MINOR TOPICS

THE FAIRFAX FAMILY

Letter from Professor Theodore W. Dwight.

EDITOR OF MAGAZINE OF AMERICAN HISTORY: I read with great interest and profit the article in the last number of the Magazine upon the Fairfax family, particularly of that great branch of it which is closely identified with American history. Much more might be said of their high courage and soldierly qualities. Will you permit me to supplement the article by a single fact which I deem of value?

The first Lord Fairfax had two sons not mentioned in the paper referred to— William and John, his younger brother, who was killed in the war in the Palatinate in 1621. In 1620 the King of Spain levied an army of thirty thousand men in Flanders under the command of the Marquis Spinola. To meet this force, mighty at that time, King James of England sent one regiment of brave men under the command of Sir Horatio Vere. William Fairfax was a captain in the regiment. This handful of men was soon compelled to divide and betake themselves to strongholds, there to await a siege. It was the fate of Captain William Fairfax and his brother to be shut up in Frankenthal, a brother captain, Burroughs, having the command. They endured a siege of a month. In the course of it both Captain Fairfax, then only twenty six, and his brother were killed while heroically defending the town, in which they were practically abandoned by those in power. They displayed, though so young, such excellent military qualities and conspicuous courage that when the Marquis Spinola at a later time entered the town as a military commander he spared the noble monument erected to the memory of the valiant brothers by the inhabitants of the town in the Dutch church. The Latin inscription still exists in print, showing how nobly they fought and how gloriously they died. Later events and the association of the lustre of the Fairfax family with the virtues of Washington make it an American inheritance, and so I venture to ask you to reproduce it in the Magazine as a public testimonial to the early men of our own stock:

"In beatissimam Memoriam Dom. generosi Guilielmi Fairfax, Honoratissimi domine, Thomæ Fairfax de Denton in Com. Ebor. equitis Aurati filii, cohortis Anglicani ducis insignis, qui anno natus circiter XXVI post animi plurima edita testimonia invictissimi unà cum Joanne fratre suo junione, in obsidione Francovalenti, hic facta emptione arreptus, ille ictu bombardiæ percussus occubuere, Anno M.D.C.XXI."

This, I believe, is the substance of it:

"In most blessed memory of William Fairfax, Esquire, son of Sir Thomas Fairfax of Denton in the County of York, England, a noted Captain in the English regiment, who being about twenty-six years of age and having exhibited many proofs of his dauntless courage, was slain in 1821 together with his younger brother John at the siege of Frankenthal, the one being taken in a sortie and the other being struck by a cannon-ball."

When these uncles were slain, the great Lord Fairfax was about nine years old. We can imagine when word of their death came to Denton, the blood of the noble lad was fired with the recital of their valorous deeds, while his eyes were suffused at the loss he had sustained, for the third Lord Fairfax joined in future years surpassing valor to the utmost delicacy of feeling. He even hesitated to open the letters of the king, which he captured after the battle of Naseby, until persuaded by the pressing importunities of Cromwell. The uncles who died in the defense of Frankenthal were the forerunners of the nephew who risked his life and all that was dear to him in the defense of his country and the Parliament.

Thus, I believe that all the splendid deeds of those brave men, with the accounts of the modest worth of the second Lord Ferdinando, who, while CaptainGeneral of the Parliamentary forces before the appointment of his greater son, ascribed all the glory of any success that he might have achieved to his God, assuming nothing to himself-these deeds and their glorious memories were recounted to George Washington amid the rural scenes of Virginia, and tended among other elements toward the formation of his matchless character.

COLUMBIA COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL,

NEW YORK, March 12, 1885

THEODORE W. DWIGHT

DID POCAHONTAS REALLY RESCUE CAPTAIN SMITH?

One of the puzzles of American history is the question whether Pocahontas really rescued Captain Smith? It directly involves the character of the soldier. What is the truth?

A great deal has been written on the subject, and the views presented have been generally those of partisans. Neither side has surrendered the point, and the famous rescue remains a vexatia questio. The writer of this article proposes, therefore, to examine it in a different spirit. Instead of presenting a rhetorical argument, which is an injudicious proceeding in matters of history, the subject, as he looks at it, will be resumed in a series of more or less ascertained statements.

I. In December, 1607, Smith, with a party of companions, sailed up James River, turned into the Chickahominy, and was captured by Indians, the men in his barge escaping to Jamestown. These facts are testified to by those escaping.

II. Smith was tied to a tree and about to be shot to death, when he exhibited an ivory compass, and by exciting the curiosity of the savages, perhaps their superstitious fears, induced them to spare or reprieve him.

III. He was then conducted under guard through the "Land of Powhatan," as far as the Potomac ; brought back again to Wenowocomoco, the Indian capital on York River, where he was about to be slain by order of Powhatan, when Pocahontas, the emperor's daughter, interfered and saved him.

IV. This was effected by taking Smith's head in her arms, so that it was impossible to "beat out his brains" without beating out her own, and Powhatan afterward consented to spare him. He treated him kindly, and permitted him to return to Jamestown. All the statements in II., III. and IV. resting on the authority of Smith only.

V. Pocahontas, who was a girl of twelve or thirteen, soon after this made her appearance at Jamestown with a party of Indians, carrying baskets of food; and every four or five days came back with "so much provision that saved many of their lives that, else for all this, had starved with hunger."

VI. Afterwards, when some Indian thieves stole a number of turkeys belonging to the colonists, and were caught and imprisoned, Powhatan sent Pocahontas to intercede for their release, and Smith released them with the statement that it was "for her sake only."

VII. Smith stated to his friends at Jamestown on his return from the York that Pocahontas had saved his life. The "General Historie " says, " His relation of the plenty, state, and bountie of Powhatan so revived their dead spirits (especially the love of Pocahontas), as all men's fears were abandoned."

VIII. If the incident had been untrue and Smith had not spoken of it at the time, its subsequent publication in England, where many of the old colonists were then living, must have provoked injurious comments, to say the least. Among those still "living in England," who had been present at the time at Jamestown, was George Percy, brother of the Earl of Northumberland.

IX. No explanation is discoverable of the fact that Pocahontas ventured fearlessly to trust herself at Jamestown, other than the confidence that she would be well treated, as she had saved Smith.

X. Smith took a deep interest in her, as he afterwards showed in his letter to Queen Anne, in which he said that he would be guilty of the "deadly poison of ingratitude" if he forgot her goodness to him.

XI. She took a deep interest in him, since, after his departure from Virginia, she never again visited Jamestown; married Rolfe only after hearing that he was dead; and when they met in England, covered her face with her hands and said that she had only heard that he was alive on her arrival at Plymouth.

XII. In the same interview she reproached him with having forgotten his old affection for her, and for treating her with cold formality, leaving the impression that events in their past lives had made ceremony unreasonable between them.

XIII. The “rescue

thus appears-from such records as remain-to have been an event which actually occurred.

XIV. But there are reasons for doubting it, in spite of the circumstances above mentioned, which may appear plausible. Proof exists that, in spite of Smith's statements, the event never occurred.

XV. In 1608, soon after the alleged rescue, he wrote a letter or pamphlet styled "A True Relation of Virginia," subsequently published in London.

XVI. This pamphlet purported to relate all that had taken place in the colony up to that time, and Smith's capture is described; but no reference is made either to the scene on the Chickahominy, where he was bound to a tree to be shot, or to his peril on the York from which Pocahontas saved him.

XVII. But certain features of this publication appear mysterious and suggest comment. Some copies purported to be by Captain Smith, others by "Thomas Watson," and others by "a gentleman of that Colony "-Virginia. There was then a possible doubt as to the true authorship.

XVIII. Smith, no doubt, wrote it, but a part was suppressed in publication. The editor, signing the initials "J. S.," says in the preface, referring to the author, “Somewhat more was by him written which as I thought (fit to be private) I would not adventure to make it publicke."

XIX. This omission may or may not have been made with reference to a recent order of the London Company-" You shall do well to send a perfect relation by Captain Newport of all that is done; *** and to suffer no man to write any letters of anything that may discourage others."

XX. The "True Relation" was sent by Captain Nelson, who sailed for England soon after Captain Newport. If it contained passages to discourage others there was a reason for suppressing them.

XXI. Smith's imminent peril on the Chickahominy and York was a matter "fit to be private," as the danger to which he had been exposed would discourage emigrants.

XXII. The "True Relation" probably contained a narrative of everything, and the editor in obedience to the order of the Company, omitted the obnoxious passages on grounds of prudence, as he intimated in his preface.

XXIII. The text of the "True Relation" supports the conjecture that the passages omitted referred to the scenes on the Chickahominy and York. When the narrative reaches Smith's capture there is a break in the text, and half of one sentence is joined to half of another. Somewhat more" appears to have been written, which was interposed between the half sentences; for the sentence beginning on the Chickahominy ends with Smith on his way back to Jamestown-“a fact so curious," says Dr. Eggleston, in his interesting "Life of Pocahontas," as to be "incomprehensible even to so careful an editor as Mr. Charles Deane."

XXIV. But other differences exist between the accounts in the "True Relation" and in the "General Historie." Smith states in one account that he was supplied

with sufficient food for ten men; in the other that the food was enough for twenty. The number of his Indian escort to Jamestown is also differently stated, and in the "Relation" the savages are said to have "treated him kindly," without any specification of the time, while in the "Historie" "had mollified their hearts with compassion" after Pocahontas had saved him.

XXV. The amount of food in both accounts was indicated by a general expression; and it was natural, writing long afterwards, that Smith should not remember the exact number of his escort.

XXVI. The third difference as to his treatment by the savages is not a difference, since both accounts are true.

XXVII. If, when Pocahontas visited London in the year 1616, Smith invented the fable of his rescue, he exhibited extreme folly, since he must have been aware that he would be exposed; and a man of his sense could never have made such a statement.

XXVIII. He did make the statement at that time that the incident had occurred. He wrote to the Queen that Pocahontas had “hazarded the beating out of her brains to save his." She had afterwards saved him a second time in the winter of 1608, he said-for the truth of which he appealed to the "honorable gentlemen, Captain George Percy, Captain Francis West, and other resolute spirits now living in England." They had witnessed the latter incident, and were at Jamestown when the former occurred-they could testify whether he stated the truth.

XXIX. He continued to speak of the event as true. In "New England Trials," he wrote "God made Pocahontas, the King's daughter, the means to deliver me." And in the "General Historie " he wrote that Pocahontas "got his head in her arms and laid her own upon his to save him from death."

XXX. Pocahontas must have been aware of the "open letter" to the Queen in 1616, as she was daily visited by courtiers who were familiar with Court affairs, and her flattering reception by the King and Court have always been attributed to it.

XXXI. As far as we can form an opinion of her, Pocahontas was a truthful person. Sir Thomas Dale had "labored long to ground the faith of Jesus Christ in her, and had succeeded." She renounced her "idolatry" and was baptized; "lived civilly and lovingly" with her husband, and had a child whom she "loved dearly." Rolfe, who knew her intimately, spoke of her "desire to be taught and instructed in the knowledge of God; her capableness of understanding; and her aptness and willingness to receive any good impression."

XXXII. His character recommended him as a witness. Hamor, secretary of the Colony, said that he was "a gentleman of much commendation;" the Rev. Alexander Whitaker spoke of him as "honest and discreet;" and Sir Thomas Dale, the Governor, testified that he was a person of "good understanding."

XXXIII. He was present with Pocahontas in London when Smith made his statement; if the rescue had never occurred they were both guilty of falsehood by remaining silent, only.