The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-08-06

have f0unQ II more tnan Cney SSti.u w ~
prove him untruthful. r. A. 81, now
ever, no sooner sees the dif1cuity tnan
he surmounts 1t by assuming that smith
was untruthful-the only thing in con.
troyersy--and then confidently challenges
me to proye that he told the truth. Smiths
letter to the Queen relating his rescue by
Pocabontas was not called in question oy
Mr. Deane In his notes to Wingheid's u's.
course. which first sounded the attack upon
Smith: and II there were any gronbas ~.
believing that il Yves not genuine IVA :
Drane would have discovered them. 80
| r. however, says this letter onty arpe as.ar
in Smiths General History, puDiisneu ". al.
tha Ouecn,s death, and should aaauce -, au.
dit;on,, evidence that it was genuine. i"I"
u,odo q, arp1Iment, il it were only conVlnc
~ wonld demolish all history after the
nrio;nal documents upon which IL was "rit-
tnn were lost. But I am very willing 10
state the facts on which hold that the letter
must be taken ne genuine: ,--
LIST. Captain Smith, In his genera hts-
tory. published in 1924, saws he sent tue
Queen the letter, an abstract OF when ne
gives. and he has not yet been shown 10 De
untruthful
though the Queen was dead, the King was
alive. the Prince of Wales was alive, and
MANY, il not most, Of the Queens Court
were still alive, none OF whom are SHOWN
to have contradicted II. -.
I'd. Purchas, who lived in London, whose
patron was the Bishop Of London, and who
was doubtless an attendant, was alive, and
at court endorsed the statement not only bv
using the book as authority, but by directly
endorsing the book and its author. (see
his verses to the author, published with the
book.)
4th. All the incidents related OF Pocahon-
tas in the letter are given by other writer's.
who witnessed them, except the rescue OF
Smith. who was alone with the Indians at
the time, and some OF the other incidents
are quite as remarkable as her rescue OF
Smith. $685..
18th. Thirty-three persons, five OF whom
were with him in Virginia, have In verses
printed with the book given testimony
more or less direct, to the trustworthlness
OF Smith and his History.
r. A. 3. concludes that Lord Bacon had
a Door opinion Of Smith because bis answer
to Smiths letter cannot be produced, pre-
sumption neither charitable or ust- The
good opinion OF Bacon at this time, how
ever, was of little value, as he was convict
ed about two years afterwards OF haDltual
bribery in his high office.
Smith was not guilty OF the folly imputed
to him by r. A. 3. OF asking reward of
the company for his small subscription to
the capital stock. His claim is set forth in
the General History, vol. 2, p. 102, in these
words q" Having spent. some five years and
more than five hundred pounds in procur-
ing letters, patents, and setting forward,
and neare as much more about New Eng
land" &C., and at p.1 1922, vol. 4, Purchas's
Pilgrims, as follows When / went first
on these desperate designs it cost me
many a forgotten pound to hire men to CO."
AS the company seemed to have held out
hopes of reward whenever they should be
in q condition to bestow it they must have
believed smiths statement.
The General History was published as one
volume, and Smith could have as readily
put on the title-page as anywhere else the
statement that he wrote at the request OF the
company. r. A. B. thinks the statement
untrue because not appearing on the title
page. I must confess that cannot see how
the mage on which an author makes state
ment is to decide its truth.
In conclusion, trust may be pardoned
for suggesting to R. A. B. that ii he will
read again his references from Deane and
Neill he will find be was mistaken in sup
posing that Deane thought the General His
tory was not published till after 1924. On page
IS Deane expressly gives 1924 as the date OF
its first publication. He will find also that
the quotation he gives us as from "Pur-
chas's Pilgrims" was from 8. PURCHASES Pill
1t will be plain to him also that
Neill does not doubt PURCHASES accuracy
any more than Hamor's, because they gave
letter with different conclusions,
but suggests that the entire letter is spuri.
Gus; without stating, however, his reason
for thinking so with any clearness.
.r ~. w. W. FL.