University of Virginia Library

DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTEMPORARY COPY

The contemporary copies of the court books, which are now in the Library of
Congress and which may well be called the Ferrar copies, consist of two volumes of
large quarto size well bound in rough calf. About 1898 the books were boxed, that
is, repaired with new backs without disturbing the sewing. The old labels were
pasted on the new backs and bear the title in gold letters on red leather: Record / of
the Virgin: / Compan:/, while gold letters on black leather indicate the volume:
Vol. / I. / and Vol. / II. / . In the first volume manila strips are pasted from the
inner cover to the first and to the last fly leaf in order to strengthen the binding.
The paper is of the seventeenth century type, hand-made and uneven in texture. In
the first volume there are three hundred and fifty-four pages, with five fly leaves in
the front and seven in the back, while the second contains three hundred and
eighty-seven pages preceded by three fly leaves and followed by four, with two
extra manila pages in both the front and back. The pencil entries on the first
leaf of the first volume are as follows: "Records of the / Virginia Company / of
London./ Vol I. April 28, 1619 to May 8, 1622. / Vol 2. May 20, 1622 to June
7, 1627./ The above title in hand of / Mr. A. R. Spofford / Sig.: H. F[rieden wald][191]

Oct. 11 / 97./". On the inside of the front cover of the second volume in an unknown
modern autograph is: "p. 366 cf with p. 71 v 3,"[192] and on the first manila leaf: "May
20, 1622 / to / June 7, 1624."

The discovery of the Ferrar papers has made it possible to make a final state-
ment both as to the method of the transcription of the documents and as to its
accuracy, for the autographs there found of Nicholas Ferrar and also of his
clerk or business agent in his private accounts prove indisputably that these two
men supervised and carried on the copying of the volumes.[193] Particularly in the
second volume, where there are many entries of reports of committees, projects,
objections, letters, petitions, declarations, and relations by the company or by
individuals, the headings, the initial words, even the first line of each document, and
sometimes entire documents are in the autograph of Nicholas Ferrar. The rest
of the insertion is usually by his assistant, who was perhaps Thomas Collett, his
nephew. All of the insertions in the first volume and about twenty in the second
are entirely in the so-called Collett autograph, numbering about the same as those
superintended by the deputy himself. The way in which these insertions are often
crowded in, is evidence that they were copied from the original documents in spaces
left for the purpose by the hired copyist.[194]

As to the identity of the other three or four distinct autographs, in which
the remaining part of the volumes appear, nothing has been determined. The
first and third copyists are distinctly different in style, while what appears as
the writing of a fourth and a sixth clerk may possibly be identical with that of
the first. With the exception of the autograph of Nicholas Ferrar, the whole is
clearly, carefully, and legibly written in the characteristic running hand of the
period, resembling the chancery hand. The spelling, capitalization, and abbrevia-
tions are distinctive and characteristic of each copyist. The use of curved lines
to complete blank spaces at the end of the line, and often at the bottom and top of
the page, shows the labor expended to make the transcript accurate and complete.
The memoranda at the end of the volumes declare that the transcript had been
carefully collated with the original "courte booke" and with the authentic docu-
ments by the secretaries, Edward Waterhouse and Edward Collingwood, in the
first volume, and by Thomas Collett and Edward Collingwood in the second. That
the insertions were copied from the original documents is shown by the statement

in the memorandum of volume II that in two instances the letters had been missing
for purpose of collation. Many pages reveal the corrections of errors or omissions
of the copyist. In most instances this was done by Edward Collingwood himself,
though sometimes by Thomas Collett.[195] At the bottom of each page is the signature
"Conc Collingwood," the abbreviation standing for concordat, as is shown by the
word appearing as "Concord:" on page three hundred and fifteen of the first
volume.[196]

In addition to this internal evidence of accuracy, further proof of the care with
which the books were transcribed is found among the Ferrar papers. The records
of four courts were there discovered, which are almost identical with those of the
same date in the Library of Congress volumes.[197] The only differences, and these
are not numerous, are those which would naturally result from the fallibility of the
copyist, and the apparent custom of the time to ignore the orthography of the
original. One is led to believe that these loose pages of courts form a part of the
book from which the copy was made. This is shown by the use of larger letters to
emphasize certain words, and by Edward Collingwood's corrections of the Library
of Congress copy to make it conform to these drafts. Even the omission of one or
two lines in the Ferrar copy, later corrected, can be accounted for by reference to
these sheets, since in each case it has resulted from the same word occurring in the
same place on two successive lines. Furthermore, the directions in the margin of
these courts as to where certain documents were to be entered were followed in the
transcript and seem to point to these as a part of the original minutes. The
autograph of the court held on June 25 is identical with that of the first copyist
of the transcript, while the courts of July 4 and July 9 were apparently written by
the sixth copyist of the transcript. Among the Ferrar papers are two drafts of a
resolution concerning the "Lo Tr̃er speach touching Mr Alderm. Johnson," which
was entered in the court book. One is a rough draft written, altered, and corrected
by Edward Collingwood, and bearing the above indorsement by the writer and a
similar indorsement by John Ferrar. The other draft is in the autograph of the
sixth copyist of the court book, following the above, and is attested by Edward
Collingwood. The transcript in the court book is identical with the latter, but
the vote is omitted; the substance, however, is given after the discussion follow-

ing the presentation of the resolution. Thus they seem rather to have been drafts
of a resolution which had been presented than of one prepared to be offered.
Comparison between these records of courts and a draft of a Somers Islands court,
in the same collection, leads to the conclusion that they do not form a part of the
blotter or blurred book from which the original book was made, since the latter
are much corrected and altered and then canceled diagonally from corner to corner;[198]
but are rather a part of the original book itself. The reliability of the Library of
Congress transcripts is also confirmed by collating them with the original documents,
or with other copies of the documents, which are inserted in the court book, and these
careful comparisons have shown how accurately Edward Collingwood and his
assistants conducted the work for Nicholas Ferrar.[199]