The protocol

The court that sat on 5 September 1628 to find out why the Vasa had sunk kept a protocol. The original, which would have carried the signatures of the seventeen members, is lost. What survives is a copy, in the Swedish National Archives, and the copy is missing its beginning: it opens in the middle of the first witness’s answer. The Vasa Museum has published a transcription of the fragment, made from the original and from Georg Hafström’s edition of 1958, and that transcription is the source of everything below.

The rendering into English is the author’s. The Swedish of 1628 is terse and the punctuation arbitrary, so sentences have been divided and the odd word supplied in square brackets; nothing has been added, and the order is the protocol’s. The questions were put by the fiscal, the Crown’s prosecutor; the court was presided over by Carl Carlsson Gyllenhielm, admiral of the realm, whom the clerk calls Lord Carl Carlsson. A few words are left in Swedish because the English is uncertain. “Crank” (rankt) is a ship that heels too easily. The certer is the builder’s specification of dimensions. The Tranbodarna were the train-oil sheds on the south shore of the harbour where the ship was moored before she made sail. A skeppund is a weight of about 170 kilograms.

Erik Jönsson, master of ordnance

The fragment begins in his answer.

… To that Erik Jönsson answered that he knew of no gun being loose; all were fast tackled. For when the ship began to heel he ran straight down to the guns, and then the water came in through the gunports. Then he called from below that they should let fly the sheets, and they were already let fly. And before he could come up, the water was so high in the ship that the stair came loose, so that he could scarcely come up, and meant to save himself on the rail when he got up. And he says that he did not know the ship’s condition, and believed for certain that even had she not been under sail she would still have gone over, because of the heaviness of the upperworks, since she was heavier above than below.

He said he had eaten nothing that day, but had drunk twice, and then he was alone in the cabin with his boy, and there he took a little piece of meat and bread, and that was all he had taken that day.

And he related that when they lay by the Tranbodarna, before they went to sail, she heeled a little, and he ran down to the guns and looked whether there was anything amiss. There was nothing, and the ship righted herself at once.

Then Lord Carl Carlsson said that he had nonetheless been appointed there as a vice admiral; he ought to have kept diligent oversight whether she was rightly ballasted as she should be.

Erik Jönsson answered that he was no captain or vice admiral, nor gave himself out for one, but for a master of ordnance; therefore the captain and the master understood the ballast better than he.

Then the fiscal put to him that the master builder was said to have said that, if he had been given to know that the ship was crank and had been asked about it, he would have seen to it that they should have laden her a foot deeper.

Then Erik Jönsson answered: how could he ballast her more, when the gunports lay no more than three and a half feet from the water? With that he was ordered to withdraw.

Petter Gierdsson, lieutenant

Then was called in Petter Gierdsson, lieutenant on the Vasa, who had rigged the ship and was aboard when they were to go to sail. He was accused by the fiscal of not having made known that the ship was so crank. To which he answered that he knew nothing of it; he had only had to do with the rigging, nor had he seen what ballast was in her.

But the guns, he said, were all well made fast; and the ship lies, as he relates, fourteen feet deep forward and sixteen feet aft, and fifteen feet in the hold. The gunports, he says, were about four or four and a half feet from the water.

He was asked whether he did not see that she was crank before they went to sail. He answered that when they lay by the Tranbodarna, and some persons went together to one side or the other, the ship heeled after them.

And when they went to sail they had no more set than both topsails, the foresail and the mizzen; and when the ship began to heel a little they cast all the sheets loose, but the wind was not so strong that it could draw the sheets out, although they were well greased; therefore they had to push the sheets out, and one man alone held the sheet. And he had never believed that any ship would have gone over with so little wind.

He was asked what he thought the cause should be that she went over so easily, whether she was badly built or there was little ballast in her. He answered that he did not know, for he did not understand shipbuilding, nor had he seen what ballast was in her. He was ordered to step down.

Jöran Matsson, master

Then was called in the master, Jöran Matsson. He was likewise accused by the fiscal of not having faithfully discharged his calling and office, and of not having kept such oversight both of the ballast and of other things as his calling and office demanded and required, whereby His Royal Majesty’s ship had come to misfortune.

To that the master answered that he had stowed in as much ballast as could go in. And he did not trust the men to do it as well as he wished; therefore he went down with a light himself and trimmed and stowed the most he could, so that he could think nothing other than that he had done his part.

He was asked whether he could notice that the ship was crank. He answered that when they went to sail she first gave a little to one side and righted herself at once; and when they came toward Tegelviken and she began to heel, some were ordered to take in the guns, but before they had got one gun well in, the ship went over.

He said also that Söfring had told Admiral Fleming that the ship was crank. And he related besides that when they lay with the ship at the crane here by the castle, with her ballast, in Admiral Fleming’s presence, they had with thirty men let [the men] run across the ship. The first time she gave a plank over, the second time two planks, and the third time three planks; then Fleming bade them stop. Had they run more times, she would have gone over. And when this happened, he said, [Fleming said] “that His Majesty were yet at home.”

He was asked whether she was then fully ballasted. He answered that all but one boatload the ballast was in. And he said, if God will they get the ship up again and wish to load her over the gunports, she would still go over. He was asked for what cause. He answered that the ship is narrow in the bottom, nor has she any belly. He says also that he told Admiral Fleming of this fault, and when he brought the ballast in, Fleming had said: “You carry too much ballast, so that the gunports come too near the water.” Then he had answered: “God grant that she will yet stand right on her keel.” Then the admiral answered him that the master builder had built ships before; he should not trouble himself about it.

He related also that all the guns were well made fast; only one little gun of one skeppund lay loose there, which had no carriage, which could not have much effect.

And he said that when the ship could not bear those sails in such calm weather as then was, how should she bear it when the topgallants with all the others came up in a great wind. He was ordered to withdraw.

Per Bertilsson, high boatswain

Then was called in the high boatswain, Per Bertilsson. He was likewise addressed by the fiscal: that he had not diligently discharged his service, and attended to sails, ropes and gear as he ought, but perhaps had been full and drunk, he with others, whereby the ship had perished. He answered that he was not drunk, but had that day been to the Lord’s Supper.

Ballast, he said, they had in as much as they could carry; nor could he perceive that the ship was crank while she lay on the Stream, but thought all would be well. But when the ship was under sail she began at once to heel. Then they cast all the sheets loose, but the ship could still not rise. He was ordered to step down.

Hein Jacobsson, master builder, and Arent de Groote, contractor

Then the master builder Hein Jacobsson was called in, and was confronted and asked why he had built the ship so narrow and ill that she had no belly on which she could lie, and therefore went over.

To that he answered that he had built her after the certer that was given him by Master Henrik, and on His Royal Majesty’s command. He said he had even built her a foot and five inches broader than was given him; and all people say that she was well built.

Arent de Groote was also asked why the ship was so ill provided in her building. He answered that he had done it after the certer that he was to have contracted for with His Royal Majesty [after the manner he had shown His Royal Majesty of a French ship which he saw was built in Holland for the Duc de Guise]; [and she was] given four feet broader. He thinks there is no fault in the building, but, as the master builder thinks, she must be provided with ballast.

He was answered by the fiscal that the master builder was said beforehand to have said to Söfring that the ship was well as stiff as St Peter’s ship, and might well sail without ballast. The master builder denied he had said it, and said that if there had been more ballast the ship would have had no danger.

Against that Söfring answered that if more ballast had come into the ship, then the scuppers would have come under water and the ports driven in, which could not be, if one should otherwise be able to use the guns.

And likewise, said Söfring, it is to be feared that it will go so with the ship he now builds, since that too is built in the same manner. The master builder answered that he must build after the certer that he has received. The fiscal answered that he should first ask other understanding men about the matter.

Arent de Groote said that if they would have all master builders look at her, they should say that she is built so that she is blameless.

Then the fiscal answered: since she is blamelessly built, what then has been the cause that she went over?

They answered that they did not know it; God may know it. Arent de Groote said that he had told His Royal Majesty how long and broad she was, and His Royal Majesty was pleased with it, and would have it so.

They were answered by the fiscal: though His Royal Majesty had wanted such, those who understood the matter better should have told His Royal Majesty what she could carry. [In the margin, in another hand, replacing the words struck out: those who were entrusted with the building should have told His Royal Majesty rightly.]

The master builder was asked whether he thinks he has a good conscience that he has built such a ship. He answered that she is as well built as any ship can be. To that he was answered by the fiscal that the ship is indeed well built, but not rightly proportioned as she ought to be.

The fiscal said to Arent de Groote that since His Royal Majesty had contracted with him, he should have taken counsel with the master builder how she should be provided, so that the ship had been well built, so that His Royal Majesty could have used her and had profit of her.

Arent de Groote answered that as he contracted with His Royal Majesty, so he thinks he has in the best measure, after his utmost conscience, fulfilled it. They were ordered to step down.

Johan Isbrandsson, master at the yard

Then was called in Master Johan Isbrandsson, and was confronted by the fiscal: that since he is His Royal Majesty’s servant, why he had not kept better oversight, that the ship might have been so built that she could have borne some sea or weather, instead of which the upperworks are heavier than the lower; why he had not made this known in time. He answered that, so far as he understands the art, he can see no fault, but that she should be rightly built, that she should well be able to go to sea with her full sails.

And he said that she should be of equal breadth with the Kronan, and after his art and the draught, so much as he has learned, she seems to be stiffer than the Kronan; and after his art, as before said, he knows nothing, but that she is a good ship. He was asked what then the cause was that the ship has gone over. That he said he did not know, and thought it impossible that such a ship should go over.

He was asked also how far the gunports are from the water on the Kronan. He said about four feet. Then Captain Frans was sent there to find out.

He was asked what his office was at Holmen. He said that he has to do with the old ships and to fit them out as is needful. He was ordered to step down.

Their discourse and censure who were called to sit in the inquiry

Hughu [the name is unclear] says the fault lies in this, that the ship has not her full breadth, so that the keel could carry the heaviness above the water; therefore she ought to have had more weight below.
The other, his comrade, relates that the ship is heavier above, with masts and yards, sails and guns, than below; and the ship has not yet become waterlogged. He related that he had seen in Venice a ship that carried a hundred guns and lay twenty-four feet under the water; therefore this one seems to be too heavy above the water, so that the load could not carry it.
Captain Klerck says that as to masts, sails, yards and the rest, it was nothing extraordinarily high or broad; but the ship has not had hold enough, and the hold ought to have been two feet deeper, so that more ballast could have been stowed; then she would have stood well.
Lasse Bubb’s opinion was also that, since the ship was so ballasted that if more had come in it would have gone over the scuppers, therefore the hold was too small, and for that reason the fault was in the building. The upperworks were heavier than below; the ship was drawn together too narrow.
Master Wellam said that, if he were to give his opinion, a master builder ought to make his reckoning and know how high she ought to stand above the water. Therefore the fault seems to him to be from the small hold, since the ballast lies too high, on the mast-step blocks; and there are also the great beams lying in there, which take away the room for the ballast; and the upperworks are altogether too heavy. And he thought that another ship could well be built of the same timber; therefore she is heavier above than below. He gave also a likeness: if one laid a pound of lead in one scale-pan, and a pound of feathers in the other, and one drew down the pan with the lead in it and let it go again, then the feathers would weigh it up again; so it is also here, that the load in the bottom was too light.
Hans Förråd’s opinion was also that the hold was too small; not so much ballast could be laid in as was needful. The ship was built too sharp below, so that she could not carry the upperworks.
Erik Larsson was also of the opinion that the hold was too small, and that the lowest deck should have lain higher, so that the ship could have been laden two feet deeper; since the upperworks were too high and too heavy for the load to carry.
Of the same opinion was also Burgomaster Hans Nilsson.

Here the copy ends. Hafström, who identified the assessors, found that “Captain Klerck” was Hans Klerck, later a vice admiral; “Lasse Bubb” was Lars Bubb, later admiral-lieutenant; “Master Wellam” was Willem de Besche, the ironmaster of Finspång, who had been called to Stockholm to advise on the salvage; Erik Larsson was the Crown’s treasurer; and Hans Nilsson was the burgomaster of Stockholm. The protocol was read to the Council of the Realm on 11 September 1628. No verdict is recorded.

Sources

The Vasa Museum’s transcription of the surviving protocol of 5 September 1628 (Riksarkivet; after Hafström), from which this rendering is made. vasamuseet.se (PDF)
Georg Hafström, “Örlogsskeppet Wasas undergång 1628”, Tidskrift i Sjöväsendet, no. 10, 1958, which first printed the fragment and identified the court’s members. koms.se (PDF)

The main entry tells how the Vasa sank and what the court decided. This is what the court actually heard, person by person, told plainly. The full version, which the button at the top switches to, gives the whole of the surviving record in English, and the sources.

The court

On September 5th 1628, four weeks after the Vasa sank, a court of seventeen men met in the royal castle in Stockholm. It was led by the admiral of the realm, Carl Carlsson Gyllenhielm, who was the king’s half-brother. A prosecutor, called the fiscal, asked the questions. A clerk wrote down the answers.

The clerk’s record has not survived whole. What we have is a copy, and the first page of the copy is missing, so the record begins in the middle of the first witness’s answer. Nobody knows exactly what came before. The Vasa Museum has typed out the copy from the original in the Swedish National Archives, and everything below comes from that.

A few words need explaining. A ship is “crank” when it leans over too easily. “Ballast” is the heavy stone loaded into the bottom of a ship to keep her upright. The “upperworks” are the parts of a ship above the water. And the “certer” was the builder’s list of measurements, the plan.

The master of ordnance

The first witness we can read is Erik Jönsson. He was the army’s master of ordnance, the officer in charge of guns, and the king had sent him from Prussia to command the ships. He said that no gun had come loose; all were tied down fast. When the ship began to lean he ran down to the guns, and the water came in through the gun ports. He shouted up for the sails to be let loose, and was told they already had been. Before he could climb back up, the water was so high that the ladder came loose, and he barely got out.

He said he did not know the ship’s condition. But he was sure of one thing: even if she had not been under sail, she would still have gone over, because she was heavier above than below.

The admiral told him that he had been appointed a vice admiral and should have checked the ballast. Erik Jönsson answered that he was no captain or admiral and had never said he was. He was a gun officer. The captain and the master knew more about ballast than he did.

The fiscal said the builder would have loaded the ship a foot deeper if anyone had told him she was crank. Erik Jönsson asked how. The gun ports were only three and a half feet above the water.

The lieutenant

Next came Petter Gierdsson, the lieutenant, who had fitted the ship’s ropes and sails. He said he had not known the ship was crank; he only had to do with the rigging, and had not seen the ballast. The guns were all well tied down. The ship sat fourteen feet deep at the front and sixteen at the back, he said, and the gun ports were about four feet above the water.

He was asked whether he had not seen that she was crank before she sailed. He said that while she was still tied up, when some people walked together to one side of the deck, the ship leaned after them.

When she sailed, only four sails were up. When she started to lean, the men let all the ropes go, but the wind was so weak that it could not even pull the sails out, and the men had to push them out by hand. One man alone held a rope. He had never believed, he said, that any ship could go over in so little wind.

Asked why she went over, whether she was badly built or had too little ballast, he said he did not know. He did not understand shipbuilding.

The master

Then came Jöran Matsson, the ship’s master, who was in charge of the ballast. The fiscal accused him of not doing his job. Matsson said he had put in as much ballast as would fit. He had not trusted his men to do it well enough, so he went down with a lamp himself and packed in all he could.

He was asked whether he could tell the ship was crank. He said that when she sailed she leaned a little and came up again, and when she came to Tegelviken and began to lean, men were ordered to pull the guns in, but before they had got even one gun in, the ship went over.

Then he told the court about the test. The captain, Söfring, had told Admiral Fleming that the ship was crank. And when the ship lay at the crane below the castle, with her ballast in, and with Admiral Fleming watching, thirty men had been made to run from one side of the ship to the other. The first time, she leaned over by one plank. The second time, two planks. The third time, three planks. Then Fleming told them to stop. If they had run across again, she would have gone over. And the admiral had said that he wished the king were at home.

Was the ship fully loaded with ballast when she sailed? All but one boatload, Matsson said. And if they got her up again and loaded her right down to the gun ports, she would still go over. Why? Because the ship was narrow in the bottom and had no belly. He had told the admiral so. The admiral had told him he was putting in too much ballast, because the gun ports were coming too near the water. Matsson had answered, “God grant that she will yet stand right on her keel.” The admiral said the builder had built ships before, and Matsson should not worry about it.

All the guns were tied fast, he said, except one little one that had no carriage and could not have mattered. And if the ship could not carry four sails in calm weather, how could she carry all her sails in a storm?

The boatswain

Per Bertilsson, the high boatswain, was the senior sailor in charge of ropes and gear. The fiscal suggested he had been drunk. He said he had not been drunk; he had been to communion in church that morning. The ballast, he said, was as much as the ship could carry. She had not seemed crank while she lay still, but as soon as she was under sail she leaned, and letting the ropes go did not bring her up again.

The builders

Hein Jacobsson, the shipbuilder, was asked why he had built the ship so narrow and badly that she had no belly to sit on. He said he had built her exactly to the plan Master Henrik had given him, on the king’s orders. He had even made her a foot and five inches wider than the plan. And everyone said she was well built.

Arent de Groote, the merchant who had signed the contract, was asked the same. He said he had built to the plan he had agreed with the king, and in the style of a French ship he had seen in Holland, which he had shown the king. There was nothing wrong with the building; the problem must have been the ballast.

The fiscal said the builder had once told the captain that the ship was so steady she could sail without any ballast at all. The builder said he had never said that. With more ballast, he said, she would have been safe. The captain, Söfring, answered that with more ballast the drain holes and the gun ports would have been under water, and then the guns could not be used. And he said something more: the ship the builder was building now, the Vasa’s sister, was built the same way, and he feared she would go the same way too. The builder said he had to build to the plan he was given.

De Groote said that if every shipbuilder in the world looked at the Vasa, they would say there was nothing wrong with her. So the fiscal asked: if there was nothing wrong with her, why did she tip over? The two men answered that they did not know. God might know.

Then de Groote said that he had told the king how long and how wide the ship would be, and the king had been pleased and wanted her so. The fiscal answered that even so, the men who understood ships should have told the king what she could carry.

The builder was asked whether he had a clear conscience about building such a ship. He said she was as well built as any ship could be. The fiscal replied with the sentence that is the court’s real finding: the ship was well built, but not rightly proportioned.

The yard master

One more builder was called, Johan Isbrandsson, the Crown’s own master at the yard, who kept the old ships repaired. He could see no fault. She was as wide as the Kronan, another big ship, and seemed to him steadier. He thought it impossible that such a ship could go over. The court asked how high the Kronan’s gun ports were above the water. About four feet, he said. So a captain was sent across the harbour to measure them. It was the only measurement the court ever made.

The experts

At the end of the record, eight experts who had been asked to sit with the court gave their opinions, one after another. Nearly all said the same thing. The ship was too heavy above the water and too light below. The hold, the bottom part of the ship, was too small, and should have been two feet deeper so that more ballast could go in. The bottom was built too sharp and too narrow to carry the heavy top. “Therefore the fault was in the building,” one of them said.

One expert, Master Wellam, who was really Willem de Besche, an ironmaster from Finspång, said that a shipbuilder ought to work out beforehand how high a ship should stand above the water. And he explained the problem with a picture. Put a pound of lead in one pan of a pair of scales and a pound of feathers in the other. Pull the lead pan down and let it go: the feathers will lift it back up. That was the Vasa. The weight in the bottom was too light.

That is where the copy ends. The record was read to the king’s council on September 11th 1628. No verdict was written down. Nobody was punished.

Journal of Experiments