaced by the
paddle and the oar.
Man, by nature, seeks his ease; hence there is no cause for
astonishment that he should from the beginning have called the wind to
assist him in moving over the water. This accessory means soon became
the principal agent of propulsion.
The oldest inhabitants of the Netherlands were acquainted with
navigation, long before the Roman domination, and it is to be supposed
that they could only have reached the various points of their territory
by water.
Cæsar tells us (~Holmes~, p. 52) that the Britains used very light
vessels composed of a frame of linden branches covered with skins.
On the other hand, Pope Marcellinus (A. D. 293-304) relates to what
an extent the Saxons were to be feared because of their agility and
adds that their boats were made of buffalo skins stretched tight over
flexible wood.
By the side of the long vessels with oars, there must have existed very
soon broader and less swift boats. These boats were propelled by sails
and finally they wholly displaced the ships with oars.
Nothing concerning these primitive boats has been preserved.
It is well known that the oldest inhabitants of our country came from
the East. They, doubtless, were acquainted with the art of shipbuilding
and they must have adapted their types to the necessities forced upon
them by the state of the navigable highways of our low-lying lands.
It can be assumed that the cradle of the naval architecture of the
Netherlands was in the Baltic Sea. So, let us turn our eyes first
in that direction where, from the most distant times, the art of
shipbuilding must have reached a high degree of perfection. This
follows not only from the vessels of the time of the Vikings which
have been found, but also from the researches made in late years.
These researches have authorized the conclusion that, even in ancient
times, the peoples of the North seem to have crossed the North Sea. The
Swedish archeologist Montelius even assumes that there were already
continuous relations between the West coast of Sweden and the East
coast of England at the close of the age of stone.
Long before the expeditions, properly so called, made toward the South
by the Vikings, the latter crossed the sea, and it is settled beyond
question that they were given to navigation at the beginning of our
era. Tacitus speaks of the powerful fleets of the Swedes which, in
his time, did not use sails but only oars. The author of the work
_Vesterlandenes indflyelse poa Nordboenes og saerlig Nordmaennenes ydze
kulture leveesat og simfundfs Jorhold i Vickingetiden_ af ~Alexander
Bugge~[6] 1905, seems authorized, under these conditions, in saying
that the navigation of the North owes its origin to the Suevi and the
Goths settled on the shores of the Baltic, whence it passed later to
the Norsemen and the Danes. It may also be added, we believe, that
the same was the case with regard to the Netherlands, Great Britain,
Belgium and a part of the North of France.
The celebrated German philologist and archeologist, Professor H.
Zimmer, supposes that the Norsemen visited the Shetland Islands between
the years 590 and 644. This supposition has been confirmed by the
researches of Dr. Jacob Jacobsen, who lived for a long time in these
islands in order to study there the Norse names of the villages and
to pick up still other traces of the Norse language. This savant also
concluded that the Norsemen must have already visited the Shetland
Islands about the year 700.
[Sidenote: II 75]
If these facts be compared with what used to be done on the
Mediterranean, where the endeavor was always made to land at night, it
is impossible to repress a sentiment of admiration for the Norsemen
who crossed the sea fearlessly as far as Iceland and Greenland. Their
naval architecture must even then have reached an extraordinary degree
of perfection, full proof of which is found in the construction of
the superb ships “Oxberg” and “Gokstad”, found in the neighborhood of
Sandefijord (Christiania Museum of Antiquities).
Hence it is scarcely probable that the peoples of the North should have
learned anything at all about shipbuilding during their expeditions
across Western Europe. On the contrary, this part of Europe, including
the Netherlands, must have borrowed the art of shipbuilding from them.
It was also only very much later that a navy and fleet were spoken of
in England. (See ~Holmes~, _Ancient and Modern Ships_, 1900.)
Afterwards, the Norsemen extended their excursions more and more toward
the South; they settled in Normandy and took possession of England.
It was in the course of these expeditions that they became acquainted
with the naval architecture of the Mediterranean. It is needless to say
that they must then have appreciated the perfection which the latter
had reached. Furthermore their interest demanded it. They borrowed, in
particular from the nations of Southern Europe the anchor which these,
in their turn, had learned from the Greeks. The Norse word “akkeri”,
which means _anchor_, seems to be borrowed from the Anglo-Saxon “ancor”
which owes its origin to the Latin word “ancora”. The word “forkr”,
meaning a boathook, is also of foreign origin; it comes from the
Anglo-Saxon “forca” and from the Latin “furca”.
The types of the Norse vessels have, however, not been changed as the
result of contact with the South. The extraordinary life of the Vikings
and their continual piracies justify the conclusion that the merchant
ship was not improved among them, but rather among the peoples engaged
in a more regular trade. There is really, in my opinion, no cause
for astonishment that this development should have taken place in the
North-Western part of Europe. There are some even who claim that the
vessel “busse”, generally in use during the Middle Ages, came to us
from Normandy and dates from the beginning of the XIth century. In
order to support this claim, they take their stand on the fact that the
word “busse” appears first at about this time in the Chronicles.
J. Steenslup has called attention to a people of seamen called the
“Butsecarlas” (mentioned in the old Anglo-Saxon Chronicles of the year
1066 and in the book of Florent Wigorniensis, dating from 1052), who
occupied the coasts of Hasting and Yorkshire. This writer also calls
attention to the second part of the word, which belongs to the Norse
tongue, while the word “buza” occurs frequently in the Old Norse and
the Old Swedish, near the XIIIth century, and means a boat of sharply
curved form. This word, however, is of Romana origin: it corresponds,
so it said, to the Old French _buse_ or _buce_ (dating from about
1080); hence it is considered that the vessel “buce” is originally from
Normandy.
This, however, does not seem to be so sure. It has been shown, as a
matter of fact, that the same shapes of ships have been preserved for
ages even though under other names.
The fact that the word _buse_ is used for the first time about the year
1050 is, therefore, no proof that the type of vessel in question only
appeared at this time. I am rather inclined to think that the type
under consideration was already in existence, but that it was named
_buse_ or _buze_ in Normandy only toward 1050 and, probably, after
having undergone a few unimportant changes.
Shipbuilding was imported from the Baltic into the Netherlands by the
most ancient inhabitants of this country, the Frisians and the Saxons,
who then developed it aside from any foreign influence.
In this respect, the quotation from Witsen, which appears on page 47 of
his well known work, becomes really important: _De Vriezen komt de lof
toe van de herstelde scheepsbouw in Nederland, zoo de meeste schryvers
willen_[7]. The question is, indeed, that of a development of its own
in the North-Western part of Europe; the special and identical forms,
still found to-day, to a great extent, from Denmark to Belgium, are
sufficient proof of the fact.
This is why the Baltic may be spoken of broadly as the Northern centre,
in opposition to the Mediterranean Sea as the Southern centre. The
development of shipbuilding had this Northern centre as its starting
point and finally reached its highest mark in the Netherlands. France
and England came later.
The art of shipbuilding spread gradually through the Netherlands, which
continued to go forward until the time when France dominated all by the
continental blockade.
[Sidenote: II 72]
Let us return now to the types of ships. It has been said, that several
boats of the Vikings have been found. One, especially, was discovered
at Haugen in 1867, and another at Gokstad in 1880. Before that, in
1865, three had already been found in Jutland three specimens which
seemed to date from the Vth century. The largest of these was 70 feet
long.
[Sidenote: II 74]
A Viking vessel was also discovered at Charbuw, near Pommeren. The last
discovery was made in the suburbs of Oxenberg, near Christianiafjord,
Norway, in 1904.
All these boats are for oars; still sails could be used, they being
attached to the mast put up in the centre of the vessel. Considering
their beam, these ships are not so long as the vessels for oars of the
Mediterranean; in fact, their breadth is to their length as 1:5. They
are full near the middle and become narrower at the bow and stern. The
stem and the sternpost, which are both curved, rise very high above the
water. An oar attached to the stern was used as a rudder.
Their construction differed also from that of the Mediterranean
vessels; here, only ships having smooth sides are met with, whereas the
Viking boats are clinker built.
The “Gokstad” is one of the most beautiful specimens of this type.
~Holmes~ has described it in detail, in his fine work _Ancient and
Modern Ships_, pp. 55 _et seq._ This vessel is 77 feet and 11 inches
long, 16 feet and 7 inches broad and 5 feet and 9 inches deep; it is
also clinker built and rivetted.
[Sidenote: II 76]
[Sidenote: II 80]
Turning now toward Norway, let the fishing boats still in use there
to-day be considered; the resemblance of these boats to the Viking ship
will be found striking both in shape and structure. It is this which
makes ~Holmes~ say (p. 60): “Such an instance of persistency in type
is without parallel in the history of shipbuilding”.
It has been seen that this fact occurs not only in Norway but among all
nations. There is nothing to cause astonishment in again finding the
most ancient models in fishing boats. No class is more conservative
than are fishermen, who build their barks as their forefathers did and
on whom necessity alone can force new forms.
[Sidenote: II 103]
Aside from the specimens discovered in the North, little is left of
the oldest types of ships. There is nothing left of them save a few
vague descriptions and imperfect reproductions. In this order of ideas,
the coat of arms of the city of Amsterdam is the best known document
which the Netherlands supplies. ~Witsen~’s work contains, on page 362,
several reproductions of these arms dating from different epochs.
[Sidenote: II 112]
[Sidenote: II 105]
[Sidenote: II 110]
~Holmes~ reproduces, besides, the ships which figure on an old Bayeux
tapestry (1066), as well as the “Sandwich Seal” of 1238, the “Dover
Seal” of 1284 and the “Pool Seal” of 1325 (pp. 67 and 68). These three
seals agree with the oldest of the arms of Amsterdam and the ship which
they carry is, in every respect, similar to that of the said city. Too
much importance cannot be attached, however, to this detail, because,
just as the lion of heraldry is very little like a real lion, it is to
be supposed that the heraldic ship is not a faithful reproduction of
the real type.
The old illustrated Bible of 1200-1220, preserved in the Royal Library
of The Hague, and which seems to have come from Northern France,
contains also a remarkable reproduction; the type of boat which it
gives is also like the preceding ones.
[Sidenote: II 112]
The identity of all these figures allows it to be supposed that a
single type of ship ruled in Western Europe; while the clearly pointed
out timbers of the planking shows clinker built work.
[Sidenote: II 78]
The reproduction of the Bayeux tapestry shows, besides, that the sail
was very early in use; the pilot of one of the ships shown there
holds the sheet in his hand. Besides--and this fact is worthy of
notice--these vessels all have sensibly vertical stems and sternposts,
just as they are still found in our times on a few Norwegian fishing
boats.
The “cog”, the vessel in the arms of Amsterdam, is a very well known
mediæval type, of which the importance becomes marked in Western and
Central Europe from and after the XIIIth century, when the Hanse towns
and the Frisians improved it greatly.
This ship, which was very broad for its length, was hard to board,
whence its usefulness in time of war.
The “cog” seems to date back further than the institution of the
Hanseatic league (1250) judging by the fact that its name was known
well before this date. Thus, the inhabitants of the Netherlands had to
equip several cogs wherewith to fight the invasions of the Norsemen
(810-1010). It was the application of the feudal system to navigation.
(See ~La Croix~, p. 88.) It is known that this policy was finally
established under Charlemagne who subjugated the Frisians in 785 and
the Saxons in 804. (Mr. ~J. C. de Jonge~, _History of the Navy of the
Netherlands_, Vol. 1, p. 6.)
It is needless to say that everything was soon put to work to escape
it. A charter of the Roman King Otho I (936-973) calls for a tenth
of a “cog” (Kogschult) of which the product came to the bishop of
Utrecht. It was the commutation for the obligation to serve the prince
with cogs. This obligation seems, in principle, to have struck more
especially the countries lying along the present Zuyder Zee. (Mr. ~de
Jonge~, Vol. I, p. 7.)
The “cog” only appears for the first time in Germany in 1211, when
the Emperor Otho IV allowed the inhabitants of Wismar to maintain two
“cogs” (Cogken), and as many small vessels as they desired.
There are some who claim that the word cog, “Kuggr” in old Norse,
comes from the Italian “cocca”, the Spanish “coca” or the old French
“coche” and, consequently, they believe that the word is of Romance
origin. This does not seem likely; the “cog” is a type of vessel copied
from the old Viking boat and adapted to the special conditions of the
navigable highways in the low lands of the North-West of Europe. Hence
it was robust and full to facilitate grounding.
In reality, the “cog” was unknown in the Mediterranean; this follows
from what the Florentine historian Villani relates in connection with
the battle of Zierikzee. If this vessel had been a Mediterranean type,
the author would not have directed especial attention to this form of
ship. Hence the “cog” really belongs to Northern Europe and owes its
perfecting to the Frisians and most of all to the Flemings.
[Sidenote: II 103]
[Sidenote: II 97]
[Sidenote: II 98]
The “cog” was generally in use in the XIIIth century and it may be
assumed that the Norsemen already knew it in the time of the Vikings.
Unfortunately, very little concerning it has come down to us. The
oldest reproductions which we possess are those of the seals of
Amsterdam and Harderwijk. But the ship which figures in the arms
of the former city has undergone many changes in the course of the
ages. Witsen says that it is an ill drawn figure and he imputes this
defective work to the ignorance of the engravers. (~Witsen~, p. 363.)
[Sidenote: II 108]
The arms of Harderwijk agree with those of Damme (~Jal~, _Gloss.
nautique_, p. 1051); there is no doubt that the two seals show the
same ship (the only difference being that the Damme boat carries two
towers). If then the Harderwijk ship represents a “cog”, as is claimed
by ~Witsen~ (p. 364, 2d column), the same must be the case with the one
of Damme.
In so far as the Amsterdam seals are concerned, Witsen further remarks,
that the oldest could not date before the year 1200, as Amsterdam did
not rank as a city before that time. He adds that it is clearly seen
from these arms “hoe het met de bouwery der Kogschepen oulinx heeft
gestaen en hoe haer gestalte steeds is veranderd met den tyt, gelyck
men ook hedens-daegs (dus ten tyde van dien schryver) de gestalten der
schepen steeds verandern ziet” (bl. 364.)[8].
The cogs were clinker built.
Most of the reproductions show only a rounded bow. It can therefore
be deduced that the boat which appears in the arms of Harderwijk is a
variation of the ordinary “cog”. It should be noticed that all the old
types of Dutch ships show, like the “cog”, a slightly rounded bow with
no beak.
[Sidenote: II 124 etc.]
Although the old Flemish engravings of the XVth century show different
types of ships, it is to be remarked that none of these latter is
called a “cog”. Still all these engravings show thick-set boats, with
a rounded bow, which must certainly have been derived from the “cogs”
which have been scarcely changed.
[Sidenote: II 190]
There is even a reproduction which dates from the beginning of the
XVIth century and which shows a Zeeland “cog”. The bow and stern seem
there to be identical in shape; it is to be assumed however, judging
by the position of the mast which is at about one-third the length of
the ship abaft the stem, that the bow was fuller than the stern. The
stem is curved as is also the sternpost; the tiller passes through a
_statie_[9]. The mast rakes a great deal, as was required by the use of
the old sprits; the vessel is also provided with lee-boards.
The reproduction does not show clearly whether the hull is clinker
built. It is very possible that the sides were carvel built, because
this style of work was already in use at that time. The boat has no
“arcasse”[10]; the hold is covered with convex hatch covers.
[Sidenote: III 115]
[Sidenote: III 116]
This Zeeland “cog” is derived, doubtless, from the primitive “cog”.
Let us suppose this vessel as having a little fuller ends; as having
the mast in the middle; as having a steering oar instead of a rudder;
the lee-boards suppressed and a clinker-built hull; we shall have an
idea of the “cog”. This being so, the cause of the existence of our
“bom” becomes more important; this latter boat, as is well known, has
been greatly enlarged during the past century and has gained fullness
at the ends so as to increase its capacity. This is noticeable when
the bow of a “bom” is compared with that of the boat used for catching
shrimps. This latter has still the old rounded forms and is not so wide
in proportion to its length.
[Sidenote: III 112]
Let us suppose then that the “bom” is less square at its ends, higher
at bow and stern, that is to say: having a little more sheer, like the
boats of former times; there will be had a vessel which, with its
clinker built sides, will differ little from the old “cog”, still met
with as a rarity in our fleet of fishing boats.
Changed in this way, the “bom” no longer differs so much from the
“Egmonderpink” reproduced and described by ~Witsen~ (p. 168); it might
even be concluded that it descends therefrom. It can be understood from
this how it is, even in our days, that the “bommen” are often called
“pinken”.
Thus a picture, in the town Museum of The Hague, shows the beach at
Schevening covered, not with “bommen” but with “Egmonderpinken”.
This subject will be taken up again in speaking of fishing boats.
[Sidenote: II 243]
The shrimp fishing boats have been less changed; consequently, aside
from the _counter_ which was added later, they differed less from the
“Egmonderpink” which, finally, are found again almost complete in the
Ostend fishing boats, as ~Lelong~ has pointed out in his _Encyclopedia
of Naval Architecture_, p. 17.
The “bommen” were still able in the XIXth century to render good
service as coast guards. There is nothing to prove that they existed
in Witsen’s time; the contrary is more likely, as this author does not
mention them. He merely says that, beside the “Egmonderpinken”, other
and much smaller fishing boats were seen on the beach and that they
carried only fore and aft sails. If these boats had differed much in
shape from the “pinken”, it is to be believed that mention of the fact
would have been made. (See ~Witsen~, p. 168, 2d column.)
[Sidenote: II 187]
The artist who reproduced the Zeeland “cog” has left also the drawing
of a “Doghboot” which also came from Zeeland (~Witsen~, p. 170, 2d
col.) and which resembled very much this “cog”. The stem is a little
longer, the “statie” is not closed and the vessel has no convex hatch
covers. The rig only differs entirely from that of the “pink” and
everything leads to the belief that this kind of boat came from the
South.
[Sidenote: II 189]
[Sidenote: II 188]
The same artist gives a figure of a “Heude” or “Heu” from Brabant,
which might be called a small Zeeland “cog”. Still, there appear to
have been larger “Heudes”, judging by the Brussels “Heu” which was a
vessel carrying two pieces of artillery, but of which the reproduction
does not give the means for determining the shape of the ship.
It will be well to note here that great circumspection should be used
in the matter of these different names adopted to designate such or
such vessel. These names have been the cause of much confusion, an
example of which is offered by the famous discussion which took place
at Groningen, in 1902-1903, as to the question of knowing what a “pram”
was.
The crusades, which began in 1096, contributed largely toward
perfecting the ship. It was the same with the invention of the compass
in the first half of the XIIIth century (~Holmes~, p. 66). Commerce and
navigation rose higher and higher. Already in the course of the XIIIth
century, Damme became the ware house of Northern Europe. Italy, Spain
and France brought their products there.
The old maritime customs of Damme served later as the basis of maritime
law in Holland, Northern Germany (~M. Koenen~, p. 50), Sweden and
Denmark.
The XIIIth century saw commercial treaties concluded with the Hanseatic
cities and, in 1252, tariffs were fixed (~M. Koenen~). “Losbogen,
scharpoise, eenvaren” (boats with high sides) and “hekbooten” are in
question in these tariffs; and these names are also found in an act
made between the Lords of Kuyck and of Dordrecht to settle a difficulty
concerning the city duties at the former of these towns.
Among the “losbogen”, are found the boats which were unloaded at the
bow or “booge”, as is still done with vessels which carry wood.
The boats used on the Scarp, a tributary of the Scheldt, are placed
among the “scharpoises or exarpoises”.
The “eenvaren” were boats handled by a single boatman, and the
“hekbooten” were boats which had a square stern.
These few denominations suffice to prove that, even at so early a
period, there were different kinds of boats and that alongside of the
“cog” there were other vessels of smaller size.
In the beginning, the “cog” was guided by oars, as were other ships;
this method was abandoned gradually in the XIIIth century and the
steering oar gave place to the rudder.
It is not possible to determine, for Holland, the time when this change
occurred; the various coats of arms of Amsterdam can throw no light on
this subject. The ship, on many of them, has no rudder, symbolical,
doubtless of the fact that people could sail for all parts of the globe
(~Witsen~, p. 634), and that vessels started from Amsterdam bound to
all the countries upon earth.
It is to be assumed, nevertheless, that it was also in the XIIIth
century that the rudder was introduced into Holland. Some persons have
tried to make out that there was a certain connection between the
adoption of the compass and that of the rudder; this latter became
forced, they say, when, thanks to the compass, more and more distant
expeditions could be undertaken.
For my part, I do not think that there can be the slightest connection
between the two events; the Norsemen, in fact, crossed the North Sea
before the rudder was known.
The oldest reproductions of the “cog”, however primitive they may be,
have a mast with the sails and rigging of the boat at the centre. I
know of no reproduction showing oars. Hence it can be deduced that the
sails and rigging formed the main outfit and that the oars, of which
the number, even on the largest “cogs”, was limited to a maximum of 32,
or 16 on each side, were used only in calm weather. This is what is
done at the present time for vessels of less importance, such as the
“hoys”.
Hence the oars were only an accessory, the reverse of what was seen for
the galleys, where the oars were the main feature and the sails and
rigging were secondary. That is why, contrary to what is seen for the
“cog”, no reproduction of a galley without oars has been met with.
It is therefore wrong that the name of galleys should be given
sometimes to “cogs”. The former were never implanted in the
Netherlands, Mr. de Jonge has already pointed out the inaccuracy of the
passage of the Annexes of _Wagenaar_, vol. 3, p. 50, where that author
relates that the eleven hundred ships sent against Antwerp by Count
William III were almost exclusively galleys.
However, there is a question of galleys in the history of the
Netherlands; but it is not a question of the Mediterranean type. Their
number was limited and they were used only on rivers.
[Sidenote: II 145]
An engraving which dates from about the year 1600, and shows the
Scheldt in front of Antwerp, as well as a view of Gouda, shows boats of
this kind.
These galleys were only large rowboats, a little longer than the
ordinary ones (~de Jonge~, Vol. I, p. 80) and carried only 32 oars
at the most. The largest Netherlands galley belonged to the guard of
Amsterdam and was called the Terror of the Zuyder zee. Those which were
used in naval battles come from the South.
Any one who knows the national character of the Dutch will not be
astonished at seeing that the galley had no success in Holland. The
trade of the galley slave was considered too vile and no volunteer
rowers were to be found; furthermore slavery did not exist and serfdom
had been early suppressed. (~Witsen~, p. 194, col. 1.)
However, the cogs did not confine themselves to the simple forms which
have been sketched. The constant wars, which brought out the fortified
castles of the Middle Ages, soon led to the construction on the sea of
structures of the same sort, and gradually there were seen to develope
among us also the towers which arose at the bow and stern of the ships.
The seals of Amsterdam give a striking illustration of this.
Military tactics were not without their influence on this way of
building vessels. The crusades and the subsequent relations with the
peoples of the Mediterranean, among whom the practice of castles was
known, made us familiar with these superelevated constructions. If, in
a first encounter, the enemy’s vessel could not be sunk, it was boarded
so as to bring about a hand to hand fight. The conqueror was then he
who had at hand the most robust ships and who could place himself
sufficiently high up to let fly his arrows at the enemy. Nothing was
more natural, then, than to imitate on ships the fortified castles
with their crenelated towers. If the enemy succeeded in boarding the
ship, the defense withdrew to the castles. There should be no cause
for astonishment therefore at finding the old tops on the masts and at
learning that even the boats were hoisted there in order more surely
to crush the adversary under a shower of arrows and stones (Mr. ~de
Jonge~, p. 20).
It can be conceived that the movable castles should not have answered
to expectations and, therefore, that an arrangement was soon reached to
make but a single body of the castle and the ship, and thence to raise
the bow and the stern.
Portugal and Spain, imitating the Mediterranean, had the start of us in
constructing castles.
Thus the vessel of the XVIth century is seen to develope gradually and
we can understand how the intermediate low part between the forward and
after castles should persist.
In the beginning, the deck did not exist in the central part. Then, in
order to protect this last against stones and other projectiles, it was
covered with a wooden lattice (See, among others, ~Witsen~, p. 51, col.
2), while its sides were furnished with loopholes covered with pewter,
to make it more difficult to scale in case of boarding.
The English seals, more finely and more artistically engraved than
ours, give an excellent idea of the progressive development of the
castles. Five of them show the sides of the ships as clinker built,
while the seal of the city of _Poole_ makes the rivets really visible.
The castles are so clearly shown in their successive phases of
development, that any explanation is unnecessary. The steering oar,
which is seen on the oldest seal, is replaced by a rudder on the
others. The Boston seal shows a well turned out three-masted vessel
with smooth sides.
All the seals, save this last, show the forms of “cogs”, which proves
once more the identity of the types of ships of the North-West of
Europe. (Holmes states, on page 70 of his work, that the Poole seal
gives the oldest English reproduction of a ship with a rudder, 1325.)
As has been said already, the adoption of the compass was the signal
for cutting loose from the coast and for undertaking more distant
voyages. We learn, especially in the _Reygersbergh Chronijk van
Zeelant_ (published by Boschhorn) Vol. II, p. 212, that about 1440,
when the use of the compass had scarcely become general, the Zeelanders
worked more and more toward the South, making toward Portugal and Spain.
Before then, these countries seemed so far away that, when starting on
a voyage thither, the seamen went to confession and the Holy Sacraments
were received.
At the same time with the invention of the compass, another event came
to produce a great influence on shipbuilding; it was the invention of
gunpowder, with the consequent adoption of artillery.
The history of the Netherlands speaks for the first time of the use of
artillery in connection with the expedition of Duke Albert against the
Frisians in 1396. It seems, however, to have been used at the siege of
the castle of Rozenburg-lez-Voorschoten, in 1351 (M. ~de Jonge~, Vol.
I, p. 28).
Cannon were not used either at the battle of the Sluis or in the
maritime expeditions of King Richard III. But they were in general use
on board ship in the XIVth century. (~Holmes~, p. 71.) The Genoese and
the Venetians in the South, and the Hanseatic cities in the North, who
were the masters of all peoples in commerce and navigation, were the
first to adopt them. (M. ~de Jonge~, Vol. I, p. 29.)
It was natural that artillery should modify war tactics and it can be
said that the military value of ships depended on the number of guns
which they carried. Finally, ships were built exclusively for war, and
the practice of the Middle Ages, which was to utilize merchantmen for
this purpose, must needs be abandoned.
The United Provinces did not decide at once to build special ships.
Hence the dimensions of existing types had to be increased, in order
that a larger number of guns could be mounted. The difference between
sea-going ships and inland vessels became more and more marked. The war
ship was evidently the one which departed the most from the old forms,
for the reason that it had to undergo every change which had been
advantageously adopted by the enemy.
[Sidenote: II 145]
The earliest guns were not greatly to be feared. The proof of this is
found in the fact that the coverings of staterooms and castles were
sloped, like roofs, so as to make the bombs thrown by the foe roll off
more easily.
The name of cog disappears as ships increase in size. The vessels met
with are generally called “Hulken” and “Baertzen” toward the end of the
XIVth and during the XVth centuries; and, after all, says Witsen, they
are only types of ships formerly in use in our country. The “Hulk”,
he adds, the larger of the two, used to sail for distant lands; its
capacity was as great, sometimes, as 200 lasts. (~Witsen~, p. 494, col.
2.)
The “Baertze” was a ship equipped as much for coast defense as for war
at sea. In 1518, there were built a very large number of them which
ran under sail, but which could be moved by oars in calm weather.
(~Witsen~, p. 483, col. 1.)
Hence these two types were merchantmen, the “Baertze” especially being
used for war. Their equipment included oars too, which were used when
the wind failed.
[Sidenote: II 124]
[Sidenote: II 131]
Nor did the XVth century, itself, see any ships built exclusively for
war. This century has left us some very beautiful reproductions of
Flemish origin (See, _Der Meister W. A._ of ~Max Lehr~, 1895, p. 1), on
three of which appear the names of “Baertze”, “Barge” and “Kraeck”.
The ships shown there have the same characteristics and differ from
each other only in their rig. It is seen that they are bluff-bowed and
that their bow is rounded as is also their stern.
[Sidenote: II 127]
Aside from the “Kraeck” none of these vessels carries artillery: all
have, however, a castle, still of quite simple construction, at bow and
stern. The “Kraeck” alone was supplied later with windows in the stern
above the gallery.
Then too, in these reproductions, all the castles, except those of the
“Kraeck”, have no roof. This last vessel is the largest, beyond doubt;
its very name brings at once to mind a type of ship of which the size
and the strong construction seem to find their origin in the Spanish
“Carack”, whence the name of “Kraeck”.
[Sidenote: II 64]
The form of this vessel scarcely differs, however, from that of the
others; the bow especially approaches rather the Dutch type than the
type of the Spanish carack or of the galleon (compare the figure
reproduced in ~Van Yk~’s work, p. 9). Hence it may be supposed that
the “Kraeck” should have differed from other vessels only by larger
castles, stronger rig and increased size.
The “Barge” and the “Baertze” give, with vessels shown on other
reproductions, an idea of the Dutch ship of the XVth century.
No “Hulken” are met with among these vessels; they were clinker
built (~Witsen~, p. 496, col. 1, Caravelle), while all the
reproductions under consideration show only ships with smooth sides.
Besides the “Hulken”, there were “Razeilers” and “Krayers” which had
also clinker built sides. Here, then, is found the old way of building
“cogs”, and it may be stated that we are in the presence of vessels
which owe their origin to this type of ship, and only have a different
name because of certain changes of detail in the matter of their rig or
the construction of their castles.
A Flemish miniature of the XVth century gives a very remarkable
reproduction of a vessel of the time. A “cog” with overlapping planks
is seen here. In accordance with the custom of the Middle Ages, this
ship has three masts with tops, a castle at bow and stern, and guns;
there are no gun-ports.
[Sidenote: II 118]
The “cogs” which were in use in the XIIIth century, were replaced in
the XIVth by the “Krayers” and “Hulken” which had to give way, in their
turn in the XVth century, to the “Barges”, “Baertzen” etc. The clinker
built sides of large ships only disappeared in this last century,
to give room to the smooth sides, a mode of construction which took
root with us as the result of our relations with the peoples of the
Mediterranean.
An old Record of Hoorn, written by D. Velius, relates that the carvel
built side was first applied by “Juliaan” at Zierikzee, and adopted
at Hoorn in 1460. The ships built in this way were called “Karviel”,
“Kraweel” or “Karveel” (~Witsen~, p. 496, col. 1) and their type,
according to this author, would seem to have been copied from the Latin
vessel “Carabus”. ~M. de Jonge~, on his side (vol. I, p. 79, note)
remarks that “Juliaan” might well have been an Italian.
Witsen gives of these “Karviel” a description which is well worthy of
attention: these vessels were rather narrow at the bow, broader at the
stern, thus having the shape of a chisel. In other words, their lines
were finer, wherein they differed from the types of ships used in
Holland.
Hence we seem to have before us not only a given mode of construction,
but also a well determined type which has come from the Mediterranean.
~Jal~, in his _Glossaire Nautique_, pp. 419-420, tells us, as to that,
that caravels were already to be found on the Mediterranean in 1307;
their dimensions were, however, smaller than those of the ships used
by Vasco da Gama and Columbus. Here is what this author says about
this style of vessel: “The caravel was a small ship of the family
of round-stern vessels but with finer lines than the _nefs_ of its
time and more slender forward. It was also faster, more handy and
better fitted for all expeditions where speed in going ahead and great
quickness in coming about were required.”
These caravels dit not remain in use to act as “Kraecks”; but with
this vessel we reach the time when the reciprocal influence of the two
centres begins to be felt.
[Sidenote: II 119]
[Sidenote: II 117]
Two existing Flemish miniatures show clearly the difference which
existed between the Dutch type and the foreign type; they date from
1482 and 1488 respectively. The first is the picture of the true type
of the Dutch vessel; the second shows a foreign ship. On the first,
the vessel is represented with smooth sides; therefore this system of
construction was adopted among us in the XVth century.
The vessels are not yet made with a square stern, however; their stern
being still round in accordance with the ancient way. As a general
rule, they were of small size, and our present sea “hoys” could have
been compared with them in this respect. They had a capacity of 160,
180 and 200 tonnes, or 80, 90 and 100 “lasts”. Nevertheless, there
were also some of 220, 230 and 240 tonnes, or, 110, 115 and 120 lasts.
(~M. de Jonge~, Vol. I, p. 80.)
The “Karvielen” and the “Kraecken” disappear in the XVIIth century and,
at this time, no more types which differ from the ordinary Holland
type are met with. Hence it can be maintained that the “Karvielen” and
“Kraecken” did not succeed in taking root with us. It will be seen, on
the contrary that the full-bowed vessels came more and more into use.
The name of “cog” was, therefore, no longer in use in the XVth century.
Nevertheless this type of vessel continued to exist. The “cog” gave
birth to the “Hulken” and these latter to the “Baertzen”. Although
modified, the first form, that of the full-bowed ship, remained in
use. One single characteristic disappeared: that of the slender
bows and sterns of the old “Viking” boat which are found in all the
reproductions known in the North-West of Europe, from Denmark to and
including England and the North of France.
The rigging developed in its turn: the single mast was replaced by
three pole masts, each having a top and a single large sail. The ropes
were made stronger and channels appeared near the end of the XVth
century. The steering oar of the old “cog” had long since given place
to the rudder.
It would be incorrect to call “cogs” the vessels represented by Master
W. A., as Arenhold has done in his work: _Die allmähl. Entwickelung
des Segelschiffes von der Römerzeit bis zur Zeit der Dampfer_, p.
650--(_Jahrbuch der Schiffbautechnischen Gesellschaft_, 1906). They
are, however, forms which issue from the “cog” but not new forms
developed alongside of ancient forms. If history be consulted, there
will be no cause for surprise at seeing the effects of the contact of
the two Centres appear exactly in the XVth century.
The Crusades (1096-1291), which brought the nations very much together,
had come to an end. The alliance of the Hanseatic cities, concluded
in 1250, had caused a prodigious growth of our trade in the Baltic
Sea. The Frisians, especially, had devoted themselves to the art of
shipbuilding, but the Flemings would not let themselves be distanced.
In 1339, there broke out between France and England the Hundred Years’
war, which led the latter to take up shipbuilding much more actively
than in the past.
One of the most famous actions of this period was the battle of
the Sluis (1340), at which the English fleet of two hundred ships,
under the command of King Edward III, completely defeated the
Franco-Genoese fleet. This latter, 190 vessels strong, was composed
of bluff-bowed vessels, galleys, barges and a large number of small
vessels. Certain chroniclers claim that it included four hundred units.
(~Holmes~, p. 71.)
The English lost four thousand men in this battle, and the French and
Genoese twenty-five thousand, which leads to the assumption that the
latter had a large number of galleys at their disposal.
In 1345, Edward III came again to France at the head of a fleet of 1000
to 1100 ships and, in 1347, a third expedition, having to do with the
siege of Calais, was sent against this country.
~Holmes~ relates (p. 72) that, for this expedition, the greater part of
the fleet, which counted 745 units and 15,895 men, came from England;
the other vessels were furnished by the Flanders and Spain.
The size of the crews, which reduces to 21 men per vessel shows
sufficiently that the boats of the fleet were relatively small. Under
these conditions, a pretty exact idea can be had of this fleet by
giving a glance at old engravings which show a flotilla of fishing
boats, including some busses and a few “Noordvaarders”, putting out to
sea.
The castles which ships carried at this time were small and not set up
as a permanence.
The medal struck as a commemoration of the battle of the Sluis also
shows a “Cog”, or at least a vessel which is exactly like it by its
clinker built sides. It may be supposed that the type of vessel shown
in this reproduction was the one most widely used at this period; so,
once more is shown the great affinity which existed among the northern
nations.
Military tactics had forced the peoples of the Mediterranean and,
later, Spain and Portugal, their imitators, to increase the height of
their ships. This is confirmed by ~Holmes~ in the following
quotation relating to the battle fought by Edward III, near Winchelsea,
against forty Spanish ships: “The tactics of the English consisted
chiefly of boarding, while the Spaniards, whose vessels were much the
higher, attacked with crossbows and heavy stones; the latter they
hurled from their fighting tops into their adversaries’ ships”.
The history of the Netherlands also mentions this fact.
England first made use of artillery at sea in 1372; the Mediterranean
saw it used by the Genoese in 1377.
Shipbuilding was only developed much later in France. Nevertheless,
there is proof that ships were already built there in the XIVth century
and it appears that they had cannons on board even in 1339. Still,
it was only on the shores of the Mediterranean that shipbuilding was
regularly carried on, under the impulse, it appears, of Jean de Vienne,
who was made admiral in 1373. (_Le Musée de Marine du Louvre._)
It was under the rule of Henri the Navigator (1417) that shipbuilding
reached its height in Portugal, a country which was entirely under the
influence of the Mediterranean.
Meanwhile, the relations of the Netherlands with the southern countries
had developed rapidly.
The closing of the old route to the Indies, which led through the
Mediterranean and Asia Minor, brought about a complete upsetting of the
commerce of the world. New explorations must needs be undertaken and
it is thus that we read in history that after having pushed as far as
Guinea with six caravels, in 1446, the Cape Verde Islands were reached
soon afterwards.
In 1449, it was the turn of the Azore Islands and, in 1486, Bartholomeo
Diaz reached the Cape of Good Hope. Eleven years later, this navigator
turned the Cape and landed at the Indies with three vessels, the _San
Gabriel_, the _San Raphael_ and the _Bonio_. According to existing
data, the first of these ships must have had a capacity of 400 tons or
250 to 300 registered tons. (~Holmes~, p. 86.)
[Sidenote: II 61]
It is useless to dwell longer on these episodes of which the history
is sufficiently well known and of which the last act was the discovery
of America by Christopher Columbus in 1492. This latter had at his
disposal but three small ships, although Spain was already using, at
this time, larger vessels. The best known and the largest of the three
was the “Santa-Maria”. This ship had a length of keel of 60.68 feet and
a length over all of 128.25 feet with a total breadth of 25.71 feet.
The Chicago Exposition of 1893 exhibited a model of this vessel of
which ~Holmes~’s work gives a reproduction on p. 85.
The discovery of America gave rise to the thirst for gold, drove the
nations of North-Western Europe to venture on the high seas and obliged
them to go actively into shipbuilding. The rise of the Netherlands then
was important; the size of their ships grew greatly, and as far back as
the XVIth century, vessels of 300, 400, 500 and 600 tons were found.
However, smaller vessels continued to be used, in preference, for war
because they were more easily handled. (See, among others, ~de
Jonge~, Vol. I, p. 81.)
After 1500, our shipbuilding became so developed that our country was
called the shipyard of Europe. Different from Portugal, where nothing
has been preserved, the Netherlands possess a whole series of drawings
of the XVIth, XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries, which enable us to form a
very exact idea of the progressive development of the ship.
In the old reproductions aforementioned of Maître W. A., as well as in
the Flemish miniatures at hand, the forward castle projected beyond the
bow, but it already forms, however, a component part of the ship and is
fastened to a beam let into the stem and resting on a bracket fastened
thereto. This construction gives to the stem the appearance of starting
upward and then of falling back in the shape of an S. This is evidently
only an illusion.
The vessels after 1500 become larger and the castles gain in
importance. The projection of the forward castle, however, diminishes
gradually and this castle reached only as far as the stem, by the
middle of the XVIth century.
[Sidenote: II 138]
~Witsen~, in the appendix of his remarkable work (pp. 8 and 10), gives
a fine model of a ship at the end of the XVth century. It is a question
of the reproduction of a vessel which, in his time, decorated the arch
of the church at Diemer-lez-Amsterdam, built in the year 1500. The
rigging of this vessel, as well as the pole mast supplied with tops and
carrying large square sails, brings us back to the Middle Ages. The
forward castle, which projects beyond the stem, and the after castle
are higher than usual. These are no bends such as were used later;
several heavy pieces of wood supported on brackets take their place.
The sides are evidently smooth and, according to the constant practice
of the period, the ship carried on the bow and on the sides pieces of
wood for protection.
The stern alone is not clearly shown; there is no rudder to be seen,
and this gives the impression that the drawing is at fault.
This vessel had no upper stern, in all probability, for our ships did
not yet know this addition. There is a proof of it in the _Noah’s Ark_,
reproduced in the _Nürenberger Chronik_, folio XI, of 1494, as well as
in that of the ship which appears in the _Ecclesiastical Painting of
the Middle Ages in Holland_, 1518-1525, nᵒ 14, and which shows Jonah
in the water.
[Sidenote: II 136]
[Sidenote: II 119]
This last picture especially gives a magnificent type of boat of the
beginning of the XVIth century. It is not so old as the ship of the
Church at Diemer, as to which the rig furnishes proof: the pole of the
mast passes through the top and, another characteristic, the forward
castle does not project beyond the stem. The ram has been broken off
near the frame. Besides, the human figures, as compared with the
ship, are exaggerated. The sides of the vessel are smooth. It brings
admirably to mind the Flemish miniature of 1482.
These reproductions are most interesting in view of the development of
the ship; we see in them the forms of the castle become more precise,
the rigging improve and increase and the vessel itself gain in size.
Attention is called to the fact that the ships in all these drawings
carry a bowsprit which was used at first only to hoist the anchor, as
is the practice still on the large river lakes.
Let us now turn our eyes to Breugel’s pictures of which F. Huis has
left some superb engravings.
[Sidenote: II 132]
[Sidenote: II 135]
[Sidenote: II 64]
A close examination of these reproductions brings out different types
of ships. Several of them show us important vessels which, by their
great rams, their high castles and their broad sterns, differ notably
from the old Holland ship.
Van Yk’s work also shows, on page 9, a reproduction of those big
vessels which the author calls Spanish “Caracks” or galleons, two types
of ships which arose under the influence of the Mediterranean.
But, alongside of these “caracks” are also found smaller Dutch vessels.
An engraving of 1564, of a Breugel picture, shows particularly an
Amsterdam merchantman. It has a round stern. It can be compared
advantageously with an old Flemish engraving, dating from 1480 or 1490,
which shows a “Kraeck” without escutcheon, and of which the castles
differ completely in form and size from those carried by the ships
seen in the engravings of Maître W. A. These castles agree with the
Mediterranean types.
The boat with the square stern had been adopted in Holland, therefore,
as far back as the end of the XVIth century.
Square sterns remained in use there, for large vessels up to the end
of the XVIIIth century; at that time a return was made to the old
structure, in imitation of England which used the square stern for only
a short time, seeing that William Pitt (~Holmes~, p. 40) introduced the
rounded forms there in the XVIIth century. Hence Mr. de Jonge is in
error when he says in his work that the vessel with the square stern
only appeared in Holland in 1651.
The adoption of the square stern, nevertheless, did not cause the old
round-stern, full-bow vessel to disappear; this is an established fact.
Another word about ports. The old reproductions of the XVIth century
show ports; some are even found on a miniature of 1428. In any event,
their general use dates back to the end of the XVth century; they seem
to have been invented by a Frenchman from Brest, named Descharges. (~De
Jonge~, Vol. I, p. 85.)
The masts and rigging also underwent important changes. At the
beginning of the Eighty Years War (1590), an inhabitant of Enkhuizen,
“Kryn Wouterez” by name, according to Brandt (_History of Enkhuizen_,
Vol. I, p. 139), invented a process for making masts in several
sections (~De Jonge~, Vol. I, p. 390). The masts, made first of two
pieces, were, by means of this new invention, soon made in three parts
each carrying a square sail. From this time, the old medieval rig of
one large sail begins to disappear.
In order to facilitate the evolutions of the ship, a square sail was
placed on the bowsprit.
Finally, the guns are placed more rationally and, imitating the
practice on the Spanish caracks, some were located in the forward and
after castles so as to command the deck. This arrangement recalls the
practice of the Middle Ages, in accordance with which, in case of
boarding, the crew retired into the castles whence a charge was made on
the invaders.
[Sidenote: II 143]
[Sidenote: II 141]
The vessel represented on the engraving of 1594, therefore, arose
gradually from the old forms, but not without having felt the influence
of the Mediterranean; this evolution leads us to the “Pinnace” of the
XVIIth century. The ship was then richly ornamented and bedecked, and
its sails, in accordance with use, carried handsome paintings. This
custom disappeared insensibly during the century named, but the custom
of decorating ships continued, none the less, for still a long time
afterwards.
According to ~Witsen~, fixed rules governed the construction of vessels
from the XVIth century on. One strict rule, among others, did not allow
the stem to project more than ⁷⁄₆, or less than ⅚ of its height,
nor could the sternpost project more than a fifth or a fourth of its
height. The author mentioned pretends that the stem was made with a
marked slope, for the reason that it was believed that, under such
conditions, the ships would glide more easily over the water (p. 47,
column 2 at the end).
At about one-third of the length of the keel from the stem, were placed
from one to four main frames; the ship narrowed aft to such a degree
that the wing transom was equal in length to half the greatest beam of
the ship. The bow was full, which allowed the water to be thrown more
easily aside. (~Witsen~, pp. 49 and 50.)
The seams were calked and, in accordance with an old custom, covered
with lead plates.
The forward castle had been reduced in height while the after castle,
on the contrary, had been raised. A fourth mast was placed in the stern
to facilitate the manœuvring of the ship; this mast disappeared later
on, when the bowsprit was adopted in the course of the XVIIth century.
(~Witsen~, p. 139, 2d column.)
The XVIth century was a memorable period for the Netherlands; it was
during this century that was laid the foundation of that navy to which,
as says Mr. ~De Jonge~, Holland was to owe later her liberty, her
greatness and her prosperity. This navy united within itself everything
which could concur to bring forth a force able to defend the country,
to protect commerce, navigation and the fisheries and to bring to
Holland glory and power.
Our marine, in general, and our shipbuilding, in particular, then
developed steadily. A long period of struggles began and many battles
were fought both before and after the Eighty Years War (1568-1648).
According to the old custom, the ships which took part in actions were
only merchantmen fitted out for the purpose. (~De Jonge~, Vol. I, p.
180.) These vessels, which were called “Vliebooten” or “Vlietbooten”
(flyboats), had a small capacity varying from 40 to 140 tons and
carried six, eight, ten or twenty guns. The size of the crew was
proportioned generally to capacity; a vessel of 50 tons carried 50 men.
(~De Jonge~, Vol. I, p. 101.)
The “Heuden”, already mentioned above, as well as “Boeiers” (tenders),
also called “Kromstevens”, and other flat-bottomed craft were used on
the rivers.
The navy of Zeeland included, in addition to a number of small boats,
a few vessels of more respectable size. “Hulken” were used at the siege
of Middleburg; one of them, called the big “Hulk”, must have had a
capacity of 600 lasts, or 1200 tons, and a crew of at least 500 to 600
men. (~Van Meteren~, fol. 81 and 102.)
As a general rule, the vessels of North Holland were larger than those
of Zeeland. Their capacity was 50 to 125 last, or 100 to 250 tons and
a crew of 50 to 150 sailors and soldiers. The largest vessels carried
thirty-two guns. (~De Jonge~, Vol. I, p. 187.)
Bor relates (_Guerres de Hollande_, Vol. I, p. 650) that thirteen
vessels of this latter category were fitted out in 1575, and that this
fleet was filled out by “Kraveelschepen”, “Yachten”, “Waterschepen” and
“Booten”, while according to ~De Jonge~ (Vol. I, p. 187), a few galleys
were still in service on the Zuyder Zee.
In order to be able to form a more exact idea of the importance of our
naval power at this time, the following table, of which the original is
preserved in the Archives of the State (~De Jonge~, Vol. I, p. 586),
has been inserted here to show the navy of the province of Holland in
1587.
+=========+=======+======+=======+===============================+
| NUMBER | | | | |
| OF | LASTS | GUNS | CREW | REMARKS |
| VESSELS | | | | |
+---------+-------+------+-------+-------------------------------+
| 1 | 100 | 16 | 95 | 1 Last = 2 tons. |
| | | | | |
| 1 | -- | 14 | 70 | |
| | | | | |
| 1 | 27 | 14 | 32 | Small calibre. |
| | | | | |
| 10 | 30-90 | 12 | 45-76 | |
| | | | | |
| 35 | 17-70 | 8-11 | 29-75 | the largest: 50 to 60 men. |
| | | | | |
| 4 Y | -- | -- | 36-50 | Y stands for Yachts. |
| | | | | |
| 25 | 8-40 | 4-7 | 11-70 | the largest: 30 to 40 men. |
| | | | | |
| 6 | -- | 1-2 | 7-11 | |
| | | | | |
| 1 G | -- | 1 | 16 | G stands for galley. |
| | | | | |
In addition to the “Vliebooten”, there were vessels of less importance
called “Kromstevens”, “Kraveelen”, “Heuden” or freight vessels,
“Krapschuiten”, “Potten”, “Yachten”, “Boeiers”. The largest vessels
were still, however, only of modest dimensions. According to the
decisions of the Government, dated June 1, 1588, three of the largest
vessels were to be equipped for war and it was stipulated that their
capacity was to be 200 lasts. (~De Jonge~, Vol. I, p. 201, note.)
There are some who claim that only small boats were used at the
beginning of our war for independence, because the battles were fought
only on rivers and because, furthermore, the financial situation was
very bad. (~De Jonge~, Vol. I, pp. 203-204.) I consider, for my part,
that the latter reason was the main one. Later on, complaints were
again made about the unsatisfactory state of the fleet by reason of
lack of funds.
[Sidenote: III 8]
[Sidenote: III 9]
Returning new to the shapes of the ships. The “Hulk” has been seen to
appear after the “Cog”, only to be replaced, itself, by the “Baertze”.
The “Kraeck” arose alongside of this last type which was followed
finally by the “Spiegelschip” under the form of a pinnace and a war
vessel.
The full bow lasted, however, in boats of little importance and so the
“Vlieboot” or “Vlietboot” was seen to follow the “Baertze”. It is the
old type of the “Baertze” of which the topsides tumbled in appreciably.
Hence no new type of boat was characterized by this new denomination
which was given in the second half of the XVIth century; it is the old
form which, slightly modified, appears under another name. This is a
fact which will be met with more than once further on. A comparison
between the “Vlieboot”, (flyboat), the “Baertze”, etc., brings out the
analogy between these vessels; the same holds good for the “Buss”. All
these forms are derived from the “Cog”.
The “Flyboat” originated on the Zuider Zee. Its name seems to have
come from the “Vlie” which was frequented by boats of this kind. These
latter, as has been said, had reentering topsides, that is, convex in
shape, hence it was more difficult to board them under these conditions
and, consequently, their defense needed but a limited number of men;
this was a matter of importance for merchant vessels.
[Sidenote: II 148]
[Sidenote: III 19]
Besides having a respectable cargo capacity, the “Flyboats” were also
very handy. There is no doubt that they were the forerunners of the
flutes, the merchant vessels _par excellence_ of the XVIIth and XVIIIth
centuries, which England and France borrowed from us.
There is in existence a beautiful reproduction of the “Flyboat” dating
from 1647. It shows a relatively large vessel; judging by the beakhead
shown which was not carried by our small merchant vessels. The beak
had been adopted first in the Mediterranean; it is not, therefore, of
Dutch origin. None of the old Dutch types had it, whereas those of the
Mediterranean and, even those of the times of the Phœnicians already
had them. (See, among others, ~Van Yk~, p. 103.)
Toward the end of the XVIth century the name of “Baertze” gave way
to that of “Vlieboot” (flyboat), and at the beginning of the XVIIth
century, arose the vessels called “Galioot” (galliot), “Noordvaerder”,
“Kof” (kuff), “Smakschip” (smack), “Boeier” (tender), together with the
flutes and square stern vessels. Still--and this cannot be too often
repeated--the primitive forms do not disappear under these different
names. The forms have been enlarged and a few exterior characteristics,
as well as the rigging, have been modified. The different types
just mentioned above have, therefore, as their main and fundamental
character the old rounded bow. The vessels of the period under
consideration could be divided into three principal groups: _a_) the
square-stern ships; _b_) the flutes in the broadest acceptation of the
word; and _c_) the “Kof en Smakschepen” (kuffs and smacks).
It is unnecessary to add that the vessels of groups _b_ and _c_ were
round at the stern. Hence, the purest old Dutch types will be found in
these two groups.
The XVIIth century is now reached, that century of glory and prosperity
for our country, especially from the point of view of shipbuilding.
However, before beginning on this period, let us look a little into
what was the situation of shipbuilding abroad.
Let us begin with Spain, which was mixed up in our war for independence.
The Spanish naval architecture, which flourished after that of
Portugal, felt undoubtedly and intensely the influence of the
Mediterranean. The Spanish galleons and caracks recall the Genoese
“nefs” and caracks, of which only a few old reproductions have been
preserved, and which came up under the influence of relations with
Northern nations.
In addition to the galleons, the galleys and the galliasses held an
important place in the Spanish navy. The frequent use of vessels with
oars made hand to hand fights quite rare and led to less frequent
boarding among the nations of the South, this being the reverse of the
practise among the Northern races.
The pictures of the Mediterranean vessels can be consulted to advantage
in order to obtain an idea of the Spanish ships.
The sea power of Spain disappeared, as is known, with the Invincible
Armada, in 1588. A summary description of this fleet will give an idea
of the importance of the ships which composed it. It was made up of
one-hundred-and-thirty-two vessels, of which (~Holmes~, p. 92) four
were galleys, four galliasses, thirty vessels of less than 100 tons
and ninety-four ships of 130 to 1550 tons. The round-stern ships had a
total capacity of 59,120 tons. There were 2761 pieces of artillery and
the ships companies contained 7862 seamen and 20,671 soldiers.
The English fleet had one-hundred-and-ninety-seven vessels, of which
only thirty-four belonged to the royal navy, all the rest were
merchantmen hastily equipped for war.
The largest English ship was the _Triumph_, built in 1561, of 1000 to
1100 tons burden and carrying three hundred sailors, forty gunners and
one-hundred-and-sixty soldiers. It mounted forty-six guns. Besides the
“Triumph”, the English fleet had but seven vessels of 600 to 1000 tons
whereas the Spanish fleet had forty-five vessels of this size. The
total of all hands of the English fleet amounted to 15,551 souls.
In this struggle Holland was with England; it was she that kept
the Duke of Parma shut up at Dunkerque. The largest vessels of the
Netherlands fleet were of 400 tons. Both in England and with us,
merchant ships, which did duty temporarily as men of war, were leased
for the war. This old custom of the Middle Ages still survived.
Besides, it was all the simpler, at this latter period, to equip
merchantmen for war, as artillery was still in its infancy or even
unknown.
The following figures (~Holmes~, p. 95) show how much larger the
vessels of the Southern States were than ours, as a rule. In 1592, the
English captured a Portuguese _carack_ of 1600 tons, 165 feet between
perpendiculars and showing seven decks.
In 1594, it was the turn of a Spanish _carack_ with 1100 men on
board. When Cadiz was taken in 1596, two Spanish galliasses fell
into the enemy’s hands; they were vessels of 1200 tons; the flagship
“San-Felipo”, which was blown up measured 1500 tons.
A Portuguese carack of 1600 tons, called the San-Valentino, valued with
her guns at a million ducats, was captured at Cezimbra in 1602.
Following our example, it is said, and as the result of “Kryn
Wouterszoon’s” invention, the movable top-mast was adopted by the
English during the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1588-1603). (~Holmes~, p.
86).
Up to this point, the ports were not only irregularly arranged, but the
lower row was generally so low that those in this tier had to be kept
closed if the sea were at all rough. In England, however, the tendency
was to raise the lowest tier (~Holmes~, p. 96) and this example
was soon generally followed.
France, whose ships so far had not yet appeared on the Mediterranean,
began in the XVIIth century, under Richelieu (1624-1692), to develope
her navy. Colbert continued this work with ardor.
It has been stated already, in speaking of the Mediterranean, that the
older French ships were, in principle just like those of Genoa; until
about 1650, galleys were more numerous than other vessels. The North of
France and Normandy belonged only--and the old pictures show it--to the
Northern Centre. This is by no means surprising, if the Norse invasion
be remembered. Even now, boats resembling those of Flanders and of our
own country are still found in the North of France.
Let us return now to the Netherlands.
After the discovery by Vasco da Gama, in 1498, of the route to the
Indies and when Portugal had secured for herself the monopoly of trade
in those lands, Lisbon became the centre of traffic of the world.
In those days, the Dutch sought in Portuguese ports the products of the
Indies; but, in 1580, the Duke of Alba took possession of Portugal and
annexed it to Spain. Nevertheless, we were allowed to continue our
commerce with the former of these countries until 1585, when all our
ships were confiscated.
Hence Holland was reduced to finding for herself a route to the Indies,
and it was believed at first that this result could be found by way of
the North. Four ships were fitted out for this purpose in 1594, two
by Holland and two by Amsterdam. This undertaking failed as did also
that of 1595 which was followed by the famous expedition of Heemskerk,
Barends and van Rijp, which latter was also fruitless.
Meanwhile a route was sought by way of the South and the Cape of Good
Hope. A fleet of four ships, under the command of Keijzers and Houtman
started in 1595 and was gone for two years and a half. After a voyage
of 446 days, the ships reached Bantam and visited Bali. The return
required 168 days. This fleet carried a crew of 248 men.
The results of this expedition, while not brilliant, had, nevertheless,
as a consequence, the formation, in 1602, of the East India Company
which played such an important part in our history.
It is useless to add that these events had a decisive influence on the
development of our naval architecture.
Up to the beginning of the XVIIth century, there was as yet no question
of a war fleet properly so-called. Merchant ships were still hired and
converted into men-of-war to meet contingencies. Our fleet was made up
at that time of all kinds of types of vessels. Among them the square
sterned vessels, called pinnaces, the “Vliebooten” or flyboats and the
flutes were the most important. There were also some “Hekkebooten” and
small “smaks”. So the three kinds of vessels already mentioned above
are again found: viz: the square-stern ships, the flyboats and the
smacks.
[Sidenote: II 149]
The old Zierikzee model gives an exact idea of the transition
from the square-stern ship of the XVIth century to the one of the
XVIIth. Although erring, like all the old reproductions, in regard
to proportions, this model cannot fail to attract our attention to
the marked slope of the stem. It was generally admitted at this time
that the ship should draw the least water possible and have the stem
strongly sloping, with an overhanging bow, so as to displace the water
more easily or, as it was then said, to carry the water underneath and
not around the hull. It was believed that the water was drawn under the
sides (~Van Yk~, p. 353) and that the strongly raking stem allowed the
boat to slide more easily over the water. (~Witsen~, p. 47, column 2
_in fine_.)
Later, opinion changed and then it was seen that the stem was brought
more and more nearly upright until the XIXth century; the vessel thus
gains in fullness.
Fürtenbach reproduces for us a Dutch vessel of the beginning of the
XVIIth century; the counter, probably to avoid difficulties of drawing,
is only sketched in by a few lines. It is seen that the after castle
has increased in proportions, and that the part which separates the
forward and after castles still remains uncovered. This kind of
construction, due to the progressive development of the castles of the
Middle Ages, only disappears at the end of the XVIIIth century, when
vessels with two and three decks come on the scene.
The forward and after castles, in these last ships, are of the same
height; in a word, they are strongly connected to each other and are
formed of several superposed decks.
The rigging, too, has undergone new changes, by reason, no doubt, of
the raising of the stern. The fourth small mast put up at this point
gives way, especially, to a mast carrying a square sail and fixed at
the end of the bowsprit. This mast was used only for steering the ship.
The vessels gained in size and the armament was improved by a more
rational distribution of the guns. The following figures give the proof
of this.
In 1596, a 200-last ship carried only 24 guns; one of 150 lasts carried
17 and one of 100 lasts had only 16 on board.
In 1616, 36 guns were mounted on a ship of 200 lasts; 28 on a ship of
120 lasts, then, in 1628, mention is made of a ship of 200 lasts armed
with 39 cannon. (~De Jonge~, Vol. II, p. 396.)
Aside from the better arrangement for the guns, the increase of the
artillery itself necessitated arming the forecastle and the poop. About
1639, the iron guns were replaced, to a great extent, by others of
bronze, which allowed a greater number of pieces to be taken on board
(~De Jonge~, Vol. I, p. 400), but these pieces were lacking in unity
of calibre and volume. The later adoption of guns of more nearly equal
calibre greatly increased the fighting value of the ships.
However great the progress made by our fleet may have been, it was
still always inferior to the part imposed on it by a naval war. Hence
it became finally a necessity to build war vessels properly so called
and to give up fitting out merchant ships. Sixty new war ships were
laid down in 1653. This first war fleet constructed in our country
set sail in 1658. So the old mediæval custom, which consisted in
appropriating merchant vessels to make them serve as men of war, became
a thing of the past.
But this fleet was not sufficient by itself, and merchantmen had to do
duty as transports. This is why these latter kept guns on board for
their own defence.
[Sidenote: II 146]
The war ships mentioned above were called pinnaces and were made with
a square stern as well as a large beakhead. Tromp’s flagship, the
_Aemelia_ was a pinnace model.
[Sidenote: III 8]
[Sidenote: III 9]
[Sidenote: II 150]
The fleet was increased in a very short time, in 1664, by sixty new
square-stern vessels. (~De Jonge~, Vol. II, p. 25.) The main point
in view in building these ships (~De Jonge~, Vol. II, p. 27) was to
provide our navy with vessels which, _so far as our passes and ports
would allow_, should be at least as large and as powerful as those of
the enemy. By reason of the depth of water in the passes, the number
of their guns was placed at 60 to 80. Among these vessels, which
were launched in 1665, was Van Ruyter’s well known ship _De Zeven
Provinciën_.
For economical reasons, most of the ships carried iron as well as
bronze guns; but Van Ruyter’s flagship had all bronze guns.
The following figures will give some idea of the increasing dimensions
of ships.
In 1654, the largest ship measured 150 feet in length, 38 feet beam and
15 feet depth; it carried 58 guns. The next in size was 146 feet long,
26 feet beam and 14 feet deep; it carried 60 guns.
At the beginning of the second war with England, the two largest ships
were 169 to 171 feet long. _De Zeven Provinciën_ 163 feet long, 43 feet
broad and 15 feet deep. The next in size was 150 to 160 feet in length,
40 to 42½ feet in breadth and 15 feet in depth, etc.
So the length and breadth increased but the greatest depth of 15 feet
did not change, as the depth of our passes was against any increase of
the draft.
When later, the direction toward larger sizes was continued abroad, and
the necessity of following this example was felt among us, the question
of the draught of water became a problem which, more and more, called
for the attention of our shipbuilders. The larger the ship became and
the greater its capacity had to be, the draught of water being limited,
put us in a position of inferiority in regard to the vessels of foreign
countries which ran more easily under sail. No account had to be taken
of shallow passes in those countries, consequently ships of finer form
could be built there. (~Van Yk~, 1697, p. 353.)
When in 1682 the vessels which composed our fleet were divided
into classes or “charters”, a depth of 16 to 17 feet only is given
as the first “charter”. The first three-deck ships built in our
country belonged later to this last class. Hence it is not a matter
of astonishment that, in the long run, our war vessels had to yield
before those of other nations which were steadily becoming larger. This
state of affairs did not arise from any inferiority on the part of our
shipbuilders but had its causes solely in the condition of our passes.
[Sidenote: III 13]
The difference of draught of water appears clearly if the dimensions
of the largest French and English ships be compared with those of our
largest vessel at the end of the XVIIth and beginning of the XVIIIth
centuries. Their dimensions were as follows:
+---------------------+--------+---------+-------+
| | LENGTH | BREADTH | DEPTH |
+---------------------+--------+---------+-------+
| | m | m | m |
|for the Dutch ship | 49.28 | 12.88 | 4.86 |
| „ „ English „ | 49.41 | 14.33 | 5.64 |
| „ „ French „ | 59.91 | 14.29 | 6.61 |
By depth was understood the inside height of the ship measured up to
the load-water line. (~Witsen~, p. 74, sub 9.) (See also Fig. XXXII, p.
56 of the same work, etc.)
A ship having a depth of 4 m. 86 required, with the height of the keel
etc. included, a depth of water of at least 5 metres. Now, it is known
that the depth of water over the “Pampus”, near Amsterdam, had already
become sensibly less at the end of the XVIIth century. Large ships only
succeeded in reaching that city at the cost of serious difficulties.
[Sidenote: II 238]
It was under these circumstances that a certain Meeuwis Meindertz
Bakker, a native of Amsterdam, invented the “sea camels” in 1691, and
by them vessels could be raised from 5 to 6 feet (~Van Yk~, p. 360.)
These “camels” were straight up and down on one side, the other being
fitted to the shape of the ship. Placed on each side of the vessel they
inclosed it and formed a sort of floating dock.
Held between two camels which were securely fastened together, the ship
was raised as they were emptied of the water which they contained.
These camels are very well shown in ~Van Yk~’s work, folio 360, as well
as in “_Figures de navires et embarcations_”, 1831, pl. 35, by ~P. Le
Comte~.
Small boats towed the vessel thus raised across the Pampus. As to the
depth of water which existed at this place, Le Comte says, p. 38, that,
at high tide there were 10½ feet (2.97 ells of the Netherlands) on
the Pampus or “Muiderzand” and 9 feet (2.55 ells) at low tide. It was
only at extraordinary high tide that a depth of 13 feet (3.68 ells) was
to be had.
Later, ships drawing 19 feet (5 m. 38) could be brought to Amsterdam by
means of camels.
But the situation was no better at Rotterdam. Here, indeed, is what
is related by the builder ~Van Yk~, in his work of 1697, p. 14: “En
waarlyk de wytheid der schepen is wel het voornaamste en beste middel
om het ondiepgaan derselve te bevorderen, een saak die wy hier te Lande
wegens de droogte of ondieptheid onzer zeegaten, ten hoogste dienen
te betrachten; want (volgens ’t getuigenis van ervaarne en de diepte
dezer zeegaten zeer wel bepeild hebbende loodsen) soo konnen met een
gemeen geleide uit het Goereesche gat niet meer dan 20, uit Texel,
omtrent ook soo veel en uit de Maas niet meer als 13 voeten diepgaande
schepen worden uitgelootst. Waarom dan ook somtyds wel is komen te
gebeuren, dat eenige, van ’s Lands oorlogs-schepen, soo nauw gemaakt
en om zeilvoerens wil soo diep geballast zynde, met een dood getyde
en Wind, tot Staats groot nadeel, niet konden ’t zee geraken, of daar
al in synde, haar onderste geschut, omdat te naby ’t water lag, niet
bruikbaar werd bevonden”[11]. And further on, at page 360, the same
author says also: “Want soo heeft men al voor veele jaren, om onze
groote en diepgaande schepen in zee te brengen, wegens de ondiepheid
onzer _rivieren_ en _zeegaten_, getragt, waar ’t mogelyk, door ledig
vatwerk, so pypen, als voedervaten, op te ligten en te doen ryzen. Dog
was dit werk, om het byeen schikken der vaten, een ellendige talmerij
en veel arbeids onderworpen”.[12]
According to the Reports of Proceedings of the Batavian Association at
Rotterdam, 1850, pp. 94 _et seq._, the Briel pass was practicable only
for vessels drawing from 3 metres to 3 m. 50 and larger ships had to
go by the “Goereesche Gat” to reach Rotterdam, using successively the
“Hollandsche Diep” and the “Dortsche Kil”. There was at these places,
even at high tide, only a depth sufficient for a maximum draught of
5 m. 70. (See Dr. ~Blink~, “_Nederland en zijne Bewoners_”, Vol. I,
p. 447.) Navigation along this route, furthermore, was difficult on
account of the narrowness of the channel. It was this condition which
made necessary the digging of the canal by way of Voorne (1827-1829).
But in spite of this new navigable highway, the maximum draught of
water continued to depend, none the less, on the depths to be found, at
ordinary high tide in the “Goereesche Gat” and the “Stellegat”. These
depths were respectively 5 m. 70 and 5 m. 20 (~W. F. Leemans~: “_De
Nieuwe Waterweg_”, etc. _Gedenkboek K. Inst. Ing._ p. 13 and p. 130.)
[Sidenote: II 140]
[Sidenote: III 14]
The situation became more critical for the Netherlands navy as ships
abroad increased their size, and meanwhile, foreign activity was
redoubled! England gave to her navy four-fifths of the revenues of the
Crown in 1656-1657, two thirds in 1657-1658, and nearly three-fifths in
1658-1659. (~Holmes~, p. 108.)
Four of the the largest vessels built during this period had a capacity
greater than one thousand tons. In 1673, was launched _The Royal
Charles_, a ship well known to us, which was taken later by the Dutch.
The largest number of English war ships still belonged, at this period,
to the third class. The classification was stated as follows in 1666:
+-------+---------+--------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| CLASS | LENGTH | BEAM | DEPTH | TONNAGE | GUNS |
| | OF KEEL | | | | |
+-------+---------+--------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| 1 | 128-146 | 40-48 | 17.9-19.8 | 1100-1740 | 90-100 |
| 2 | 121-143 | 37-45 | 17-19.8 | 1000-1500 | 82-90 |
| 3 | 115-140 | 34-40 | 14.2-18.3 | 750-1174 | 60-74 |
| 4 | 88-108 | 27-34 | 11.2-15.6 | 12.8-17.8 | 32-54 |
| 5 | 72-81 |23.6-27 | 9.9-11 | 11.6-13.2 | 26-32 |
| \----------------V----------------/ |
| Dimensions are in English feet. 1 foot = 0 m. 3048 |
The year 1646 saw the first frigate built in England and in 1679 the
bomb-ketch, built according to the model invented by the French builder
Bernard Renan, was adopted.
After 1700, English naval architecture fell completely under the
influence of that of France.
“It may truly be said”, writes ~Holmes~ (p. 114) “that during
the whole of the eighteenth century, the majority of the improvements
introduced in the forms and proportions of vessels of the Royal Navy,
were copied from French prizes”.
Scarcely was a French vessel taken ere it was copied, but generally on
a larger scale (~Holmes~, p. 114). Shipbuilding, in the mean time, had
become wonderfully perfected, especially under the Ministry of Colbert
(1661), after the first foundations had been laid by Cardinal Richelieu
in 1630. Save for a few changes in detail, the rules laid down by
Colbert were followed until the XIXth century.
In 1668, the French fleet numbered already 176 vessels, of which one of
the most beautiful and famous specimens was the _Soleil Royal_. This
fleet was organized on the same footing as that of Holland (~De Jonge~,
Vol. III, part I, p. 114). Besides, there existed at this time but
little difference between the French and Dutch types.
Dimensions increased greatly at the end of the XVIIth century, under
the reign of Louis XIV. This can be seen in the following table,
prepared by Barras de la Penne (1698).
+---------+------+-----------------+--------+-----+-----+-------------+
| RANK |Number| CALIBRE | | | | NUMBER |
| AND | of | AND MATERIAL | LENGTH |BEAM |DEPTH| OF |
| ORDER | Guns | OF THE GUNS | | | | BATTERIES |
+---------+------+-----------------+--------+-----+-----+-------------+
| Ships of the line. |
| | {1st battery, 8 of 48| M. | M. | M. |Three covered|
|1st rank,| { the rest, 36| 56.01 | | |batteries, |
|1st order|112{ 2d battery, 24|between |15.64| 7.64|poop, and |
|Soleil | { 3d battery, 18|perpen- | | |forward |
| Royal | {poop and topgallant |diculars| | |castle. |
| | { forecastle, | | | | |
| | { 12 and 18| 51.54 | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |Three covered|
|1st rank,|70 to | bronze guns | 51.91 |14.29| 6.61|batteries, |
| 2d order| 100 | | | | |castle, |
| | | | | | |forward |
| | | | | | |and aft. |
| | | | | | | |
| 2d rank,|60 to | bronze guns | 48.72 |13.47| 6.17| idem. |
|1st order| 70 | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| 3d rank,|56 to | ⅔ bronze | 47.47 |12.34| 5.68|Two covered |
|1st order| 66 | ⅓ iron | | | |decks, poop, |
| | | | | | |and forward |
| | | | | | |castle. |
| | | | | | | |
| 3d rank,|40 to | ½ bronze | 34.22 |12.01| 5.41| idem. |
| 2d order| 50 | ½ iron | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| Do not come into line. |
| | 30 | ⅓ bronze | | | | |
|4th rank | to | ⅔ iron | 38.98 |10.55| 4.71| idem. |
| | 40 | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | 18 | ¼ bronze | | | |Two small |
|5th rank | to | ⅔ iron | 35.73 | 8.66| 4.55|castles or |
| | 30 | | | | |only one |
| | | | | | |aft. |
| 8 | | | | | |
|Frigates | to | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | 16 | | | | | |
[Sidenote: II 166]
[Sidenote: II 169]
[Sidenote: II 15]
The progress made in naval architecture under the reign of Louis XIV
is noted as follows in the work: _Le Musée de Marine du Louvre_.
“The rake of the bow is less exaggerated, the after castle is lowered,
the artillery is well distributed; the masts are better proportioned
and the spread of canvas is much greater, as well as more handy, making
the motion more rapid and the manœuvres more easy. The profusion and
elegance of the ornaments have reached their highest point; they had
the kind of poetry of the old chivalry. Everything in this navy already
caused the perfection, which the ship reached quickly under the next
two reigns, to be anticipated.”
Naval architecture took a great start. Many works were published, of
which those of Bernouilli (1738) and of Euler (1749), treating of the
stability of ships, are the best known.
The dimensions of vessels continue steadily to increase. Ships mounting
70 guns which, in 1715, were rated in the first class were passed to
the sixth class in 1765.
The French fleet in 1750, according to the _Musée de Marine du Louvre_,
was composed as follows:
+======+========+========+========+===========+========+=============+
|NUMBER|Length | Beam |Moulded | | | Calibres |
| OF |between | at main depth | BATTERIES | Crew | of guns |
| GUNS |perpen- | frame | | | | |
| |diculars| | | | | |
+------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+--------+-------------+
| +THREE DECKERS+ |
| |
| | M. | M. | M. | | Men |30 pdrs |
| | | | | | |in lower tier|
| 120 |56.84 |14.61 |7.47 } }1000 |18 „ |
| |to 60.42|to 16.24| to 8.12} 3 covered } to 1200|„ middle „ |
| | | | } } | |
|110(1)|54.57 |14.94 |7.31 } batteries }1000 |12 „ |
| |to 57.82|to 15.59| to 7.80} } to 1100|„ upper „ |
| | | | } with } | |
| 100 |53.27 |14.61 |7.47 } } 900 |6 „ |
| |to 57.49|to 15.26| to 7.63}forcastles } to 1000|on forecastle|
| | | | } } | |
| 90 |51.97 |14.29 |6.81 } and poops } 850 |4 „ |
| |to 55.22|to 14.94| to 7.46} } to 900 |on poop deck |
| |
| +DOUBLE DECKERS+ |
| |
| 80 |50.67 |13.96 |6.66 |2 covered | 750 |36 pdrs |
| |to 54.57|to 14.61| to 6.98| batteries | to 800 |in lower tier|
| | | | | with | |18 „ |
| | | | | forecastle| |„ upper „ |
| | | | | and poop | |8 „ |
| | | | | | |on forecastle|
| | | | | | |4 „ on poop|
| | | | | | |
| 74 |48.72 |13.64 |6.50 |2 covered | 650 |36 or 24 pdrs|
| |to 53.27|to 13.96| to 6.98| batteries | to 700 |in lower tier|
| | | | | with | |8 pdrs |
| | | | | forecastle| |in upper tier|
| | | | | and poop | |8 or 6 pdrs |
| | | | | | |on forecastle|
| | | | | | |4 pdrs on |
| | | | | | |poop |
| | | | | | | |
| 64(2)|46.04 |12.66 |6.00 |2 batteries| 450 |18 or 12 pdrs|
| |to 48.72|to 12.99| to 6.50| and | to 500 |in lower tier|
| | | | | forecastle| |24 or 18 pdrs
| | | | | | |in upper tier|
| | | | | | |6 pdrs |
| | | | | | |on forecastle|
| | | | | | |12 or 8 pdrs |
| | | | | | |in lower tier|
| 50 |43.84 to|11.36 to| 5.50 to|2 batteries| 300 |18 or 12 pdrs|
| | 45.17 | 12.01 | 5.85 | and | to 330 |in upper tier|
| | | | |forecastle | |6 or 4 |
| | | | | | |pdrs on |
| | | | | | | forecastle. |
| |
| +FRIGATES+ |
| |
| 40 |38.98 to|10.71 to| 5.19 to|Single | } |
| | 42.22 | 11.04 | 5.53 |battery |280 to } |
| | 42.22 | 11.04 | 5.53 |with | 300 } |
| | 42.22 | 11.04 | 5.53 |forecastle | } |
| | | | | | } 12 pdrs |
| 30 |35.07 to| 9.74 to| 4.55 to| do. |200 to } in battery |
| | 38.98 | 10.39 | 5.20 | | 230 }6 or 4 pdrs on|
| | | | | | } forecastle. |
| 20 |33.13 to| 8.77 to| 4.22 to| do. |130 to } |
| | 35.73 | 9.10 | 4.55 | | 150 } |
| |
| +CORVETTES+ |
| |
| 12 |19.49 to| 7.85 to| 2.92 to|Single | 70 to |4 pdrs in |
| | 22.74 | 8.50 | 3.25 |battery | 80 | barbette |
| | | | |without | | battery. |
| | | | |forecastle | | |
(1) There were a few intermediate types classified with those of this
list which they approached nearest.
(2) This ship was the smallest of those which could enter the line of
battle.
France also exercised a great influence on the design of ships.
(~Holmes~, p. 114, _ab initio_.) The most beautiful vessel of this time
was the _Sans Pareil_.
The work mentioned above, _Le Musée de Marine du Louvre_, contains a
passage relating to the time of Louis XVI (1744-1793) which is well
worthy of our attention (Chapter VII): “It was the moment when the
science of shipbuilding, born in Holland, really passed into France”.
This does not alter the fact that, even at the end of the XVIIIth
century, people still went to Holland to study this art, in spite of
the high degree of perfection which it had reached in France. Here
indeed is what the above mentioned work says: “People went at the end
of the last (XVIIIth) century to take lessons in Holland and, on this
subject, the library at Brest has a manuscript of one of the celebrated
engineers, Olivier, who had been sent there, about 1780, to study
construction.”
Hence the shipbuilding of the Netherlands was still highly appreciated
at that time.
The increase in dimensions of the French fleet found its echo in the
English fleet; the following are the characteristics of the latter
fleet in 1706:
+=================+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+
| | | | | | | |
| NUMBER OF GUNS | 90 | 80 | 70 | 60 | 50 | 40 |
| | | | | | | |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| |ft. in.|ft. in.|ft. in.|ft. in.|ft. in.|ft. in.|
| | | | | | | |
|Length of gundeck|192 -- |156 -- |150 -- |144 -- |130 -- |118 -- |
| | | | | | | |
|Breadth at | | | | | | |
| midship frame | 47 -- | 43 -- | 41 -- | 38 -- | 35 -- | 32 -- |
| | | | | | | |
|Depth of hold | 18 6 | 17 8 | 17 4 | 15 8 | 14 -- | 13 6 |
| | | | | | | |
|Tonnage | 1552 | 1283 | 1069 | 914 | 705 | 532 |
Here is what ~Holmes~ writes, p. 115: “The subject of the superiority
in size of the French ships was constantly coming to the front and, in
1719, a new establishment was made for the dimensions of ships in our
Royal Navy, according to the following scale:
+================+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+===========+
| | | | | | | |
| NUMBER OF GUNS | 90 | 80 | 70 | 60 | 50 | 40 |
| | | | | | | |
+----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+
| Increase of: | | | | | | |
| Length | 2 ft. | 2 ft. | 1 ft. | 0 | 4 ft. | 6 ft. |
| Breadth | 2 in. | 1 ft. | 6 in. | 1 ft. | 1 ft. |1 ft. 2 in.|
| Tonnage | 15 | 67 | 59 | 37 | 51 | 63 |
In 1765, vessels were already met with carrying 100 guns, measuring
2047 tons and having already 21 ft. 6 in. depth of hold. ~Holmes~
writes on this subject (pp. 124-128): “During the whole of our naval
history down to comparatively recent times, improvements in the
dimensions and forms of our ships were only carried out after they had
been originally adopted by the French, or Spaniards, or more recently
by the people of the United States of America.”
In 1719, the process which consisted of heating timbers at an open fire
in order to bend them was adopted in England and, in 1736, they were
smoked. (~Holmes~, p. 115.) Ventilation was improved in 1753 (~Holmes~,
p. 117) and, in 1761 (~Holmes~, p. 121), followed the invention of the
process which consisted in covering ships with copper plates. Before
this period, lead was used exceptionally for this purpose. Nearly one
hundred years earlier, several vessels in Holland were covered in
part or wholly with copper plates, as is shown by a passage from ~Van
Yk~’s work, _De Nederlandsche Scheepsbouwkunst opengesteld_, in which
he says, p. 121: “Dat het schip on de zuid of west bestieren sal, heeft
zy om den houtknagenden worm daarvan te keeren, stevenswaarts met koper
doen bekleeden”[13].
Everything which precedes shows sufficiently how far superior the
French and English fleets were to our own, about the middle of the
XVIIIth century, in the size of their ships. But experience had
demonstrated that the power of a fleet did not lie in numbers alone,
but also in the intrinsic value of each ship (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, p.
86), just as Martin Harpertszoon Tromp had also, himself, declared some
time before.
In order to give an idea of the extraordinary energy displayed by the
United Provinces, it will be mentioned that from 1682 to 1700, hence
in eighteen years, there were built 15 three-deckers of 90 to 96 guns
each, 2 of 80 to 86, 2 of 70 to 74, 29 of 60 to 68, and 26 of 50 to 56
pieces of artillery, together with 2 frigates of 22 guns, 3 fire ships
and 9 ketches, in all 107 vessels. Of this number, seven only were
built outside of the provinces of Holland and Zeeland. (~De Jonge~,
Vol. II, pp. 72 to 75.)
Outside of this fleet of which the cost was defrayed by means of
extraordinary credits, there were built during the same period, with
ordinary credits, 65 other vessels, of which 7 were of 50 to 52 guns,
18 of 40 to 46, 17 of 30 to 38, 13 of 20 to 26, and 10 of 16 guns at
least.
Or, for a period of eighteen years, a total of 107 + 65 = 172 new
ships. This increase of the fleet was an absolute necessity. It was
necessary, in fact, to make up the losses caused by storms and other
misfortunes, and amounting, during the years 1688-1698, to 3 units of
70, 5 of 60, 6 of 50, 8 of 40 to 46 guns, in addition to a few vessels
of 30 guns and less, 36 ships in all.
All these works evidently cost large sums. During the period 1682-1702,
the expenditures for new ships were about 81,197,000 florins and about
69,954,800 florins for equipment.
Maintenance, equipment, etc. came to about 5,829,000 florins, and in
1697, the costs rose to 7,732,000 florins. (~De Jonge~, Vol. II, pp. 80
and 81.) In order to form any exact idea of the importance of this sum,
it must be remembered that, at the time under consideration, salaries,
etc. were far lower than those of our day. (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap.
I, p. 80, note.)
Besides the war ships just mentioned, a large number of merchant ships,
vessels of less importance for inland service, and fishing boats were
built, so that, if the old writers are to be believed, “there were
places where there were counted more boats than houses”.
At the time when Hugo de Groot lived, two thousand vessels were built
annually. (~Koenen~, _Geschiedenis van Scheepbouw en Zeevaart_, p. 87.)
No Hollanders were met with who did not possess a certain amount of
knowledge relating to shipbuilding. (Idem, p. 85.)
[Sidenote: II 154]
In order to display such a large amount of energy, shipbuilding must
have developed with us in an extraordinary way. The proof of this is
found in the works of Nicolas Witsen (1671) and of Van Yk (1697).
Hence our naval architecture enjoyed an unheard of prosperity at the
beginning of the XVIIIth century.
[Sidenote: II 155]
[Sidenote: II 156]
In order to form an idea of the perfection of design which our naval
architecture had reached toward the middle of the same century, it is
enough to consult, in our album, the photographic reproductions of a
few drawings made by M. Van Gent in 1750, 1751, 1752, the originals
of which belong to the remarkable collection of engravings of M. S.
Van Gyn, at Dordrecht, as well as the copy of a war ship of 1770 which
appears in the collection of colored drawings.
These documents reproduce faithfully the ships with their water
lines. But what attracts attention most particularly is the following
inscription which is very legible in the drawing of the war ship of
1750: _Property of Admiral Schryver_. This admiral is the one who wrote
in 1753 that the shipbuilders, and especially those who built the ships
of war of the State during the period extending from 1683 to 1753,
were scarcely more than ordinary ship carpenters; that they had no
theoretical knowledge, were guided only by experience and, in certain
respects, were on the same level as the master carpenters of Zaandam
who, in the face of a failure, had offered as an excuse that “the boat
had not let itself be shaped otherwise with an axe”.
Admiral Schryver refers, in support of what he says, to various war
vessels which were less successful, and among them he mentions, in the
first place, five three-deck ships built between 1683 and 1689, the
first, it should be said, which our builders had turned out.
No one can be surprised that these vessels did come fully up to what
was expected! And if later, better ones were built, it merely proves
that our builders had succeeded in solving the great problem of turning
out strong ships of which the draught had to be limited, on account of
the depth in our passes and rivers.
Still later, imperfections had to be noted; but that does not show,
by any means, incapacity on the part of our builders. It happens even
in these times, both at home and abroad, that the best yards launch
vessels which are not up to their best work or which may need changes.
Admiral Schryver’s complaint (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap. I, p. 116)
denouncing the incapacity of our constructors seems to be neither
founded nor deserved. It is a question here of a headstrong naval
officer, imbued with his own ideas and holding only contempt for
those of others (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap. I, p. 116), rather than a
man thoroughly conversant with our naval architecture. Still, as it
has been shown further back, it was not alone during the time of the
Grand Pensionary Jean De Witt, and of the illustrious Colbert, as De
Jonge tells us (Vol. IV, Chap. I, p. 120), that foreigners came to
learn shipbuilding from us; much later still, in 1780, France sent her
sons to our yards and it is assumed that it was only under the reign
of Louis XVI (1774-1793), that the French navy could throw off Dutch
influence entirely.
Our country followed attentively, however, the progress made in France
and England in the art of naval construction, as is testified to by
the translation of Du Hamel du Monceau’s work (appeared in 1757), and
the passage therein contained announcing, for later on, a translation
of the work of Mungo Murray, the famous builder of the shipyard at
Deptford. It is not known whether this latter translation ever saw the
light, all the same, it is clear to my mind, from what precedes, that
works appearing abroad were read by us.
It has been shown that drawing was used in connection with shipbuilding
at the middle of the XVIIIth century. Hence shipbuilders had broken
with the old Dutch method of being guided by lines drawn by ribbands.
The lowest gun ports of ships were placed too near the water; complaint
was first made against this by us. The same complaint was soon heard
in England where the situation was not remedied, however, until the
end of the XVIIIth century, when the French builders were copied.
(~Holmes~, p. 126).
A certain amount of time went by before Great Britain adopted the
improvements made in shipbuilding by the French.
Mr. de Jonge, relying on foreign quotations, states that the Czar
Peter-the-Great seems to have learned shipbuilding, properly so called,
in England. ~Fincham~, the historian, even relates (_History of
naval architecture_, p. 69) that the Czar Peter preferred English to
Dutch construction. Mr. Koenen remarks, in regard to this, that this
preference could, at most, only have had to do with war ships. Be this
as it may, it is settled that Peter-the-Great resorted, all the same,
to Dutch vessels, builders and seamen to form his fleet which, three
years before his death, included 41 men-of-war carrying 2106 guns and
14,900 men, which made the Swedes say (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap. II,
p. 152, and ~M. Koenen~, pp. 93-95): “We see nothing Muscovitish about
the Muscovite fleet unless it be the flag. We have to fight a Dutch
fleet, commanded by Dutchmen, manned by Dutch seamen and spitting out
Dutch powder from Dutch guns”.
It may be asked then whether the Peter-the-Great would really have
called on the Dutch builders if he had been able to find better among
the English.
What explanation is to be made as to why our shipbuilders were
abandoned about the middle of the XVIIIth century?
The size of ships was constantly increasing in England and in France;
and the fleets of foreign powers were ever becoming stronger, while in
our country, the shallowness of passes, rivers and ports, prevented the
construction of ships which, by their size, could vie with those of
other lands. (~Van Yk~, p. 14). All the writers of the period point
out this situation of which the realness has been shown by means of a
few figures.
The disadvantage resulting from the relative shallowness of the Dutch
passes was felt as far back as the end of the XVIIth century, and this
disadvantage could only become more marked as time went on. Meanwhile,
the necessity of building more powerful ships, carrying as many as 90
to 95 guns, became a matter of serious importance. In order to avoid
drawing too much water, it became necessary to make the ships fuller,
but this also made them heavier and poorer sailers, consequently
they were but poor fighting instruments in the hands of our brave
admirals. Is it then to be wondered at that the latter complained about
them bitterly? In spite of all our courage, the shallowness of our
approaches to the sea, to say nothing of the financial situation, made
us yield before the foreigner.
This inferiority is wrongly blamed on the Dutch shipbuilders of the
day. Naturally, many of them held on for a long time to the old ways,
as is shown by Du Hamel du Monceau, in the following terms at page 287
of his work: “The habit of copying mechanically and servilely what
was done in the past, has produced all these rules of proportions
observed in determining the main frame, the description of models and
their designs.” And this author adds this interesting detail: “Every
ship-carpenter kept these rules as a family secret”.
The Dutch builders had no affection for the pen; ~Witsen~ himself has
already called attention to this; they were afraid of publishing their
secrets, lest they might see their work carried off by others. It was
only a few years ago that an engineer engaged in shipbuilding refused
to let me see the drawings of one of his ships; he too feared lest his
models should be imitated.
How, then, could it be expected that ships should already be built
according to scientific rules, at the middle of the XVIIIth century,
when in France, which was ahead of all other nations in the matter,
these rules were not taken up until 1740? _Le Musée de Marine du
Louvre_ says in speaking of the XVIIIth century: “It (the vessel) is
built in accordance with scientific principles which began to become
known in 1697, but which scarcely date from before 1740 and which
bring about a great resemblance among the ships of all countries so
soon as they are intended for navigating the high seas, as originality
no longer exists except for coasting vessels attached to their own
shores.” (See, among others, M. ~Bongeur~, 1746, XXIII.)
It was not, then, attachment to tradition, but the natural condition of
our passes which kept us from building vessels of war as good as those
built abroad. This is what Mr. ~De Jonge~ forgets, while at the same
time he attaches too little weight to practice, which still enjoys,
even in our time, a great authority even in the matter of shipbuilding.
So this honorable writer arrives necessarily at forming, in regard to
our builders of the XVIIIth century, an unfavorable and undeserved
judgment.
The decline of shipbuilding along the “Zaan”, for example, was not
the consequence of the ignorance of our builders; this cause must be
attributed above all to the silting up of the river and of the mouth
of the IJ. This occurrence no longer allowed ships of any importance
to be taken to sea except at great cost and trouble. (~Loosjes~, _De
Zaandamsche dorpen_, p. 194.--M. ~Koenen~, p. 95.)
[Sidenote: III 15]
In order to bring out the difference existing between the French and
English styles and the Dutch style, I have placed on one plate of my
album the various main frames. This drawing is sufficiently eloquent
by itself, still, I must once more call attention, in passing, to the
differences which distinguish these various styles. These differences
existed at first in the shape and composition of the main frames;
then, the English vessels had less sheer, were less high and were not
square at the stern. (~Van Yk~, p. 17.) The English seem also to have
used crossed riders, instead of stanchions with vertical faces, to
save working; but this process was considered less practical from the
point of view of stowage. (~Van Yk~, p. 17 and figure A, p. 18.) They
gave their ships loof (~Witsen~, p. 126) and broad sides (“dick in den
buik”, as ~Witsen~ says on p. 207), the reverse of what was done for
the Dutch vessels. “The Dutch ships”, says ~Holmes~ (p. 110), “excelled
all others in one respect: that they were the first in which the absurd
practice of an exaggerated ‹tumble home› or contraction of the upper
deck was abandoned. This fashion”, he said further on, “was still
carried out to a very great extent by the English and to a less extent
by the French and Spaniards”.
~Holmes~ speaks also of the light draught of our vessels. He expresses
himself on this subject as follows on page 111 of his work: “In
consequence of the shallowness of the Dutch harbours, the draught of
their ships was also considerably less than that of the English vessels
of corresponding force”.
The English had at their disposal docks for the construction of their
ships (~Witsen~, p. 206, column I.); they used neither ribands nor
shores. Before laying down their ships, says ~Van Yk~ (p. 19), they
so prepared the models as to give them the shape desired. For this
purpose, and before starting construction, they laid out the frames at
full size on a floor. This process was, therefore, born in England.
The laying out of the full scale drawings was only adopted with us at
the middle of the XVIIIth century. Before this time, only models and
ribands were used in our country, as is still the present practice for
building the smaller wooden vessels and many fishing boats.
This new method, however, was not introduced without trouble; and the
more so as there was doubt of success in applying it to the Dutch
ships, which, as ~Van Yk~ says (p. 19), “had rounded sides, _to allow
them to glide over the water_, and _sharper angles_ than the English
ships” which had a more regular contour.
The Swedes and Danes followed the Dutch method in the main. (~Van Yk~,
p. 20.) Their navy was copied after ours (~De Jonge~), but their ships
were not so full and drew more.
The honor of having endowed the shipbuilding art with scientific
principles belongs wholly to the French. All the nations, even the
Dutch and the English borrowed these principles from them about the
middle of the XVIIIth century. It was however only at the end of this
century that the French method for calculating and designing ships
forced its way everywhere.
The Netherlands, in addition to their war fleet proper, had a very
large merchant marine. (~Koenen~, p. 90.) This latter it is said,
included, at the beginning of the XVIIth century, 20,000 vessels which
had all been built in Holland and, flying the Dutch colors, furrowed
the seas in all directions. At the end of this century, when we must
have already lost many of our over-seas possessions, the total tonnage
of the English merchant marine amounted to 500,000 tons; that of our
country was 900,000 tons, and all other nations together had 2,000,000
tons. (~Groen van Pinsteren~, _Handboek_, § 303.--~Koenen~, p. 160.)
Our merchantmen obtained quickly a great perfection. Full proof of this
can be found in the observations made by Sir Walter Raleigh (1552-1618)
about the Dutch ships, in which, as he remarks, a large amount of
freight could be stowed while, at the same time, they required
a smaller crew than that found necessary for the English ships.
(~Koenen~, p. 86.)
Our merchant vessels, among which especially “flutes” were met with,
were copied by the English and French.
Flutes were used preferentially as freight carriers. The following,
for example, is found in _Le Musée de Marine du Louvre_: “The navy
has always had transports for supplying squadrons; they were called
at first flutes or transports and later were known as ‹corvettes de
charge›”.
In order to give an idea of the number of vessels in use at the end
of the XVIIth century, I have given below a few figures taken from Mr
~Koenen’s~ work, p. 160, which he, in his turn, has borrowed from “~Van
Hoogendorp~.--_Bijdragen tot de huishouding van den Staat_”. (Vol. I,
p. 183.)
In 1783, there were in the provinces of North Holland and Friesland: 50
flutes of 400, 450 and 500 lasts (1 last = 2 tons) sailing to Norway
and the Baltic Sea, as well as for France and Spain; 30 flutes of 250
to 280 lasts; 18 flutes of 160 to 180 lasts frequenting the port of
Archangel, the Mediterranean and the West Indies and having served
originally for the Greenland fisheries; then 16 craft of 160 to 180
lasts and 80 howkers or galliots, of which 13 were of 300 to 350 lasts,
18 from 240 to 280, 12 from 200 to 220, 17 from 160 to 180 and 20 from
___ to 150, which sailed to Archangel, the Baltic, the Mediterranean
and the West Indies. There were also, 60 frigates “snauwen” and
brigantines, of which 10 of 150 to 200 lasts; 30 from 100 to 140 and
20 from 70 to 90 lasts; 5 “hekbootschepen” of 200 to 300 lasts and 140
vessels including howkers, frigates “snauwen” and brigantines varying
from 60 to 300 lasts. Finally there were still 36 vessels frequenting
the East and West Indies, 150 “kuffs” and smacks of 50 to 70 lasts, 90
“kuffs” and galliots of 70 to 100 lasts and, at the end, 120 galliots,
(howkers) and “kuffs” of 100 to 150 lasts; in all, 819 vessels.
There should be added to this number, for Leeuwarden: 20 “kuffs” and
“smacks” varying from 50 to 100 lasts and over; for Groningen, 30
vessels of 50 to 70 lasts; for Harlingen, 9 vessels of 100 to 150
lasts, 1 of 180, and 3 from 200 to 300 lasts; for Makkum, 14 ships of
60 to 100 lasts and over; for Workum, 2 of 60 to 70, 24 of 80 to 100
and 23 of 100 lasts and more.
Bolsward, Woudsend, Drylst, Dokkum, Sneek, Grouwsloten, etc., counted
together 30 ships of 50 to 70 lasts; 40 of 70 to 100 and 50 of 100
lasts and above. Finally, Lemmer had 40 vessels of 50 to 100 lasts and
upward.
There were also a large number of vessels of less importance, such as
hoys, etc. having a carrying capacity of 20 to 30 lasts, and a not
smaller quantity of fishing boats, which were not included in the above
figures.
There is found thus a total of about 1105 vessels exclusive of small
boats.
But it was not the mere number of ships which was large; there existed
at the same time, as could be seen by the different denominations, a
great variety of types of ships.
Merchant vessels, in particular, will be taken up in the next chapter.
But, before leaving the ships of war, let it be once more remarked
that, from the beginning of the XVIIth century, our country had its
frigates. This type of ship was unknown among us before this time, but
circumstances had forced its use in the end.
The inhabitants of Dunkirk had caused us heavy losses; from 1631 to
1637, they had captured at Maassluis more than two-hundred fishing
vessels valued at over a million florins. (~De Jonge~, Vol. I. p. 373.)
In order to carry on their piracies with greater impunity, they had
obtained from the Mediterranean a ship of fine lines which, although
not large (it carried only 6 to 12 guns), was none the less a fine
sailer; it was the frigate.
In order to struggle more effectively against the inhabitants of
Dunkirk, we too began to build the vessel in question and their number
increased rapidly under the urgent advice of our great Admiral Tromp.
(~De Jonge~, Vol. I, pp. 388 and 389.) Later on they were built of
larger size.
[Sidenote: III 18]
As has just been said the frigate was imported into France by the
inhabitants of Dunkirk; thence it passed into England, in 1741,
(~Holmes~, p. 121); all the same, this latter country had already had
some of smaller size in 1646.
The frigates played an important part in the Anglo-American war.
Fire was one of the greatest enemies of wooden ships. Hence recourse
was had to this element from the earliest times, in order to destroy an
enemy’s fleet. It was not enough to throw burning pitch; more effective
means were invented and the Ancients were already using fireboats to
set fire to the hostile fleet.
Time will not be wasted in conjectures about the fireships of the
Ancients, which could only have been ordinary vessels. A summary
description will rather be given of those used in the XVIIth century
they being the only ones mentioned in Witsen’s well known work, pp. 166
and 167.
Vessels of rather small size acted as fireboats, preferentially flutes
or pinnaces. Later, “spiegelschepen” of 70 or 80 lasts were used.
These vessels had a smooth continuous deck in which were made holes
having an area of about 1.5 square feet. A trough starting from the
poop ran forward for the entire length of the vessel, with side troughs
leading athwartships, in a word, a train was formed which would let
the fire run easily and quickly throughout the ship. For this purpose,
the troughs were filled with a mixture composed half of gunpowder by
volume, quarter of saltpetre and the remaining quarter made up of equal
parts of resin and sulphur, the whole mixed with a little linseed oil.
The troughs thus filled were covered with shavings which, in their
turn, disappeared under faggots of light branches soaked in a mixture
of resin, cod-liver oil, powder and saltpetre. In addition to this,
the vessel was filled with other inflammable materials; the deck and
the inside walls were smeared with grease and covered with a layer of
finely powdered resin.
Sometimes the fireships were loaded with open barrels filled with
shavings soaked in tar. Special care was also taken that all ports and
hatches should be left open so as to give plenty of draught.
In order more surely to have the fireship catch the enemy’s vessel,
strong grapnels were attached to the end of the bowsprit and to the
ends of the yards; these grapnels could be detached by means of ropes
laid along the ship.
In order to deceive the enemy and to save appearances, quaker guns were
stationed in the ports. Two iron guns only were placed aft for defence
against attacks.
A large trap was made in the poop to allow the crew to quit the vessel,
after having lighted the fire and let go the grapnels, and to get away
in a launch attached to the fireship underneath the trap.
The service with fireships was naturally a perilous task, so only the
bravest men were selected for this duty and they, on account of the
great danger incurred, received double pay.
In case of need, the fireships were started straight at the enemy, so
that the latter’s ship was taken face on and not by the side. Under
these conditions, the rigging of the two vessels became entangled at
once and it became impossible then to separate them.
The fireships were only old ships as a rule, yet new vessels were
sometimes employed, for the construction of which, as Witsen says, “a
very ordinary, very light and very inflammable wood was used.”
Externally the fireships did not differ from ordinary vessels; anything
else would not have been practical, because the enemy would have
recognized them at once under these conditions. Their crew was as few
in numbers as possible and every precaution was taken to allow it to
leave the vessel as soon as the latter was well on fire and had reached
the desired point.
[Sidenote: II 158]
[Sidenote: II 101]
The changes made in our war ships during the XIXth century are
sufficiently well known; consequently it will not be necessary to
dwell on them. Nothing more will be said than this: that the sheer of
these vessels became less, that the stem and the sternpost approached
more nearly the vertical and that the old ornaments disappeared almost
entirely.
[Sidenote: II 165]
Toward the end of the XVIIIth century, the rounded shape of the stern
was adopted, according to the English fashion. It was the death blow
to the old square stern ship, but already, long before that, it had
been called _ship of war_. This new denomination changed nothing in its
construction.
Our shipbuilding had gone to pieces under the French occupation, and
the continental blockade completed the ruin. Still, toward the end of
the first half of the XIXth century it succeeded in reviving. It is
true that in 1824 only three ships, measuring in all 1440 tons, were
built; but, in 1827, this number had already gone up to 59 vessels with
a total tonnage of 19,758 tons. These data relate only to vessels of
more than 100 tons. (~Koenen~, p. 101.)
In 1853, says M. Koenen, there were in the province of Groningen 89
shipyards for both inland and ocean navigation. In Friesland, there
were large yards at Harlingen and at Lemmen devoted exclusively to the
construction of sea-going vessels. In North Holland, ocean shipping
was under construction at Amsterdam, Medenblik, Monnickendam, Muiden
and Nieuwendam. Shipbuilding was flourishing at Rotterdam, Schiedam,
Alblasserdam and Dordrecht.
In this same year, 1853, adds the author above named, 125 ships built
in our country were registered, and our merchant marine included 1971
vessels with a total tonnage of 224,432 lasts (= 448,864 tons).
Steam, too, had appeared among us during the first half of the XIXth
century and sailing vessels for this reason were relegated to the
background. The adoption of iron for the frames of ships also brought
about great changes; but the importance of this new material was not
everywhere sufficiently taken into account, and many shipyards which
continued to hold to building in wood underwent a rapid decline.
Others, on the contrary, which had taken up iron construction from the
moment of its appearance, became largely prosperous and contributed
greatly toward maintaining the ancient fame of our naval architecture.
The first iron ship turned out in the Netherlands was built by Fop
Smit, who appears also to have been the inventor of iron masts. The
first Dutch steamboats were built at Feyenoord (1834-1835) in the yard
which now belongs to the Society of Naval and Mechanical Constructions.
(See _Gedenkboek Kon, Instituut van Ingenieurs_, p. 209, etc.)
The revolution wrought by the introduction of steel in the construction
of war ships is sufficiently well known; but these vessels have lost
all character of their own and they can no longer be recognized except
by the flag which they fly. Such is the present situation for ocean
navigation, and such will also be the situation for inland navigation.
Here too steel has been adopted for the construction of the frames of
vessels, and the old forms are passing away to give place to types
which will soon be in general use.
But, when that time comes, river boats will also have lost all national
character and search will be made in vain to know what were the
characteristics of the past. And yet, in spite of the uniformity which
even now exists, the vessels which Holland has turned out can still
always be recognized by their solid and elegant forms.
And may it thus ever be; may our builders ever carry higher the fair
fame of Dutch naval construction; and may Dutch capital also continue
to second them and to understand that the strength of our land lies in
a flourishing marine. But the latter needs in its turn excellent lines
of communication; the XIXth century, as we all know, has seen the rise
of new communications by water and the improvement of the old lines;
the obstacles, arising from insufficient depth in the channels leading
to our commercial centres, have disappeared, and it has become possible
for us to compete with foreign nations in the arena of the construction
of large ships.
[Illustration]
FOOTNOTES:
[4] The Dutch marine owes its prosperity not to the beauty of form of
its ships, but to the value of its limited personnel, to the
sobriety of its seamen and to the innate cleanliness of the
Dutch people.
[5] On this point, they (the English) openly defy all other nations
and believe themselves to be unequaled on the ground of
shipbuilding.
[6] _Western Influence on the Cultivation, Mode of living and
Agriculture of the Children of the North (Norwegians and other
Scandinavians) in the Time of the “Vikings”_, by ~Alexander
Bugge~.
[7] It is the opinion of most authors that the Frisians have the
honor of having made shipbuilding flourish again in the
Netherlands.
[8] “How _cogs_ were built in the past, and how much they have
changed with the passage of time, just as in our day (the time
of the writer) furthermore, the shape of ships is seen to be
undergoing constant modifications.” (P. 364.)
[9] The _statie_ was a sort of secondary bulwark at the stern, rising
quite high above the rail. The tiller swung from side to side in
an opening made in the bottom plank of the _statie_ and above
the rail at the stern.
[10] The “arcasse” includes the sternpost and the transoms. It
belongs to square-sterned vessels only.
[11] The best and surest means of avoiding a too great draught of
water consists in widening the ships. An endeavor should be made
to realize this programme, seeing how shallow our passes are.
According to the opinion of experienced pilots who have sounded
the passes conscientiously, it is not possible to bring ships
drawing more than 20 feet through the “Goeree” pass, or ships
drawing about an equal amount through the Texel, or more than 13
feet through the Meuse. This is why it has happened more than
once that war vessels of the State, of fine lines and deeply
ballasted so as to facilitate manœuvering under sail, could not
gain the open sea at low tide or in calm weather, to the great
detriment of the country, while outside, the lowest tier of guns
could not be used because it was too near the water.
[12] Several years ago, by reason of the shallowness of our rivers
and passes, an attempt was made, so far as it was possible, to
raise our large, deep draught ships by means of empty casks, so
that they could reach the open sea. But this process required an
infinite time and great labor just to put the casks into place.
[13] “The vessel which sails to the West or the South shall have the
bow covered with copper to protect it against the teredo”.
[Illustration: 3]
It was seen in the preceding chapter that it was not until the second
half of the XVIIth century that the construction of vessels of war,
as such, was begun in Holland. Up to that moment merchant ships were
equipped and used for military purposes. In proportion as commerce
developed and as dangers from enemies at sea increased, the armament of
merchant ships became more and more important. So, personal interest
was the cause of partially equipping merchantmen as men of war. It was
for this reason that the East India Company built ships which may be
considered as types of the kind.
Consequently it was just the largest merchant vessels which were most
changed as time rolled by. The old types are, therefore, no longer
found in this category of vessels; it is among the small craft that
they are best preserved.
The oldest type of Dutch ship is the “Koggeschip” (Cog) from which are
descended the “Krayers” and “Hulken”. These vessels are all clinker
built. The “Barges”, “Baertsen”, etc. appeared in the XVth century.
Their planking was smooth. They gradually drove out the “Krayers” and
“Hulken”, from which they really differed little in form.
At the end of the XVth century are found the “Kraak” (carack or
galleon) which came to us from the nations of the South, just as we
took from them the “Spiegelschip” (a square-sterned vessel) at the
close of the XVIth century. The names of “Barges”, etc. now give place
to the “Koffen” (koffs) and “Smakken” (smacks); but the old forms do
not disappear by reason of this fact; the same types of vessels merely
change their name as the result of a few changes in details. It is
thus that of the “Tjalken” (tialks), which are not mentioned by Witsen
although they existed in his day and were then called “Smalschepen”
or “Wijdschepen”. Several other examples of this sort could be given.
The likeness of form is even so striking that, at the beginning of the
XIXth century, our fleet still showed perfectly the types of Witsen’s
time. The changes introduced were merely those of detail.
In examining the old types, which are now still in use, it is well
not to lose sight of the fact that our ships have, during the XIXth
century, increased greatly their length and beam and proportionally
also their draught as the result of the improvements of our navigable
highways and the digging of new channels.
The result of this has been the falling off of certain types, to which
the appearance of iron in shipbuilding has also largely contributed.
For other types, the improvement of the navigable highways and the
creation of ports have brought about their complete disappearance.
Thus the construction of the “Bommenhaven” will soon have, as its
consequence, the total disappearance of the old “Bommen” of which more
will be said further on (fishing boats).
The smaller boats will give, under these conditions, the best idea
of the old forms, and, as has been seen in what precedes, the most
beautiful specimens will be found among the fishing boats. The fishing
vessels best reveal the origin of the forms of our ships, so a special
chapter will be devoted to this kind of craft.
It has been seen that the essential difference between merchant
ships and men-of-war was marked by the narrow deck of the former
which allowed the size of the crew to be reduced (~Witsen~, pp. 54,
263, 266), and it has been told that the Dutch were always quoted as
examples in this matter. It is thus that the “Vliebooten” (flyboats)
appeared, the precursors of the “Fluiten” (flutes), which are known in
England by the name of the “Dutch Flight”.
Trips both to northern and southern countries give rise to changes from
which are developed a great number of types of boats all of which are
derived, however, from a same fundamental type. ~Witsen~ writes on this
subject (page 53).
“Noortsche deelhaelders laeden het meest wanneer na den vierkante
hellen, kooren schepen en die op stukgoederen aenleggen, als ze
rondtachtig zijn en veel springen. Oost en Noortsvaerders die grove
waeren laeden zijn grooter in ’t gemeen als die stukgoederen wijnen en
diergelijke laeden gelijk ook de zouthaelders”[14].
These are all variations of a same type of vessel.
When the size of ships increased, it was necessary to make them still
more bulging on account of the limited depth of the arms of the
sea, and this brought about the disappearance of differences in the
fundamental forms.
Thus we read in ~Van Yk~ (page 348).
“Maar als men hiertegen aanmerkt dat wegens de doorgaans ondiepe
gronden en lastvoerens wil alle schepen van tijd tot tijd vierkanter
werden gebouwd sulks dat heden desen aangaande niet so veel onderscheid
tusschen d’een en d’andere soort van schepen als wel voor dezen
gevonden werd. Want een hedendaags welgebouwde kaag sal in Lasten te
voeren ’t Smalschip dat in Lengte, Wijdte en Holte daaraan gelijk
is, weinig wijken willen. En de Damschuit die wel gemaakt is sal den
Damlooper bijna ook evenaren konnen.”[15]
The narrow deck of merchant vessels had still another origin
which referred to the way of gauging vessels and gave rise to the
construction of strongly bulging ships.
~Witsen~ says (p. 160) on this point:
“Het uitbreecken deser schepen (Noortsvaerders) voor en achter bracht
hier in den schipper profijt aan dat ze vele goederen meer stouden als
de maat der schepen hielt.”[16]
This applies especially to boats going to load wood or grain at the
Baltic ports, on account of the tolls which had to be paid to the King
of Denmark, tolls of which the amount was determined by the treaty of
1647, by calculating the capacity of the vessel in terms of the length,
the beam on deck and the depth of hold. But, when this treaty was
modified in 1666, this unsightly way of building and this exaggerated
bulging gradually disappeared (werd dit mismaekt bouwen en geweldigh
uitspringen achterwege gelaten). (~Witsen~, p. 160.)
[Sidenote: III 16]
Nevertheless, the construction of large numbers of merchant ships
with narrow decks was still persisted in and, even at the beginning
of the XIXth century, “Fluitschepen” (flutes) are still met with. A
beautiful model of one of these “Dutch Flights” exists at the museum of
antiquities at Dordrecht.
The greater bulging of merchant vessels kept pace with the
straightening of the sternpost and stem. On another side, the idea that
the volume of the submerged part of a vessel should be reduced to a
minimum, was abandoned toward the end of the XVIIth century.
[Sidenote: II 149]
[Sidenote: II 153]
The straightening of the sternpost brought about the shortening of
the beakhead which, at the beginning of the XVIIth century, measured
one-fifth of the total length of the vessel and only one-eighth of this
length at its end. This difference is clearly seen by comparing the
Zierikzee model with that of the “Bleijswijk”. The beakhead, which had
come down to us from ancient times (~Van Yk~, p. 103), was used only
“als Heimelijke gevoeg-plaatsen” (as a W. C.) for the crew, and those
who had been guilty of some unimportant misdemeanor were also shut
up there, as ~Van Yk~ says (p. 104), “des devotie des overspelenden
zeewaters” (at the mercy of the waves).
Fire was the great enemy of our merchant ships. The stoppage of leaks
was also more difficult for these vessels than for men-of-war because
it was impossible, as a rule, on the former to reach the leak from the
inside and through the cargo.
Water tight bulkheads did not exist, but, for all that, the stoppage of
the leak was none the less indispensable. ~Witsen~ tells us how
it was all handled (p. 276), and, after explaining how a fire was put
out, he continues thus:
“Wanneer een geschoten gat onder water van binnen niet gestopt kan
worden, hetzij den last in den weg is of anderzins, wordt een man
buiten boord met een prop in de hant op een plankje gezet, daar een
dreg aan vast is, die hem onder water haalt. En aldus stopt of dekt hij
de opening. Men geeft hem een geoliede lap in den mont on het water uit
het lichaem te weeren”[17].
Before going on to the classification, properly so called, of the
principal categories of vessels which have just been sketched out,
a few more remarks, about the ship in general and a few details in
particular, should be made.
The old builders of wooden vessels determined the ship’s length by
the work for which it was intended. This length was measured from the
forward side of the stem to the after side of the sternpost. The beam
and the depth were deduced from the length; the beam being taken equal
to one-fourth of the length, and for the depth, one foot was taken for
each 10 feet of length, at the point where the vessel’s height was
least. It was only for esthetic reasons that the sternpost was made
higher than the stem.
When the keel was laid down, the sternpost and the stem put up, the
wing transom was made fast to the fashion timbers, then the main frame
and the frame at the junction of the stem were reared. Another frame
was raised between the main frame and the sternpost. “Centen” (thin
flexible boards, called ribands in English) were then made fast to
these frames so as to determine in this way the shape of the ship and
to deduce therefrom the other frames.
According to ~Van Yk~ (p. 77), these boards are not called
“centen”, but “certen”, because the form of the vessel is fixed by
means of these boards and made “certain”. Other authors pretend that
the word comes from “Kanten” or “Kenten” from the word “bekendheid”
(knowledge).
The shape of the ship was thus determined by trial after having
settled, in the first place, on the main frame and the length. The
smaller the vessel, the more sheer it had and the more ribands were
required exactly to determine its shape.
On the other hand it was customary to give the ship some sheer
(zeegte), that is: to make it higher at the ends than at the middle.
This sheer was obtained, after setting the ribands, by means of
sheerstrakes of which the fastening was begun at the lowest point
of the height of the ship. These sheerstrakes rose forward at the
rate of 1 inch for every 6 feet of length, and aft at the rate of 5
inches for every 6 feet. The wales which served to protect the ship
were laid according to the sheerstrakes. The sheer in large vessels
(spiegelschepen) was gradually reduced and the effort was made
insensibly to build ships with a flat deck in imitation of England and
later of America. The sheer still exists in boats for inland waters,
like the “Tjalken”, “Poonen”, etc. Only one wale or bend is used for
small vessels, the larger ones, such as the “Tjalken” and “Smakken”
require three bends superposed.
It is noticed, as a rule, that the bends became lighter in the XVIIIth
century, just as did the sternpost and the stem. The engravings which
show boats prior to 1500, show also several equidistant bends, and it
was only at the end of the XVIth century that the single bends of later
days are seen to appear. Moreover, it is certain that the improvement
of the navigable highways was one of the causes of the lighter
construction of ships.
These old engravings show that the planking is in very short pieces
so as to avoid marked curves; but, in order to give, all the same,
sufficient stiffness to the vessel, many bends became necessary.
[Sidenote: II 138]
In the old shipbuilding, where the pieces of the planking nailed
together clinker ways make the construction more solid, the bends were
exceptional. The old “Koggeschepen” (Cogs), for example, had none, but
the reproduction of a small boat preserved at the church at Diemer
shows them.
These wales are then supported by round wooden brackets which are still
found in a few old “Poonen”.
In the matter of the wales, the rule was that when the vessel was seen
from in front they seemed to be convex, with the convexity on top,
whereas, seen from the side, they look concave, that is, with the
convexity underneath.
It has been said in what precedes that the method of ribands (“centen”)
was abandoned for large ships, about the middle of the XVIIth century,
and that, after that time, work was done from sketches in putting up
the frames and in building the ship.
The rudder was handled by means of a tiller, and on large vessels this
is often held up by a piece of wood (luierwagen) which is still seen on
many small inland vessels.
In order readily to work the tiller of large vessels, a hole was cut
in the poop deck immediately over the free end of the tiller in its
middle position. A lever passed upward through this hole and was hung
on a pivot of which the axis lay fore and aft. The lower end of the
lever was attached to the free end of the tiller while the upper end
was loose. By swinging the top of the lever to one side or the other
of the ship, a corresponding motion was given to the tiller and so to
the rudder. This manœuvre was, naturally, not easy in heavy weather
and required assistance. A pulley, around which ran a rope or steering
line having one end made fast to the tiller, was set in the deck so as
better to operate the rudder. (~Witsen~, p. 274, 2d column.)
This rope, which was served by two men, formed with the pulley the
precursor of the steering wheel which appeared on the continent in
the XVIIIth century, after having been already in use in England, as
certain authors try to make out.
It is claimed sometimes that the rudder could only swing a little to
either side. This, however, is a mistake. ~Witsen~ says, as a matter of
fact, p. 58: “The greater the swing of the rudder, the harder is the
manœuvre”. It is evident that Witsen would have said nothing about the
swing if it had been small. It follows clearly from the quotation from
~Van Yk~ (p. 121) in regard to the “luierwagens” that the helmsman must
have put forth a great deal of strength: “Hij (de luierwagen) diend
om de Roerpen, aan ’t vooreinde t’ ondersteunen nademaal deze, wegens
deszelfs langte, om sig selven te dragen immers _om ’t geweld dat de
man_ te Roer daaraan verrichten moet, uit te staan; al te zwak soude
wezen”[18].
Finally, M. Bouguer (1746) says in his work, p. 83, “that the rudder
should make with the prolongation of the keel an angle of about 55°
44´, etc.”.
Hence it is incorrect to say that the swing of the rudder could only
reach a few degrees. (~Paris~, vol. 4, p. 221.)
Furthermore, vessels should be able to come about more quickly in our
rivers, with their narrow channels and small depth of water, hence the
rudder should be able to swing more than a few degrees.
On small inland boats, the rudder is frequently lengthened on reaching
shallow water. This elongation was made by means of an isolated board
or a movable part (~Van Yk~, p. 221), a thing which happens still very
often at the present time.
If the tiller can be turned entirely above the bulwarks, which is
called in Dutch “geen statie voeren” (without statie), the vessel is
said to have a _draai over boord_ in contradistinction to vessels with
“statie”. The “statie” means the part of the bulwarks which rises above
the tiller[19].
The tiller passes in this case through an opening in the “statie”,
which prevents the rudder being brought hard over.
The length of the lee-boards is taken at twice the depth of the hold.
As many rivers and lakes are lacking in depth, the length of the
lee-boards is reduced for inland vessels, in order to prevent them
from touching bottom, consequently their width was increased.
The lee-boards for the ocean and for the rivers of Zealand are long and
narrow.
New modifications were made in the rigging of vessels toward the middle
of the XVIIIth century. The small bowsprit disappeared in order to make
place for the fore-masts which have remained in use since that time.
[Sidenote: III 145 etc.]
The rigging of the large vessels is sufficiently well known. It is
desired merely to dwell on the fact that fore-masts have been placed
wrongly on various models of the XVIIth century.
A vessel of which the planking is rabbetted into the stem is called a
“vaartuig”. The “Aak” (ake) is a boat without a stem and its planking
forms a plane up to the bow. The planking ends then at the plane in
front. If this occurs for a “Tjalk”, there is obtained what is known as
an “Aak Tjalk”.
When the after deck is raised so as to come up to the level of the main
rail, the vessel is said to be supplied with a “paviljoen”. Thus, for
example, a “Statiepaviljoenpoon”, is a “poon” with a raised deck. If
the after deck be not raised, the vessel is simply a “Statiepoon”.
Vessels can be grouped, then, in the following way:
CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPS
I. WAR VESSELS.
II. MERCHANTMEN.
~A~) For over seas trade;
~B~) For coasting trade and tidal streams.
III. FERRIES.
IV. BOATS FOR SUNDRY USES AND NOT BELONGING TO THE PRECEDING GROUPS.
V. BOATS FREQUENTING THE UPPER PARTS OF RIVERS (BOVENLANDERS).
~A~) For the Rhine;
~B~) For the Meuse;
~C~) For the Upper Rhine and the basin included between the Rhine
and the Meuse.
VI. FISHING VESSELS.
~A~) For deep sea fishing;
~B~) For the coasting and river fisheries.
I.
WAR VESSELS.
In the matter of the evolution of the war ship, properly so-called, the
reader needs merely to be referred to the preceding chapters.
Before about 1675, there were, as a first war ship proper: the
_Pinasschip_ (Pinace) and later the _Spiegelschip_ (a square stern
ship). The square sterned _Spiegel_ disappeared and then round sterns
were again taken up, whence resulted the war ship called _Schip
van oorlog_. At the beginning, this class of vessels was made up
exclusively of ships with two decks. At the end of the XVIIth century,
however, a few types with three decks were built in the Netherlands.
Use was often made of the “Fluitschip” (flute or transport), of
ships of the East India Company (“Oost-Indische Compagnie schip”),
of “yachts” (“Jachten”) and of various sorts of vessels of less
importance, as auxiliary war ships, and of tenders (“Boeier”), galliots
(“Galjoot”), galeas (“Galeas”), “Bommen”, kuffs (“Koffs”) and smacks
(“Smaks”) as coast defence vessels.
All these vessels belong rather to the category of merchant ships and
will be described in the next chapter.
Among the types imitated from abroad there may be mentioned the
_Fregat_ (frigate), and later the _Brik_ (brig), the _Schooner_ and the
_Bark_.
II.
MERCHANT VESSELS.
~A~) _For over seas navigation._
The oldest merchant ship was the cog “Koggeschip”, from which are
descended the “Hulken” and “Krayers”. The planking of these ships is
clinker laid. Then vessels were built with more nearly rounded bottoms
and the carvel-built side appeared in the second half of the XVth
century. The resulting type was the _Barge_ or “Baertze”.
Meanwhile, the construction of castles was begun on these ships, just
as on the old cogs. These castles became gradually more important,
imitating what had been done on the Spanish, Portuguese and Genoese
ships. A type of vessel which, in accordance with the Spanish model,
carried large castles was the _Carack_ or _Galleon_ (“Kraak”)·
This vessel disappeared from our country in the course of the
XVIth century, at the end of which appeared the flyboats (“Vlie or
Vlietbooten”) called later Flutes (“fluiten”).
These vessels departed from the preceding types by having a marked
tumble in of the topsides. Hence the hull was full and the deck was
narrow. The flutes were the merchantmen “_par excellence_” up to the
beginning of the XIXth century.
The “Spiegelschip” also appeared toward the end of the XVIth century;
it acted as a merchantman in the same way as the similar vessel of the
Mediterranean. This vessel was called, at the beginning of the XVIIth
century, Pinnace (“Pinasschip”).
The Pinnace became more rounded in the second half of the XVIIth
century; it carried also a more nearly vertical stern and a smaller
beakhead. From it came the East India Company’s ship (“Oost-Indisch
Compagnie Schip”).
The flutes continued to hold their own alongside of the various types
of vessels, but changes were made to adapt them better to the use
for which they were intended, and so it was that the Noordvaerder or
Walvischvaerder (whaling ship) and Oostvaerder (vessel of the Baltic
Sea) made their appearance.
Small “Spiegelschepen”, having a lighter rig than the others,
appeared elsewhere in the XVIIIth century under the name of _Rinds_
(“Snauschepen”).
Two other types of large fishing vessels for the open sea were built,
viz: the _howker_ or _hoy_ (“Hoeker”) and the _bush_ (“Buys”) which
will be found under the chapter of fishing vessels.
Still another ship comes to us from abroad as a merchantman: the
_Frigate_, while the Tenders (“Boeiers” or “Kromstevens”) had been
imitated already from models of the French navy.
These vessels appeared in the XVIIth century as the result of the
traffic with the city of Rouen (~Witsen~, p. 164, 2ⁿᵈ col.).
From combinations of these types of vessels among each other or
with smaller types have arisen certain kinds of boats called by the
following names: the “Boot”, which was nothing but a small flute having
a “draai-over-boord” stern; the “Hekboot”, derived from the pinnace and
the Galliot; the “Katschip” (cat-boat), from the tender and flute; and
finally the “Stokker”, which had the bow of a “Spiegelship” with the
stern of a howker.
Let it be remarked in passing that it is hard to separate clearly
navigation over seas from navigation along shore, for even small kuffs
(“koffen”) have been chartered for the Indies in many cases.
The distinction made here between navigation over seas and navigation
along shore bears especially on the original destination of the vessels.
~B~) _For navigation along shore._
The largest types of vessels for navigation along shore were
represented by the _galliot_ (“Galjoot”) and the _galeas_ (“Galeas”);
then by the _kuff_ (“Kof”) and the _smack_ (“Smak”).
The “Damloopers”, the “Smalschepen” and the Wijdschepen as well as
the “Friesche turfschepen” (the peat boats of Frisia) belonged to the
family of the smacks.
These boats all came from a single type and differed only in some
detail, of which local needs forced the adoption.
The family of the smacks gave rise to the _hoys_ (“Tjalken”).
The _hoys_ were found especially in Friesland and in Groningen. In the
province of Holland, where they underwent a few slight changes, they
were called Schuiten.
In Zealand, their deck was narrower and they were called “Poonen”.
In North Holland they were designated as “Jacht” (Yachts). Contrary to
what was done for the “Poon”, the bottoms of these boats were not so
wide as those of the hoys. On the Belgian Scheldt, they were rather
finer and known by the name of “Pleiten”, or of “Otters” for the
smallest ones.
Eastern Frisia had similar vessels; they were called “Motten” and bore
some resemblance to the “Kuffs”.
There is still to be found a very old type of merchant vessel,
descended from the old fishing boats and called “Ever” or “Bremerkahn”.
Independently of the family of the hoys, there has existed from the
most distant times, in Overyssel, a distinct type of vessel which in
the XVIIth century, and in Witsen’s time, included the “Potten” and
“Pujen”. Changes were made later in these vessels and they are still
met with at the present time under the name of _Snijboon_ (literally:
French or string bean) from which is descended the pram (“Praam”). The
same shape, but with reduced dimensions, is also found in the “Somp”
and the “Pegge”.
The type of these vessels is distinguished from that of the smacks by
the shape of the bow and stern which are tapering while these parts are
rounded in the smacks.
Many combinations have also been made in this class of vessels; they
have given birth amongst others to the “Koftjalks”, the “Praamaaks” and
the “Aaktjalks”. The _Tenders_ (“Boeiers”) should also be mentioned,
but these vessels had scarce any resemblance to the old “Kromstevens”.
Finally, let the “Kraken” be again mentioned, from which all
characteristics common to the Spanish caracks had disappeared. They
were very strong hoys with quite straight lines, which gave them less
sheer.
III.
FERRIES.
The ferries properly so-called included the _Pontoons_, among which may
be mentioned: the _Gierpont_, the _Kabelveerpont_, the _Jaagpont_ (for
ferrying horses), the _Halve Pont_ (pontoon using a sail); the _Pijper_
(small pontoon) and the _Overhaalpontje_ (skiff).
Other kinds of boats were used as ferries, such as the Veerhengsten,
which belonged to the family of the “Hoogaarsen” (see fishing boats),
the hoys, the “Schuiten” and the “Poonen”, all of them types of vessels
already met in what precedes.
IV.
BOATS FOR VARIOUS USES BUT NOT BELONGING TO THE PRECEDING GROUPS.
It is needless to say that the groups of boats I, II, III specified
above include also a large number of small craft, intended for local
use, which all come down from the same fundamental group; their
destination only varies.
Among the more important of these are the “Bokken” found as much
in Holland[20] as in Frisia. To this family also belong the
_Groningeraardappelpramen_ (prams used in Groningen for carrying
potatoes), the Frisian _Snikken_, with a raking stem and similar in
this respect to the _Haarlemmermeerplompertjes_ (small boats on Haarlem
Lake).
When the sternpost has a good deal of a rake the boat is called a
_Westlander_ and when vessels of this class have a strake less, like
the dredging boats of the Hague, they form the “Bokken”, which must not
be confounded with those which have been already mentioned.
Near Vollenhove, to the north of Overijssel, there is still to be
met a well known small boat, the _Punter_, descended probably from
the _Haaringschuitje_ (a small boat used for the herring fishery) of
the Zuiderzee. The _Groenteschuitje_ from Hoorn (for transporting
vegetables) is exactly like it. These vessels are narrow and have a
great deal of rake in the stem and the sternpost.
The same origin must be attributed to the Utrecht pram and to the
_Kromme Rijnaak_, but the length of these boats is proportionately
greater when compared with the beam.
Outside of the preceding types, there are still found the “Snik” or
the _Gondel_ of North Holland, which very much resembles the “Oude
Kinderdijksche Hoogars”, as well as the “Oude Vischschuit van Aalsmeer”
(very old fishing boat from Aalsmeer).
Setting aside a very considerable number of small _Schouwen_ which are
nothing but covered and flat ferry boats, which already appear in the
old engravings, there are still to be met in Holland the “Schiedamsche
schouwen” or the “Melk en Spoelingschuiten” (boats used to carry milk
and the residuum of fruits from which the juice has been pressed out).
They are long flat-bottomed boats with flat bow and stern.
A special family of boats is made up of the “Barges” and
“Trekschuitjen” (literally “boats hauled from the shore”) which exist
all through the Netherlands. Almost all these boats are alike; they
came originally from Holland and spread all through the rest of the
country as fast as the canals were built.
The “Trekschuiten” are still particularly in vogue in the province of
Drenthe, but the construction of railways and tram lines is slowly
driving them out.
There are still other vessels, the Baggeraken (dredging lighters) which
are very common in the Netherlands.
The special conformation of our rivers and arms of the sea required
constant dredging to maintain the depth of the ports and navigable
passes; but they were far from possessing such perfected machinery as
have the modern dredges: the “Hand-” or “Hijschbeugel” (hand dredge)
was the only apparatus used for dredging in former times.
The boats used for this purpose went under the general name of
“Baggeraken”. The best known type was the _flat_ (“Vlet”), or the
“Baggeraak” still called the _Sliedrechtsche Aak_.
Even now, the “Boeieraken” are still often used for dredging. These
vessels belong to the type of round bottomed craft. Other boats of a
special kind used at Dordrecht for the same purpose were known by the
names of: _Vreeswijksche Zandlichter_ and _Dortsche Zandschuit_ (boats
used for dredging sand and having a great analogy with each other).
They were used almost exclusively for dredging the ballast used by
ships starting for sea. They have now almost wholly disappeared.
_Bokken_ are used almost exclusively for dredging and for taking out
sand from the downs in the West of the country and in the region of the
Rhine. Their shape is almost identical with that of the “Westlanders”
but there is no planking above the planksheer. In the province of
Utrecht, the _Slijkpramen_ are used for the same purpose. They
correspond to the “Kromme Rijnaak”, the general type of the Utrecht
boat. In the province of Groningen, mud is carried by the “Groninger
Slijkpraam”, or “Vlotpraam”, a narrow boat with a rounded bottom which
has nothing in common with the “Overijselsche praam” and which does not
resemble it in any way.
The forerunner of our dredges is the old _Moddermolen_ (literally, mud
mill) or _Moddermolenschip_ used at Amsterdam since 1575.
The _Zolderschuiten_ and the _Schouwen_, now called “Bakken”, may be
mentioned as very old boats. Vessels of this sort were supplied, in
1829, with trap doors in the bottom, whence come _Klepschouwen_ or
_Onderlossers_ (literally: boats discharging through the bottom).
Finally, it is proper to mention also, in the class of vessels under
consideration, the pleasure boats, or sailing Yachts, for which the
_Boeierjacht_ (in South Holland) and the _Tjotter_ (in Friesland) are
used as Dutch types.
It is important to note here that pleasure boats are most generally
called “Yachts”, even though these vessels have frequently no
resemblance to the Yacht properly so called. Hence the name does not
always mark the type.
V.
VESSELS FREQUENTING THE UPPER PARTS OF RIVERS (BOVENLANDERS).
All vessels which frequent the upper rivers are called generally
“Bovenlanders” be their shape what it may.
These vessels, in spite of the interest which they offer, have rarely
aroused attention; ~Witsen~ devotes only a few words to them and calls
them simply “Aaken” or “Samoreuzen” (p. 170, col. 2), and ~Van Yk~ also
gives them this latter name (p. 318).
~A~) _Boats of the Lower Rhine._
The Rhenish boats are of no uniform type. Those which frequent the
lower part of the river (below Bonn) differ from those which circulate
on the Upper Rhine and its tributaries, save for a small craft found on
the Neckar which corresponds with the type below.
The fundamental type of the downstream section is represented by the
_Dorstensche Aak_, and this latter has produced the _Stevenschip_.
These types, originating in the part of Western Germany of which Dorst
is the centre, were imported into our country and have existed there
for a very long time. This is why the “Geldersche Samoreuzen” are
already mentioned in the XVIIth century. Although badly shown, they are
to be seen also on old engravings. They are seen circulating on the
Lower Rhine and the Waal where they are called _Hollandsche Aaken_ and
_Stevenschepen_; even now, they are still built in North Brabant where
they have been in existence for a very long time.
These types of vessels came from the West of Germany (Westphalia) and
entered the Netherlands by way of the Lower Rhine and the Waal, and
through the North-West of North Brabant. They are not met with on the
Meuse, or on the Lower Waal below Tiel. Aaken have been built on a
small scale along the Merwede, and at other points of Holland, where
this same type was again found in the old clinker-built “Turfeiker”
which seems now to have disappeared entirely. The hulls of all these
craft were made in the beginning by overlapping planks, hence it was
the old mode of construction used on the Baltic Sea. These vessels were
all long, narrow and flat-bottomed, like the “Bovenlanders”.
~B~) _Boats of the Meuse._
The Meuse boats, also long and narrow, form a special class of which
the type differs completely from that of the Rhenish craft just
mentioned.
The _Whalemajol_, the _Whalepont_ and the _Maaspont_, as well as the
smaller Spitsbek and the Herna, may be mentioned as fundamental types.
All these types are found on the Belgian Meuse and in our country as
far down as Roermond.
Small vessels called _Bovenmaasche Aaken_ or _Hedelsche Aaken_,
frequently used as dredging flats, are frequently found on the Lower
Meuse in the Netherlands. The shape of these craft is different from
that of the Meuse boats just mentioned from which, however, they are
descended, but their rudder corresponds rather with that of the Rhenish
craft which circulate above Bonn.
~C~) _Boats of the Upper Rhine_ (above Bonn and inclusive of the
regions West of the Rhine and East of the Meuse).
The fundamental type is here the _Keen_, and with it are found the
_Keenaak_ and a boat of more recent date, the _Slof_.
One of these types of boats was introduced at ’s Gravenmoer, in the
XIXth century, because it appeared suitable for exploiting the osier
beds at Biesbosch, but since then many changes have been made in the
stern and the rudder.
None of these types has its origin in the Netherlands.
The “Hagenaar”, like the “Turfeiker”, corresponds to the “Dorstensche
Aak”.
There is also found on the Upper Rhine, as well as on the Meuse, a boat
called the _Bunder_ which dates only from the XIXth century.
Aside from the “Bunder”, the hulls of the types of craft which have
just been mentioned are clinker built. The vessels mentioned under
letter B above must also have been clinker built formerly, judging
by what old boatmen say and by what is seen on an old engraving of a
Whalemajol, belonging to the collection of Mr. Van Gijn, as well as
by what is shown on a stone, which dates from the end of the XVIIIth
century, placed in the front of a house in Sint-Pieterstraat at
Maastricht and representing a Herna. It is impossible to say whether
carvel-built or clinker-built hulls existed at the same time, or
whether the former are of more recent date. It may be assumed, however,
that clinker-built hulls are older than the others.
It is interesting to note that a type which closely resembles the
Herna is still to be found on the Adriatic sea, especially the
_Rascona_ already described and represented in Paris’s well known work
(vol. II, nᵒ 86); this vessel is still steered by means of the old
“Slurriem” (steering oar).
VI.
FISHING BOATS.
~A~) _For deep sea fishing._
The _Buys_ (bush) and the _Hoeker_ (howker), together with the
_Scholschuit_, the _Basanschuit_ and the _Zwartewaalsche Gaffelaar_
should be mentioned as old types of Dutch boats intended for deep sea
fishing.
The _Hoekerbuis_ and the _Kwee_ are descendants from the first two.
The “Sloep” (sloop), the “Logger” (Lugger) and the “Kotter” (cutter)
come to us from France. It is important also to mention in connection
with deep sea fishing the whale boats for which the _Noortsvaerders_
were formerly used; these latter belong to the type of the
“Fluitschepen” (flutes) already mentioned among the merchantmen.
The oldest vessel of the _Noortsvaerders_ class is the _Egmonder Pink_,
which gave birth to the _Bom_ and to the smaller _Garnalen Schuit_
(shrimp boat). These boats were so built that they could be grounded on
the beach. After the fishing port of Scheveningen was finished, there
appeared a new type of vessel descended from the “Logger” and the “Bom”
and known by the name of “Loggerbom” or sometimes “Lelybom”.
~B~) _Near shore and river fishing._
The great majority of fishing vessels is devoted to ordinary or near
shore fishing. The dimensions of these craft were formerly much smaller
than those of the vessels of the preceding group (at the present time,
aside from the “Garnaalschuitjes”, some are built even larger). Their
names are innumerable and so different that they give no idea either of
their form or kind.
The fundamental types of the group include:
_a_) The _Schokkers_, built on the model of the ordinary “Schokkers”.
To them also belong the “Wierschuitje”, the “Steeckschuit”, the
“Henget” and the “Hoogaars”.
The “Akes”, which are met with in most of the types of boats (the
“Aaktjalk”, for example) are also found, under the name of _Tholensche
Schouwen_, in the class of vessels considered.
These craft are much like the _Beyerlandsche Schuitjes_ and form, in a
way, a sort of transition to the _Vischboeicraakjes_.
_b_) The _Botters_ as well as the _Vollendammer Kwakken_, the _Ronsen_,
the _Pluten_ and the _Platjes van Maassluis_.
A third group is formed by short round-bottomed little boats of which
_c_) The _Knotsen_ of Antwerp are the prototypes. The “Bollen”, and the
“Lemmerjachten” or “Lemmeraaken” belong to the same group.
Finally, a fourth group is formed of vessels having a greatly raking
stern and sternpost, called
_d_) _Haaringschuiten_ to which the widely scattered _Punters_ also
belong.
In conclusion, there may also be mentioned several types of small
fishing boats, which frequent exclusively our inland rivers and canals,
and present very often more or less marked resemblances to the types
given under the letters _a_ to _d_. They are the following:
The _Visscherschuitje van Aalsmeer_; the _Gondel_; the
_Vischboeiertje_; the _Woudrichemsch Vischschuitje_; the _Prikschuit_;
the _Steekschuit van de Biesbosch_ and the _Strooperschuitje_.
Many rowboats of the most varied types, as well as old “botters” no
longer fit for sea, and “schokkers” from the Zuiderzee, serve also for
fishing on the inland navigable highways.
FOOTNOTES:
[14] Vessels bringing wood from the North take on larger cargoes as
they approach more nearly the rectangular form; those carrying
grain and crops when they are rounded. Vessels from the North
and the Indies carrying heavy freights are generally larger than
those which carry crops, wines, etc., as are also the boats
which carry salt.
[15] But if it be remembered that, by reason of deep holds and better
loading, all boats tend more and more toward the rectangular
shape, it is seen that now there are no longer found as many
differences in the various forms of vessels as used formerly to
exist. For a well built modern hull will be, so far as cargo
capacity is concerned, but little inferior to the Smalschip
which resembles it in length, beam and draught of water. And the
well built “Damschuit” will also be able to hold its own against
the “Damlooper” up to a certain point.
[16] The rounding of these boats forward and aft was of advantage to
the boatman as they could take on a much larger load than that
given by their gauge.
[17] When a hole, caused by a cannon ball below the water line,
cannot be stopped from the inside, because the cargo, for
example, interferes with the operation, a man is placed outside
the boat on a plank to which is secured a step which lets him
go under water to close the hole. He takes an oiled rag in his
mouth to prevent the water from getting inside of his body.
[18] It (de luierwagen) serves to support the forward end of the
tiller and also to resist the force exerted by the helmsman on
the tiller of the rudder.
[19] A long opening worked in the bulwarks at the stern of the
vessel, allowed the tiller to swing well from side to side.
_Draai over boord_ means simply that the tiller can swing
entirely clear above the rail.
[20] Holland means here the two provinces of the Netherlands called
North and South Holland.
[Illustration: 4]
DESCRIPTIONS OF TYPES OF VESSELS.
[Sidenote: III 3]
[Sidenote: III 6]
A few sketches, taken from old engravings and descriptions, have been
added to the plates of this work. They give an idea of the development
of the ship from 1200 to 1600 inclusive. Reference is made, for more
details in regard to them to the preceding chapters. As the drawings
refer to the period subsequent to 1600, they are all made in accordance
with the working drawings.
As has been repeated many times over, the old forms will have to be
sought in the small types of vessels. Ships of war will, therefore, be
set aside, while large merchant men will receive only a passing mention.
THE PINNACE.
[Sidenote: II 146]
[Sidenote: III 8]
[Sidenote: III 9]
The _Pinasschip_ (pinnace) is the oldest vessel of which we have any
exact description extant. It dates from the first half of the XVIIth
century and disappears at its close. This ship had a raking stem, a
much developed beakhead and a square stern. The square stern and the
beakhead come from the South; furthermore, this vessel is descended
from the one of the XVIth century; its size however was greater and it
carried cannons.
THE FLYBOAT.
[Sidenote: II 148]
[Sidenote: III 19]
The _Vlieboot_ (flyboat), which is found as far back as 1600, is very
bulging and has a narrowed deck. From this type is derived the “Fluit”
(flute) which bulges still more in order to profit by the way in which
boats used to be gauged in Denmark.
An ordinary “flute” was 130 feet long, 26½ feet beam and 13 feet 5
inches deep. It had no beakhead at first, but the larger flutes, built
later on, had one in imitation of the square sterned ships.
These vessels were used for various purposes and underwent many changes
on this account. It is for this reason that the “East Indian flute”
was more strongly built than the one which traded in the ports of the
Baltic Sea. Let it be said, among other things, that the iron futtocks
of the channels are doubled in order to reinforce the rigging, while
their projections aft are made larger so as to obtain more spacious
staterooms. In the matter of this enlargement, they were strengthened
from the inside by means of iron ribs and bands (~Witsen~, p. 159). In
the beginning of the XVIIth century and until 1640, these vessels and
generally all East Indian ships were built open forward and without
quarters for the crew, whose bunks and hammocks were placed on either
side of the ship.
The flutes were known as good sailers. Their slender construction
gave little hold for the wind; they carried three masts and the well
known rigging of the XVIIth century. Those which went for grain in
the Baltic Sea, were rather smaller than the others; they were called
“Oostvaerders” or “Oostervaerder”. Their dimensions were: length, 125
feet; beam, 25 feet; depth, 12 feet; or else: 115, 23½ and 11½ feet; or
again 100, 22 and 11 feet; and carried cargoes respectively of 200, 150
or 100 “lasts.” (1 last = 2 metric tons). Most of them had no beakhead.
Some idea of the importance of our traffic with the Baltic Sea can be
formed when it is stated that, in 1604, 400 “Oostvaerders” were lying
at the same time in front of Amsterdam. In less than a fortnight they
were unloaded, reloaded and ready to retake the sea. (~Witsen~, p. 448.)
The “Noordvaerders” or “Noortsvaerders” were also flutes, but two
feet deeper than the “Oostvaerders”, because more space was needed
for loading the wood (~Witsen~, p. 160) which they had gone to seek
in Norway. Their beam was, as a rule, one-fifth of their length. They
were massive and solid like the “Oostvaerders”. (~Witsen~, p. 53.) but
had no beakhead. When the continual wars are considered, the vessels
trading with the Baltic Sea had smaller crews than those trading with
the West. (~Witsen~, p. 160.)
THE KATSCHIP.
[Sidenote: II 217]
The “Katschepen” are descended from the “boeier” and the “fluit”.
They are therefore vessels of marked curves. As they were often used
in shoal water the bottom was very flat and, furthermore, it was very
angular all around the edge. They were known as poor sailers, but they
carried a large cargo. ~Witsen~ says (p. 163) that their slowness
earned for them the name of “asses” rather than that of “kats”.
It had no beakhead; there were a forecastle, and a cabin. The tiller,
which was manœuvred underneath the cabin, had no extension bar. These
vessels were built most generally of pitch-pine.
All the types mentioned above have the stern of a flute, that is to
say: they are square sterned, which is characteristic of the old Dutch
naval construction.
THE OOST-INDISCH COMPAGNIESCHIP.
[Sidenote: II 151]
[Sidenote: III 11]
The pinnace gave the “Oost-Indisch Compagnieschip” (ship of the East
India Company). Its stern was rounded. As a merchant ship, it was
heavily armed and was often used as a man-of-war in case of need. The
plate of our album showing this vessel gives a good idea of the form
and construction, hence, more detailed explanations are superfluous.
Let it be mentioned only that the stern is very much ornamented, that
there is a beakhead and that the length of the deck is greater than
that of the “flutes.” It carried three masts and the ordinary sails and
rigging.
[Sidenote: II 159]
The vessel of the same kind, but smaller in size and with two masts
only, was called “Snauwschip” (_rind_). It is met with frequently in
Flanders. ~Witsen~ counts the rinds as among inland vessels (p. 170).
THE BOEIER.
[Sidenote: II 191]
[Sidenote: II 194]
The “Boeier” belongs to an isolated type of boats carrying on their
traffic especially with Rouen. It was a flat-bottomed vessel with keel
and lee-boards, as it frequented shallow rivers as much as the sea. The
lee-boards reached two feet below the keel. The stem was much curved,
whence their name of “Kromsteven”.
Judging by the old engravings, the boats of this class had a very high
“statie”, which recalls rather the construction of the Mediterranean
than that of Holland. Besides, the “Boyer” is not a purely Dutch type,
and it is probably descended from a Mediterranean type, modified to
suit the needs of our country.
Boeiers were built at Rotterdam as “draai-over-boord” with doubtless a
raised deck astern, for ~Witsen~ says that they had a small lodgment
under the rudder (p. 164.) This author speaks wrongly of a “boeier”
or of a “galliot”, for this latter is an entirely different kind of
vessel. The “boeiers” were about 86 feet long, 20 feet beam and 9½
feet depth of hold.
THE HOEKER (_hoy_).
[Sidenote: II 227]
[Sidenote: II 228]
[Sidenote: II 230]
[Sidenote: III 21]
The “Hoeker” (hoy), originally a fishing boat, was already a great deal
used toward the middle of XVIIth century, as a merchant ship with one,
two or three masts. It was a sea-going vessel, built very solidly, and
later equipped for the East Indies, in spite of its relatively small
size. It was 80 feet long. The large hoys had a cabin on deck.
THE BUIS (_Bush_).
[Sidenote: II 221]
[Sidenote: III 113]
The “Buis” (bush) was also used as a merchant vessel, which sometimes
carried three masts, although originally it was only a fishing boat.
The “hoy” and the “bush” will be spoken of again among the fishing
vessels. It will be superfluous to say that neither “boeiers”, “hoys”
nor “bushes” carried a beakhead.
There should be mentioned also the following three types of vessels
which are descendants of those which precede:
THE HEKBOOT.
The lower part of this vessel is that of a “flute” and the upper part
that of a “pinnace”, that is to say: a vessel having a broad deck which
increases its capacity.
THE STRAETSVAERDER.
This vessel is a rather large “flute” which carries a beakhead
(~Witsen~, p. 168). (A large number of names referring to a same type
of vessel arise in this way).
THE STOKKER.
The Stokker is a massive ship with two decks. It has the bow of a
“Spiegelschip” and the stern of a “hoy”.
We have received from abroad:
THE FRIGATE.
[Sidenote: III 18]
The frigate occupies an important place especially at the end of the
XVIIIth and beginning of the XIXth centuries. It has been seen in the
preceding chapter how it came to us. This vessel, rigged in different
ways, bore various names, such as: “Gaffelschoener”, “Brigantijn”,
“Schoenerbrik”, “Brik”, “Bark”. Reference is made in this connection to
the various plates of the collection relating to rig.
THE GALLIOT.
When one reads that the King of Denmark stopped, in 1587, more than
600 Dutch ships in the Sound, ships which had all left the Vlie in a
day as related by Hendrik Rantzon; see ~Witsen~, (p. 36), it must not
be imagined that they were all large vessels. It is very probable, on
the contrary, that most of them were no larger than the kuffs and hoys
of the present time. It is easy to form an idea of the characteristic
appearance of the Zuyder Zee, at this period, where the many fishing
vessels then in use swarmed about all these ships. The Zuiderzee is
well and rightly named therefore the cradle of our shipbuilding art.
The little coast towns of the Zuiderzee, with their glorious past, are
its witnesses.
Hence, there will be no cause for astonishment that, in the course of
the many wars waged between Holland and Friesland and Gelderland,
innumerable battles should have been fought on the Zuiderzee. Thus,
for example, a naval battle was fought in 1504 between Holland and
Gelderland, which was described by Wilhelm Hermszoon, an Augustine monk
(~Witsen~, appendix, p. 19). This author relates that the Gelderlanders
came down the Zwarte Water with a large number of “Kochevers” to
surprise the Hollanders, who had seven armed boats. He adds that the
Hollanders understood war better than the Gelderlanders, for the latter
used only the bow, the cross bow and the sling, and that finally, the
largest of the Holland ships having grounded, the Hollanders succeeded
in frightening the Gelderlanders so much by firing their arquebusses,
that they made them give up the fight.
The same author relates, at another place, that, on the advice of the
Spanish merchants, the inhabitants of Amsterdam caused a ship called
“Galeoot” to be laid down and that a year was required to build it.
This ship could be propelled by sail or with oars. It was handled by 32
rowers. It was called the “Terror of the Zuiderzee”.
[Sidenote: II 241]
[Sidenote: III 58]
These narratives are interesting in this that, in telling about the
battle of the Zuiderzee, a “Kochever” is spoken of, which proves that
the “Koch” or “Kogge” and the “Ever” are closely related. They also
show that the “Galliot” came to us from abroad. The “Galliot”, like the
“Ever”, is still met with to-day; but it is no longer handled by oars.
Our ships of the XVIth century were much smaller also than those of
the states to the South; our navigation toward the Baltic was almost
exclusively coasting and required smaller vessels.
[Sidenote: II 225]
[Sidenote: II 226]
[Sidenote: III 20]
The “Galjoot” (galliot) of the XVIth century was built still later in
large numbers, and, besides, it is mentioned at all subsequent times.
It is probable however that the “galliots” were built later with a more
rounded hull like all our ships, for that matter. It is to be noticed,
in any event, that the “galliot” of the XVIIIth century displays great
analogy with the ordinary “Koftjalk”.
The side of the galliot is more nearly straight and the castles fore
and aft are higher. (~Le Comte~, p. 18). The vessel is 85 feet long, 21
feet beam and 11 feet deep. The stern and the bow are more rounded than
they are in the boeier (~Witsen~, p. 165). The vessel therefore, is
one which may not be classed among the Dutch types. The main mast, in
one-and two-masted galliots, was placed at one-third the length of the
ship from the stem. The ship is a “draai-over-boord”. It had at times
the stern of a “flute”, in which case it was called a “Bootschip” or
simply a “Boot”. At other times, the upper part was that of a pinnace
with _a converso_[21] so as to increase its cargo capacity. Again it
can be noted how most boats can be brought back to a fundamental type.
It is in this way that “advies Jachten” are often spoken of in history.
This was merely a generic name for all kinds of vessels employed for
the same purpose and including, especially, the “galliots”. (~Witsen~,
p. 165.) These vessels were then built with finer lines and greater
sail power so as to be able to move more quickly. The “galliots” had
generally two masts of different heights and, exceptionally, they had
three. They had no beakhead. They carried lee-boards at the beginning.
Their capacity varied from 160 to 300 tons. There are still a few left,
trading on the Baltic Sea, but they are smaller, having an average
length of 19 metres, a mean width of 4.50 m., and a depth of 2.20 m.
They too will soon disappear and give way to the steel “Kofs” and
“Hoys”. (~Le Comte~, p. 22.) The name “Galliot” is probably of Italian
origin. (~Koenen~, p. 140.)
THE GALEAS.
[Sidenote: II 239]
The “Galeas” like the “galliot”, belonged to the largest types of
vessels used for navigation near shore. The name alone indicates a
foreign origin for this kind of vessel, although they were frequently
found in Holland. Their mode of construction also shows the same
origin. Most of them were built at Königsberg, Stettin, Stralsund, etc.
They gauged up to 100 and even 260 tons. (~Le Comte~, p. 35.)
The galeas traded especially between Holland, England and France. They
drew from 8 to 14 feet (2.26 to 3.96 m.) Like the “galliots”, they
had two masts, as a rule. Their build was very much like that of the
“Kotter” (cutter) and the “Sloep” (sloop).
Hence it was an exotic type of which, a few specimens are still met
with on the Baltic Sea, and which made its appearance later, probably
under the influence of the naval construction of the peoples of the
South. (In the Mediterranean: the names of Galeazza, Galeona, Galeota,
are still found).
THE KOFF.
[Sidenote: II 218]
[Sidenote: III 22]
The “Koff” (kuf) is a purely Dutch type mentioned neither by ~Witsen~
nor ~Van Yk~. It seems to date from the end of the XVIIth century and
later it replaced, in many cases, the “flutes” and the “cat-boats”.
(~Le Comte~, p. 10.)
The forms of the kuffs are very much rounded and show in this way their
affinity to the “smacks” and the “hoys”. They are flat-bottomed with
a square bow or, as ~Van Loon~ says (p. 64), “stomp rond” (round and
bluff). Later, some were built with finer lines.
They are solid ships and withstand storms very well, whence the saying:
“Koffen en Smakken zijn waterbakken” (Kufs and Smacks are reservoirs of
water). I cannot partake of the opinion of Mr. Koenen, who claims that
“Kof” is descended from “Kog” because the “Kofs” made their appearance
much later than the Kogs and are descendants from small inland boats.
They are, as a rule, vessels of light draught, 72 feet long, 17 feet
wide and 8 feet, 3 inches deep. Their capacity varied from 100 to 300
tons. They have ordinarily two masts, the larger being at one-third the
length of the vessel from the bow. They are provided with a slightly
raised deck aft without “statie”. The small “Kofs” have lee-boards, the
large ones, none.
Making the bow of these vessels finer was begun in the XIXth century
(~Van Loon~, p. 65), and this caused their old characteristics to
disappear. It was desired to give to them, in this way, greater
steadiness in steering. These vessels are still built in the province
of Groningen, where they originated. Now, they are made, however, as
are the “hoys”, with a more rounded bow. Formerly they were also met
frequently in the province of Holland; they ran not only to the Baltic
Sea, but also to Norway, England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Portugal
and the Mediterranean and even to Rio de Janeiro. (~Le Comte~, p. 11.)
THE SMAK.
[Sidenote: II 216]
[Sidenote: III 23]
The “Smak” (smack) is as interesting a vessel as the “Kof” which it
resembles a great deal. It is a pure Holland type, bluff and flat
and very stable on the water. Le Comte calls it the sister of the
“Kof”. The shape of the “hoy” is found clearly again in this type.
They are not fine either at bow or stern, and resemble exactly
the old engravings of the “Smalschepen” and “Wijdschepen” and the
“Turfschepen”! Furthermore, they belong to the same family with these
last, but they are rather more strongly built as they are intended to
make longer voyages. The “smack” is the type of Frisian vessels. It
carries a “_statie_” and lee-boards. The main mast is at one-third of
the boat’s length from the bow and it carries also a small mast at the
stern in the “_statie_”. These vessels are generally 80 feet long, 22
feet wide and 9 feet deep. Their capacity varies from 70 to 140 tons.
They traded with France, England, even with Lisbon, to say nothing
of their traffic with the Baltic Sea. They were, however, especially
built, as ~Le Comte~ says (p. 12), to sail across the “Wadden” to
Groningen, Friesland and East Friesland. Witsen does not mention the
“smack”.
[Sidenote: II 210]
[Sidenote: II 209]
If the design of the “smack” be compared with that of the “Wijdschip”
mentioned by ~Witsen~ (p. 171), it is seen at once that it is a
question here of a mere change of name. Nor is there at bottom any
essential difference between the “Smalschip” and the “Wijdschip”. ~Van
Yk~ says (p. 308) that the only difference between the two types was
this: the “Smalschip” was so narrow that it could go through the city
of Gouda, while the “Wijdschip” had to go around. Hence they are two
like vessels which differ only in dimensions. If now, the designs of
these boats be compared with those of the “Turfschepen”, a perfect
resemblance is again to be noted. It is at the end of the XVIIIth
century that the generic name of “hoy” is given to all these vessels,
thus imitating what was done in Friesland.
THE SMALSCHIP AND THE WIJDSCHIP.
[Sidenote: II 210]
The “Smalschip” had the following dimensions: length, 60 feet; beam, 16
feet; depth, 14 feet: those of the “Wijdschip” were respectively: 70
feet, 20 feet and 8 feet 2 inches. These vessels carried a “statie”.
THE DAMLOOPER.
The “Damlooper” was a vessel of the same type as the preceding but
so built that it could pass through the lock of the “Leidschen Dam”.
~Van Yk~ gives its dimensions as follows (p. 312):
[Sidenote: II 212]
“’T Schip (de Damlooper) zal lang zijn 56 voeten, wijd dat de zwaarden
afhangen, het rakende en echter gemaklijk door de Duikers van den
Leidsen dam kan gebragt werde, zo sal dat schip op de bovebuitekant van
de Kimmegang of wentelstrook, so wijd als op ’t Barkhout wesen moeten
en ten minsten van binnen tegen de zetwegers gemeeten zijnde elf voeten
en een duym wijdte hebben.”[22]
The capacity of the vessel is given further on as 18 last (= 36 tonnes).
The lock of the “Leidschen Dam”, which is in question here, was built
under authority of the provincial Act of 1617 and reconstructed in
1648. This lock, like the one of the Gouwe, dating from the XIVth
century[23], was only replaced in 1885, by a new lock of 7 metres clear
width and with a depth of 2.20 m. on the mitre sills. The provincial
States of South Holland had the following inscription placed on a
stone in the lock keeper’s dwelling of the “Leidschen Dam” in order to
commemorate the event.
“In 1885 is de verbetering der vaart tusschen Rijn en Schie door de
Staten van Holland ondernomen. Hier waar de naijver der steden tot
1648 slechts een overtoom en daarna een verlaat van 3.80 m. wijdte en
doorvaarthoogte van 2.20 m. gedoogde, hebben zij deze sluis wijd 7
meter met beweegbare bruggen bevolen”[24].
Hence, the existing obstacles were only removed in 1885. It was
therefore up to this time that the “Smalschepen” and “Wijdschepen” and
the “Damloopers” had any reason to exist. They are no longer mentioned,
however, in the XIXth century, the “hoys” being then almost exclusively
spoken of. Hence, it is here again merely a change of name without any
change of form in the vessels. All the same, the inland boats underwent
an important modification in the course of the XIXth century. Indeed,
~Van Loon~ tells us (p. 69): “The angular forms of the bow and stern
gave way to the more rounded forms of these parts of the vessel and of
the hull in general”. This gave the boat a generally regular and smooth
shape. These angular shapes are no longer found save in a few old
“Poonen” and “Schuiten”. The old engravings give a good idea of this
angular construction which, on some of them, is so deep that it would
be believed that the planking outside was clinker laid.
Hence it is seen that, in the XIXth century, a certain number of
vessels, which had been known previously by different names, were all
included under the generic name of “hoy”.
THE TJALK.
[Sidenote: III 26]
[Sidenote: III 29]
The “Tjalk” or “hoy” properly so called, is a native of Friesland
and of the province of Groningen. Its capacity varies between 30 and
80 tons, but sea-going hoys, measuring up to 200 tons, are built,
however, in the province of Groningen. The essential difference
between a Groningen and a Friesland hoy is this: the former has a
“draai-over-boord” and the second a “statie”. The Friesland vessel is
sometimes called “Friesche Praam” if its lines be a little more nearly
straight. (~Le Comte~, p. 17).
Furthermore, the stem of the Frisian hoy has a greater rake. Like our
inland boats, the “Tjalken” were rigged formerly with sprit sails
which, during the XIXth century, were replaced nearly everywhere by the
ordinary fore and aft rig. They generally carry a single mast, but some
large “hoys” have, at times, a second small mast on the “statie”.
THE SCHUIT AND THE POON.
[Sidenote: II 252]
[Sidenote: II 254]
[Sidenote: II 236]
[Sidenote: III 40]
[Sidenote: III 43]
[Sidenote: II 211]
The “Schuit” is for South Holland what the “hoy” is for Friesland and
the province of Groningen, and the _Poon_ for Zeeland and the island
of South Holland. There is very little difference between the “Poon”
and the “Schuit”; each of them recalls the Dutch type of the “smack”
of which the lower part is rather fuller. Hence the deck is rather
less wide than the bottom, and the “Poon” has a greater sheer than the
“Schuit”, of which the deck is more nearly flat. Both of these vessels
have a “statie” but the “Poon” has often a “draai-over-boord” and a
slightly raised deck in the stern. These characteristics are rarely
found in the “Schuit”.
They are very strong vessels and, above all, very steady in heavy
weather. One peculiarity of these vessels lies in the fine point which
terminates the stern. This point is thrown back a little and should
point toward the hounds of the mast (upper part where the standing
rigging is fastened to the mast). This same point is found among the
boats which frequent the Belgian Scheldt, with the exception of the
hoys.
THE KAAG.
[Sidenote: III 24]
Alongside of the Schuit, there is found in North and South Holland,
especially about Amsterdam, the _Kaag_ which resembles the “Poon”
closely. The hull of the kaag has sides which do not fall in as much
as do those of the “Poon” and therefore, it forms a sort of transition
between the hoy and the “Poon”. This vessel is much used as a light
boat and is rigged with a sprit. Some are met with, however, carrying
gaff sails; they are then called _Gaffelkaag_ or _Gaffelschip_. The
kaag is of about the same size as the “Poon” and the hoy. The “Schuit”,
the “Poon” and the “Kaag” kept their angular shapes until the end. It
is useless to dwell on the fact that the kaag also carries a “statie”.
The last three types of boats also kept longest the round hatchways
which were formerly in general use.
THE STEIGERSCHUIT.
The _Steigerschuit_ (literally: landing boat) was often met with in the
XVIIth century. The boats of this category were small Schuiten, Poonen
or Kaag, used in ports and along rivers to carry passengers and freight
back and forth between the landings on shore and the large vessels. The
name shows the use and the type of boat.
THE YACHT.
[Sidenote: III 44]
[Sidenote: III 45]
If boats with a narrow deck were built in South Holland and Zeeland,
narrow bottoms were preferred, on the contrary, in North Holland. This
boat was then called “Yacht” a _Noord Hollandsche Yacht_.
It is generally about the size of a small hoy. In order to classify the
preceding vessels in accordance with their bottom width, it would be
necessary to begin with the “Yacht”, then to take the hoy and, finally,
the “Poon”.
Its more narrow bottom and its more converging sides make the Yacht
look more slender and more swift than the “Poon”.
The bends of the Yacht show a great deal of sheer with a straight
element at the middle. The Yacht has a “draai-over-boord” with a
slightly raised deck at the stern.
THE BOEIERSCHUIT.
[Sidenote: III 46]
The _Boeierschuit_ belongs to the family of the “Boeiers” or
“Kromstevens” above mentioned, but it is smaller and also somewhat
like the ordinary “Schuiten”, whence comes probably the name
of “Boeierschuiten” given to these vessels. The stern carries a
“draai-over-boord”, often with a poop deck. The Boeierschuiten have
one characteristic and that is a sort of cockpit where the helmsman
stands in order to handle easily the tiller. This cockpit is often met
with among the _Boeieraken_. The “Boeierschuiten” are found in South
Holland, Zeeland and Flanders.
Shipbuilding was also early developed in Flanders. Let us mention only
ancient Damme and Antwerp, and we shall not be surprised that the types
of vessels found there resembled those of our country. Let us mention,
in the first place, among them,
The _Pleiten_ and the _Otterschepen_ which are also to be found in the
North-West of Northern Brabant.
THE PLEIT.
[Sidenote: III 51]
The “Pleit” is a very old boat, often spoken of in history. It was seen
trading with England. It had about the same capacity as our “hoy”, of
which it had the shape except that the length was proportionally a
little greater as compared with the breadth. Hence this vessel appeared
longer than the “hoy”. Its lines also were graceful. Its dimensions
were: length, 23 to 27 metres; breadth, 4.80 m. to 5.00 m.; maximum
draught of water, 1.90 m., capacity from 125 to 180 tons.
These vessels are now built larger; their length reaches 35 m.; their
beam, 5.00 m.; their draught 0.40 m. light and 2.00 m. loaded; they
carry 270 tons.
These boats are wrongly called _Bélandres Hollandais_ in Belgium, from
the newer inland boats called “bélandres” of which more will be said
later.
These latter have no affinity with the “Pleit.” (See ~Dehem~, _Annales
des Travaux Publics_, August 1901, p. 508).
The “Pleit” has a “statie”. It is curious to observe that the “Pleiten”
of to-day are rigged very lightly considering their length. Formerly
they had two masts.
THE OTTER.
[Sidenote: II 253]
[Sidenote: III 52]
The _Otter_ a small, narrowed “Pleit”, from 16 to 30 metres long (see
~Dehem~, p. 507); 4 metres beam; draught of water loaded from 1.70 m.
to 2.20 m.; generally, 1.80 m. Its capacity varied from 70 to 180 tons.
The “Otter” had a “statie” and carried the ordinary fore and aft rig
mast, and a small jigger mast set in the “statie” often completed the
outfit.
“Schuiten” which correspond to the Dutch “Schuiten” are still met with
on the Scheldt alongside of the “Pleiten” and the “Otter”. This type of
vessels is just as different from the “Otter” as our “Schuit” is from
the “Hoy”. ~Dehem~ is, therefore, mistaken when he says, in his work
mentioned above (p. 507): “The Schuit is an ‹Otter› of smaller size....”
The “Pleiten” like the “Otters” are often met with in the Netherlands.
If the boats of the West of Belgium thus show the same characteristics
as those of our own country, it will be the same for those of East
Friesland.
THE MOT.
[Sidenote: III 53]
[Sidenote: III 54]
The “Motten” replace the “Hoys” in East Friesland. They are divided
into: _Buiten Motten_, _Binnen Motten_ and _Spitsche Motten_.
These boats have the same shape as those of the last two categories
considered; they differ only in size.
They correspond to the hoys of Groningen, even in what concerns the
shape of the bends and the rudder. Hence they belong to the family of
the “Hoys”.
THE SPITSCHE MOT.
[Sidenote: III 55]
The “Spitsche Mot” is a small boat which differs in shape from the
ordinary boats of this class. It is sharper, less heavily built, and is
14.50 m. long; 3.90 m. wide, and 1.60 m. deep. The difference between
a “Spitsche Mot” and a “Binnen Mot” is the same as that between an
“Overijsselsche Praam” and a “Hoy”.
THE EVER.
[Sidenote: II 241]
[Sidenote: III 58]
The “Ever” and the “Bremerkahn” are met with all along East Friesland
coasts as far as Denmark. They have kept some very old forms which
recall the ancient “cogs”. They were built, especially, near Hamburg
and were used originally as fishing boats. The same thing has happened
here as in our country where the “Howker” and the “Bush”, which were
fishing boats at first, became merchant vessels later.
The “Ever” will be treated of again among the fishing craft.
THE BREMERKAHN.
[Sidenote: III 57]
The “Bremerkahn” is a narrow “Ever”. Both have the square stern which
came to them from the South.
These last two boats have smooth hulls; formerly they were clinker
built. The “Kahn”, straighter and flatter than the “Ever”, has a less
sloping stem. They are fore and aft rigged and have often a small
additional mast at the stern. Their capacity is very much the same as
our “Hoys”.
The Hamburg “Ever” is 17 metres long; 6.40 m. beam and draws 0.70 m.
of water when empty and 1.50 m. when loaded. The dimensions of the
“Bremerkahn” are respectively: 15.50; 4.80; 0.70 and 1.50.
Save the Galliot and the Galeas, all the vessels belonging to group
II-B, are found all the way from Denmark along East Friesland,
Groningen, Friesland, North and South Holland, Zeeland, the West of
North Brabant, Flanders, the West of Utrecht and also a very small part
(West) of the Betuwe; in short, all along the coast and on our lower
tidal rivers.
So soon as the Meuse, the Waal and the Lek are reached, the character
changes. This applies also to the province of Overijssel and to a part
of Drenthe. The greater part of the province of Drenthe only became
accessible to navigation after the opening of the canals built in
the XIXth century. The southern part of this province formed early,
however, one with Overijssel, from the shipbuilding point of view, and
the types now in use were developed in both at the same time.
THE POTTEN AND THE PUJEN.
[Sidenote: II 201]
The oldest vessels known in Overijssel are the _Potten_ and the
_Pujen_ (~Witsen~, p. 170), of which few engravings are extant. The
names are now no longer met with; the primitive “Potten” and “Pujen”
have, however, not entirely disappeared there. The old forms have been
preserved there as everywhere else and, aside from a few changes, these
vessels have merely changed their names.
Clinker built hulls gave way first to those carvel built, and later the
forms of the boats became less angular. The old rig has changed and
the old round hatchways have made place for more simple flat hatches.
By these transformations, these vessels change their appearance
somewhat although the hull remains the same, but the names of “Potten”
and “Pujen” have given place to those of “Sompen”, “Peggen” and
“Snijboonen”, more generally met with to-day.
Already, Witsen and other authors have noted that the “Potten” and
“Pujen” are distinguished from the “Smalschepen” and “Wijdschepen” by
their finer bow and stern; the same difference as is now found between
the Hoys on the one side and the “Snijboonen” and “Sompen” on the
other. Besides, the name “Snijboon” (string bean) shows that it is a
question of a long and fine boat, that is: a flat bottomed boat with
lengthened bow and stern.
THE SNIJBOON AND THE SOMP OR PEGGE.
[Sidenote: III 34]
[Sidenote: III 31-33]
The “Snijboon” and the “Somp” have the same shape. Both have a
“draai-over-boord” and generally a poop deck. Their characteristics are
the fine bow and stern, the sudden fall of the bends near the sternpost
and the stem; these bends being almost horizontal for the remainder
of the length of the vessel; the sternpost and the stem are nearly
vertical.
These characteristics distinguish them almost immediately from the
boats of the other provinces. The “Somp” is 15.50 m. long, 3.70 m. beam
and 1.80 m. deep.
When the “Somp” is smaller and draws less water it is called a “Pegge”,
of which the dimensions are respectively 12.00 m., 2.65 m. and 1.45 m.
The dimensions of the “Snijboon” are 17.50 m., 3.90 m. and 1.50 m.
THE HOOGEVEENSCHE PRAAM.
[Sidenote: III 53]
The _Hoogeveensche Praam_ is an open vessel, of relatively recent
date, descended from the Somp but having a fuller bow and stern.
THE PRAAM (_Pram_).
[Sidenote: III 35]
The tendency, already noticed in the XVIIth and at the beginning of the
XVIIIth century, to build larger and fuller vessels (~Van Yk~, p 348),
became still more marked in the XIXth century. It is thus that the
“Snijboonen” and “Sompen” are seen to increase in size and that birth
is given to the _Praam_ of which the size and load can be compared with
those of the Hoy.
[Sidenote: III 36]
The “Pram” has retained, however, the slender bow and stern as also the
characteristic line of the bends. (~Le Comte~, p. 23.) All of these
vessels have the “draai-over-boord” often accompanied with a poop
deck. Hence these “Pramen” are totally separated from the vessels of
the “Semaque” (hoy) group met with in Friesland and Groningen. They
have nothing to do with the _Groninger Aardappelpraam_ or with the
_Groninger Slijkpraam_, or with the _Friesche Praam_ which belong to
the “Hoy” group. The name of _Praam_ which is met with in Overijssel
only at the end of the XVIIIth or beginning of the XIXth century is
not purely Dutch. The Marquis ~de Tolin~ says, for example (p. 175),
that Napoleon caused to be built for his Boulogne fleet a few “prams”,
flat bottomed vessels, 37 m. long, 8 m. wide and drawing about 2.50 m.
They were rigged with three masts and were armed with cannon. (~De
Bonnefoux~ and ~Paris~; _Dictionnaire de Marine à Voiles_, anno 1847,
p. 59.) Twenty “Prams” of this kind are said to have been built. They
had nothing in common, however, with our “Pramen” unless it were that
both vessels were flat bottomed. The Marquis ~de Tolin~ describes
the Dutch “Praam” in his book (p. 144); but this description lacks
precision, because the “Overijsselsche” and “Friesche Pramen” are
grouped together.
The “Friesche praam” (pram of Friesland) is merely a small hoy with
rather slight sheer and provided with a “statie”; while the other is a
flat bottomed vessel with “draai-over-boord” and never with a “statie”.
~Le Comte~ (p. 29) says that the first of these vessels were built only
in the province of Drenthe, at Meppel and Hoogeveen, and he too groups
the hoy with the “Friesche pram”. So he writes (p. 14), for example,
that the “hoys” sometimes have movable washboards when they load
above the gunwales, whereas this is especially characteristic of the
“Friesche pramen”.
Meanwhile, the Pram is often spoken of in Holland, although no vessel
bearing that name, or one resembling the Overijsselsche Praam, is found
there. This name is used then to designate vessels in general.
The big “Overijsselsche Praam”, as it is known to-day, dates only from
the second half of the XIXth century and its increase in size is due
solely to the improvement of existing canals and to the opening to
traffic of new navigable highways, nearly all dating from the same
period. In this way, the “Drentsche Hoofdvaart” was only connected with
Groningen by the construction of the Noord Willemsvaart in 1858-1862;
(see _Gedenkboek Koninklijk Instituut van Ingenieurs_, p. 31). The
Hoogeveensche vaart, dug in 1623 as an “Echtens nieuwe grift”, was
only extended eastward and improved between 1850 and 1860 and the
Meppelerdiep was improved only in 1860 and 1882.
The final junction of Friesland and Groningen by water is also of
recent date; communication was had formerly only by sea. The inland
communication between these provinces was still very primitive until
the beginning of the XIXth century. It was only after 1851 that
improvement was spoken of, and in 1864, the Gaarkeuken lock was
rebuilt, at the boundary between the two provinces, with a width, of 6
metres and a neat length of 26 metres. The Stadskanaal, started in 1766
or 1767 was only finished in 1858.
It was also only in the XIXth century that the improvement of the
junction between Overijssel and Friesland, accomplished by the removal
of the high peat bogs, was begun, and the junction of the northern with
the southern provinces of the Netherlands was brought about in 1820 by
the opening of the “Willemsvaart” (which connects the Yssel with the
Zwartewater). A water supply canal had really been built from Zwolle
toward Yssel as far back as the XIVth century, and improvement of this
canal, so as to make it navigable had really been begun in 1480, but
the reciprocal jealousy of the cities of Yssel stopped these works.
(~Dr. H. Blink~, vol. II, p. 282.) Up to the first half of the XIXth
century, water communications between the northern provinces were had
under these conditions, by way of the Zuyder Zee, communications for
which vessels of the hoy group were, at first used exclusively. The
“Potten” and the “Pujen”, like the “Sompen” and “Peggen”, were unable
to stand the high seas (~Witsen~, p. 170.) and only the “Prams”, which
appeared later, were able by reason of their size and strength to take
the open sea, and soon to spread over all our country.
It is interesting to inquire however, how the name “Praams” came to
be admitted into a country where there existed so many other and
more appropriate names. There is no doubt that the influence of the
province of Groningen brought about this adoption. In fact, the city
of Groningen decided, by the “Convenant van 1817” (treaty of 1817, a
time when the big Pramen of Overijssel were not yet built) that people
coming to the market must pay, like every one else, the ordinary tolls
at bridges, locks and gates of existing canals. There was to be paid
for the canals to be built _thirty_ cents at each lock for a “schip”
(boat) and _ten_ cents for a “pram”. The same distinction between boat
and “pram” was already found in the old tariffs. For example: the
“Stadsordonnantie” of January 28, 1773, lays down that a boat shall pay
15 sous at the locks of the city and a “pram” only 4 sous. It appears
from all this that a distinction was made at Groningen between the
“boat” and the “pram” and from the great difference in price it is
clear that a “pram” was a small boat.
This is so evident that more ample explanations in regard to the nature
of the “pram” have not been sought, and it is clear that the well known
“Slijkpramen” of the province of Groningen are meant, the “Slijkpramen”
being used just as well in the Dollard as in the peat bogs. They are
small narrow boats, open above, with a straight longitudinal section,
full bow and stern (like the hoys of Groningen). They are found also,
with a few changes, under the name of “Vlotpramen”.
When, after the completion of the Noord Willemsvaart in 1862, the
direct connection between Overijssel and Groningen was accomplished and
this latter province could be reached by the large Overijssel boats,
which had also sides with no sheer, it was found evidently advantageous
to call these vessels simply “Prams”. In this way, advantage was taken
of the lower rate and, considering the resulting profits, good care was
taken not to change the name “Pram” to that of “Schip”. It was only in
1903 that a judgment of the justice of the peace of Groningen decided
that the vessels in question must be considered as “Schepen” and not
as “Pramen”, considered by the above mentioned covenant. (Provinciale
Groninger Courant, Dinsdag, 24 Februari 1903, Nᵒ 46.) This judgment,
which put an end to the advantages mentioned above, was given as the
result of a report of experts dated December 24, 1902. Among the
preambles of this report is pointed out the French translation of an
article of the tariff sheet appended to the convenant of 1817, where
the word “Praam” was translated officially by “bateau dit vlotpraam”,
meaning by that, and rightly, the small open “praam” of Groningen.
The experts were mistaken, however, in saying that the present large
“prams” were descended from the “vlotpraam” of Groningen. These prams
are exactly like the Overijssel boats, but their dimensions are larger.
Furthermore, they never belonged to the Groningen class of vessels.
Their fine bow and stern are the most striking proof of this. In
order to settle the type of the “prams”, search should not have been
made alone in Groningen, as was done by the experts, but a comparison
should have been made between the types of this province and those of
Overijssel.
To refer, as in the report of the experts, to a few earlier judgments
where it is a question of “Praamschip” proves just as little, because
there is no sense in considering the name of a boat, the type is what
is required. The conclusion of the report is still more absurd, seeing
that it says that the “praam” is a “boat” (schip), because the owner is
called a “boatman” (schipper)!
The covenant of 1817 was not applicable to the “Overijsselsche pramen”
because these did not exist when the agreement was concluded.
What precedes shows plainly that it is important to classify boats
clearly and to determine beyond doubt the country to which the types
belong.
It is perfectly natural that Overijssel should have found itself under
the influence of the other provinces. So, the “Hoy” is found along the
Zuyder-Zee and, in the XVIIth century, the “IJzeren Verken” (anglice:
iron hog) is a boat which should also be classed among the hoys and
which ~Witsen~ calls a solid boat from Overijssel (p. 170). In the same
way, the “statie” from Friesland is taken up in Overijssel, it being
originally from the former province.
[Sidenote: III 37]
It will be useless to note that “Praamaken” and “Aaktjalken” are met
with, that is to say a few boats having the shape of the “Praam” and
of the Hoy, but without a stem. The bottom ends in the nose and the
planking is assembled on this front face.
Many “hoys” and “prams” have been built of iron during recent years.
They still show characteristic differences among themselves, but it
is to be expected that finally the forms will be confounded, when the
“prams” will have taken fuller forms and the sheer of the hoys will
have been reduced.
THE KOFTJALK.
[Sidenote: III 25]
Finally, the “Koftjalk” must be mentioned again; it being a boat which
is intermediate between the “Kof” and the “Hoy”. This kind of boat is
originally from Groningen and resembles strongly the “Buitenmotten” of
East Friesland. The “Koftjalk” is the precursor of the “Koffs” which
later on replaced the “Cats and the Flutes”.
[Sidenote: III 22]
The “Koffs” therefore are not a spontaneous production, but were
developed gradually as trade and industry extended or as navigable
highways reached further and became improved. Thus the dimensions of
the “Koffs” increased at the beginning of the XIXth century as the
result of the creation of the Damsterdiep in 1791.
If Hogendorp (Bijdrage tot de huishouding van den Staat, Vol. I, p.
183), still speaks, at the end of the XVIIIth century, of “Koffs” of 70
to 100 lasts, on the other hand, ~Le Comte~ (p. 16) mentions, at the
beginning of the XIXth, “Koffs” of 100 to 150 “lasts”.
The name of “Koftjalk” shows, on the other hand, that there is only a
slight difference existing between the “Koff” and the “Hoy”.
THE KRAAK.
[Sidenote: III 47]
[Sidenote: II 176]
[Sidenote: II 178]
The “Kraak” is a strongly built boat, with no sheer, with full and
rounded bow and stern, belonging to the smack group. This vessel, of
the size of a small “hoy”, belongs to the region limited by the broken
line Amsterdam, Naarden, Nigtevecht, Haarlem, Zaandam and Amsterdam,
this last city being considered as its place of origin. This very old
type of boat is already to be seen in the engravings of the beginning
of the XVIIth century, but there they are called “Lichter”.
It is for this reason that ~Witsen~ speaks of the “Amsterdamsche
binnenlichters”, as being “een plomb gebouwd zonder zeil of mast
overdekt met hooge ronde luiken” (a heavily built boat, without masts
or sails, covered by high round hatches).
They were generally poled and had no masts; and carried a small
deckhouse aft.
An engraving of a “lichter” of the XVIIth century, also bears this
distich:
[Sidenote: II 177]
“Te lichten menich schip bequaem”
“Daar af voert dit schip zijnen naem”.
(The name of this boat comes to it because it is able to raise many
another).
Later, larger “Lichters” were built, known as “Lichter” of Nigtevecht,
Brouwershaven, Wieringen, etc.
All have the same massive form raised a little forward and aft. A few
carry a “statie”. The waist of the boat is always straight. The larger
size involved the necessity of a rig, and the “Lichters” so rigged were
called “Kraken”, a name which has nothing in common with that of the
Spanish caracks.
[Sidenote: III 48]
An engraving which shows a ferry-boat running between Amsterdam and
Haarlem, gives an idea of the precursor of the “Kraak”. There must
also be counted among the “Kraken”, the “IJker”, with a smooth hull,
of which the more recent name undoubtedly designates the same kind of
vessel. It is well again to remark that the old “Turfijker” has nothing
to do with this “IJker”, with a smooth hull, which it resembles only in
name.
At Haarlem, the “Kraak” is called “Haarlemmerpont”. This vessel is a
little less bluff and the stern is less full.
The Netherlands, cut up by innumerable rivers and streams in every
direction, have been, from the most distant times, the country “par
excellence” of ferries and other vessels for carrying man and beast to
and fro.
THE “OVERHAALPONTJE” SKIFF.
[Sidenote: III 59]
[Sidenote: III 61]
The simplest form of these ferries is shown by the rectangular scow
made to run back and forth by hauling on one or two ropes. Boats
of this kind are very well known by the name of “Overhaalpontjes”
(skiffs), of which large numbers exist still in Holland, especially in
the neighborhoods of The Hague, Amsterdam and Utrecht.
THE PONTON.
The “Ponton” is another kind of ferry boat.
The larger sized craft are raised forward and aft to facilitate the
passage. The bow and stern, which are broad and flat, carry a movable
part called the “Koebrug” (cow bridge) to facilitate taking horses,
cattle and carts on board. These movable outside bridges are lowered
and raised by two balanced levers, one on each side. By bearing down
on them, the fore bridge is raised a little above the horizontal.
The lever is then made fast. After crossing the river, the bridge is
dropped and rests on the approach. The slope of the bridge must not be
too great, nor should the movable part be too long, otherwise it would
be unmanageable.
It follows from what precedes, that there exists, for a good approach,
a certain relation between the slope of the ramp, the length of the
movable bridge and the draught of the ferry-boat.
As a general rule and for ordinary pontoons, the most favorable slope
for the ramp is 1 in 8.
An easier slope makes too sharp an inclination for the movable bridge;
a steeper slope, which would make the bridge more nearly horizontal,
would make, on the other hand, too difficult an approach for wheeled
vehicles.
THE “HALVE PONT” OR “PIJPER”.
[Sidenote: III 60-64]
In order to send the pontoon across, oars or a sprit sail can be used.
The boat is then steered with an oar. Instead of using a pontoon with a
movable bridge at each end, a “Halve Pont” (half pontoon) is the more
generally in service. This is a boat with the bow of an ake and the
stern of a pontoon. Sometimes this half pontoon is called a “Pijper”.
Vehicles come an board the ferry over the stern and must leave in the
same way. The vehicles must go ashore backward as they cannot turn end
for end on the boat itself.
If the current of the river be strong enough, it is utilized to carry
the ferry back und forth by means of a cable. It is needless to say
that large pontoons with a movable part at each end are used for the
purpose.
THE “GIERPONT”.
[Sidenote: III 63]
The “Gierpont” (flying bridge) allows a stream to be crossed as follows:
The operating cable is attached at one end to an anchor put down
upstream near the middle of the river and at the other end to the
middle of the upstream side of the boat. The two ends of the pontoon
are then fastened by special lines to the swinging cable. The pontoon
can, in this way, be made to lie at an angle to the current. The
component of the current normal to the side of the boat causes it to
cross in describing an arc of a circle around the anchor as a centre
and with the length of the cable as a radius. The speed is regulated
by changing the angle which the axis of the pontoon makes with the
direction of the current.
In order to assist the action of the current on the pontoon, two or
four lee-boards are fastened to the upstream side, that is: the side
next to the cable, one or two of them serving to cross the stream to
the right bank, the other one or two, to the left bank.
In order to diminish the resistance of the cable in the water, it is
supported by a few small boats called “onderlegaakjes”.
A “Gierpont” of this kind works, among others on the Meuse, at the
Gravenbicht-Rothem (Limbourg) and Grave crossings.
THE KABELVEERPONT.
[Sidenote: III 62]
The “Kabelveerpont” is another kind of boat for crossing streams. The
swinging cable is here replaced by one which crosses the stream, on the
bottom of which it lies under the action of its own weight. The middle
of the upstream side of the boat is attached to this cable, which
passes over a sheave. In order to cross the stream, the boat is pushed
off into the current, after having raised the movable bridges, then the
cable is drawn up on the end of the boat pointing across the river and
made to pass over a sheave placed, temporarily and for the crossing,
at the middle of the bridge. The pontoon then occupies a position
oblique to the cable and, as in the preceding case, at an angle to the
direction of the current which causes the boat to move. The cable,
which runs from one bank to the other, rests on the bed of the river
from which only the part on the boat is raised.
The pontoons serving the crossings at Kessenich-Stevensweert and at
Elsloo-Boorsheim (Limburg-an-Meuse) may be mentioned as examples of
this kind of ferries.
The cable is not always raised, however, on the boat because when so
raised it may interfere with navigation. Sometimes the cable is allowed
to remain on the bed of the river and the ferry is attached to a rope
which is connected with the cable by means of a roller. This rope,
which is then stretched in the direction of the current, is fastened
to the middle of the upstream side of the boat. If now the latter be
inclined by means of a special cable, as explained in the case of the
“Gierpont”, it crosses the river, the roller running on the cable which
lies on the bottom.
An example of such a boat is to be found at the crossing at Zalt-Bommel
in Gelderland. The trouble with these cables and of all transverse
cables in general is that they are often displaced by the anchors of
vessels which foul them in passing. Abroad, especially in Belgium, the
cables for trail bridges (as they are called in the United States) are
stretched above the river so that vessels can pass underneath. But this
arrangement does not seem to be applicable to heavy boats and to the
great widths of the crossings found in Holland without using expensive
means for supporting the cable.
In Limburg, where the character of the Meuse is torrential, and where
the steep slope of the bed causes much more violent currents than in
the rest of our country, the barges have no lee boards.
A very wide approach ramp is necessary for all these ferries in general
and for the “Kabelveerponten” in particular. A width of 16 metres
at the level of mean low water and lessening upward has been found
necessary, because of the slack of the cable which varies with the
strength of the current and the force of the wind.
The more violent the current, the easier it is to go safely on the
boat, and this allows the width of the approach ramp to be reduced near
the top, because this upper part is only utilized during high water.
[Sidenote: III 174]
[Sidenote: III 175]
[Sidenote: III 178]
[Sidenote: III 181]
It is needless to say that not only pontoons, but also every kind of
boats, such as the “hoys” and “poonen” already mentioned, can be also
utilized for crossing.
[Sidenote: III 60]
[Sidenote: III 65]
[Sidenote: III 67]
Use is also frequently made of the “Hengsten” (anglice: stallions, used
here to designate strength) and of the “Veerhengsten” which belong to
the type of the “Hoogaarsen”, which they resemble greatly.
The “Hoorgaarsen” are described among the fishing boats.
For ferrying pedestrians, rowboats and “vletten” are very frequently
used.
One remark may still be added to what precedes:
Two cables are needed for tidal rivers, one above and one below, so as
to be able to work during both the ebb and flood tides. The manœuvres
then become difficult at times, because when the tide is at a stand
there is no current or it is so weak that the crossing is not always
possible. In these cases the cables are used merely as guides for the
boats. The latter are run across by hand or by a motor which works a
special cable for crossing. A system of this sort is located on the
Bergsche Meuse, below Heusden.
If the current becomes too strong at high water, so that there is
danger of breaking the cables, the pontoon way be attached to a
swinging cable which would then take up the greater part of the
tension. This cable should be very long: 1ᵒ so that the pull on the
anchor way be as nearly horizontal as possible and 2ᵒ so that the arc
described by the ferry boat may be as flat as possible.
The small inland boats are not less important than those just
considered. Their size has gone on increasing as the navigable highways
are improved and the clinker-built hulls give way to the carvel built.
They differ, in the matter of form, from the types mentioned above,
by their relatively small beam as compared with their length, as much
as by their very much inclined bow and stern. If, as a general rule,
the ratio between length and breadth which lay generally between 3.5
and 4.6 now reaches often 5 for the inland boats. Evidently, they are
all flat-bottomed and, of late years, they have been built with a more
rounded bilge.
THE BOK.
[Sidenote: III 83]
[Sidenote: III 84]
The _Bok_ is one of the largest vessels of this group. It is met with
in Friesland, in the North-West of the province of Utrecht, below
Ankeveen and ’s Graveland, and in the North-East of South Holland
to the North of the Old Rhine. It is a long, narrow boat, 16 metres
long, only 3.35 m. beam and 1.75 m. depth. It narrows sharply toward
the bottom and has a very strong sternpost and stem. The sternpost is
straight and leaning; the stern also slopes and is slightly curved. The
bow of the boat is square which gives it a characteristic appearance.
THE SNIK.
[Sidenote: II 240]
[Sidenote: III 85]
Along with the “Bok” there is found in Friesland, the _Snik_, which is
a “Bok” of less square build with a more sloping sternpost and stem.
In the province of Holland, the same difference from the “Bok” is noted
in the “_Harlemmermeerlompertje_” which is smaller than the “Frisian
Snik”.
[Sidenote: III 86]
Neither the name of “Snik” nor that of “Bok” is known in Groningen,
but there is in this region a boat of the same kind, with its bow and
stern a little fuller than those of the “Bok”. It is the _Groningen
aardappelpraam_ (Groningen potato pram) already met with. Like the
three preceding boats, its bends have a slight sheer. Its full bow and
stern differentiate it from the “Overijsselsche pramen”.
If we leave the Haarlem lake, passing by Leiden, that is to say: if
we cross the country of the downs going toward the West, we meet
everywhere a type of boat which, while smaller, is still shaped like
the “bokken”. This type as the “Westlander” (boat of the West) is its
representative.
THE “WESTLANDER”.
[Sidenote: III 80]
This boat has a sharply raking and slightly curved stem. It rises but
little above the water so as to be able to pass under the bridges. It
can use sails but, most of the time, it is moved ahead by means of
a boathook. The boat is decked over with flat and horizontal hatch
covers. Considering the relatively low position of the tiller, these
boats, like the preceding, have a “stuurbak” (a cockpit in the deck
where the helmsman stands). The top plank is strengthened so as to act
as a bend. If this element be lacking, which is frequently the case
with the small boats of this class, they are also called “Bok”, but
this must not be confounded with the big Frisian “Bok” mentioned above.
“Westlanders” are often used for levelling off the downs; they are well
known at the Hague.
THE KAAG.
[Sidenote: II 182]
[Sidenote: II 184]
[Sidenote: II 185]
[Sidenote: III 71]
In the XVIIth century, there was met with, to the North of Leyden,
along the Haarlem lake and in that part of North Holland lying North
of the line Aalsmeer-Muiden, a boat then currently called “Kaag” (Kage
or Kaghe), of which ~Witsen~ gives a good reproduction in his work
(p. 174). This boat differed from the preceding types by the greater
elevation of the bow and by the drawing together of the upper planking,
which make it resemble the fishing boat, called the “Hoogaars”. Like
this last, it had a broad bow, but the stern, on the other hand, is
more narrowed. The stem was straight but with a marked rake. The mast
is at one-third the length from the bow; it is rigged with a sprit
sail. This boat no longer exists now, but, on the other hand, a boat
with a smooth hull is met with which resembles it and is now called
the “Snik” or “Gondel”. It is, however, less angular and has a square
stern, which, as every where else, appeared later. It is probable that
it is the old “Kaag” which is again found in this class of boats and
which is often used to-day. The ratio of length to beam is the same for
both vessels.
On the tidal rivers of Holland, there is found, as a small boat, the
_Kinderdijksche Hoogaars_ which resembles the old kaag perfectly.
Then, there is met with among the islands of South Holland, a boat
with a smooth hull, the “_Beyerlandsche Schuitje_” which is an “ake”
if its bottom which rises right up to the extreme point of the bow be
considered; it is probably not a very old type. Its affiliation with
the preceding boats can still be easily observed. This boat is 9 m.
long, 2.75 m. beam and 1.30 m. deep. The mast is from a quarter to a
third of the length from the bow.
The “Beyerlandsche Schuit” corresponds fully to the fishing boat called
the “Tholensche Schouw”.
THE UTRECHT PRAM.
[Sidenote: III 88]
[Sidenote: III 87]
There is met with in the province of Utrecht another kind of boat
which, while resembling the “Westlander” somewhat differs from it by
its finer lines and more slender construction. The sternpost, like the
stem, is straight and rakes a great deal, which makes these boats very
pointed. They are _Utrechtsche Pramen_ (Utrecht Pram) and when they
are entirely open they are called _Kromme Rijnaak_ although they do
not show the characteristic flat bottom rising toward the bow. They
correspond to the “Vlotschuit” mentioned by ~Witsen~ (p. 171, No. 3)
even though this latter boat is broader in proportion to its length.
[Sidenote: III 89]
The “Utrecht pram” sails along the “Kromme Rijn” and in the country
still further North, along the Vecht. It greatly resembles a “punter”
of the North of Overijssel (near Vollenhove, etc.) but it is longer
and narrower. This class of boat is also met with in North Holland:
the _Groenteschuitje van Hoorn_, called by ~Witsen~ (p. 171-3)
_Weyschuitje_ is an example.
THE “SCHOUW”.
The _Schouw_ is a flat, open tub met everywhere. It is a very simple
and very primitive boat which is seen already in the oldest engravings
both in the countries along the Mediterranean and in the countries of
the North of Europe.
The “Schouwen” are very much used in our country of canals and rivers.
These more or less large tubs have gradually developed into the form
of boats. Nearly all are pulled or pushed with a pole. The largest are
the “Melkschouwen” of which large numbers can be seen every day at
Rotterdam.
The hull of the “Schouwen” narrows a little forward and aft, while the
bottom rises there regularly.
These boats are entirely open as a rule. When they have a hold covered
with hatch covers and when they are a little higher and carry a cuddy
forward and aft they are called _Schiedamsche Schouwen_, better known
still by the name of _Spoelingschuiten_ (small boats for carrying the
refuse of fruit).
THE “TREKSCHUIT”.
[Sidenote: II 224]
[Sidenote: II 227]
It is hard for the present generation to imagine that, 60 years
ago, the “Trekschuit” was still the only means of locomotion of the
period. Who would now think of going in a “Trekschuit” from the Hague
to Schevening or back where so many electric trams cross each other
everywhere? And yet, the “Trekschuiten” have played an important part
in our “country of water” and there are still some regions where these
boats are in use. The “Trekschuiten”, properly so called, could be
divided into two classes, those with a sloping but straight stem and
those with a curved stem.
[Sidenote: III 77]
[Sidenote: III 79]
[Sidenote: III 80]
The first, which are almost entirely like the Westlanders, while being
of a little more massive construction, are found particularly in North
and South Holland and to the West of Utrecht. The old engravings show
that these boats have changed little in the course of the centuries;
the water tight cabin being the only serious modification which they
have undergone.
[Sidenote: III 78]
They are still frequently met with as “Pakschuiten”, of which the vivid
colors (green, white, red) immediately attract the eyes.
The second class of these boats, which have curved stems, are of more
elegant shape. They are known by the name of “Barges” or “Trekjachten”,
and are found especially in the North of our country, in North Holland,
Groningen, Friesland. Their bows and sterns are quite full (like the
“hoys”) and make one think rather of the old yachts, fined down a
little, from which they are certainly descended.
THE “YACHT”.
[Sidenote: II 156]
[Sidenote: II 235]
[Sidenote: II 184]
[Sidenote: II 185]
[Sidenote: II 186]
[Sidenote: III 90]
The old “Yacht” was one of the most beautiful boats in use. At first
a small reproduction of the pinnace, it was afterwards built of
larger dimensions while offering, by reason of its lack of depth,
(“Vlotgaanswille”, as it used to be said), pretty full forms. The
decoration of the cabin and of the stern was particularly carefully
wrought out. The “Yachts” carried sprit sails and had no lee boards.
It is to be regretted that sundry pictures showing yachts should not
have been preserved; in the second half of the XIXth century some of
them were destroyed as firewood. A few superb photographs of “Yachts”,
taken from drawings in the collection of Mr. van Gijn, of Dordrecht,
accompany the collection and it will be seen how suggestive they are.
THE “BAGGERAAK”.
[Sidenote: III 68]
The “Baggeraak” (dredging ake) forms a special group. As has been
said already, they can be classified in three groups. To the first
group, belongs the “Vlet” (flat) or “Baggeraak” which is met with in
Southern Holland, the West of the Betuwe, the West of Northern Brabant
(the Biesbosch and Donge) and also in Zeeland, in a word, on all our
tidal rivers. The “Flette” or “Baggeraak” (called also “Sliedrechtsche
aak”) was a small stout boat which, save for a small cuddy in the bow,
was wholly open. Its rig was the “Spritsail”, it was provided with
lee boards and movable wash boards so as to facilitate the casting of
hand dredges. These wash boards were placed only when the boat was
partially loaded, that is when it was appreciably down in the water.
The mast was set at one-fifth to one-fourth of the length of the vessel
from the bow. The ratio of beam to length was as 1:4. The planking was
continuous to the nose against which a false stem was fitted.
In Zeeland, a great many “Hoogaarsen” are used for dredging, and
“Boeieraakjes” are employed in Brabant and Holland, as at the Biesbosch
and on the Amer and the Donge. They are also used a great deal on the
Meuse, although there, as on other upper rivers, the “Bovenlandsche
Baggeraakjes” were formerly employed.
[Sidenote: III 70]
There belong to the _Bovenlandsche baggeraakjes_ those vessels of the
Meuse which stand midway between the “Keen” and the “Whalemajol”. They
have a little sprit sail rig and a “Klaphekken” (a special kind of
rudder). The largest, known especially by the name of “Hedelsche Aken”
and which carry lee-boards, are used for all sorts of purposes. These
boats belong neither to the true Meuse type nor to the Rhenish type
above Bonn (The Keen, etc.). They form an isolated group, descended
probably from the two types in question.
[Sidenote: III 73]
[Sidenote: III 72]
The _Vreeswijksche zandschuit_ (sand boat of Vreeswijck) alone remains
of the Rhine boats. It has the bow of a “Dorstensche Aak” and the stern
resembles that of the “Dortsche Zandschuit” (sand boat of Dordrecht).
This “Dortsche Zandschuit” is alike at bow and stern and the hull
is smooth. Although it is more pointed, this boat resembles the
“Westerling” a little, the latter being known as a very old boat of the
lepper Scheldt (see ~Dehem~, p. 505). The old “Dortsche Zandschuit” was
especially used for dredging ballast intended for sea-going vessels.
A large number of “Bokken”, already mentioned among the “Westlanders”,
are used for levelling down the dunes in the West and in the Rhine
country.
[Sidenote: III 87]
The “Slijkpraam”, which resembles the “Kromme Rijnaak” already
mentioned, is used in the province of Utrecht, while finally, the
“Vlotpraam” or “Slijkpraam” is still met with in Groningen.
[Sidenote: II 246]
From a certain standpoint, the “Hoogeveensche Pramen”, mentioned above,
which are used in the peat bottoms, should be classified in this group.
THE “BAGGER-OR MODDERMOLEN” (_The Dredge_).
[Sidenote: II 274]
[Sidenote: II 277]
The “Moddermolen” (mud mill) or “Moddermolenschip” was already found
in the first half of the XVIIth century, as the forerunner of the
“Baggermolen” (bucket or ladder dredge). This dredge was worked by hand
at first; later on horses were used for this purpose. (~Le Comte~, p.
6, and ~Witsen~.) A horsepower and a stable were built on the deck.
In the XVIIIth century, says ~Le Comte~, the old “Moddermolen” was
already so perfected that it was imagined that there was nothing more
to improve.
Navigation, however, kept calling for greater and greater depths, so
that the Kater Brothers, dredge builders at Monnikendam, were led to
build, in 1829, a boat which dredged down to a depth of 7 metres. From
three to six horses were used, according to the depth and compactness
of the materials to be dredged.
These same builders, says ~Le Comte~ at another place, were the
inventors of the “Klepschouwen”, for which they asked the concession on
May 1, 1830. ~Le Comte~ gives an engraving of these dredges in plate 12
of his work.
~J. C. Kerkmeijer~ relates, in an article of the _Eigenhaard_ Review
(1906), entitled “De Diep-of Baggermolen, een merkwaardige ontdekking”,
that he had found the model of the dredge built by its inventor in
1632, a model which is mentioned by ~C. A. Abbing~, in his continuation
of the _Chronicle of Hoorn_, by ~Veluis~ (1841, p. 12), wherein it is
stated:
“About this time (1632) Jan Jantz Nieng, a native-born citizen of this
town (~Hoorn~), invented the ‹diepmolens›. The first model, made by
him, was 2 feet 6½ inches long, 9 inches broad and 6½ inches high; the
measurements being taken over all.” This model was still to be seen
at the city shops at Hoorn a few years ago. The model found by Mr.
Kerkmeijer was carefully repaired by him and it is preserved at the
city hall of the town.
Thanks to the kind assistance of this author, a few details can
still be given in regard to the “Moddermolen” of Middelbourg, called
“Dieplust”. These details were received from the chief of the Kool ship
yard of this town.
The “Dieplust” extracted the mud by means of a trough with low straight
sides, lined at its lower end with iron. When the boat was moved, by
means of a cable attached to an anchor, the lower end of the trough
entered into the mud as far as it could. The ladder of the dredge was
suspended inside of the trough and to its endless chain were fastened
pieces of plank of about the same width as that of the trough. These
pieces of plank tumbling around a hexagonal or octagonal drum at the
lower end worked down into the mud of which they brought up a certain
quantity and discharged it through a hole at the top of the trough.
There was no question yet of buckets to bring up the dredged materials,
these having only made their appearance with steam dredges.
The trough, with the ladder, could be lowered or raised by means of a
windlass; it passed through an opening which was not in the axis of the
boat. In the larger half of the vessel was placed the shaft which, by
means of gearings, transmitted to the ladder the movement produced by
the horses. These gearings were similar to those of the old wind mills.
A horse power and a stable were constructed on the deck of the boat.
The Ghent paper _Het Volksbelang_ published the _Eigenhaard_ article
in its issue of June 9, 1906. Some doubts are emitted, however,
about 1632 being the authentic year of the invention, because the
following annotation is found in the _Resolutie boek van de Staten
van Vlaanderen_ of 1628-1630, Fᵒ 16 (_Archives of the State_, at
Ghent.--Nᵒ 553):
“Actum den XXII May 1628 wierd den Ingeniaris Adam Clippens, ghemaackt
hebbende den slijckmeulen, gelicentieert en de gheordonneert hem te
geven ordonnantie van betalijnghe den dach van merghen mitghaders
hondert guldenen voor eene vereeringhe zoo ghedaen is geweest”[25].
From which it would appear that a mechanical dredge must have been
built in Flanders in 1628. Hence the year given by Abbing cannot be
correct, or else the same machine might have been invented at two
different places at about the same period. The question is not yet
settled, but, be that as it may, it must be granted that the first
mechanical dredge was at work in the XVIIth century.
THE “TJOTTER”.
[Sidenote: III 91]
[Sidenote: II 247]
[Sidenote: II 248]
Pleasure boats or Yachts have been described so often and so many
different types have been used as such that they could be passed by
in silence. Let it suffice to mention the _Tjotter_, which is spread
throughout Friesland, and the _Friesch Bootje_. The “Tjotter” is a
full, short and broad craft of elegant lines and steady on the water.
It has a great deal of sheer, is fore-and-aft rigged (bazaantuig) and
is generally very well finished.
THE “LAADBAK” AND THE “ZOLDERSCHUIT”.
[Sidenote: III 74-76]
The _Laadbak_ and the _Zolderschuit_ are so well known that nothing
more will be done than to refer to the drawings given of these two
vessels.
THE “ONDERLEGGER”.
It is worth while to point out still another very serviceable boat
which has always been much in use. It is the _Onderlegger_ of which an
engraving is given by ~Witsen~ (p. 175) and which was used for heaving
vessels down for repairs, for pulling piles out of the ground, for
hoisting in masts, etc. It was 60 feet long, 16 feet broad, and 6½ feet
deep and carried two capstans.
THE “BOVENLANDERS”.
The craft frequenting our upper rivers are called _Bovenlanders_. They
are totally different from the types met with so far. They are all
relatively long and narrow, flat-bottomed and draw but little water.
It may be said, as a general rule, that the “Bovenlanders” appear
where the tidal rivers end. They have been in existence since the most
distant times although they are rarely ever seen in the engravings. If
they were not often mentioned, it was doubtless because they were not
considered as being worth a description, or, perhaps again, because
they were not sufficiently known. ~Witsen~ mentions only the following
vessels (p. 170-171) of which he says textually:
“~A~) The _Overlanders_, which come to us from the Upper Rhine, are
vessels with high sides, heavy and rather unfinished. Whole families
live on them.
[Sidenote: II 213]
[Sidenote: II 214]
“~B~) The _Samoreuzen_ are very long flat boats which bring wood down
the Rhine. They carry a very high mast, made in two parts, and fastened
by lines to the ends and sides of the boat.
“~C~) The _Aeken_, which bring wine from Cologne, are long, high and
very full. Their rudder is very wide.
“~D~) The _Dortsche Koolhaelders_ are very long, open boats,
flat-bottomed, so as to be better able to cross the shoals of the
river. They have near the middle a square deck house which serves as a
dwelling for the boatmen. They are square at the corners and the rudder
is long and broad. The sail is square and is hoisted on a short mast,
near the deck house, by means of a curved yard.”
~Van Yk~ speaks of “Geldersche Samoreusen” (p. 348) and ~Le Comte~,
of a “Samoreus” or “Keulenaer” (p. 44) which are to be seen on the
Groenewegen engraving. (Series F, No 3.)
The “Overlanders” mean the “Bovenlanders”, and the “Samoreuzen” mean
the boats coming from above Cologne, while the “Aeken” are probably
big “Keenaken”. Finally, the “Dortsche Koolhaelders” are undoubtedly
the “Dorstensche Aken”. Neither engravings nor description give any
exact idea. But the types of these craft have been very well preserved
on the Rhine until the introduction of iron; the clinker built hulls
have even remained intact, and this enables us to appreciate even now
what these boats of by-gone days were and whence they came.
THE RHINE.
As was seen in the general classification, the Rhenisch boats may be
divided into two groups:
_a_) Those navigating the Rhine below Bonn;
_b_) Those navigating the Rhine, above Bonn, and its tributaries, with
the exception of the Neckar, where is found a boat belonging to group
_a_.
Group _a_ includes:
1.--The _Dorstensche Aak_, so called from the town of Dorsten where
these boats were frequently built. It is a long and narrow “ake” of
which the bottom was continued all the way to the tip of the bow; the
length was 6 to 7 times the beam and the hull was clinker built. The
bow was full, the stern slender at the water line. The after deck
included a poop deck, with a much curved tiller resting on a solid
“luierwagen” (prop). The rudder was large and heavy. These boats had
two masts. The cabin on the small boats was by the after mast; on
the larger, there was a free space between the cabin and the mast. A
dwelling was placed aft of the main mast and in the bow was a cabin
for the servant. The hold was decked over with plane inclined hatch
covers, which, formerly, were round. The “Dorstensche Aak” with round
hatch covers was a “Samoreus”. Alongside of these latter there used
to be akes with open holds called “Dorstsche Koolhaelders”. Although
these boats were no fuller than the other akes they appeared, like all
clinker built boats, more massive. They generally carried square sails
on the main mast and fore-and-aft sails on the smaller. As a general
rule, these boats reached us unfinished and it was only when the cargo
(pots and other household utensils) was sold, that they were finished
in our country.
[Sidenote: III 94]
2.--The _Neckaraak_ (ake from the Neckar) was a small “Dorstenche Aak”
of which the length was about 6½ times the breadth. These vessels were
long and narrow and worked well. They had a characteristic cabin which,
compared with the height of the boat, rose a great deal above the deck.
They had, in addition to a main mast, a small one near the rudder. They
carried no lee boards, but their rudder was like that of “Dorstensche
Aak”.
THE “STEVENSCHIP”.
[Sidenote: III 95]
The _Stevenschip_ resembled the “Dorstensche Aak”. Like this latter, it
was clinker built, carried the same rig and was built in the same way.
It differed from it only in this that the planking did not end at the
nose, but, on the contrary, was rabbetted into a strong and somewhat
curved stem.
[Sidenote: III 96]
[Sidenote: III 98]
The preceding types were met with also in our country both clinker and
carvel built. They were then called _Hollandsche Aaken_ (Dutch akes)
and _Stevenschepen_, whereas alongside of the latter there were found
formerly a large number of smaller akes along the Rhine, the Waal and
the Lek as far as the point where the tidal regimen begins, and along
the Yssel and its tributaries. These “akes” were exact copies of the
large akes but at the same time they had more elegant lines by reason
of their less length. Those which are seen in our album are made from
some old specimens which date, probably, from the XVIIIth century.
The bow of the “Hollandsche aak” is rather flatter than that of the
“Dorstensche aak”.
[Sidenote: III 100]
The “Bovenlanders” took on also rather fuller forms, as can be seen by
comparing the drawing of a “Dorstensche aak” with that of a “Samoreus”.
A few small Dutch akes carry a discontinuous false stem, whence their
name of “Hollandsche Schechtaak”.
A few of the “Aakjes” (small akes) are met with also along the Merwede
and the Yssel.
THE “TURFIJKER” AND THE “HAGENAAR”.
[Sidenote: III 101]
In the region to the East of the line from Leiden to Delft, North
of Rotterdam, South of the Old Rhine and West of Utrecht, there
used to exist a very curious type of clinker-built boat of small
dimensions, constructed in the German way, called the _Turfijker_,
which has disappeared but of which the characteristics are found in the
“Hagenaar”.
[Sidenote: III 99]
The “Hagenaar” is a flat boat without sheer, which rises very little
above water on account of the small clear height of the bridges at
The Hague, whence its name of “Hagenaar” (Boat of the Hague). Here
then is found in the very heart of the province of Holland, a type of
“Bovenlander”.
It is curious to note that the same large Dutch “aaken” (Dorsten
type) are still to be met with in the North-West of North Brabant
(Langstraat) where they are still built while this kind of construction
has been abandoned on the Meuse and the Lower Waal.
The second group of boats under consideration and which circulate
above Bonn is easily distinguished from the first by the long rudder,
attached to the main-piece which traverses the stern. From the end of
the rudder, called “klaphekken”, starts above the main piece, a strong
piece of timber solidly fastened to the tiller.
This rudder is called the _Klaphekken_. All the boats belonging to this
group carry this characteristic rudder; they are, moreover, flatter
than those of the first group. They are clinker built although many are
now met with which are carvel built.
THE “KEEN”.
[Sidenote: III 105]
[Sidenote: III 106]
The _Keen_ may be considered as the fundamental type of this second
group. It was rigged formerly like the “Dorstensche Aak” but it now
carries, like all the boats, a fore and aft sail. The bottom rises both
forward and aft to the level of the nose. Hence the “Keen” is an “ake”.
The planking is assembled on the bottom very nearly along a right line.
The stern carries, as a rule, a poop deck.
THE “KEENAAK”.
[Sidenote: III 107]
The _Keenaak_ is broader as compared with its length and it is
generally a little larger, it stands higher out of water, its ends are
fuller and the side planking ends in a point at the nose.
THE “LAHNAAK” AND THE “SLOF”.
[Sidenote: III 108]
The “Keen” when entirely open is called a _Lahnaak_ (ake of the Lahn);
its size has been increased of late years. When vessels of this kind
have nearly vertical sides, blunt bow and stern, and smooth planking
they are known as a _Slof_.
[Sidenote: III 109]
One of the characteristics of the “Sloffen” is that they always carry
at the bow a narrow cabin which rises a little above the deck of the
boat. The “Sloffen” have been closed in of late years with hatch
covers, and then they are called simply “Akes”. The boatmen even call
the “Slof” sometimes the “Mulmsche Aak”. (Mülheim ake).
[Sidenote: III 110]
A very strongly built boat, which dates only from the second half of
the XIXth century, must also be mentioned as belonging to the first
group: the _Bunder_. This boat is shaped like a “Dorstensche Aak”, but
it is carvel built and is covered in with hatch covers.
[Sidenote: III 102]
[Sidenote: III 104]
Finally, these must still be mentioned among the boats of our country
the “’s Gravenmoersche Aak” which made its appearance at ’s Gravenmoer
in the XIXth century and which came from the Upper Rhine to be used at
the Biesbosch. Boats of this category were provided originally with
“Klaphekken”, a special rudder which later has been sometimes done away
with, either because it was too long or because it was not sufficiently
strong, and which has been replaced by an ordinary rudder. They
resemble the “Lahnaak” and are used especially for carrying hay. The
coming of iron and steel will cause these boats, like so many others to
disappear.
In order to avoid confusion, it is necessary to dwell upon the fact
that some Dutch Akes have been provided later with false stems, which
gives them the appearance of “Stevenschepen” but which, does not make
them so.
THE MEUSE.
The long, narrow, light draught boats which frequent the Upper Meuse
and its tributaries have an entirely different appearance from those
which have just been considered. In the first place, their rudder
differs entirely from that of the preceding types. It is true that the
long rudder attached to the stock has been kept, but the piece of bent
wood has given place to a curved balance beam in two parts of which the
after ends are fastened to the after upper corner of the rudder, one on
each side. The two parts of the balance beam are made fast near their
middle and by means of a chain to the head of the stock of the rudder.
The forward end of the balance beam is connected with the end of the
tiller by a rope drawn up taut so as to make the whole very solid. The
balance beam is composed of two twin pieces. The rudder stock comes
up through the stern, but the latter, instead of rising gently and
regularly aft, bends sharply inboard.
THE WHALEMAJOL.
Originally, the bow of the Meuse boats had another form; of late years,
these craft have been made fuller, and their bow has been bent back to
reduce the length of the boat and increase its capacity. The oldest
type of this category is the _Whalemajol_ (or Mijole). Its bow and
stern are pointed and its main frame is a trapezoid on which the three
upper tiers of planking are clinker laid and the hull below is carvel
built.
[Sidenote: III 108]
[Sidenote: III 111]
The _Herna_ is of the same size as the preceding, is wider at bow and
stern, and ends with a horizontal timber. Its main frame, formerly
trapezoidal, as in the preceding case, is now rectangular like that of
the Rhenish “Sloffen”.
The _Spitsbek_ is a small “Herna” (old form) entirely covered over. It
is made of all sizes and is called “Spitsbek” (pointed beak) on account
of its slender shape.
The “Klaphekken” seems now to be preferred to the old rudder of the
“Whalemajols” and it is gradually being adopted. A “Whalemajol with a
klaphekken” is called a “Whalepont” or a “Maaspont”.
Boats of this kind are also found in the southern part of the Limbourg
Meuse. Further down stream they are, however, the “Hedelsche Aken”,
which come between the “Keen” and the “Majols”, which latter are the
more numerous. These craft carry a “Klaphekken” and sometimes they also
carry now an ordinary rudder.
FOOTNOTES:
[21] A part of the deck where people gathered to talk.
[22] The ship will be 56 feet long and its width at the lee boards
will be such that it can pass the lock of the _Leidschen Dam_,
which gives 11 feet and 1 inch as the maximum breadth.
[23] See the _Gedenkboek van het Koninklijk Instituut van
Ingenieurs_, p. 51, Van der Vegt, p. ___ _De Binnenscheepvaart
in Zuid-Holland_.
[24] The Holland States undertook, in 1885, the improvement of the
navigable highway between the Rhine and the Schie. Whereas, up
to 1648, the rivalry of the cities tolerated navigation above
the dam only, and later allowed at this point a lock only
3.80 m. wide and 2.20 m. depth of water, they caused this lock
to be built at the same place with a breadth of 7 metres which
is spanned by movable bridges.
[25] By act of May 22, 1628, it is ordered that there be paid to
Adam Clippens, Engineer, who built the mud mill, a sum of 100
florins for the bid which he presented.
[Illustration]
[Illustration: 5]
FISHING BOATS
[Sidenote: III 112]
Man has been given to fishing from the most remote times, even though
in primitive ways. Hence fishing boats will also be seen to have
existed from the earliest times; furthermore, as man thinks of his own
maintenance first before dreaming of trade, fishing boats are older
than merchant ships and it is perfectly natural to conclude that the
latter issue from the former. So, the “Koggenschip” (cog) is nothing
but a transformation of what will be called later an “Egmonder Pink” or
better, a “Pink” of large size.
As fish were taken at the beginning only for local needs, the fishing
boats were small. Distant expeditions were not undertaken, the
preservation of fish being unknown in those days. Some old writers
even maintain that the herring fishery only appeared at Zierikzee in
the XIIth century (in 1163 according to ~Witsen~, p. 431). Hence it
may be said that the beginnings of our ocean fisheries date only from
the century mentioned. No great revolution took place until 1384, when
Willem Beukelsz of Biervliet invented the salting and barrelling of
herrings. This invention caused such a stir that, a hundred years after
the death of Willem Beukelszoon, the Emperor Charles V still visited
his tomb at Biervliet (1556).
Distant voyages became possible from this moment because the herring
could be preserved. The first great herring net was made at Hoorn
in 1416, and smooth planking for the boats made its appearance at
Zierikzee, the centre of the herring fishery. A relation certainly
exists between these two events. The packing of herring gave fishing
such a start that a new commerce was the result which, in its turn,
brought forth more and more numerous demands requiring a perpected
plant.
THE “EGMONDER PINK”.
[Sidenote: II 243]
[Sidenote: III 112]
The old clinker built “Egmonder Pink”, formerly the largest fishing
boat (35 feet long, 12 feet wide and 3 feet deep) became too small,
just as soon as herring nets, constantly increasing in size and weight,
began to come into use.
THE BUIS (_Bush_).
[Sidenote: II 197]
[Sidenote: II 223]
[Sidenote: II 224]
[Sidenote: II 231]
[Sidenote: III 113]
A new boat became necessary. It was built larger and with a smooth
hull, thus giving the “Buis” (bush), 52 feet long, 13 feet wide and 8
feet deep. This boat had a much greater tonnage than did the “Pink”.
(~Witsen~, p. 167.)
[Sidenote: II 195]
[Sidenote: II 196]
[Sidenote: II 198]
At the end of the XVth century, there were already at Enkhuizen
400 to 500 “Haringbuizen”, and there were also 40 of the so called
_Grootschippers_ (large fishing boats), which could carry from 20 to
120 lasts. (~Koenen~, p. 78.) In 1590, 350 “bushes” started for the
herring fishery, and, at the beginning of the XVIIth century, 1609,
3000 Dutch bushes were fishing in the North Sea, whereas in 1601 their
number did not exceed 1500. (_Groen van Prinsterer Handboek_, § 100,
~Koenen~, p. 156.) These 3000 boats, said ~Koenen~, have a total of
50,000 men in their crews, and this fleet requires in its turn 9000
larger boats and 150,000 men on land and at sea to pack and transport
the fish. It is estimated that 20 “Haringbuizen” give employment to
8000 persons.
A fleet of 1500 bushes passed three times through the Texel passes at
the beginning of the XVIIth century. Hence it is not astonishing that
the departure of this fleet should produce a great impression. Even
in our day, the well known “Buisjesdag” (day of the bushes) is still
spoken of.
When, at the time of the second war with England, the herring fishery
was stopped on the North Sea and the fishermen continued their work on
the “Zuyderzee”, some of them still succeeded in taking, in a month,
800 last (1600 tonnes) of herrings valued at 15,620 florins. A large
number of decrees appear in reference to fishing (1611, 1612, 1620 and
1629).
For example:
“Niemand vermag zijn roer onklaer houden zoodat daer netten aen zoude
kunnen hechten.” (No one may so hold his rudder as to foul any nets.)
“Die niet en vischt vermag niet onder de visschers te drijven”. (He who
is not fishing may not sail among the fishers.) While it is laid down,
at the same time, that every one should place his name on his nets so
that they can be recognized.
The size of the crew and the armament were also the object of
regulation, which was all the more necessary in those times of war.
[Sidenote: II 196]
A “Noortsvaerder” of 70 to 80 lasts, and a “bush” of more than 24
lasts, ought to carry at least two “gotelingen” (small cannon). These
guns are still to be seen in many old engravings. Nor was bravery
lacking among the fishermen. M. ~De Jonge~ (Vol. I, p. 182) gives
an example of this in relating the meeting of an English craft with
fishermen from Vlieland between the Skagerrack and the Doggersbank:
Scarcely had they come near each other when the English began throwing
stones, for lack of other weapons. The Dutch answered by throwing fire
wood, but this innocent fighting became a bore to the Hollanders. “They
grappled the enemy’s boat, jumped on board of it, carry their knives in
their mouths and, headed by their valiant steersman, Jonge Kees, drove
the English down into the hold, which they nailed up, and returned
triumphantly with their little boat to Amsterdam where a gold medal was
offered to the brave leader and where the crew received the captured
boat and other rewards”.
Our fishing fleet went very much to pieces toward the end of the
XVIIIth and the beginning of the XIXth centuries. Matters became still
worse toward the middle of the latter. If in 1843 there were still 126
fishing boats in existence, this number fell to 93 in 1852. (~Koenen~,
p. 156.) But a revival took place toward the end of the XIXth century
and in 1905 there were again 724 vessels in our fleet. The upward
start began in 1891, as shown in the table given further on. The great
improvement in means of communication increased the demand for fish as
a popular article of food, (See the Inaugural Address of Professor E.
Vosnack at Delft; _Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant_. October 11, 1906,
first sheet, A.) while more careful packing in ice now allows fish to
be carried to much more distant points.
This is why the cod and haddock fisheries have been taken up here with
renewed ardor (~A. Hoogendijk~, _de Grootvisscherij_, 1895, p. 47) and
the trade has become more lucrative by combining it with the herring
fishery.
The herring fishery requires rather a small boat, as the latter should
not pull too hard on the nets. Winter fishing requires, on the other
hand, a strong fast boat, as it has to be on duty in all weathers.
Hence it follows that, in order to combine both, a new type of boat,
able to satisfy these discordant conditions, has become a necessity and
the old types in use are doomed, naturally, to disappear. The faster
the boat, the greater the number of trips and the fresher the fish
brought back.
Countries which are rich in fish can be visited with fast vessels and
it is not to be wondered at that steamboats should be put into use
in our country, just as in England, after the “loggers” (luggers),
“Kotters” (cutters) and “sloepen” (sloops) which had preceded them. The
first steam fishing craft appeared in 1897, and since then the number
of these vessels has steadily increased.
The English fishing fleet has now not less than 1600 steamboats for
deep sea fishing.
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|Composition of the Dutch fishing Fleet, exclusive of the Bommen,|
| from 1867 to 1905. |
+-----+-------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-----------------+
| | | | | |LOGGER | | |
| | | | | |CUTTERS| | |
|YEARS|HOWKERS|SLOOPS|STEAM|MOTOR| AND |TOTAL| REMARKS |
| | | |BOATS|BOATS|LOGGER-| | |
| | | | | |BOMMEN | | |
+-----+-------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-----------------+
| | /----v----\ | | | | | |
|1867 | 85 | - | - | 4 | 89 |The first French |
|1868 | 80 | - | - | 11 | 91 |lugger was put |
|1869 | 79 | - | - | 28 | 107 |into service in |
|1870 | 69 | - | - | 51 | 120 |1867. |
| | \----Λ----/ | | | | | |
|1871 | 45 | 13 | - | - | 64 | 122 | |
|1872 | 30 | 14 | - | - | 64 | 108 | |
|1873 | 23 | 11 | - | - | 68 | 102 | |
|1874 | 20 | 11 | - | - | 83 | 114 | |
|1875 | 14 | 11 | - | - | 90 | 115 | |
|1876 | 6 | 11 | - | - | 92 | 109 | |
|1877 | 8 | 11 | - | - | 94 | 113 | |
|1878 | 7 | 11 | - | - | 109 | 127 | |
|1879 | 4 | 10 | - | - | 114 | 128 | |
|1880 | 3 | 9 | - | - | 121 | 133 | |
|1881 | 2 | 9 | - | - | 127 | 138 | |
|1882 | 2 | 8 | - | - | 135 | 145 | |
|1883 | 2 | 8 | - | - | 144 | 154 | |
|1884 | 2 | 8 | - | - | 159 | 169 | |
|1885 | 2 | 8 | - | - | 174 | 184 | |
|1886 | 1 | 8 | - | - | 181 | 190 | |
|1887 | - | 7 | - | - | 189 | 196 | |
|1888 | - | 8 | - | - | 186 | 194 | |
|1889 | - | 8 | - | - | 186 | 194 | |
|1890 | - | 7 | - | - | 189 | 196 | |
|1891 | - | 7 | - | - | 199 | 206 | |
|1892 | - | 9 | - | - | 212 | 221 | |
|1893 | - | 11 | - | - | 213 | 224 | |
|1894 | - | 13 | - | - | 214 | 227 | |
|1895 | - | 17 | - | - | 216 | 233 | |
|1896 | - | 24 | - | - | 245 | 269 | |
|1897 | - | 30 | 1 | - | 252 | 283 |The first |
|1898 | - | 36 | 1 | - | 258 | 295 |steamboat was put|
|1899 | - | 40 | 2 | - | 269 | 311 |into service in |
|1900 | - | 46 | 3 | - | 275 | 324 |1897. |
|1901 | - | 47 | 7 | 1 | 300 | 355 | |
|1902 | - | 52 | 25 | 1 | 327 | 405 | |
|1903 | - | 58 | 44 | 1 | 410 | 513 | |
|1904 | - | 58 | 44 | 1 | 432 | 535 | |
|1905 | - | 48 | 38 | 1 | 425 | 512 | |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|Summary of the different types of boats in use for the herring|
| fishery from 1896 to 1905 |
+-----+-------+------+-----+-------+------+-----+--------------+
|YEARS|LUGGERS|STEAM-|MOTOR|LOGGER-|BOMMEN|TOTAL| REMARKS |
| |CUTTERS|BOATS |BOATS|BOMMEN | | | |
| |SLOOPS | | | | | | |
+-----+-------+------+-----+-------+------+-----+--------------+
|1896 | 269 | - | - | - | 324 | 593 |See report on |
|1897 | 282 | 1 | - | - | 325 | 608 |maritime |
|1898 | 294 | 1 | - | - | 320 | 615 |fisheries |
|1899 | 309 | 2 | - | - | 303 | 614 |1905 (p.149) |
|1900 | 320 | 3 | - | 1 | 289 | 613 | |
|1901 | 346 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 279 | 634 | |
|1902 | 377 | 25 | 1 | 2 | 271 | 676 | |
|1903 | 463 | 44 | 1 | 5 | 268 | 781 | |
|1904 | 484 | 44 | 1 | 6 | 239 | 774 | |
|1905 | 467 | 38 | 1 | 6 | 212 | 724 | |
Let the “Bush” be taken up again for a few moments before beginning on
the description of the modern types of fishing boats.
The “Bush”, which appeared in the XVth century, remained the boat for
the herring fishery until the middle of the XIXth century, when it
disappeared entirely. If, in 1832, there were still 120 “Buizen” (78
at Vlaardingen, 18 at Maassluis, 1 at Delfshaven, 3 at Zwastewaal, 5
at Enkhuizen, 5 at De Rijp and 10 at Amsterdam, see ~Le Comte~, p.
46), they were, on the other hand, no longer mentioned in 1867, the
year when the French lugger was brought into service. The bush was
used exclusively in fishing for herring. When this latter failed, the
vessels were stripped and laid up. Although their forms were full, they
had a keel and sought safety in the different ports. These boats could
not be grounded. Toward the last they were about 22 metres long, 6
metres wide and 3 metres deep. The dimensions of these boats had also
increased gradually. (~Van Yk~ gives, p. 310, 7 Rhine feet as their
depth.)
The “Bushes” carried originally three masts, of which two could be
lowered and each of which carried a large sail. Later, at the end of
the XVIIth century, the rig was changed and made like that of the
“Howkers”. This change is shown on the old engravings. The “Bushes”
carried a “statie”.
THE “KWEE” AND THE “HOEKERBUIS”.
The dimensions of the “bushes” must have increased most at the end of
the XVIIIth or beginning of the XIXth century; the “statie” was then
suppressed and the fish tank appeared. The boats supplied with this
tank were called _Kwee_ according to ~Hoogendijk~ (p. 59). The “bush”
proper which was used exclusively for the herring fishery, had no fish
tank.
The “bush” which had a howker rig was also called a _Hoekerbuis_. What
~Hoogendijk~ tells about the origin of the _howker_, in his interesting
book on the “Grootvisscherij”, does not seem to be wholly exact.
According to him (p. 59) the “howker” is said to be descended from the
“Hoekerbuis” by the suppression of the “statie”. But, according to
~Witsen~ and ~Van Yk~, the howkers have existed from the earliest times
and, hence, long before the appearance of the “Hoekerbuis”.
The “howker” is met with as a contemporary of the “bush” from which it
differs quite a good deal in shape; the placing of the “howker” rig on
the “bush” proves that the former vessel was already in existence in
the time of the latter.
THE “HOEKER” (HOWKER).
[Sidenote: II 228]
[Sidenote: II 229]
[Sidenote: II 234]
[Sidenote: III 114]
The “Hoeker” (howker) is a boat strongly rounded at the stern, showing
a great deal of sheer and carrying a tank for fish. The name comes
very probably from “hoek” an iron (hook) used in fishing for cod and
haddock, but as the “bush” is spoken of before any mention is made of
the “howker”, it must be concluded that the latter came later into use,
that is to say, that cod fishing on a large scale was a much later
occupation. The date of adoption of the fish tanks is not known. It is
probable that this arrangement is very old, but it is possible that it
was only applied much later to deep sea fishing.
THE “HARINGJAGER” AND THE “BUISCONVOYER”.
[Sidenote: II 222]
[Sidenote: II 232]
The “howker” was used not only as a fishing boat but also as a
_Haringjager_ (herring hunter), a boat which is sent to get the first
catch of the fleet.
The “howker” was also used as a _Buisconvoyer_ (convoy for bushes); it
was then armed with several guns and intended to defend the “bushes”
against the enemy. Various circumstances contributed to the complete
disappearance of the “bushes” and the “howkers”; these are the more and
more severe demands laid on this traffic, the combination of herring
fishing with that for cod and haddock on one and the same boat, the use
of cotton nets which are much lighter than the old ones so that casting
the nets is less important on the boat itself. All these causes brought
about the creation of boats with fine lines, so that there existed, in
1886, but one howker for 8 sloops and 181 luggers. The sloop and the
lugger, which followed it came to us from France.
THE “SLOEP” (SLOOP).
[Sidenote: III 119]
The “sloop”, having at first one mast with a large boom sail and square
stern (~Hoogendijk~, p. 61), was put into use at Middelharnis, Zwarte
Waal and Pernis and hence is known generally as a _Pernissersloep_.
The heavy and unhandy rigging of the single mast was soon replaced
by the “lugger” rig, while the square stern disappeared from among
the more recent sloops, thus doing away with the principal difference
between the two types of vessels.
The sloop has a fish tank and is used for carrying live fish, but it
can also be employed for the herring fishery if it has a fore-mast
which can be unshipped.
The new types of sloops were not favorably received by the public, says
~Hoogendijk~ (p. 55), especially in regard to the deep sea herring
fishery. Their enormous tonnage gave rise to the fear that they would
be too heavy for this kind of work. This loading capacity reached 40
lasts while the ordinary load for a herring boat was but 25 to 30
lasts, to say nothing of the many boats which carried scarcely more
than 16 to 20 lasts.
This fear, however, was found to be groundless. The more slender shape
of the boat gave less hold for the wind than did the old types and so
made it superior for purposes of navigation. No one would think now of
preferring the old “bushes” and “howkers” to the modern “lugger” and
“sloop”.
THE LOGGER (LUGGER).
[Sidenote: II 269]
[Sidenote: II 270]
[Sidenote: III 118]
The “lugger” is also a boat of slender form and of French origin.
The construction of the boat, which has no fish tank, is made
sufficiently clear by the drawings. The rigging includes two masts. The
main-mast, at one-third of the length from the bow, can be lowered. The
nets are cast from the bow and are taken in over the side.
THE “BOM”.
[Sidenote: II 270]
[Sidenote: II 271]
[Sidenote: III 115]
The vessels mentioned above are not, however, the only ones used for
the herring fisheries. Another very remarkable type still in use is the
“Bom”, a descendant of the “Egmonder Pink”. The “Bom”, built so that it
can be allowed to ground, has, like the “Pink”, a very strong bottom
and clinker built sides. Its length is double its beam. It carries two
masts (a large and a small); the rig is fore and aft and long, narrow
lee boards (about ⅓ as long as the vessel). The high tide lands the
“Bommen” on the beach whence, after they had been raised by jacks and
wooden rollers had been placed under them, horses drew them up on a
wooden floor laid on the strand.
The creation of the “Bommenhaven” (harbor for “Bommen”) at Scheveningen
makes grounding these craft unnecessary and, consequently, will cause
them to disappear, because it is more advantageous to use “luggers”.
There will be, therefore, no further reason for the existence of the
“Bommen” and the port built for their use will cause their extinction.
This port has also led, already, to the construction of a few
“Bommen” with keels, called _Loggerbommen_ or _Lelybommen_ which are
intermediate between the “lugger” and the “Bom”. The first of these
“Bommen” was launched in 1900, but it has not been imitated often as it
is scarcely better than a “lugger”. It is clinker built and has the bow
of the “Bom” with the stern of the “lugger”. The old and interesting
“Bom” is no longer built; it will belong soon to history, like the
“bush” and the “howker”, and with it will disappear the last vestige
of the “cog”. Since 1896, the number of these vessels has been already
reduced from 324 to 212.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Strength of the “Bomschuiten” Fleet, 1899 to 1905. |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| | 1899 | 1900 | 1901 | 1902 | 1903 | 1904 | 1905 |
| | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Scheveningen | 217 | 205 | 194 | 189 | 183 | 158 | 140 |
| Katwijk | 67 | 68 | 69 | 71 | 74 | 70 | 66 |
| Noordwijk | 15 | 15 | 15 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Egmond | 3 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Haarlem (Ymuiden) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -- |
| Maassluis | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Report on ocean | | | | | | | |
| fishing, 1905 | 303 | 289 | 279 | 271 | 268 | 239 | 211 |
| (p. 149). | | | | | | | |
THE “GARNALENSCHUIT”.
[Sidenote: III 116]
[Sidenote: III 117]
The _Garnalenschuit_ (a boat used for shrimp fishing) resembles
somewhat the original “Bom” and its resemblance to the old “Egmonder
Pink” is most striking.
THE “SCHOLSCHUIT” OR “BAZAANSCHUIT” THE ZWARTEWAALSCHE GAFFELAAR.
[Sidenote: II 219]
[Sidenote: II 220]
There was met with formerly, alongside of the “bushes” and “howkers”, a
fishing boat belonging to the “smack” group: the _Scholschuiten_ (boats
used for the sole fishery) also called _Bazaanschuit_. At Zwartewaal,
these vessels carried gaff sails (gaffeltuig) whence their name of
_Zwarlewaalsche Gaffelaar_.
The Scholschuiten were shorter than the “howkers”; but fairly broad and
with a strong frame. They resembled greatly the “Visscherssnikken” of
Paessens and Wierum (not to be confused with the “Binnensnikken”) and
the “Palingschuiten” of Heeg and Gastneer which used to carry eels to
London.
The “Scholschuit”, met with at Pernis, Middelharnis and Zwartewaal, was
replaced later by the “sloop”.
[Sidenote: II 202]
The whale fishery, formerly so flourishing, had disappeared completely
in the XIXth century. There were 186 boats still following this
industry in 1756; but this number had fallen to 66 in 1785, this change
being brought about especially by the large premiums granted by England.
As this industry gradually died away in our country, it became more
flourishing, on the contrary, in England. In this latter country, only
26 whaling vessels were to be found in 1750; this number increased to
152 in 1785. Premiums of 3000 to 8000 florins, given in that country
according to the size of the vessels brought about the result of
causing our whaling ships to disappear and only two vessels put out to
sea in 1854. (~Koenen~, p. 164).
“Noortsvaerders” as well as the “Fluitschepen” already described, were
used for this fishery.
The land of the “bushes” was at Vlaardingen and Enkhuizen; a few are
found also at Maassluis and Delfshaven, that is: along the Meuse and in
the North-West part of the Zuiderzee.
The country of the “Bom” was Scheveningen, Katwijk and Noordwijk, along
the flat beach of the North Sea.
That of the “sloop” is Middelharnis, Zwartewaal and Pernis, while the
“lugger” is met everywhere.
The old “howker” was found particularly at Maassluis and the
“Loggerbom” or “Lelybom” at Scheveningen.
An erroneous idea of the Netherlands fishing fleet would be formed by
supposing that only the 724 fishing vessels given in the above list
belonged to it. Alongside of these boats, are still found many smaller
boats used exclusively for this industry.
If a glance be cast over the Report on the Netherlands Ocean Fishery
for 1905, it will be seen that, in this year (p. 342), the fleet
contained in all 5334 vessels with a total tonnage of 234,766 tons
and a total of 20,141 men in the crews. These figures for 1891 were,
respectively: 4427, 164,357 and 15,482.
+------------------------------------------------------------+
|Situation of the Netherlands Fishing Fleet and of its Crews.|
+------+----------------------+----------------------+-------+
| YEAR | NUMBER OF VESSELS | TOTAL TONNAGE | CREWS |
| -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 1905 | 5334 | 234766 | 20141 |
| 1904 | 5781 | 215873 | 21228 |
| 1903 | 5922 | 218249 | 21467 |
| 1902 | 5938 | 215660 | 21225 |
| 1901 | 5851 | 199248 | 20164 |
| 1900 | 5719 | 195950 | 19498 |
| 1899 | 5661 | 191530 | 19232 |
| 1898 | 5385 | 186554 | 18709 |
| 1897 | 5318 | 184576 | 18387 |
| 1896 | 5211 | 181953 | 17895 |
| 1895 | 5189 | 179782 | 17643 |
| 1894 | 5151 | 176649 | 17286 |
| 1893 | 4902 | 172603 | 16700 |
| 1892 | 4647 | 167549 | 16142 |
| 1891 | 4427 | 164357 | 15482 |
The small fishing boats work on the North Sea, along the shores of
Friesland and Groningen, on the maritime rivers of Zeeland and of the
province of Holland as well as on the Zuiderzee.
All sorts of names of fishing boats are found among them, so that it
is very difficult to determine from this point the places whence they
come. Then too, these boats have become so numerous in our country
during the last fifty years, that the presence of a given type at any
place is no proof at all that it had its origin at that place. Thus,
for example, “Schokkers” and “Botters” are now to be found on the Upper
Meuse where not one of them was ever built. Just so soon as fishing
becomes flourishing, there are brought into use all sorts of boats
which were never intended originally for any such purpose. In order to
form an exact idea of _fishing boats_ and their evolution, only such
vessels as were built especially for this use should be considered.
As was said in the general classification, these boats can be divided
into principal orders as follows: _a_) the group of the “Schokkers”;
_b_) that of the “Botters”; _c_) bluff bowed boats (“Knots”, “Akes”,
etc).
THE “SCHOKKER”.
[Sidenote: III 120]
This boat has a long, fine bow; the stern, on the other hand, is
narrow. The hull above the bends falls in sharply. The stem is
straight and very much inclined. At the square upper end of the stem
is a sheave, one side of which rests on the stem and the other side
on a bracket (the “snoes”) which is made firm to the stem. The boat
carries a fish tank and has near the bow a cuddy which serves as a
lodging. Although the “Schokkers” were originally open at the middle,
some are to be found at the present time of larger size and closed. The
“Schokker” has at the bow a small deck, called “kootje”.
The “Schokker” carries lee boards and a mast placed at four fifths of
the length of the vessel, at the position of the main frame. It is
26.10 m. long, 4.48 m. beam and draws 0.98 m. It is fore and aft rigged
(“bazaantuig”) with a short, curved boom and a large fore staysail
which is attached to the side abaft the mast, consequently without any
travelling bar. This latter is sometimes to be found, however, in these
latter times. A jib may be set on the bowsprit. The hull was clinker
built formerly, now it is frequently carvel built. It is a very old
type of vessel, but the large models only date; however, from the XIXth
century. Neither ~Witsen~ nor ~Van Yk~ speaks of them, although they
were already in existence in their time, for drawings of them appear on
the stretchers of the reformed church at Workum which dates from about
1600.
[Sidenote: II 203]
[Sidenote: III 125]
The “Schokker” comes originally from the Zuyderzee and especially from
the shores of Overijssel (Vollenhoven), of Schokland (probably of Urk
also) and of Enkhuizen.
According to common report, the island of Schokland is said to have
obtained its name from that of the “Schokkers”.
Its straight, inclined stem separates this boat from the type of the
other fishing vessels of the Zuyderzee, with the exception of the
“Haringschuit”.
THE “HARINGSCHUIT”.
The _Haringschuit_ (boat used in the herring fishery) may be considered
a large “Punter” or a small “Schokker” with less freeboard.
Hence there is no doubt that the old “Schokker”, the “Haringschuit”
and the “Punter” belong to the same family. The “Schokker” is
distinguished from the others by its higher and more bluff bow, given
to it by reason of the more distant trips on the Zuyderzee and the
North Sea for which it was intended.
THE “PUNTER” AND THE “GONDEL”.
[Sidenote: III 141]
The _Punter_ is met with in the North of Overijssel as an inland boat.
When of large size, it is used as a fishing boat.
[Sidenote: II 183]
[Sidenote: II 185]
[Sidenote: III 137]
The “Haringschuit” is also met with along the shores of Gelderland, but
on the coasts of North Holland is frequently found a small boat, the
“Vischschuit van Aalsmeer” (fishing boat from Aalsmeer) which resembles
the “Punter” and sails alongside of the _Snik_ or the _Gondel_ (the
old cog) of more massive form, just as solid “Schokkers” are found
elsewhere alongside of the “Punter”.
The “Gondel”, which carries a fish tank, is used however as an inland
craft, on the lakes; it ventures very rarely out to sea. All the same,
the stem which has a slight rake rises quite high.
[Sidenote: III 130]
The same characteristics appear in the “Wierschuitje” of Wieringen
where the “Haringschuit” is also met with.
THE “HOOGAARS”.
[Sidenote: II 273]
[Sidenote: III 132]
[Sidenote: III 133]
[Sidenote: III 134]
The same type is seen in the old “Kinderdijksche Hoogaars” of South
Holland, in the “Steegschuit” of the Biesbosch and in the “Steegschuit”
and “Hoogaars” of Zeeland, while the “Hengst” and “Veerhengst”, met
with in the same neighbourhoods, are also “Hoogaars” which have
undergone slight changes. There is also the “Tholensche Schouw” which
is just like the “Beyerlandsche Schuitje” used among the islands of
South Holland. Both these latter vessels have a high, broad bow; they
have no stem, the planking ending on the apron. Hence they are “Akes”.
[Sidenote: III 131]
The _Hoogaars_ has, therefore, a straight stem with a slight rake,
which is much smaller than that of the “Schokker”. The sides which were
formerly clinker built are now carvel built. The bow is rather finer
than that of the “Schokker”, the stern is rather fuller. The bow is
covered while the waist is open and there is a raised deckhouse astern.
The “Hoogaarsen” carry a narrow rudder and a lee board on either side;
they are fore and aft rigged and show a fore staysail and jib. This
vessel is flat-bottomed, like the “schokkers” and other boats already
mentioned, but it has no fish tank. The new “Hoogaarsen” of large size
have a fuller stern, after the manner of the “Boeiers”, and this gave
rise in the second half of the XIXth century to the “Hoogaars-Boeier”
type. The tendency to make the stern fuller is found now in all fishing
vessels and this is causing the characteristic differences between the
various types to disappear.
[Sidenote: III 136]
The ordinary “Hoogaars” is 15 metres long and 4.50 m. beam.
The “Hoogaars” of Arnemuide is somewhat smaller, entirely open, has a
small raised deckhouse in the stern and is rigged with spritsails.
THE “STEEKSCHUIT”.
The _Steekschuit_, constructed like a “Hoogaars”, is rather heavier in
build and the bow falls in less. The sternpost is rounded at the upper
end.
THE “HENGST”.
The “Hengst” differs very little from the “Hoogaars”. It is used a
great deal on the “Hollandsche Diep” (Willemstad.)
[Sidenote: III 139]
All the types before described carry long narrow lee boards, with the
exception of the “Tolensche Schouw” and the “Kinderijksche Hoogaars”
of which the lee boards are wider. Fishing for oysters and mussels now
employ a great many “Boeieraakjes”.
THE “BOTTER”.
[Sidenote: III 121]
[Sidenote: III 127]
[Sidenote: II 200]
[Sidenote: II 123]
Instead of types with a straight stem, there are types now to be found,
to the West of the Zuiderzee and the island of Urk, which have a curved
stem. They bear a large number of names by reason of slight differences
among themselves, but they all belong to the same family, that of the
_Botters_, of which the old “Tochtschuiten” and “Kubbooten” were the
forerunners. Aside from the stem, every thing that has been said in
regard to the “Schokkers” is applicable here. They are met with at Urk
and along the North Holland shore of the Zuiderzee, South of Medemblik,
as well as in the provinces of Utrecht and of Gelderland as far as
Harderwijk. Their names vary.
[Sidenote: III 126]
[Sidenote: III 122]
The oldest form is the “Kubboot”, which is met with under the names of
“Vollendammer Kwakken”, “Bonse”, “Plüte”, and at Maassluis under that
of “Platje van Maassluis”.
THE “BLAZER”.
Since the end of the XIXth century, the “Botters” have been built
bigger and more bluff, the result being the _Blazer_ type, of which the
curved stem falls in less and of which the stern is fuller than that of
the “Botter”. This kind of boat is used for fishing in the North Sea
and is found all along our shores.
[Sidenote: III 124]
“Blazers” are now built with a “Boeier” stern, giving a mixed type: the
_Blazerboeier_. This boat, by reason of its great stability, will soon
take the place of the “Schokkers” and the “Botters”.
THE “LEMMERAAK”.
[Sidenote: III 128]
“Akes” are more and more used for fishing in the Zuyderzee. These
vessels come from Friesland where they are called _Lemmeraak_ or
“Lemmerjacht”.
[Sidenote: III 129]
They are passably short but robust and bluff, thoroughly suited for
running in shallow water.
THE “BOLLE” AND THE “KNOTS”.
[Sidenote: III 129]
[Sidenote: III 135]
The preceding type of boat is found at Urk under the name of _Bolle van
Urk_, or else of “Bolletje van Urk”. It is derived from the “smack”
group. It is curious to note that boats of the same kind have long
frequented the port of Antwerp under the name of _Knots van Antwerpen_.
(“Knots of Antwerp”).
THE “JOL”
At Stavoren, there still exists the _Stavorensche Jol_ (Stavoren Yawl),
a small, short, bluff boat with a keel; it is exceedingly steady on the
water. It is also met with now at Enkhuizen and at Medenblik. It is a
clinker built boat (sometimes carvel built at the present time) which
is often compared to a “sabot” on account of its rounded forms. It
carries a fish tank and, as it has a keel, the lee boards are lacking.
It is spritsail rigged, and its tonnage is from 4 to 6 tons.
At the Helder, at Enkhuizen and at Medenblik a great deal of use is
made of flats, of which the length may be as much as 10 metres. The
stern has a sternframe; the quite long bow, on the contrary, rises high
with a slight rake. The vessel is clinker built and carries two bilge
keels and a bit of a false keel at the after end of the main keel. It
gauges generally from 2 to 5 tons.
As a rule, the tonnage of the “Botters” and “Schokkers” varies from
20 to 30 tons. The smaller types met with at Huizen run from 16 to 20
tons, and at Harderwijck and Elburg, from 13 to 18 tons.
The variations between the fundamental groups may be attributed to
the different ideas of builders, just as there are differences in the
costumes of various countries.
But the difference between the types of a same group is, on the
contrary, the result of the use made of the boat and hence of the
fishing apparatus employed on board.
In order to make this more easily understood, it will be well to give
a short description of the fishing apparatus used on the Zuiderzee,
this description being taken from the report published by the
_Zuiderzeevereeniging_ (1905, pp. 35 _et seq_), as well from the annual
reports on deep sea fishing.
The fishing outfit can be divided into movable apparatus and fixed
apparatus, the latter being the less important for our study.
Belonging to the former, there are:
_a_) The _Wonderkuil_ (_anglicé_: miraculous pocket) which, like the
_Kwakkuil_ and the _Dwarskuil_, is composed of a net, in the shape
of a pocket which has its mouth kept open by a square frame (made of
four pieces of wood called “juffers-oorstokken”). The net is moved
ahead while holding the frame vertical, all the apparatus touching the
bottom. The fish enters at the mouth and is captured in a convergent
bag. The movement through the water distends the net. The “Wonderkuil”
is hung between two “Botters”, which go ahead at the greatest possible
speed so as to entrap the quick swimming fish, such as the herring. The
large “Botters”, being good sailers, are very well suited to this work.
The “Wonderkuil” scarcely touches the bottom on account of the great
speed, but every fish which comes in front of the opening is taken,
necessarily. The narrowing of the meshes, caused by the great speed,
prevents any from escaping.
_b_) The _Kwakkuil_, used at Vollendam, is a small “Wonderkuil” drawn
by one boat which is generally a “Vollendammer Kwak”. The pocket
is then attached to two beams fastened together crosswise at the
stern of the boat. As the speed is less than that attained with the
“Wonderkuil”, the net drags along the bottom which enables eels, plaice
and sole to be taken.
_c_) The _Dwarskuil_ (transverse pocket), smaller than the “Kwakkuil”
but of the same shape, is fastened to the side of the boat by lines
which lead to the bow and stern. In order to work it, the boat must
move crossways and, naturally, its change of position is slow. The boat
should not be flat bottomed, and while fishing is going on the lee
boards should be raised.
The “Wonderkuil” is used in deep water and on hard sandy bottoms;
in shoaler water and on soft bottoms the “Kwakkuil” is brought into
play, and in the shallow waters of Utrecht and Gelderland it is the
“Dwarskuilen” which is employed.
The many complaints about the destruction of fish by the “Wonderkuil”
were not born of yesterday; for already, in 1559, an ordinance fixed
the size of the meshes of the “Aetkens of Steerten” (of the tails of
the nets).
There should certainly be mentioned as part of the movable outfit, the
drag nets used for catching herring, anchovy, sole and smelt. They are
used in all the large fishing ports of the Zuiderzee. These nets are
dragged between any two boats whatever.
Along the Frisian coast, fishing is carried on mainly with fixed
apparatus; this is particularly the case to the North of Makkum. This
way of fishing requires only small boats (24 to 30 traps per boat). Eel
and herring traps are used for this purpose. It is probable also that
the old _Kubboot_ owes its name to a fishing instrument called “Kub”,
a wicker basket shaped like a funnel, nearly closed at the lower end
where, however, a small opening is left. Following this opening is a
small silk net in which an opening allows the eels to pass which are
piled up in the basket.
Fishing in the Zuiderzee is of a special sort because a large number
of Zuiderzee fishermen frequent the North Sea while others devote
themselves to fishing in the rivers; those who spend the entire year
on the Zuiderzee itself, are the fewest in number. The first use large
“Blazers”, “Schokkers” and “Botters”; the second take the “Gondels”,
“Lemmeraken”, “Punters”, etc., and the last use “Kwakken”, “Kubbooten”
and “Haringschuiten”.
Besides those just mentioned, there are a whole series of chance
fishermen using all sorts of boats. Hence it is very difficult to give
the exact number of boats in use for fishing and the figures in the
above tables are only round totals in so far, at least, as they relate
to the Zuiderzee.
THE “WATERSCHIP”.
[Sidenote: II 238]
The vessel called “Waterschip”, used for towing the _Zeekameelen_ (a
sort of floating dock) through the Pampus, has long been known. The
“Waterschip” was, at the beginning, a simple Marken “Botter”. As has
been seen already, the “Zeekameelen” date from 1691. They were built
later with a stronger stem and sternpost and with a deckhouse abaft
the mast. These vessels become thus still more separated from the old
“Botters”.
The towing of the ships of the East India Company, which belonged at
first to two private societies (the Big and the Little Societies),
was granted by contract, subsequently to 1741, to the more important
society which gave to its “Waterscheepjes”, as a distinguishing mark,
a plate of tin fastened to the stem. This measure did not suffice,
however, to keep off the competitors. It was ordered, in 1783, that the
Admiralty arms should be painted on the sails of the accepted vessels,
just as letters are painted on the sails of fishing boats at the
present time.
Under the French domination, when navigation was reduced to a forced
suspension, the “Waterschepen” went so to pieces that, in 1824, of
the 18 which were still in existence, 6 were broken up. The remainder
were sold in 1827, after the opening of the North Holland Canal. (~Le
Comte~, p. 38.)
These “Waterschepen” must not be confounded with those used for
carrying sea water and of which a few engravings are reproduced in the
collection. These boats, with scarcely an exception, belong to the
group of “smacks”.
[Illustration: 6]
The number of the _Annales de Travaux Publics_ of Belgium for August
1901 contains a detailed study of the Inland Navigation floating
stock circulating in Belgium. This study is the work of Mr. ~Dehem~,
Principal Engineer of the Ponts et Chaussées. It contains a description
of the types of boats in use on the French and Belgian canals. These
types of boats, built especially for these canals, are of no historic
value. As they are seen frequently, however, on the Zuid-Willemsvaart
(the canal from Maastricht to Bois-le-Duc), a brief description of
these boats, called “Ballanten” in Holland, will not be out of place.
They can be classified, as a rule, as follows[26]:
~A~) Baquets of Charleroi;
~B~) Walloon boats or “péniches”.
[Sidenote: II 257]
[Sidenote: II 265]
The boat of group ~A~, called “Bak” in Flemish, is a parallelopipedon
in shape. Its average length is 19.50 m.; its breadth, 2.60 to 2.65 m.;
it draws from 0.35 m. to 0.40 m. when light and 1.80 m. when fully
laden. With the latter draught its tonnage oscillates between 67 and 71
tons. This type of boat was introduced particularly for navigation on
the Charleroi canal, of which the old small locks have a neat length of
19 metres and a breadth of 2.70 m. The clear height of the permanent
bridges on this navigable highway varies from 2.65 m. to 3 metres.
These boats cost from 4500 to 7500 francs.
The boat of group ~B~, called “Waal” in Flemish, is also a box having
the shape of a parallelopipedon with a flat bottom and nearly plane
sides. According to the differences in shape of the bow and stern,
these boats are known by different names, such as: 1ᵒ Tournai boat; 2ᵒ
chaland; 3ᵒ bélandre; 4ᵒ pointu.
It should be said, however, that the last two names should be assigned
rather to old types and that the first two should be reserved for the
large canal boats (_péniches_) generally built at present.
The Tournai boat has the forward and after faces rounded and a quite
marked curve in the vertical plane, so that the boat shows a curved
stem called the _nose_. The forward face carries a bend called the
moustache and has on top a wooden rail to support the tow line which is
made fast to the towing bitt back of the nose.
In the _chaland_, called also “Ballant”, the forward and after faces
are nearly plane, the nose and moustache are slightly marked and the
towing bitt is placed at the extreme forward end of the boat.
As a rule, these boats are not very strongly built and their planking
suffers a good deal through the sharp curves at bow and stern. Their
shape is so determined that they shall exactly fill the locks and
that they shall then have a maximum loading capacity, although it is
altogether incomprehensible that, just in order to get a few more tons
on board, the whole question of facility of towing should be entirely
neglected. What is gained then in one way is doubly lost in another in
high charges for towing.
The only explanation which can be given for this manner of building
is, that most boatmen have their own tow horses, for which a stable
is placed at the centre of the boat, so that they do not notice the
additional costs of towing which they have to pay.
The dimensions of Tournai boats and of the chalands are the same; their
length varies from 37.50 m. to 39 metres, not counting the rudder,
and their breadth goes from 5.00 m. to 5.05 m.; they draw empty, on
an average, 0.28 m., and when loaded from 1.80 m. to 2.30 m., with a
tonnage of 300 to 370 tons.
By comparing the _bélandres_ and _pointus_ with these boats, it can be
seen that the latter can carry less than the former on account of their
finer bow, whence their name of _Pointu_ or _Spits_.
The essential difference between the “bélandre”, called in Flemish
_Bijlander_, and the “pointu” lies in this, that the bottom of the
former connects with the forward face by means of a curved surface,
whereas the bottom of the latter remains flat up to the nose. The two
types differ little in other respects. They are rarely built now. It
is true that new “pointus” are still met with, but they should be
considered rather as bastard “péniches”. Here again is seen a fusion of
different forms accompanying an increase in the size of the boats.
The “bélandres” are 28 to 34 metres long, 4.60 m. to 5 metres broad and
draw 0.30 m. to 0.40 m. light and up to 2 metres loaded.
The “pointu” is 20 to 30 metres long and generally 3.50 m. broad (never
reaching 5 metres); it draws light, on an average, 0.35 m., and 1.80 m.
when loaded. Its tonnage is from 100 to 200 tons.
The largest _pointus_ measure 32 metres in length and 4.90 m. in
breadth; they gauge at most 250 tons on a draught of 2.15 m.
Many of the types just mentioned are now often built of steel.
The “Prij” should also be mentioned in the chapter relating to these
boats; it is a “spits” made in two distinct parts, each of which can be
loaded separately.
[Illustration]
FOOTNOTES:
[26] As the names of the boats which follow are almost strictly
local, no attempt has been made to translate them. _Péniche_,
however, is the general name in France and Belgium for the
standard canal boat of about 300 tons.
[Illustration: 7]
Shipbuilding in Europe developed around two centres which came into
contact in the neighborhood of 1300. The fusion of the two zones took
place only between 1450 and 1500.
The Northern centre, that of the Baltic Sea, which had its origin in
Sweden and Norway, only reached its full expansion in the time of the
Vikings. The types of boats of the various nations along the shores of
the seas of the North of Europe show undeniable analogies both in form
and in mode of construction.
Going further into the continent, the same striking analogies still
appear, so that the likeness of forms is further strengthened along the
East-West line.
Map No 1 herewith shows in green the sphere of the Northern centre; the
probable direction of the movement of the rounded Frisian types being
given by a full line, the direction of the finer types by a dotted line
and that of the types of the Lower Rhine by a broken and dotted line.
The Southern centre, situated in the Mediterranean, and originally from
Phœnicia, is marked in red. There too, shipbuilding developed along an
East-West line. Although it may not be certified, from the nautical
standpoint or with the data at hand, that the Southern centre was under
the influence of Asia, it can be observed, however, that many forms and
processes of construction noted in old engravings are still found in
the Arab, Indian and Chinese vessels.
Hence it follows that it is all the more necessary to carry on our
investigations in that direction because the old methods of propulsion
and of steering have been relatively well preserved in Asia rather than
in Europe.
There is no doubt that relations in connection with this subject will
be found between the Southern centre and a part of Asia.
Shipbuilding, which came to us from the Baltic Sea, was first put to
use for fishing, that undoubted cradle of every great maritime race.
The gradual growth of this industry widened the field of action and
favored trade as it did in the Flanders. Hence, there will be no cause
for astonishment in finding that the oldest memories of Holland in
reference to shipbuilding are those of the herring fishery.
The birth of the cog, for example, is due to the rise of this kind of
fishing; then this type of vessel led to that of the “Egmonderpink”,
and afterward to that of the “Bom”, which will very soon have
disappeared and of which it may be said that it will have formed the
last vestige of the “Cog”.
The whole evolution of the ship is founded, furthermore, on
_tradition_. This, however, did not lie alone in servile imitation of
all that our ancestors had turned out, but in yielding to new demands
which the special conditions of the period brought with them.
The evolution of the ship, like that of its size, has been gradual. So
the ships of antiquity were smaller than those of the Middle Ages, and
these in their turn were smaller than the vessels of modern times.
Neither the compass, the adoption of the rudder nor even the invention
of gunpowder were able to bring about sudden changes in naval
architecture. It was only gradually, and through improvements in
artillery, that ships became heavier; so that at the beginning of our
war for independence the distinction had begun to be made between war
vessels and merchantmen, which until then had both been equally used
for military purposes.
It was after the discovery of America and of the route to the East
Indies, two events of the greatest importance for the evolution
of the peoples of Europe, that the commerce of the world left the
Mediterranean and moved toward the North Sea. Then it was that our
country woke up and soon surpassed all others in shipbuilding. The
Netherlands then carried naval construction back toward the Baltic.
France also borrowed from us the elements of shipbuilding. The province
of Holland was at the head of this branch of construction from 1500
to 1700; France then took Holland’s place and, from the middle of the
XVIIIth century, had its own separate construction. It was the keen
French mind which guided all countries in the systematic construction
of ships.
England, always practical, has ever done her best to keep up with the
country which turned out the largest ships. ~Holmes~’s work shows this
tendency clearly. After 1800, England outstripped her rivals and set
the pace for naval architecture. Numerous improvements were carried out
under the influence of that country.
The continental blockade dealt our shipbuilding a mortal blow. It was
only through the initiative and the energetic backing of King William
I that the industry revived in the first half of the XIXth century and
reached, in the second half, a new period of prosperity. Japan’s first
modern war vessels were built in Holland.
The coming of steel opened a new era for our naval architecture and our
worthy shipbuilders have been able to do honor to the traditions of our
race by proving themselves now, as formerly, economical architects with
the ability to give a pleasing appearance and an irreproachable finish
to a solid construction.
The distribution of the groups of the various types of boats is shown
on map 3, while map 4 gives the subdivision of these groups in the
Netherlands.
The Frisian types appear on both these maps in blue; the types of
the Lower Rhine, which penetrated into the North-West of Brabant and
into the heart of South Holland, are given in brown; the types of the
Upper Rhine are in violet, those of the Lower Meuse in red and those
of the Upper Meuse in green. The types with finer lines of Overijssel,
surrounded by those from Friesland and the Lower Rhine, and which are
also met with on the Ems, the Weser, the Elbe, the Havel and the Spree
are shown with a paler shade.
Chart No. 4 shows the zone of the fishing boats which frequent the
North Sea. These last, except the “Lugger” and the “Sloop”, belong to
the Friesland type. It is curious to bring the boundaries of charts 5,
6 and 7 together, containing, as they do, the results of the patient
researches of the late Professor Dr. Gallée, so well known and
esteemed for his vast learning as well as for his great kindness, when,
some time ago, he was so good as to place copies of these charts at the
author’s disposal.
A mere glance is sufficient to show that the limits of costumes
have been most changed; but, on the contrary, there is a striking
resemblance from the point of view of the distribution of languages
and, especially, from that of the kind of dwellings.
The Frisian and Saxon influences agree on the different charts, while
the types of the Upper Meuse are found everywhere that the architecture
of the Roman villas has been preserved. Hence it is not astonishing
that these types of the Meuse resemble those found in the valley of the
Po and on the Adriatic Sea.
These observations agree with the historical researches which, have
established the fact that the countries bordering on the North Sea were
inhabited by the Celts who came from the East to Central and Western
Europe several centuries before our era. The Celts drove out the
Mongols, who were already settled there; but they, in their turn, were
driven from the West by the Germans. This is what caused the Romans
to say that, north of the Rhine, the Celts had already been driven
out everywhere by the Germans. The Rhine was at that time the general
boundary line between the two peoples. South of this river there
only a few German out-lying positions, like those of the Eburones at
Maestricht and Roermond, and of the Condrosii near Liége. The Germans
and Celts are confounded along the Meuse. The Celts in North Brabant
had already become very much germanized, while the Menapii, the Morini
and the Nervii of Flanders and Zeeland also felt this influence. All
these germanized Celts were called Gauls by the Romans. The Germans
penetrated several times into Gaul, they even came as far as the
Menapian country in the valley of the Scheldt; but Cæsar succeeded in
driving them back, in the year 55 B. C. After the latter’s conquests,
the Rhine became the frontier of Roman domination and so remained until
about the IXth century. The Gauls quickly became latinized. North of
the Rhine, the Roman influence made itself felt on the Batavi, the
Chamavi and the Frisians. Still, this influence was not very strong,
especially on the last-named tribe. From the moment that the Roman
power began to weaken, the Germans reappeared, and it was especially
the Franks who proved to be the stronger. These latter, who inhabited
the region of the Lippe, the Ruhr and the Upper Ems, were probably
being pushed out already at this time by the Saxons. The Franks were
again driven beyond the Rhine by the Emperor Probus, in 280, but they
advanced again toward the South after the death of Constantine the
Great (337). Cologne fell into their hands and they appeared in front
of Treves. Julian prevented, however, their entering Taxandria, the
present North Brabant.
The Salians, the strongest of the Franks, remained in the country of
the Batavi while the Chamavi, another of their tribes, settled on the
North of the Rhine. The Salians and Batavi soon consolidated into a
single tribe. Then when the Romans retired in 402, during the reign of
the Emperor Honorius, the Francs started again on their route toward
the South and invaded North Brabant.
The Saxons who, as already mentioned, had probably started the Franks,
inhabited the country lying between the Ems and the Elbe, consequently
the North of Germany. They settled in the East of our country and,
later, extended their influence northwardly.
The Frisians, who are generally spoken of in connection with the
Saxons, were able to hold their ground between the Weser and the Zwin
(Zeelandisch Flanders). Their King, Radbout, carried their domination
to the South of the Rhine and pushed on even so far as Cologne where he
was defeated by Charles Martel.
If Holland was called Frisia (or Friesland) in the Middle Ages, only
as far as the mouth of the Meuse, it is related, on the other hand,
that Saint Amand preached the Gospel to the Frisians of Zeeland. This
tradition is confirmed by Prof. ~Fockema Andrea~, who has shown that
the Frisian law of 800 was applied from the Weser to the Zwin and the
Frank law as far as the Ems, that is to say: the Chamavi inhabited the
Veluwe to the East of this river; consequently Utrecht belonged to
Frisia.
It is also said, in connection with the struggle of the Frisians
against the Franks, that Utrecht was situated on the frontier of
Frisia.
In a word, the Netherlands were inhabited originally by Celts whom
the Germans drove toward the South. Later, they were able, with the
assistance of the Romans, to hold their ground to the South of the big
rivers of the country. The first Germans in Holland were the Frisians.
They occupied the coast from the Weser to the Zwin and, at a few
points, established themselves among the Celts.
Thus it is that Frisian types of vessels are found from Denmark to
Flanders and that they penetrated as far as Utrecht and along the tidal
rivers.
The Chamavi, the first Franks, very probably occupied the Veluwe and
the Betuwe as for as the Singe and the Ems.
Later, the Franks, settled North Brabant and penetrated into Zeeland,
Utrecht and South Holland. As a matter of fact, we have already been
impressed at meeting, in our country, with types of boats of the Lower
Rhine not only along the Rhine and its tributaries, but even in the
heart of South Holland and in the North-West of North-Brabant.
The Saxons, who were the last to arrive, settled in the East of the
country and spread gradually into Groningen and Friesland. It is there
that the slender Overijssel or Saxon types are met with.
Types of vessels, just like the styles of dwellings, languages and
costumes, have certain relationships with the first inhabitants of
countries.
This explains why types of different boats are found along the same
river and the same country.
So, old forms and old customs last through the ages and our country can
pride itself not only on a glorious past but also on its ability to
maintain so enviable a place in the domain of naval architecture, for
the words that ~Witsen~ wrote in 1671:
“In ’t overleg van een zuinig meester
bestaet al ’t geheim van
goedkoop bouwen.”[27]
can always be applied to our able builders of ships.
FOOTNOTES:
[27] The entire secret of economical construction lies in the
reasoning of a careful builder.
[Illustration: KAART Nᵒ 1
Tafel Nᵒ 1--Carte Nᵒ 1
Plate Nᵒ 1
OP WELKE WIJZE
DE SCHEEPSBOUW
ZICH HEEFT
VERPLAATST VOOR
1500 (1)
]
(1) Wie sich der Schiffbau vor 1500 bewegt hat.
Evolution de l’architecture navale avant 1500.
Way in which shipbuilding moved before 1500.
(2) Südlicher Mittelpunkt.
Centre méridional.
Southern Centre.
(3) Nördlicher Mittelpunkt.
Centre septentrional.
Northern Centre.
(4) Erste Berührung zwischen dem südlichen und nördlichen Mittelpunkt.
Premier contact entre le centre méridional et le centre septentrional.
First contact between the Southern centre and the Northern centre.
(5) Erster Einfluss des südlichen auf den nordlichen Mittelpunkt.
Première influence du centre méridional sur le centre septentrional.
First influence of the Southern centre on the Northern centre.
[Illustration: KAART Nᵒ 2
Tafel Nᵒ 2 -- Carte Nᵒ 2
Plate Nᵒ 2
OP WELKE WIJZE DE
SCHEEPSBOUW ZICH
HEEFT VERPLAATST
NA 1500 (1)
]
(1) Wie sich der Schiffbau nach 1500 bewegt hat.
Évolution de l’architecture navale après 1500.
Way in which shipbuilding moved after 1500.
(2) 1500-1700. Niederlande.
1500-1700. Pays-Bas.
1500-1700. Netherlands.
(3) Stadte des Hansabundes.
Villes de la ligue hanséatique.
Cities of the Hanseatic League.
(4) 1700-1800. Frankreich. Der theoretische Schiffbau.
1700-1800. La France. L’architecture navale théorique.
1700-1800. France. Theoretical shipbuilding.
(5) Die französische Bauweise trennt sich von der der Niederlande.
L’architecture navale française se sépare de celle des Pays-Bas.
French shipbuilding withdraws from that of the Netherlands.
(6) Nach 1800. England.
Après 1800. l’Angleterre.
After 1800. England.
[Illustration: KAART Nᵒ 3
Tafel Nᵒ 3 -- Carte Nᵒ 3
Plate Nᵒ 3
KAART DER SCHEEPSMODELLEN
Tafel der Schiffstype.
Carte des types navires.
Plate showing types of vessels.]
I Friesche Friesische Type. Types Frisons. Frisian types.
modellen. (Smacken, (Semaque, etc.) (Smack, etc.)
(Smak, enz.) u. s. w.)
II Overijselsche Type von Types de Overysel types.
modellen. Overysel. l’Overysel.
(Somp. pegge, (Somp. Pegge, (Somp. pegge, (Somp. pegge,
enz.) u. s. w.) etc.) etc.)
III B}Rijn }der Rhein }Le Rhin B}The Rhine
o}(Dorstensche }(Aak B}(l’Aque de o}(Ake from
v} aak). O} von Dorsten). o} Dorsten). v} Dorsten).
e} b} v} e}
IV n}Maas e}die Maas e}La Meuse n}The Meuse
d}(Hedelsche r}(Aak von n}(l’Aque de d}(Ake from
l} aak). l} Hedel). d} Hedel). l} Hedel).
a} ä} l} a}
V n}Maas n}die Maas a}La Meuse n}The Meuse
d}(Whale majol).d}(Whale majol). n}(le Whale d}(The Whale
e} e} d}majol). e} majol).
r} r} e} r}
VI s}Boven }der Oberrhein r}Le Rhin s}The Upper
}Rijn }(der Keen). s}supérieur }Rhine
}(Keen). }(der Keen). }(le Keen). }(Keen).
[Illustration: KAART DER SCHEEPSMODELLEN (1)
KAART Nᵒ 4
Tafel Nᵒ 4--Carte Nᵒ 4
Plate Nᵒ 4]
(1) TAFEL DER SCHIFFSTYPE
CARTE DES TYPES DE NAVIRES
PLATE SHOWING TYPES OF VESSELS]
[Illustration: KAART Nᵒ 5
Tafel Nᵒ 5--Carte Nᵒ 5
Plate Nᵒ 5
KAART DER DIALECTEN
NEDERLAND.
Dialecttafel.
Niederlande.
Carte des dialects.
Pays-Bas.
Dialect Chart.
Netherlands.
]
[Illustration: KAART Nᵒ 6
Tafel Nᵒ 6--Carte Nᵒ 6
Plate Nᵒ 6
VOLKSKLEEDERDRACHTEN
Tafel der Volkstrachten
Carte des costumes nationaux
Plate of national costumes]
[Illustration: KAART Nᵒ 7
Tafel Nᵒ 7--Carte Nᵒ 7
Plate Nᵒ 7
KAART DER BOERENWONINGEN
Tafel der ländlichen Wohnhäuser.
Carte des habitations rurales.
Country homes.]
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SHIPBUILDING FROM ITS BEGINNINGS. VOL. 1 (OF 3) ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
