The Name Pinnace
Was Applied To Vessels Having A Wide Range In Tonnage, Etc., From A Craft
Of Hardly More Than Ten Or Fifteen Tons To One Of Sixty Or Eighty.
It
was a term of pretty loose and indefinite adaptation and covered most of
the smaller craft above a shallop or ketch, from such as could be
propelled by oars, and were so fitted, to a small ship of the SPEEDWELL'S
class, carrying an armament.
None of the many representations of the SPEEDWELL which appear in
historical pictures are authentic, though some doubtless give correct
ideas of her type. Weir's painting of the "Embarkation of the Pilgrims,"
in the Capitol at Washington (and Parker's copy of the same in Pilgrim
Hall, Plymouth); Lucy's painting of the "Departure of the Pilgrims," in
Pilgrim Hall; Copes great painting in the corridor of the British Houses
of Parliament, and others of lesser note, all depict the vessel on much
the same lines, but nothing can be claimed for any of them, except
fidelity to a type of vessel of that day and class. Perhaps the best
illustration now known of a craft of this type is given in the painting
by the Cuyps, father and son, of the "Departure of the Pilgrims from
Delfshaven," as reproduced by Dr. W. E. Griffis, as the frontispiece to
his little monograph, "The Pilgrims in their Three Homes." No reliable
description of the pinnace herself is known to exist, and but few facts
concerning her have been gleaned. That she was fairly "roomy" for a
small number of passengers, and had decent accommodations, is inferable
from the fact that so many as thirty were assigned to her at Southampton,
for the Atlantic voyage (while the MAY-FLOWER, three times her tonnage,
but of greater proportionate capacity, had but ninety), as also from the
fact that "the chief [i.e. principal people] of them that came from
Leyden went in this ship, to give Master Reynolds content." That she
mounted at least "three pieces of ordnance" appears by the testimony of
Edward Winslow, and they probably comprised her armament.
We have seen that Bradford notes the purchase and refitting of this
"smale ship of 60 tune" in Holland. The story of her several sailings,
her "leakiness," her final return, and her abandonment as unseaworthy,
is familiar. We find, too, that Bradford also states in his "Historie,"
that "the leakiness of this ship was partly by her being overmasted and
too much pressed with sails." It will, however, amaze the readers of
Professor Arber's generally excellent "Story of the Pilgrim Fathers," so
often referred to herein, to find him sharply arraigning "those members
of the Leyden church who were responsible for the fitting of the
SPEEDWELL," alleging that "they were the proximate causes of most of the
troubles on the voyage [of the MAY-FLOWER] out; and of many of the deaths
at Plymouth in New England in the course of the following Spring; for
they overmasted the vessel, and by so doing strained her hull while
sailing." To this straining, Arber wholly ascribes the "leakiness" of
the SPEEDWELL and the delay in the final departure of the MAYFLOWER, to
which last he attributes the disastrous results he specifies. It would
seem that the historian, unduly elated at what he thought the discovery
of another "turning-point of modern history," endeavors to establish it
by such assertions and such partial references to Bradford as would
support the imaginary "find." Briefly stated, this alleged discovery,
which he so zealously announces, is that if the SPEEDWELL had not been
overmasted, both she and the MAY-FLOWER would have arrived early in the
fall at the mouth of the Hudson River, and the whole course of New
England history would have been entirely different. Ergo, the
"overmasting" of the SPEEDWELL was a "pivotal point in modern history."
With the idea apparently of giving eclat to this announcement and of
attracting attention to it, he surprisingly charges the responsibility
for the "overmasting" and its alleged dire results upon the leaders of
the Leyden church, "who were," he repeatedly asserts, "alone
responsible." As a matter of fact, however, Bradford expressly states
(in the same paragraph as that upon which Professor Arber must wholly
base his sweeping assertions) that the "overmasting" was but "partly"
responsible for the SPEEDWELL'S leakiness, and directly shows that the
"stratagem" of her master and crew, "afterwards," he adds, "known, and by
some confessed," was the chief cause of her leakiness.
Cushman also shows, by his letter, - written after the ships had put back
into Dartmouth, - a part of which Professor Arber uses, but the most
important part suppresses, that what he evidently considers the principal
leak was caused by a very "loose board" (plank), which was clearly not
the result of the straining due to "crowding sail," or of "overmasting."
(See Appendix.)
Moreover, as the Leyden chiefs were careful to employ a presumably
competent man ("pilott," afterwards "Master" Reynolds) to take charge of
refitting the consort, they were hence clearly, both legally and morally,
exempt from responsibility as to any alterations made. Even though the
"overmasting" had been the sole cause of the SPEEDWELL'S leakiness, and
the delays and vicissitudes which resulted to the MAY-FLOWER and her
company, the leaders of the Leyden church - whom Professor Arber arraigns
- (themselves chiefly the sufferers) were in no wise at fault! It is
clear, however, that the "overmasting" cut but small figure in the case;
"confessed" rascality in making a leak otherwise, being the chief
trouble, and this, as well as the "overmasting," lay at the door of
Master Reynolds.
Even if the MAY-FLOWER had not been delayed by the SPEEDWELL'S condition,
and both had sailed for "Hudson's River" in midsummer, it is by no means
certain that they would have reached there, as Arber so confidently
asserts. The treachery of Captain Jones, in league with Gorges, would as
readily have landed them, by some pretext, on Cape Cod in October, as in
December.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 6 of 92
Words from 5255 to 6258
of 94513
