APRIL MEETING, 1914

    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, 23 April, 1914, at three o’clock in the afternoon, the President, Henry Lefayour, LL.D., in the chair.

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

    The President announced the death, yesterday, of Dr. Charles Pickering Putnam, a Resident Member.

    The Hon. Charles John McIntire of Cambridge was elected a Resident Member.

    The President appointed the following Committees in anticipation of the Annual Meeting:

    To nominate candidates for the several offices, — Messrs. John Trowbridge, George Wigglesworth, and Fred Norris Robinson.

    To examine the Treasurer’s Accounts, — Messrs. Lincoln Newton Kinnicutt and Walter Cabot Baylies.

    The Rev. Dr. James H. Ropes offered for publication the Accounts of the First Church of Christ, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1638–1716. Whereupon it was —

    Voted, That the thanks of the Society be given to the Deacons of the First Church (Congregational) of Cambridge for their courtesy in permitting these records to be printed.

    Mr. Frederick J. Turner read the following paper:

    THE FIRST OFFICIAL FRONTIER OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY

    This paper is an enquiry into the first officially designated frontier in Massachusetts from the point of view of a student of Western history, interested in the advance of the frontier of settlement during the whole period of American history, and from the Atlantic coast across the continent. It is an attempt at correlation and interpretation of more or less familiar data, rather than an attempt to fix the date of the frontier line by the discovery of hitherto unknown material.

    In a previous paper on the Significance of the Frontier in American History,576 I took for my text the following announcement of the Superintendent of the Census of 1890:

    Up to and including 1880 the country had a frontier of settlement but at present the unsettled area has been so broken into by isolated bodies of settlement that there can hardly be said to be a frontier line. In the discussion of its extent, the westward movement, etc., it cannot therefore any longer have a place in the census reports.

    Two centuries prior to this announcement, in 1690, a committee of the General Court of Massachusetts recommended the Court to order what shall be the frontier and to maintain a committee to settle garrisons on the frontier with forty soldiers to each frontier town as main guard.577 In the two hundred years between this official attempt to locate the Massachusetts frontier line, and the official announcement of the ending of the national frontier line, westward expansion was the most important single process in American history.

    The designation “frontier town” was not, however, a new one. As early as 1645 inhabitants of Concord, Sudbury, and Dedham, “being inland townes & but thinly peopled,” were forbidden to remove without authority;578 in 1669, certain towns had been the subject of legislation as “frontier towns;”579 and in the period of King Philip’s War there were various enactments regarding frontier towns.580 In the session of 1675–6 it had been proposed to build a fence of stockades or stone eight feet high from the Charles “where it is navigable” to the Concord at Billerica and thence to the Merrimac and down that river to the Bay, “by which meanes that whole tract will [be] environed, for the security & safty (vnder God) of the people, their houses, goods & cartel; from the rage & fury of the enimy.”581 This project, however, of a kind of Roman Wall did not appeal to the frontiersmen of the time. It was a part of the antiquated ideas of defence which had been illustrated by the impossible equipment of the heavily armored soldier of the early Puritan régime whose corslets and head pieces, pikes, matchlocks, fourquettes and bandoleers, went out of use about the period of King Philip’s War. The fifty-seven postures provided in the approved manual of arms for loading and firing the matchlock proved too great a handicap in the chase of the nimble savage. In this era the frontier fighter adapted himself to a more open order and lighter equipment suggested by the Indian warrior’s practice.582

    The settler on the outskirts of Puritan civilization took up the task of bearing the brunt of attack and pushing forward the line of advance which year after year carried American settlement into the wilderness. In American thought and speech the term “frontier” has come to mean the edge of settlement, rather than, as in Europe, the military boundary. By 1690 it was already evident that the frontier of settlement and the frontier of military defence were coinciding. As population advanced into the wilderness and thus successively brought new exposed areas between the settlements on the one side and the Indians with their European backers on the other, the military frontier ceased to be thought of as the Atlantic coast, but rather as a moving line bounding the un-won wilderness. It could not be a fortified boundary along the charter limits, for those limits extended to the South Sea, and conflicted with the bounds of sister colonies. The thing to be defended was the outer edge of this expanding society, a changing frontier, one that needed designation and re-statement with the changing location of the “West.”

    It will help to illustrate the significance of this new frontier if we recall that Virginia at the same time as Massachusetts underwent a similar change and attempted to establish frontier towns, or “cohabitations,” at the heads (that is the first falls, the vicinity of Richmond, Petersburg, etc.), of her rivers. After experimenting with quasi manorial grants to frontier commanders, like Abraham Wood, Robert Beverley, and William Byrd, for establishing forts on this frontier, and after providing a system of mounted rangers in 1691 to patrol the frontier along the fall line, Virginia enacted a statute583 in 1701 for settling co-habitations (i. e. towns) upon the frontiers by the inducements of land grants and exemption from taxes to “societies of men.” These lands were to be held in common and the power of managing the land lay in the society. Half-acre houselots and two-hundred-acre farms were to be granted to individuals. The Virginia system of “particular plantations” introduced along the James at the close of the London Company’s activity had furnished a type for the New England town. In recompense, at this later day the New England town may have furnished a model for Virginia’s efforts to create by legislation frontier settlements. This notable statute further provided that a “warlike Christian man,” for every five hundred acres granted was required to keep his continual abode within the palisaded military town, equipped with musket or fuzee, pistol, scimitar, and tomahawk. Such a combination of the mediaeval soldier with the Indian shows that Americanization at the frontier was in progress in Virginia as well as in New England.

    An act of March 12, 1694–5, by the General Court of Massachusetts enumerated the “Frontier Towns” which the inhabitants were forbidden to desert on pain of loss of their lands (if landholders) or of imprisonment (if not landholders), unless permission to remove were first obtained.584 These eleven frontier towns included Wells, York, and Kittery on the eastern frontier, and Amesbury, Haverhill, Dunstable, Chelmsford, Groton, Lancaster, Marlborough,585 and Deerfield. In March, 1699–1700, the law was re-enacted with the addition of Brookfield, Mendon, and Woodstock, together with seven others, Salisbury, Andover,586 Billerica, Hatfield, Hadley, West-field, and Northampton, which, “tho’ they be not frontiers as those towns first named, yet lye more open than many others to an attack of an Enemy.”587

    In the spring of 1704 the General Court of Connecticut, following closely the act of Massachusetts, named as her frontier towns, not to be deserted, Symsbury, Waterbury, Danbury, Colchester, Windham, Mansfield, and Plainfield.

    Thus about the close of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century there was an officially designated frontier line for New England. The line passing through these enumerated towns represents: (1) the outskirts of settlement along the eastern coast and up the Merrimac and its tributaries, — a region threatened by the Indian country by way of the Winnepesaukee Lake route; (2) the end of the ribbon of settlement up the Connecticut Valley, menaced by the Canadian Indians by way of the Lake Champlain and Winooski River route to the Connecticut; (3) boundary towns which marked the edges of that inferior agricultural region, where the hard crystalline rocks furnished a later foundation for Shays’s Rebellion, opposition to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and the abandoned farm; and (4) the isolated intervale of Brookfield which lay intermediate between these frontiers.

    Besides this New England frontier there was a belt of settlement in New York, ascending the Hudson to where Albany and Schenectady served as outposts against the Five Nations, who menaced the Mohawk, and against the French and the Canadian Indians, who threatened the Hudson by way of Lake Champlain and Lake George.588 The sinister relations of leading citizens of Albany engaged in the fur trade with these Indians, even during time of war, tended to protect the Hudson River frontier at the expense of the frontier towns of New England.

    The common sequence of frontier types589 (fur trader, cattle-raising pioneer, small primitive farmer, and the farmer engaged in intensive varied agriculture to produce a surplus for export) had appeared, though confusedly, in New England. The traders and their posts had prepared the way for the frontier towns,590 and the cattle industry was most important to the early farmers.591 But the stages succeeded rapidly and intermingled. After King Philip’s War, while Albany was still in the fur-trading stage, the New England frontier towns were rather like mark colonies, military-agricultural outposts against the Indian enemy.

    The story of the border warfare between Canada and the frontier towns furnishes ample material for studying frontier life and institutions; but I shall not attempt to deal with the narrative of the wars. The palisaded meeting-house square, the fortified isolated garrison houses, the massacres and captivities are familiar features of New England’s history. The Indian was a very real influence upon the mind and morals as well as upon the institutions of frontier New England. The occasional instances of Puritans returning from captivity to visit the frontier towns, Catholic in religion, painted and garbed as Indians and speaking the Indian tongue,592 and the half-breed children of captive Puritan mothers, tell a sensational part of the story; but in the normal, as well as in such exceptional relations of the frontier townsmen to the Indians, there are clear evidences of the transforming influence of the Indian frontier upon the Puritan type of English colonist.

    In 1703–4, for example, the General Court of Massachusetts ordered five hundred pairs of snowshoes and an equal number of moccasins for use in specified counties “lying Frontier next to the Wilderness.”593 Connecticut in 1704 after referring to her frontier towns and garrisons ordered that “said company of English and Indians shall, from time to time at the discretion of their chief com̄ander, range the woods to indevour the discovery of an approaching enemy, and in especiall manner from Westfield to Ousatunnuck.594 . . . And for the incouragement of our forces gone or going against the enemy, this Court will allow out of the publick treasurie the sum̄e of five pounds for every mans scalp of the enemy killed in this Colonie.”595 Massachusetts offered bounties for scalps, increasing in amount according to whether the scalp was of men, or women and youths, and whether it was taken by regular forces under pay, volunteers in service, or volunteers without pay.596 One of the most striking phases of frontier adjustment, was the proposal of the Rev. Solomon Stoddard of Northampton in the fall of 1703, urging the use of dogs “to hunt Indians as they do Bears.” The argument was that the dogs would catch many an Indian who would be too light of foot for the townsmen, nor was it to be thought of as inhuman; for the Indians “act like wolves and are to be dealt with as wolves.”597 In fact Massachusetts passed an act in 1706 for the raising and increasing of dogs for the better security of the frontiers, and both Massachusetts and Connecticut in 1708 paid money from their treasury for the trailing of dogs.598

    Thus we come to familiar ground: the Massachusetts frontiersman like his western successor hated the Indians; the “tawney serpents,” of Cotton Mather’s phrase, were to be hunted down and scalped in accord with law and, in at least one instance by the chaplain himself, a Harvard graduate, the hero of the Ballad of Pigwacket, who

    many Indians slew,

    And some of them he scalp’d when bullets round him flew.599

    Within the area bounded by the frontier line, were the broken fragments of Indians defeated in the era of King Philip’s War, restrained within reservations, drunken and degenerate survivors, among whom the missionaries worked with small results, a vexation to the border towns,600 as they were in the case of later frontiers. Although, as has been said, the frontier towns had scattered garrison houses, and palisaded enclosures similar to the neighborhood forts, or stations, of Kentucky in the Revolution, and of Indiana and Illinois in the War of 1812, one difference is particularly noteworthy. In the case of the frontiersmen who came down from Pennsylvania into the upland south along the eastern edge of the Alleghanies, as well as in the more obvious case of the backwoodsmen of Kentucky and Tennessee, the frontier towns were too isolated from the main settled regions to allow much military protection by the older areas. On the New England frontier, because it was adjacent to the coast towns, this was not the case, and here, as in seventeenth century Virginia, great activity in protecting the frontier was evinced by the colonial authorities, and the frontier towns themselves called loudly for assistance. This phase of frontier defence needs a special study, but at present it is sufficient to recall that the colony sent garrisons to the frontier besides using the militia of the frontier towns; and that it employed rangers to patrol from garrison to garrison.601 These were prototypes of the regular army post, and the rangers, dragoons, cavalry and mounted police who have carried the remoter military frontier forward. It is possible to trace this military cordon from New England to the Carolinas early in the eighteenth century, still neighboring the coast; by 1840 it ran from Fort Snelling on the upper Mississippi through various posts to the Sabine boundary of Texas, and so it passed forward until to-day it lies at the edge of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean.

    A few examples of frontier appeals for garrison aid will help to an understanding of the early form of the military frontier. Wells asks, June 30, 1689:

    1. 1 That yor Honrs will please to send us speedily twenty Eight good brisk men that may be serviceable as a guard to us whilest we get in our Harvest of Hay & Corn, (we being unable to Defend ourselves & to Do our work), & also to Persue & destroy the Enemy as occasion may require
    2. 2 That these men may be compleatly furnished with Arms, Amunition & Provision, and that upon the Countrys account, it being a Generall War.602

    Dunstable, “still weak and unable both to keep our Garrisons and to send out men to get hay for our Cattle; without doeing which wee cannot subsist,” petitioned July 23, 1689, for twenty footmen for a month “to scout about the towne while wee get our hay.” Otherwise, they say, they must be forced to leave.603 Still more indicative of this temper is the petition of Lancaster, March 11, 1675–6, to the Governor and Council: “As God has made you father over us so you will have a father’s pity to us.” They asked a guard of men and aid, without which they must leave.604 Deerfield pled in 1678 to the General Court, “unlest you will be pleased to take us (out of your fatherlike pitty) and Cherish us in yor Bosomes we are like Suddainly to breathe out or Last Breath.”605

    The perils of the time, the hardships of the frontier towns and readiness of this particular frontier to ask appropriations for losses and wounds,606 are abundantly illustrated in similar petitions from other towns. One is tempted at times to attribute the very frank self-pity and dependent attitude to a minister’s phrasing, and to the desire to secure remission of taxes, the latter a frontier trait more often associated with riot than with religion in other regions.

    As an example of various petitions the following from Groton in 1704 is suggestive. Here the minister’s hand is probably absent:

    1 That wharas by the all dessposing hand of god who orders all things in infinit wisdom it is our portion to liue In such a part of the land which by reson of the enemy Is becom vary dangras as by wofull experiants we haue falt both formarly and of late to our grat damidg & discoridgment and espashaly this last yere hauing lost so many parsons som killed som captauated and som remoued and allso much corn & cattell and horses & hay wharby wee ar gratly Impouerrished and brought uary low & in a uary pore capasity to subsist any longer As the barers her of can inform your honors

    2 And more then all this our paster mr hobard is & hath been for aboue a yere uncapable of desspansing the ordinances of god amongst us & we haue advised with th Raurant Elders of our nayboring churches and they aduise to hyare another minister and to saport mr hobard and to make our adras to your honours (we haue but litel laft to pay our deus with being so pore and few In numbr ather to town or cuntrey & we being a frantere town & Iyable to dangor there being no safty in going out nor coming in but for a long time we haue got our brad with the parel of our liues & allso broght uery low by so grat a charg of bilding garisons & fortefycations by ordur of athorety & thar is saural of our Inhabitants ramoued out of town & others ar prouiding to remoue. axcapt somthing be don for our Incoridgment for we are so few & so por that we canot pay two ministors nathar ar we wiling to liue without any we spand so much time in waching and warding that we can doe but litel els & truly we haue liued allmost 2 yers more like soulders then other wise & accapt your honars can find out some bater way for our safty and support we cannot uphold as a town ather by remitting our tax or tow alow pay for building the sauarall forts alowed and ordred by athority or alls to alow the one half of our own Inhabitants to be under pay or to grant liberty for our remufe Into our naiburing towns to tak cer for oursalfs all which if your honors shall se meet to grant you will hereby gratly incoridg your humble pateceners to conflect with th many trubls we are ensadant unto.607

    Forced together into houses for protection, getting in their crops at the peril of their lives, the frontier townsmen felt it a hardship to contribute also to the taxes of the province while they helped to protect the exposed frontier. In addition there were grievances of absentee proprietors who paid no town taxes and yet profited by the exertions of the frontiersmen; of that I shall speak later.

    If we were to trust to these petitions asking favors from the government of the colony, we might impute to the early frontiersmen a degree of submission to authority unlike that of other frontiersmen,608 and indeed not wholly warranted by the facts. Reading carefully, we find that, however prudently phrased, the petitions are in fact complaints against taxation; demands for expenditures by the colony in their behalf; criticisms of absentee proprietors; intimations that they may be forced to abandon the frontier position so essential to the defence of the settled eastern country.

    The spirit of military insubordination characteristic of the frontier is evident in the accounts of these towns, such as Pynchon’s in 1694, complaining of the decay of the fortifications at Hatfield, Hadley, and Springfield: “the people a little wilful. Inclined to doe when and how they please or not at all.”609 Saltonstall writes from Haverhill about the same time regarding his ill success in recruiting: “I will never plead for an Haverhill man more,” and he begs that some meet person be sent “to tell us what we should, may or must do. I have laboured in vain: some go this, and that, and the other way at pleasure, and do what they list.”610 This has a familiar ring to the student of the frontier.

    As in the case of the later frontier also, the existence of a common danger on the borders of settlement tended to consolidate not only the towns of Massachusetts into united action for defence, but also the various colonies. The frontier was an incentive to sectional combination then as it was to nationalism afterward. When in 1692 Connecticut sent soldiers from her own colony to aid the Massachusetts towns on the Connecticut River,611 she showed a realization that the Deerfield people, who were “in a sense in the enemy’s Mouth almost,” as Pynchon wrote, constituted her own frontier612 and that the facts of geography were more compelling than arbitrary colonial boundaries. Thereby she also took a step that helped to break down provincial antagonisms. When in 1689 Massachusetts and Connecticut sent agents to Albany to join with New York in making presents to the Indians of that colony in order to engage their aid against the French,613 they recognized (as their leaders put it) that Albany was “the hinge” of the frontier in this exposed quarter. In thanking Connecticut for the assistance furnished in 1690 Livingston said: “I hope your honors do not look upon Albany as Albany, but as the frontier of your honor’s Colony and of all their Majesties countries.”614

    The very essence of the American frontier is that it is the graphic line which records the expansive energies of the people behind it, and which by the law of its own being continually draws that advance after it to new conquests. This is one of the most significant things about New England’s frontier in these years. That long bloodstained line of the eastern frontier which skirted the Maine coast was of great importance, for it imparted a western tone to the life and characteristics of the Maine people which endures to this day, and it was one line of advance for New England toward the mouth of the St. Lawrence, leading again and again to diplomatic negotiations with the powers that held that river. The line of the towns that occupied the waters of the Merrimac, tempted the province continually into the wilderness of New Hampshire. The Connecticut river towns pressed steadily up that stream, along its tributaries into the Hoosatonic valleys, and into the valleys between the Green Mountains of Vermont. By the end of 1723, the General Court of Massachusetts enacted,—

    That It will be of Great Service to all the Western Frontiers, both in this and the Neighboring Government of Conn., to Build a Block House above Northfield, in the most convenient Place on the Lands called the Equivilant Lands, & to post in it forty Able Men, English & Western Indians, to be employed in Scouting at a Good Distance up Conn. River, West River, Otter Creek, and sometimes Eastwardly above the Great Manadnuck, for the Discovery of the Enemy Coming towards anny of the frontier Towns.”615

    The “frontier Towns” were preparing to swarm. It was not long before Fort Dummer replaced “the Block House,” and the Berkshires and Vermont became new frontiers.

    The Hudson River likewise was recognized as another line of advance pointing the way to Lake Champlain and Montreal, calling out demands that protection should be secured by means of an aggressive advance of the frontier. Canada delenda est became the rallying cry in New England as well as in New York, and combined diplomatic pressure and military expeditions followed in the French and Indian wars and in the Revolution, in which the children of the Connecticut and Massachusetts frontier towns acclimated to Indian fighting, followed Ethan Allen and his fellows to the north.616

    Having touched upon some of the military and expansive tendencies of this first official frontier, let us next turn to its social, economic, and political aspects. How far was this first frontier a field for the investment of eastern capital and for political control by it? Were there evidences of antagonism between the frontier and the settled, property-holding classes of the coast? Restless democracy, resentfulness over taxation and control, and recriminations between the western pioneer and the eastern capitalist, have been characteristic features of other frontiers: were similar phenomena in evidence here? Did “populistic” tendencies appear in this frontier, and were there grievances which explained these tendencies?617

    In such colonies as New York and Virginia the land grants were often made to members of the Council and their influential friends, even when there were actual settlers already on the grants. In the case of New England the land system is usually so described as to give the impression that it was based on a non-commercial policy, creating new Puritan towns by free grants of land made in advance to approved settlers. This description does not completely fit the case. That there was an economic interest on the part of absentee proprietors, and that men of political influence with the government were often among the grantees seems also to be true. Melville Egleston states the case thus: “The court was careful not to authorize new plantations unless they were to be in a measure under the influence of men in whom confidence could be placed, and commonly acted upon their application.”618 The frontier, as we shall observe later, was not always disposed to see the practice in so favorable a light.

    New towns seem to have been the result in some cases of the aggregation of settlers upon and about a large private grant; more often they resulted from settlers in older towns, where the town limits were extensive, spreading out to the good lands of the outskirts, beyond easy access to the meeting-house and then asking recognition as a separate town. In some cases they may have been due to squatting on unassigned lands, or purchasing the Indian title and then asking confirmation. In others grants were made in advance of settlement.

    As early as 1636 the General Court had ordered that none go to new plantations without leave of a majority of the magistrates.619 This made the legal situation clear, but it would be dangerous to conclude that it represented the actual situation. In any case there would be a necessity for the settlers finally to secure the assent of the Court. This could be facilitated by a grant to leading men having political influence with the magistrates. The complaints of absentee proprietors which find expression in the frontier petitions of the seventeenth and early eighteenth century seems to indicate that this happened. In the succeeding years of the eighteenth century the grants to leading men and the economic and political motives in the grants are increasingly evident. This whole topic should be made the subject of special study. What is here offered is merely suggestive of a problem.620

    The frontier settlers criticized the absentee proprietors, who profited by the pioneers’ expenditure of labor and blood upon their farms, while they themselves enjoyed security in an eastern town. A few examples from town historians will illustrate this. Among the towns of the Merrimac valley, Salisbury was planted on the basis of a grant to a dozen proprietors including such men as Mr. Bradstreet and the younger Dudley, only two of whom actually lived and died in Salisbury.621 Amesbury was set off from Salisbury by division, one half of the signers of the agreement signing by mark. Haverhill was first seated in 1641, following petitions from Mr. Ward, the Ipswich minister, his son-in-law, Giles Firmin, and others. Firmin’s letter to Governor Winthrop, in 1640, complains that Ipswich had given him his ground in that town on condition that he should stay in the town three years or else he could not sell it, “whenas others have no business but range from place to place on purpose to live upon the countrey.”622

    Dunstable’s large grant was brought about by a combination of leading men who had received grants after the survey of 1652; among such grants was one to the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company and another to Thomas Brattle of Boston. Apparently it was settled chiefly by others than the original grantees.623 Groton voted in 1685 to sue the “non-Residenc” to assist in paying the rate, and in 1679 the General Court had ordered non-residents having land at Groton to pay rates for their lands as residents did.624 Lancaster (Nashaway) was granted to proprietors including various craftsmen in iron, indicating, perhaps, an expectation of iron works, and few of the original proprietors actually settled in the town.625 The grant of 1653–4 was made by the Court after reciting: (1) that it had ordered in 1647 that the “ordering and disposeing of the Plantation at Nashaway is wholly in the Courts power”; (2) “Considering that there is allredy at Nashaway about nine Families and that severall both freemen and others intend to goe and setle there, some whereof are named in this Petition,” etc.

    Mendon, begun in 1660 by Braintree people, is a particularly significant example. In 1681 the inhabitants petitioned that while they are not “of the number of those who dwell in their ceiled houses & yet say the time is not come that the Lord’s house should be built,” yet they have gone outside of their strength “unless others who are proprietors as well as ourselves, (the price of whose lands is much raysed by our carrying on public work & will be nothing worth if we are forced to quit the place) doo beare an equal share in Town charges with us. Those who are not yet come up to us are a great and far yet abler part of our Proprietors . . .”626 In 1684 the selectmen inform the General Court that one half of the proprietors, two only excepted, are dwelling in other places, “Our proprietors, abroad,” say they, “object that they see no reason why they should pay as much for thayer lands as we do for our Land and stock, which we answer that if their be not a noff of reason for it, we are sure there is more than enough of necessity to supply that is wanting in reason.”627 This is the authentic voice of the frontier.

    Deerfield furnishes another type, inasmuch as a considerable part of its land was first held by Dedham, to which the grant was made as a recompense for the location of the Natick Indian reservation. Dedham shares in the town often fell into the hands of speculators, and Sheldon, the careful historian of Deerfield, declares that not a single Dedham man became a permanent resident of the grant. In 1678 Deerfield petitioned the General Court as follows:

    You may be pleased to know that the very principle & best of the land; the best for soile; the best for situation; as lying in ye centre & midle of the town: & as to quantity, nere half, belongs unto eight or 9 proprietors each and every of which, are never like to come to a settlement amongst us, which we have formerly found grievous & doe Judge for the future will be found intollerable if not altered. Or minister, Mr. Mather . . . & we ourselves are much discouraged as judging the Plantation will be spoiled if thes proprietors may not be begged, or will not be bought up on very easy terms outt of their Right . . . Butt as long as the maine of the plantation Lies in men’s hands that can’t improve it themselves, neither are ever like to putt such tenants on to it as shall be likely to advance the good of ye place in Civill or sacred Respects; he, ourselves, and all others that think of going to it, are much discouraged.628

    Woodstock, later a Connecticut town, was settled under a grant in the Nipmuc country made to the town of Roxbury. The settlers who located their farms near the trading post about which the Indians still collected, were called the “go-ers,” while the “stayers” were those who remained in Roxbury, and retained half of the new grant; but it should be added that they paid the go-ers a sum of money to facilitate the settlement.

    This absentee proprietorship and the commercial attitude toward the lands of new towns became more evident in succeeding years of the eighteenth century. Leicester, for example, was confirmed by the General Court in 1713. The twenty shares were divided among twenty-two proprietors, including Jeremiah Dummer, Paul Dudley (Attorney-General), William Dudley (like Paul a son of the Governor, Joseph Dudley), Thomas Hutchinson (father of the later Governor), John Clark (the political leader), and Samuel Sewall (son of the Chief Justice). These were all men of influence, and none of the proprietors became inhabitants of Leicester. The proprietors tried to induce the fifty families, whose settlement was one of the conditions on which the grant was made, to occupy the eastern half of the township reserving the rest as their absolute property.629

    The author of a currency tract, in 1716, entitled Some Considerations upon the Several Sorts of Banks, remarks that formerly, when land was easy to be obtained, good men came over as indentured servants; but now, he says, they are runaways, thieves, and disorderly persons. The remedy for this, in his opinion, would be to induce servants to come over by offering them homes when the terms of indenture should expire.630 He therefore advocates that townships should be laid out four or five miles square in which grants of fifty or sixty acres could be made to servants.631 Concern over the increase of negro slaves in Massachusetts seems to have been the reason for this proposal. It indicates that the current practice in disposing of the lands did not provide for the poorer people.

    But Massachusetts did not follow this suggestion of a homestead policy. On the contrary, the desire to settle towns to create continuous lines of settlement along the roads between the disconnected frontiers and to protect boundary claims by granting tiers of towns in the disputed tract as well, no doubt, as pressure from financial interests led the General Court between 1715 and 1762 to dispose of the remaining public domain of Massachusetts under conditions that made speculation and colonization by capitalists important factors.632 When in 1762 Massachusetts sold a group of townships in the Berkshires to the highest bidders by whole townships,633 the transfer from the social-religious to the economic conception was complete, and the frontier was deeply influenced by the change to “land mongering.”

    In one respect, however, there was an increasing recognition of the religious and social element in settling the frontier, due in part, no doubt, to a desire to provide for the preservation of eastern ideals and influences in the west. Provisions for reserving lands within the granted townships for the support of an approved minister, and for schools, appear in the seventeenth century and become a common feature of the grants for frontier towns in the eighteenth.634 This practice with respect to the New England frontier became the foundation for the system of grants of land from the public domain for the support of common schools and state universities by the federal government from its beginning, and has been profoundly influential in later western states.

    Another ground for discontent over land questions was furnished by the system of granting lands within the town by the commoners. The principle which in many, if not all, cases guided the proprietors in distributing the town lots is familiar and is well stated in the Lancaster town records (1653):

    And, whereas Lotts are Now Laid out for the most part Equally to Rich and poore, Partly to keepe the Towne from Scatering to farr, and partly out of Charitie and Respect to men of meaner estate, yet that Equallitie (which is the rule of God) may be observed, we Covenant and Agree, That in a second Devition and so through all other Devitions of Land the mater shall be drawne as neere to equallitie according to mens estates as wee are able to doe, That he which hath now more then his estate Deserveth in home Lotts and entervale Lotts shall haue so much Less: and he that hath Less then his estate Deserveth shall haue so much more.635

    This peculiar doctrine of “equality” had early in the history of the colony created discontents. Winthrop explained the principle which governed himself and his colleagues in the case of the Boston committee of 1634 by saying that their divisions were arranged “partly to prevent the neglect of trades.” This is a pregnant idea; it underlay much of the later opposition of New England as a manufacturing section to the free homestead or cheap land policy demanded by the West and by the labor party in the national public domain. The migration of labor to free lands meant that higher wages must be paid to those who remained. The use of the town lands by the established classes to promote an approved form of society naturally must have had some effect on migration.

    But a more effective source of disputes was with respect to the relation of the town proprietors to the public domain of the town in contrast with the non-proprietors as a class. The need of keeping the town meeting and the proprietors’ meeting separate in the old towns in earlier years was not so great as it was when the new-comers became numerous. In an increasing degree these new-comers were either not granted lands at all, or were not admitted to the body of proprietors with rights in the possession of the undivided town lands. Contentions on the part of the town meeting that it had the right of dealing with the town lands occasionally appear, significantly, in the frontier towns of Haverhill, Massachusetts, Simsbury, Connecticut, and in the towns of the Connecticut Valley.636 Jonathan Edwards, in 1751, declared that there had been in Northampton for forty or fifty years “two parties somewhat like the court and country parties of England. . . . The first party embraced the great proprietors of land, and the parties concerned about land and other matters.”637 The tendency to divide up the common lands among the proprietors in individual possession did not become marked until the eighteenth century; but the exclusion of some from possession of the town lands and the “equality” in allotment favoring men with already large estates must have attracted ambitious men who were not of the favored class to join in the movement to new towns. Religious dissensions would combine to make frontier society as it formed early in the eighteenth century more and more democratic, dissatisfied with the existing order, and less respectful of authority. We shall not understand the relative radicalism of parts of the Berkshires, Vermont and interior New Hampshire without enquiry into the degree in which the control over the lands by a proprietary monopoly affected the men who settled on the frontier.

    The final aspect of this frontier to be examined, is the attitude of the conservatives of the older sections toward this movement of westward advance. President Dwight in the era of the War of 1812 was very critical of the “foresters,” but saw in such a movement a safety valve to the institutions of New England by allowing the escape of the explosive advocates of “Innovation.”638

    Cotton Mather is perhaps not a typical representative of the conservative sentiment at the close of the seventeenth century, but his writings may partly reflect the attitude of Boston Bay toward New England’s first western frontier. Writing in 1694 of Wonderful Passages which have Occurred, First in the Protections and then in the Afflictions of New England, he says:

    One while the Enclosing of Commons hath made Neighbours, that should have been like Sheep, to Bite and devour one another. . . . Again, Do our Old People, any of them Go Out from the Institutions of God, Swarming into New Settlements, where they and their Untaught Families are like to Perish for Lack of Vision? They that have done so, heretofore, have to their Cost found, that they were got unto the Wrong side of the Hedge, in their doing so. Think, here Should this he done any more? We read of Balaam, in Num. 22, 23. He was to his Damage, driven to the Wall, when he would needs make an unlawful Salley forth after the Gain of this World. . . . Why, when men, for the Sake of Earthly Gain, would be going out into the Warm Sun, they drive Through the Wall, and the Angel of the Lord becomes their Enemy.

    In his essay on Frontiers Well-Defended (1707) Mather assures the pioneers that they “dwell in a Hatsarmaneth,” a place of “tawney serpents,” are “inhabitants of the Valley of Achor,” and are “the Poor of this World.” There may be significance in his assertion: “It is remarkable to see that when the Unchurched Villages, have been so many of them, utterly broken up, in the War, that has been upon us, those that have had Churches regularly formed in them, have generally been under a more sensible Protection of Heaven.” “Sirs,” he says, “a Church-State well form’d may fortify you wonderfully!” He recommends abstention from profane swearing, furious cursing, Sabbath breaking, unchastity, dishonesty, robbing of God by defrauding the ministers of their dues, drunkenness, and revels, and he reminds them that even the Indians have family prayers! Like his successors who solicited missionary contributions for the salvation of the frontier in the Mississippi Valley during the forties of the nineteenth century, this early spokesman for New England laid stress upon teaching anti-popery, particularly in view of the captivity that might await them.

    In summing up, we find many of the traits of later frontiers in this early prototype, the Massachusetts frontier. It lies at the edge of the Indian country and tends to advance. It calls out militant qualities and reveals the imprint of wilderness conditions upon the psychology and morals as well as upon the institutions of the people. It demands common defence and thus becomes a factor for consolidation. It is built on the basis of a preliminary fur trade, and is settled by the combined and sometimes antagonistic forces of eastern men of property (the absentee proprietors) and the democratic pioneers. The east attempted to regulate and control it. Individualistic and democratic tendencies were emphasized both by the wilderness conditions and, probably, by the prior contentions between the proprietors and non-proprietors of the towns from which settlers moved to the frontier. Removal away from the control of the customary usages of the older communities and from the conservative influence of the body of the clergy, increased the innovating tendency. Finally the towns were regarded by at least one prominent representative of the established order in the east, as an undesirable place for the re-location of the pillars of society. The temptation to look upon the frontier as a field for investment was viewed by the clergy as a danger to the “institutions of God.” The frontier was “the Wrong side of the Hedge.”

    But to this “wrong side of the hedge” New England men continued to migrate. The frontier towns of 1695 were hardly more than suburbs of Boston. The frontier of a century later included New England’s colonies in Vermont, Western New York, the Wyoming Valley, the Connecticut Reserve, and the Ohio Company’s settlement in the Old Northwest Territory. By the time of the Civil War the frontier towns of New England had occupied the great prairie zone of the Middle West and were even planted in parts of the Pacific Coast. New England’s sons had become the organizers of a Greater New England in the West, captains of industry, political leaders, founders of educational systems, and prophets of religion, in a section that was to influence the ideals and shape the destiny of the nation in ways to which the eyes of men like Cotton Mather were sealed.

    Mr. Albert Matthews made the following communication:

    TENTATIVE LISTS OF TEMPORARY STUDENTS AT HARVARD COLLEGE, 1639–1800

    Having in preparation an account of temporary students at Harvard College in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, tentative lists of such students are now submitted in the hope of obtaining additional names. The remissness of the College authorities during that period in regard to matriculations is at once extraordinary and inexplicable. It was not until 1725 that, so far as is known, the names of members of the entering class were recorded, beginning with the Class that graduated in 1729; with the Class graduating in 1732, the residence and year of age at entrance were first given; and with the Class graduating in 1741, the residence and full date of birth were first given.639 But often the names were not recorded until the Freshman Class had been in College for many months, occasionally for almost a year, and if meanwhile a Freshman died or left College, his name was not included in the list. Again, if a student entered a certain class after the names of the members of that class had been recorded, his name was not inserted.640 And it was not until 1823 that a student was compelled to sign a book at entrance.641 Hence, singular as it may seem, a complete list of Harvard students previous to 1801 cannot be compiled. The names in the present lists have been obtained from various sources — most of them, of course, from the manuscript records of the College, but not a few (some of which do not appear in the College records themselves) from letters, diaries, journals, epitaphs, genealogies, probate files, and newspapers.

    The term “temporary student” is not a precise one, hence it is necessary to state exactly what names are or are not to be found in the present lists. Temporary students may be divided into the following five groups:

    (a) Students who died while undergraduates.

    (b) Students who left College, either voluntarily or involuntarily, who never returned, and who never received degrees either out of course or honorary.

    (c) Students who left College, for whatever reason, who never returned, who never received degrees out of course, but who did later receive honorary degrees. Thus, George Cabot entered in 1766 with the Class of 1770. Two years later President Holyoke recorded:

    Cabot [a Sophimore] came to me this Day Mar. 19. 1768, telling me he came to deliv’r up his Chamber, in Order to ye College leave the College, & asking wt Right he had to do this, seeing he was a Minor, he answer’d, That his Guardian [Mr Goodale] tho’t it might be best for him.642

    Cabot delivrs up his Chamber, & leaves ye College

    In 1779 George Cabot received the honorary degree of A.M.

    (d) Students who left College, for whatever reason, but later returned either to the same class or to a subsequent class, and who duly graduated. Thus, Edward Bates entered in 1732 with the Class of 1736; left College in 1733; returned September 10, 1735, being admitted to the Sophomore Class; and duly graduated in 1738 as of the Class of 1738. Again, Jonathan Whitaker entered in 1793 with the Class of 1797; left College September 12, 1793; returned the following December; and duly graduated with his Class in 1797. Once more, of seven students who entered in 1766 with the Class of 1770, three were rusticated and four were expelled; but all seven were later readmitted into the Class of 1771 and duly received their degrees in 1771 as of the Class of 1771.

    (e) Students who left College, for whatever reason, and later received degrees out of course. Thus, Thomas Lee entered in 1794 with the Class of 1798; left College April 17, 1797; never returned; and in 1866 was given the degree of A.B. as of the Class of 1798. Again, Edmund Trowbridge Dana entered in 1795 with the Class of 1799; left College in April, 1799; never returned; died May 6, 1858; and in 1879 was given the degree of A.B. as of the Class of 1799.

    Students who come under groups (a), (b), and (c), are included in the present lists; but those who come under groups (d) and (e) are not included in the present lists. The reason why those in group (c) are included in, while those in group (e) are excluded from, the present lists, is as follows. No one can receive a degree out of course who has not at some time been an undergraduate. Consequently, the inclusion of a man’s name in the Quinquennial Catalogue under the heading “Bachelors of Arts” shows that the man must at one time have been a student, even though — as in the case of Thomas Lee — the degree was conferred out of course no less than sixty-eight years later. On the other hand, the inclusion of a man’s name in the Quinquennial Catalogue under the heading “Honorary Degrees” conveys no information as to whether the man was or was not a temporary student at Harvard College.

    In most cases the exact class to which a student belonged is known with certainty; but in some cases, especially in the seventeenth century, the class to which a student belonged is uncertain. It has seemed best to assign a definite year — which is not likely to be more than three or four years out of the way — and this has been done in every instance; but in both lists a question mark indicates that the class is approximate only.

    Against more than one name in the Faculty Records is written “Never came,” or words to that effect; nevertheless, such names are included in these lists. There are also included the names of several persons whose right to be regarded as temporary students is questionable; but such names have been found in genealogies or elsewhere, and, as the title of this communication shows, these lists are merely tentative.643

    The compiler will welcome information in regard to any of the persons — of whom there are about four hundred644 — mentioned in the lists, and will be grateful for additional names.645

    An asterisk denotes that a student died while an undergraduate.

    The two lists that follow are:

    • I. List by Classes.
    • II. Alphabetical List.

    I List by Classes

    • 1644
      • Jonn Newton?
    • 1645
      • —— Bradford?
      • —— Prince?
      • John Weld?
    • 1646
      • Josiah Winslow?
      • Samuel Winthrop?
    • 1647
      • John Ames?
      • —— Cotton?
    • 1651
      • —— Goodyear?
      • —— Swineoke?
    • 1653
      • —— Malbone?
    • 1654
      • —— Chickering?
      • —— Fownall?
      • Pelatiah Glover?
      • —— Oakes?
      • George Shove?
    • 1655
      • —— Byle
      • William Brimsmead
      • —— Brookes
      • —— Farm worth?
      • —— Gore
      • John Hooke?
      • —— Matthews?
      • Samuel Wakeman?
      • —— Walver
      • Jonathan Willoughby
      • Ichabod Wiswall
      • —— Woodward
    • 1656
      • —— Brigham
      • Walter Hooke?
      • —— Hunt?
      • Samuel Megapolensis?
      • —— Seymour?
      • Samuel Torrey?
      • Zechary Walker?
    • 1657
      • —— Constable?
      • —— Eayers?
      • —— Gouge?
      • —— Peck?
      • —— Symons?
    • 1658
      • —— Denison?
      • —— Gatliffe?
      • Roger Haynes?
    • 1659
      • —— Bennet
      • —— Bulkley?
      • John Hagborne?
      • —— Mutie?
      • Samuel Seabury?
      • —— Thomas
    • 1660
      • John Alline
      • John Cheney?
      • Jonathan Curwin
      • John Wenbome
      • —— Whittingham
      • —— Wyeth
    • 1661
      • John Crowne?
      • John Wyborne?
    • 1662
      • Isaac Addington?
      • John Fleming?
      • Ephraim Flint?
      • Josiah Harvey?
      • John Holmes?
      • Eleazer Kimberley?
      • Nathaniel Williams?
      • —— Winthrop?
    • 1663
      • —— Mears?
      • John Oliver?
      • Samuel Stone?
    • 1668
      • —— Winthrop?
    • 1675
      • Seth Flynt*
    • 1678
      • John Wilson?
    • 1679
      • Eleazar (an Indian)
      • Recompense Wadsworth*
    • 1684
      • —— Watson?
    • 1685
      • Samuel Gardner*
    • 1696
      • —— Pynclion?
    • 1697
      • —— Henchman
    • 1699
      • John Eyre*?
      • William Maxwell*?
    • 1701
      • —— Devotion?
      • Richard Willard*
    • 1702
      • —— Weed?
    • 1703
      • John Appleton*
    • 1709
      • Jonathan Marsh*
      • John Wainwright*
      • Abel Wright*
    • 1712
      • George Hussey?
      • —— Sergant?
    • 1716
      • —— Hall?
      • Benjamin Larnal*
    • 1718
      • Henry Bromfield*
      • John Hobby
    • 1723
      • Joshua Lamb*
      • Joseph Parsons*?
      • G—— Rogers?
    • 1724
      • Thomas Spear*?
    • 1726
      • —— Vaughan*
    • 1729
      • Jeremiah Allen
      • Paul Baxter
      • James Honeyman
      • John Staniford*
    • 1730
      • Benjamin Vial*
    • 1731
      • Atherton Clark
      • Josiah Fuller
      • Eliot Vaughan
    • 1733
      • Thomas Turner
    • 1734
      • Thomas Bell
      • Gershom Collier
      • Daniel Hoar
      • Josiah Leveet*
      • William Rand
      • Samuel Steel
    • 1735
      • Benjamin Browne
    • 1736
      • Paul Nowell
      • Benjamin Rogers
    • 1737
      • Wyborn Adams
      • Ezra Bourne*
      • Robert Bridge
      • Thomas Granger
      • Josiah Johnson
      • Jacob Peabody
    • 1738
      • Jeremiah Allen*
      • Benjamin Ball
      • Ebenezer Hemmingway
    • 1740
      • John Barnard*
    • 1741
      • Henry Crook
      • Josiah Langdon
      • Benning Wentworth
    • 1742
      • Thomas Speakman
      • William Waldron
    • 1743
      • Josiah Cotton
      • Estes Hatch
      • Rowland Maillard
      • James Mills*
      • John Parsons*
      • Nathan Whiting
      • William Wilson*
      • Fortunatus Woods
    • 1744
      • Samuel Bird
      • Godfrey Malbone
      • John Palmer
    • 1745
      • John Pecker*?
    • 1746
      • John Ashe
    • 1747
      • John Cuming
      • Joseph Palmer
      • Benjamin Prescott*
    • 1748
      • John Borland
      • David Lee*
      • Daniel Perkins*
      • William Rust*
      • —— Sprague
      • John Thacher*
    • 1749
      • John Barrett*
      • Nathan Bucknam
      • Breton Cooper
    • 1750
      • Thomas Foxcroft
      • Nathaniel Gilman*
    • 1750
      • Ebenezer Young
    • 1752
      • William Clarke
      • Benjamin Lasinby
    • 1753
      • John Browne
      • John Stoddard
      • Richard Stoddard
    • 1755
      • —— Mellen?
      • William Tisdale
      • —— Walker
    • 1756
      • John Brodbelt
      • Zechariah Hicks
      • William Hobby*
    • 1757
      • Samuel Estabrook*
      • Amos Lamson*
      • John Mosely
    • 1758
      • James Allen
      • Joshua Jewett*
      • George Pollock
      • William Whitwell
    • 1759
      • Zebadiah Abbot
      • John Denny
      • Stephen Goodhue
      • Henry Maxwell Hill
      • Benjamin Johnson*
      • Ebenezer Noyes
      • Joshua Noyes
      • Moses Sharruck
      • Aaron Smith
      • Abel Whitney*
    • 1760
      • Caleb Taft*?
    • 1761
      • John Chipman*
    • 1762
      • Elijah Bent
      • David Mirick
    • 1763
      • William Farnham*
      • George Goulding Honeyman
      • Noah Merrick*
      • Nathan Pynchon
      • Michael James Trollet
    • 1764
      • Joseph Cabot
    • 1765
      • William Billing
      • Edward Pope
      • Alexander Thayer
      • Henry Wentworth
      • Simeon Williams
      • Thomas Williams
    • 1766
      • William Apthorp
      • William Bowen
      • George Mumford
    • 1767
      • Thomas Hodgson
      • James Scollay
    • 1768
      • James Dennie
      • Joseph Hovey*
      • Joshua Otis
      • Nathaniel Rogers
      • —— Stanley?
    • 1769
      • Joseph Adams*
      • Timothy Child
      • John Frye
      • James Mitchel Varnum
    • 1770
      • George Cabot
      • Jeremiah Hill
      • Thurston Whiting
    • 1771
      • Shute Bernard*?
      • David Stinson*
    • 1772
      • Peter Heyleger
      • —— Southworth
    • 1773
      • Ezra Gleason
      • Jonathan Moulton
    • 1774
      • Timothy Jones
      • Seth Parker
      • Benjamin Brown Plaisted
      • Abijah Richardson
    • 1775
      • Arthur Browne
      • Samuel Chandler
      • William Crosby
      • John Fisher
      • William Fitch
      • Elijah Jones
      • Joshua Orne
      • David Partridge
      • John Putnam*
    • 1776
      • Daniel Farrington
      • John Murray
      • John Paddock*
      • Jonathan Peele*
      • Benjamin Pratt
      • Gideon Putnam*
      • Abel Willard
    • 1777
      • John Erving
      • Shirley Erving
      • Thomas Fenton
      • Aaron Hill
      • Benjamin Kimball*
      • Roland Parks
      • Jonathan Stickney
    • 1778
      • Samuel Bass
      • Leonard Vassall Borland
      • Richard Perkins Bridge
      • Eli Danielson
      • Samuel Kinsley Glover
      • Gardner Goold
      • John Greenleaf*
      • Charles Jones
      • Nahum Jones
      • Paul Mascarene
      • Adino Paddock
      • William Watson
    • 1779
      • James Gray
      • Aaron Hall
      • Henry Hooper
    • 1780
      • James Borland?
      • Samuel Colman?
      • James Delaney
    • 1781
      • James Bryant
      • Josiah Goodhue
      • Benedict Arnold Potter
      • Jeremiah Smith
    • 1782
      • Charles Cutter*
      • Nathan Fiske*
      • Azor Orne
    • 1783
      • Isaac Baldwin
      • Joseph Bond*
      • Jonathan Rawson
      • Paul Snow
      • Edward Kinnecutt Thompson
    • 1784
      • —— Campbell
      • Thomas Jackson Greenwood
      • John Pynchon
    • 1785
      • Richard Derby
      • Ezekiel Goddard Dodge
      • John Flagg*
      • Michael Gill
      • Samuel Locke
      • Andrew McClary
      • Joseph Phillips
      • William Phillips
      • Sumner Wood
      • Cyrus Woodward
    • 1786
      • Elias Hasket Derby
      • Charles Ferguson
      • Nathan Osgood
      • Davies Sumner
    • 1787
      • William Annan
      • John Hancock Bowes
      • Francis Brewer
      • Ebenezer Gay
      • Nathaniel Higginson
    • 1788
      • —— Grainger?
      • Ebenezer Grosvenor*
      • Thomas Hancock
      • Martin Paris
      • Samuel Ward
    • 1789
      • Isaac Adams
      • Ebenezer Brackett
      • David Cowing
      • John Fayerweather
      • John Ferguson
      • Thomas Lamson
      • Moses Little
      • William Maxwell Macneile
      • Samuel Moody
      • Daniel Russell
    • 1790
      • Stephen Cleveland Blyth
      • Robert Emery
    • 1792
      • William Bowman
      • Samuel Crossett
      • Henry Daingerfield
      • Jonathan Otis Freeman
      • William Read
      • Micah Stone
      • Bradstreet Story
      • Benjamin Foissin Trapier
    • 1793
      • John P—— Hale
      • Henry Williams Jones
      • Josiah Moore
      • Artemas Washburn*
    • 1794
      • James Jacobs
      • Darius Shaw
      • John Sprague
      • Israel Eliot Trask
      • Silvester Gardiner Whipple
      • Alexander Wylly
    • 1795
      • Jeffrey Amherst Atherton*
      • Thomas Cordis
      • Charles Leonard
      • John Patch
      • William Reed
      • Richard Shackelford
      • William Story
      • Joshua Nichols Upham
      • Daniel Warner*
      • Elnathan Wheeler
    • 1796
      • Nathaniel Coffin Amory
      • George Aspinwall
      • John Winslow Brigham
      • Jacob Gates
      • Samuel Hunt
      • George Otis
      • John Richardson
      • John Russell*
      • Thomas Somes
    • 1797
      • William Bostwick Bannister
      • Isaac Flagg
      • Jason Howard
      • James Macgaw
      • William Putnam*
      • Jairus Rich
      • Thomas Turnbull
      • Isaac Wellington*
    • 1798
      • William Balch
      • Levi Barnard
      • Jeremiah Bowers*
      • Francis Brigham*
      • Henry Vassall Chamberlain
      • —— Dillingham
      • Joseph Dix
      • John Fisk
      • Josiah Hook
      • John Minot
      • Jonathan Phillips
      • Jonathan Reed
      • John Hayward Shaw
      • Henry Sheafe
      • Nathaniel Sparhawk
      • Arthur Maynard Walter
    • 1799
      • Abel Willard Atherton
      • Moses Hodgdon
      • Thomas Baker Johnson
      • John Jones*
      • Sewall Lancaster
      • Samuel Willard
      • Abel Wright*
    • 1800
      • Hezekiah Allen
      • Thomas Braman
      • Henry Cabot
      • William Garland
      • Samuel Harris
      • John Prentice
      • Richard Sanger
      • Ebenezer Starr
      • Joseph Stevens
      • Robert Dewar Wainwright
      • Joseph Warren
      • Charles Wheeler
      • Edward Wyer

    II Alphabetical List

    • Abbot
      • 1759 Zebadiah
    • Adams
      • 1737 Wyborn
      • 1769 Joseph*
      • 1789 Isaac
    • Addington
      • 1662 Isaac?
    • Allen
      • 1729 Jeremiah
      • 1738 Jeremiah*
      • 1758 James
      • 1800 Hezekiah
    • Alline
      • 1660 John
    • Ames
      • 1647 John?
    • Amory
      • 1796 Nathaniel Coffin
    • Annan
      • 1787 William
    • Appleton
      • 1703 John*
    • Apthorp
      • 1766 William
    • Ashe
      • 1746 John
    • Aspinwall
      • 1796 George
    • Atherton
      • 1795 Jeffery Amherst*
      • 1799 Abel willard
    • Balch
      • 1798 William
    • Baldwin
      • 1783 Isaac
    • Ball
      • 1738 Benjamin
    • Bannister
      • 1797 William Bostwick
    • Barnard
      • 1740 John*
      • 1798 Levi
    • Barrett
      • 1749 John*
    • Bass
      • 1778 Samuel
    • Baxter
      • 1729 Paul
    • Bell
      • 1734 Thomas
    • Bennet
      • 1659 ——
    • Bent
      • 1762 Elijah
    • Bernard
      • 1771 Shute*?
    • Billing
      • 1765 William
    • Bird
      • 1744 Samuel
    • Blye
      • 1655 ——
    • Blyth
      • 1790 Stephen Cleveland
    • Bond
      • 1783 Joseph*
    • Borland
      • 1748 John
      • 1778 Leonard Vassall
      • 1780 James?
    • Bourne
      • 1737 Ezra*
    • Bowen
      • 1766 William
    • Bowers
      • 1798 Jeremiah*
    • Bowes
      • 1787 John Hancock
    • Bowman
      • 1792 William
    • Brackett
      • 1789 Ebenezer
    • Bradford
      • 1645 ——?
    • Braman
      • 1800 Thomas
    • Brewer
      • 1787 Francis
    • Bridge
      • 1737 Robert
      • 1778 Richard Perkins
    • Brigham
      • 1656 ——
      • 1796 John Winslow
      • 1798 Francis*
    • Brimsmead
      • 1655 William
    • Brodbelt
      • 1756 John
    • Bromfield
      • 1718 Henry*
    • Brookes
      • 1655 ——
    • Browne
      • 1735 Benjamin
      • 1753 John
      • 1775 Arthur
    • Bryant
      • 1781 James
    • Bucknam
      • 1749 Nathan
    • Buikley
      • 1659 ——?
    • Cabot
      • 1764 Joseph
      • 1770 George
      • 1800 Henry
    • Campbell
      • 1784 ——
    • Chamberlain
      • 1798 Henry Vassall
    • Chandler
      • 1775 Samuel
    • Cheney
      • 1660 John?
    • Chickering
      • 1654 ——?
    • Child
      • 1769 Timothy
    • Chipman
      • 1761 John*
    • Clark
      • 1731 Atherton
    • Clarke
      • 1752 William
    • Collier
      • 1734 Gershom
    • Colman
      • 1780 Samuel?
    • Constable
      • 1657 ——?
    • Cooper
      • 1749 Breton
    • Cordis
      • 1795 Thomas
    • Cotton
      • 1647 ——?
      • 1743 Josiah
    • Cowing
      • 1789 David
    • Crook
      • 1741 Henry
    • Crosby
      • 1775 William
    • Crossett
      • 1792 Samuel
    • Crowne
      • 1661 John?
    • Cuming
      • 1747 John
    • Curwin
      • 1660 Jonathan
    • Cutter
      • 1782 Charles*
    • Daingerfield
      • 1792 Henry
    • Danielson
      • 1778 Eli
    • Delaney
      • 1780 James
    • Denison
      • 1658 ——?
    • Dennie
      • 1768 James
    • Denny
      • 1759 John
    • Derby
      • 1785 Richard
      • 1786 Elias Hasket
    • Devotion
      • 1701 ——?
    • Dillingham
      • 1798 ——
    • Dix
      • 1798 Joseph
    • Dodge
      • 1785 Ezekiel Goddard
    • Eayers
      • 1657 ——?
    • Eleazar
      • 1679 (an Indian)
    • Emery
      • 1790 Robert
    • Erving
      • 1777 John
      • 1777 Shirley
    • Estabrook
      • 1757 Samuel*
    • Eyre
      • 1699 John?*
    • Farmworth
      • 1655 ——?
    • Farnham
      • 1763 William*
    • Farrington
      • 1776 Daniel
    • Fayerweather
      • 1789 John
    • Fenton
      • 1777 Thomas
    • Ferguson
      • 1786 Charles
      • 1789 John
    • Fisher
      • 1775 John
    • Fisk
      • 1798 John
    • Fiske
      • 1782 Nathan*
    • Fitch
      • 1775 William
    • Flagg
      • 1785 John*
      • 1797 Isaac
    • Fleming
      • 1662 John?
    • Flint
      • 1662 Ephraim?
    • Flynt
      • 1675 Seth*
    • Fownall
      • 1654 ——?
    • Foxcroft
      • 1750 Thomas
    • Freeman
      • 1792 Jonathan Otis
    • Frye
      • 1769 John
    • Fuller
      • 1731 Josiah
    • Gardner
      • 1685 Samuel*
    • Garland
      • 1800 William
    • Gates
      • 1796 Jacob
    • Gatliffe
      • 1658 ——?
    • Gay
      • 1787 Ebenezer
    • Gill
      • 1785 Michael
    • Gilman
      • 1750 Nathaniel*
    • Gleason
      • 1773 Ezra
    • Glover
      • 1654 Pelatiah?
      • 1778 Samuel Kinsley
    • Goodhue
      • 1759 Stephen
      • 1781 Josiah
    • Goodyear
      • 1651 ——?
    • Goold
      • 1778 Gardner
    • Gore
      • 1655 ——
    • Gouge
      • 1657 ——?
    • Grainger
      • 1788 ——?
    • Granger
      • 1737 Thomas
    • Gray
      • 1779 James
    • Greenleaf
      • 1778 John*
    • Greenwood
      • 1784 Thomas Jackson
    • Grosvenor
      • 1788 Ebenezer*
    • Hagborne
      • 1659 John?
    • Hale
      • 1793 John P——
    • Hall
      • 1716 ——?
      • 1779 Aaron
    • Hancock
      • 1788 Thomas
    • Harris
      • 1800 Samuel
    • Harvey
      • 1662 Josiah?
    • Hatch
      • 1743 Estes
    • Haynes
      • 1658 Roger?
    • Hemmingway
      • 1738 Ebenezer
    • Henchman
      • 1697 ——
    • Heyleger
      • 1772 Peter
    • Hicks
      • 1756 Zechariah
    • Higginson
      • 1787 Nathaniel
    • Hill
      • 1759 Henry Maxwell
      • 1770 Jeremiah
      • 1777 Aaron
    • Hoar
      • 1734 Daniel
    • Hobby
      • 1718 John
      • 1756 William*
    • Hodgdon
      • 1799 Moses
    • Hodgson
      • 1767 Thomas
    • Holmes
      • 1662 John?
    • Honeyman
      • 1729 James
      • 1763 George Goulding
    • Hook
      • 1798 Josiah
    • Hooke
      • 1655 John?
      • 1656 Walter?
    • Hooper
      • 1779 Henry
    • Hovey
      • 1768 Joseph*
    • Howard
      • 1797 Jason
    • Hunt
      • 1656 ——?
      • 1796 Samuel
    • Hussey
      • 1712 George?
    • Jacobs
      • 1794 James
    • Jewett
      • 1758 Joshua*
    • Johnson
      • 1737 Josiah
      • 1759 Benjamin*
      • 1799 Thomas Baker
    • Jones
      • 1771 Timothy
      • 1775 Elijah
      • 1778 Charles
      • 1778 Nahum
      • 1793 Henry Williams
      • 1799 John*
    • Kimball
      • 1777 Benjamin*
    • Kimberley
      • 1662 Eleazer?
    • Lamb
      • 1723 Joshua*
    • Lampson
      • 1757 Amos*
    • Lamson
      • 1789 Thomas
    • Lancaster
      • 1799 Sewall
    • Langdon
      • 1741 Josiah
    • Larnel
      • 1716 Benjamin*
    • Lasinby
      • 1752 Benjamin
    • Lee
      • 1748 David*
    • Leonard
      • 1795 Charles
    • Levett
      • 1734 Josiah*
    • Little
      • 1789 Moses
    • Locke
      • 1785 Samuel
    • McClary
      • 1785 Andrew
    • Macgaw
      • 1797 James
    • Macneile
      • 1789 William Maxwell
    • Maillard
      • 1743 Rowland
    • Malbone
      • 1653 ——?
      • 1744 Godfrey
    • Marsh
      • 1709 Jonathan*
    • Mascarene
      • 1778 Paul
    • Matthews
      • 1655 ——?
    • Maxwell
      • 1699 William*?
    • Mears
      • 1663 ——?
    • Megapolensis
      • 1656 Samuel?
    • Mellen
      • 1755 ——?
    • Merrick
      • 1763 Noah*
    • Mills
      • 1743 James*
    • Minot
      • 1798 John
    • Mirick
      • 1762 David
    • Moody
      • 1789 Samuel
    • Moore
      • 1793 Josiah
    • Mosely
      • 1757 John
    • Moulton
      • 1773 Jonathan
    • Mumford
      • 1766 George
    • Murray
      • 1776 John
    • Mutie
      • 1659 ——?
    • Newton
      • 1644 John?
    • Nowell
      • 1736 Paul
    • Noyes
      • 1759 Ebenezer
      • 1759 Joshua
    • Oakes
      • 1654 ——?
    • Oliver
      • 1663 John?
    • Orne
      • 1775 Joshua
      • 1782 Azor
    • Osgood
      • 1786 Nathan
    • Otis
      • 1768 Joshua
      • 1796 George
    • Paddock
      • 1776 John*
      • 1778 Adino
    • Palmer
      • 1744 John
      • 1747 Joseph
    • Paris
      • 1788 Martin
    • Parker
      • 1774 Seth
    • Parks
      • 1777 Roland
    • Parsons
      • 1723 Joseph*?
      • 1743 John*
    • Partridge
      • 1775 David
    • Patch
      • 1795 John
    • Peabody
      • 1737 Jacob
    • Peck
      • 1657——?
    • Pecker
      • 1745 John*?
    • Peele
      • 1776 Jonathan*
    • Perkins
      • 1748 Daniel*
    • Phillips
      • 1785 Joseph
      • 1785 William
      • 1798 Jonathan
    • Plaisted
      • 1774 Benjamin Brown
    • Pollock
      • 1758 George
    • Pope
      • 1765 Edward
    • Potter
      • 1781 Benedict Arnold
    • Pratt
      • 1776 Benjamin
    • Prentice
      • 1800 John
    • Prescott
      • 1747 Benjamin*
    • Prince
      • 1645——?
    • Putnam
      • 1775 John*
      • 1776 Gideon*
      • 1797 William*
    • Pynchon
      • 1696 ——?
      • 1763 Nathan
      • 1784 John
    • Rand
      • 1734 William
    • Rawson
      • 1783 Jonathan
    • Read
      • 1792 William
    • Reed
      • 1795 William
      • 1798 Jonathan
    • Rich
      • 1797 Jairus
    • Richardson
      • 1774 Abijah
      • 1796 John
    • Rogers
      • 1723 G——?
      • 1736 Benjamin
      • 1768 Nathaniel
    • Russell
      • 1789 Daniel
      • 1796 John*
    • Rust
      • 1748 William*
    • Sanger
      • 1800 Richard
    • Scollay
      • 1767 James
    • Seabury
      • 1659 Samuel?
    • Sergant
      • 1712 ——?
    • Seymour
      • 1656 ——?
    • Shackelford
      • 1795 Richard
    • Shattuck
      • 1759 Moses
    • Shaw
      • 1794 Darius
      • 1798 John Hayward
    • Sheafe
      • 1798 Henry
    • Shove
      • 1654 George?
    • Smith
      • 1759 Aaron
      • 1781 Jeremiah
    • Snow
      • 1783 Paul
    • Somes
      • 1796 Thomas
    • Southworth
      • 1772 ——
    • Sparhawk
      • 1798 Nathaniel
    • Speakman
      • 1742 Thomas
    • Spear
      • 1724 Thomas*?
    • Sprague
      • 1748 ——
      • 1794 John
    • Staniford
      • 1729 John*
    • Stanley
      • 1768——?
    • Starr
      • 1800 Ebenezer
    • Steel
      • 1734 Samuel
    • Stevens
      • 1800 Joseph
    • Stickney
      • 1777 Jonathan
    • Stinson
      • 1771 David*
    • Stoddard
      • 1753 John
      • 1753 Richard
    • Stone
      • 1792 Micah
      • 1663 Samuel?
    • Story
      • 1792 Bradstreet
      • 1795 William
    • Sumner
      • 1786 Davies
    • Swineoke
      • 1651 ——?
    • Symons
      • 1657 ——?
    • Taft
      • 1760 Caleb*?
    • Thacher
      • 1748 John*
    • Thayer
      • 1765 Alexander
    • Thomas
      • 1659 ——
    • Thompson
      • 1783 Edward Kinnecutt
    • Tisdale
      • 1755 William
    • Torrey
      • 1656 Samuel?
    • Trapier
      • 1792 Benjamin Foissin
    • Trask
      • 1794 Israel Eliot
    • Trollett
      • 1763 Michael James
    • Turnbull
      • 1797 Thomas
    • Turner
      • 1733 Thomas
    • Upham
      • 1795 Joshua Nichols
    • Varnum
      • 1769 James Mitchel
    • Vaughan
      • 1726 ——*
      • 1731 Eliot
    • Vial
      • 1730 Benjamin*
    • Wadsworth
      • 1679 Recompense*
    • Wainwright
      • 1709 John*
      • 1800 Robert Dewar
    • Wakeman
      • 1655 Samuel?
    • Waldron
      • 1742 William
    • Walker
      • 1656 Zechary?
      • 1755 ——
    • Walter
      • 1798 Arthur Maynard
    • Walver
      • 1655——
    • Ward
      • 1788 Samuel
    • Warner
      • 1795 Daniel*
    • Warren
      • 1800 Joseph
    • Washburn
      • 1793 Artemas*
    • Watson
      • 1684 ——?
      • 1778 William
    • Weed
      • 1702 ——?
    • Weld
      • 1645 John?
    • Wellington
      • 1797 Isaac*
    • Wenborne
      • 1660 John
    • Wentworth
      • 1741 Benning
      • 1765 Henry
    • Wheeler
      • 1795 Elnathan
      • 1800 Charles
    • Whipple
      • 1794 Silvester Gardiner
    • Whiting
      • 1743 Nathan
      • 1770 Thurston
    • Whitney
      • 1759 Abel*
    • Whittingham
      • 1660 ——
    • Whitwell
      • 1758 William
    • Willard
      • 1701 Richard*
      • 1776 Abel
      • 1799 Samuel
    • Williams
      • 1662 Nathaniel?
      • 1765 Simeon
      • 1765 Thomas
    • Willoughby
      • 1655 Jonathan
    • Wilson
      • 1678 John?
      • 1743 William*
    • Winslow
      • 1646 Josiah?
    • Winthrop
      • 1646 Samuel?
      • 1662 ——?
      • 1668 ——?
    • Wiswall
      • 1655 Ichabod
    • Wood
      • 1785 Sumner
    • Woods
      • 1743 Fortunatus
    • Woodward
      • 1655 ——
      • 1785 Cyrus
    • Wright
      • 1709 Abel*
      • 1799 Abel*
    • Wyborne
      • 1661 John?
    • Wyer
      • 1800 Edward
    • Wyeth
      • 1660 ——
    • Wylly
      • 1794 Alexander
    • Young
      • 1751 Ebenezer

    Note. — The above list contains four errors. The names of Samuel Hunt, Joseph Palmer, Richard Sanger, and Bradstreet Story should be deleted, as they duly graduated in 1796, 1747, 1800, and 1792, respectively. The compiler was misled by the 1885 edition of the Quinquennial Catalogue. Palmer and Sanger are there assigned (in the index) respectively to 1741 and 1808, typographical errors for 1747 and 1800. Samuel Hunt and Bradstreet Story later changed their names to John Dixwell and Dudley Story Bradstreet, respectively; but such changes in name are not noted in that edition of the Quinquennial Catalogue.

    Also, there should be added the names of —— Browne (perhaps the Benjamin Browne who died in 1708), who was in the class of 1666; of Joel Jacoms, an Indian, who was in the class of 1665; and of John Pynchon (d. 1721), who was in the class of 1666.

    May 1, 1915.