Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-01-19
Marian HarInnd's New BoolS-Again.

Marian Harlnnd's New BOolS-Again
To the Editor of the Dispatch:
All who have read Marian Harland'l
new book on "Some Colonial Home.
steads" will, like e." whose commune
cation in regard TO Judge Marshall ap-
peared in the Dispatch Of to-day, rise
from it's perusal with an unpleasant i'm
preston. l am not competent TO critlcise
the accounts Of places outside Of Vir-
ginia, but If they are as full of mistakes
as to matter OF fact and of errors In
taste as those which relate to Virginia,
the book is indeed failure. On page
she says that the Brandon estate passed
from Captain John Martin (who was a
contemporary with SMITH TO Lady
Frances Ingleby, who sold 1t TO Nathaniel
Harrison. The fact is that Brandon
was owned for nearly a hundred years
by two families of London merchants,
Qunby and Sadler, whose representative
between 1715-'2O sold TO the Harrisons.
Lady Ingleby represented the Sadler
share.
There is also a very uncalled-for touch
of ridcule in comparing the pineapple
the emblem OF hospitality-which sur
mounts the peak Of the roof, to a Dutch
cabbage. This might have been excused
i'm a hastly-written magazine article ut
first appeared in a magazine), but there
was no reason for perpetuating In book
this breach of good taste.
In describing the portraits. the writer
speaks Of the second Colonel w. Byrd
as w. Evelyn Byrd. There could have
been no such person. The name Evelyn,
borne by this Colonel Byrd's daughter,
was derived from her maternal grand
mother, the wife of Daniel Parke, Sr,
w. Byrd himself was in no way descended
from the Evelyn family. And, as Colo
mel Byrd, second, was born in 1914. it Is
hard TO understand how, as the authoress
states, he could have had as boon-com-
panions in England men whose portraits
she says were painted in 1861.
Another error Is in styling MT. wal
thai Speaker Of the House Of Burgesses."
Nathaniel Walthal, whose portrait is at
Brandon. was never even member or
the House, but was private secretary TO
Lord Botetourt.
In the account of Westover she says thai
the original grant was made TO Sir John
Paulett. The true statement Is that the
original grant was TO Thomas Paulett,
who occupied the estate a number or
years, and left it to his brother, Sir John
And in the same article it is difficult 10
understand how George l., Hanoverian'
could have had Dutch phlegm.
In describing Shirley it Is evident that
the authoress never heard Tor forgot that
there were two Edward Hills, who owned
that historic estate. She states that w.
Edward HILL whose tomb is at Shirley,
was Speaker in 1864, whereas this was
his father. On page 60 the name Hors-
manden is misrendered Horsmander; and
on page % she also says that wings APP
pear TO have found no favor with the
builder of the house. Marian Harland evil
IDENTIFY visited Shirley, and yet did not
know that there is TO be found there
water-color sketch and photograph
showing a large wing. which was pulled
down not very many years ago
The comparison she makes between Eli
zabeth Carter. first wife of W. Byrd,
third Of the name, and molly willing
his second. is no exception to the rule
that comparisons are odious. How is it
possible for Marian Harland to know that
the second wife made her husband hap
pier than could have done the first, who
died when only % years Of age? There
seems hardly a doubt that Mrs Molly
CWilling) Byrd did hold reasonable cor
respondence with Arnold and CORVALLIS.
In the article on Jamestown and VIII
liamsburg," the absurd statement is made
that through the arch of the present
church tower at jamestown Pocahontas
passed on the day Of her marriage In
this connection, too, she states that in the
graveyard was consigned 10 rest the
body of sweet Lady Frances Berkeley,
who sickened and died at Greenspring
after she had seen her husband sail for
England" Sweet" is not exactly the
word which would have been used by her
contemporaries TO describe that very
spirited and forcibe lady. Nor did she
pine away at her husbands absence, for
she doubtless went with him to England.
Again returning, she. in due time (Which
with Colonial widows was not a long
time), took unto herself a third husband,
Colonel Philip Ludwel and was for a
number of years the centre of the Green
spring party" as the coterie was called.
which consisted Of Berkeley's old friends,
and which, by a curious transformation,
took the lead in defence Of Colonial rights
against gubernatorial aggression.
When the authoress reaches Williams
burg the comedy Of errors continues. The
presidents house at the college was not
built two hundred years ago, and the
bricks were not brought from England.
The walls OF the college did not remain
empty of professors and students 'for
Il
For at least twelve years after the war
the institution was conducted with con-
siderable success. And only ''imagina-
ton can conjure up the dramatic and
pathetic picture" of Colonel Ewel open
ing the doors each day during the period
of suspension. ringing the bell and read
ing prayers, for surely the authoress has
been misinformed as to it's ever occurring
in reality. During the suspension, Presi |
dent Ewell every year on the day on
which the session should have begun.
caused the bell TO be rung. This was the
little grain from which the romance has |
grown. minutes questioning Of some |
Of the people Marian Harland must have |
met I'm Williamsburg you'd have in |
formed her OF the truth.
Sir Robert Boyle, the founder OF the |
Brafferton, was not the bosom friend OF |
William Byrd, for the epitaph of the lat |
ter gentleman (Which the authoress prints |
on page AZ. states that this bosom friend |
was Charles Boyle. Earl of Onery. Two |
more 'nots." and | am done: Lady |
Christina Stuart was not the wife Of |
Mr.. John Griffin" but of Cyrus Griffin, |
last president of the Continental Con- |
gress. and the daughter of William Byrd. |
mentioned on the same page. was not |
but Skipwith. Y.
January 18th.