The Mayflower and Her Log | Page 2

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