Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

girle, Powhatan's daughter, sometymes" (i. e., heretofore, as formerly used) "resorting to our Fort, of the age then of eleven or twelve years." Now, Pocahontas is said never to have been seen at Jamestown ("our fort,") after Smith left there, which was Michaelmas (i. e., September), 1609, till her capture in 1613 (of course Strachey never saw her), and the war of massacres that instantly ensued upon Smith's departure, and continued | up to the very peace (of which her marriage in 1614, was the harbinger and guarantee), renders that statement next to certain. If, then, when she resorted to the fort, which must have been in 1608-9, she was eleven or twelve years old, | there is entire accord between Strachey and Smith's first account, that she was ten in 1607and the story of her marriage in either of those years (which were the two years preceding the Indians' report to Strachey) is simply prepos

terous.

Again, when "reported" by Kemps, she is spoken of as "The yonge Pocahonta." This

66

14), may have suggested the word). Thus, Milton's "wanton ringlets" of our first mother, Eve-and Shakespeare's "little wanton boys swimming on bladders"-and Bacon's houseful of children, one or two of the eldest respected, and the youngest made wantons," -where impure associations would almost desecrate the text. And this supposition is confirmed to almost certainty by the context of the passage where it is found, which connects her with childish sports. Yet, on the mere strength of the employment of this phrase, and of the statement following it, that Pocahontas, at the age of eleven or twelve, went naked, according to the customs of her tribe, and engaged in the natural pastimes of children (itself, by the way, a hearsay statement, for Strachey never saw her), there have not been wanting natures gross enough to blow their deflowering breath over a character that, from childhood to the grave, has been perfumed by the admiring praise of all that knew her. Smith, himself the theme of a hundred applauding pens, reported her, while yet a child, the Nonpareil" of her country; by which title Worthy Master Hamor saith, too, introducing her as the "delight and darling" of Powhatan, "her fame hath even been spred in England"-Gov. Dale, the most knightly of Virginia's early governors, found in her a beautiful nature not unworthy his efforts still further to adorn; she was welcomed by one of the purest of its ministers (Rev. Alex. Whitaker), into the bosom of the Christian Church, and seems to have extorted, by the mere force of her rare excellence and happy dispositions, against the urgency of many strong dissuading considerations, the true and tender homage of an honest and discreet English gentleman, on whose character not a stain, or an aspersion, is known ever to have been cast; while, by the testimony of Purchas,—himself an applauding eye-witness, she carried herself, when in England, so becomingly in the new and difficult paths she was treading there (and which soon terminated at her early tomb), as to approve herself altogether worthy of the many distinguished attentions of which she was the object, and of that universal respect which waited on her while living, and was paid to the "godly memory" which, dying, she left behind her.

term was very applicable, if applied to her in 1610 or 1611, as a girl of some twelve or fourteen years of age, but would have been inapplicable, and strangely misapplied to a woman already two years married! I think it is clear, therefore, that Strachey's "yonge Pocahonta" of 1610 or 1611, of whom his Indian informers made report, was not then a wife of two years' standing, nor a wife at all; and the clause in question was not written in his original "Observations" made in Virginia.

As, therefore, this clause must have been written at a date posterior to the first part of the paragraph, and might have been written at a time that would authorize the supposition of an intended reference to the historical marriage of 1614, and thus reconcile it to all other accounts, it would itself justify the hypothesis of its having been written at that time. But if it appear that, in point of fact, Strachey had the work under his eye (quite possibly may have re-written the whole of it, preparatory to publication), at the time when the addition of this clause would show an intended reference to the marriage to Rolfe, the hypothesis of its having been then introduced into his narrative would be strengthened almost to certainty. Now, the Ashmolean MS. passed from his hands, probably in 1616; for he could not have written later than that, and, very probably, then wrote the Dedication of it to Sir Allen Apsley, "Purveyor to His Majestie's Navie Royall," whose title, as such, ceased in 1616, being merged in the higher one of "Lientenant of the Tower," an office to which he was in that year appointed (Strachey, "History of Travaile," Introduction, p. xxii.); and the likelihood is, that reviewing it before it passed from his hands, the news of Pocahontas' marriage, some two years previous (April, 1614), had reached him by some imperfect oral report, that may account for the mistake of the name* of the person to whom she was married, or Kocoum may have been Rolfe's In

dian name.

It aids this hypothesis to observe: 1, That you may seek, I believe, in vain, through all the writings of the time for the term " Captaine" applied to an Indian; 2, that "Weroance" is said by Strachey (p. 51), and by some other (I think Smith, but cannot now turn to the passage), yet

* Mistakes and liberties with the names, are, of all errors, perhaps, the most common. Thus Hamor speaks of “Apachame," (p. 10), which is evidently the "Opochankenough" of all other writers. Purchas, p. 1726, writing from Smith's "Written Notes," has Kemps and Kinsock," while Smith has it "Kemps and Tussore;" ("True Travels," 1819, p. 224); or Strachey may have had the same authority for calling Rolfe

[ocr errors]

Kocoum," as for calling Pocahontas "Amonate," (Strachey, p. 111), or Powhatan "Ottaniack" and "Mamantowick,"-viz.: some Indian reporter.

more emphatically, to be the only Indian title "for as the common lot of the great, he did not all Commanders;" and lastly, That the mar- wholly escape; and at a time too, when many riage of the great emperor Powhatan's "dearest yet lived to rectify or expose any misstatement daughter" to a "private Captaine" or Weroance, would be extremely improbable, if not, indeed, incredible. My conclusion, therefore, is, that the above paragraph after the word "past" was written early in 1616, and was intended to refer to Pocahontas' marriage to Rolfe two years be-monials, Smith's high "honor," "truth," and fore, viz.: April 5th, 1614.*

As "in no whit impertinent," as Master Hamor might say, to the foregoing discourse, I take leave to insert a few observations on the doubt that some have been forward, recently, to cast on the truth of Capt. Smith's story of his rescue by Pocahontas. The justification of this doubt is rested on Smith's omission to notice it in the account of his capture and detention among the Indians first transmitted to England in 1608. Now, what strikes one at the outset is, that this hypothesis only removes one difficulty to create a greater; for it would seem easier to account for the omission in the first case, than for the imputed falsehood in the last. For, abstracting the question from all surrounding considerations, and viewing it by the light of probabilities alone, I submit that it is more probable, and more just, to suppose that there existed a sufficient motive for omitting to state the occurrence in the first and briefer account, than to assume the unproven existence of a dishonoring motive to account for the falsehood gratuitously imputed to the statement subsequently given.

Still it may be conceded, that the omission referred to is calculated to attract notice, and, perhaps, create a certain distrust, were there not, in truth, many and notable considerations strongly militating against the admission of so harsh an imputation as the rejection of Smith's often reiterated statement of the fact, would necessarily enforce.

or perversion of so much of what he wrote as was known to others as well as himself, and which there were some abundantly willing to do, if it could have been done successfully, but which none ever attempted. And in all these testi"piety," form the burden of the verse, and are extolled by his host of friends and comrades, as, perhaps, were never man's virtues praised before.

2dly. While there is no reason to claim, or to suppose, that his history is free from some garniture of that extravagance and liberal embellishment which seems to have been the habit and taste of his time as regards books of travel, and to have been received without prejudice to their character for authenticity-(of which Strachey's "Dreadful Tempest," the manifold deaths whereof are to the life described, and copious discourse on his "wrack" on the Bermudas, given (says old Purchas, p. 1733), in "Rhetoricke's Full Sea and Spring Tide," inay serve as a specimen)—I, yet, do not remember an instance of any confutation, or contradiction, of any important fact stated by him; while instances of confirmation are innumerable. Thus, his account of his reception by Powhatan in 1607 "Genl. History," p. 48), finds its general corroboration in Hamor's account of his, in 1614 (Hamor, p. 39); and one of the very strangest of his stories, that of his seizing the Indian chief by the beard, in the presence of hundreds of his warriors, with but a handful of his own men about him, is distinctly confirmed by several who witnessed it; whilst his description of Virginia, not only in its larger features, but in its details, is an instance of accuracy and conscientious caution, among the most extraordinary of which we have any example.

1st. It would be hard to parallel, by a single 3rdly. If we are to apply the rule of rejecting other case, the extent, variety, or emphasis, of all that Smith wrote after his publication of 1608 the laudatory notices by friends, in every station (concerning the country and people of Virginia, of life (and, in numerous instances, by the com- and the incidents and chances that befell him panions and eye-witnesses of his exploits), of there prior to that date) which is not to be Captain Smith and of his history-anno, 1624-found in that publication, we must reject the after the substance of it had been long before the public, and all of it, as well as his own character, long seen in the censure of all the cotemporary accounts then, or now, known; and in the face of that cotemporary envy and eninity,t which,

greater part of the earliest history we have of the colony, and the whole story, alinost, of the detail

degradation from the presidency; that a fine of £200 (which Smith put into the public treasury) was imposed on him for the slander, by a jury of the colonists; that his book of vindication of himself, and of impeachment This is very ingeniously presented by a writer in of Smith, and addressed by way of appeal to the comthe "Virginia Historical Register," under the signa-pany in England, seems to have been wholly unheeded ture of "Philo." by them, and is dismissed by the respectable Purchas with no further notice than this significant marginal note: "I have also Mr. Wingfield's notes of these affairs, but would not trouble the reader here with things more than troublesome."-4 Purchas, p. 1706.

+ Edward Maria Wingfield, first president of the colony, is an instance. The value of his traduction of Smith may be judged from the fact, that the injustice of it seems to have been one of the chief causes of his (Wingfield's) |

term was very applicable, if applied to her in 1610 or 1611, as a girl of some twelve or fourteen years of age, but would have been inapplicable, and strangely misapplied to a woman already two years married! I think it is clear, therefore, that Strachey's “yonge Pocahonta❞ of 1610 or 1611, of whom his Indian informers made report, was not then a wife of two years' standing, nor a wife at all; and the clause in question was not written in his original "Observations" made in Virginia.

girle, Powhatan's daughter, sometymes" (i. e., heretofore, as formerly used) "resorting to our Fort, of the age then of eleven or twelve years." Now, Pocahontas is said never to have been seen at Jamestown ("our fort,") after Smith left there, which was Michaelmas (i. c., September), 1609, till her capture in 1613 (of course Strachey never saw her), and the war of massacres that instantly ensued upon Smith's departure, and continued up to the very peace (of which her marriage in 1614, was the harbinger and guarantee), renders that statement next to certain. If, then, when As, therefore, this clause must have been writshe resorted to the fort, which must have been ten at a date posterior to the first part of the in 1608-9, she was eleven or twelve years old,|paragraph, and might have been written at a there is entire accord between Strachey and Smith's first account, that she was ten in 1607and the story of her marriage in either of those years (which were the two years preceding the Indians' report to Strachey) is simply prepos

terous.

Again, when “reported" by Kemps, she is spoken of as "The yonge Pocahonta." This

14), may have suggested the word). Thus, Milton's "wanton ringlets" of our first mother, Eve-and Shakespeare's "little wanton boys swimming on bladders"-and Bacon's houseful of children, one or two of the eldest respected, and the youngest made wantons," -where impure associations would almost desecrate the text. And this supposition is confirmed to almost certainty by the context of the passage where it is found, which connects her with childish sports. Yet, on the mere strength of the employment of this phrase, and of the statement following it, that Pocahontas, at the age of eleven or twelve, went naked, according to the customs of her tribe, and engaged in the natural pastimes of children (itself, by the way, a hearsay statement, for Strachey never saw her), there have not been wanting natures gross enough to blow their deflowering breath over a character that, from childhood to the grave, has been perfumed by the admiring praise of all that knew her. Smith, himself the theme of a hundred applauding pens, reported her, while yet a child, the "Nonpareil" of her country; by which title Worthy Master Hamor saith, too, introducing her as the "delight and darling" of Powhatan, "her fame hath even been spred in England"-Gov. Dale, the most knightly of Virginia's early governors, found in her a beautiful nature not unworthy his efforts still further to adorn; she was welcomed by one of the purest of its ministers (Rev. Alex. Whitaker), into the bosom of the Christian Church, and seems to have extorted, by the mere force of her rare excellence and happy dispositions, against the urgency of many strong dissuading considerations, the true and tender homage of an honest and discreet English gentleman, on whose character not a stain, or an aspersion, is known ever to have been cast; while, by the testimony of Purchas,-himself an applauding eye-witness, she carried herself, when in England, so becomingly in the new and difficult paths she was treading there (and which soon terminated at her early tomb), as to approve herself altogether worthy of the many distinguished attentions of which she was the object, and of that universal respect which waited on her while living, and was paid to the "godly memory" which, dying, she left behind her.

time that would authorize the supposition of an intended reference to the historical marriage of 1614, and thus reconcile it to all other accounts, it would itself justify the hypothesis of its having been written at that time. But if it appear that, in point of fact, Strachey had the work under his eye (quite possibly may have re-written the whole of it, preparatory to publication), at the time when the addition of this clause would show an intended reference to the marriage to Rolfe, the hypothesis of its having been then introduced into his narrative would be strengthened almost to certainty. Now, the Ashmolean MS. passed from his hands, probably in 1616; for he could not have written later than that, and, very probably, then wrote the Dedication of it to Sir Allen Apsley, "Purveyor to His Majestie's Navie Royall," whose title, as such, ceased in 1616, being merged in the higher one of "Lieutenant of the Tower," an office to which he was in that year appointed (Strachey, "History of Travaile," Introduction, p. xxii.); and the likelihood is, that reviewing it before it passed from his hands, the news of Pocahontas' marriage, some two years previous (April, 1614), had reached him by some imperfect oral report, that may account for the mistake of the name* of the person to whom she was married, or Kocoum may have been Rolfe's In

dian name.

It aids this hypothesis to observe: 1, That you may seek, I believe, in vain, through all the writings of the time for the term "Captaine" applied to an Indian; 2, that "Weroance" is said by Strachey (p. 51), and by some other (I think Smith, but cannot now turn to the passage), yet * Mistakes and liberties with the names, are, of all errors, perhaps, the most common. Thus Hamor speaks of "Apachame," (p. 10), which is evidently the "Opochankenough" of all other writers. Purchas, p. 1726, writing from Smith's "Written Notes," has" Kemps and Kinsock," while Smith has it "Kemps and Tussore;" ("True Travels," 1819, p. 224); or Strachey may have had the same authority for calling Rolfe Kocoum," as for calling Pocahontas "Amonate," (Strachey, p. 111), or Powhatan "Ottaniack" and Mamantowick," "-viz.: some Indian reporter.

66

more emphatically, to be the only Indian title "for as the common lot of the great, he did not all Commanders;" and lastly, That the mar- wholly escape; and at a time too, when many riage of the great emperor Powhatan's "dearest yet lived to rectify or expose any misstatement daughter" to a "private Captaine" or Weroance, or perversion of so much of what he wrote as would be extremely improbable, if not, indeed, was known to others as well as himself, and incredible. My conclusion, therefore, is, that the which there were some abundantly willing to do, above paragraph after the word "past" was if it could have been done successfully, but which written early in 1616, and was intended to refer none ever attempted. And in all these testito Pocahontas' marriage to Rolfe two years be-monials, Smith's high "honor," truth," and fore, viz.: April 5th, 1614.* "piety," form the burden of the verse, and are extolled by his host of friends and comrades, as, perhaps, were never man's virtues praised before.

As "in no whit impertinent," as Master Hamor might say, to the foregoing discourse, I take leave to insert a few observations on the doubt that some have been forward, recently, to cast on the truth of Capt. Smith's story of his rescue by Pocahontas. The justification of this doubt is rested on Smith's omission to notice it in the account of his capture and detention among the Indians first transmitted to England in 1608. Now, what strikes one at the outset is, that this hypothesis only removes one difficulty to create a greater; for it would seem easier to account for the omission in the first case, than for the imputed falsehood in the last. For, abstracting the question from all surrounding considerations, and viewing it by the light of probabilities alone, I submit that it is more probable, and more just, to suppose that there existed a sufficient motive for omitting to state the occurrence in the first and briefer account, than to assume the unproven existence of a dishonoring motive to account for the falsehood gratuitously imputed to the stateinent subsequently given.

Still it may be conceded, that the omission referred to is calculated to attract notice, and, perhaps, create a certain distrust, were there not, in truth, many and notable considerations strongly militating against the admission of so harsh an imputation as the rejection of Smith's often reiterated statement of the fact, would necessarily

enforce.

1st. It would be hard to parallel, by a single other case, the extent, variety, or emphasis, of the laudatory notices by friends, in every station of life (and, in numerous instances, by the companions and eye-witnesses of his exploits), of Captain Smith and of his history-anno, 1624after the substance of it had been long before the public, and all of it, as well as his own character, long seen in the censure of all the cotemporary accounts then, or now, known; and in the face of that cotemporary envy and eninity,† which,

66

66

2dly. While there is no reason to claim, or to suppose, that his history is free from some garniture of that extravagance and liberal embellishment which seems to have been the habit and taste of his time as regards books of travel, and to have been received without prejudice to their character for authenticity-(of which Strachey's "Dreadful Tempest," the manifold deaths whereof are to the life described, and copious discourse on his "wrack" on the Bermudas, given (says old Purchas, p. 1733), in Rhetoricke's Full Sea and Spring Tide," mnay serve as a specimen)—I, yet, do not remember an instance of any confutation, or contradiction, of any important fact stated by him; while instances of confirmation are innumerable. Thus, his account of his reception by Powhatan in 1607 "Genl. History," p. 48), finds its general corroboration in Hamor's account of his, in 1614 (Hamor, p. 39); and one of the very strangest of his stories, that of his seizing the Indian chief by the beard, in the presence of hundreds of his warriors, with but a handful of his own men about him, is distinctly confirmed by several who witnessed it; whilst his description of Virginia, not only in its larger features, but in its details, is an instance of accuracy and conscientious caution, among the most extraordinary of which we have any example.

3rdly. If we are to apply the rule of rejecting all that Smith wrote after his publication of 1608 (concerning the country and people of Virginia, and the incidents and chances that befell him there prior to that date) which is not to be found in that publication, we must reject the greater part of the earliest history we have of the colony, and the whole story, alınost, of the detail degradation from the presidency; that a fine of £200 (which Smith put into the public treasury) was imposed on him for the slander, by a jury of the colonists; that his book of vindication of himself, and of impeachment *This is very ingeniously presented by a writer in of Smith, and addressed by way of appeal to the comthe "Virginia Historical Register," under the signa-pany in England, seems to have been wholly unheeded ture of "Philo." by them, and is dismissed by the respectable Purchas + Edward Maria Wingfield, first president of the col- with no further notice than this significant marginal ony, is an instance. The value of his traduction of Smith note: "I have also Mr. Wingfield's notes of these may be judged from the fact, that the injustice of it seems affairs, but would not trouble the reader here with to have been one of the chief causes of his (Wingfield's) | things more than troublesome."-4 Purchas, p. 1706.

of his capture and seven weeks' detention by the Indians-a story full of strangeness, indeed, and wonder, but neither incredible nor unnatural; and which, in many of its parts, stands confirmed in the light of after events.

the Council, and make himself King" (Dr. Studly in 4 Purchas, p. 1706); that he had just previously been long "restrained" a prisoner, and degraded from the council;-that, ridiculous as the idea would now seem to us, it would not 4thly. Again, the several accounts of the sav- have been ridiculous at that day, and might even ing of Smith's life, are none of them incompatible have been fatal to Smith, as confirmatory of with that of its having been also saved by Poca- those suspicions, for the impression to have had hontas, or with one another. They refer to dif- a plausible support of a possible alliance between ferent instances where his life was imperilled. hin and the Indian emperor's daughter?-which Thus, he once saved his life by using his guide as very project, indeed, for all his caution, was a shield; another time it was saved by an Indian actually among the charges specially laid against he had been kind to; it was again saved by Ope- him by his enemies, the year after, when he rechankano from his sense of Smith's seeming turned to England (R. Potts, in 4 Purchas, 1731); supernatural knowledge. I know no references and the known silly flutter, occasioned long afterto his life being saved from imminent peril in wards in the court circle of England, by Rolfe's 1607, but these; and none of them are inconsis-marriage to Pocahontas, will show that we should tent with the account of his subsequent rescue by not be too hasty in refusing all weight to this Pocahontas. conjecture. Seeming proof, too, for some extra5thly. Pocahontas' constant visiting of the col-ordinary caution on the part of Smith, is furony, till Smith left it—her frequent and friendly interventions on behalf of the colonists, more or less fully confirmed by other pens than Smith's, in particular instances, and I believe nowhere contradicted, but entirely consistent with all other accounts and notices of her (as her saving the life of the boy Spelman (“Gen. Hist.”), and that of Richard Wyffin (p. 80), which seems to be the direct statement of Wyffin himself),―would all seem to show that she indulged sentiments of particular interest towards Smith, and are in entire keeping with her alleged intercession for him.

nished by his publishing his "Newes from Virginia” under a feigned name, and by its manifest abstinence from topics affecting the government, and governors, of the colony; whilst it should not be unnoticed that the "Newes from Virginia," as published, did not embrace all that Smith wrote (see the first editor's note); and we do not, therefore, know what was omitted, or wherefore omitted. But if no reference to the fact of his life having been saved by Pocahontas, were embraced in what he then wrote, and if the consideration suggested influenced the omission, the same consideration would account for his con6thly. Her as yet a young girl-being sent tinued silence on the subject while he was still by her father to intercede with Smith for the seeking employment in Virginia at the hands of liberation of Indian captives, directly after his the company in London (as we have good reason (Smith's) liberation,-would it not seem to imply to suppose he was), up to the time of Pocahontas' some peculiar and strong ground of claim on her marriage; and it was but shortly after that event, part to his grateful recognition?-and does not that the statement of his having been rescued from Smith's reference of his clemency to these cap-death, through the intervention of Pocahontas, tives, expressly and exclusively to her solicitation, was first made public, in his letter to the queen. confirm the probability that such ground really existed, and the discharge of these captives appear but as the natural requital of it? What more probable ground could there be, than the one afterwards disclosed of her having saved his life? and where is the wonder of, and wherefore then discredit, her having interceded to save Smith's life, who often, it appears, saved the lives of others?

Why did he not earlier disclose it? I admit it is a question easier asked than answered; but the inability to furnish an explanation, is very far from warranting a deduction that there is none. May it help to furnish a solution to consider that in 1607, Smith was under suspicions of those then in power (wrongful and groundless, as afterwards shown, indeed, but not the less real), of intending to "usurp the Government, murder

NATHANIEL CUTTING'S JOURNAL OF
AN EMBASSY TO ALGIERS IN 1793,
UNDER COL. DAVID HUMPHREYS.
(Concluded.)

He has not been permitted to land here. From
all the circumstances, there is room to suspect that
the purport of the packet which Mr. Chapman
has conveyed to Algiers, was to obtain Algerine
commissions, and thus give Mr.
his em-
ployer in Virginia, a pretence for capturing the
vessels of such nations as have not a treaty of
peace with the Regency of Algiers. Perhaps the
American Indiamen were his object-perhaps
the richly-freighted Brazil ships. The whole
commerce of America is at a risk!

« AnteriorContinuar »