Here we are, almost at the end of discussing the rigging of Mayflower II sails. Hopefully I haven’t put too many blog followers to sleep as I’ve gone along. I hope that you’ve found it informative and remember, don’t be shy – if you have any questions or comments about one of Peter or my postings don’t hesitate to utilize the “Comments” feature attached to each blog entry.

This edition of sail rigging will discuss the fore and main courses, the ship’s primary sources of forward thrust, her driving sails. These sails are rigged much like all the others with mostly all of the same running gear we have discussed already. To set the courses, we have “sheets” and “tacks” which control the lower corners (or “clews”) of these square sails. The rigging plan drawn by Mr. Baker displays the courses and the spritsail all with sheets rigged with purchases.

This is one of a few notable discrepancies between what was planned and what actually came into reality. Captain Villiers felt that with an experienced crew the sheets’ purchases weren’t necessary so they were dispensed with and so far in the last 51 years sheets with purchases have never been fitted, although we discussed it back in early 1990. However the time and expense of having rather large lead blocks manufactured by block-maker Arthur Dauphinee in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia put an end to any of our perhaps overly-ambitious plan, although Mr. Dauphinee would at different times supply us with deadeyes for our new topmast shrouds and blocks and bullseyes for topsail and course bowlines.

To douse the courses, there are the usual lines that we’ve mentioned before – “clewlines,” “buntlines,” and “martinets,” the latter talked about when the mizzen sail was explained. To better help smother these large sails in 1957 there were 5 buntlines on the main course and 4 buntlines on the fore course. There were also metal-ring “buntline thimbles” sewn into the forward side of each sail through which the buntlines were led, thus drawing the sail up tighter to the yard, rather than just somewhat “halving” the sail. The new sails now on the Mayflower follow the rigging plan quite closely and there are only the requisite (and “historically accurate”) 3 buntlines on each of the courses and buntline thimbles are not present. And let us not forget the “martinets” which on the main and fore sails are a bit more complicated than those on the mizzen. There basic purpose is the same on the courses – to form a web-like net around the leeches of the sail to draw it up to the yard so that it can be securely lashed there with gaskets. As I said the martinets on the courses are a bit more complex than those on the mizzen…the upper ends of the martinets have a pendant slung over the topmast heads and below that a block-and-tackle purchase arrangement is formed with the hauling parts led down to the deck. Even though it sounds like a strange set-up in place of just a single leechline or two on each sail, the martinets when rigged properly do work well to spill the wind from the courses and help to draw them up snugly to the yards. Also worth mentioning here are a couple of interesting things about the main yard and fore yard. When the ship was built in England these yards were fitted with large wooden saddles at their centerlines. These served the purpose of helping to prevent the heavy lower yards of crashing back into (and gouging) the lower masts. When correctly aligned these saddles also allowed the main and fore yards to sit out away forward of the masts. This was significant because it allowed the yards to be braced around even more sharply when the ship was sailing close-hauled; with the saddles the yards could swing further around before they actually started to chafe against the lower masts’ forward shrouds. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for those concerned with historical accuracy) the saddles were removed in the mid-1960’s so the lower yards can no longer be braced around quite as far as in Mayflower’s earlier days. And, also, I’ll mention the other deciding factor on how much the yards can be braced – the brace pendants which lead aft from the yardarms. We discovered in 1990 that these pendants, too, had stretched out and were longer than what they should have been. This would have the net effect of the brace pendants becoming “two-blocked,” that is to say the pendant blocks would meet the lead blocks and no amount of hauling on the running parts of the braces from the deck would allow the yards to brace around any further. So we had to go to work and shorten ALL the brace pendants on ALL of the yards. After this, we had no further troubles.

Continuing on with the series on Mayflower II sails and their rigging, this time out it’s the lateen mizzen, one of the smallest sails on the ship but one that is very useful as a balancing sail. The mizzen is a triangular fore-and-aft sail set on the ship’s aftermost mast, high on the stern-castle. The sail is controlled by lines very much the same in function as those for all the other sails, although a couple of the lines are known by different names. To set the sail there is really only one item of gear - the “sheet” – which pulls the clew of the sail out from the mizzen yard. The mizzen sheet is actually rigged as a 2-block purchase…the standing part begins in a strop along with a block shackled to a small outrigger boom which protrudes aft from the poop deck thru the upper stern planking. The sheet then goes through a lead block at the clew of the sail, is led back aft through the block on the boomkin, then is led forward again over the after poop rail where it is made fast to a cleat secured to a stanchion. (It should be noted here that when the ship was much younger, in the late 1950’s and 1960’s, the sheet came through the block on the boomkin then through a fairlead hole cut through one of the stern planks at the poop deck level; apparently after one of the stern’s replanking projects the fairlead hole has never been re-cut). To take in the sail, or to “haul it up in its gear” as the saying goes, there are the lines that do the usual jobs. The “clewline” draws the lower aft corner up to the yard. Then there is a line that draws the lower edge of the sail up to the mizzen mast. On all the ship’s other sails this line would be called a buntline, but for some reason on the mizzen this piece of gear is known as a “brail.” There is also a confusing arrangement of gear that draws the after vertical edge of the sail up to the yard and smothers it. On the topsails & spritsail there are leechlines which draw the sides of the sail up; but here on the mizzen (as well as on the fore and main courses, which will discussed later) there is this convoluted gear known as the “martinets.”

A picture perhaps can better describe how the martinets work so therefore I have included a photo which shows how they form a web-like net to draw the sail up and secure it to the yard. Basically described there are two deadeyes through which are rove the legs, or “martlets.” They are also rove from one side of the sail to the other through bullseyes worked into cringles along the bolt-rope of the sail’s leech. As I said, difficult to understand from a description, but much easier with a photo or two to help one visualize how they work. Another interesting facet of the mizzen rigging is how the yard must be swung around to the opposite side of the mast each time the ship is tacked.

Normally when set the yard is suspended at approximately a 45-degree angle. When it must be swung around the mizzen mast, the sail needs to be hauled up in its gear and the yard is then stood up vertically, parallel to the mizzen mast. Once the yard is stood up, the “bowline tackles” at the foot of the yard are disconnected, the yard is shifted to the opposite side of the mizzen mast, the bowlines are rehooked and the “peak” end of the yard is lowered back down, the yard resumes its 45-degree angle and the sail is set once again on the new tack. This procedure somewhat baffled Captain Villiers and his 1957 crew until they got used to doing it, and it baffled us a bit in 1990, too, regardless of our having read Villiers’ accounts of the transatlantic crossing. But our difficulties arose from another piece of rigging which had stretched out to such an extent that it didn’t work correctly. The mizzen peak halyard consists, in part, of a pendant leading aft from the main-topmast head which has a lead block in its lower end. Well we could not stand the mizzen yard up to a vertical position the first time we tried because the mizzen peak halyard pendant was well over 31 feet long when, according to the rigging plan and specifications, it should only have been 20 feet, 6 inches. Somehow over the years of sailing inactivity this gear had stretched over 10 feet and was useless to do what it was meant to. We had limited time before the ship’s September 5, 1990 sail so we didn’t shorten the pendant right away. But we did so during the next off-season down-rig period and the mizzen peak halyard was working properly in time to sail the ship to Provincetown during the summer of 1991.