The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-05-10

was accepted at the time in It's en-
tirety, and remained thus accepted for
nearly two centuries and half, when.
in 1866. Mr.. Charles Deane. of Boston
Cwho had six years earlier, in note
to Wingfelds DISCOURSE" limited
doubt as to its TRUTH. brought out a
| reprint of "A True Relation OF Vir-
ginia,' by Captain John Smith," edited
with notes, in which he assailed with
great vigor Smiths veracity, pointing
out that, in this True Relation" Smith
not only lIade no mention Of his immf-
nent peril and dramatic deliverance.
but. on the contrary, explicitly stated
that he had been used by his captors
with all kindness and courtesy, and
sent back to- Jamestown laden with
provisions. Other New England critics
followed suit. and expatiated at length
on the supposed Inconsistencies OF
Smiths two narratives of his captivity,
winding up with sort of jubilant ergo
that the rescue story was simply the
yarn of an old canpaigner, and Smith
but vainglorious liar.
Why, they ask with triumphant dis
dain, did not Smith, when the event
must have been fresh in his mind, make
no mention of the rescue in this narra-
tive of 1908?
u
did mention it tas we'll as three other
incidents of far more Importance in his
eyes than the rescue) in the original
letter (for such 1t was) that Smith
| wrote his friend in London, but that
the unknown editor. one u. H." into
whose hands the letter came surrep-
titiously. saw fit to suppress all Of them
in the interests of the Company and in
accordance with it's precise "Instruc-
\ Il, ~;O{a 111Sa {r+e
These three events, it is to be noted,
are all well authenticated by testimony
other than that of Smith, yet there
| is not one word about one Of them In
! the "Relation.''
| According to this unknown EDITORS
own confession (prefixed to the third
| edition., he happened upon the origi-
nal .'by chance. at second or third
| hand" attributed it's authorship in the
first two editions to writer's other than
Smith ("for want OF knowledge of the
Writer'), and. in his bombastic fore
word ito the Courteous Reader" coolly
admits Somewhat more was by him
written. which being as I thought
! CIT to be private) I would not adven-
| ture to make it publicke."
And 1t is upon this garbled printed
version of Smiths original letter (for
|
| HANDY published by an irresponsible
friend of the Company. who confesses
! that it has been mutilated BY suppress
sions made according to his own sweet
/ will.-it is upon such nimsy testimony
| that the whole attack upon Smiths
later version of his captivity Is based.
Smith was vol,minous writer OF
/ letters,-tracts dealing with colonial
/ ton, and when he came to put together
his General Historie,' he incorporated
these verbatim in the larger work. But
l this one he ignores, save for con-
temptuous allusion at the end Of tho
"Fourth Book" to BATTERIES and stolne
] relations"
The three other events that such a
4 man as Smith, always Jealous of his
honor and credit would have specially
4 wished his friend over seas to know
4 about were al his triumphant ac-
! quittal with heavy damages against
4 his accusers) of the trumped-up charge
Z that he had attempted to incite lnu-
4 tiny on the voyage over: t2) his prompt
seize the pinnace and abandon the
i colony; and tS) the absurd indictment
4 of himself by the Archer-ca ''unde.
the Leviticall Law" for the murder OF
his men, who had been killed by the
Indians when he was captured, and
how the doughty soldier quickly 'laid
them by the heels"
AS has been said, other witnesses
!, than Smith attest these facts.
! But why should the editor suppress
any of them?
The rescue story was probably sup,
pressed because OF the explicit IN
/ siructions" Of the Company (drawi
seemingly by HakluyD to suffer NJ
| man to write any letters of anything
5 That may discourage others TO pub
\ lish to the world that colonists ran tn,
: risk Of having their brains heaten on
If captured. would, no doubt, seem t
y 1T II 4, not 4nnlY.a d ailancaA of tha4 Com