, And that hence to him the salvation of the
Pilgrim colony is probably due; and
(v) Many facts not hitherto published, or generally known, as to the
antecedents, relationships, etc., of individual Pilgrims of both the
Leyden and the English contingents, and of certain of the Merchant
Adventurers.
For convenience' sake, both the Old Style and the New Style dates of many
events are annexed to their mention, and double-dating is followed
throughout the narrative journal or "Log" of the Pilgrim ship.
As the Gregorian and other corrections of the calendar are now generally
well understood, and have been so often stated in detail in print, it is
thought sufficient to note here their concrete results as affecting dates
occurring in Pilgrim and later literature.
From 1582 to 1700 the difference between O.S. and N.S. was ten (10) days
(the leap-year being passed in 1600). From 1700 to 1800 it was eleven
(11) days, because 1700 in O.S. was leap-year. From 1800 to 1900 the
difference is twelve (12) days, and from 1900 to 2000 it will be thirteen
(13) days. All the Dutch dates were New Style, while English dates were
yet of the Old Style.
There are three editions of Bradford's "History of Plimoth Plantation"
referred to herein; each duly specified, as occasion requires. (There
is, beside, a magnificent edition in photo-facsimile.) They are: -
(a) The original manuscript itself, now in possession of the State of
Massachusetts, having been returned from England in 1897, called herein
"orig. MS."
(b) The Deane Edition (so-called) of 1856, being that edited by the late
Charles Deane for the Massachusetts Historical Society and published in
"Massachusetts Historical Collections," vol. iii.; called herein "Deane's
ed."
(c) The Edition recently published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
and designated as the "Mass. ed."
Of "Mourt's Relation" there are several editions, but the one usually
referred to herein is that edited by Rev. Henry M. Dexter, D. D., by far
the best. Where reference is made to any other edition, it is indicated,
and "Dexter's ed." is sometimes named.
AZEL AMES.
WAKEFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS,
March 1, 1901.
THE MAYFLOWER AND HER LOG
"Hail to thee, poor little ship MAY-FLOWER - of Delft Haven
- poor, common-looking ship, hired by common charter-party for
coined dollars, - caulked with mere oakum and tar, provisioned
with vulgarest biscuit and bacon, - yet what ship Argo or
miraculous epic ship, built by the sea gods, was other than a
foolish bumbarge in comparison!"
THOMAS CARLYLE
CHAPTER I
THE NAME - "MAY-FLOWER"
"Curiously enough," observes Professor Arber, "these names [MAY-FLOWER
and SPEEDWELL] do not occur either in the Bradford manuscript or in
'Mourt's Relation.'"
[A Relation, or Journal, of the Beginning and Proceedings of the
English Plantation settled at Plymouth in New England, etc. G.
Mourt, London, 1622. Undoubtedly the joint product of Bradford and
Winslow, and sent to George Morton at London for publication.
Bradford says (op, cit. p. 120): "Many other smaler maters I omite,
sundrie of them having been already published, in a Jurnall made by
one of ye company," etc. From this it would appear that Mourt's
Relation was his work, which it doubtless principally was, though
Winslow performed an honorable part, as "Mourt's" introduction and
other data prove.]
He might have truthfully added that they nowhere appear in any of the
letters of the "exodus" period, whether from Carver, Robinson, Cushman,
or Weston; or in the later publications of Window; or in fact of any
contemporaneous writer. It is not strange, therefore, that the Rev. Mr.
Blaxland, the able author of the "Mayflower Essays," should have asked
for the authority for the names assigned to the two Pilgrim ships of
1620.
It seems to be the fact, as noted by Arber, that the earliest authentic
evidence that the bark which bore the Pilgrims across the North Atlantic
in the late autumn of 1620 was the MAY-FLOWER, is the "heading" of the
"Allotment of Lands" - happily an "official" document - made at New
Plymouth, New England, in March, 1623 - It is not a little remarkable
that, with the constantly recurring references to "the ship," - the
all-important factor in Pilgrim history, - her name should nowhere have
found mention in the earliest Pilgrim literature. Bradford uses the
terms, the "biger ship," or the "larger ship," and Winslow, Cushman,
Captain John Smith, and others mention simply the "vessel," or the
"ship," when speaking of the MAY-FLOWER, but in no case give her a name.
It is somewhat startling to find so thorough-paced an Englishman as
Thomas Carlyle calling her the MAY-FLOWER "of Delft-Haven," as in the
quotation from him on a preceding page. That he knew better cannot be
doubted, and it must be accounted one of those 'lapsus calami' readily
forgiven to genius, - proverbially indifferent to detail.
Sir Ferdinando Gorges makes the curious misstatement that the Pilgrims
had three ships, and says of them: "Of the three ships (such as their
weak fortunes were able to provide), whereof two proved unserviceable and
so were left behind, the third with great difficulty reached the coast of
New England," etc.
CHAPTER II
THE MAY-FLOWER'S CONSORT THE SPEEDWELL
The SPEEDWELL was the first vessel procured by the Leyden Pilgrims for
the emigration, and was bought by themselves; as she was the ship of
their historic embarkation at Delfshaven, and that which carried the
originators of the enterprise to Southampton, to join the MAY-FLOWER,
- whose consort she was to be; and as she became a determining factor
in the latter's belated departure for New England, she may justly claim
mention here as indeed an inseparable "part and parcel" of the
MAY-FLOWER'S voyage.
The name of this vessel of associate historic renown with the MAY-FLOWER
was even longer in finding record in the early literature of the Pilgrim
hegira than that of the larger It first appeared, so far as discovered,
in 1669 - nearly fifty years after her memorable service to the Pilgrims
on the fifth page of Nathaniel Morton's "New England's Memorial."
Davis, in his "Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth," makes a singular error for
so competent a writer, when he says:
