"Bring Juice Of Lemons And Take It Fasting.
It Is Of Good Use."
It is indeed remarkable that, totally unused to any such conditions, wet,
cold, poorly fed, overcrowded, storm-tossed, bruised and
Beaten, anxious,
and with no homes to welcome them, exposed to new hardships and dangers
on landing, worn and exhausted, any of the MAY-FLOWER'S company survived.
It certainly cannot be accounted strange that infectious diseases, once
started among them, should have run through their ranks like fire, taking
both old and young. Nor is it strange that - though more inured to
hardship and the conditions of sea life - with the extreme and unusual
exposure of boat service on the New England coast in mid winter, often
wading in the icy water and living aboard ship in a highly infected
atmosphere, the seamen should have succumbed to disease in almost equal
ratio with the colonists. The author is prepared, after careful
consideration, to accept and professionally indorse, with few exceptions,
the conclusions as to the probable character of the decimating diseases
of the passengers and crew of the MAY-FLOWER, so ably and interestingly
presented by Dr. Edward E. Cornwall in the "New England Magazine" for
February, 1897 - From the fact that Edward Thompson, Jasper More, and
Master James Chilton died within a month of the arrival at Cape Cod (and
while the ship lay in that harbor), and following the axiom of vital
statistics that "for each death two are constantly sick," there must have
been some little (though not to say general) sickness on the MAY-FLOWER
when she arrived at Cape Cod. It would, in view of the hardship of the
voyage, have been very remarkable if this had not been the case. It
would have been still more remarkable if the ill-conditioned,
thin-blooded, town-bred "servants" and apprentices had not suffered
first and most. It is significant that eight out of nine of the male
"servants" should have died in the first four months. It was impossible
that scurvy should not have been prevalent with both passengers and
crew.
CHAPTER VIII
THE MAY-FLOWER'S LADING
Beside her human freight of one hundred and thirty or more passengers and
crew, the lading of the MAY-FLOWER when she sailed from Plymouth
(England), September 6/16, 1620, was considerable and various. If
clearing at a custom-house of to-day her manifest would excite no little
interest and surprise. Taking no account of the ship's stores and
supplies (necessarily large, like her crew, when bound upon such a
voyage, when every possible need till her return to her home port must be
provided for before sailing), the colonists' goods and chattels were
many, their provisions bulky, their ordnance, arms, and stores (in the
hold) heavy, and their trading-stock fairly ample. Much of the cargo
originally stowed in the SPEEDWELL, a part, as we know, of her company,
and a few of her crew were transferred to the MAY-FLOWER at Plymouth, and
there can be no doubt that the ship was both crowded and overladen.
It is altogether probable that the crowded condition of her spar and main
decks caused the supply of live-stock taken - whether for consumption upon
the voyage or for the planters' needs on shore - to be very limited as to
both number and variety. It has been matter of surprise to many that no
cattle (not even milch-cows) were taken, but if - as is not unlikely - it
was at first proposed to take a cow or two (when both ships were to go
and larger space was available), this intent was undoubtedly abandoned at
Plymouth, England, when it became evident that there would be dearth of
room even for passengers, none whatever for cattle or their fodder (a
large and prohibitive quantity of the latter being required for so long a
voyage), and that the lateness of the season and its probable hardships
would endanger the lives of the animals if taken. So far as appears the
only domestic live-stock aboard the MAY-FLOWER consisted of goats, swine,
poultry, and dogs. It is quite possible that some few sheep, rabbits, and
poultry for immediate consumption (these requiring but little forage) may
have been shipped, this being customary then as now. It is also probable
that some household pets - cats and caged singing-birds, the latter always
numerous in both England and Holland - were carried on board by their
owners, though no direct evidence of the fact is found. There is ample
proof that goats, swine, poultry, and dogs were landed with the colonists
at New Plymouth, and it is equally certain that they had at first neither
cattle, horses, nor sheep. Of course the she-goats were their sole
reliance for milk for some time, whether afloat or ashore, and goat's
flesh and pork their only possibilities in the way of fresh meat for many
months, save poultry (and game after landing), though we may be sure, in
view of the breeding value of their goats, poultry, and swine, few were
consumed for food. The "fresh meat" mentioned as placed before
Massasoit' on his first visit was probably venison, though possibly kid's
meat, pork, or poultry. Of swine and poultry they must have had a pretty
fair supply, judging from their rapid increase, though their goats must
have been few. They were wholly without beasts of draft or burden (though
it seems strange that a few Spanish donkeys or English "jacks" had not
been taken along, as being easily kept, hardy, and strong, and quite
equal to light ploughing, hauling, carrying, etc.), and their lack was
sorely felt. The space they and their forage demanded it was doubtless
considered impracticable to spare. The only dogs that appear in evidence
are a large mastiff bitch (the only dog of that breed probably seen on
these shores since Pring's "bigge dogges" so frightened the Indians' in
this region seventeen years before)
[Captain Martin Pring had at Plymouth, in 1603, two great "mastive
dogges" named "Fool" and "Gallant," the former being trained to carry
a half-pike in his mouth.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 61 of 92
Words from 61909 to 62930
of 94513
