A Stated Meeting of the Society was held at the house of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, No. 28 Newbury Street, Boston, on Thursday, 28 February, 1924, at three o’clock in the afternoon, the President, Fred Norris Robinson, Ph.D., in the chair.

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

    The Corresponding Secretary reported that letters had been received from Mr. Frederic Winthrop, Mr. Benjamin Loring Young, Mr. Edward Motley Pickman, and Mr. Edward Waldo Forbes, accepting Resident Membership; and from Mr. William Otis Sawtelle and Mr. William Keeney Bixby, accepting Corresponding Membership.

    The President announced the resignation of Mr. Henry Winchester Cunningham as Recording Secretary, and stated that the Council, acting under Chapter IV, Article 2, of the By-Laws, had elected Mr. Arthur Stanwood Pier to fill the vacancy. He then read the following minute, which was adopted by the Council at its meeting on the 6th instant:

    The Council wishes to record its deep regret at the resignation of Henry Winchester Cunningham as Recording Secretary. A charter member of the Society, Mr. Cunningham was elected in 1892 to the office from which he now retires. The value of his service throughout this long term is gratefully recognized by the Council in common with the whole Society. But his fellow-councillors would particularly express their appreciation of the part he has taken in the more intimate deliberations of this executive board. All his associates here are now his juniors in length of service and have received his pleasant welcome as they entered the Council. They have found him wise in advice and generous in every kind of cooperation, and their labors have been lightened by his unfailing good spirits.

    Mr. George L. Kittredge offered the following minute, which was unanimously adopted by a rising vote:

    The members of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts learn with deep regret of the retirement of their associate Henry Winchester Cunningham from the office of Recording Secretary, the duties of which he has so competently performed ever since the Society was founded in 1892. During his term of service Mr. Cunningham has seen the Society grow from a mere project—wisely conceived, to be sure, but, like all such projects, of uncertain forecast—to its present condition of established dignity and secure prosperity. As he was active in organizing the Society at the very outset, so he has taken a leading part in its development, which has signally approved the judgment of the founders. He has furthered its interests in every way, has attended its meetings with fidelity, has contributed valuable material to its Publications, has extended the circle of its influence, and has made available for its purposes, with unflagging and enthusiastic generosity, his wide and exact information as to New England pedigrees and the early history of the Commonwealth. The charm of his manner and his friendliness of disposition have done much to form that spirit of good fellowship which is so marked a feature of the organization. Though Mr. Cunningham feels compelled to lay aside the immediate duties of his office, the members are assured that there will be no interruption in his devoted service, and they look forward with confidence to a long period of fruitful activity on his part.

    The Editor made the following remarks:

    Five or six years ago Mr. Horace E. Ware prepared two notes on the periodical cicada,804 especially Brood XIV, which had last appeared in Plymouth and Barnstable Counties in 1906 and was expected next to appear in 1923. These expectations were not disappointed, as is shown in the following note written by Mr. Charles W. Johnson late in 1923:


    This Cicada, commonly called the “Seventeen-year Locust,” is not, as most people know, a locust, for the true locust is a grasshopper. It appeared in great numbers this year. This brood is known as “Brood XIV,” and in New England is confined to southeastern Massachusetts. The most northern localities where it was observed were near Cook’s Pond, about two miles southwest of Plymouth, and on the hill near Manomet; from there they extended south to Falmouth and east to Hyannisport. The latter place has always been considered the most eastern limit of the brood. This year, however, it has been reported by a party at Great Pond, east of Wellfleet, and Mr. J. D. Smith found it in the woods at the Wellfleet and Truro line.

    They first appeared early in June and continued, in some places, until the last week in July. The loud noise produced by the males has attracted the attention of many an automobilist, whose first thought was that something was the matter with his engine. The females lay their eggs in the twigs of the oaks, causing them to die, and giving the area an appearance of having been burned. It was nearly six weeks before the eggs hatched and the young nymphs entered the ground, to spend the next sixteen years sucking the juices from the roots of trees. They are due to appear again in 1940.805

    In spite of the interest taken in Elihu Yale (1649–1721) both as a native of Boston and as the founder of the second oldest college in New England, it is surprising how much confusion there still is in regard to his immediate ancestors. In his “Life of Theophilus Eaton,” Cotton Mather said that his second wife was “a Prudent and Pious Widow, the Daughter of the Bishop of Chester; unto the Three former Children of which Widow, he became a most Exemplary, Living and Faithful Father, as well as a most Worthy Husband unto herself.”806 It will be observed that the precise Bishop of Chester is not specified. In 1838 he was identified as Thomas Morton.807 Now Thomas Morton (1564–1659), successively Bishop of Chester, of Lichfield, and of Durham, died unmarried, “having early in life ‘resolved to die a single man.’”808 In 1878 the late Dr. Franklin B. Dexter showed that the second Mrs. Eaton was the daughter of George Lloyd (1560–1615), Morton’s predecessor as Bishop of Chester.809

    But in correcting one error, Dr. Dexter himself fell into another in asserting, as all writers have done down to 1899, that Ann Lloyd’s first husband was David Yale. In that year it was proved810 that she was the widow of Thomas Yale, who died in or about 1619.811

    Finally, a third error is sometimes found. Ann Lloyd, by her first husband Thomas Yale, had three children: David Yale (1613–1690); Ann Yale (1615–1698), who married Edward Hopkins; and Thomas Yale (1616–1683). The third error812 consists in stating that Elihu Yale (1649–1721) was the son of Thomas Yale (1616–1683), whereas he was the son of David Yale (1613–1690).

    A genealogical table will make the relationships clear. The David Yale who died in 1730 has been included because he received the honorary degree of A.M. from Yale College in 1724813 and is spoken of by Dr. Dexter merely as “the son of a cousin of Governor Yale,”814 without specifying which cousin.

    Since I am pointing out errors made by others, I wish to correct two made by myself. In the index to the Plymouth Church Records,815 I attempted to identify every clergyman mentioned, however casually. The task was a difficult and laborious one, for many of our town histories are very unsatisfactory. The ordination of the Rev. Thomas Clap at Taunton is recorded in the text under date of February 26, 1729.816 In the index he is identified as the Thomas Clap who graduated at Harvard College in 1722, later became President of Yale College, and died in 1767. As a matter of fact, the Taunton pastor was the Thomas Clap who graduated at Harvard in 1725 and died in 1774.817

    In the list of deacons of the Plymouth Church818, the date of death of the Thomas Clark who became a deacon in 1694 is given as 1697. A Thomas Clark did die in 1697,819 but he was not the deacon, who lived until 1727. The error was discovered too late to be corrected in the list of deacons, but the dates are correctly given in the index.

    Mr. Albert Matthews communicated the following—


    That extraordinary system of “placing,” which obtained both at Harvard and at Yale down nearly to the outbreak of the Revolution, presents a fascinating study, since it arouses curiosity, amazement, and puzzlement. Numerous comments on it have been made, mostly futile because based on inadequate knowledge of the facts. As to the facts, many can be disclosed by laborious digging in the College archives, but for the period before 1725 they are probably for the most part irrecoverable, owing to the meagreness of the early College records. Some time I hope to give at length the results of my own researches, but to-day I wish merely to call attention to what is perhaps the most difficult of the many problems that arise in connection with the system.

    Students were called by their surnames only, except in rare instances, and when there were at College two or more students of the same surname it is sometimes extraordinarily difficult to identify them with certainty. In such cases a student was referred to in various ways, as: “Smith Senior” (or “Sr.”), “Smith Junior” (or “Jr.” or “Secundus” or “2d”), “Smith Tertius” (or “3d”), “Smith Quartus” (or “4th”), “Smith Quintus” (or “5th”), etc. At this point, a word of caution should be uttered. Some years ago I was asked if I could identify a certain student referred to, so my correspondent said, as “Senior Smith,” there being two or three students of that name at the time (about 1775). As in my many examinations of the College records I had never encounted such a designation as “Senior Smith,” I felt confident that some mistake had been made. This proved to be the case, for on looking up the passage I found that the youth was called not “Senior Smith” but “Sr Smith.” At once I pointed out to my correspondent that “Sr” following a name meant one thing, but preceding a name meant something very different. In the former case, “Sr” was an abbreviation of “Senior;” but in the latter case, “Sr” was an abbreviation of “Sir”—that is, the title applied to a graduate who had taken his first degree of A.B. but had not yet taken his second degree of A.M., which was usually obtained three years after the first degree, and after taking which the graduate was called “Mr.” With this difficulty as to “Sr” cleared up, we can return to the special problem to which I wish to call attention.820

    Given two students named Smith, what was the particular significance of “Sr.” and “Jr.”? Did the designations refer to age, or to the place in the class assigned to each? It was possible for three different cases to arise, in the first two of which the exact significance of “Sr.” and “Jr.” can easily be determined.

    First, if the two Smiths were in different classes, Smith Sr. was the upper classman and Smith Jr. was the lower classman, regardless of the age of the two Smiths.

    Secondly, if the two Smiths were in the same class and were brothers, then the older was placed higher and the younger was placed lower; and hence necessarily Smith Sr. was the one placed higher or the older, while Smith Jr. was the one placed lower or the younger.

    Thirdly, what was the significance of Sr. and Jr. in those cases where the two Smiths were in the same class but were not brothers, and where the younger of the two was placed higher? There are two possible answers: on the one hand, Sr. might mean the student placed the higher of the two, regardless of their respective ages; on the other hand, Sr. might mean the oldest, regardless of their respective places in the class. Dr. Dexter informed me that in such a case at Yale, Sr. certainly applied to the student who was placed the higher of the two. I felt confident that the Yale practice could not have differed from the Harvard practice, yet others did not agree with me, and so I made an examination of the College records to see whether proof positive could not be obtained in favor of one or the other of these opposing views. And at last, after a wearisome search, the problem was solved.

    In the class of 1725 were three students named Rogers—Daniel, Daniel, and Samuel. The following gives the places assigned to each (according to the Quinquennial Catalogue, as the Faculty Records do not go back so far), the dates of birth,821 and the relationship between the three:

    1. 4 Daniel Rogers (d 1785) July 28, 1707 brother of Samuel
    2. 5 Daniel Rogers (d 1782) Oct. 17, 1706 first cousin of Daniel (d 1785) and of Samuel
    3. 6 Samuel Rogers Aug. 31, 1709 brother of Daniel (d 1785)

    All three Rogerses are frequently mentioned in the various records, but, while they were undergraduates, in such a way as to throw no light on the Sr. and Jr. problem. After taking their first degree, two at least remained until 1728 as resident Bachelors; and, after those two had taken their second degree, they both remained until 1731 as resident Masters; and one of them—Daniel (d 1785)—remained until 1741 as Tutor. The two who remained until 1731 are invariably called “Sr.” and “Jr.” Of course, the third may also have remained after 1725; but if he did, he is not mentioned in any of the records, so far as I have noted.

    As a matter of fact, two distinct points are here involved: (a) Which of the two Rogerses remained after 1725?—Daniel (d 1785) and Daniel (d 1782)? or Daniel (d 1785) and Samuel? or Daniel (d 1782) and Samuel? And (b) if the two who remained were Daniel (ci 1785) and Daniel (d 1782), which of them was Sr. and which Jr.? It will be noted that of the two Daniels, the one placed higher was younger than the one placed lower.

    A few extracts may now be given. On March 8, 1727, “Sr Rogers Sr Rogers Junr” and others were chosen Hopkins scholars.822 On April 3, 1727, the Hopkins Trustees voted “That Sr Rogers, Sr Rogers Junr” and others be recommended.823 On September 9, 1728, and again on September 8, 1729, “Mr Rogers Junr” was chosen Scholar of the House.824 On October 28, 1729, and again on April 21, 1731, “mr Daniel Rogers Senr” received exhibitions.825 On January 27, 1728, President Wadsworth punished “Sr Rogers Junr two shillings for omitting his Analysis ye evening before.”826 On July 21, 1729, President Wadsworth gave a note to the Steward to pay £4 to “mr Rogers Junr” as Scholar of the House.827 On November 6, 1729, “Mr Daniel Rogers Senr” had a note to the Steward for £9 as an exhibition; and on June 16, 1731, “The Steward had a note to pay . . . £15. to mr Dan Rogers Senr” as an exhibition.828

    So far, all that these extracts prove is that Sir or Mr. Rogers Sr. was certainly one of the two Daniels. But the fact that Sir or Mr. Rogers Sr. is sometimes called Sir or Mr. Daniel Rogers Sr., points strongly to the conclusion that Sir or Mr. Rogers Jr. was the other Daniel and not Samuel. And that this was the case was at last proved when this entry was found under date of June 24, 1728: “Common places were made . . . in ye morning by Sr Rogers (Daniel) Junr & Sr Clap; there were two at once, because ye time was short before Commencement.”829 And so point (a) is cleared up and we find that Daniel (d 1785) and Daniel (d 1782) were the two Rogerses in residence from 1725 to 1731.

    But the solution of (a) throws no light on (b). Yet this too can be solved with certainty, though to make the point clear a genealogical table will be necessary. (Harvard classes are indicated by figures within parentheses.)

    It will be observed that Mary Whittingham—who was a sister of Martha Whittingham, the wife of the Rev. John Rogers (1684) of Ipswich, and hence an aunt of Daniel Rogers (d 1785) and of Samuel Rogers—married for her second husband Governor Gurdon Saltonstall of Connecticut. Now in 1723 Madam Mary Saltonstall gave to the College £100, the income of which was to be used for exhibitions.830 On April 20, 1724, the Corporation voted “That £6 the Income of Madm Saltonstal’s Donation be pay’d this year to her two Nephews the Sons of the Revd Mr John Rogers of Ipswich;”831 and on September 9, 1724, “the Two Rogers’s Sons of the Revd Mr John Rogers of Jpswich” were allowed £3 each from the same fund.832 These two Rogerses were of course Daniel (d 1785) and Samuel. Samuel did not again receive the fund after 1724, and Daniel (d 1785) not again until 1729. On October 29, 1729, Madam Mary Saltonstall wrote to President Wadsworth as follows:

    When J made ye Small Donation to ye College, J signified to ye Revnd President Leverett, yt it was my desire, if any of my Relations by Blcod was at any time at College & needed ye Benefit, they should be prefer’d; having then an eye to ye children of ye Revnd Mr John Rogers of Jpswich my Brother in Law. Agreably they had it for some time, and J thought still, in which it seems J was mistaken. . . . Jf any part may be retrieved, J shall esteem myself greatly obliged, or if Mr Daniel Rogers Son to ye above Gentleman resides still at College, he may have it for future.833

    Now whether by chance, or because it was intimated that such a letter was coming, the Corporation had already voted on October 28, 1729, that £9 should be allowed “to mr Daniel Rogers Senr, out of ye Jncome of the Honble Madam Saltonstal’s Donation;”834 on April 21, 1731, “mr Daniel Rogers Senior” received £15 from the donation;835 and on April 11, 1732, “mr Daniel Rogers” received £6 from the same fund.836

    And now at last our Sr. and Jr. problem is solved. For Rogers Sr. was certainly Daniel (d 1785), and Rogers Jr. was certainly Daniel (d 1782), and Daniel (d 1785) was placed higher than Daniel (d 1782), though Daniel (d 1785) was nine months younger than Daniel (d 1782). Hence Sr. was the student placed higher, regardless of age.

    One more case may be considered, it being a very curious one. There were two Gardners in the class of 1732—Samuel and Joseph. When that class was placed we find the following order, with the names, ages, and places of residence at entrance of the two Gardners:837


    Samuel Gardner




    John Ellery


    James Morris


    Joseph Gardner




    Thomas Tufts


    Matthew Withington


    Samuel Gardener (after degradation)]838


    Joseph Herrick

    It will be noted that Samuel Gardner was not only placed higher than Joseph Gardner, but was two years older than Joseph. Hence, on any principle, Gardner Sr. must have been Samuel Gardner, and Gardner Jr. must have been Joseph Gardner. On April 15, 1729, an exhibition of £6 was “allowed to Gardner for this year, he being a Salem scholar.”839 This must have been Samuel. On April 6, 1730, an exhibition of £12 was to be divided between “Fogg Senr Sophister, & Gardner of Salem.”840 This again was Samuel. On April 21, 1731, it was voted that “as to any allowance to Gardner Junr of Salem, it be left to further consideration.”841 Once more this was Samuel. On June 18, 1731, it was “Voted, yt Saml Gardner, a Salem Scholar, be allow’d six pounds . . . see p. 151.”842 All these references are unquestionably to Samuel. But why was he on April 21, 1731, called “Gardner Junr”? The Corporation Records throw no light on this matter. Possibly “Junr” might only have been a clerical error for Sr., for I have found several such errors. The Faculty Records clear the matter up. On November 27, 1728, it was agreed—

    That Oliver & Gardner Senr, for being concern’d in stealing the Goose lately taken on ye Com̄on; and also for stealing a Turkey, be degraded, viz. Oliver below Steel, & Gardner be degraded below five, & have his place between Withington & Herrick.843

    That “Gardner Senr” must have been Samuel is easily capable of proof. First, the list on this page shows that Samuel from being eleventh must have become sixteenth. Secondly, we read in the Faculty Records: “Saml Gardner Junr Sophister’s Confession & petition of May. 7. 1731. was read June. 5. 1731. And the President and Tutors agre’d, yt he should be restored to ye place in his Class from whence he had been degraded.”844 But the extraordinary thing is this. When Samuel Gardner was degraded five places he was brought three places below Joseph Gardner. Consequently, before November 27, 1728, and after June 5, 1731, Gardner Sr. was Samuel Gardner and Gardner Jr. was Joseph Gardner; but between November 27, 1728, and June 5, 1731, Gardner Sr. was Joseph Gardner and Gardner Jr. was Samuel Gardner. And that is why Samuel Gardner was on April 21, 1731, called Gardner Jr. But the result again confirms the case of the Rogerses, for Samuel Gardner was at first called Sr. not because he was older than Joseph Gardner but because he was placed higher than Joseph; and when, owing to Samuel’s degradation, their places were reversed, their designations of Sr. and Jr. also were reversed.

    Verily, that system of placing was fearfully and wonderfully made!

    Mr. Alfred Johnson gave a talk on “Some Recent Impressions of the Forts and other Evidences of Early Occupancy at Pemaquid, and elsewhere, in Maine,” illustrated by lantern slides from photographs taken by himself. By way of introduction, the speaker showed slides of maps, both ancient and modern, of the Gulf of Maine, pointed out the various landfalls made by the early voyagers, and indicated why the isolated, bold Island of Monhegan was sought by such navigators as George Waymouth, John Smith, and their successors. He then traced the beginnings of early colonization along the coast, in the vicinity of Monhegan, at Pemaquid, and at the mouth of the Kennebec, and its spread up the valleys of the larger rivers. The various remains of forts and other evidences of early occupancy which still exist on these spots and their present aspects were shown. In the interior of the State, the following forts, which at one time marked the frontier between the English and the French and Indians, were shown and described: Fort Western, Fort Halifax, and Fort St. George.

    Mr. Johnson stated that in accordance with a recent act of Congress, several old forts and military reservations, located in different parts of the State of Maine, which, with the development of modern methods of warfare, have lost their value for military purposes, but retain a value and interest for historic reasons, have been purchased by the State from the national Government. These purchases were made by order of the Governor and Council and paid for by the State contingent fund, the deeds for the property being signed by the Secretary of War, John W. Weeks. It is expected that these military reservations taken over by the State, each of which has a particular local interest and has long figured as a landmark in its respective locality, will be converted into State parks; and that towns, in some cases societies, will assume responsibility for them, making provision for their permanent care and for their use along historical lines. The following forts have already been purchased by the State: Fort Baldwin, Fort Edgecomb, Fort Knox, Fort Machias, Fort McClary, Fort Popham, Fort St. George, and Sugar Loaf Islands. Governor Baxter has turned the whole matter over to the Rev. Henry E. Dunnack, Maine State Librarian, who is preparing brief articles dealing with each fort.845

    The speaker reviewed the history of Pemaquid, its forts and other ruins, by means of pictures of the harbor, river, forts, and pavements; and spoke of the various field-days the Maine Historical Society had held there, beginning with that of August 7, 1869, when people came in ox-carts—some carrying on their carts as many as fifty persons846—down to the latest, on September 18, 1923, at which the automobile, the motor boat, and the airplane were conspicuous.

    Referring to Pemaquid, Mr. Johnson quoted Samuel A. Drake’s statement that “no place on the whole coast has afforded such a plentiful crop of historical nettles;”847 but he expressed the hope that the riddle as to who the earliest occupants were, and the mystery of the paved streets and cellars of Pemaquid, might eventually be solved by the discovery of some documentary evidence, relative to its history, in the archives of Europe. Summing up the results of the recent researches, it was stated that while they gave no conclusive evidence of Norse or Spanish occupancy, they did confirm the statements made by Williamson and later historians, and by Waterman Hatch and others who had resided at Pemaquid a century ago, and from whom sworn depositions have come down to us relative to the cellars, paved streets, and forts. It would further appear from the findings that a very considerable settlement flourished at Pemaquid very early in the seventeenth century.848