Comparisons

Virginia T8525a3 & Lambeth 642

None of the following phrases, nor the mis-spelled Albemarle, appear in subsequent mss., and their similarity here suggests both mss. were written at about the same time. And, despite naming individual islands, Cowley does not use the word “Galápagos” to identify the islands collectively in either of these mss. The omission is puzzling, because obviously the name was known to him and it does appear in all subsequent mss.

Virginial T8525a3	Lambeth 642
…& pretending that they wanted a master …	They … pretending that they wanted a master …
…agreeing with me for five hundred pieces of eight for my paines.	I agreeing with them for 500 hundred pieces of eight for my paines.
But the Captaine & Company told me that I was mistaken. They were not bound for Pety Guaves, for they were bound to the South Seas where they should get Gold & Silver A Nofe [enough].	They told me that I was mistaken. They were not bound for Petty Guaves, but … into the South Sea, where we should have Gold and Silver enough.
This Iland I named the Duke of Alber Males [sic] Iland.	… the D. of Albermales [sic] Island.

In addition, Cowley wrote in the Virginia ms. that he had forgotten the longitudes of the various Galápagos Islands and was awaiting the arrival of papers that he left in Holland. The longitudes of the islands also do not appear in the Lambeth ms. and in fact—with the exception of a November 1683 “Long: 8 degrees” entry at Sherbrow (Sherbro, Sierra Leone)—no longitudes are given for any other locations either. Sherbro is actually at about 13° West Longitude, so Cowley presumably reckoned his longitude from Lizard Point (5°13' W.).

---

Virginia T8525a3 & Sloane 1050

The “Your Grace” letter is the only known ms. entirely written by Cowley himself. The handwriting style indicates that the other manuscripts are the work of various copyists. There are however two places in Ms. 1050 where Cowley has inserted something in his own hand, as indicated by a comparison of several words found in both manuscripts. In addition, Cowley's distinctive spellings of ware and one them (for were and on them) are found in both the letter and one of the Ms. 1050 insertions, both of which are described below.

---

Virginia & Subsequent Manuscripts

In all seven mss., Cowley gives his departure date as August 4th, 1683. However, the latitude of the departure point varies as shown here.

Virginia	Lambeth	Sloane & Pepys	Morgan	Hacke's Collection
Wee set saille from Smiths Iland lying in 37 Degrees and 20 Minits.	We set saile from Cape Charles in Virginia lying in Latitude of 37 Degrees and 20 Minits.	I had sailed from the Cape of Virginia lying in the Lat. of 37 Deg. North.	We took our departure from Cape Charles in Virginia lyeing in the lattitude of 36:00 No.	I departed from Cape Charles in Virginia, lying in the Latitude of 36 Degrees North.

It is uncertain if the changes from 37°20' to 37° and finally to 36° are deliberate or are simply transcription errors. However, the agreement between the Morgan ms. and the published book indicates that the former was the last ms. written before the book was published. The actual location of Smith's Island is 37°7' North Latitude.

---

Lambeth & Subsequent Manuscripts

The following details suggest that the Lambeth ms. preceded the Sloane, Pepys and Morgan manuscripts.

• There are no daily entries; the ms. is divided into sections identified by month and year only. In addition, there is occasionally a one-month discrepancy between an event reported in this ms. and the same event in the others. These observations suggest that the ms. was prepared from memory and before Cowley had the chance to review whatever notes he had available later on.
• Although longitudes for the Galápagos Islands and elsewhere do not appear in the Lambeth ms., there are frequent longitude entries in the Sloane and Pepys mss. This suggests that the papers Cowley had left behind in Holland had arrived after the Lambeth ms. was written, and before the other mss. were written.
• During negotiations with an African king for water, Cowley describes the musicians attending the king in some detail, then reports that the king presented a black woman to himself and another to the doctor who accompanied him [November, 1683, pp. 447-448 (4-5)]. The description of the musicians is omitted in the Sloane and Pepys mss., and the entire anecdote is omitted from the Whitehall and Morgan mss. This suggests a chronological sequence in which the anecdote was at first shortened, then omitted entirely. Any other sequence would seem unlikely.
• A few additional anecdotes appear only in the Lambeth ms.
  • December, 1683, p. 451 (6): On encountering many whales, Cowley wrote “. . . we were fearful they were endangering our ship. We received a small blow from the taile of one which shooke our ship fore and aft but did us no damage.”
  • May, 1684, p. 455 (8): In a captured ship, Cowley reports that “…we found the Leg-bone of a man which was 3 foot and 3 inches long with the Ankle-bones proportionable to the Leg-bone.”
  • April, 1685, p. 473 (17): There is a lengthy description of “The manner how the Tartars conquered Grand China.”
  As with the African anecdote, it is assumed here that these anecdotes were written in the earliest ms., then abandoned in subsequent mss.
• Note: On arriving at the Galápagos Islands, “. . . I saw a fair Island on my Larbord side which I strove to gett to but could not; …” [May, 1684, p. 455 (8)]. “Larbord” (port) becomes “Starboard” in subsequent versions of the ms., presumably a transcription error that went unnoticed and therefore uncorrected.

In addition, there is at least one excerpt in Lambeth 642 that is updated in the Sloane and other manscripts:

Lambeth 642	Sloane and Pepys	Morgan 3310
December, 1683. About the Lat of 47 Degrees and 40 Minuits it was my fortune to discover an Island which is not laid down in Drafts of the World, the Iland being well wooded …	January, 1683. This Moneth wee were in the Latitude of 47 Degrees & 40 minits, where wee espyed an Iland bareing west from us. … These Ilands that we saw I suposed to be the Sibble de Wards by the Lattitude & Longitude of them.	December, 1683. We came into the lattitude of seaven and forty degrees South where we saw land, an Island not before known … or ever laid down in any map or draught which I called Peyps's Island.

From this, it would appear that at the time the Lambeth ms. was written, Cowley did not realize the islands were already known. He later learned their identity (presumably, the modern Falkland Islands) and made the appropriate correction in the Sloane and Pepys mss. Still later, the islands were “moved” slightly north (by omitting the 40' notation) and named in honor of Samuel Pepys. This was presumably the invention of the editor—with or without Cowley's approval—perhaps to gain favor with the famous diarist.

---

Sloane 1050 & 54

With the exception of an insertion described below, the entire Sloane Ms. 1050 was written by one person, whose handwriting is clear, but not as polished as one might expect from a professional copyist. By contrast, Ms. 54 is so elegant that parts are almost unreadable. Significant differences in the handwriting suggest that it is the work of at least three copyists. Many “This 24 hours…” entries in Ms. 1050 become “This four and twenty hours…” in Ms. 54.

In Ms. 54, the lengthy title is followed by the “The reason wherefore …” paragraph and then the August 4^th heading, as cited above, with the same use of capitalization.

On the first page of Ms. 1050, the final sentence begins “In the month of september, the 4th day wee being in the Lat. of … .” In Ms. 54, the first part of this sentence becomes a centered header with the year appended. The rest of the sentence is written as a new paragraph, as shown here:

From this it would appear that Ms. 1050 is the earlier version, and the sentence fragment was redone as a header when Ms. 54 was copied from it. The reverse sequence is ruled out here, because it would be unlikely that a copyist would insert inline text as a replacement for a header.

To further support this view of the ms. sequence, the end of Section I and the beginning of Section II are both found on the same page in Ms. 54. If Section II had been written first, it would have begun at the top of a page (as it does in Ms. 1050) and not immediately below the concluding paragraph of Section I.

Additional pieces of evidence to support the 1050/54 sequence are found within these manuscripts:

1. Ms. 1050, page 13: In a May, 1684 entry, the Spanish “Capt. Perialto” is mentioned. His name is slightly above the base line for the rest of the sentence, and is written in a different hand. The distinctive style of the first letter matches the letter “P” found in the ms. page 64 insertion described immediately below. Thus, it appears that the copyist left a blank space in the line and Cowley inserted the captain's name later on. The same anomoly does not appear on the equivalent line in Ms. 54; thus it is a copy of Ms. 1050, written after Cowley made the insertion.
2. Ms. 1050, page 64: The entry for Wedensday [sic, throughout this ms.] 30 Sept. [1685] is:
   Wee sailed with the wind N. E., little wind, distance run 56 miles, finding ourselves in the latitude of 12°43' difference of latitude 22 minutes, Departure 21 minutes, Course South, 22° West. Fair weather. [sketch of a pointing hand]
   The sketch of a pointing hand is duplicated by a similar sketch on the facing verso page, where a lengthy insertion describes the capture of a ship with 60 men aboard. The “… latitude of 12°43' ” in Ms. 1050 becomes “… latitude of 12°43' N.” in Ms. 54, where it is immediately followed by that insertion. The Ms. 1050 sentence fragments shown above in bold/italics are omitted in Ms. 54 and Pepys 2326. The entire anecdote does not appear at all in Lambeth Ms. 642.
3. Ms. 54: The copyist added a “catch word” at the bottom of each page if the entry on that page continued to the next page. A catch word does not appear if the entry concluded on that page. Since Ms. 1050 does not display catch words at all, their use in Ms. 54 suggests that it followed Ms. 1050 in the production cycle as the manuscript was prepared for printing.

---

Sloane 1050 & 54 & Pepys 2826

All three mss. report that the first part of Cowley's journal—covering August 1683 through December 1684—was lost when he left Captain Davis to join Captain Eaton, and was subsequently reconstructed from memory. These mss. all begin with this reconstruction, followed by the continuation from December 1684 though the end of the voyage in September 1686.

Since Samuel Pepys often commissioned copies of manuscripts, it is assumed here that Pepys Ms. 2826 played no part in the book production process, and that it was copied from Sloane Ms. 54 for his library. The following evidence supports this assumption.

• The first paragraph of Pepys ms. repeats the lengthy title of Sloane Ms. 54, and a handwriting comparison shows these paragraphs are the work of the same copyist. Note that the detail view illustrates how the copyist wrote Cowley's name in both mss. This comparison does nothing to determine the sequence in which the mss. were written, but it does suggest they were produced at about the same time. In each ms., the handwriting of the text which follows does not match the title, nor are there further similarities between them.
• Perhaps the most conclusive evidence that Pepys Ms. 2826 was copied from Sloane Ms. 54 is found in a comparison of daily entries for the month of April, 1686. In Sloane Ms. 54, these entries follow the style shown here:
  • April   1-23: “This four and twenty hours … ”
  • April 24-30: “This twenty ffour hours … ”
  The handwriting, the style and the spelling of “four” change on April 24, indicating a change of copyist. Although the April entries in Pepys Ms. 2826 are the work of a single copyist, the date style changes on April 24 as shown above, thus suggesting the copyist used Sloane Ms. 54 as his source, and he followed the style found there. (The spelling of “four” in the Pepys ms. is consistent though.)

---

Sloane/Pepys and Whitehall/Morgan Mss.

There are several indicators that the Sloane/Pepys mss. preceeded the Whitehall/Morgan mss., as reviewed here. For the purposes of this comparison, Sloane Ms. 54 is compared to Morgan Ms. 3310, although the same observations apply to Sloane Ms. 1050 and Whitehall Ms. 4. Pepys Ms. 2826 is not part of this comparison, since it is thought to be a copy commissioned by Samuel Pepys for his personal use, and therefore not part of the production sequence leading to the eventual printed book.

In Ms. 54 Cowley begins a September 1683 entry with details of a hurricane, followed by their arrival at the Island of Sall a few weeks later. Ms. 3310 omits the storm and simply begins “In the month of September we made the Island of Sall.” There is also the matter of Cowley's actual role in the events of the voyage. In Ms. 54 he matter-of-factly states that “I shaped my course … to the Cape de Verde Islands, we having now agreed to alter our course.” From this it would seem he was a willing collaborator. But in Ms. 3310 his tone has changed (on advice of counsel?) to “I … being forced to alter my course again, I steered away ESE for the Cape de Verde Islands.”

There are also typographical and contextual details to suggest a sequence from Ms. 54 to Ms. 3310 to published book. In Ms. 54, p. 3, Cowley mentions that a Dutch ship “… clapped a Spring upon his cable … .” In Ms. 3310, p. 251, this becomes “… clapping a pring [sic] upon the cable…” and the identical mis-spelled word appears in the book.

The treatment of Cowley's visit to an African village, and his description of the islands subsequently named after Samuel Pepys were both described above.

The final—and perhaps, best—indicators of ms. sequence lie within the Galápagos sections. In the Sloane/Pepys mss., Cowley states that “. . . there being in number fifteen islands that I have seen, I have named eight of them.” A recapitulation of these names follows. Cowley's 15/8 count and the recapitulation are omitted in Morgan Ms. 3310. Seven of his original eight names also appear in this ms., but one name has been changed: Lord Norris' becomes the Earle of Abington [sic, Abingdon]. Lord John Norris of Rycaut was a son of James Bertie, Earl of Abingdon. Herman Moll's chart in Hacke's Collection shows Rycot Rocks and Nories [Norris] Rocks in the vicinity of the Earle of Abington's Island, so it would appear that a decision to honor the Abingdon family was made after the Sloane/Pepys mss., and this revision found its way into the Morgan ms. and the printed book. Albany Island is also added, with details of its location within Albany Bay, and later on a single sentence inserts four more names: “There are four more isles, one I called Narbroughs, another Dean's, another Crossmans, & the other Brattles.” There is no information about any of them. In the published book, still another new sentence adds three more names: “One … I called Eures's', another Dassigny's, and another Bindlos's.” Again, there is no information about any of them.

In all the examples described so far, it is the content of Ms. 3310 that appears in the published Cowley's Voyage, thereby indicating that it was a copy of Ms. 54, edited (and sometimes with a heavy hand) for use in production of the book.

---

Whitehall 4 & Morgan 3310

Both mss. are sequentially paginated, with Cowley's journal preceded by the work of others (described below). The handwriting within each ms. is consistent from the first to last page, and it is therefore assumed that each is the work of a single copyist, rather than of the cited authors. Neither ms. mentions Cowley's loss of the first part of his journal. Whitehall Ms. 4 covers only the latter part of the voyage, while Morgan Ms. 3310 covers the complete voyage in a two-part sequence, as summarized here.

Ms.	Section †	Pages	Begins	Ends	From	To
4	II	123-209	December 1684	September 1686	Gorgona	England
3310	II	167-248	December 1684	September 1686	Gorgona	England
3310	I	249-262	August 1683	December 1684	Virginia	Gorgona
† The Cowley segments are identified as Sections I & II for comparison with the Sloane manuscripts.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in either ms. to explain why the content of Ms. 3310, Section I does not appear in Ms. 4. All that can be suggested here is that when Cowley finished his reconstruction of the first segment of the voyage, the copyist added it to the most-recent of the two mss., and there was no need to copy it to the other one. A continuing study of the Cowley segment in both mss. has not yet yielded anything useful in making a more definitive judgement of precedence. In fact, further examination of the use of present and past tense adds more confusion than enlightenment. For example, present-tense entries might suggest a direct report of an event written at the time that event took place, while past-tense entries—as in Ms. 3310, Section I—might indicate a re-telling of the same event. Consistency of tense might therefore help place one ms. ahead of the other, but there is no such consistency, as shown by these examples:

Date (1685)	Ms. 4	Ms. 3310, Section II
January 12	We were in the latitude…	We are now in the latitude …
January 13	We being in the latitude …	We being in the latitude …
January 14	We find ourselves in the latitude …	We found ourselves in the latitude …

There is, however, evidence elsewhere to indicate which is the earliest mss. The table below summarizes the content and pagination within both mss., along with the equivalent sections in Hacke's Collection of Original Voyages.

Ms. 4		Ms. 3310		Hacke's Collection
Title	Pages	Title	Pages	Title	Pages
(no Index)	—	Index (labeled “The Table”)	unpaginated	Index	unpaginated
Sailing instructions of Capt. Vellegas	1-72	(not present)
				Cowley's Voyage	1-45
Streights of Magellan (unattributed)	73-102	Bartholomew Sharp's Journal	1-124	Sharp's Journey	1-55
Bartholomew Sharpe's Journal	102-121	Streights of Magellan by Captain Wood	125-166	Wood's Voyage	56-100
Cowley's Journal (second segment)	123-209	Cowley's Journal (both segments)	167-262	(see above)
(not present in either ms.)				Roberts's Voyage	1-53

In Ms. 3310, the presence of an Index and absence of Capt. Vellegas' work matches the book, in which Cowley's Voyage appears first, followed by the works of Sharp, Wood and Roberts—the Sharp and Wood sequence matches that of Ms. 3310, while the Roberts segment does not appear in either ms. Although the book's distinctive pagination (1-45, followed by 1-100 and 1-53) suggests that there might have been plans to publish these segments separately, they are not known to exist in such a format. In any case, these observations indicate Ms. 3310 bears the closest resemblance to the book, and is therefore assumed to be the later of the two mss.

Sharpe vs. Sharp: The name Bartholomew Sharpe is spelled thusly in both manuscripts, but appears as “Sharp” in the Collection of Original Voyages edited by William Hacke.

---

Lambeth & Pepys Accounts of the ship Nicholas

The comparisons presented above indicate that the Lambeth ms. was followed in sequence by the two Sloane mss. and then the Pepys ms. The Nicholas account comprises the first two pages of the Lambeth ms. and the last two pages of the Pepys ms. By way of explanation, it is assumed here that Cowley brought this account to England with him, and turned it over to the copyist who prepared the Lambeth ms. It was not copied into the Sloane mss. because it was to play no part in the eventual production of the printed version of Cowley's voyage. But Samuel Pepys may have instructed his copyist to append it to his personal copy of Cowley's ms., which appears to have been copied from Sloane Ms. 54, as described above.

A few text insertions in the Nicholas account are displayed here in italics on the Lambeth Ms. 642 page. These are incorporated into the text of Pepys Ms. 2826, which at first suggests that the latter was copied from the former. However, there are also a few significant changes in phrasing, which suggests that the Lambeth ms. was copied from an original account (now presumed lost), and that this account was subsequently modified by Cowley (or someone else) before the Pepys version was prepared. There is however one insertion that is not explained by either assumption.

This is a correction to the number of pieces of eight, as seen here. If indeed the Pepys copy of the Nicholas account was copied from the Lambeth ms., presumably the copyist would have written this insertion directly into the text, as was in fact done with the other insertions seen in the Pepys ms. But if both copyists consulted some other source, it would seem unlikely that each would make—and then, correct—the same omission. For the moment then, there is no satisfactory explanation for this discrepancy.

---

Comparison of Dates in All Manuscripts

The Virginia T8525a3 manuscript is the only one bearing the actual date on which it was written. As already indicated, it is thought that the others were written in the sequence given here, but no information has yet been discovered to assign specific dates.

There is an unresolved discrepancy in the actual date of Cowley's departure from Gorgona in December 1684, as shown here:

Manuscript		Section	Day	Date
Virginia	T8525a3	II	—	The 22 of December
Lambeth	642	II	—	December the 22th [sic]
Sloane	1050	II	—	December 22
Sloane	54	II	—	December 22th [sic]
Pepys	2826	II	—	December 22d
Whitehall	4	II	Fryday	December 22d
Morgan	3310	II (p. 167)	Fryday	December the 19th
Morgan	3310	I (p. 262)	—	19th day of December

The day/date given in Ms. 3310, Section II, agrees with the Julian calendar for December 1684, so it is unclear where the error lies. Since the Whitehall and Morgan mss. both show another line in which Cowley has “… corrected my works from Gorgona the 22^d of December,” it means that all seven mss. agree on this date. If so, the Whitehall Ms. 4 copyist introduced the word “Fryday” instead of “Monday” in error. Yet both parts of Morgan Ms. 3310 also give an alternative date of December 19^th, which happens to have fallen on a Friday. The departure from Gorgona is mentioned in the published Cowley's Voyage, but neither day nor date is given. But on the same page their arrival at Guam “… was the 14^th of March …” and “The next Day, being Sunday, … .” This lack of any date, followed by very specific dating, suggests that the publisher may have been uncertain of which date was correct for the Gorgona departure, and therefore omitted it completely.

The Julian calendar for December, 1684 is included for reference purposes.

Julian Calendar for December, 1684
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
30	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31	1	2	3