[Dr. Ames, so stringent in his requirements of other authors, for
example Jane Austin, has to this point been pathetically naive as to
the opinions of Captain John Smith. Captain Smith's self-serving
and very subjective narratives of his own voyages obtained for him
the very derogatory judgement by his contemporaries. One of the
best reviews of John Smith's life may be found in a small book on
this adventurer by Charles Dudley Warner. D.W.]

If the number one hundred and twenty (120) is correct, and the
distribution suggested is also exact, viz. thirty (30) to the SPEEDWELL
and ninety (90) to the MAY-FLOWER, it is clear that there must have been
more than twelve (the number usually named) who went from the consort to
the larger ship, when the pinnace was abandoned. We know that at least
Robert Cushman and his family (wife and son), who were on the MAY-FLOWER,
were among the number who returned to London upon the SPEEDWELL (and the
language of Thomas Blossom in his letter to Governor Bradford, else where
quoted, indicates that he and his son were also there), so that if the
ship's number was ninety (90), and three or more were withdrawn, it would
require fifteen (15) or more to make the number up to one hundred and two
(102), the number of passengers we know the MAY-FLOWER had when she took
her final departure. It is not likely we shall ever be able to determine
exactly the names or number of those transferred to the MAY-FLOWER from
the consort, or the number or names of all those who went back to London
from either vessel. Several of the former and a few of the latter are
known, but we must (except for some fortunate discovery) rest content
with a very accurate knowledge of the passenger list of the MAY-FLOWER
when she left Plymouth (England), and of the changes which occurred in it
afterward; and a partial knowledge of the ship's own complement of
officers and men.