[304] A copy of this portion of the Records, collated with the original by Mr. Sainsbury, is in the library of the present writer. The other papers of this 1874 volume included a list of the living and dead in 1623, a Brief Declaration of the Plantation during the first twelve years (already mentioned), the census of 1634, etc.
[305] [The Speaker’s Report of their doings to the Company in England was printed in the New York Hist. Coll. in 1857. See also on these proceedings the Antiquary, London, July, 1881.—Ed.]
[306] [There is a copy in Harvard College Library; Rich (1832), no. 133, £2 2s.; Brinley, nos. 3,739-40. It was reprinted in Force’s Tracts, vol. iii. no. 5. Mr. Deane, True Relation, p. xli, examines the conflicting accounts as to the number of persons constituting the first immigration.—Ed.]
[307] [The vexed question as to how far the convict class made part of the early comers is discussed in Jones’s ed. Hakluyt’s Divers Voyages, p. 10; Index to Remembrancia, 1519-1664, with citations in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc. xvii. 297; Aspinwall Papers, i. 1, note; E. D. Neill, English Colonization in North America, p. 171, and his “Virginia as a Penal Colony,” in Hist. Mag., May, 1869. “It would be wholly wrong, however, to suppose that immigrants of this sort were a controlling element,” says Lodge in his English Colonies, p. 66; and this is now the general opinion.—Ed.]
[308] Bishop Meade’s Old Churches and Families of Virginia, 2 vols. 8º, 1855, Slaughter’s History of St. Mark’s Parish, Culpeper County, 1877, and Bristol Parish, Dinwiddie County, 2d edition, 1879, and the files of the Richmond Standard may be referred to for purposes of genealogical investigation.
[309] A transcript of this “Register” is in the hands of the present writer for preparation for publication, with an Introduction, Notes, and Indices.
[310] A second volume, continuing the series, has been published the present year (1882). An Introduction in vol. i. recounts the losses to which the archives have been subjected, and enumerates the resources still remaining.
[311] Chapter vi.
[312] This iconoclastic view was also sustained by Mr. E. D. Neill in chapter v. of his Virginia Company in London, 1869, which was also printed separately, and in chapter iv. of his English Colonization in America. He goes farther than Mr. Deane, and, following implicitly Strachey’s statement of an earlier marriage for Pocahontas, he impugns other characters than Smith’s, and repeats the imputations in his Virginia and Virginiola, p. 20. There is a paper on the marriage of Pocahontas, by Wyndham Robertson, in the Virginia Historical Reporter, vol. ii. part i. (1860), p. 67. (Cf. Field’s Indian Bibliography, p. 383.) See Neill’s view pushed to an extreme in Hist. Mag. xvii. 144. A writer in the Virginia Hist. Reg. iv. 37, undertook to show that Kokoum and Rolfe were the same. Matthew S. Henry, in a letter dated Philadelphia, Sept. 11, 1857, written to Dr. Wm. P. Palmer, then Corresponding Secretary of the Virginia Historical Society, gives us the Lenni Lenape signification of Kakoom or Kokoum, as “‘to come from somewhere else,’ as we would say, ‘a foreigner.’”
[313] [See Maxwell’s Hist. Reg. ii., 189; and a note to the earlier part of this chapter. Her story is likely still to be told with all the old embellishment. See Prof. Schele de Vere’s Romance of American History, 1872, ch. iii. A piece of sculpture in the Capitol at Washington depicts the apocryphal scene. W. G. Simms urges her career as the subject for historical painting (Verses and Reviews). She figures in more than one historical romance: J. Davis’s First Settlers of Virginia, New York, 1805-6, and again, Philadelphia, 1817, with the more definite title of Captain Smith and the Princess Pocahontas; Samuel Hopkins, Youth of the Old Dominion. There are other works of fiction, prose and verse, bearing on Pocahontas and her father, by Seba Smith, L. H. Sigourney, M. W. Moseby, R. D. Owens, O. P. Hillar, etc.—Ed.]