THE MAY-FLOWER AND HER LOG
July 15, 1620--May 6, 1621
Chiefly from Original Sources
By AZEL AMES, M.D.
Member of Pilgrim Society, etc.
“Next to the fugitives whom Moses led out of Egypt, the little
shipload of outcasts who landed at Plymouth are destined to
influence the future of the world.”
JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL
INTRODUCTORY
O civilized humanity, world-wide, and especially to the descendants of
the Pilgrims who, in 1620, laid on New England shores the foundations of
that civil and religious freedom upon which has been built a refuge for
the oppressed of every land, the story of the Pilgrim “Exodus” has an
ever-increasing value and zest. The little we know of the inception,
development, and vicissitudes of their bold scheme of colonization in the
American wilderness only serves to sharpen the appetite for more.
Every detail and circumstance which relates to their preparations; to the
ships which carried them; to the personnel of the Merchant Adventurers
associated with them, and to that of the colonists themselves; to what
befell them; to their final embarkation on their lone ship,--the immortal
MAY-FLOWER; and to the voyage itself and to its issues, is vested to-day
with, a supreme interest, and over them all rests a glamour peculiarly
their own.
For every grain of added knowledge that can be gleaned concerning the
Pilgrim sires from any field, their children are ever grateful, and
whoever can add a well-attested line to their all-too-meagre annals is
regarded by them, indeed by all, a benefactor.
Of those all-important factors in the chronicles of the “Exodus,”--the
Pilgrim ships, of which the MAY-FLOWER alone crossed the seas,--and of
the voyage itself, there is still but far too little known. Of even this
little, the larger part has not hitherto been readily accessible, or in
form available for ready reference to the many who eagerly seize upon
every crumb of new-found data concerning these pious and intrepid
Argonauts.
To such there can be no need to recite here the principal and familiar
facts of the organization of the English “Separatist” congregation under
John Robinson; of its emigration to Holland under persecution of the
Bishops; of its residence and unique history at Leyden; of the broad
outlook of its members upon the future, and their resultant determination
to cross the sea to secure larger life and liberty; and of their initial
labors to that end. We find these Leyden Pilgrims in the early summer of
1620, their plans fairly matured and their agreements between themselves
and with their merchant associates practically concluded, urging forward
their preparations for departure; impatient of the delays and
disappointments which befell, and anxiously seeking shipping for their
long and hazardous voyage.
It is to what concerns their ships, and especially that one which has
passed into history as “the Pilgrim bark,” the MAY-FLOWER, and to her
pregnant voyage, that the succeeding chapters chiefly relate. In them the
effort has been made to bring together in sequential relation, from many
and widely scattered sources, everything germane that diligent and
faithful research could discover, or the careful study and re-analysis of
known data determine. No new and relevant item of fact discovered,
however trivial in itself, has failed of mention, if it might serve to
correct, to better interpret, or to amplify the scanty though priceless
records left us, of conditions, circumstances, and events which have
meant so much to the world.
As properly antecedent to the story of the voyage of the MAY-FLOWER as
told by her putative “Log,” albeit written up long after her boned lay
bleaching on some unknown shore, some pertinent account has been given of
the ship herself and of her “consort,” the SPEEDWELL; of the difficulties
attendant on securing them; of the preparations for the voyage; of the
Merchant Adventurers who had large share in sending them to sea; of their
officers and crews; of their passengers and lading; of the troubles that
assailed before they had “shaken off the land,” and of the final
consolidation of the passengers and lading of both ships upon the
MAY-FLOWER, for the belated ocean passage. The wholly negative results of
careful search render it altogether probable that the original journal or
“Log” of the MAY-FLOWER (a misnomer lately applied by the British press,
and unhappily continued in that of the United States, to the recovered
original manuscript of Bradford’s “History of Plimoth Plantation “), if
such journal ever existed, is now hopelessly lost.
So far as known, no previous effort has been made to bring together in
the consecutive relation of such a journal, duly attested and in their
entirety, the ascertained daily happenings of that destiny-freighted
voyage. Hence, this later volume may perhaps rightly claim to present
--and in part to be, though necessarily imperfect--the sole and a true “Log
of the MAY-FLOWER.” No effort has been made, however, to reduce the
collated data to the shape and style of the ship’s “Log” of recent times,
whose matter and form are largely prescribed by maritime law. While it is
not possible to give, as the original--if it existed--would have done,
the results of the navigators’ observations day by day; the “Lat.” and
“Long.”; the variations of the wind and of the magnetic needle; the
tallies of the “lead” and “log” lines; “the daily run,” etc.--in all
else the record may confidently be assumed to vary little from that
presumably kept, in some form, by Captain Jones, the competent Master of
the Pilgrim bark, and his mates, Masters Clarke and Coppin.
As the charter was for the “round voyage,” all the features and incidents
of that voyage until complete, whether at sea or in port, properly find
entry in its journal, and are therefore included in this compilation,
which it is hoped may hence prove of reference value to such as take
interest in Pilgrim studies. Although the least pleasant to the author,
not the least valuable feature of the work to the reader--especially if
student or writer of Pilgrim history--will be found, it is believed, in
the numerous corrections of previously published errors which it
contains, some of which are radical and of much historical importance.
It is true that new facts and items of information which have been coming
to light, in long neglected or newly discovered documents, etc., are
correctives of earlier and natural misconceptions, and a certain
percentage of error is inevitable, but many radical and reckless errors
have been made in Pilgrim history which due study and care must have
prevented. Such errors have so great and rapidly extending power for
harm, and, when built upon, so certainly bring the superstructure
tumbling to the ground, that the competent and careful workman can render
no better service than to point out and correct them wherever found,
undeterred by the association of great names, or the consciousness of his
own liability to blunder. A sound and conscientious writer will welcome
the courteous correction of his error, in the interest of historical
accuracy; the opinion of any other need not be regarded.
Some of the new contributions (or original demonstrations), of more or
less historical importance, made to the history of the Pilgrims, as the
author believes, by this volume, are as follows:--
(a) A closely approximate list of the passengers who left Delfshaven on
the SPEEDWELL for Southampton; in other words, the names--those of Carver
and Cushman and of the latter’s family being added--of the Leyden
contingent of the MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims.
(b) A closely approximate list of the passengers who left London in the
MAY-FLOWER for Southampton; in other words, the names (with the deduction
of Cushman and family, of Carver, who was at Southampton, and of an
unknown few who abandoned the voyage at Plymouth) of the English
contingent of the MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims.
(c) The establishment as correct, beyond reasonable doubt, of the date,
Sunday, June 11/21, 1620, affixed by Robert Cushman to his letter to the
Leyden leaders (announcing the “turning of the tide” in Pilgrim affairs,
the hiring of the “pilott” Clarke, etc.), contrary to the conclusions of
Prince, Arber, and others, that the letter could not have been written on
Sunday.
(d) The demonstration of the fact that on Saturday, June 10/20, 1620,
Cushman’s efforts alone apparently turned the tide in Pilgrim affairs;
brought Weston to renewed and decisive cooperation; secured the
employment of a “pilot,” and definite action toward hiring a ship,
marking it as one of the most notable and important of Pilgrim
“red-letter days.”
(e) The demonstration of the fact that the ship of which Weston and
Cushman took “the refusal,” on Saturday, June 10/20, 1620, was not the
MAY-FLOWER, as Young, Deane, Goodwin, and other historians allege.
(f) The demonstration of the fact (overthrowing the author’s own earlier
views) that the estimates and criticisms of Robinson, Carver, Brown,
Goodwin, and others upon Robert Cushman were unwarranted, unjust, and
cruel, and that he was, in fact, second to none in efficient service to
the Pilgrims; and hence so ranks in title to grateful appreciation and
memory.
(g) The demonstration of the fact that the MAY-FLOWER was not chartered
later than June 19/29, 1620, and was probably chartered in the week of
June 12/22--June 19/29 of that year.
(h) The addition of several new names to the list of the Merchant
Adventurers, hitherto unpublished as such, with considerable new data
concerning the list in general.
(i) The demonstration of the fact that Martin and Mullens, of the
MAY-FLOWER colonists, were also Merchant Adventurers, while William
White was probably such.
(j) The demonstration of the fact that “Master Williamson,” the
much-mooted incognito of Bradford’s “Mourt’s Relation” (whose existence
even has often been denied by Pilgrim writers), was none other than the
“ship’s-merchant,” or “purser” of the MAY-FLOWER,--hitherto unknown as
one of her officers, and historically wholly unidentified.
(k) The general description of; and many particulars concerning, the
MAY-FLOWER herself; her accommodations (especially as to her cabins),
her crew, etc., hitherto unknown.
(1) The demonstration of the fact that the witnesses to the nuncupative
will of William Mullens were two of the MAY-FLOWER’S crew (one being
possibly the ship’s surgeon), thus furnishing the names of two more of
the ship’s company, and the only names--except those of her chief
officers--ever ascertained.
(m) The indication of the strong probability that the entire company of
the Merchant Adventurers signed, on the one part, the charter-party of
the MAY-FLOWER.
(n) An (approximate) list of the ages of the MAY-FLOWER’S passengers and
the respective occupations of the adults.
(o) The demonstration of the fact that no less than five of the Merchant
Adventurers cast in their lots and lives with the Plymouth Pilgrims as
colonists.
(p) The indication of the strong probability that Thomas Goffe, Esquire,
one of the Merchant Adventurers, owned the “MAY-FLOWER” when she was
chartered for the Pilgrim voyage,--as also on her voyages to New England
in 1629 and 1630.
(q) The demonstration of the fact that the Master of the MAY-FLOWER was
Thomas Jones, and that there was an intrigue with Master Jones to land
the Pilgrims at some point north of the 41st parallel of north latitude,
the other parties to which were, not the Dutch, as heretofore claimed,
but none other than Sir Ferdinando Gorges and the Earl of Warwick, chiefs
of the “Council for New England,” in furtherance of a successful scheme
of Gorges to steal the Pilgrim colony from the London Virginia Company,
for the more “northern Plantations” of the conspirators.
(r) The demonstration of the fact that a second attempt at stealing the
colony--by which John Pierce, one of the Adventurers, endeavored to
possess himself of the demesne and rights of the colonists, and to make
them his tenants--was defeated only by the intervention of the “Council”
and the Crown, the matter being finally settled by compromise and the
transfer of the patent by Pierce (hitherto questioned) to the colony.
(s) The demonstration of the actual relations of the Merchant Adventurers
and the Pilgrim colonists--their respective bodies being associated as
but two partners in an equal copartnership, the interests of the
respective partners being (probably) held upon differing bases--contrary
to the commonly published and accepted view.
(t) The demonstration of the fact that the MAY-FLOWER--contrary to the
popular impression--did not enter Plymouth harbor, as a “lone vessel,”
slowly “feeling her way” by chart and lead-line, but was undoubtedly
piloted to her anchorage--previously “sounded” for her--by the Pilgrim
shallop, which doubtless accompanied her from Cape Cod harbor, on both
her efforts to make this haven, under her own sails.
(u) The indication of the strong probability that Thomas English was
helmsman of the MAY-FLOWER’S shallop (and so savior of her sovereign
company, at the entrance of Plymouth harbor on the stormy night of the
landing on Clarke’s Island), 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.