So, to summarize:

1.Scamels may be shellfish, seamews/seamells, or something else entirely.

2. Strachey doesn’t speak of sea mews, but birds as big as English seamews or plovers.

3. Eden speaks of Alcatrazzi on the rocks taken by men, and seamews in the Bermudas. He also speaks of pignuts, marmosets, and poppinjays, as Shakespeare does. I find him the best source.

I would be pleased if you could give other examples of where Strachey is a better source than earlier texts, or Shakespeare himself in his earlier plays. In fact, looking at Eden once more, I see many parallels with Shakespeare’s Tempest that aren’t even mentioned in either Strachey A or B.

Just to add to what Lynne has said, I would suggest that it is a surprising and misleading procedure to respond to our CS article, which presents numerous corroboratory reasons for concluding that Shakespeare read and made use of Eden in constructing the *Tempest,* by attacking a single element of the case and leaving the rest unmentioned, on the superficial pretense that the many other illustrative examples of Eden’s significance are irrelevant.

In point of fact, there is no question at all that Shakespeare used Eden, as was known at least as long ago as Furness (1898), who pointed out that it must have been from Eden that Shakespeare drew the rare word “Setebos” — as that is the only published source for the word in England.

So, arguing against our conclusions on the basis of a pretext such as this one is pointless and can only reflect poorly on your apprehension of the real issues at stake in the discussion, which do not hinge on the example you’ve selected, even if your argument in that case were correct. In other words, our argument was never, contrary to the implication of your post, about finding “a better possible source for Clarke’s examples.” We wrote before Clarke, presenting an abundance of evidence updating that case Furness had made over a century ago for Eden’s relevance as a Tempest source.

You need to also show why Furness was wrong, and — if you want to appear to be doing something more than *ex post facto* special pleading, you should start by admitting that Clarke made an error in not beginning his argument from our 2009 article. He either didn’t do a very good literature review, or was seeking a short-cut to get into print with arguments that are essentially in the final analysis mostly irrelevant. Maybe if you read our article again you’ll see what I mean.

Best Regards,

R.S.

1, There’s no certainty that scamels are seamews. I found another meaning, but I’ll have to see if I can find it.

2. Caliban never actually says the scamels are to be eaten, although it looks that way from the context:

prithee, let me bring thee where crabs grow;
And I with my long nails will dig thee pignuts;
Show thee a jay’s nest and instruct thee how
To snare the nimble marmoset; I’ll bring thee
To clustering filberts and sometimes I’ll get thee
Young scamels from the rock. Wilt thou go with me?

But more important, Strachey never finds seamews, only birds that resemble them: A kind of web-footed fowl there is, of the bigness of an English green plover or sea mew…” etc.

Best,
Lynne

Re Eden: there are lots of descriptions of crew surviving a shipwreck. In fact if one compares Strachey with Tempest, one soon finds out that the two descriptions don’t match, anyway. In Tempest only one ship is wrecked. In Strachey, apart from the Sea Venture, two other boats never make it to Jamestown. So the descriptions are just as apt in Eden (and also Hakluyt in Thomson and elsewhere).

Here are two shipwrecks in Eden:

There rose soodenly soo fierce a tempeste ?that, of the foure caravels which they had with them, twoo were drowned even before theyre eyes ?but theyr fortune was better. For the caravell which the tempest had caryed as way, was coome to them ageyne. This had in it xviii men: And the other that remained, was saved and repayred. With these two therefore, they tooke theyre vyage directly to Spaine (Eden 42v).

Petrus Aroas therefore tooke shippynge in the river Betis?But he loosed anker in an evyll houre. For suche a tempeste folowed shortly after his departure, that it rent in pieces two of his shippes, ? all such as escaped, sayled backe ageyne to the coastes of Spayne (77).

by reason whereof, they so wandered owte of theyr course and were diparsed in sunder, that they in maner dispayred to meete ageyne. But as God wolde, the seas and tempest being quieted, they came safely to theyr determined course… (217v). Interestingly, this comes just before a description of St. Elmo’s fire, which is closer to Shakespeare than Strachey is; however one thing I ought to mention is that we know that Strachey took material from both Eden and Hakluyt, which is why the Tempest occasionally has apparent parallels to Reportory, whereas in fact, they came from the earlier texts. We absolutely know that Shakespeare also used those texts, especially Eden. Strachey goes for some of his shipwreck parallels to Tomson in Hakluyt, which themselves are in part at least derived from Eden.

There are many more examples of shipwrecks in Eden, but I don’t have time to go look for them right now. The last example that you spoke about in your post was given by me to show that rather than a shipwreck, it exhibits the parallels of language between Shakespeare and Eden, which do not exist in Strachey at all. In fact, though, the same pattern occurs in Antony and Cleopatra.

Our sever’d navy too Have knit again, and fleet, threatening most sea-like. (Ant and Cleopatra, 3.13) , so it is clear that the parallel couldn’t have come from Strachey.

And there are literally tens of other examples earlier in the period that show it wasn’t unusual for one ship to be separated from the others and come to grief.

The seamews are mentioned in Eden, but as you say, the Alcatrazzi are not eaten. They are taken to make candles. But seamews are also mentioned lower down in the chapter. I will take more time to look at this when I come back. In the meantime you might try reading Eden itself, instead of snippets from footnotes in Arden. And you might try reading some of our articles, which show that Eden is a much better source that Strachey, for all sorts of reasons.

Will continue in another post.

The source says he was a son of Powhatan but more likely his servant. It’s improbable that the son of the chief would be allowed to go to England with the British, especially as it seems he was more of a captive than an honored guest, with Thomas Savage kept by the chief as security for Namontack’s return. Here’s Smith’s actual version of what happened:

With many pretty Discourses to renew their old acquaintance, this great King [Powhatan] and our Captain spent the time, till the ebb left our Barge aground. Then renewing their feasts with feats, dancing and singing, and such like mirth, we quartered that night with Powhatan. The next day Newport came ashore and received as much content as those people could give him: a boy named Thomas Savage was then given unto Powhatan, whom Newport called his son; for whom Powhatan gave him Namontack his trusty servant, and one of a shrewd, subtle capacity. Three or four days more we spent in feasting, dancing, and trading, wherein Powhatan carried himself so proudly, yet discreetly (in his Savage manner) as made us all admire his natural gifts, considering his education.135

As well as the birds on the rocks, which I mentioned above, Oviedo talks of the seamews and cormorants in some detail. The text at this point was difficult to read, for as well as being in 16th Century italic, some of it is faded, and some not grammatical. But I’ve done my best to turn the spelling at least into modern English:

While I remained here [in Bermuda] I saw a strife (?) and combat between these flying fishes and the fishes named gilt-heads and the fowls called seamews and cormorants, which surely seemed unto me a thing of as great pleasure and solace as could be devised, while the gilt-heads swam on the brim of the water and sometimes lifted their shoulders above the same to raise the swimming fishes out of the water to drive them to flight, and follow them swimming to the place where they fall to take and eat them suddenly. Again on the other side the seamews and cormorants take many of these flying fishes: so that by these means they are neither safe in the air nor in the water…But to return to the history: these birds and fowls which I saw, were of the island of Bermuda near unto the which I saw these flying fishes. For they could be of no other land, for as much as they are not accustomed to wander far from the coasts where they are bred. (Eden 203v-204)