perfectly true and rational speech, he subjoins (as we think equally
honestly and rationally), 'I showed them her Majesty's picture, which
they so admired and honoured, as it had been easy to have brought
them idolaters thereof.'

This is one of the stock charges against Raleigh, at which all
biographers (except quiet, sensible Oldys, who, dull as he is, is far
more fair and rational than most of his successors) break into
virtuous shrieks of 'flattery,' 'meanness,' 'adulation,'
'courtiership,' and so forth. One biographer is of opinion that the
Indians would have admired far more the picture of a 'red monkey.'
Sir Robert Schomburgk, unfortunately for the red monkey theory,
though he quite agrees that Raleigh's flattery was very shocking,
says that from what he knows--and no man knows more--of Indian taste,
they would have far preferred to the portrait which Raleigh showed
them--not a red monkey, but--such a picture as that at Hampton Court,
in which Elizabeth is represented in a fantastic court dress.
Raleigh, it seems, must be made out a rogue at all risks, though by
the most opposite charges. The monkey theory is answered, however,
by Sir Robert; and Sir Robert is answered, I think, by the plain fact
that, of course, Raleigh's portrait was exactly such a one as Sir
Robert says they would have admired; a picture probably in a tawdry
frame, representing Queen Bess, just as queens were always painted
then, bedizened with 'browches, pearls, and owches,' satin and ruff,
and probably with crown on head and sceptre in hand, made up, as
likely as not, expressly for the purpose for which it was used. In
the name of all simplicity and honesty, I ask, why is Raleigh to be
accused of saying that the Indians admired Queen Elizabeth's beauty
when he never even hints at it? And why do all commentators
deliberately forget the preceding paragraph--Raleigh's proclamation