Note 1, page 29.In 1889, when I visited Jamestown, there was no apparent trace of Sandy Beach which had connected the island with the mainland. This bit of sand, in the antique phrase of one of the early colonists, was "no broader than a man may well quaite a tileshard." Strachey, in Purchas, p. 1752. Jamestown is now a farm; the ruins of the church and many of the tombs in the eighteenth-century churchyard remain; but the upper end of the island is wearing away, and I picked out of the crumbling sand, far from the later burying place, human bones of earlier burials, possibly of the victims of the famines and epidemics. The walls of the magazine had been exposed by erosion. I brought awaywrought nails, bits of glass grown iridescent from long burial, and an exploded bombshell of so small a caliber as to mark its antiquity. By the aid of a negro youth living on the farm I found the hearth bricks turned up in various places by the plow, and the arrangement, or rather lack of arrangement, of the town could thus be made out. My guide volunteered the information that Jamestown was "the first place discovered after the Flood." Some drawings made at the time were reproduced with an article on Nathaniel Bacon in the Century Magazine for July, 1890.Note 2, page 37.Whether Smith was injured by gunpowder and required treatment, as he asserts, or was sent home under charges, has been matter of dispute. Both accounts are correct, as is shown by the testimony of an important manuscript at Petworth House, in Surrey, which I was allowed to examine by the courtesy of Lord Leconsfield. It is from the pen of George Percy, a brother of the Earl of Northumberland, who was chosen to succeed Smith on his departure from the colony. It is not the narrative from which Purchas makes extracts, but a sequel to it. The title is "A Trewe Relacyon of the pceedinge and Ocvrrentes of momente wch have hapned in Virginia from the Tyme Sr Thomas Gates was shipwrackde vpon the Bermudes Ano. 1609 vntill my depture ovtt of the country wch was in Ano Dni 1612." It is a quarto of forty-one pages. Percy was a man of courage, but his own narrative in this little book shows that he had no qualification for the office of governor except the rank of his family. His ill health is made an excuse for his inefficiency, but Dale's letter of May 25, 1611, shows that even the horrible events of Percy's first government had not taught him to plant corn when again left in charge. Percy naturally resents Smith's boastfulness, and bluntly accuses him of laying claim to credit that was not his. The charge that Smith, unable to control the unruly settlers at the Falls under West, advised the Indians to attack them, is supported by Percy; and a very different charge, that he stirred up the Indians to assassinate West himself, appears at a later time in Spelman's Relation, a tract that bears abundant internal evidence of the writer's mental inability to speak the truth. Percy himself relates that the Indians were already hostile to West's party, and that they had wounded and killed some of West's men in resentment of their wanton outrages. See also the account in the Oxford Tract, with the signaturesof Pots and Phettiplace, for Smith's version of the affair. "Bloody-mindedness" seems not to have been a trait of Smith. But the exigency was a terrible one, for death by starvation was already impending, and only the restoration of discipline at any cost could have saved the colony from the horrible fate it met. Such a course would not have done much violence to the notions of the time, and would have found precedents in the various plots against the lives of Smith, Wingfield, and others in the colony. It is quite probable, however, that there is no truth in the story. The violent hatred of the factions will account for the suspicion.Note 3, page 38.Captain Smith's True Relation was sent from Virginia and was printed in London in 1608. In 1612 he published what is commonly referred to as the Oxford Tract. Its proper title is very long. The first part of it is as follows: "Map of Virginia, with a description of the Covntry, the Commodities, People, Government, and Religion. Written by Captain Smyth, sometime Governor of the Covntry. And wherevnto is annexed the proceedings of those colonies since their first departure from England," etc. The second part of the book professes to be taken from the writings of eight of the colonists, whose names are given, and to have been edited by W. S.—that is, the Reverend Dr. Symonds. The Generall Historie was first proposed in a well-considered and rather elegant speech by Captain Smith at a meeting of the Virginia Company, April 12, 1621, while the new patent which was to be submitted to Parliament was under discussion. He suggested the writing of a history to preserve the memory of the worthies of Virginia, dead and living, and gave it as his opinion that no Spanish settlement of the same age afforded matter more interesting. "Which worthy speech," says the record, "had of the whole court a very great applause as spoken freely to a speciall purpose, and therefore thought fitt to be considered and put in practice in his due time. And for which also Mr. Smyth as preferring allwaies mocions of speciall consequence was exceedingly commended." MS. Records of the Virginia Company, i, 197-200. A first edition of the Generall Historie appeared in 1624, the last two editions in 1632. The book is a compilation of Smith's earlier works, somewhat expanded, not to say inflated. The later portions are mostly made up from the official andquasi-official pamphlets. Just what was Dr. Symonds's part in the preparation of the Oxford Tract and the Generall Historie it would be interesting to know. The latterwork was in some sense by authority of the company, and liable to the peculiar suspicion that hangs about writings designed to advance the colony and not primarily to record history. Its descriptive portions are of high value, and we are now able to control its historical errors to a certain extent. Besides these three works on Virginia, Smith published a Description of New England, 1616, New England's Trials, 1620, and Advertisements for the Unexperienced Planters of New England or Elsewhere, in 1631, the year of his death. These all contain valuable matter relating to Virginia. He also published in 1627 two works on seamanship, a Sea Grammar, and the Accidence or Pathway to Experience necessary for a Young Seaman. In 1630 he published his True Travels, a book which contains an account of his own adventures previous to his going to Virginia. More than a quarter of a century had elapsed between the occurrence of these adventures and their publication. Smith's vivid imagination had meantime no doubt greatly magnified his own exploits. It is quite impossible at this day to sift what truth there is in the True Travels from the exaggerations. Travelers in that time were not held to a very rigid account, and their first obligation seems to have been to amuse their readers. No distinct line had yet been drawn in literature between fact and fiction.Many years ago, before I had had an opportunity to examine and compare all his writings, I rashly printed a brief argument in favor of the trustworthiness of Captain John Smith and the credibility of the Pocahontas story. I believe no person of critical judgment can make a thorough comparison of Smith's successive books without being convinced of the ineradicable tendency of his mind to romance in narrating adventure, especially his own adventure. Even his style where his vanity speaks loses something of its native directness and force. His practical writings on navigation and on the proper conduct of colonization, and his descriptions of the country and the savages, are plain, direct, and lucid. His speeches in the Virginia Company appear to have been exceedingly wise, and to have impressed his hearers. Note, for example, his proposals (Records, i, 197) that colonial governors should be liable to trial in England; his proposal to reduce the fee for sending a child to Virginia from five pounds to five marks, the cost of apprenticing to a trade (i, 174); and his preference for a governor well paid to one working "for love" (February 4, 1623). His personal morals were probably unexceptionable. One of his associates certifies to his freedom from tobacco,wines, dice, debts, and oaths. But a comparison between the statements made in the Oxford Tract and those in the Generall Historie leaves upon the mind of the critic a distinct impression of the very processes by which his adventures were exaggerated in his own memory as time elapsed. The three or four hundred savages on the Potomac (Oxford Tract, p. 32, a sufficiently marvelous story) rise to three or four thousand in the Generall Historie. Pocahontas becomes the central figure in incidents as told in 1624 in which she had no place in 1612. There is but one allusion to Pocahontas in the entire Oxford Tract (p. 103), and that has to do with the charge that Smith intended to marry her. A just and witty judgment of Captain Smith was made almost in his own time by Thomas Fuller. He says: "Such his perils, preservations, dangers, deliverances, they seem to most men beyond belief, to some beyond truth. Yet we have two witnesses to attest them, the prose and the pictures, both in his own book; and it soundeth much to the diminution of his deeds that he alone is the herald to publish and proclaim them.... However, moderate men must allow Captain Smith to have been very instrumental in settling the plantation in Virginia, whereof he was Governor, as also admiral of New England." Fuller's Worthies, edition of 1840, i, 276. Those who desire to see an ingenious and learned defense of Captain Smith, particularly in the matter of the Pocahontas story, will find it in an address by Mr. William Wirt Henry, published by the Virginia Historical Society. Prof. Arber's discussion of the subject in his edition of Smith's Works is sentimental rather than critical. Compare Deane's Wingfield for the other side. Unnecessary heat has characterized some of the debates about John Smith. History pitched in a shrill polemical key is not instructive and is something less than amusing. These debates center themselves on the Pocahontas story, which is of little historical importance except as it involves the trustworthiness of Smith's narrative.The conduct of Captain Smith in the Virginia colony will be better understood if we appreciate the character of his principal opponent, Gabriel Archer. Archer's return to Virginia in 1609 and his agency in overthrowing Captain Smith are alluded to apparently in a passage in the New Life of Virginea, 1612, "In which distemper that envious man stept in, sowing plentifull tares in the hearts of all," etc. One of Archer's schemes seems to have been to establish a parliament and a complicated government at the beginning. Purchas and Strachey both take sidesagainst Archer in his controversy with Smith. Purchas, iv, p. 1749, Oxford Tract, 22. Wingfield warned Newport of the danger of disturbance from Archer, who was "troubled with an ambitious spirit." Wingfield's Discourse, 77, 94, 95. Wingfield also says, "In all their disorders was Mr. Archer a ringleader." He adds that Ratcliffe "did wear no other eies or eares than grew on Mr. Archer's head." For a bibliographical account of Smith's works the reader is referred to the valuable notes in Mr. Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America, vol. iii,passim.Note 4, page 38.A Trewe Relacyon, etc., at Petworth House, as above. The Indians in sheer wantonness scraped out the brains of their dead victims with mussel shells. Percy seems to have retaliated in a way to exasperate without disabling the savages. He "burned their hawses, Ransacked their Temples, tooke downe the corpses off their deade Kings from off their Toambes [that is, the scaffold on which their well-dried remains were deposited], and caryed away their pearles, caps, and bracelets wherewith they doe decore their Kings fvneralls." (For this sacred house thus desecrated by Percy the Indians had such reverence that none but priests and chiefs were allowed to enter, and the Indians never ventured to pass it without casting some offering of tobacco, wampum, copper, or puccoon root into the water.—Strachey, 90.) When Percy had captured a chief's wife and children, the soldiers in revengeful wantonness, according to Percy's account, threw the children out of the boat and shot them in the water. The inefficient Percy was able to save the life of the "queen" or chief's wife with difficulty. West and Ratcliffe, who had overthrown Smith, are accused by Percy of unnecessary cruelty to the savages. West sailed away in the ship, leaving Jamestown to its fate. Ratcliffe was put to death with exquisite tortures. There is no doubt some truth, as there is certainly jealousy, in Percy's charge that Captain Smith was "an ambitious, unworthy, and vainglorious fellow, attempting to take all men's authorities from them," but he was neither weak, like Percy and Ratcliffe, nor visionary, like the gold-hunting Martin and the doctrinary and demagogical Archer, nor treacherous and cruel, like West. With all his faults he only was master of the situation in these early years. Percy admits that the lawful authority was that of Smith. The history of the government of Percy and his supporters seems to justify Smith's refusal to share his lawful power with incompetent factionaries.Note 5, page 39.So far the State Papers, but Percy, in his A Trewe Relacyon, adds that he caused the man to be tortured till he confessed, and he relates repulsive details of the crime. The effrontery of an official publication went so far as to deny (True Declaration, 1610), on the authority of Sir Thomas Gates, this fact so circumstantially and abundantly attested. In Peckard's Life of Ferrar, p. 158, a petition from the Virginia colony to the king is preserved in which occur these words: "To tell how great things many of us have suffered through hunger alone would be as incredible as horrible for us to repeat to your sacred ears."Note 6, page 41.See, among other authorities, A Plaine Declaration of Barmudas, in black letter, 1613, written by one of the party. Myriads of birds nested on the island. How the hogs came to be there is matter of conjecture. The writer of the Plaine Declaration makes old Sir George Somers the resourceful hero of their marvelous escape, and it was from him that the islands took the name of Somers or Summer Islands. For want of pitch, the seams of the vessels were paid with "a kind of hard lime" and some "wax cast up by the sea." Strachey's A True Reportory of the Wracke and Redemption of Sir Thomas Gates, Knight, etc., Purchas, iv, p. 1734, is also by one of the shipwrecked party. The Rev. Joseph Hunter has written with much learning, patient research, and fatiguing prolixity to disprove the theory that Shakespeare's Tempest was suggested by the wreck of Gates and Somers. He succeeds in showing its relation to another occurrence, but works of imagination do not usually have their origin in a single fact, and it is hard to resist the conviction that the Tempest, as we have it, contains more than one allusion to the wreck upon "the still vexed Bermoothes."Note 7, page 42.The beauty of the wood of certain American trees had already been noted. The communion table in Jamestown in De la Warr's time was made of black walnut. The pews were of cedar, and there were "fair, broad windows," with shutters of cedar, "to shut and open as the weather shall occasion," but there appears to have been no glass. Window glass was little used at that time, and there probably was not a glazed window in the colony. The pulpit was of cedar, and the font was "hewen hollow like a canoa." Strachey, in Purchas, p. 1755.Note 8, page 42.Some families appear to have gone to Virginia with De la Warr. The purpose to send families of wives and children and servants is expressed in A True Declaration, which was dated1610, but, as Mr. Alexander Brown points out, issued in December, 1609.Note 9, page 48.The Tragicall Relation of 1623, and the Briefe Declaration of 1624, manuscripts in the British Public Record Office, are the most important authorities for the facts given in the text. The Briefe Declaration is rather the fuller, but the earlier paper supplies some particulars. These two formal documents are not from the same hand, and the slight difference between them in details tends rather to confirm than to shake the reader's confidence in their testimony. The names of Sir Francis Wyatt, George Sandys, and other prominent colonists appended to the Tragicall Relation are a guarantee of its good faith. It is curious to note that Raphe Hamor, whose relation is so favorable to Dale, and who held the post of secretary under Dale and that of vice-admiral under Argall, signs this paper, which is a severe impeachment of Sir Thomas Smythe's administration of the affairs of the company before 1619. Hamor's True Discourse has heretofore usually been taken as an authority, but after reading the documents in the Public Record Office one is compelled to believe that Hamor, or perhaps one might say Dale, under cover of his secretary, misrepresents the state of the colony, and makes promises to those who may emigrate that it was hardly possible to carry out. The Discourse of the old Virginia Company (Colonial Papers, iii, 40), and other papers in the Public Record Office relating to the strife between the company and the Court, throw light on this period. The half-apologies for Dale's cruelties in Smith's Generall Historie, book iv, prove their existence. "For amongst them, so hardened in evil," says this writer, "the fear of a cruel, painful, and unusual death more restrains them than death itself." See also Hamor, p. 27. There is a letter from Whitaker appended to Hamor's Discourse. Though apparently an incidental letter, it bears marks of having been procured for purposes of vindication. Its defensive tone goes to show that the character of Dale's tyranny had transpired in England. Whitaker praises Sir Thomas Dale mainly for being religious and valiant, and says that he had "great knowledge in Divinity and good conscience in all his doings; both which bee rare in a martiall man." In Whitaker's Good Newes of Virginia, 1613, there is no praise of Sir Thomas Dale. That Dale was famous for his severity before he left Europe is manifest from the phrase used by the Jesuit Biard, "Le Mareschal Thomas Deel que vous auez ouy estre fort aspre en ses humeurs." Relation, chap. xxxiii.See in this and the preceding chapter the whole account of his savage temper toward his French prisoners, etc. It has been the custom of our older writers to speak of Dale's administration only in praise, but careful weighing of the original authorities shows that Dale was utterly pitiless in the cruelty of his discipline and unjust in his detention of the old planters, and that when he left the colony he was more generally execrated than any other man that ruled in these early days, not even excepting his successor, Argall. Dale's severity was serviceable in carrying the enterprise through straits, but the reports of his harshness brought the colony into disrepute and checked immigration. The detestation of Dale was shared by the best men in Virginia, yet it is to be remembered that the savagery of Dale's government was due not wholly to the brutal temper of the man, but partly to the age and the school in which he had been bred. Legal torture was in use long after this. The Clarendon Papers, quoted by Southey, state that at Henley-on-Thames, as late as 1646, it was ordered that a woman's tongue should be nailed to a tree for complaining of the tax levied by Parliament. The cruel practices of the agents of the Virginia Company are paralleled by those of the East India Company at the same time. "Before they were intrusted with martial law they made it a rule to whip to death or starve to death those of whom they wished to get rid." Mills, British India, i, 38. Even that champion of popular liberty, Sir Edwin Sandys, found it in his heart to approve of Dale's course while admitting its harshness. He said to the court of the Virginia Company of the 17th of November, 1619, that "Sir Thomas Dale, building upon these foundations with great and constant severity, reclaymed almost miraculously those idle and disordered people, and reduced them to labor and an honest fashion of life." MS. Records of the Virginia Company. Compare also Sir Thomas Smythe's defense, note to Aspinwall Papers in IV Massachusetts Historical Collections, ix, p. 1. My citations from the Tragicall Relation and Briefe Declaration are partly from the originals in the British Public Record Office, which I carefully examined in 1885, but the first of these is printed in Neill's Virginia Company, and the Briefe Declaration was published by the State of Virginia in 1874 in a Senate document entitled Colonial Records of Virginia. Very good abstracts of both papers appear in Sainsbury's Calendar. I cite the Discourse of the Old Virginia Company from the MS. in the British Public Record Office. I do not remember to have seen it in print.Note 10, page 49.Birch's Court of James I, i, 415. Chamberlain to Carleton, June 22, 1616: "Sir Thomas Dale is arrived from Virginia, and brought with him some ten or twelve old and young of that country, among whom is Pocahuntas, daughter of Powhatan, married to one Rolfe, an Englishman. I hear not of any other riches or matter of worth, but only some quantity of sassafras, tobacco, pitch, tar, and clapboard, things of no great value unless there were plenty, and nearer hand. All I can hear of it is, that the country is good to live in, if it were stored with people, and might in time become commodious. But there is no present profit to be expected."Note 11, page 49.The Discourse of the Old Virginia Company, an exceedingly interesting manuscript in the British Record Office, makes it appear that as late as 1618 the colonists had no thought of staying in Virginia, and even the directors at home were interested only in making money out of tobacco and sassafras, with little or no care to plant a permanent colony. Some allowance must be made, perhaps, for theex-partenature of this paper, but its tone and the high character of those who offered it give reason to trust it. Colonial Papers, iii, 40. Answer of the Virginia Company to Queries of the Privy Council in 1625.Note 12, page 49.We may trust Hamor's True Discourse, p. 17, for some of these details, though the book generally is discredited by the account given in the Tragicall Relation, which Hamor himself signed with others in 1623. A comparison of all these authorities makes it evident that only eighty-one who were ranked as "farmers" derived any benefit from Dale's three-acre division, while about two hundred others were probably left in unmitigated bondage.Note 13, page 51."And to protect Captain Argall from being called to an account for his government under shew of a new plantation to be set up in Virginia by Captain Argall and his partners, whereof the said earl (Warwick) hath since appeared to be one (which yet to this day hath had no beginning), there was procured a patent to the said captain and his associates for the said new plantation; whereby he and his Company, their heirs and assigns (save only in time of defence by war), were exempted from all power, authority, and jurisdiction to be from hence derived or there established, that so he might reign there as great and absolute master, without law or controulment, and without the fear of ever being called to any future reckoning.... Whatsoever was remaining at thattime in the colony belonging to the public ... he converted it in a manner wholly to his own private use and possession, the very public lands cultivated, the Company's tenants and servants, their rents, corn and tributes of corn, their kine and other cattle, their stores and other provisions; whereby the company, being disabled in all appearance of ever setting up the same again or to bear the great burden of public charge both at home and abroad, being thus stripped of all revenue, the said Company must have failed and decayed and the whole colony have fallen in time into the hands of the said captain and his association to be there established, which seemeth to have been his prime and original desire.... This course of depredation and roving not sufficing as likely to receive encounter and check from hence, new engines were used, some to dishearten and some to disgrace the Company, that so as it seemeth they might in time obtain the plantation and leave it as a prey to the said captain, his friends and followers, etc." Burk's History of Virginia, Appendix, vol. i. The extract is from the document known as The Company's Chief Root of Differences, etc. I have compared this copy with that in the MS. Records of the Virginia Company, Library of Congress, and find only slight verbal differences. At the instance of Warwick the authors of this paper—Lord Cavendish, Sir Edwin Sandys, and John and Nicholas Ferrar—were put under arrest in their own houses for this "impertinent declaration." The Warwick party had made "threats of blood" to deter Southampton from complaining to the king.Note 14, page 53.Birch's Court and Times of James the First, i, 311. Chamberlain to Carleton, May 16, 1614: "Sir Thomas Gates is come from Virginia, and brings word that plantation will fall to the ground if it be not presently supplied. He speaks of wonderful commodities that are to be had there if we could but have patience and would be at the cost to bring them to perfection." Out of this necessity for some present support came the great lottery. It was recommended by the Privy Council to the Mayor of Canterbury, February 22, 1615. There was a "running lottery" of smaller adventures in Paul's Churchyard before the "great standing lottery" was instituted, and then there were other "running lotteries" "in many other places after." Purchas, p. 1773. No doubt there were corruptions and abuses in these lotteries. The merchants prospered while Virginia languished. Its unpopularity is attributed to "malignant tongues," in the MS. Records of theVirginia Company, i, 158, and the overthrow of the lottery may have been part of the plot of those who sought soon after to wreck the company itself.Note 15, page 55.My attention was first attracted to the date of the Great Charter of November 13, 1618, by a minute in the handwriting of Secretary Williamson in the Public Record Office, as follows: "Those Adventurers & Planters by Vertue of yesdLettrsPatent of Incorporačon &c. made a Great charter of Lawes & Ordrsfor yegovermntof the Country. It bore date at London, Nov. 13th1618." Col. Pprs, i, 11. The proceedings of the first Assembly in Virginia are preserved in the Public Record Office in Pory's Report. This report gives the only information we have regarding the provisions of this long-lost charter. An abstract of these proceedings is printed in the Calendar of Colonial Documents, and the whole document was reprinted in the New York Historical Society Collections, second series, vol. iii, and yet more carefully in the Colonial Records of Virginia, 1874. There is an allusion to this charter in the Briefe Relation, 1624. Various Virginia land grants deduce their authority from the Great Charter of Laws and Orders of November 13, 1618, as we learn from a note in the Aspinwall Papers, p. 14. There are many allusions to the charter of 1618 in the Manuscript Records of the Virginia Company in the Library of Congress.Note 16, page 56.The Code of Lawes, Divine, Morall and Martiall, by which Dale reigned was edited and published by Strachey in 1612, and reprinted in Force's Tracts, vol. iii. This code appears to have had no other sanction than the approval of Sir Thomas Smythe, the governor of the company. The beneficial effect of these laws is maintained in Hamor's Discourse, in Rolfe's Relation, and in certain letters of Dale in the Record Office. It was not, indeed, the government by martial law, but Dale's abuse of his power, that wrought the mischief. After the emancipation the old settlers lived in perpetual terror lest some turn of the wheel should put them once more in the power of Sir Thomas Smythe and his divine and martial laws. See especially the Additional Statement appended to the Discourse of the Old Virginia Company. On the long and bitter dissension that resulted in the overthrow of the company, see Arthur Woodnoth's Short Collection of the most remarkable Passages from the Original to the Dissolution of the Virginia Company, a rare work of great value to the historian of this period.Note 17, page 56.Rolfe's Relation has it that the ship which brought Yeardley brought also the news of the election of Sandys and John Ferrar. But Yeardley arrived in Virginia on the 18th of April (O.S.), and Sir Thomas Smythe's resignation did not take place until ten days later. Manuscript Records of the Virginia Company. The news that Sir George Yeardley did bring was no doubt that the power of Sir Thomas Smythe and his party was broken, and that the actual control of affairs was in the hands of such men as Sandys, Southampton, Cavendish, Danvers, and the two Ferrars. The whole policy of the company indicates that the new party was really in power, and the appointment of such a man as Yeardley was probably the work of the rising party. The records before the resignation of Sir Thomas Smythe were probably destroyed for purposes of concealment.Note 18, page 57.Manuscript Book of Instructions, etc., Library of Congress. Letter to the Governor and Council by the ship Marmaduke, August 12, 1621. A proposal to send women had been made seven years earlier. Commons Journal, 1, 487, May 17, 1614. Extract from Martyn's Speech (for which he was reprimanded): "That they require but a few honest Labourers burthened with Children.—Moveth, a committee may consider of the means for this, for Seven Years; at which some of the Company may be present." On November 17, 1619, Sir Edwin Sandys pointed out in the court of the company that the people of Virginia "were not settled in their mindes to make it their place of rest and continuance." "For the remedying of the Mischiefe and for establishing a perpetuitie of the Plantation," he proposed the sending of "one hundred young maides to become wives." Manuscript Records of the Virginia Company, i, 44, 45. Two women, the first in the colony, had arrived in September, 1608. Oxford Tract, 47. There were women in Gates's party in 1610. It was even reported that some English women had intermingled with the natives. Calendar Colonial Papers, i, 13. An allowance of food to women in De la Warr's time is proof that women were there. In 1629 there was living Mistress Pearce, "an honest, industrious woman," who had been in Virginia "near twenty years." Rolfe (a copy of whose Relation is among the Duke of Manchester's MSS. now in the British Public Record Office) sets down a remainder of seventy-five of the three hundred and fifty-one persons in the colony at Dale's departure, as women and children. It is worth recalling here that D'Ogeron, who governed Santo Domingoin 1663 and after, supplied the buccaneers with wives brought from France; and the plan was also put into practice in Louisiana about a century later than the Virginia experiment, and the same expedient, as is well known, was resorted to in Canada. In Virginia more pains were taken to have all the women thus imported of a good character than in some of the French colonies.Note 19, page 58.The belief that these maids were "pressed" or coerced into going is probably erroneous (see the speech of Sandys, July 7, 1620, Manuscript Records of the Virginia Company). He says, "These people (including the maids) are to be provided as they have formerly beene, partlie by printed publication of the supplies indicated, together with the conditions offered to these publique tennants, partlie by help of such noble friends and others in remote parts as have formerlie given great assistance." The notion that some of the maidens were pressed seems to have had its rise in the counterfeiting of the great seal and the issuing of forged commissions to press maidens for "breeders for the King" in the Bermudas and Virginia in order to extort money. One Owen Evans was accused of such practices in October, 1618 (Sainsbury, p. 19), and one Robinson was hanged, drawn, and quartered for this or similar offences in November of the same year (Birch's Court of James I, 108). In order to encourage the adventurers or shareholders to subscribe to the sending of maids, a town was laid off in Virginia to be called Maydstown. The subscribers were to be allowed shares in this town. Manuscript Records, May 20, 1622, on the general subject; also Records under date of November 3, 1621, and the 17th of the same month, June 11, and November 21, 1621, and the manuscript book in the Library of Congress, which I refer to in these notes as Manuscript Book of Instructions, pp. 76 and 89. I may remark here that this book has not been in use in recent times for reference. Its origin is uncertain, nor can the authorities of the library tell where it came from. It was compiled in the latter part of the seventeenth century, judging from internal evidence, and was perhaps kept among the records of the colony for reference on what we should call constitutional questions. I found a loose memorandum laid in its pages in the handwriting of Thomas Jefferson, to whom the book probably once belonged.
Note 1, page 29.In 1889, when I visited Jamestown, there was no apparent trace of Sandy Beach which had connected the island with the mainland. This bit of sand, in the antique phrase of one of the early colonists, was "no broader than a man may well quaite a tileshard." Strachey, in Purchas, p. 1752. Jamestown is now a farm; the ruins of the church and many of the tombs in the eighteenth-century churchyard remain; but the upper end of the island is wearing away, and I picked out of the crumbling sand, far from the later burying place, human bones of earlier burials, possibly of the victims of the famines and epidemics. The walls of the magazine had been exposed by erosion. I brought awaywrought nails, bits of glass grown iridescent from long burial, and an exploded bombshell of so small a caliber as to mark its antiquity. By the aid of a negro youth living on the farm I found the hearth bricks turned up in various places by the plow, and the arrangement, or rather lack of arrangement, of the town could thus be made out. My guide volunteered the information that Jamestown was "the first place discovered after the Flood." Some drawings made at the time were reproduced with an article on Nathaniel Bacon in the Century Magazine for July, 1890.
Note 2, page 37.Whether Smith was injured by gunpowder and required treatment, as he asserts, or was sent home under charges, has been matter of dispute. Both accounts are correct, as is shown by the testimony of an important manuscript at Petworth House, in Surrey, which I was allowed to examine by the courtesy of Lord Leconsfield. It is from the pen of George Percy, a brother of the Earl of Northumberland, who was chosen to succeed Smith on his departure from the colony. It is not the narrative from which Purchas makes extracts, but a sequel to it. The title is "A Trewe Relacyon of the pceedinge and Ocvrrentes of momente wch have hapned in Virginia from the Tyme Sr Thomas Gates was shipwrackde vpon the Bermudes Ano. 1609 vntill my depture ovtt of the country wch was in Ano Dni 1612." It is a quarto of forty-one pages. Percy was a man of courage, but his own narrative in this little book shows that he had no qualification for the office of governor except the rank of his family. His ill health is made an excuse for his inefficiency, but Dale's letter of May 25, 1611, shows that even the horrible events of Percy's first government had not taught him to plant corn when again left in charge. Percy naturally resents Smith's boastfulness, and bluntly accuses him of laying claim to credit that was not his. The charge that Smith, unable to control the unruly settlers at the Falls under West, advised the Indians to attack them, is supported by Percy; and a very different charge, that he stirred up the Indians to assassinate West himself, appears at a later time in Spelman's Relation, a tract that bears abundant internal evidence of the writer's mental inability to speak the truth. Percy himself relates that the Indians were already hostile to West's party, and that they had wounded and killed some of West's men in resentment of their wanton outrages. See also the account in the Oxford Tract, with the signaturesof Pots and Phettiplace, for Smith's version of the affair. "Bloody-mindedness" seems not to have been a trait of Smith. But the exigency was a terrible one, for death by starvation was already impending, and only the restoration of discipline at any cost could have saved the colony from the horrible fate it met. Such a course would not have done much violence to the notions of the time, and would have found precedents in the various plots against the lives of Smith, Wingfield, and others in the colony. It is quite probable, however, that there is no truth in the story. The violent hatred of the factions will account for the suspicion.
Note 3, page 38.Captain Smith's True Relation was sent from Virginia and was printed in London in 1608. In 1612 he published what is commonly referred to as the Oxford Tract. Its proper title is very long. The first part of it is as follows: "Map of Virginia, with a description of the Covntry, the Commodities, People, Government, and Religion. Written by Captain Smyth, sometime Governor of the Covntry. And wherevnto is annexed the proceedings of those colonies since their first departure from England," etc. The second part of the book professes to be taken from the writings of eight of the colonists, whose names are given, and to have been edited by W. S.—that is, the Reverend Dr. Symonds. The Generall Historie was first proposed in a well-considered and rather elegant speech by Captain Smith at a meeting of the Virginia Company, April 12, 1621, while the new patent which was to be submitted to Parliament was under discussion. He suggested the writing of a history to preserve the memory of the worthies of Virginia, dead and living, and gave it as his opinion that no Spanish settlement of the same age afforded matter more interesting. "Which worthy speech," says the record, "had of the whole court a very great applause as spoken freely to a speciall purpose, and therefore thought fitt to be considered and put in practice in his due time. And for which also Mr. Smyth as preferring allwaies mocions of speciall consequence was exceedingly commended." MS. Records of the Virginia Company, i, 197-200. A first edition of the Generall Historie appeared in 1624, the last two editions in 1632. The book is a compilation of Smith's earlier works, somewhat expanded, not to say inflated. The later portions are mostly made up from the official andquasi-official pamphlets. Just what was Dr. Symonds's part in the preparation of the Oxford Tract and the Generall Historie it would be interesting to know. The latterwork was in some sense by authority of the company, and liable to the peculiar suspicion that hangs about writings designed to advance the colony and not primarily to record history. Its descriptive portions are of high value, and we are now able to control its historical errors to a certain extent. Besides these three works on Virginia, Smith published a Description of New England, 1616, New England's Trials, 1620, and Advertisements for the Unexperienced Planters of New England or Elsewhere, in 1631, the year of his death. These all contain valuable matter relating to Virginia. He also published in 1627 two works on seamanship, a Sea Grammar, and the Accidence or Pathway to Experience necessary for a Young Seaman. In 1630 he published his True Travels, a book which contains an account of his own adventures previous to his going to Virginia. More than a quarter of a century had elapsed between the occurrence of these adventures and their publication. Smith's vivid imagination had meantime no doubt greatly magnified his own exploits. It is quite impossible at this day to sift what truth there is in the True Travels from the exaggerations. Travelers in that time were not held to a very rigid account, and their first obligation seems to have been to amuse their readers. No distinct line had yet been drawn in literature between fact and fiction.
Many years ago, before I had had an opportunity to examine and compare all his writings, I rashly printed a brief argument in favor of the trustworthiness of Captain John Smith and the credibility of the Pocahontas story. I believe no person of critical judgment can make a thorough comparison of Smith's successive books without being convinced of the ineradicable tendency of his mind to romance in narrating adventure, especially his own adventure. Even his style where his vanity speaks loses something of its native directness and force. His practical writings on navigation and on the proper conduct of colonization, and his descriptions of the country and the savages, are plain, direct, and lucid. His speeches in the Virginia Company appear to have been exceedingly wise, and to have impressed his hearers. Note, for example, his proposals (Records, i, 197) that colonial governors should be liable to trial in England; his proposal to reduce the fee for sending a child to Virginia from five pounds to five marks, the cost of apprenticing to a trade (i, 174); and his preference for a governor well paid to one working "for love" (February 4, 1623). His personal morals were probably unexceptionable. One of his associates certifies to his freedom from tobacco,wines, dice, debts, and oaths. But a comparison between the statements made in the Oxford Tract and those in the Generall Historie leaves upon the mind of the critic a distinct impression of the very processes by which his adventures were exaggerated in his own memory as time elapsed. The three or four hundred savages on the Potomac (Oxford Tract, p. 32, a sufficiently marvelous story) rise to three or four thousand in the Generall Historie. Pocahontas becomes the central figure in incidents as told in 1624 in which she had no place in 1612. There is but one allusion to Pocahontas in the entire Oxford Tract (p. 103), and that has to do with the charge that Smith intended to marry her. A just and witty judgment of Captain Smith was made almost in his own time by Thomas Fuller. He says: "Such his perils, preservations, dangers, deliverances, they seem to most men beyond belief, to some beyond truth. Yet we have two witnesses to attest them, the prose and the pictures, both in his own book; and it soundeth much to the diminution of his deeds that he alone is the herald to publish and proclaim them.... However, moderate men must allow Captain Smith to have been very instrumental in settling the plantation in Virginia, whereof he was Governor, as also admiral of New England." Fuller's Worthies, edition of 1840, i, 276. Those who desire to see an ingenious and learned defense of Captain Smith, particularly in the matter of the Pocahontas story, will find it in an address by Mr. William Wirt Henry, published by the Virginia Historical Society. Prof. Arber's discussion of the subject in his edition of Smith's Works is sentimental rather than critical. Compare Deane's Wingfield for the other side. Unnecessary heat has characterized some of the debates about John Smith. History pitched in a shrill polemical key is not instructive and is something less than amusing. These debates center themselves on the Pocahontas story, which is of little historical importance except as it involves the trustworthiness of Smith's narrative.
The conduct of Captain Smith in the Virginia colony will be better understood if we appreciate the character of his principal opponent, Gabriel Archer. Archer's return to Virginia in 1609 and his agency in overthrowing Captain Smith are alluded to apparently in a passage in the New Life of Virginea, 1612, "In which distemper that envious man stept in, sowing plentifull tares in the hearts of all," etc. One of Archer's schemes seems to have been to establish a parliament and a complicated government at the beginning. Purchas and Strachey both take sidesagainst Archer in his controversy with Smith. Purchas, iv, p. 1749, Oxford Tract, 22. Wingfield warned Newport of the danger of disturbance from Archer, who was "troubled with an ambitious spirit." Wingfield's Discourse, 77, 94, 95. Wingfield also says, "In all their disorders was Mr. Archer a ringleader." He adds that Ratcliffe "did wear no other eies or eares than grew on Mr. Archer's head." For a bibliographical account of Smith's works the reader is referred to the valuable notes in Mr. Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America, vol. iii,passim.
Note 4, page 38.A Trewe Relacyon, etc., at Petworth House, as above. The Indians in sheer wantonness scraped out the brains of their dead victims with mussel shells. Percy seems to have retaliated in a way to exasperate without disabling the savages. He "burned their hawses, Ransacked their Temples, tooke downe the corpses off their deade Kings from off their Toambes [that is, the scaffold on which their well-dried remains were deposited], and caryed away their pearles, caps, and bracelets wherewith they doe decore their Kings fvneralls." (For this sacred house thus desecrated by Percy the Indians had such reverence that none but priests and chiefs were allowed to enter, and the Indians never ventured to pass it without casting some offering of tobacco, wampum, copper, or puccoon root into the water.—Strachey, 90.) When Percy had captured a chief's wife and children, the soldiers in revengeful wantonness, according to Percy's account, threw the children out of the boat and shot them in the water. The inefficient Percy was able to save the life of the "queen" or chief's wife with difficulty. West and Ratcliffe, who had overthrown Smith, are accused by Percy of unnecessary cruelty to the savages. West sailed away in the ship, leaving Jamestown to its fate. Ratcliffe was put to death with exquisite tortures. There is no doubt some truth, as there is certainly jealousy, in Percy's charge that Captain Smith was "an ambitious, unworthy, and vainglorious fellow, attempting to take all men's authorities from them," but he was neither weak, like Percy and Ratcliffe, nor visionary, like the gold-hunting Martin and the doctrinary and demagogical Archer, nor treacherous and cruel, like West. With all his faults he only was master of the situation in these early years. Percy admits that the lawful authority was that of Smith. The history of the government of Percy and his supporters seems to justify Smith's refusal to share his lawful power with incompetent factionaries.
Note 5, page 39.So far the State Papers, but Percy, in his A Trewe Relacyon, adds that he caused the man to be tortured till he confessed, and he relates repulsive details of the crime. The effrontery of an official publication went so far as to deny (True Declaration, 1610), on the authority of Sir Thomas Gates, this fact so circumstantially and abundantly attested. In Peckard's Life of Ferrar, p. 158, a petition from the Virginia colony to the king is preserved in which occur these words: "To tell how great things many of us have suffered through hunger alone would be as incredible as horrible for us to repeat to your sacred ears."
Note 6, page 41.See, among other authorities, A Plaine Declaration of Barmudas, in black letter, 1613, written by one of the party. Myriads of birds nested on the island. How the hogs came to be there is matter of conjecture. The writer of the Plaine Declaration makes old Sir George Somers the resourceful hero of their marvelous escape, and it was from him that the islands took the name of Somers or Summer Islands. For want of pitch, the seams of the vessels were paid with "a kind of hard lime" and some "wax cast up by the sea." Strachey's A True Reportory of the Wracke and Redemption of Sir Thomas Gates, Knight, etc., Purchas, iv, p. 1734, is also by one of the shipwrecked party. The Rev. Joseph Hunter has written with much learning, patient research, and fatiguing prolixity to disprove the theory that Shakespeare's Tempest was suggested by the wreck of Gates and Somers. He succeeds in showing its relation to another occurrence, but works of imagination do not usually have their origin in a single fact, and it is hard to resist the conviction that the Tempest, as we have it, contains more than one allusion to the wreck upon "the still vexed Bermoothes."
Note 7, page 42.The beauty of the wood of certain American trees had already been noted. The communion table in Jamestown in De la Warr's time was made of black walnut. The pews were of cedar, and there were "fair, broad windows," with shutters of cedar, "to shut and open as the weather shall occasion," but there appears to have been no glass. Window glass was little used at that time, and there probably was not a glazed window in the colony. The pulpit was of cedar, and the font was "hewen hollow like a canoa." Strachey, in Purchas, p. 1755.
Note 8, page 42.Some families appear to have gone to Virginia with De la Warr. The purpose to send families of wives and children and servants is expressed in A True Declaration, which was dated1610, but, as Mr. Alexander Brown points out, issued in December, 1609.
Note 9, page 48.The Tragicall Relation of 1623, and the Briefe Declaration of 1624, manuscripts in the British Public Record Office, are the most important authorities for the facts given in the text. The Briefe Declaration is rather the fuller, but the earlier paper supplies some particulars. These two formal documents are not from the same hand, and the slight difference between them in details tends rather to confirm than to shake the reader's confidence in their testimony. The names of Sir Francis Wyatt, George Sandys, and other prominent colonists appended to the Tragicall Relation are a guarantee of its good faith. It is curious to note that Raphe Hamor, whose relation is so favorable to Dale, and who held the post of secretary under Dale and that of vice-admiral under Argall, signs this paper, which is a severe impeachment of Sir Thomas Smythe's administration of the affairs of the company before 1619. Hamor's True Discourse has heretofore usually been taken as an authority, but after reading the documents in the Public Record Office one is compelled to believe that Hamor, or perhaps one might say Dale, under cover of his secretary, misrepresents the state of the colony, and makes promises to those who may emigrate that it was hardly possible to carry out. The Discourse of the old Virginia Company (Colonial Papers, iii, 40), and other papers in the Public Record Office relating to the strife between the company and the Court, throw light on this period. The half-apologies for Dale's cruelties in Smith's Generall Historie, book iv, prove their existence. "For amongst them, so hardened in evil," says this writer, "the fear of a cruel, painful, and unusual death more restrains them than death itself." See also Hamor, p. 27. There is a letter from Whitaker appended to Hamor's Discourse. Though apparently an incidental letter, it bears marks of having been procured for purposes of vindication. Its defensive tone goes to show that the character of Dale's tyranny had transpired in England. Whitaker praises Sir Thomas Dale mainly for being religious and valiant, and says that he had "great knowledge in Divinity and good conscience in all his doings; both which bee rare in a martiall man." In Whitaker's Good Newes of Virginia, 1613, there is no praise of Sir Thomas Dale. That Dale was famous for his severity before he left Europe is manifest from the phrase used by the Jesuit Biard, "Le Mareschal Thomas Deel que vous auez ouy estre fort aspre en ses humeurs." Relation, chap. xxxiii.See in this and the preceding chapter the whole account of his savage temper toward his French prisoners, etc. It has been the custom of our older writers to speak of Dale's administration only in praise, but careful weighing of the original authorities shows that Dale was utterly pitiless in the cruelty of his discipline and unjust in his detention of the old planters, and that when he left the colony he was more generally execrated than any other man that ruled in these early days, not even excepting his successor, Argall. Dale's severity was serviceable in carrying the enterprise through straits, but the reports of his harshness brought the colony into disrepute and checked immigration. The detestation of Dale was shared by the best men in Virginia, yet it is to be remembered that the savagery of Dale's government was due not wholly to the brutal temper of the man, but partly to the age and the school in which he had been bred. Legal torture was in use long after this. The Clarendon Papers, quoted by Southey, state that at Henley-on-Thames, as late as 1646, it was ordered that a woman's tongue should be nailed to a tree for complaining of the tax levied by Parliament. The cruel practices of the agents of the Virginia Company are paralleled by those of the East India Company at the same time. "Before they were intrusted with martial law they made it a rule to whip to death or starve to death those of whom they wished to get rid." Mills, British India, i, 38. Even that champion of popular liberty, Sir Edwin Sandys, found it in his heart to approve of Dale's course while admitting its harshness. He said to the court of the Virginia Company of the 17th of November, 1619, that "Sir Thomas Dale, building upon these foundations with great and constant severity, reclaymed almost miraculously those idle and disordered people, and reduced them to labor and an honest fashion of life." MS. Records of the Virginia Company. Compare also Sir Thomas Smythe's defense, note to Aspinwall Papers in IV Massachusetts Historical Collections, ix, p. 1. My citations from the Tragicall Relation and Briefe Declaration are partly from the originals in the British Public Record Office, which I carefully examined in 1885, but the first of these is printed in Neill's Virginia Company, and the Briefe Declaration was published by the State of Virginia in 1874 in a Senate document entitled Colonial Records of Virginia. Very good abstracts of both papers appear in Sainsbury's Calendar. I cite the Discourse of the Old Virginia Company from the MS. in the British Public Record Office. I do not remember to have seen it in print.
Note 10, page 49.Birch's Court of James I, i, 415. Chamberlain to Carleton, June 22, 1616: "Sir Thomas Dale is arrived from Virginia, and brought with him some ten or twelve old and young of that country, among whom is Pocahuntas, daughter of Powhatan, married to one Rolfe, an Englishman. I hear not of any other riches or matter of worth, but only some quantity of sassafras, tobacco, pitch, tar, and clapboard, things of no great value unless there were plenty, and nearer hand. All I can hear of it is, that the country is good to live in, if it were stored with people, and might in time become commodious. But there is no present profit to be expected."
Note 11, page 49.The Discourse of the Old Virginia Company, an exceedingly interesting manuscript in the British Record Office, makes it appear that as late as 1618 the colonists had no thought of staying in Virginia, and even the directors at home were interested only in making money out of tobacco and sassafras, with little or no care to plant a permanent colony. Some allowance must be made, perhaps, for theex-partenature of this paper, but its tone and the high character of those who offered it give reason to trust it. Colonial Papers, iii, 40. Answer of the Virginia Company to Queries of the Privy Council in 1625.
Note 12, page 49.We may trust Hamor's True Discourse, p. 17, for some of these details, though the book generally is discredited by the account given in the Tragicall Relation, which Hamor himself signed with others in 1623. A comparison of all these authorities makes it evident that only eighty-one who were ranked as "farmers" derived any benefit from Dale's three-acre division, while about two hundred others were probably left in unmitigated bondage.
Note 13, page 51."And to protect Captain Argall from being called to an account for his government under shew of a new plantation to be set up in Virginia by Captain Argall and his partners, whereof the said earl (Warwick) hath since appeared to be one (which yet to this day hath had no beginning), there was procured a patent to the said captain and his associates for the said new plantation; whereby he and his Company, their heirs and assigns (save only in time of defence by war), were exempted from all power, authority, and jurisdiction to be from hence derived or there established, that so he might reign there as great and absolute master, without law or controulment, and without the fear of ever being called to any future reckoning.... Whatsoever was remaining at thattime in the colony belonging to the public ... he converted it in a manner wholly to his own private use and possession, the very public lands cultivated, the Company's tenants and servants, their rents, corn and tributes of corn, their kine and other cattle, their stores and other provisions; whereby the company, being disabled in all appearance of ever setting up the same again or to bear the great burden of public charge both at home and abroad, being thus stripped of all revenue, the said Company must have failed and decayed and the whole colony have fallen in time into the hands of the said captain and his association to be there established, which seemeth to have been his prime and original desire.... This course of depredation and roving not sufficing as likely to receive encounter and check from hence, new engines were used, some to dishearten and some to disgrace the Company, that so as it seemeth they might in time obtain the plantation and leave it as a prey to the said captain, his friends and followers, etc." Burk's History of Virginia, Appendix, vol. i. The extract is from the document known as The Company's Chief Root of Differences, etc. I have compared this copy with that in the MS. Records of the Virginia Company, Library of Congress, and find only slight verbal differences. At the instance of Warwick the authors of this paper—Lord Cavendish, Sir Edwin Sandys, and John and Nicholas Ferrar—were put under arrest in their own houses for this "impertinent declaration." The Warwick party had made "threats of blood" to deter Southampton from complaining to the king.
Note 14, page 53.Birch's Court and Times of James the First, i, 311. Chamberlain to Carleton, May 16, 1614: "Sir Thomas Gates is come from Virginia, and brings word that plantation will fall to the ground if it be not presently supplied. He speaks of wonderful commodities that are to be had there if we could but have patience and would be at the cost to bring them to perfection." Out of this necessity for some present support came the great lottery. It was recommended by the Privy Council to the Mayor of Canterbury, February 22, 1615. There was a "running lottery" of smaller adventures in Paul's Churchyard before the "great standing lottery" was instituted, and then there were other "running lotteries" "in many other places after." Purchas, p. 1773. No doubt there were corruptions and abuses in these lotteries. The merchants prospered while Virginia languished. Its unpopularity is attributed to "malignant tongues," in the MS. Records of theVirginia Company, i, 158, and the overthrow of the lottery may have been part of the plot of those who sought soon after to wreck the company itself.
Note 15, page 55.My attention was first attracted to the date of the Great Charter of November 13, 1618, by a minute in the handwriting of Secretary Williamson in the Public Record Office, as follows: "Those Adventurers & Planters by Vertue of yesdLettrsPatent of Incorporačon &c. made a Great charter of Lawes & Ordrsfor yegovermntof the Country. It bore date at London, Nov. 13th1618." Col. Pprs, i, 11. The proceedings of the first Assembly in Virginia are preserved in the Public Record Office in Pory's Report. This report gives the only information we have regarding the provisions of this long-lost charter. An abstract of these proceedings is printed in the Calendar of Colonial Documents, and the whole document was reprinted in the New York Historical Society Collections, second series, vol. iii, and yet more carefully in the Colonial Records of Virginia, 1874. There is an allusion to this charter in the Briefe Relation, 1624. Various Virginia land grants deduce their authority from the Great Charter of Laws and Orders of November 13, 1618, as we learn from a note in the Aspinwall Papers, p. 14. There are many allusions to the charter of 1618 in the Manuscript Records of the Virginia Company in the Library of Congress.
Note 16, page 56.The Code of Lawes, Divine, Morall and Martiall, by which Dale reigned was edited and published by Strachey in 1612, and reprinted in Force's Tracts, vol. iii. This code appears to have had no other sanction than the approval of Sir Thomas Smythe, the governor of the company. The beneficial effect of these laws is maintained in Hamor's Discourse, in Rolfe's Relation, and in certain letters of Dale in the Record Office. It was not, indeed, the government by martial law, but Dale's abuse of his power, that wrought the mischief. After the emancipation the old settlers lived in perpetual terror lest some turn of the wheel should put them once more in the power of Sir Thomas Smythe and his divine and martial laws. See especially the Additional Statement appended to the Discourse of the Old Virginia Company. On the long and bitter dissension that resulted in the overthrow of the company, see Arthur Woodnoth's Short Collection of the most remarkable Passages from the Original to the Dissolution of the Virginia Company, a rare work of great value to the historian of this period.
Note 17, page 56.Rolfe's Relation has it that the ship which brought Yeardley brought also the news of the election of Sandys and John Ferrar. But Yeardley arrived in Virginia on the 18th of April (O.S.), and Sir Thomas Smythe's resignation did not take place until ten days later. Manuscript Records of the Virginia Company. The news that Sir George Yeardley did bring was no doubt that the power of Sir Thomas Smythe and his party was broken, and that the actual control of affairs was in the hands of such men as Sandys, Southampton, Cavendish, Danvers, and the two Ferrars. The whole policy of the company indicates that the new party was really in power, and the appointment of such a man as Yeardley was probably the work of the rising party. The records before the resignation of Sir Thomas Smythe were probably destroyed for purposes of concealment.
Note 18, page 57.Manuscript Book of Instructions, etc., Library of Congress. Letter to the Governor and Council by the ship Marmaduke, August 12, 1621. A proposal to send women had been made seven years earlier. Commons Journal, 1, 487, May 17, 1614. Extract from Martyn's Speech (for which he was reprimanded): "That they require but a few honest Labourers burthened with Children.—Moveth, a committee may consider of the means for this, for Seven Years; at which some of the Company may be present." On November 17, 1619, Sir Edwin Sandys pointed out in the court of the company that the people of Virginia "were not settled in their mindes to make it their place of rest and continuance." "For the remedying of the Mischiefe and for establishing a perpetuitie of the Plantation," he proposed the sending of "one hundred young maides to become wives." Manuscript Records of the Virginia Company, i, 44, 45. Two women, the first in the colony, had arrived in September, 1608. Oxford Tract, 47. There were women in Gates's party in 1610. It was even reported that some English women had intermingled with the natives. Calendar Colonial Papers, i, 13. An allowance of food to women in De la Warr's time is proof that women were there. In 1629 there was living Mistress Pearce, "an honest, industrious woman," who had been in Virginia "near twenty years." Rolfe (a copy of whose Relation is among the Duke of Manchester's MSS. now in the British Public Record Office) sets down a remainder of seventy-five of the three hundred and fifty-one persons in the colony at Dale's departure, as women and children. It is worth recalling here that D'Ogeron, who governed Santo Domingoin 1663 and after, supplied the buccaneers with wives brought from France; and the plan was also put into practice in Louisiana about a century later than the Virginia experiment, and the same expedient, as is well known, was resorted to in Canada. In Virginia more pains were taken to have all the women thus imported of a good character than in some of the French colonies.
Note 19, page 58.The belief that these maids were "pressed" or coerced into going is probably erroneous (see the speech of Sandys, July 7, 1620, Manuscript Records of the Virginia Company). He says, "These people (including the maids) are to be provided as they have formerly beene, partlie by printed publication of the supplies indicated, together with the conditions offered to these publique tennants, partlie by help of such noble friends and others in remote parts as have formerlie given great assistance." The notion that some of the maidens were pressed seems to have had its rise in the counterfeiting of the great seal and the issuing of forged commissions to press maidens for "breeders for the King" in the Bermudas and Virginia in order to extort money. One Owen Evans was accused of such practices in October, 1618 (Sainsbury, p. 19), and one Robinson was hanged, drawn, and quartered for this or similar offences in November of the same year (Birch's Court of James I, 108). In order to encourage the adventurers or shareholders to subscribe to the sending of maids, a town was laid off in Virginia to be called Maydstown. The subscribers were to be allowed shares in this town. Manuscript Records, May 20, 1622, on the general subject; also Records under date of November 3, 1621, and the 17th of the same month, June 11, and November 21, 1621, and the manuscript book in the Library of Congress, which I refer to in these notes as Manuscript Book of Instructions, pp. 76 and 89. I may remark here that this book has not been in use in recent times for reference. Its origin is uncertain, nor can the authorities of the library tell where it came from. It was compiled in the latter part of the seventeenth century, judging from internal evidence, and was perhaps kept among the records of the colony for reference on what we should call constitutional questions. I found a loose memorandum laid in its pages in the handwriting of Thomas Jefferson, to whom the book probably once belonged.
The chief mistake.The cause of the sorrows of Virginia will be more plainly seen if we turn again to the motives that propelled Englishmen to plant a colony. The chief mistake lay in the main purpose. If the founding of a state had been other than a secondary and remote end, the managers might have sent at first families and not bachelors, farmers and not gentlemen, laborers and not riff-raff. But more visionary motives dominated the action. A state was planted, but something else was mainly intended by the first projectors. The work seemed continuous, but the end in view shifted and the actors gradually changed. The only motive that held from first to last, and ran through all the rest, was the rivalry with Spain.
The rivalry with Spain.The colonies attempted by Frobisher and Gilbert were to serve as relays in the work of exploration for a sea passage to the Pacific and the search for mines, but they mark strongly the influence of the Spanish example on English projects. Ralegh was a lifelong opponent in peace and war of Spanish intrigue and aggression, and his efforts to plant colonies in the virgin land were suggested by aknowledge of the almost exhaustless treasure that flowed into Spanish coffers from America. The opportune capture of a Spanish carack bound homeward from Mexico with letters describing the wealth of Mexican mines brought the support of English merchants to Ralegh's undertaking. Imbued with the same spirit, Ralegh's governor wrote from Roanoke Island in 1585 that his colony would be a means of deliverance from the domination of Spain, "whose strength doth altogether grow from the mines of her treasure."Lane to Sydney. Aug. 12, 1585. Sainsbury.In the perilous isolation of the little company on Roanoke Island, Lane assures himself that God will feed his men by means of ravens rather than suffer their "enemies the papists" "to triumph at the overthrow of this most Christian action."Lane to Walsingham. Aug. 12, 1585. Sainsbury.The home-staying English of that age were spurred to colony-planting by three main motives—cupidity, patriotic feeling, and religious zeal—and all of these were provoked by emulation and jealousy of Spain.Note 1.
Delusions in colony-planting.The prolonged movement for a colonial establishment, which extended over the latter half of the reign of Elizabeth and almost the whole of the reign of James I, was kept alive by delusions. The ultimate ends for which colonies were proposed and planted in the last quarter of the sixteenth and the first quarter of the seventeenth century were none of them attained. The movable passage through North America to the Pacific wasstill leading explorers a merry dance when the first Jamestown emigrants sailed in 1606, and gold mines of comminuted mica, of iron pyrites, of Indian mineral paints, and of pure fable were potent attractions for some time after. The gradual increase of geographical knowledge caused the "South Sea" to take shelter in the unknown region behind the mountains, and the gold mines reported by Indians and discovered by sanguine prospectors were somehow lost in the interminable forests. In this exigency the first colony must have perished for want of support if new hopes as illusive as the old had not moved the English people to avert such a calamity.
Commodities.The production of commodities which the ungenial climate of the British Islands refused to grow was thought of from the beginning, and they became after 1616 the main hope of wealth from Virginia.For example, Carlisle's treatise, Anderson's Commerce, year 1583.It seemed grievous that England should spend her money in buying wine and silk from southern Europe and naval stores from the Baltic. The only maxim of political economy generally accepted in that day was that a nation is enriched by getting money from abroad and keeping it at home. The precious metals constituted the only recognized riches. Laws were made to restrain the exportation of gold and silver, and sumptuary laws to discourage the consumption of those things that must be bought of the foreigner. Efforts to raise in Great Britain the products of the Mediterranean region would have proved successful if theclimate had been half as favorable to such enterprises as the government.Wine.The arguments advanced in favor of the possibility of producing wine in England did much, no doubt, to secure the sunshine of royal favor for experiments made to that end, but climatic conditions were inexorable. King James busied himself to no profit in raising mulberry trees and nursing a private stock of silkworms, in imitation of Henry IV, the reigning King of France, who succeeded in producing cocoons in the Tuileries but not in making silk culture profitable in the north of France.Silk.Anderson on the year 1589.Mulberries were first planted in England in 1608, two years after the sailing of the Virginia argonauts. James sent circulars to persons of influence among his subjects asking them to cultivate mulberry trees, and, in the years immediately following, the silk fever ran its course alongside the excitement about the great lottery in behalf of the Virginia colony.1609.Hakluyt, spreading sails for America in every breeze, hastened to announce at the first mention of silk culture that mulberry trees, "apt to feed silke wormes to make silke," were a "chiefe commoditie" of Virginia.
The first principles that govern colony-planting were not yet understood. It was proposed to force everything from a forlorn camp of men dwelling under roofs of bark and sedge, environed by treacherous foes and in constant peril of starvation. The raising of silkworms was begun in Virginia in 1613, and before the colony was nine years old it wasable to send to England silk that doubtless had cost more than a hundred times its market value. The experiment came to nothing. It could not have happened otherwise amid the miseries of those early years. The rats, which opportunely destroyed the eggs of the silk moth, were made to bear the responsibility for the failure.
A new silk fever.Silk was little known in England at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, but it came into great request a few years later.Cal. Dom. S. P. James I, p. 428.In 1617 Lord Carew declares that there is "a madness for silk instead of cloth." This rage for silk led to the establishment of silk manufacturing in England; throwsters, dyers, and weavers were brought to England from abroad and settled in Spitalfields, "the cheap end of its metropolis," and in Moorfields. It seemed more than ever important to produce silk in the king's dominions, in order to supply these manufacturers with material without importation from alien lands. Accordingly, a new effort was made in 1620 to secure raw silk from Virginia. The Earl of Southampton, ever eager to promote the Virginia colony, "writt into Italy, France, and Spayne" for silkworm "seed"; the king gave some from his own stock, and the expert who had charge of the king's worms was sent over to look after the business. A French book on the subject was translated to instruct the colonists.Pory's Report, Pub. Rec. Off.The first Virginia Assembly in 1619 had passed a law to promote the raising of the mulberry. To save expense, the colonists at this time, or later, plantedthe trees in hedgerows and mowed them with a scythe.Phil. Trans. I, 201.In 1621 orders were sent from England that none but members of the Council and the heads of hundreds should wear silk, unless they had made it themselves.Hening i, 14.The prohibition shows how general was the craze for silk clothing.Original Records of Colony of Va.The climate of Virginia proved genial enough, but the massacre of 1622, the bitter Indian conflicts that ensued in 1623, and the epidemic of the same year, following one another swiftly, were enough to annihilate a hundred feeble projects. The real doom of silk-raising, however, came from the fact that the culture of tobacco in virgin soil was incalculably more profitable and vastly less troublesome to pioneers than hatching silkworms' eggs in one's pocket or bosom, or sleeping with them in a small box under one's bolster and covering them in the warm bed on rising.Note 2.The project was blighted in the bud by adverse economic conditions—a killing frost more deadly to such enterprises than an ungenial climate. But a lesson in economic principles is one of the hardest for men to learn. Long after the colony had become prosperous, English projectors and Virginia experimenters tried again and again to supplant tobacco with silk. If we may credit the report, Virginia furnished a coronation robe of silk for Charles I, and Charles II certainly wore silk from worms hatched and fed in his Virginia dominions. One Esquire Digges brought Armenians to Virginia to attend his worms.1655.But in the Reformed VirginiaSilkworm, by Hartlib, the friend of Milton, it is announced that a young lady had discovered that silkworms would care for themselves on the trees, "to the instant wonderful enrichment of all the planters there, requiring neither cost, labour, or hindrance in any of their other employments." It is also suggested on the eager title-page of the pamphlet that "the Indians, seeing and finding that there is neither Art, Pains, or Skill in the thing," will "incontinently fall to raising silk."Comp. Va. Richly Valued, 1650, and Leah and Rachel, 1636.Not only were the gentle savages, and especially their women and children, to devote themselves to silk, but the American caterpillar—"the natural silkworm" as it was called—was expected to spin for the market if his cocoon could be "refined."Note 3.
Hening ii, 242.By 1666 the silk delusion had passed, and the Virginia Assembly repealed all acts for the encouragement of mulberry trees. Ten years later, Glover, the botanist, found many of these trees still standing as melancholy witnesses to the waste of energy by the earlier promoters and settlers of the colony.Phil. Trans. XI, 628.Almost every other American colony made the same experiment for itself, and Virginia renewed its endeavors from time to time, each generation forgetting what its fathers had learned.
Silk-grass.Along with the silk fever went the silk-grass craze.1585.Ralegh's people had seen the Indians wearing garments woven of the fiber of theYucca filamentosa, the "Adam's needle and thread" ofour popular speech.A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia.Hariot, in his account of it, declares that "the like grows in Persia," and that much of the "silk-works" coming thence to Europe was made of this fiber. He probably confounded the yucca with the ramie plant of the East, of which grass cloth is made. Of the yucca fiber taken to England in 1585, "a piece of silk grogram" was made, and of course pronounced "excellent good"; it was even presented to the queen. The coarse and rather brittle fiber of this plant was exalted by enthusiasts into something nearly equal to silk. Ordinances for planting it were sent from England; at least one legislative act in its favor was passed by the Virginia Assembly, and the most foolish hopes were entertained regarding the profit to be had from it.Proceedings of Va. Assembly, 1619. 2d N. Y. Hist. Society Coll. iii, 348.By 1619 it had come to be called "silk flax," and it was then advocated for homelier uses, such as cordage and linen, and every householder was compelled by law to set a hundred plants; the governor himself set five thousand. In 1624 it is spoken of as "a commoditie of speciall hope and much use."Purchas IV, p. 1777.There were by this time those who ventured to say that the silk-grass enterprise was "full of difficultie"; but the managers in England easily got rid of this objection by attributing the difficulty to "negligence and want of experience."Instr. of 24 July, 1624. MS. Bk. of Instr. Libr. of Cong.They were just then intent on finding some commodity that would take the place of tobacco, which was frowned upon by both court and Parliament. In spite of all discouragement, the hope of good resultsfrom the yucca fiber outlasted that generation, and was in full vigor in 1649, sixty-four years after Hariot's mistake.
Wine.It was also proposed to produce wine in Virginia for English consumption. No more gold and silver should go out of the realm to buy port and canary to the profit of foreigners and the impoverishment of the good and loyal subjects of his Majesty. The instructions on this point were clear, and before the Virginia exiles had secured bread to stay their hunger they had made wine of the sour wild grapes of the country. French vine-dressers were sent over a little later and were forbidden to plant tobacco, but were compelled to employ themselves about vines, with the care of silkworms for variety.MS. Rec. Va. Co. i, 343.In 1621 these Frenchmen sent to England a cask of wine, the arrival of which was duly celebrated. Other experimental casks of wine were afterward sent to England from America at long intervals, but without decreasing the profits of wine growers in the Old World.
All the commodities sought from Virginia were unsuited to conditions in a new country.Other products sought.To the folly of making such experiments at all where living itself was an experiment, the managers added the folly of crowding a multiplicity of problematic enterprises on the colony at the same time. With a virgin continent in which to produce novelties, all things seemed possible in an age so hopeful.Plants of every clime grew rank in the imagination of projectors. Virginia was a wonderland, and it was readily believed without evidence that the "soyle and clymate" were "very apt and fit for sugar canes"; "also linseed and rapeseeds to make oiles," as a black-letter pamphlet of 1609 expresses it.Nova Brittania.Along with "orenges, limons, and almonds," this official writer proposes to plant "anniseeds, rice, cummin, cottonwool, carroway seeds, ginger, madder, olives, oris, sumacke," and, as if this breathless list were not enough for one new land, he adds, "and many such like that I can not now name." If we may trust the publications of the company, various West India plants were tried in the very first days of the colony, while the threefold peril of death from famine, pestilence, and savage war was imminent.
Timber and naval stores.But it was not enough to wring from an infant colony the products of the south; those derived from the north of Europe were straightway to be got there also.MS. Rec. Va. Co. 31 May and 23 June, 1620.German millwrights—"Dutch carpenters," in the phrase of the records—were brought from Hamburg by John Ferrar to build Virginia sawmills; timber was still sawed by hand in England. Pitch, tar, and potash were to be produced by Poles sent out for the purpose in the second year of the colony. Patriotism dictated that England should be relieved of her dependence on foreign countries for naval stores. Virginia had forests: why should she not produce these things?Note 4.
It had been found that the savages eagerly received glass beads in exchange for corn and peltries.Glass-making.Nothing more was required to prove the profitableness of glass-making. Some Germans were sent to the colony in 1608, and glass works were established.Note 5.For some reason no proper materials were available at first, and it became necessary to request that sand might be sent from England to make Virginia glass of at the glass works in the woods near Jamestown. The German glass blowers were prone to run away to the Indians, among whom work was lighter and food more abundant. The tribesmen encouraged these desertions by providing dusky wives for the men whose skill with tools and weapons they valued highly. In 1621 the glass business was revived, and this time it was intrusted to Italian workmen.Iron works.About the same time iron works were established at Falling Creek, with "forty skilled workmen from Sussex to carry them forward."Note 6.Twenty-five ship carpenters were sent to ply their trade on the James River, and it was also arranged that oil was to be distilled from walnuts by the "apothecaries." George Sandys was sent over in July, 1621, to have entire control of all schemes for staple commodities. There was a certain fitness in intrusting these creatures of the imagination to a poet. Pineapples, plantains, and other fruits were to be started forthwith. There was once again great hope from the "rich commodity of silk," an endowed school for Indians was founded, and the little Virginiapool became iridescent with many frail bubbles.Result of the massacre.The sudden and frightful massacre by the savages in March, 1622, obliterated instantly all vain and premature projects. This calamity did not cause the failure of these foredoomed schemes; it only saved them from a painful and lingering death, and provided their friends with a decent epitaph for them. The people who survived the massacre were decimated by an epidemic in the following year. What strength they could spare from frequent battles with the savages they spent in growing corn and tobacco, which last, of all the things tried, proved to be the only commodity profitable for export.
Tobacco.Against tobacco King James had written a book.A Covnter-Blaste to Tobacco, 1604.It was denounced in Parliament and regarded by all public-spirited men as an evil. Nevertheless, it turned the scale and saved the colony. In colony-planting the problem is fundamentally an economic one, and economic problems are solved by coarse and homely means.Note 7.John Rolfe, the first Englishman that ventured to wed an Indian, planted the first tobacco at Jamestown in 1612, and by 1616 the better West India variety had perhaps been substituted for the harsh kind grown by the Virginia Indians, and by them called "uppowoc" or "apooke." Tobacco prospered and was profitable, to the disgust of the pedantic king and the sorrow of all who had cherished hopes of beautifulproducts from a colony upon which so much poetic sentiment had been lavished. Neither gold nor spices came as had been expected; the strings of pearls seen by Ralegh's men were not again to be found, or were perhaps transformed on investigation into wampum beads; the silver mine once discovered on the upper James had vanished forever; tropical fruits refused to grow; even madder and woad failed, and, though the indigo plant would readily mature, nobody knew how to manufacture the dye. Silk was troublesome and unprofitable, shipbuilding, and such coarse but patriotic products as naval stores had come to naught. But the detestable "weed," as King James had dubbed it, throve apace. As early as 1617 the waste margins of the broad streets of Jamestown were planted with it by the eager settlers. The English merchants grasped at the profits of it, the farmers of the customs rejoiced in the heavy duties imposed on it, and a powerful mercenary interest in the prosperity of Virginia was established.Note 8.By 1624, when the Virginia Company was dissolved, the danger that the colony would be abandoned as a result of Spanish intrigues, Indian massacres, or prolonged discouragement had passed away. Public spirit, patriotism, and religious enthusiasm no longer guarded it as a feeble house plant. It had struck root in the outdoor soil of human self-interest and its life was assured. From that time the colony that had been for seventeen years a fairyland to dreamersin England and a perdition to its inhabitants, became a sober money-making enterprise, uninteresting to enthusiasts and philanthropists.Note 9.
Motives of sentiment.In the preceding sections of this chapter we have traced what may be called the series of commercial motives that, sometimes in succession, often in co-operation, propelled the Virginia movement. The agitation for a colony was primarily a commercial one. The London or Virginia Company by which it was carried forward had been organized in the form of the great trading corporations of the time, such as the Muscovy Company and the East India Company, and it was expected to yield large returns. But though commercial in form and purpose, the Virginia Company from the outset was able to appeal successfully in every emergency to motives that were far from mercenary. Into the chain-threads of commercial enterprise was woven a woof of patriotic feeling and religious sentiment.
Rise of the patriot party in the Virginia Company.Dale's empty-handed return, and Argall's homecoming with hands full of the spoil of both colony and colonists, were severe blows to the hope of profit from Virginia, and thereafter commercial motives fell to a second place. The company began to pass more and more out of the control of traders like Sir Thomas Smyth and AldermanJohnson, and the corrupt clique of predatory merchants, as well as out of the reach of voracious noblemen like Warwick. More and more it passed into the hands of the great liberal statesmen whose leader was the incorruptible Sir Edwin Sandys, a man of rare gifts and knowledge and of great resoluteness. These men had suffered some disappointment, no doubt, in their struggle for parliamentary freedom in England. They might have succeeded better had their antagonist been a strong king, but against the pusillanimity, the vanity, the vacillation, and the pedantic dogmatism of James little permanent headway could be made. Without relinquishing the conflict in the House of Commons, they took it up in the Quarter Courts of the Virginia Company. In this new field they found themselves afresh confronted by the obstinacy of the king, who was stirred up to oppose them by the discarded governor, Sir Thomas Smyth, and his friends, by Warwick, and by all the partisans of high prerogative and all the advocates of the Spanish match.Woodnoth's Short Collection, p. 6."Bedchamber men" and others about the king's person were engaged to work upon the king to come to the rescue of Sir Thomas Smyth's "honor."Peckard's Ferrar, 113.The Spanish ambassador Gondomar, who had spies in the Virginia Company, took pains to feed James's discontent. He told the king that it was time for him to look into the Virginia courts, which were held in the great hall of the house of the Ferrar family. Too many of the king's nobility and gentry resortedthither, in order to be in company with the popular Lord Southampton and the dangerous Sandys. They were deep politicians, and they entertained designs beyond a tobacco plantation. Their leaders, he said, were "subtle men of high courage who regarded neither his master nor their own."
Sir Edwin Sandys.Sandys, as assistant to Sir Thomas Smyth and virtual governor, had already succeeded in establishing in Virginia a constitutional state with a representative government.Royal Hist. MS. Comm. viii, II, 45.He was furthering plans for the foundation of the little separatist state of New Plymouth, and his enemies set agoing tales that he had dark designs of removing with the Pilgrims to America, in order to found a democratic state there. In 1619 Sir Thomas Smyth tendered his resignation, and the company, to his surprise, it would appear, accepted it, and chose Sandys to his place. When, in 1620, his first year of government drew to a close, Sir Edwin Sandys erected an elegant ballot-box in the midst of the hall of the Ferrars, that the brilliant assemblage of noblemen, knights, gentlemen, and merchants might by a secret vote exercise the right of choice without any constraint.The king's interference.Just as the assemblage was about to begin voting, two clerks of the signet were announced with a message from the king forbidding the company to choose Sandys.1620."Choose the devil, if you will, but not Sir Edwin Sandys," was one form in which the king expressed his aversion. Southampton, braving the king's displeasure, allowed himself tobe elected, with Sandys for deputy. In June, 1621, both Southampton and Sandys were imprisoned.A land of freedom.This attracted attention to Virginia as a "refuge from a more oppressive government in England." In three months' time twenty-five ships set sail for the colony, which gained an impetus from the king's opposition that put it beyond the danger of destruction by the calamities of the next two years. Even before the massacre and pestilence of 1622 and 1623, Southampton was assured by friends at court that it would come to "push of pike," and that the company would be overthrown.Note 10.The charter of the company was vacated in 1624, but free government had so taken root in the colony that it could never afterward be quite extirpated. A new English state with a popular government had been founded of deliberate purpose by a group of English statesmen, at the head of which, and easily first, was Sir Edwin Sandys, whose great service to the people and nation that were to come has been almost forgotten.
Religious propagandism.We shall not have taken a just account of Virginia colonization if we do not reckon religious motives among the many forces that carried that wavering enterprise to success. From the excitement about American exploration and colonization the English church caught its first missionary impulse. The Indian captives brought from America at various times gave to Englishmenthe novel sight of men and women from beyond the bounds of Christendom; people who had never been baptized, and had never learned to wear English garments, "naked slaves of the devil," as one of the early Virginia clergymen described them. To the benevolent desire of Englishmen for the deliverance of the savages from devil-worship and semi-nudity, there was added the natural wish for ecclesiastical extension. The separation of England from the Roman hierarchy had been a blow to the aspiration for an unattainable catholicity cherished in one form or another by Christian ecclesiastics of almost every school. It was not possible that the great men who were leaders of the English church in the reigns of Elizabeth and James should be content with the narrow limits of "the little English paddock," while Spanish conquerors and missionary priests were winning for the Roman communion a new and vast dominion in America.Note 11.English ecclesiastics felt keenly the reproach made against them by the Roman Catholics that they were not "converters of infidels."
Zeal of the clergy.Perhaps the earliest of all Anglican missionaries was Robert Hunt, the first minister in Virginia, a light shining in a dark place indeed. He bore with unfaltering courage and a sweet-hearted patience rarely equaled in the history of martyrdom the accumulating miseries of Jamestown, until he also perished in the general mortality. His nobleness of spirit softened the detestable rivalries of the early leaders. The most active and influentialwriters in favor of colonization were clergymen such as Hakluyt, Symonds, Purchas, and Crashaw. Other clergymen, following in the footsteps of Hunt, risked life itself in the Virginia colony, while devout laymen spent their money in its behalf. Thus did Anglican zeal further a colonization that, by a curious perversity of outcome, resulted in founding a nation of dissenters.
The Ferrars.In the great hall of the house of Nicholas Ferrar, a London merchant, the courts or meetings of the Virginia Company were held for years. The two sons of this Nicholas Ferrar, John and Nicholas, served in turn as deputy governors of the Virginia Company. This pious Ferrar family, as it became influential, lent to the scheme of colonizing Virginia something of the air of a project for propagating the gospel. Nicholas, the father, gave money for the education of infidels in Virginia. A school was founded there by the gifts of the pious, and rewards were given to those colonists who would educate Indian children in their families. After the younger Nicholas, who was a man of remarkable zeal and activity, tinged with a romantic enthusiasm, became deputy in 1622, the production of silk and wine and iron and the educating of Indians in Christianity traveled on abreast. A college was proposed, for which an endowment of thirteen hundred pounds was collected, and to which a valuable library was bequeathed by a settler.Practical men grumbled at the prematurity of all this, and complained of those in charge that "they spent Michaelmas rent in mid-summer moone." The governor of the colony, honest Sir Francis Wyatt, wished that "little Mr. Ferrar were in Virginia, where he might add to his zeal a knowledge of the country."
The horrible massacre of March, 1622, made the Indian question something other than the Ferrars saw it. All schemes for educating the savages were obliterated in a day. The only thought after this was how to put the savages to death, old and young, men and women, more often by foul means than by fair. The settlers even emulated, if they did not surpass, the treachery of the Indians. With the dissolution of the company byquo warrantoproceedings in 1624 the government of the colony passed to the Crown, and the Ferrars had no more to do with Virginia.
Later History of the Ferrars.The later career of Nicholas Ferrar the younger, though without direct relation to colonization, throws light on the age of colony beginnings. Rejecting the offer of a rich bride, he bought for his mother, now a widow, the manor lordship of Little Gidding, in Huntingdonshire, and took the entire Ferrar family, including his brother and his sister with eighteen children, into religious retirement. Here this half-domestic, half-monastic community gave alms to the poor, illuminated manuscriptsof the Bible, and worshiped in its little chapel with genuflections and other observances that procured for it the nickname of the "Protestant Nunnery," and brought down upon it the pious fury of the Puritans. Nicholas Ferrar, who had taken deacon's orders, was the real head of the community. He prepared at Little Gidding what is perhaps the earliest English monatesseron of the four gospels. By means of relays of worshipers the Ferrars kept their devotions always in progress. The entire Psalter was chanted antiphonally during each twenty-four hours. Those whose turn it was to keep vigil were wont to leave a candle at the door of Nicholas and to wish him good-morrow at one o'clock in the morning, at which hour he was accustomed to rise and begin the exercises of the day. The strength of this belated mediæval saint gave way under a discipline so austere, and he died in 1637.Peckard's Life of N. Ferrar.Arminian Nunnery 1641.Little Gidding, with its "fair grove and sweet walks letticed and gardened on both sides," was devastated a few years later by the counter-zeal of the Puritans, who showed an especial indignation against the organ, which they broke into pieces to light fires for roasting the sheep of the Ferrars.Hearne's Langtoft's Chronicle, App. to Pref., cix.Behold an epitome of the first half of the seventeenth century—its idealism in affairs, and its war to the death of opposing ideals in religion!
Advent of Puritanism.In the very years during which the Ferrars were most active on behalf of Virginia the earliest Puritan movement toward America set in. Theattenuated mediævalism of the Ferrars did not lack a certain refined beauty, but it was hardly suited to the rough work of hewing a road along which civilization might march into a savage wilderness. The Puritans, with their robust contempt for æsthetic considerations—making firewood of organs with delight, and feasting without scruple on the sheep of those whom they esteemed idolaters—were much the fitter to be champions against the American Canaanites.