John Smith

Were John Smith's writings fabricated?

 we take a look into history, most accounts written by someone about themselves, are somewhat fabricated to make themselves look better then they actually are. It make sense to everyone because when writing about or own selves we would write good things about ourselves to portray an image and make the reader believe that we were a good person and we were on the right side of the events that we took a part in. This can be seen in history when we look at World War two. When the Americans won the war we got to write the history books and show how bad the Germans were according to person’s writings about the Germans. If you would ask someone from Germany who lived during that time like my father was able to do, they would tell you a whole different story about how bad the Americans were and things they did that will never be said in history books. With that in mind it makes you think about how differently the history books would have been if the Germans won the war. With that being said how much was John Smith's memoirs were fabricated? The following is going to include if he was fabricating his accounts, or if the accounts he talks about were actually true.

When people write about themselves they tend to make themselves sound better than they actually are. John Smith according to some people did fabricate some of his accounts. For example, "He has often been seen as a braggart, who wrote to magnify his own role in colonial affairs beyond all recognition. He dared to compare himself to Julius Caesar, who "wrote his owne Commentaries, holding it nolesse honour to write, than fight" [...]. It is true that Smith reworked the same material in several books, and he became more insistent on the importance of his own role with each retelling, but each new work was also a milestone in Smith's continuing effort to work out a consistent philosophy of colonization." http://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/easyrider/data/pages/pocahontas/smith.htm This just is an instance that he did fabricate things. Another instance was on his salvation and love life with Pocahontas. "... having feasted him after their best barbarous manner they could, a long consultation was held, but the conclusion was, two great stones were brought before Powhatan: then as many as could layd hands on him, dragged him to them, and thereon laid his head, and being ready with their clubs, to beate out his braines, Pocahontas the Kings dearest daughter, when no intreaty could prevaile, got his head in her armes, and laid her owne upon his to sabe him from death ..."http://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/easyrider/data/pages/pocahontas/smith.htm, This is still unknown that it actually took place, but he stated "he related the story to Queen Anne," but this letter had never been found. Also this story relates to another story from Juan Ortiz, a Spanish solider, which John Smith could have just copied and made his own story out of it. With hearing these two examples, the reader would tend to sway to believe that John smith did fabricate his stories to make him sound better.

When stories are being told there are always two sides to a story. With that being said you have to look at things John Smith said that were true as well. Other sources defend John Smith and say he was not a liar. For example, on man wrote "nothing Smith wrote can be found to be a lie."http://www.williamsburgprivatetours.com/Defense%20of%20Smith.htm this site defends John Smith. It talk about how when people write about themselves they fabricate things, but that John Smith came out and said things that didn’t make himself look that good. Like him getting thrown out by his fellow settlers. Also this sight disproves other allegations that some have believed to be true. "Lewis Kropf, an amateur Hungarian historian said in 1890 that Smith did not know the history and customs and could not have been there. Anyone later writing about Smith after had to deal with this unfounded accusation.

In 1953, author, Bradford Smith enlisted the services of a Hungarian historian Laura Polanyi Striker who checked Kropf's sources and to make her own investigation from material she gathered from archivist of the Central Archive of Styria in Graz, Austria, J. Franz Pichler. From this material she directed the research and assembled the material for Bradford Smith. Her essay appeared as Appendix 1 in Bradford Smith biography Captain John Smith : His Life and Legend (1953). Striker completely discredited Kroph by demonstrating that Kroph had misrepresented and misinterpreted numerous sources and that he had overlooked others. She proved that Smith knew details of eastern Europe better than any other Westerner who wrote at that time.

The results of the investigation can be found in:

Franz Pichler, `Captain Smith in the light of Styrian sources' in Virginia Magazine for History and Biography, LXV (July 1957), pp. 332-354." http://www.williamsburgprivatetours.com/Defense%20of%20Smith.htm With things like this being said and proven, it is hard to believe that John Smith lied about his accounts.

Both of these examples of John Smith being a liar and being truthful make it hard to determine if his writings were fabricated, but with the facts and points that disprove all false allegations of his lying, I have to say he didn’t fabricate his writing to the point where it truly is affecting history. I’m sure he fabricated a little because it is in human nature, but I think he was an honest guy and told most and maybe all of his accounts as truthful as he could. So he didn’t fabricate much at all.