A Stated Meeting of the Society was held at No. 25 Beacon Street, Boston, on Thursday, 27 January, 1910, at three o’clock in the afternoon, the President, Henry Lefavour, LL.D., in the chair.

    The Records of the last Stated Meeting were read and approved.

    The Corresponding Secretary reported that a letter had been received from the Rev. Dr. Edward Caldwell Moore accepting Resident Membership.

    Mr. Archibald Cary Coolidge of Cambridge, and Mr. Ezra Henry Baker of Boston, were elected Resident Members.

    The President announced the death of George Park Fisher, a Corresponding Member, and of James Barr Ames, a Resident Member, and paid a tribute to their memory. The death of Dr. Fisher occurred at Litchfield, Connecticut, on 20 December, 1909; that of Mr. Ames at Wilton, New Hampshire, on 8 January, 1910.

    Mr. Andrew McFarland Davis read the following paper:


    Any person who examines critically the question of prosecutions for libellous publications during the days of the province will soon discover that the provincial government in the time of Governor Shute was especially active in its attempts to suppress publications of this sort, provided they were directed against the administration, and will readily see that the government, in its endeavors to carry out this policy, established, and so far as lay in its power temporarily enforced, a severe censorship of the press. This subject has been developed by Mr. Clyde A. Duniway in his Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts,1 to which publication one may turn for details concerning the proceedings of this kind which then took place. Certain of them are closely connected with the bibliographical puzzle to which I wish to call your attention.

    Hutchinson2 refers to the events with which we have to deal in this connection, and his abstract of an answer made by the representatives to a speech of the governor brings the subject fairly before us. The governor had specifically recommended in his speech addressed to the general court March 15, 1721, that measures should be taken to prevent the publication of “factious and seditious” papers. To this the representatives replied — to quote from Hutchinson’s account of the affair — that “the best way to suppress or prevent them is, for the executive part of the government to bring the authors to condign punishment; and if proper measures had been taken to discover and punish the authors of a libel, called News from Robinson Crusoe’s Island, wherein the members of the house are grossly reflected upon, few or none would have dared afterwards to publish anything of that nature or tendency.”

    The title of the pamphlet which aroused the indignation of the representatives evidently pleased the publishers of the day, for several tracts were immediately thereafter issued which were dated at “Cruso’s Island” or purported to have been printed at that place. Among these was Reflections upon Reflections or more News from Robinson Cruso’s Island. Still another was entitled “New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island in a Letter to a Gentleman at Portsmouth. Cruso’s island, Printed in the Year 1720.” “The Saddle set on the right horse. Cruso’s island, 1721” was advertised at this time.

    Some of these pamphlets dealt more or less with the currency question and the titles of most of them will be found in the Brinley Catalogue topically grouped by Mr. Trumbull under his collection of volumes devoted to the currency. News from the Moon, the specific tract that has caused the confusion and perplexity which we are considering to-day, did not bear the imprint, “Cruso’s island,” but its title will be found in the topical list just mentioned and it has been supposed to have had some connection with the legislative controversies of that time.3 Number 1440 in Mr. Trumbull’s list is “New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island, in a Letter to a Gentleman at Portsmouth, (n. t. p.) pp. 8.” Following this entry Mr. Trumbull quotes from Hutchinson the reference in the reply of the representatives to News from Robinson Cruso’s Island which has already been given and concludes: “To that libel, the ‘New News’ etc., was perhaps a rejoinder.”

    The next entry in the Brinley Catalogue, Number 1441, was: “News from the Moon. A Review of the State of the British Nation, Vol. 7. Numb. 14. Page 53. — Tuesday, May 2, 1710. pp. 8.… 16° n. p., n. d. [Boston, J. Franklin, 1721?] A satire aimed, apparently, at the House of Representatives, for their proceedings against the publisher and printer of ‘New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island.’” It is to the various points which suggest themselves in connection with this latter entry that our investigation leads.

    Sabin follows Trumbull in his mention of this tract,4 and in his characterization of its contents. He refers, also, to an edition of 1772, but does not mention where a copy of it can be found.

    Evans, in his American Bibliography, describes News from the Moon as from the press of J. Franklin in 1721, and characterizes the contents of the pamphlet as “A burlesque on the prosecution of Benjamin Gray for ordering the printing of ‘A Letter to an eminent clergy-man.’”5

    Volume XII of the Bulletin of the New York Public Library contains a “List of Works relating to Money and Banking.” This work is included in No. 6, which appeared in June, 1908, where it is to be found on page 394, being there attributed to the Boston press of 1721.6

    The foregoing entries compel the consideration of the source of News from the Moon; the determination whether it could have been possible that one of these ephemeral pamphlets could have been republished in 1772; the settlement, if possible, of the question whether it was from the Boston press; and the arrival at a conclusion whether Trumbull or Evans, or either of them, was right in his description of the character of the pamphlet.

    First, as to the source of News from the Moon. As a preliminary to this investigation it was necessary to examine the nature of the pamphlet itself. The copy which was in the Brinley Library — perhaps the only one in existence — is now in the Lenox Library and it was easy to procure from that source a copy of its contents. The pamphlet opens with a reference to previous papers of the author describing his experiences in the lunar world and then goes on to narrate an incident purporting to have occurred there which was omitted from his former account. This dealt with the sufferings of a poor tailor who had made a coat that apparently fitted everybody so well that every person to whom it was shown claimed that it was made for him.

    The title of the pamphlet refers to the Review of the State of the British Nation, by volume, number, page, and date, and it bears no other date than that given in this reference. The Review referred to was conducted by Daniel Defoe, and was started by him while in prison. In the year 1710 it appeared three times a week, and every copy is said to have been written by Defoe. It bore three names during its existence, the first indicating that it was devoted to a review of the state of affairs in France, the second to a similar inquest of the state of affairs of the English nation, and the third as given in the title of News from the Moon. It is stated in the Encyclopædia Britannica that there is but one perfect set of the Review in existence. Possibly what follows may raise doubts as to whether it can be said that there is a perfect set to be found anywhere.

    An examination of the text of News from the Moon showed that it might well be what it purported to be. It refers to The Consolidator, a work published by Defoe in 1705, as being by the same author, and it deals with Lord Dukes, Lord Bishops, and Lord Mayors. There is, however, nothing in it which connects it with our local affairs.

    While the subject was under consideration, I was informed that there was a copy of Volume VII of the Review in the library of the American Antiquarian Society. An examination of this volume failed to furnish answers to any of the questions raised, the set of the serial therein contained being very defective, Number 14 as well as many others in the series about that time having been removed. There was but one thing to do if the question was to be settled whether News from the Moon was actually a transcript from the Review, and that was to send to England and obtain a copy of Number 14, of date of May 2, 1710.

    In response to an order to this effect came the reply from London that Number 14 of Volume VII in the British Museum was not dated May 2, but April 27, while the actual issue of May 2, 1710, was numbered 16. Fortunately the copyist to whom the order was given sent a copy of Number 16, the opening sentence of which is: “In my last I gave you an Account of the Misfortunes of a poor Taylor, who I had found dragg’d before the Courts of Justice, in a certain City I happen’d to pass through in my late Travels in the Lunar Regions; and indeed it was a hard Case, for as I was inform’d they did their Endeavour to ruin the poor Man, tho’ at the same time all his Crime was, that having made a Coat for one Knave, it fitted Fourty.” Here then was a practical announcement that Number 15 contained what we were in search of.

    A copy of Number 15 which bore date April 29, 1710, was then procured and was found to correspond substantially with News from the Moon, with the exception that it had no other title than that of the Review. The reprint in the pamphlet was fairly faithful, most of the variations being of a minor character, and being evidently the result of the caprice or negligence of the compositor. One change was, however, obviously intentional. Defoe four or five times uses the epithet “Dog!” Wherever the word “dog” is used in the original it is stricken out in News from the Moon. The following is the copy obtained from the British Museum.7

    Vol. VII.     [57.]     Numb. 15


    Saturday, April 29. 1710.

    I Suppose, every Body, that knows any Thing of the Author of this Paper, knows, that when he having some Years ago travell’d a long Journey, and was carry’d up into the Lunar World in a well known Engine, contriv’d for Elevations by our Famous High Church Men, and which was call’d a Consolidator; at his Return he gave the World some Account of his curious Observations — But one Story he never yet told, and which seems reserv’d to the present Occasion.

    Be it known to you all then, That the last time I happen’d to be travelling to the World in the Moon, as I was passing thro’ a great City about my lawful Occasions — What my Business was there, is nothing to any Body: But I found the People in a great Hurry, dragging a poor Taylor away to one of their Courts of Justice — Lord have Mercy upon the poor Man thought I, what will become of him? For he look’d to me just as an English Presbyterian would do, if he were got into the Hands of the High-Church Rabble; (viz.) Like a Man that expected to be murther’d by them.

    Being mightily concern’d, you may be sure, to see the poor Man us’d thus, I enquir’d who he was, and what was the Crime for which he was thus treated — I met with many Relations differing from one another about him, for the People there tell the same Story a great many ways, just as they do here, as the Humour takes them; but not [58] to trouble you with the several Relations of the Thing, the Substance of the Man’s Case, it seems, was thus.

    The Man, as I told you, was a Taylor by his Trade — Now you are to understand, that tho’ I did not find there was any of that foolish useless Sort of People call’d Poets there, yet they have their Way of satyrizing and ridiculing the Follies and Vices of the Place, as well as in other Countries; and it seems the Taylors are the Satyrs — For when any Man, or Body of Men have play’d the Fool, or the Knave, or the Coward, or a Drunkard, or any vicious Prank — He that has a Mind to lampoon him, goes to a Taylor, and gets such a Coat made, as such People are generally condemn’d to wear upon public Days, who upon Trial are found Guilty of such or such respective Crimes: This Coat is carry’d about the Street, and hang’d up, or shew’d particularly at or near the House of the Person, and is easily known by the Dimensions and Figures made upon it, who it belongs to — And it is call’d in their Language a Thocacterraca, in English, a Representer, or a Character-Coat.

    But you must remember too, that there are strict Laws any Taylor making these Coats for Persons innocent of the Follies describ’d; and when any trangress that way, they are severely punish’d, especially when they make a Coat for a Man, and upon trying it on, it does not fit him.

    On the other hand, often times it happens, that when a Man makes a Character-Coat for one Man, it fits another, and sometimes a great many.

    This is owing partly to the Ignorance of the Taylor, who does not take his Measure right — And partly by Fools and Knaves, being in that Country very often much like one another; but more especially by the Ridiculous Folly of some Men, who when they see a Coat made, tho’ it be the most ridiculing and most exposing thing in the World, they cannot forbear, but they will be always trying it on, and endeavouring to make it fit themselves, whether it will or no — Nay they will stretch the Coat out of all manner of Shape, to see if they can make it fit them, quite contrary to the Taylor’s Design; as if knowing themselves to be Fools, they were desirous all the World, should know it too.

    This is a great piece of Injustice to the Taylor, tho’ perhaps it may be none to themselves; for I cannot believe, but every Man IS just AS much a Knave as he would have the World believe him to be.

    Just thus it fared some Years ago, with the Author of the Paper called the Review, in the World on this side the Moon — When he happened in a Paper to be Painting out the Character of a State Mountebank, a City Hero, a Coward to his Cause, a Fool, a Knave, and a Ceserter of his Friends.

    One said, d …. m the Dog, that’s at me; another, that’s at me; and the like; nay, that would not serve them — But they must bring in their Friends too, who does he mean by that? And who does he mean by this? — That such a Lord that blue List Man, is my L — and his Garter; That Deserter of his Friend, or that empty Headed Magistrate, is the L — d M — r; That Litigious Impertinent is Mr. Hill — d; That High-Church Buffoon, is Parn Higs; and the like; when far was it from the Thoughts of tht poor Author, to do any of these Gentlemen so much Honour.

    In like manner exactly it happened in the Moon; the Story is this.

    There had been some very scandalous Fellow had done some ridiculous Thing, for which he deserv’d to be expos’d, and some People bespoke this Taylor to make a Coat for him — The Coat was wonderfully made indeed, every Side of it was singular; as you turn’d it this way, it look’d one thing, that way another; to one Eye-sight it represented one thing, to another quite contrary; and all agreed, that never such a Coat was made before: If you turn’d it this way it was a Fool’s Coat, that way ’twas a Knave’s Coat; on one side it represented a Lord Bishop, on the other side a Lord Duke; on another a Lord-M — r, on another a Clergy-man, on another a Thief; worn this way, it made a Man a [59] Statesman; that way a Mountebank; this way a General, that way a Coward; a strange Coat it was indeed, as ever I saw in my Life.

    The Man that bespoke it, no sooner carry’d it about Streets, as was usual in such cases, but it rais’d a terrible Combustion in the Town; the People began to stare at one another, ar if they were frighted — The First that broke Silence was a huge tall Man, by his Appearance a Man of Grandeur, for he had a blue List upon his Coat, which in that Country none but a Few of the prime Nobillity are permitted to wear — What Dog’s that? Says he — A VillainA RogueWhy that Coat’s made for me; and up he runs to the poor Man, and began to bluster. Pray, my Lord, Good, my Lord, says the Man, it is not made for your Highness, it was made for my Neighbour Such-a-one — You lie you Villain, says my Lord, it was made for me, and I’ll have you hang’d, if there were no more Taylors in all the MoonIndeed my Lord, says the Man again, it could not be made for you, for it will not fit your LordshipI’ll try that, says his Lordship, you Dog, and if it does, I’ll have you hang’d immediately upon which my Lord put the Coat on — But the poor Man was confounded, when he saw, that with but the least Stretching it fitted his Lordship to a Hair — and he expected Nothing but Death — My Lord went away raging, in order to send the Criminal Officers to take up the Man — But he might have sav’d himself the Labour, for the Coat was not carry’d much farther, but one cry’d, that Dog has made this Coat for me; another said, no ’tis for me, and almost every Body that saw it, challeng’d the Coat: At last, the Chief Magistrate of the Town happen’d to come along, and he fell in a Rage, and cry’d out with an Oath, the Coat was for him: Whereupon he immediately seiz’d it, and carry’d it into a great Assembly of that City, which was then sitting, to complain of the Affront. This Assembly is call’d in their Language the Momonciculoc: I will not pretend to Knowledge enough in the Lunar Language to translate it — Some think, it may resemble a Common-Council — Here he began to complain of the Affront, when of a suddain a great Combustion rose among them in the Hall of the Assembly; One said the Coat is made for me, another said it is for me, and to be short with my Story, no less than 114 of them chaleng’d the poor Man for bringing this Coat out to expose them in particular.

    The Man was in great Distress, and had no Way at last to bring himself out of this Broil, but by telling them the Name of the Taylor, who made the Coat — Which having done, he made his Escape, and the poor Taylor was sent for.

    The Taylor was a bold Fellow, and fear’d no Colours — and immediately went to them upon the first Summons — And being brought before them, they examin’d him very strictly — And as near as I can remember, the Examination was as follows; he is brought into a large Closet, where they usually examine Witnesses, and the Coat being shew’d him, the Clerk appointed to examine him began the following Dialogue.

    Clark. Did you make this Coat, Sir?

    Taylor, Yes, I did.

    C. Did you make it for a Representer, or Character-Coat?

    T. Yes, Sir.

    C. Who was it to Represent?

    T. It was made to represent him that it represents, Sir.

    C. But who is that, Sir?

    T. Why I tell you, Sir, Says the Taylor Briskly, him that it represents.

    C. Well, but here are a great many Gentlemen who say it represents them.

    T. What all of them?

    C. Yes, all of them.

    T. It’s strange, Men should be all K — s of like Dimensions.

    C. But how say you, was it made to represent them?

    T. If it represents them, it must be made to represent them.

    C. But did you design to represent them?

    T. What do you tell me of Designs, my Design was to make the Coat.

    C. But here is my Lord A —, he says the Coat represents him —

    T. Has he try’d it on, and does it fit him?

    C. Exactly.

    [60] T. ’Tis impossible — Pray look on the Coat; the Coat is a Fools Coat, and his Lordship is too much something else to be a F — I.

    C. But then it fits my L — B —

    F. That can’t be neither; for turn it, and you’ll see ’tis a Knaves Coat, and every Body knows my L — cannot be a Knave, it is not in his Head.

    C. But it may fit my Lord C —

    T. No it can’t neither; for turn it again, and then ’tis a States-man’s Coat, and it is well known, my Lord is no more a States-man than he is a Conjurer.

    C. Well, but they may think it fits them.

    T. Their own Guilt may do much, but ’tis not good Manners in me to think so.

    C. Well, but what say you to the rest of the Gentlemen that challenge it? Pray, give them Satisfaction.

    T. Why truly, as to 114 Gentlemen belonging to the Great Hall, if it fits them all I cannot help it, they may take it among them, and then every one will have his Share — ’Tis a strange thing, a Man cannot dress up a Monkey, but every man calls him Cousin.

    And with this he threw the Coat down in the Middle of the Hall.

    The identification of Number 15 of Volume VII of the Review in the British Museum with News from the Moon seemed to relieve us from further consideration of this perplexing question. If the pamphlet was published in Boston in 1721, during the period when the feelings of the governor and council on the one hand, and the representatives on the other, were respectively aroused by the attacks made upon them for their actions upon matters pending before them, it might well have been true that this reprint was made for the purpose of satirizing the authorities, and the confusion which might arise from a reference to a number antedating the true number of the Review from which the copy was made, and to a date posterior to the actual date of the original, might have been a part of the scheme of the publishers of the pamphlet. At this point, therefore, the search for knowledge of details concerning the original might and would have been abandoned, except for the fact that when the order for a copy of Number 15 was sent over to London, Mr. Albert Matthews asked me at the same time to procure for him a tabulated statement showing the dates and pagination of the several numbers in Volume VII of the Review. On reception of this tabulated statement he ventured the suggestion that there was an Edinburgh edition as well as a London edition of Volume VII. This would be a continuation of the Edinburgh edition of Volume VI, of which there is a copy in the Boston Athenaeum. The British Museum edition was published in London in 1711. The edition in the American Antiquarian Society appears by its title-page to have been also published in London, the year of publication being 1711, but there is internal evidence that some of the numbers were printed in Edinburgh.

    An examination of the copy of Volume VII at Worcester revealed the fact that the contents thereof were not identical with those of the London edition. We have already seen that the edition in the British Museum, Number 14, was issued April 27. In the Antiquarian Society’s copy the series is complete up to Number 12, then there is a gap extending to Number 23. If, however, we examine the numbers, dates, and pages of certain of the copies that have been preserved, we find that Number 11 contains pages 41–44, while 12 has pages 45–48, showing that the series did not, so far as this volume was concerned, up to this point, violate the rule that each number should have four pages.8 Number 11 is dated April 25; Number 12, April 27; Number 13 would, therefore, have been issued April 29, covering pages 49–52; and Number 14, containing pages 53–56, must have appeared on Tuesday, May 2. It would seem, therefore, that the reference to the Review on the first page of News from the Moon must have been given in perfectly good faith.

    This information solves the last doubt of those who are seeking to disclose the details concerning the origin of News from the Moon, but there remain several questions for future settlement by the bibliographers engaged in the study of Defoe’s publications. A comparison of the two editions may disclose a motive for the changes to to found in their contents, and in any event are of sufficient importance to compel students of Defoe’s publications to follow the matter to its end.

    If we turn back to the entries made by the bibliographers in connection with News from the Moon, it will be observed that two different events are assigned, each of which is mentioned as furnishing a link which would connect this pamphlet with our local affairs. If there were anything in the pamphlet itself which referred to provincial politics, it would not be difficult to draw a conclusion as to whether both of these entries might be right, or if compelled to make choice between them, which would be the most probable. In the absence of any allusions in the pamphlet to the currency, to provincial politics, or to local social affairs, we must turn to the history of the time to determine, through such information as we have outside the pamphlet itself, whether either of the entries is entitled to stand.

    Sabin probably merely copied Trumbull. We must, therefore, throw upon the latter exclusively the responsibility for the entry that the pamphlet was “a satire aimed, apparently, at the House of Representatives, for their proceedings against the publisher and printer of ‘New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island.’” If there were any proceedings taken against the publisher and printer of this pamphlet, of sufficient notoriety to call for the publication of a satire in consequence thereof, surely we ought to find some trace of them. Yet Mr. Duniway, who, in seeking for material for his Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts, thoroughly overhauled the newspapers and the records of this period, makes no mention of any arrest or of any complaint against the publisher of New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island. This relieves us from further consideration of the validity of this particular entry, but the suggestion arises, Can we trace the source of Trumbull’s error? Mr. Matthews has called my attention to the fact that Dr. Haven in his Catalogue of Ante-Revolutionary Publications, which is to be found in Volume II of the edition of Thomas’s History of Printing in America, published by the American Antiquarian Society, mentioned News from the Moon, although he placed it under the year 1720.9 He simply attributed it to the Boston press without specifying the printer. Dr. Haven also included in his list New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island, and made the following comment: “No place or printer; but probably printed at Boston. The above is referred to in Felt’s Mass. Currency, p. 77.” Mr. Matthews suggests that this reference to Felt may lay bare the source of Mr. Trumbull’s error, since the words of Felt, referred to by Dr. Haven, are: “They” — that is, the House of Representatives, whose reply to a speech of the governor he is then considering — “speak of a pamphlet against their proceeding of last session, called ‘News from Robinson Cruso’s Island.’” While this does not connect Mr. Trumbull with this confusion of the two pamphlets, it at any rate shows that Dr. Haven mixed the two titles, and made a reference under New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island, which should have been under News from Robinson Cruso’s Island. The similarity of the titles explains the error, and it is quite likely that Mr. Trumbull was misled by it. It is a curious fact indeed that the entries New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island and News from the Moon in the Brinley Catalogue are close together upon the same page. Under the former there is a reference to what Hutchinson (II. 223) said concerning the proceedings alluded to by Felt, while under the latter the statement is made which has been quoted. It seems clear that Trumbull must have relied upon a secondary source for his authority.

    Now, as to Mr. Evans’s entry. There were proceedings instituted against Benjamin Gray for publishing the Letter to an eminent Clergyman, and the order of council of February 28, 1721, instructing the attorney-general to prosecute him for the publication of this pamphlet was published in the Boston Gazette, March 6, 1721. It is evident from the records of the superior court of judicature cited by Mr. Duniway, in his Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts, that the attorney-general followed his instructions and sought to procure an indictment against Gray for this publication. In his proceedings before the grand jury he coupled with this alleged ground of complaint the additional plea “for causing an advertisement to be printed in contempt of a vote of the Council.”10 This advertisement was apparently the one which appeared in the Boston Gazette, March 13, 1721, and which read as follows:

    Just Published, The Mount Hope Packet. And News from the Moon, both to be sold by Benjamin Gray, Bookseller, at his Shop Opposite to the Brick Church, where all Gentlemen, Trades-men and others may be supply’d by Wholesail or Retail at reasonable rates, with all the Letters, Postscripts, News, Dialogues and other Pamphlets, which come out from Time to Time.

    The return of the grand jury in which they found “no bill” is entered in the records of the court, May, 2, 1721, and is given by Mr. Duniway in this connection in his Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts, together with Gray’s apology to the council and his expression of “sorrow for what he had done amiss.”

    Attention has been called to the fact that on the pamphlet itself there was but one date, that purporting to be the date of De Foe’s original article, and no explanation has been offered for the action of the bibliographers in attributing the publication to the Boston press, or more specifically to J. Franklin, nor to the assignment of its publication to the years 1720 or 1721. This advertisement clearly justifies the attribution to the Boston press, and fixes the year of publication as 1721. The confusion between 1720 and 1721 is of course attributable to the use of Old Style or New Style, a confusion which requires constant watchfulness when dealing with events which occurred before March 25 in any year of this period. The specific attribution to the press of J. Franklin may have been the result of a careful examination of the font of type and the various ornaments used in the pamphlet.

    There is one more question to be considered, and that is, Was there an edition of this pamphlet published in 1772? I was informed that this 1772 edition could be found in the library of the American Antiquarian Society. Mr. Clarence S. Brigham, however, assures me that the supposed second edition is a 12mo of sixteen pages which was apparently written to satirize “the Knavery, Deceit, Prodigality, Envy, and Tattling of the day.” Its title was “News / from the / Moon / containing / a brief account of the manners and customs / of the Inhabitants / Very suitable to the Present times. / Boston / Printed and sold at the Printing Office near the Mill- / Bridge. 1772.” With this information the 1772 edition probably disappears, and we are compelled to rely upon what has gone before to determine which conclusion we shall adopt as to the credibility of the references of the bibliographers.

    It is plain that Mr. Evans’s conjecture had some foundation to stand upon, while it is clear that Mr. Trumbull, ordinarily so accurate, was misled in some way, probably by the error which crept into Dr. Haven’s list. The question, How could a reprint of an article by Defoe be of value in the polemics of that day? remains still a mystery. If we run our eyes back upon the pamphlets printed during this discussion and note the allusions to the “sulled sheet,” to the “Rabshikahs,” and to the “Don Dago, etc.,” we can see that subtlety was not the characteristic feature of this controversy. How then could it be possible that the general public could appreciate the application of Defoe’s satire to a new situation sufficiently to justify its republication? These questions we may not be able satisfactorily to solve, but the fact remains that the article was reprinted, and that it evidently was in some way made use of in the polemical discussions of the day.

    Mr. Albert Matthews stated that his interest in Defoe’s Review had been aroused by Mr. Davis; that he had sought in vain in the biographies of Defoe, in bibliographies and in catalogues, for information in regard to the Edinburgh edition of Volumes VI and VII of the Review; and described some of the differences between the Edinburgh and the London editions of those volumes.

    Mr. George L. Kittredge read the following paper:


    Mr. George Stirk, minister of the Church of England in Bermuda, is of interest to us because he was the father of George Stirk (otherwise called Starkey), who graduated at Harvard College in 1646, practised medicine in Boston from 1647 to 1650, and went to England in 1651, where he became distinguished as a physician and alchemist and died of the plague in 1665. Apart from this consideration, the career of the Bermuda minister exhibits many curious details of clerical life in a struggling American colony. An investigation of New England alchemy and alchemists has led me to study the career of the elder Stirk with some care, and I find that it has never been treated with either fulness or accuracy. This must serve as my excuse for setting forth the facts as I understand them. In so doing, however, I wish to acknowledge, in the amplest way, my obligations to the records printed in the standard work of Sir J. H. Lefroy, for without them I could have accomplished nothing whatever.11

    The Rev. George Stirk was born in Scotland. For this we have the direct testimony of Captain Roger Wood, who was Governor of the Bermudas for six years following December, 1629. In a letter written in 1633 or 1634 to Dr. William Ames, the famous Calvinist theologian,12 Wood says expressly that the two ministers then residing in the Bermudas, “Georg. Stirke” and “Patricke Coapland,” were “both Scotish men.”13 Mr. Stirk must have been born about 1595, for he was forty years old in 1635.14

    Mr. Stirk, as he informs us himself, was one of four ministers sent to the islands by the Bermuda Company along with Governor John Bernard.15 Governor Bernard arrived in November, 1622, with two ships and about a hundred and forty settlers.16 The other three ministers were Nathaniel Bernard (doubtless a kinsman of the new Governor’s), Joseph Wright, and Robert Staples.17 Mr. Wright died before the first of January, 1623.18 Mr. Nathaniel Bernard, Mr. Staples, and Mr. Stirk are on record as present at the General Assembly in May, 1623.19

    At about this time — pretty certainly in 1623 — laws were passed for the election of churchwardens and sidesmen, whose duties are carefully defined.20 Among other necessities for public worship, they were to provide “a Booke of com̄on prayer of the last edition.”21 This is only one of several indications that the appointment of Governor Bernard and the four ministers who accompanied him was meant to put an end to previous irregularities. In 1617, Mr. Lewes Hughes, then sole minister, had written to England as follows: “The ceremonies are in no request, nor the Book of Common Prayer, I use it not at all.” He had likewise, he says, “begun a Church Government by Minister and Elders.” He had also sent to England, in manuscript, “the manner of the public service of God that I do use here.”22 In the next year (1618) Hughes sent to England a complete liturgy for use in the Bermudas, of his own composition,23 and again, also in 1618, he wrote a letter explaining his reasons for abandoning the prayer-book.24 These innovations were allowed by Captain Daniel Tucker, the Governor, because (so Tucker writes) the minister was “of so peevish a disposition” that, if thwarted, he would leave the colonists without any religious services at all.25

    This curious state of things under Tucker’s administration explains the fact that his successor, Governor Nathaniel Butler, thought it necessary, in 1620, to take measures in the interest of uniformity. We have a full account of his proceedings in his own History of the Bermudas. “Neither of his two ministers,” Hughes and Lang, “would by any meanes subscribe nor vse the booke of common prayer, or liturgie of England.” Besides, they disagreed with each other “in the formes of administration of the sacrements and marriage.” “He at last bethought himselfe of the liturgie vsed in the Hands of Garnesey and Jarsye, the which being of his maiesties dominions, and by him tollorated, he conceiued would not be ill-taken if (for the time) he putt it in practice there.” He therefore proposed “the punctuall vse and practise of that forme in the vse of the sacraments and marriage which was vsed within His Maiesties dominions in Jarsye and Garnsye, beinge one and the uery same with that of the French Protestants, thoes of the vnited prouinces, and even Geneua itselfe.” This proposition was “gladsomely receiued by both the ministers, who instantly promised the Gouernour all conformitie in the acceptance and vnitie in the practice. Wherevpon he himselfe translateinge it verbatim into English, out of a French Bible which he brought oucr with him, he caused the elder minister26 to begin the vse therof at the administration of the Lords Supper, at St. Georges,27 vpon Easter Day next followeinge28 .… And this forme was generally obserued throughout the whole Hands (the Gouernour endureinge noe variation) in thes perticulers of the sacraments and marriage all the time of his gouerment ther.”29

    Two letters preserved among the Duke of Manchester’s papers illustrate this queer bit of ecclesiastical history. The first, from the Governor to Sir Nathaniel Rich, was written January 12, 1620, before he had brought about uniformity in this ingenious way. It tells us that the ministers did not agree well, but that Hughes was more reasonable than Lang, since Lang, being “more young” was “more wilful.”30 The second, from Hughes to Rich, March 16, 1620, remarks that the Governor has introduced a translation of the Genevan “forme of ministring the sacraments and of manages.”31

    Mr. Stirk, of course, had nothing to do with the ceremonial innovations which we have been considering. Yet it is proper to mention them, for the practice of Genevan forms during Butler’s administration, and the general nonconformity of Hughes and Lang, go far to explain their being superseded, on the appointment of Governor John Bernard, in 1622, by an entirely new corps of ministers, — Nathaniel Bernard, Joseph Wright, Robert Staples, and George Stirk.32 We can now understand why, in 1623, it was necessary to pass a law for the election of churchwardens and sidesmen and to prescribe, among other duties, that they shall “take care and p[ro]uide that the churches be … furnished wth … a Booke of com̄on prayer of the last edition.”33 The intention was to bring Bermuda once more into conformity with the Church of England. Mr. Stirk, then, though a high Calvinist,34 was under no suspicion of nonconformity. In fact, there is no reason whatever to believe that, throughout his life, he ever came into collision with the episcopal authorities at home.35

    In 1623, as we have seen, Mr. Stirk was a settled minister in the Bermudas. His parish was Southampton Tribe,36 in the western part of the main island,37 and he continued to hold this charge, with one or two brief interruptions, until his death.

    Under the tyrannical administration of Captain Henry Woodhouse (who was Governor from October, 1623,38 until the beginning of 1627)39 Mr. Stirk was banished from the Bermudas. His offence consisted in opposing the Governor with regard to an “oath for the division of tobacco.” The records of the affair are very defective, but I will give the course of events as I make it out. A few details are rather conjectural. In the main, however, I think my account will be found well enough supported by the evidence, even if some of this is indirect or circumstantial.

    The tobacco crop of the Bermudas was regularly “divided” between the colonists and the Company once a year. This division took place in the islands,40 usually in November or December.41 The tobacco was viewed by Overseers, appointed for the purpose, whose duty it was to determine, in each man’s case, how much belonged to him and how much to the adventurers. The powers of the Overseers are carefully defined in an Act of July 13, 1621,42 and in the Orders and Constitutions of the Company, February 6, 1622.43 There was of course some temptation for the tenants to conceal a part of the crop; but the procedure in the detection and punishment of such frauds was also carefully prescribed by law. The Grand Jury were “to enquire by all lawfull meanes of such defaults” and to present the offenders for trial in the ordinary way.44 Governor Woodhouse was not content with the prescribed process. He devised a form of oath, which each producer was to take, to the effect that he had brought before the Overseers all the tobacco that he had raised and made, “except what [he] and [his] frends and servants [had] drunke.”45

    By proclamation, as I conjecture, without the advice of his Council,46 Woodhouse instructed the Overseers to exact this oath47 at the annual division in December, 1624.48 Of course the colonists protested. They regarded the Governor’s act as illegal, since nothing of the kind was provided for in the Orders and Constitutions.49 The oath itself they stigmatized as “prodigious,”50 — that is, as abnormal, monstrous. The majority refused to take it, and those who consented were “dispized of the rest.”51 Many of the recusants were fined.52

    Among the opponents of the oath were two members of the Council, Stephen Painter and Mr. Stirk. Painter was a leading citizen (he appears as foreman of a jury as early as 161653) and was the Councillor for Southampton Tribe.54 He was an active, energetic, and determined man (as his conduct on later occasions shows),55 and he doubtless expressed his views with a good deal of freedom. Mr. Stirk, who was the minister of Painter’s parish, was of a mild and amiable temper,56 but he never lacked courage. He was (or was soon to become) Painter’s son-in-law.57 He, too, probably spoke out in criticism of the Governor’s course. Woodhouse called a meeting of the Council, about January, 1625, at which he presented for signature a document declaring the Governor’s action in propounding the oath to be warrantable by the law of England58 and the law of God.59 This acknowledgment he asked, or ordered, the Councillors to sign. Three of them refused, — Painter and Stirk and Mr. Nathaniel Bernard, one of Stirk’s two colleagues in the ministry. All three maintained that the oath was illegal, though Stirk and Bernard admitted that it was not derogatory to the law of God.60 The other Councillors signed the acknowledgment,61 including the third minister, Mr. Robert Staples.62

    Woodhouse then accused63 Painter and Stirk of seditious opposition and, to support his charge, brought evidence, or made allegation, of things that they had said outside the Council chamber.64 They doubtless admitted making some of these remarks. Thereupon the Governor called upon the members of the Council in turn to express an opinion as to the punishment to be inflicted on the two.65 All complied save Mr. Bernard, who refused to pass judgment.66 Woodhouse then sentenced Painter and Stirk to banishment.67 As for Bernard, he expelled him from the Council, fined him a thousand pounds of tobacco (almost two years’ salary68), and, in default of payment (or very likely as an additional penalty), put him in prison “during the Governor’s pleasure.”69

    These arbitrary proceedings probably fall in January, 1625. Mr. Stirk went to England70 and presented his case to the Company, to whom Woodhouse also reported. The Governor’s report was sent by the ship Thomas, of Bristol, on February 4, 1625, and beyond a doubt Mr. Stirk sailed on the same ship. The Company despatched a reply by the ship Lark, in September of the same year.71 They approve the imposition of the oath, and think that Mr. Stirk and Mr. Bernard would have done better not to oppose the Governor in exacting it but to rely upon an appeal to the Company “after wrong done.” But they express regret at Woodhouse’s harsh way of dealing with the ministers, remit Mr. Bernard’s fine, and hope that he has already been restored to the Council.72 As to Mr. Stirk, they request Woodhouse to send to England his unpaid salary for 1625, since “he is now here in greate want.”73 This request was in effect a disavowal of Woodhouse’s decree of banishment. It shows also that Mr. Stirk did not mean to return to the Bermudas at present. On the receipt of the Company’s letter, about December, 1625, Woodhouse released Bernard, and he took up his long-interrupted ministerial duties.74

    Before these instructions of September, 1625, reached him, Woodhouse had sent another letter to the Company,75 justifying his former proceedings, enclosing a list of those “who haue refused to take the oath for the division of Tobacco wth theire vndertakers,”76 and urging that their fines shall not be remitted.77 To this missive the Company replied on March 21, 1626.78 They “desire that all fynes for the oath that are past should be remitted, and that such as haue bene receaued should be restored back,”79 — a plain indication that they have come to disapprove of Woodhouse’s policy. Mr. Stirk is not mentioned, but two new ministers are sent over, Mr. Patrick Copeland80 and Mr. Bellingham Morgan, and the fact that Mr. Copeland was to be settled in Southampton Tribe, Mr. Stirk’s former parish, suggests that there was some doubt of his returning to Bermuda at all.81

    By the 20th of the following September, however, in this same year (1626), a new Governor had been appointed, Captain Philip Bell,82 and Mr. Stirk accompanied him to the islands in the ship Exchange.83 On Bell’s arrival there was a conflict of authority between him and Woodhouse,84 but the latter was soon brought to book. In the General Assembly, held in the following March (1627), the record of the banishment of Stirk and Painter was expunged, as well as that of Mr. Bernard’s sentence “for not censuring” them;85 Captain Thomas Stokes and Captain Robert Felgate, Woodhouse’s right-hand men, were sentenced to suspension from all their offices and to imprisonment,86 and Woodhouse himself was severely disciplined.87

    By drawing of lots before the session, Mr. Stirk recovered his old parish of Southampton Tribe, Warwick’s Tribe falling to Mr. Copeland.88 Mr. Stirk’s salary was raised from 533 lbs. of tobacco to 700 lbs. by act of the Assembly, with a proviso that if this did not amount to 100 marks (£ 66 ̄⅔) the difference should be made up.89 It was also voted that “all ministers who shall either be sent from hence or deteyned in prison vpon the gournors displeasure shall notwithstanding their vnwilling absence or constreyned silence loose noe pte of that stipend wch is due vnto them for their worke in the ministrie except it may appeare that they haue been Justlie p.ceeded against for some publique offence comitted by them, and they thereby vnworthy of that charge comended to them.”90 Mr. Stirk received his stipend for the whole term of his banishment.91

    In March, 1627, then, we find Mr. Stirk reinstated in his parish of Southampton Tribe. His parishioners were glad to have him back. The colonists, in replying, at this same time, to the Company’s letter of September, 1626, brought over by Governor Bell,92 render “many and humble thanks vnto [the Company] for refreshing and recomforting our drooping and deiected harts as well in sending vs this Gouernor, as in restoring our banished minister.”93

    In the next year, 1628, Mr. Stirk is on record as present at a Council Table held October 11.94 The business was a conflict of ecclesiastical and civil authority. The Assembly of March, 1627, had passed an act providing for the institution of vestries in the several parishes.95 Shortly after, the act had been suspended by the Governor and Council because, in Governor Bell’s words, the vestries had erred “by desyring and goeing about to advance them [i. e., themselves] aboue all authoritie or governmt.”96 In defiance of such suspension, Mr. Alexander Graham (or Graimes), a minister who had lately been sent to Bermuda by the Company, had called a vestry in Hamilton Tribe in September, 1628,97 and had informed his congregation in a sermon in the church at St. George’s that he “requyred and expected a Vestrie there also.”98 For these offences Mr. Graham was brought before the Council on October 11, and he signed an acknowledgment of his fault.99 At this Council both Mr. Stirk and Mr. Copeland appear to have supported the Governor’s authority. Yet there are indications in the record that Mr. Graham was not alone in disliking the prohibition of vestries.100

    Bell’s troubles with Mr. Graham were closely connected with the opposition which the Governor was experiencing from Stephen Painter. A long letter from Bell to Sir Nathaniel Rich of the Bermuda Company, written about the beginning of 1629, is preserved among the Duke of Manchester’s papers.101 Bell had received from the Company a reprimand of some kind102 which he warmly resented. He declares that he has always done his duty to the utmost of his power.

    My vnpartiall course of iustice hath pulled vpon me not only taxatione at home, but malitious oppositione & devisione here in the countrye likewise, & wth such men especially one wch is Mr Stirck as I tought the whole world could neuer haue drawne into such a waye. but the fault lyes cheifly in the head & ringleader of all the rest wch is Stephen Painter, who at my comeinge hither I thought (though somethinge violent & rude) an honest & religious minded man. but since vpon better experience I find him of such a Luciferiane pride, & such a headstrong pervers nature & dispositione yt wthout pleasinge or submittinge to him, no man cann liue in peace or quiettness where he is or hath to doe. neyther is it possible for any Gouerr to hold correspondencye wth him any longer then he will permit him to beare half the swaye at least in his Gouernement. the whole buisiness & caus of contentione between him & me is in the booke of records & at large related in one of my Generall letters,103 vnto wch for brevityes sake I must referre you & as in substance & effect no other then becaus I would not suffer the conclusiones of the Generall Assemblye & the Generall equitye of the whole lande to giue place & waye to his proude & licentious humore. yt Mr Stircke did side likewise wth him is not strange, for in sayeing yt he maryed his dawghter & is become his sonn in lawe there is reasone sufficient deliuered. but by this meanes & occatione Painters fiery & factious spiiitt is enkindled so yt he hath vnder hand wrought a faction & partye to himself against me, who doe intend all yt malice cann invent & more then truth cann warrant (as I heare) against me. soe no man must longer Gouerne then he pleases or is pleased, but there is an all seeinge God yt lookes vpon them, & wch lawghs all theirs & all other mens plotts & pollicyes to scorne wch are not honest & direct, for Mr Stircke himselfe he both is & hath since showne himself a learned & truly religious Genl & wer he free from his father in lawes pervers & froward nature & conversatione I am perswaded he would be as worthy & conformable in euery respect as a man of his coate owght to be. but yett this is not all for one of your last ministers Mr Graimes by name is proued of a dispositione & nature every whitt as bad if not worse then Painter himselfe & if it be possible more proude more violent & more turbulent then he is. so yt they are ioned & combined together in the most firme league & bonde of brotherhoode yt cann be possible, he at his first comeinge did speake very distastfully to my self both of Mr Stircke & him, sayeinge the one was proude & the other a Brownist meaneing Painter yett not longe after when he had but once spoken to them, there was such a sympathiseinge between Painter & him, yt he presently would needs take his caus in hande & mantaine both it & him against my self & the whole authoritye of the lande. wch he slighted refused to obey or submitt unto in any fitt measure, for the wch he was iustly though favorablye censured in respect of his coate (all wch buisiness is likewise vpon recorde & more largely related in my Generall letter formerly specifyed. all thes things were likewise done by the whole Counsell as well as my self & in such a discreet & moderate manner, as I when they shall come to be opened & considered by your self & such iudicious hearers & judges I doubt not but we shall all be iustifyed therein & yt they shall all be made to submitt & acknowledg their faults by & from you, though they haue refused heere before vs otherwise then vnwillingly or by constraint … And for the better iustificatione of thes & all other my actiones & proceedings heere, the whole counsell have vndertaken & written a letter from themselues vnto the Companye, wherein they have freely opened theirs & the Countryes greivancess, & as boldly mantained all my actions (wch are indeed their own actions) to be iust & honest in spight of all malitious informers & detractours. the copye whereof I now likewise send vnto your self.

    It is idle to conjecture, in the absence of records, what first brought Bell and Painter at variance.104 Painter was the leader of the popular party. He was a member of the Council in the first year of Bell’s administration (1627).105 But in the spring of 1628 (apparently) and of 1629 (certainly), when, if the regular order was followed, the Governor and Council chose two inhabitants of Southampton Tribe as Overseers,106 Painter was not selected as First Overseer, but was superseded by Richard Leycroft.107 Thus Painter lost his place in the Council, a position which he had held as early as 1623. That this change was due to Bell’s influence is clear enough, for, in the next year, 1630, under the administration of Captain Roger Wood, Leycroft disappears from the Council and Painter resumes his dignity.108

    Manifestly, then, Painter’s opposition had begun before the trouble with Mr. Graham about the vestries, — doubtless, indeed, before the arrival of Mr. Graham in the islands. It is probable, however, that the abolition of vestries (which took place before Mr. Graham’s coming) was in some way connected with Painter’s quarrel with Bell. The Governor’s reason for abolishing them was, as he expressed it, their “desyring and goeing about to advance them [i.e., themselves] aboue all authoritie or governmt109 Obviously he feared their democratic character. It is quite possible that Painter had utilized the vestry of Southampton Tribe in ways which, though proper enough from the point of view of local autonomy, were abhorrent to Bell’s notions of duly centralized power. This would explain also Mr. Stirk’s association with Painter in opposing Bell.

    At all events, when Graham insisted on holding a vestry and clashed with the Governor about it, Painter espoused Graham’s cause. So much is clear from a passage in Bell’s letter. Graham and Painter are, he says, “combined together in the most firme leauge & bonde of brotherhoode yt can be possible.” And he adds that “he [Painter] would needs take his [Graham’s] caus in hande & maintaine both it & him against my self & the whole authoritye of the lande. wch he [Graham] slighted refused to obey or submitt unto in any fitt measure.” Whereupon, he goes on to state, Graham was censured by the Council. The reference is manifestly to the Council meeting of October 11, 1628, already described. Mr. Stirk’s conduct at this meeting accounts for the Governor’s remark (in the letter) that Mr. Stirk “both is and hath since [that is, at this meeting, which took place after the time of Painter’s first opposition] showne himself a learned & truly religious Gent.”110 At the meeting in question Mr. Stirk had joined Mr. Copeland in requesting “that a forme of acknowledgemt might bee drawen to wch Mr. Graimes might subscribe.”111

    The general letter in Bell’s favor, which he says was signed by every member of the Council except Captain Thomas Chaddock, is likewise extant, in a contemporary copy, among the Duke of Manchester’s papers.112 It was delivered on the same day as Bell’s letter, April 28, 1629, and of course had crossed the sea in the same ship. Its main purpose is to exonerate the Governor with reference to the admission of a certain Barnstaple ship to trade in the Bermudas,113 and to ask for his continuance in office for a second term.

    This recommendation was of course quite contrary to the wishes of Painter and Mr. Graham, who, according to Bell, were endeavoring to secure the governorship for Captain Thomas Chaddock.114 I must make another extract from Bell’s unpublished letter to Rich, — the same from which I have already quoted at some length.

    I must ad one thinge more concerninge the Counsells Generall letter wh is yt it is subscribed by the whole Counsell except Cap̄: Chadocke. who notwthstandinge his owne promise & ingagement for subscriptione was as free & large as any mans at the first propositione & resolutione of them all; yett at the upshott he only made refusall the reason is becaus he hopes & expects to be forthwth mad Gouerr in my roome & to yt purpose he hath vnder hand joined himself in confederacye wth Painter & Mr Graimes who haue likewise promised & undertaken to write so farre in his behalf as yt he shall not possibly faile of it. besides he is full of subtility, & wise in his owne conceipt, & do [so?] doth no doubt perswade himself yt the forbearance of this subscriptione will aboue all other things most insinuate wth the Company & conduce to his ends, but to be free & plaine vnto your self in the expressings of my opinion & knowledg concerninge him, he is the most craftye hollowe hearted man I euer mett wthall.

    It will be noted that Bell does not accuse Mr. Stirk of being concerned with Painter and Graham in Chaddock’s schemes.

    In a second unpublished letter, written as a supplement to the former and doubtless sent with it,115 Bell speaks very favorably of an other minister, Mr. Ward, “the last minister was116 sent.” “He hath proued a very honest man a firme frend vnto me in no small time of need, for at his arrivall through the secrett & cunninge trecherye and undermineing of Chadocke, & the knavish workeinge of Painter many of the Counsell were faltringe & groweinge luke warme towards me. wch since by his meanes & good example are reduced to honestye & their former good estate again.”117

    Before the ship sailed with Bell’s letters and that of the Council, strange rumors were rife about the way in which the signatures of the Councillors had been secured, and these involved Mr. Ward. The document which sets forth the facts is too amusing to be abridged. It is a deposition by Mr. Ward himself, and runs as follows:

    Mr Greames tould mee that it was a generall report in everie man’s mouth that I Nathaniell Ward got the counsellors by a wyle into my chamber, and took out my bottles and caused them to drinke while [i.e., until] they were merrie and then persuaded them to subscribe to a letter framed to the Compa which otherwise they would not haue done And that hee the said Mr Graems, had written it in two letters to be sent for England, but vpon a former letter sent to him from mee he had blotted it out of one of his letters and would doe the like in the other. Also hee tould me that Mr Painter had written it as hee had done but hee had sent to Mr Painter to put it out.

    Nathaniell Ward Presbiter118

    The effect of Mr. Ward’s deposition, and of other testimony of a similar nature, was immediate. The Council unanimously decided that “Mr Grames” should “bee sent to the court [i.e., the Company’s court] of England by the first shipp … As a man vnworthie to exercise the ministerie in the Sumer Islands.” Mr. Ward was the only clerical Councillor present when this vote was taken.119 Bell indited a long postscript to his second letter,120 and both letters, along with the Council’s missive in Bell’s favor, were posted to England by the ship that carried Mr. Graham.121

    Mr. Graham’s character and fortunes would be no concern of ours, were it not for his association with Painter and for Painter’s relations with Mr. Stirk. Our belief that Bell’s abolition of vestries was unpopular, and that Painter and Mr. Stirk were both in favor of them, is confirmed — if confirmation be needed — by the fact that these bodies were reestablished soon after the end of Bell’s administration. The vestry of Southampton Tribe (Mr. Stirk’s parish, to which Painter belonged) is mentioned in a Council record of February 17, 1631.122

    We need not try to adjudicate the differences between Bell and Painter. Much more evidence than we possess would be needed for any balancing of rights and wrongs. Painter was an active and energetic man and probably rather obstinate. His experiences under Woodhouse’s government123 and his later history prove that he lacked neither courage nor determination. When, in 1644, Mr. Nathaniel White renounced his episcopal orders and organized an independent church, Painter was one of his allies. In 1647, both White and Painter were indicted for high treason in connection with this matter, and they went to England in 1648 to present their case to the Company. They were promptly acquitted, and, in the latter year, they returned to the islands in triumph.124 Painter’s further career is interesting, but does not here concern us. Everything considered, we need not wonder that Bell found him troublesome in 1629. No one, however, who is at all acquainted with the strong language which men of the seventeenth century used in describing their opponents, will feel compelled to take the Governor’s phrase “Luciferian pride and a headstrong perverse nature” without a grain or two of salt. Whether Mr. Stirk was right or wrong in making common cause with Painter against Bell may remain undecided,125 though we have seen that under a previous administration their joint opposition to Woodhouse was fully justified. One thing is certain: Bell’s testimony that Mr. Stirk was “a learned and truly religious gentleman” is trebly valuable on account of the hostile context in which it stands.

    Furthermore, Bell’s first letter affords us a welcome piece of genealogical information. It tells us the surname of Mr. Stirk’s wife, the mother of George Stirk of the Harvard Class of 1646. She was the daughter of Stephen Painter. The younger George Stirk was a born fighter and had no small share of self-assertion. His father, the minister, was “meek”126 — a word which had no disagreeable connotation in those days. Perhaps the younger Stirk inherited some of his grandfather Painter’s contentious disposition, — some portion of the quality which Bell’s exasperated hyperbole characterizes as “Luciferian pride.”

    The succession of Captain Roger Wood as Governor at the end of 1629127 and the restoration of Painter to the Council in 1630128 mark the end of Mr. Stirk’s opposition, whatever that may have consisted in. But he still had difficulty about his stipend. On November 2, 1630, he presented to the Council his account for the past four years (1627–1630), showing that there was about £150 due him. The Council “acknowledged sincerely” that the claim was just and petitioned the Company to raise the money by adding a halfpenny in the pound to the impost on the crop of tobacco “now shipped into England.”129 At the same meeting, the Council raised the salary of the ministers from 700 to 1000 pounds of tobacco, on account of the low price of that staple commodity.130

    We shall hear of the salary question again. Meantime, in 1631, we find in the records a curious and picturesque item of information, which affords us a fleeting glimpse of Mr. Stirk’s wife and her mother.

    Men and women did not sit together in the Bermuda churches. It was the duty of the churchwardens and sidesmen to “place the p[ar]ishioners in convenient seates accordinge to the degree of the p[er]son”131 This was a delicate matter. On June 18, 1627, Governor Bell, then just established in office, found it advisable to issue a proclamation deprecating the “general heart burning and contention” that existed “betwixt certain inhabitants of several Tribes … by reason of discontents for there seating in there churches, and other such like pettie controversies.”132 His exhortations did not avail. The women of Southampton Tribe continued to jangle. Stephen Painter, Mr. Stirk’s father-in-law, could not pacify them, and Mr. Stirk himself was also unequal to the task. Therefore, on February 17, 1631, Painter applied to the Governor (Roger Wood) and Council “to be assistant vnto him for settinge of peace amongst the woemen” in this regard. Accordingly, a new plan of seating was drawn up, with the proviso that it should be submitted to the minister and vestry, who, if they found “any difficulty therein,” were to report to the Council. Under this new arrangement, “the upper seat” was reserved for marriages, christenings, and churchings, and to the other seats — designated as first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth — the women of the congregation were assigned in a fixed order. Mrs. Painter, the Councillor’s wife, had the first place “in the first seate,” and the second place fell to her daughter, “Mrs Stirke.”133 The next four places were occupied by Mrs. Elfrith, Mrs. Bell, Mrs. Leycroft, and Mrs. Woodhouse. This list suggests that there was cause for heartburnings in the parish. Mrs. Elfrith was the wife of Captain Daniel Elfrith, who had been a close friend of Governor Bell’s; Mrs. Bell was Elfrith’s daughter and the ex-Governor’s wife; Mrs. Leycroft was the wife of the man who had formerly superseded Painter in the Council — and who was Mrs. Woodhouse? If she was not the wife of the Governor who had once banished Mr. Stirk and Painter from the Bermudas, she must have belonged to the same family.134 One would like to know how these six ladies got along together in the first seat on the women’s side in the Southampton Church.

    Not long after the settlement of the seating controversy, Mr. Stirk sailed for England. This was in 1632, and probably in February. In a letter, manifestly addressed at that time to the Bermuda Company or to some leading member of it, Governor Wood writes as follows:

    Or ministers seeing our comoditie decay in value, they declyne in affection and leaue vs two of them now togeather, and the third hath written to the noble gouernor [i.e., the Governor of the Company in London] to speake with the compa about his salary of 100 marks pr annum, if wch bee not payd hee will fly to the king and counsell, and my honnored friend take this from mee that I haue observed from my youth and since I was a souldier that I neuer knew a Skotsman to this day to loose the least pretence hee had to a Title of or thing due vnto him, and I am of opinion that you shall finde Mr Stirke meeke as he hath beene reputed, more vyolent in his courses than Mr Ward who is professedly oppositious.135

    The two ministers whom Wood mentions as leaving the islands (doubtless on the same ship which carried the letter) were, beyond question, Mr. Stirk and Mr. Nathaniel Ward,136 and the third, who was forwarding a petition about his hundred marks, was, we may be equally certain, Mr. Patrick Copeland.137 Obviously the Governor expected Mr. Stirk and Mr. Ward to push their claims for arrears, and he feared that the “meek” Mr. Stirk would be quite as troublesome as his “professedly oppositious” colleague, —for Mr.’Stirk was a Scotsman.138

    Governor Wood was a good man and a person of considerable ability and much sturdy common sense. On the present occasion, however, he certainly wrote in an ill humor. The colony was in a bad way, and he felt as if he were being abandoned. Still, he was habitually just and moderate, and, after his irritation passed, he spoke of Mr. Stirk in quite a different strain, as we shall see in a moment. His testimony, even in this letter, that Mr. Stirk was reputed to be “meek” is valuable. In still another letter (January 12, 1633), Wood says, speaking of the ministers, that “these men will loose nothing that may bee gotten,” but adds, with significant frankness, “nor ought they to doe it beeing their due.”139 And in general it is quite clear that, in all the troubles over this salary question, Mr. Stirk and his friend Mr. Copeland were simply trying to get what belonged to them.

    Mr. Stirk himself tells us what his purpose was in visiting England in 1632. We have two documents from his hand relating to this journey, — one is a letter to Sir Nathaniel Rich, dated, “ffrom Soffier Islandes the 27th of January 1633” (i. e., 1633–34); the other a petition to Lord Say and other members of the Company, undated, but written at the same time as the letter. These tell their own pathetic story. I subjoin them, since they have never been printed.


    Right worpfull Sr

    I haue laboured heere in the worke of the Gospell twelue yeares, & for these sixe yeares haue come short of my wages. Two yeares agoe I was in England, whether I came for my healths sake, to goe to the Bath, as Physicyans aduised mee. But by the opposition of the Court, who were sett against me by Mr Caswell,141 they denyed my debt, & soe delayed me, that I was forced to returne wthout any help, hither, where I haue continued in great weaknesse, not able to trauell. The Gouernor heere will bee no debtor, nor the people, soe that I am in a straight betweene three. Now I am in great need of helpe for my disease, wch I dare not come to seeke for, without Money. Wherefore I haue appealed to yorworp, and the two noble Lordes, who lately entred vnto the Court, & Mr Barber, hopeing that by yor Mediation, something may be obtained. Whatsoeuer you shall doe, I will stand to it, because I am perswaded that you will doe nothing but that wch is both iust before God, & honourable for the Court. In hope of wch I rest, com̄ending you to God

    ffrom Som̄er Islandes the 27th of January 1633

    Yor worps to serue you

    George Stirk


    To the right worpfull Sr Nathaniell Rich these deliuer


    Mr Stirke May. 1634


    To the right honoble The Lord Saye, & The Lord Brookes The right worpfuff Sr Nathaiell Rich, And worpfull Mr Gabriell Barber.

    The humble petition of George Stirke Minister in the Som̄er Islandes.

    Humbly sheweth. That twelue yeares I haue laboured in the worke of the Gospell in these Islandes, & for diuers yeares, haue come short of my wages, & wch is worse, none will be my debtors. Two yeares agoe when I came to England to goe to the Bath, & hoped that the Company would allow me a part of Two hundreth poundes, then due to me, to beare my charges thither, & backe againe to these Islandes. They disclaymed the debt, & delayed me soe long, that the season was past, & at last (when I obtained some money) they bound me to returne wth the first Ship, soe that I lost my health, & returned worse then I came. When I was come hither, I deliuered my account to the Gouernor, & his Counsell, who receiued it, & caused it to be recorded in the Register. But they will not be debtors. And the people neuer payed me any thing, soe that they may say, they are not debtors. Thus betweene three, I am a loser. There is a debt due to me, wch none denyes, but I can find no debtor. If I were able to beare it, I would be silent, & hold my peace. But my weaknesse is such, as I haue great need of releefe, & if I could, would gladly returne to England, to try whether by the blessing of God I may recouer my strength, ffor now I am not able to trauell one myle, except I be borne vp by the ames. But I am afraid to come, least I be forced (as I was before) to returne wthout helpe, for want of meanes. Wherefore I humbly sue to yor honors, & worps to be Mediators for me to the honoble Court, that they would pay the remainder of my account, wch I haue sent to you. If either Iustice, or Mercy will prevaile wth them, I sue for this debt in both respects. It is a worke of Mercy to releeue the distressed, & not to suffer a poore Minister to perish (as I am likely) for want of helpe. It is a worke of Iustice to pay, that wch yor Court is bound to pay. The booke of Orders sayeth. Article 154. That the Ministers shall haue soe much yearly, as the Company, & they shall agree vpon. And in the Court twelue yeares agoe, they agreed vpon 100 markes, & wth this condition sent ffower Ministers wth Capt Bernard of wch I was one. And to fullfill this condition the Gouernor hath taken all the Glebelandes, & servantes vnto his handes, soe that these twelue yeares, I neuer had a foote of Land, but sixe acres about my house, & that wthin these fiue yeares. As for the people I neuer was suffered to receiue any thing from them, but the Gouernor receiued all, & payed all. Wherefore I demand my wages of the Company, according to their Law, agreemt, & promise. Moreouer, The Company, & Country are, & haue beene allwaies esteemed as one body. And heere also they pay ioyntlie in their Leauies to the Ministers. And therefore when our wages fall short, they cannot be seuered, but the debt falleth equally vpon both. They euer payed the Gouernors & Ministers, when the couenants made wth them, were not otherwise fulfilled, as Capt Butler, Capt Woodhouse, Mr Lewis,144 Mr Ward, And why should I be exempted? The imposition on the tobacco, wch the Country pay aswell, or rather more then they, will defray all charges of the Ministers, if it be well husbanded. And why should officers theere be payed? And Officers heere (who are as needfull, & of whom they ought to haue as great a care) be neglected. Yor honors, & worps doe see my demandes, to obtaine wch I humbly craue yor fauourable assistance. But if the Company will not yeild to this, I doe intreate that I may haue a warrant from the Courte, to recouer my right heere, either from the Gouernor, & Counsell, or from the people, for without some power from thence I shall neuer speed heere. Or if the Company will come to composition wth me, & giue me something in Lieu of the whole, I am contented, & doe freely submitt my selfe to yor honors, & worps soe as whatsoeuer you shall agree vpon, I will be contented wth it, & shall euer rest thankfull

    Yor humble petitioner

    George Stirk.


    To Sr Nathaneel Rich.

    Mr Stirke …146 Barmudas

    May. 1634


    Mr Stirke from Barmuda

    May. 1634

    From these documents we learn not only that Mr. Stirk went to England in search of health in 1632, but that he was so thwarted in his attempts to collect his overdue salary that he was unable to visit Bath, as he had intended. He seems to have returned to the Bermudas in the same year. In January, 1633, Governor Wood writes that “the Compa very honnourably supply our ministers stipend in Tobaco with money to a good value, as of late they haue done to Mr Stirke Mr Coapland and Mr Ward.”147 In the same year (or possibly in 1634) we find the-salary settled at £40. Here again our authority is Governor Wood. In a letter of 1633 or 1634, intended for the famous divine and theologian William Ames, whom Wood hoped to divert from Massachusetts to Bermuda,148 the Governor writes:149 “We haue but 2 ministers, both Scotish men Th’ one is called Georg. Stirke who is very learned but I fear not long lyved, hee hath all your works that are extant, and admires yor Coronis,150 and greatly applauds all the rest. Th’ other Mr Patricke Coapland who hath travelled long, twice to the East Indies, and now settled himselfe here, having purchased 5 shares of land on which hee hath builded and disbursed £1000 sterling.… Their meanes is now settled at £40 sterling p. annum.”151

    This passage is agreeable reading, after the Governor’s previous outburst. Still more agreeable is his tribute to Mr. Stirk in another letter, written probably in 1634: “I sincerely acknowledge Mr Stirke is the most contented man wth his stipend of £40 pr annum that may be.”152

    Governor Wood’s remark that the Company makes up to the ministers the deficiency in their stipends occasioned by the low price of tobacco seems to have been based rather upon promises and part payments than upon full performance. For on January 27, 1634, as we have seen, Mr. Stirk was obliged to petition for his arrears of salary. He was then in the islands, and so weak (perhaps from rheumatism) that he could not walk any distance without the support of two men. He feared for his life unless he could visit Bath and take the waters. His petition and letter reached Sir Nathaniel Rich in May, 1634.

    Meantime, shortly after his return to the islands, Mr. Stirk had been concerned in a curious and highly interesting affair, about which the “iniquity of oblivion” has spared us but scanty details. Under date of June 1, 1634, Winthrop’s Journal has the following entry:

    The Thunder, which went to Bermuda the 17th October, now returned, bringing corn and goats from Virginia, (for the weavils had taken the corn at Bermuda before they came there). Ensign Jenyson went in her for pilot, and related, at his return, that there was a very great change in Bermuda since he dwelt there, divers lewd persons being become good Christians. They have three ministers, (one a Scotchman) who take great pains among them, and had lately (by prayer and fasting) dispossessed one possessed with a devil. They obtained his recovery while the congregation were assembled.153

    The visit of the Thunder is mentioned by Governor Roger Wood in two of his letters,154 both clearly dating from the same time, — the end of 1633 or the early part of 1634. But only in Winthrop is there any record of the excellent instance of psychotherapy which our ancestors — differing from their self-sufficient descendants of the present day in terminology alone — called “dispossession of one possessed with a devil.” Collation of dates establishes the fact that Mr. Stirk bore his part in this remarkable cure, which must have occurred late in 1633 or early in 1634.

    Mr. Stirk’s dignified and touching appeal of January, 1634, seems to have stirred the Company to action. At all events, he found means to go to England once more, probably in that year.155 We have no record of his sailing, but we know that he returned to the islands again in 1635, for the name “Minister Geo: Turk 40” (i.e., aged 40) is recorded on September 30, 1035, among the passengers “aboard the Dorst John Flower Mr bound for ye Bormodos.”156 On the strength of this entry, General Lefroy enters “Turk, Rev. George” in his list of Bermuda ministers, with the remark: “This minister was a passenger for the Somers Islands, by the Dorset, Sept. 30, 1635 (see Hotten’s Lists), beyond which nothing is known of him.”157 But we need not have a moment’s hesitation in reading “George Stirk” instead of the “Geo: Turk” of the Dorset’s passenger list. We have merely an example of a well-known kind of error by the ear.

    In the course of this his last visit to England, Mr. Stirk must have arranged for the publication of his little volume of Latin verse, — the Musæ Somerenses, — which appeared in London in 1635.158 Very probably it was printed while he was in the mother country, for the license is dated July 30, 1635, and, as we have seen, the Dorset did not sail before the last day of September.

    Mr. Stirk cannot have reached his home in Bermuda before December, 1635. The hardships of the voyage doubtless broke down still further his already delicate health. He died in 1637,159 leaving a widow and at least two young children, — a son, George, and a daughter whose name we do not know. In a letter of August 11, in that year, the Bermuda Company signified the grant to his widow of the use of five acres of land for life for the education of her children.160

    After the elder Mr. Stirk’s death, in 1637, his widow very likely took her two children to her father’s house. On December, 1639, Mr. Patrick Copeland wrote to Governor Winthrop as follows:

    I have sent you a small poesie of one of our preachers, whom the Lord hath taken to himselfe: hee hath left behinde him a hopefull sonne of his owne name, who is reasonable well entred in the Latine tongue. If there be any good schole and schole maister with you, I could wish with all my heart that hee might have his education rather with you, then in old England, where our company there have … promised after a yeere or two to take charge of his education with them. Hee is a fatherlesse childe and of good expectation, if God sanctifie his spirit.161

    The boy here mentioned, the younger George Stirk, went to New England, and he was graduated at Harvard College in 1646. In 1647 he was practising medicine, doubtless in Boston, where we know he was settled in that profession in 1648 and 1650.

    The fortunes of George Stirk the younger, whose career was very remarkable, must form the subject of a separate paper. Of the daughter we have only a single record, but for which we should not know of her existence. In a MS volume of Henry Dunster’s is a copy of a letter from Mr. Nathaniel White’s Independent Church at Eleuthera to the brethren in Boston. At the end of the copy is a note, in the hand of Increase Mather, to the effect that the messengers who brought the letter, as well as the ship’s crew, “came all in health to Boston ye 6t of 6mo or August. & wth ym Mr Painter Mr Whites son Nat. wh: Mr Stirks sister &c. 1650.”162 The presence of Stephen Painter and his granddaughter, the younger Mr. Stirk’s sister, on board this ship from Eleuthera is fully explained by a consideration of what had been happening in the Bermudas.

    There had been troublous times in the islands. In 1644 Mr. Nathaniel White formed his independent church there, which both Mr. Copeland and Stephen Painter joined. In 1647 both White and Painter were indicted for high treason. In 1648 they were allowed to go to England to defend themselves before the Company. We find them there on June 27 and September 5 of that year. On the 6th of December, 1648, they were back in the Bermudas, with a full acquittal.163 But in the next year (1649) there was a Royalist uprising, John Trimingham was declared Governor, and the members of the Independent Church had to conform or leave the colony. Mr. White and a considerable number of his flock preferred banishment to conformity, and went with Captain Sayle to his new settlement in Eleuthera in the autumn of 1649.164 Painter and his granddaughter were manifestly among them — and very likely also Mrs. Painter and Mrs. Stirk, who — if they were still living — can hardly have been left behind. When, in the next summer (1650), a ship set sail from Eleuthera for Boston, Painter and his granddaughter took passage, arriving, as we have seen, on August 6.165 Since we hear nothing of either Mrs. Painter or Mrs. Stirk, it is possible that they had succumbed to the hardships of the winter; but, as the Dunster MS does not profess to give anything like a complete list of the passengers, it is not impossible that they too were on board.166 At all events, George Stirk, the young Boston physician, had the pleasure of a visit from his sister and his maternal grandfather.

    Meantime, in May, 1650, a ship from London had brought a Governor’s commission to Captain Forster and an order of the Company reappointing Painter to the Council. This body disliked the order in favor of Painter, “but he beinge not in these Islands that obstacle was remoued.”167 On October 3, 1650, the Long Parliament prohibited trade with the Bermudas, as being in rebellion against the Commonwealth and government of England.168 On the first day of January, 1652, the Governor and Council wrote to the Company, complaining that they had not received instructions for a long time. They had seen the printed Act of Parliament, and protested earnestly against being called rebels and traitors.169 On February 25, 1652, however, there is a record which acknowledges the receipt of a General Letter from the Company and submits to the “Comon wealth of England as yt is now established.” In this record “Mr Stephen Painter” reappears in the list of Councillors present and acting.170

    We left Painter in Boston in August, 1650, when he and his granddaughter (Miss Stirk) bad just arrived from Eleuthera. In 1651, his grandson, George Stirk, went to England,171 where he remained for the rest of his life, becoming a well-known physician in London. In this same year (1651) we find Painter in England, presenting, with several others, a petition which recites that they have been “inforced from their relations … in the Sommer Islands” and are “in a state of penury,” and praying “that their peace may be made and themselves transported thither before they perish of want.”172 We cannot doubt, therefore, that all three — Painter and George Stirk the younger and Miss Stirk — went from Boston to England together, and that Painter’s triumphant return to the Bermudas was by the same ship which brought the instructions mentioned in the Council record of February 25, 1652, — the instructions which led that body to submit to the Commonwealth. What became of Miss Stirk we do not know. She may have stayed in England with her brother, who, as we have good reason to believe, was a family man; but it is equally possible that she went back to the islands with her grandfather.

    From Painter’s return in 1652 until his death he continued to be an important man in the islands. He was continuously a member of the Council,173 and on September 13, 1658, the Company made him Councillor for life.174 In his Councillor’s capacity he had a share in the witchcraft prosecutions of 1653 and 1655.175 In 1655 he became Captain of Paget’s Fort,176 and soon after Sheriff, an office of high dignity in the islands. In June, 1658, however, he was too “infirm of body” to perform the sheriff’s duties177 and his successor was appointed in the same year.178 His will was proved in May, 1661.179 In Richard Norwood’s Survey of the islands, made in 1662 and 1663, “Mr Stephen Painter of Southampton tribe his heires or assignes” are recorded as owning a “Mansion house and two shares of land,” estimated at 49 acres, “Abutting at ye west end vppon ye westerne sea, and at ye east end vppon ye Great sound. Lying betweene ye lands of Capt Thomas Richards to ye southwards & Mrs Jane Leacroft to ye northwards.”180 John Painter, who with fifty-three others signed a petition to the King in 1679, praying that the affairs of the Bermudas be taken out of the Company’s hands, and that a royal governor be appointed,181 was, I suppose, Stephen Painter’s son.

    We have followed the career of the Rev. George Stirk from 1622 to his death in 1637 with some particularity, not because of its importance in itself, but for the light which it throws upon the times and their manners. Yet he is a figure not without interest for his own sake, — a meek, but firm and courageous minister of the Church of England, learned and truly religious, fallen upon troublous times in a rough and struggling colony. Of his learning and culture we have but a single piece of ocular evidence, — the “small poesie” which his friend and colleague, Mr. Patrick Copeland, sent to Governor Winthrop in 1639.

    The “small poesie” was a little volume of Latin elegiacs, published in London in 1635, and entitled Musse Somerenses.182 It is excessively rare, but there is a copy in the Library of Yale University,183doubtless the very copy which Mr. Patrick Copeland presented to Governor Winthrop in 1639.184 The poem itself, which occupies twelve out of the twenty pages of the volume,185 was written in the islands in “spare hours.”186 It is headed “Historian Sacrse.” Mr. Stirk, after a brief invocation, sets forth succinctly some of the fundamental doctrines of orthodox Christianity, — monotheism, the Trinity, the nature of the Holy Ghost, the equality of the Father and the Son, and the creation of the world by all Three Persons. He then begins his Old Testament history, which he brings down to the Confusion of Tongues and the consequent dispersal of mankind throughout the earth. The work was intended for use in a school which the Bermuda Company had decided to establish.187 It was the author’s purpose, if his efforts were favorably received, to treat the whole course of biblical narrative in the same way, in order that the young might learn sacred history along with the elements of Latin. One thinks involuntarily of the days of Julian the Apostate, when the two Apollinarii, to elude the tyrant’s edict, composed their Sacred History (in imitation of Homer) and their Christian Pindar, Euripides, and Menander.

    Mr. Stirk’s Latin verses are fluent enough, and he shows some skill in condensing his material. Valueless as the work may seem to a modern reader, it at least proves that the author’s reputation for scholarship and piety was not undeserved. The following passages will afford some idea of the style. The first is the exordium, the second gives an account of the Fall of the Angels, and the third (which concludes the poem) describes the Confusion of Tongues.

    Sacra salutiferi resero mysteria verbi,

    Et rectam ad cœli limina, monstro viam.


    Te cano, summe Pater, teq; ô dulcissime Fili,

    Teq; simul numeris, Spiritus alme, piis.


    Vos (precor) audacem salebras per, & invia musam

    Ducite, quà, rarum semita pandit iter.


    . . . . . . . . . .

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Hie etiam Angelicis dederat primordia turmis,

    Quorum ingens numerus, gloria magna fuit.

    Angeli creantur.

    In quibus unus erat, nulli splendore secundus,

    Nullo, fœlici conditione minor:

    Lapsus Angclorum, qui nunc diaboli.

    Quem dedit è summo ventosa superbia cœlo

    Precipitem, tristes ad Phlegetontis aquas.


    Millia multa trahens secum delapsus ab alto est,

    Crimine qui similes supplicioq; pates.


    Circumeunt totum multis legionibus orbem,

    Ut quoscunq; queunt, in sua fata trahant.


    At Pater omnipotens vinclis & carcere fre̜nat

    Dæmonas, & servos servat ubiq; suos.


    Cætera spirituum mansit sine crimine turba,

    Atq; immota ipsis gloria prima manet.

    Angelorum qui perstiterunt, gloria.

    Ante thronum stantes, sacro modulamine semper,

    Tres una sanctos in Deitate canunt.


    Illius à. nutu pendent, & jussa capessunt,

    Circa credentes & sua castra locant.


    . . . . . . . . . .

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Insanum mundus conspirat tollere molem,

    Ut suus æterno tempore duret honos.

    Turrim Babel condere moliuntur.

    Ac si fata sinant, rerum que̜ fre̜na gubernet,

    Olim totius que̜ caput orbis erit.


    At Pater omnipotens he̜c impia facta perosus,

    Incœptum ambigua voce diremit opus.

    Lingua eonfunduntur.

    Vnus erat sermo cunctis, vox una per orbem,

    Ac nulli alterius vox peregrina fuit.


    At nunc insanis dum condunt molibus arcem,

    Omnes consuetos dedidicere sonos.


    Proque suis alios, cunctis mirantibus edunt,

    Notaque que̜ nuper, barbara verba vocant.

    Ab opere incapti188 desistunt.

    Cessat ab officio structor, pro robere saxum

    Porrigit, ac calcem, dum petit alter aquam.


    Pro serra, funem, pro resti aut fune securim,

    Pro clavo terebram, proque ligone rotam.


    Omnia condendi contraria legibus ibant,

    Nee dominus servum, nee capit alter herum.


    Quid faciant? turrim fato cogente relinquunt,

    Et quo quemque vocat fors animusque, migrant.

    In varias regiones abeunt.

    Et quibus una fuit tune cognita lingua, coibant,

    Et statuunt uno jura tenenda loco.


    Hinc fit ut externis sileat regionibus ille,

    Cui fuit in patria Lingua diserta sua.

    Variasque gentes. & regna constituunt.

    Prima hinc regnorum, & populorum venit origo,

    In gentes terram dissona Lingua secat.


    Hinc odia & bellum, dum quos confinia jungunt,

    Hostes inter se vox peregrina facit.189


    Mr. Kittredge also made the following communication:


    Captain Roger Wood, a sturdy and sensible old soldier190 of Puritanic tendencies in religion,191 was Governor of the Bermudas for two terms of three years each.192 His administration began in December, 1629.193 For his second term the records are almost wholly lacking, but a tattered Letter-book of his is preserved, from which Major-General Lefroy has published a number of draughts of missives which Wood sent to England from 1632 to 1634.194 One of these letters deserves more study than it has yet received, for, when rightly interpreted, it affords us a curious fact, hitherto unregistered, about a man who was once very eminent in theological circles and whose name is still celebrated in the annals of moral philosophy.

    I give the letter exactly as it is printed by Lefroy, who does not reproduce quite the whole of it.

    … As there is a supposition that you intend to come for New England, and Mr Peeters, as many reverent Divines are gone from England before you, as I heare by the reporte of some men that are come now vnto vs in a shippe from thence, to commerce with vs for victualls and provisions from vs Then let me desire you to leaue that resolution and come to the Burmoodaes where you are most entirely beloved and reverenced, and where although wee are poore by reason of the lowe esteeme of our Tobaco which is the chiefest comoditie wee haue to subsist withall, yet here is plenty of poultrie and fish and delicate fruits as the world yields We haue but 2 ministers, both Scotish men Th’ one is called Georg. Stirke who is very learned but I fear not long lyved, hee hath all your works that are extant, and admires yor …,195 and greatly applauds all the rest Th’ other Mr Patricke Coapland196 who hath travelled long, twice to the East Indies, and now settled himselfe here, having purchased 5 shares of land on which he hath builded and disbursed £1000 sterling, and wee expect 2 more this next yeare.197 Theire means is now settled at £40 sterling p. annum, wch is as good as 100 markes in England for their disbursements are here very little, and for my p.ticular if there come a single man ever, I will thinke myselfe happie to enjoy his company, if hee will accept my house and his dyett with me without any disbursement Althoughe there is 2 parsonage houses readie built and very conveniently seated to entertayne such as shall come ouer to possesse them; Wee are alsoe farre more secure from the Hiararchicall Jurisdiction then New England is, for noe great prelate will leave his Pontificall pallace to take his journey to liue vpon a barren rock. And all our Islands are not worth a Bishopricke and there are many men of great wealth and estates and almost whole congregations gone wth their Pastors, where they build townes and call them according to those from whence they come as Boston Yarmoth198 &c Ours is a most holsome air, that suiteth every199 creature in these Islands Theires is a cold clymate full of severitie … thinke that when they haue well settled themselves they must be brought under the Archbishop of Canterburie and haue a suffragan sent to reduce them into the fould of their old shepheards for the king will not be quit of his subjects wheresouer they hue vnder his lawes and obedience. All this discourse I relate to divert you from any thoughts to seek liberty that way.…200 The letter concludes with an offering of a small piece of Tobaco for the correspondents owne drinking and a parcel of Potatoes for Mrs Ames.

    This letter is not dated nor is it accompanied by the name of the person to whom it was addressed. In Lefroy’s opinion, it was intended for the Rev. Nathaniel Bernard. But this is a manifest error. The information which Wood gives his correspondent about the Bermudas and about the two ministers, Mr. Stirk and Mr. Copeland, is sufficient proof of Lefroy’s mistake. Bernard had resided in the islands as a settled minister from 1622 until 1627.201 He knew what their products were; he was well aware that tobacco was “the chiefest comoditie” the islanders “had to subsist withall,” — for his salary had been payable in that commodity,202 — and he was acquainted with Mr. Stirk, who was his colleague as early as 1622,203 and probably also with Mr. Copeland, whose residence dated from 1626.204 Obviously we must look about us for another addressee.

    Certain well-defined conditions are imposed upon us in our search. The man is question must be a Puritan minister of distinction who had never been in the Bermudas. He must be the author of several well-known works, including one entitled, as Lefroy reads the manuscript, “Towins” or “Towius.” He must be an intending emigrant to New England. And finally, we may infer that his name was Ames, since it is clear that the “Mrs Ames” to whom the Governor sends a present of potatoes is the wife of the person to whom the letter was despatched.

    All these conditions are fulfilled by one man, and by only one — the eminent Calvinist theologian Dr. William Ames, who died at Rotterdam in 1633 in his fifty-seventh year. It is needless to rehearse the particulars of Dr. Ames’s life. They may be read, in sufficient detail, in the Praefatio Introductoria to the five-volume edition of his Latin Works edited by Matthias Nethenus,205 in Benjamin Brook’s Lives of the Puritans,206 in Mr. John Browne’s History of Congregationalism in Norfolk and Suffolk,207 and in the Dictionary of National Biography.208

    That Dr. Ames intended to come to New England is well known. In a letter to Governor Winthrop, written from Franeker, in Friesland, December 29, [1629,] he says, “I longe to bee with yow.” His purpose, he adds, is to go to England in the summer [of 1630], and, on being assured of the safe arrival of Winthrop in America, “to take the first convenient occasion of following after yow.”209 Why Ames did not carry out his plan as thus indicated, we do not know. Clearly, however, there was some interruption in his correspondence with Winthrop. On December 18, 1630, John Humfrey writes to the Governor from London: “Dr. Ames holds his first affection to you & the worke, notwithstanding the late neglect of him, in not giving a word eyther to him or of him. I wrote to him excusing all as well as I could, & the good man takes nothing amisse for ought I understand.”210 And again, December 23, 1630: “Dr. Ames, as great a blessing & blessing bringer (if his remove bee clearly warrantable) as wee could desire, continues his hartie affection to us.”211 By 1632, one might suppose, Dr. Ames’s project of emigration was abandoned, for in that year he became an associate with Hugh Peters in the English Congregational Church at Rotterdam,212 but we shall see presently that he was expected in New England as late as 1633.

    Dr. Ames fulfils another of our conditions by having been a prolific writer of works of high Calvinistic theology which were much esteemed in his own day, and, indeed, long afterwards. Here we are confronted with a little puzzle. What is that book which Mr. Stirk admired? “The name,” says General Lefroy, “is unintelligible.” All he can make of it is Towins or Towius. The problem is easily solved, even without a sight of Wood’s manuscript. The word must be Coronis.

    The Coronis is one of Dr. Ames’s best-known works. A coronis (κορωνίς) was a stroke or pen-flourish made by a Greek or Roman scribe at the end of a book or chapter or scene. Dr. Ames called his book Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem, qua Argumenta Pastorum Hollandiæ adversus Remonstrantium Quinque Articulos de Divina Prædestinatione, & capitibus ei adnexis, producta, ab horum exceptionibus vindicantur, — that is, in effect, “A Finishing Touch to the Hague Conference, by which the Arguments advanced by the Ministers of Holland against the Five Articles of the Remonstrants concerning the Divine Predestination and concerning the Chapters annexed to it are vindicated from the Objections of the Remonstrants.”

    The title is a good index to the contents. Several disciples of Arminius,213 as is well known, had, in 1610, drawn up a so-called Remonstrance,214 addressed to the States of Holland and West Friesland, against the insistence on certain high Calvinistic tenets in the Dutch Reformed Church. The opinions of the Remonstrants were summarized in five articles — the famous Five Points, as the theologians call them. In 1611, by order of the States, there was held the celebrated Hague Conference, which the government hoped might put an end to strife and prevent a schism. Six of the Arminian Remonstrants and six of the orthodox Calvinist divines appeared before the States and argued the Five Points— Election, Redemption, the Cause of Faith, Conversion, and the Perseverance of the Saints. There was no decision. The States dissolved the Conference with an exhortation to the contending parties to tolerate each other’s doctrines and to live like brothers in Christian charity.215 The advice was well-meant, but fruitless. The struggle went on, until the Calvinists, who outnumbered the Arminians, procured the condemnation of their heresies in the National Synod of Dort, held in 1618 and 1619.216

    Ames’s Coronis, published in 1618,217 was meant to put the “finishing touch,” as its title indicates, to the arguments of the Calvinist representatives in the Hague Conference and thus to serve as a decisive refutation of Arminianism. It was long regarded as a well-stocked arsenal of orthodoxy. “Ames stood in the van,” writes Nethenus. “He encountered the whole camp of the Remonstrants, and bravely withstood and repulsed their attack, publishing his Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem, a work by which he has merited an unfading garland of praise and glory among all who devoutly honor and preach the grace of God.”218 It is a melancholy reflection that this immarcescibilis corona had so far withered by 1877 that General Lefroy could not decipher the word coronis in Governor Wood’s manuscript, but made it towins or towius, mistaking a c for a t and feeling some doubt whether the three strokes and a dot that make up the letters ni should be read in or iu.

    Enough has probably been said to convince anybody that Wood’s letter was really addressed to Dr. William Ames. But it may be worth while to add that we can also identify the lady who was to receive the gift of Bermuda potatoes. She was Dr. Ames’s second wife, Joan (Fletcher219), who, as all students of the early settlement of this country are aware, left Rotterdam, with her three children, at some time undetermined, after the Doctor’s death in 1633, and in 1637 sailed from Yarmouth to New England,220 where the fathers of the colony, in the same year, granted “40ł to Mrs. Ames, the widow of Doctor Ames, of famos memory, who is deceased.”221 Her son William graduated at Harvard College in 1645.222 Finally, we shall not forget that Mr. [Hugh] Peters, whom Governor Wood mentions in connection with our Calvinist champion, was actually his friend and colleague, and came to New England himself in 1635.

    When Wood’s letter was written is a matter of some uncertainty, for, as we have seen, it bears no date in the manuscript. Lefroy puts it in 1634, but I think he is wrong. It was clearly written at the same time as another letter, somewhat earlier in the manuscript, which Lefroy dates 1633. Both letters mention the arrival of a ship from New England, to trade for provisions, and both remark that this ship has brought word that there is a resort of able ministers from England to New England.223 Beyond question this ship was the Thunder, which sailed from our shores to Bermuda on October 17, 1633, and arrived in Boston on her return, as Winthrop informs us, on June 1, 1634, having touched at Virginia on the voyage back.224 Ames died suddenly at Rotterdam in November, 1633, from shock (or perhaps pneumonia) caused by jumping out of bed into the water which had invaded his chamber in an inundation.225 “Learned

    Amesius,” writes Peters in a familiar passage, “breathed his last Bareath into my Bosom.”226 Wood’s letter may never have reached him, but it at all events proves that the New Englanders, as late as the autumn of 1633, were still expecting him to come over sometime, and that Captain Roger Wood made a gallant attempt to divert him to the older colony in the Bermudas.

    Mr. Albert Matthews made the following communication:


    Having in preparation a bibliography of New England magazines of the eighteenth century, it occurs to me that tentative lists of such magazines may prove useful. These lists are based on the collections owned by the following libraries and societies: American Antiquarian Society, Boston Athenæum, Boston Public Library, Library of Congress, Essex Institute, Harvard College Library, Lenox (New York Public) Library, Massachusetts Historical Society, Massachusetts State Library, New England Historic Genealogical Society, New York Historical Society, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Library Company of Philadelphia, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Yale University Library. My thanks are due to the officials of these institutions for many courtesies.

    Other libraries or societies, however, may have earlier or later numbers of a particular magazine than those indicated in the present lists, or may have a magazine not listed here. Again, questions not easily answered are: Exactly what is a magazine? Wherein does a magazine differ from a newspaper? Is the proper criterion size or contents? In September, 1908, the writer issued a leaflet containing a prefatory note and a chronological list of New England magazines of the eighteenth century.227 That list contained, in addition to the magazines given in the present lists, the following three titles:

    • The New-Haven Gazette, and the Connecticut Magazine, New Haven: 1786, February 16 — 1789, June 18
    • Courier de Boston, Affiches, Annonces, et Avis, Boston: 1789, Avril 23 — Octobre 15
    • The New Star, Concord, New Hampshire: 1797, April 11 — October 3

    In the prefatory note to the leaflet, I remarked that “the propriety of regarding all the publications in the present list as magazines will probably not be questioned except in four cases, — namely: New-Haven Gazette, and the Connecticut Magazine (1786–1789); Worcester Magazine (1786–1788); Courier de Boston (1789); New Star (1797).” A careful examination of the above three periodical publications convinces me that they should be regarded as newspapers rather than as magazines, and hence they do not appear in the lists given below. The case of the Worcester Magazine is peculiar, but I think it may properly be included in a list of magazines. A full discussion of this matter, however, is reserved for the completed bibliography.

    The three following titles, printed in italics, have been found in advertisements or catalogues, but no copies are known:

    • The American Monitor, or the Republican Magazine, Boston: 1785, October
    • The Religious Monitor and Theological Scales, Danbury, Connecticut: 1797 —
    • The Christian’s Monitor; or Theological Magazine, Concord, New Hampshire: 1798, June


    1. 1 The Boston Weekly Magazine, Boston: 1743, March 2, 9, 16
    2. 2 The Christian History, Boston: 1743, March 5 — 1745, February 23
    3. 3 The American Magazine and Historical Chronicle, Boston: 1743, September — 1746, December
    4. 4 The New England Magazine, Boston: 1758, August228
    5. 5 The Censor, Boston: 1771, November 23 — 1772, May 2
    6. 6 The Royal American Magazine, or Universal Repository of Instruction and Amusement, Boston: 1774, January — 1775, March
    7. 7 The Boston Magazine, Boston: 1783, October— 1786, December
    8. 8 The Gentleman and Lady’s Town and Country Magazine, Boston: 1784, May — December
    9. 9 The Worcester Magazine, Worcester: 1786, April —1788, March
    10. 10 The American Musical Magazine, New Haven: 1786–1787229
    11. 11 The Massachusetts Magazine: or, Monthly Museum of Knowledge and rational Entertainment, Boston: 1789, January—1796, December
    12. 12 The Gentlemen and Ladies Town and Country Magazine, Boston: 1789, February — 1790, August
    13. 13 The American Apollo, Boston: 1792, January 6 — September 28230
    14. 14 The New-Hampshire Magazine: or, the. Monthly Repository of Useful Information, Concord: 1793, June — November
    15. 15 The Monthly Miscellany, or Vermont Magazine, Bennington: 1794, April — September
    16. 16 The Rural Magazine: or, Vermont Repository, Rutland: 1795, January — 1796, December
    17. 17 The Tablet, Boston: 1795, May 19 —August 11
    18. 18 The Nightingale, or, Melange de Litterature, Boston: 1796, May 10 — July 30
    19. 19 Wisdom in Miniature: or the Young Gentleman and Lady’s Magazine, Hartford, Connecticut: 1796, No. 1
    20. 20 The Newhampshire & Vermont Magazine and General Repository, Haverhill, New Hampshire: 1797, July — October
    21. 21 A Republican Magazine: or, Repository of Political Truths, Fairhaven, Vermont: 1798, October 1 — December 15
    22. 22 The Columbian Phenix and Boston Review, Boston: 1800, January — July
    23. 23 The Connecticut Evangelical Magazine, Hartford: 1800, July — December231


    1. 13 American Apollo: 1792
    2. 3 American Magazine: 1743–1746
    3. 10 American Musical Magazine: 1786–1787
    4. 7 Boston Magazine: 1783–1786
    5. 1 Boston Weekly Magazine: 1743
    6. 5 Censor: 1771–1772
    7. 2 Christian History: 1743–1745
    8. 22 Columbian Phenix: 1800
    9. 23 Connecticut Evangelical Magazine: 1800
    10. 8 Gentleman and Lady’s Town and Country Magazine: 1784
    11. 12 Gentlemen and Ladies Town and Country Magazine: 1789–1790
    12. 11 Massachusetts Magazine: 1789–1796
    13. 15 Monthly Miscellany: 1794
    14. 4 New England Magazine: 1758
    15. 20 Newhampshire & Vermont Magazine: 1797
    16. 14 New-Hampshire Magazine: 1793
    17. 18 Nightingale: 1796
    18. 21 Republican Magazine: 1798
    19. 6 Royal American Magazine: 1774–1775
    20. 16 Rural Magazine: 1795–1796
    21. 17 Tablet: 1795
    22. 19 Wisdom in Miniature: 1796
    23. 9 Worcester Magazine: 1786–1788



    American Magazine

    Boston Weekly Magazine

    Christian History


    American Magazine

    Christian History



    American Magazine



    New England Magazine






    Royal American Magazine



    Boston Magazine


    Boston Magazine

    Gentleman and Lady’s Town and Country Magazine



    Boston Magazine


    American Musical Magazine

    Boston Magazine

    Worcester Magazine


    American Musical Magazine

    Magazine Worcester



    Worcester Magazine


    Gentlemen and Ladies Town and Country Magazine

    Massachusetts Magazine



    Massachusetts Magazine


    American Apollo

    Massachusetts Magazine


    Massachusetts Magazine

    Magazine New-Hampshire


    Massachusetts Magazine

    Monthly Miscellany


    Massachusetts Magazine

    Rural Magazine



    Massachusetts Magazine


    Wisdom in Miniature



    Newhampshire & Vermont Magazine



    Republican Magazine


    Columbian Phenix

    Connecticut Evangelical Magazine

    Mr. William C. Lane described the latest discoveries in the trench now being dug for the Cambridge subway in front of Wadsworth House, and exhibited photographs of the foundation walls of early buildings which had been exposed to view.

    Mr. Charles S. Rackemann communicated a Memoir of James Barr Ames, which had been prepared for publication in the Transactions.



    James Barr Ames was born in Boston on June 22, 1846, and died at Wilton, New Hampshire, on January 8, 1910.

    He was educated in the Boston schools and at Harvard College, where he graduated with the degree of A.B. in 1868. Immediately afterwards he began teaching in Boston, and kept this up for two seasons. He then became a tutor at Harvard College in the French and German languages, serving during the academic year 1871–1872; and there, in 1871, he attained his A.M. At the end of the year 1872 he took his law degree at the same place.

    Afterwards he was a teacher of history at Harvard for one academic year, and in 1873 he was made an assistant professor of law. At this time President Eliot, in his Annual Report for 1872–1873, referring to the appointment of so young a teacher in the Law School, said:

    The gentleman who is to bear the brunt of this new experiment in the constitution of a Law Faculty has some unusual qualifications for the place, for he is not only distinguished as a student, both in College and in the Law School, but he has had more than two years’ experience as a teacher in the College; the experiment will therefore be tried under favorable conditions.232

    In those days the appointment of a man to an assistant professorship in a Law School, when he was only five years graduated from College, was a very pronounced distinction. In 1877 Mr. Ames resigned his assistant professorship; but the Corporation “felt that his services were too valuable to the Law School to be thus lost,” and on May 14, 1877, voted “to establish an additional Professorship in the Law School;” and Mr. Ames was appointed the new professor. In 1879 Mr. Ames was appointed Bussey Professor in the School.

    In 1895 Mr. Langdell, who had been Dean of the School since September, 1870, resigned on account of his age and state of health, and Mr. Ames was chosen as his successor, and retained this position until the time of his death, filling it with the highest credit to himself, and to the entire satisfaction of the Faculty and the students. It was Dean Langdell who originated and established what is called the “case system” of teaching law. This consists of making the students familiar with the actual decisions of various courts in England and America, and was thus explained by Professor William A. Keener in 1888:

    Under this system the student must look upon law as a science consisting of a body of principles to be found in the adjudged cases, the cases being to him what the specimen is to the geologist.… This method of teaching does not consist in lectures by the instructor with references to the cases in support of the propositions stated by him. The exercises in the lecture-room consist in a statement and discussion by the students of the cases studied by them in advance. This discussion is under the direction of the instructor, who makes such suggestions and expresses such opinions as are necessary.

    The student is required to analyze each case, discriminate between the relevant and irrelevant, between the actual and possible grounds of decision. And after having thus discussed a case, he is prepared and required to deal with it in its relation to other cases.

    It is unnecessary at this moment to say anything more of this system of Dean Langdell’s than that, in spite of much adverse criticism on various sides, it has stood the test for about forty years, and has convinced so many of the leading teachers of its usefulness and soundness in principle, that it is to-day the prevailing system of teaching law in this country. Professor Edward H. Warren, who is now on the staff of the Law School, in a recent appreciation of Dean Ames, spoke as follows concerning this system:

    The introduction of this method was due to Professor Langdell, who preceded Professor Ames as Dean of the School. Dean Ames was the disciple of Langdell. Langdell originated, Ames spread the idea.

    He spread it in two ways. Each year scores (and lately hundreds) of young men were leaving the School who had been stimulated and strengthened intellectually by him. They prized the training and they found that it told in actual practice. In the second place, as other law schools wished to adopt the method, he gladly helped to make its introduction easy. Harvard has never made any attempt to guard the case system as a trade secret; it has, on the contrary, with both hands, done its utmost to help other institutions to adopt it. Dean Ames was foremost in this. He put himself at the service of every law teacher in the country who wanted light and leading.

    It is not too much to say that to-day, considering the country as a whole, the case system is the dominant method used in teaching law. No one — not excepting Langdell himself — has contributed more to this result than Ames. His influence has been national.

    He analyzed the cases with his students by the Socratic method. He questioned much; he answered little. Those who came to hear the law laid down went away to ponder what it ought to be. He loved the battle of wits; but he never argued simply for the sake of victory. He helped men in many ways, but most of all because he made them help themselves.

    Mr. Ames was never a practising lawyer. As already shown, from the moment that he had acquired his education, in the ordinary acceptance of that term, he became a teacher; but no man would have more readily admitted than he would himself that he never ceased being a student. He was a most indefatigable worker. Besides writing innumerable articles or short treatises, he produced a collection of cases designed to be used under the system above alluded to, upon the subjects of torts, pleading (at common law), bills and notes, partnership, trusts, suretyships, admiralty and equity jurisdiction.

    The method of making a book of cases, to be used under the case system, is for the professor to read such cases as he thinks the students ought to know, and then to make a republication of those cases, grouped according to subjects, with all superfluous matter eliminated, and omitting also the head-note or syllabus, so that the student may either make his own head-note or syllabus after studying the facts and opinions, or take the same down from the dictation of the professor in the class-room.

    When one considers the amount of intellectual labor which goes into the making of a book under such circumstances, it is a matter of absolute wonderment that one man could produce so many works on such a variety of subjects, while carrying, on his work in the classroom at the same time.

    While Mr. Ames was teaching in the Law School, two very important steps were taken in connection with it, the influences of which are likely to last as long as the School itself. These were, first, the establishment of the Harvard Law School Association, which was organized in the autumn of 1886, while the College was celebrating its two hundred and fiftieth anniversary, and of which our late associate, the Hon. James Coolidge Carter, was the first President; and, second, the founding of the Harvard Law Review in the spring of 1887. Of the former, Dean Langdell said: “The gentlemen who conceived and started this enterprise, and who have spared neither time nor labor in carrying it out, are entitled to the lasting gratitude of every one who has the welfare of the School at heart.”

    Professor Ames was always extremely interested in the Law School Association, and gave much time and careful thought to its purposes. He also believed heartily in the Law Review and was a frequent contributor to it; in fact, most of its volumes contain articles written by him.

    When Dean Langdell resigned, the Association held its ninth annual meeting at Cambridge and turned it into a special celebration in his honor. It was at this time that Professor Ames succeeded him. In 1904 the Association had another particular celebration at its eighteenth annual meeting, at which President Taft, then Governor of the Philippine Islands, was the orator of the day. The then President of the Association, Chief-Justice Fuller, also an honorary associate of ours, in presenting the after-dinner speakers, led up to the introduction of Dean Ames as follows:

    Sidney Smith said that the difference between Scotch deans and English deans was that “English deans had no faculties.” That doesn’t apply in any sense to my friend on the left, the Dean of the Law School, whose years of teaching and of administration, and whose books have placed the Law School under an indebtedness that all recognize and all most cordially acknowledge.

    And Professor Ames, in replying, paid another tribute to the wonderful work of Dean Langdell, saying:

    When, in 1895, Professor Langdell, after twenty-five years of distinguished service, resigned the deanship, I thought, having been associated with him from the beginning as a disciple and as a colleague, that I had a realizing sense of his great genius; but I did not appreciate then as I do now, after nine years of experience as his successor, how solidly the new foundations of the Law School were laid during his administration. He is emeritus; but the policy which his originality and his far-sighted sagacity inaugurated still dominates the conduct of the School.

    Then, after speaking of the necessity for preparing the case books which had been created by the introduction of the Langdellian system, and prophesying that Harvard Law students would write books on many subjects, he closed his remarks with some expressions which most perfectly exhibit his own feeling about the proper functions of the Law School:

    We shall not forget, however, in the delights of legal authorship, that our first object is to train young men for the effective practice of their profession. To us the real distinction of the Law School is to be found in the true significance of its degree.’ It is our purpose that the degree shall represent even more in the future than in the past that its holder is a man of capacity, of sound legal training, and above all a man of generous ambition and high character.

    The high moral tone of his nature, and the hopefulness and sanity of his views with reference to the future, are finely illustrated in a paragraph in his article on “Law and Morals,” published in the Review in December, 1908:

    It is obvious that the spirit of reform which during the last six hundred years has been bringing our system of law more and more into harmony with moral principles has not yet achieved its perfect work. It is worth while to realize the great ethical advance of the English law in the past, if only as an encouragement to effort for future improvement. In this work of the future there is an admirable field for the law professor. The professor has, while the judge and the practicing lawyer have not, the time for systematic and comprehensive study and for becoming familiar with the decisions and legislation of other countries. This systematic study and the knowledge of what is going on in other countries are indispensable if we would make our system of law the best possible instrument of justice. The training of students must always be the chief object of the law school, but this work should be supplemented by solid contributions of their professors to the improvement of the law.233

    Professor Ames had an extremely attractive personality, an unusual sympathy, and extraordinary patience in listening to the questions of students and in discussing matters with them. His voice was soft and well modulated, his smile was winning, and his manners were so modest as to be almost shy, and yet they were dignified without being in the least constrained.

    I venture to say that, in 1879, when I was at the Law School and first made his acquaintance, there was not a student in the School who was not personally known to him, and I know that he was consulted by the students upon questions arising in courses given by other professors than himself.234 There seemed to be a general desire amongst the students to get the views of Professor Ames upon all involved or troublesome questions. In those days he never sat down, except in the lecture-room, but preferred to work while standing at a high desk. He said that he thought this was much more comfortable in the long run, and that it was also more healthful. When the Hemenway Gymnasium was opened he became a constant attendant and was to be seen there almost daily in the last hour of the afternoon before dinner.

    He was one of the members of the famous Lowell Baseball Club (named for the illustrious family and not for the city), which had a lively career, and the memory of which has been rendered immortal by the book of Mr. James D’Wolf Lovett called Old Boston Boys and the Games they Played.235

    It is one of the inevitable features of after-life that one becomes almost wholly separated from such a man, and it is a source of keen regret that one cannot longer discuss with him the problems which come up in the daily practice of the profession. It is a strange and not an agreeable fact that one of the dominating influences of a man’s life for a short term should thus become absolutely deprived of its daily application, and have its later effect only in retrospect.

    Mr. Ames joined this Society in February, 1893, and, although not often seen at its meetings, was interested in the promotion of its work. He was one of the subscribers to the Gould Memorial Fund. In 1902 he paid an affectionate and discriminating tribute to the memory of Professor Thayer, our late associate, and it seems fitting to end this notice of Mr. Ames by quoting some of the well-chosen words in which he expressed his estimation of his colleague. Mr. Ames might not feel that they were applicable to himself, but we surely find them quite appropriate.

    No one can measure his great influence upon the thousands of his pupils. While at the School, they had a profound respect for his character and ability, and they realized that they were sitting at the feet of a master of his subjects. In their after life, his precept and example have been, and will continue to be, a constant stimulus to genuine, thorough, and finished work, and a constant safeguard against hasty generalization or dogmatic assertion.236

    Mr. Ames married Sarah, daughter of the late George R. Russell, and granddaughter of Jonathan Russell, of Milton, and lived most of his life in Cambridge. He was in his religious belief a Unitarian.

    He received the degree of Doctor of Laws from six universities.