MARCH MEETING, 1927
A Stated Meeting of the Society was held at the invitation of Mr. Frederic Winthrop, at No. 299 Berkeley Street, Boston, on Thursday, March 24, 1927, at three o’clock in the afternoon, the President, Samuel Eliot Morison, in the chair.
The Records of the last Stated Meeting were read and approved.
The Corresponding Secretary reported the death, on March 22, 1927, of Charles Sprague Sargent, a Resident Member.
The Corresponding Secretary reported that letters had been received from Mr. George Lincoln Burr and Mr. Stanley Thomas Williams accepting Corresponding Membership, and from Sir George Otto Trevelyan and M. Émile Bourgeois accepting Associate Membership.
Mr. Charles Francis Dorr Belden of Boston was elected a Resident Member; Mr. William Tudor Gardiner of Gardiner, Maine, was elected a Corresponding Member; and Mr. Arthur Meier Schlesinger of Cambridge was elected an Associate Member.
The President read a letter written by Sir George Otto Trevelyan accepting membership in the Society:
Welcombe,
Stratford on Avon
Feb. 5, 1927
Dear Sir,
I am greatly honoured by my election to the Colonial Society of Massachusetts. It is difficult to exaggerate the debt which I owe to that State. Whether it is over its noble, and nobly told, historical records; or amidst its unique and inexhaustible imaginative literature; I have had as great and abiding a mass of enjoyment as any man can ever have drawn from any country, or any people. I remain
Yours very truly
G. O. Trevelyan.
Mr. Samuel C. Clough read a paper entitled:
REMARKS ON THE COMPILATION OF THE BOSTON BOOK OF POSSESSIONS
Public Document No. 46 of the City of Boston, comprising the first volume of the Town Records and the Book of Possessions, was printed under the direction of the Record Commissioners in 1881.2 The original manuscript of the part of that volume known as the Book of Possessions might be justly termed “Boston’s Doomsday Book,” and is a valuable source of information for those interested in the titles to the estates of early Boston. It is the only known list of the properties in the Town from the time of settlement in 1630 until 1798, when Congress authorized the first Direct Tax of all the cities and towns in the United States.3
Since the title page of the manuscript volume is missing, and no date is given for its compilation, it might be inferred that the book is a survey of the original grantees, made up shortly after 1634. On April 1, 1634, the General Court of Massachusetts ordered a book to be made in each town, recording not only the ownership and descriptions of all properties, but also subsequent sales or transfers.4 Probably many of the smaller towns complied with this order soon after it was issued, but the book containing the records of Charlestown was not begun until 1638. The failure of some towns to make a return to the order of the General Court probably occasioned a second one, dated September 9, 1639.5
The various investigators who have studied the Book of Possessions agree that it was compiled between the years 1639 and 1645, and most of them set the exact date as 1643. There were probably several reasons for Boston’s delay in obeying the order of 1634. The struggle for existence of the infant colony, of which Boston was the centre, troubles with England in regard to the charter, and the Antinomian controversy, may all have hindered any attempt to undertake a survey of the properties in the town. Moreover, Boston was the port of arrival for most of the newcomers to New England, and for many of those bound elsewhere. Some persons who came to Boston stayed there only a short time, and then migrated to other settlements or returned to England. This state of things alone might have caused the postponement of the listing of properties until more settled conditions prevailed. That the Town Records were not begun until four years after the settlement and were very meagre for the first six or seven years, shows that existing circumstances prevented or hindered the preparation of a fuller account of the town’s affairs during the first ten years of its history.
The first one hundred and eleven pages of the Book of Possessions contain what might be considered a primary list of the proprietors, almost every page containing a record of the possessions of two proprietors. With one exception, there is no date for the first entry on each half page, and this might indicate that these pages were all written at the same time. Mr. William H. Whitmore, in his introduction to the printed volume, states that a close examination of these one hundred and eleven pages in the original manuscript seems to show that they were written by the same hand and at the same time. He says further that nearly all the remaining pages show evidence of having been written by the same person but at a later date.6 The pages after page 111 contain abstracts or short deeds, many of which are recorded and more fully described in the Suffolk Registry. The dates on these pages range from 1644 to 1648 inclusive. The deed on page 112 is dated June 4, 1644. It is evident, therefore, that the first one hundred and eleven pages were written before that date.
From a careful investigation of the data that I have collected and used in making maps of Boston between 1630 and 1648,7 and also of the data relating to the inhabitants of Boston during this period, I present certain facts which have a bearing on the date of the Book of Possessions and discredit any idea that it should be considered a list of the original grantees.
Before 1639, there were sixty residents of Boston, owning lots and homes, whose names do not appear in the first one hundred and eleven pages of the Book of Possessions. In connection with the names of these persons, there is a record of at least fifty transactions, land grants, and permissions to dispose of property, which do not appear in the same pages. Should we consider that the Book of Possessions was a list of original grantees and that it was made shortly after the order of 1634, we should expect it to make some mention of these early proprietors and their transactions. The following table pertains to the two hundred and eight persons whose names appear in the first one hundred and eleven pages, and is from a careful survey of the record of each individual.
Number of the 208 proprietors by years in which they first were entitled to hold property:
Years | Persons | Total | |
---|---|---|---|
1630 |
25 |
||
1631 |
4 |
29 |
|
1632 |
10 |
39 |
|
1633 |
14 |
53 |
|
1634 |
25 |
78 |
|
1635 |
35 |
113 |
|
1636 |
20 |
133 |
|
1637 |
11 |
144 |
|
1638 |
12 |
156 |
|
1639 |
15 |
171 |
|
1640 |
16 |
187 |
|
1641 |
10 |
197 |
|
1642 |
5 |
202 |
Of these 208 persons all were in Boston prior to 1644; only 113 were in Boston at the beginning of 1636; and 171 were here at the close of 1639.
Among the two hundred and eight proprietors included in the above table are three widows: Anne Tuttle, whose husband, Richard, died in 1640; Sarah Knight, whose husband, John, died in 1639; and Anne Hunne, whose husband, George, died in 1640. We also find the name of Richard Critchly, who married the widow of William Dinely on August 5, 1639. If the listing for the Book of Possessions was begun before 1639, the names of the husbands and not the widows would have appeared as those of proprietors. Of the two hundred and eight proprietors, five died or left Boston in the year 1644, and between the years 1645 and 1650 we can add fifteen more. Referring directly to the record of two property holders, Henry Symons and John Gallop, we find that the former was admitted as an inhabitant on January 30, 1642/438 and died before May 2, 1645.9 The record of John Gallop’s lot, in the Superior Court Files,10 is identical with that of the record in the Book of Possessions,11 and according to the Court Files was “entered in the Book of Possessions the 29th of the 11th month 1643” or January 29, 1643/44. From this we might infer that the listing was begun during the latter part of 1643 and completed before the end of 1644.
The history of its compiler has an important bearing on the date of making the book. Justin Winsor gives evidence which seems to prove that the Book of Possessions was compiled by William Aspinwall.12 Mr. Whitmore also maintains that Aspinwall wrote all of the entries excepting a few cross-references.13
William Aspinwall came with the fleet to Charlestown in 1630; on October 19, 1630 expressed a desire to be made freeman, and took the oath of allegiance on April 3, 1632. His name appears as No. 10 on the First Church list. He served as a selectman in Boston in 1636 and 1637 and was a deputy to the General Court in 1637. He was disarmed as a follower of Wheelwright, and was banished by order of the Court on November 20, 1637,14 although his name appeared at a meeting of the Selectmen on January 8, 1637/38.15 Soon after this date he moved to Rhode Island, where his name appears March 7, 1637/38. He was in Connecticut in 1642, though an order had been passed by the General Court, October 7, 1641, allowing him to return to Boston. He probably did return early in 1642, joined the Artillery Company in 1643, was made Clerk of the Writs the same year, and was appointed Recorder of the Suffolk Registry in 1644. He was suspended from his office of notary by action of the General Court, October 14, 1651, and, according to a letter addressed to that body, probably left Boston in 1652. He was living in England in 1662.16
Aspinwall was a man of prominence, and one of secretarial ability. It seems that we should look to him for much earlier material concerning the town of Boston than is offered by his valuable note book, which he commenced December 20, 1644.17 He may have kept a diary or note book between the years of 1630 and 1638, and have destroyed or discarded it before leaving Boston in 1638. The “Volume II” or his “Second Book of Mortgages” has never been found.18 He was the only notary in the town during the first eight years and from the records it appears that he acted as an agent in the disposition of lots to the newcomers. There is no indication that he started to make the list for the Book of Possessions before his departure in 1638. Thomas Lechford, another notary, arrived in Boston on June 27, 1638.19 From then until July 29, 1641, we have his record of transactions, much of which pertains to Boston properties not mentioned in the Book of Possessions. The transactions recorded by Lechford show a prior ownership of several lots listed by him.
The various facts which I have presented indicate that Aspinwall began the book in the latter part of 1643, and completed the first one hundred and eleven pages before June, 1644. This record of properties, therefore, was made only thirteen years after the settlement of Boston. If we consider the limited means of surveying properties at that time, the unstable conditions existing, with persons coming and going, buying and selling, while the list was being made, we can truly say that it is a very good and valuable description of Boston in 1643.
In describing the method used by Aspinwall in compiling the first one hundred and eleven pages, which I shall consider as the original record, I shall make no references to the descriptions of the lots. Anyone who might attempt to plot a map of the town, adhering closely to those descriptions, would be obliged to decide certain conflicting statements as to abuttors and owners. These are not necessarily mistakes but result from certain changes which occurred while the compilation was in progress. For that reason some of the attempts to illustrate the Book of Possessions might be called composite maps. The best method of utilizing the information is to use such portions of the book as pertain to some exact date.
In my work of plotting maps of 1633, 1638, and 1648, to avoid any duplications or omissions, I laid out a definite method in using my data. It was by constantly referring to the Book of Possessions that I began to realize that a major part of that book had the properties listed in an order somewhat similar to my own plan. This was merely a coincidence, for I had always been curious as to why the author did not have a more systematic arrangement. After some study on those portions of the work which seemed irregular and out of alignment with my method, I not only became convinced of the reason for Aspinwall’s arrangement but found other facts concerning the manner in which the book was made.
The collecting and recording of the material was the work of one man. It was done by a house-to-house canvass and each record was entered at the time the visit was made. Had the collection been made by several persons, the transcription into the book might have been alphabetical and certain apparent errors would have been eliminated. It appears that the task of listing was not one of a few days or a few weeks but of several months.
Referring to the names of the two hundred and eight persons, as listed in the original part of the volume, the first entry under each name, “No. 1,” is what might be called the initial property or the home lot on which the landowner in question lived when the record was made. Below that entry appear the other lots or houses owned by the same proprietor, each subsequent item being numbered “2,” “3,” “4,” etc. Any unnumbered deed or transaction appearing below the last numbered item was recorded after the compilation of the first one hundred and eleven pages.
Bearing in mind these facts and my statement that the plotting of the descriptions would result in a composite map, let me show how certain mistakes, such as are made by several authorities, might arise.
Let us assume that A and B have adjacent lots in the north end of the town. A lives on his lot, while B lives on another lot belonging to him, which is in the centre or south end of the town. The compiler visits A, makes his record, and puts B down as an abuttor. B not living on the adjacent lot, the compiler passes on to C and continues on his way through the town, listing the initial lots as he comes to them and recording under the entries relating to them other possessions of the same proprietors. On arriving at the home where B resided when the compiler made his record of A, he finds that B has disposed of his north-end property which was adjacent to A’s, or it may be that B has disposed of all his possessions in the town and left Boston. In the first case the compiler finds another proprietor who bounds on A, and unless he makes a correction in the record of A the two entries do not agree. In the second case the compiler does not include the name of B in the list of proprietors. In some instances the only record that we find showing that a given person was at some time an inhabitant of Boston, is a mention of him as the owner of land adjacent to that of a proprietor. The hypothetical case outlined shows the origin of some complications in the Book of Possessions, many of which appear in the listing of gardens and pastures.
In my list printed below, I have used a set of numbers referring to the various properties. The first number against each name, in serial, designates the route and order which I assume that Aspinwall followed in making his list, and agrees with the numbering of the properties on the map reproduced with this paper. The second number is the pagination of the original manuscript, and the third, the number of the page where the description may be found in the printed volume.
Aspinwall started his book with the intention of reserving one full page for each proprietor, and to the casual observer it may seem that he did not follow any consistent plan. The first two pages of the original book are missing. Some authorities assume that page 1 was only a cover, but it may have been an index. On page 3 we find the possessions of Deane Winthrop, and page 4 is blank.
Another assumption regarding the first two pages is that page 1 contained the record of Governor John Winthrop. He was the most eminent man in the Colony at that time. His name does not appear among the list of proprietors, though there is no question that his home was on the southerly side of the present State Street. It is designated on the accompanying map, and in my lists below, as No. 1.
To the missing page, 2, we might assign the possessions of Stephen Winthrop, and since we do not find his name appearing in the book as an abuttor to any of the proprietors, we assume that his possessions at this time were without the limits of Boston proper. Therefore, his name is not entered on my list. The possessions of Deane Winthrop likewise were outside of Boston proper, and we skip his name.
I now consider in more detail some of the properties listed in the Book of Possessions.
No. 2, 5, 1. Richard Bellingham, Esq.20 His lot was on the southerly corner of Washington Street and Cornhill.21 He was Deputy Governor in 1640, and Governor in 1641.
No. 3, 6, 2. Mr. Thomas Fowle. He was styled “Gentleman,” which designated that he was a man of some social distinction. He served as a selectman in 1634. His lot was on the easterly side of Washington Street at the northerly corner of Hayward Place.
No. 4, 7, 2. Mr. William Hibbins. He served as a selectman, was a representative in the General Court in 1641, and was an assistant from 1643 to 1654. His lot included the site of the Second National Bank and a portion of the Post Office.
No. 5, 8, 2. Major Edward Gibones [Gibbons], a man prominent in town affairs and a selectman in 1643. His lot was on the easterly side of Washington Street at the corner of Adams Square.
No. 6, 9, 3. Mr. John Cotton, the famous divine. His lot embraced Pemberton Square and a portion of the Suffolk County Court House.
No. 7, 10, 3. Mr. William Tyng, a captain of the Artillery Company, a selectman in 1639, and a deputy in the General Court in 1640. His lot comprised a good portion of the area north of Cornhill and west of Adams Square.
No. 8, 11, 3. Mr. John Wilson, pastor of the First Church of Boston. His home was on the northerly side of State Street and included both sides of Devonshire Street.
No. 9, 12, 3. John Newgate, a prominent townsman and for several years a selectman. His lot was on the westerly side of Court Street, near Sudbury Street.
No. 10, 13, 4. Mr. Thomas Olliver [Oliver], one of the elders of the First Church. His lot extended northerly from the corner of Washington and Water Streets.
No. 11, 14, 4. Mr. Thomas Leverit [Leverett], one of the elders of the First Church. His lot was on the southerly side of State Street including both sides of Congress Street.
At the top of page 15 we find the name of William Copp, who is No. 12 on my list. His property is somewhat remote from the eleven lots just recorded.
If we follow the order in which these possessions were listed we find it to be unsystematic. There is no geographical arrangement. In the list we find the names of two governors, two ministers, two elders of the Church, and five prominent townsmen. It is evident that Aspinwall put these persons in the first pages of his book without regard to the location of their possessions, but starting with page 15, the succeeding pages show a clear system. Aspinwall must have realized that he would be obliged to adopt some method which would insure the completion of his work. Having no map or list to use as a guide, he must start at some end of the town and follow a consistent route, if his work was not to be liable to duplications and omissions.
He therefore selected for the top of page 15, William Copp, whose property was located in the North End on the southerly side of Prince Street. This lot was isolated, so far as neighbors were concerned. On page 16 he listed the property of Edwin Goodwin, the most northerly houselot in the Town, situated on the northerly side of Charles Street and bordering on the Charles River. From this lot Aspinwall continued through the North End, following the shore line, and listed the properties almost consecutively up to page 35, the entries all being at the tops of the pages. On page 35 of the manuscript, we find a description of the possessions of Sampson Shoare, whose home was within one lot of Cross Street. Here again we find a change in method. On page 36 is the name of Richard Sanford, who lived on the northerly side of Court Street. We note also that there are still unlisted a few houselots in the North End. My explanation of Aspinwall’s changing his system at this point follows.
He had begun to estimate how much work there was ahead of him, and he probably realized that in assigning a whole page to each householder he might be too generous with his space, especially in some cases where the possessions were very limited. His book contained only one hundred and forty-nine or one hundred and fifty pages. In the first one hundred and eleven we find two hundred and eight proprietors. He therefore could not allow a full page to each person. He must discover some consistent way of using the half pages, up to page 36, which would allow him to continue from that page in the same order which he had been following in his canvass.
He turned back to page 8 and began to use the lower half of his pages. On page 8 we find Atherton Haugh; on page 10, Captain Robert Keayne; and on page 11, Mr. Dunster. These men were prominent citizens. Beginning on page 12 with Daniel Maud, he continued to fill up the blank lower half pages by listing those properties west of Scollay Square, north of Hanover Street, east of Union Street, and the few still remaining in the North End. It will be noticed that, with the exception of a few in the North End, these lots were not located in complete blocks — that is, the blocks were not entirely bounded by streets — and most of the lots had a body of water as one boundary.
Thus, up to the beginning of page 36, Aspinwall had listed the record of two proprietors on most of the pages, and he continued systematically. Three properties which could not be listed in the thirty-five half pages were those of Richard Sanford, page 36, Robert Meeres, page 36, and Henry Fane, page 37. On the lower half of page 37, we find the possessions of Jeremy Houtchin, whose property was on the southerly corner of Hanover Street and Scollay Square. On the top of page 38 is the name of Thomas Makepeace, a neighbor of Houtchin on Hanover Street. Beginning with Benjamin Thwing, whose property was on the easterly side of Scollay Square, Aspinwall listed this block as follows: Court Street, Washington Street, Dock Square, Elm Street, and Hanover Street. He then entered the names of the proprietors of the adjoining block bounded by Union, Hanover, and Elm Streets.
In the same way he proceeded to write the remainder of the original record, confining himself entirely to one block before attempting to enter upon the lots in another. There is one exception or mistake made by him on page 51. On the top of this page are recorded the possessions of John Coggan, who lived on the northerly corner of State and Washington Streets. On the lower half of the page are enumerated the possessions of John Leverit [Leverett], who lived diagonally opposite Coggan at the southerly corner of Court and Washington Streets. This entry is out of place and is evidently a mistake, for we find a duplicate of it on page 61, where it rightfully belongs.
Finally I append a full list of the proprietors whose names appear in the first one hundred and eleven pages of the manuscript “Book of Possessions,” in accordance with the order described in my text. Notations relating to the names of proprietors are given wherever they help to illustrate the method by which the book was compiled.22
No. |
1, |
1, |
– |
John Winthrop. State Street. |
|
Governor 1629, 1637, 1642, 1646. |
|||||
“ |
–, |
2, |
– |
Stephen Winthrop. |
|
Possessions outside of Boston proper. |
|||||
“ |
–, |
3, |
1. |
Dean Winthrop. |
|
Possessions outside of Boston proper. |
|||||
“ |
–, |
4, |
1. |
Blank page. |
|
“ |
2, |
5, |
1. |
Richard Bellingham, Esq. Washington Street. |
|
Governor in 1642. |
|||||
“ |
3, |
6, |
2. |
Mr. Thomas Fowle. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
4, |
7, |
2. |
Mr. William Hibbins. Devonshire Street. |
|
Representative 1641. Assistant 1643 to 1654. |
|||||
“ |
5, |
8, |
2. |
Major Edward Gibones. Washington Street. |
|
Selectman 1643. |
|||||
“ |
6, |
9, |
3. |
Mr. John Cotton. Pemberton Square. |
|
“ |
7, |
10, |
3. |
Mr. William Tyng. Adams Square. |
|
Selectman 1639, Deputy 1640. |
|||||
“ |
8, |
11, |
3. |
Mr. John Wilson. State Street. |
|
Pastor of the First Church. |
|||||
9, |
12, |
3. |
John Newgate. Court Street. |
||
Deputy 1638. |
|||||
“ |
10, |
13, |
4. |
Mr. Thomas Olliver. Washington Street. |
|
Elder of the First Church. |
|||||
“ |
11, |
14, |
4. |
Mr. Thomas Leverit. Washington Street. |
|
Elder of the First Church. |
|||||
“ |
12, |
15, |
5. |
William Copp. Prince Street. |
|
“ |
13, |
16, |
5. |
Edwin Goodwin. Charter Street. |
|
Inhabitant in 1640. |
|||||
“ |
14, |
17, |
6. |
John Sweete. Charter Street. |
|
In Boston in 1640. |
|||||
“ |
15, |
18, |
6. |
John Seaberry. Hanover Street. |
|
Purchased house in 1639. |
|||||
“ |
16, |
19, |
6. |
Walter Merry. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
17, |
20, |
7. |
Wm. Beamsley. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
18, |
21, |
7. |
Anne Tuttle. Hanover Street |
|
Widow of Richard, who died in 1640. |
|||||
“ |
19, |
22, |
8. |
Capt. Nehemiah Bourne. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
20, |
23, |
8. |
Capt. Thomas Hawkins. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
21, |
24, |
8. |
Ensigne Thomas Savadge. North Street. |
|
“ |
22, |
25, |
9. |
Edmund Grosse. North Street. |
|
Sold to John Anderson, March 3, 1647. |
|||||
“ |
23, |
26, |
9. |
Samuel Cole. North Street. |
|
“ |
24, |
27, |
9. |
Mr. Thomas Clarke. North Square. |
|
“Late of Dorchester” in 1643. |
|||||
“ |
25, |
28, |
10. |
Thomas Joy. North Street. |
|
“ |
26, |
29, |
10. |
Richard Rawlins. Hanover Street. |
|
Bought of Peter Johnson in 1638. |
|||||
“ |
27, |
30, |
10. |
Isaac Cullimer. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
28, |
31, |
11. |
Bartholomew Pasmer. North Street. |
|
“ |
29, |
32, |
11. |
Francis Hudson. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
30, |
33, |
11. |
Matthew Chaffie. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
31, |
34, |
12. |
John Gallop. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
32, |
35, |
12. |
Sampson Shoare. Hanover Street. |
|
Inhabitant in 1641. |
|||||
“ |
33, |
8, |
2. |
Mr. Atherton Haugh. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
34, |
10, |
3. |
Capt. Robert Keayne. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
35, |
11, |
3. |
Mr. Dunster. Washington Street. |
|
President of Harvard College. |
|||||
“ |
36, |
12, |
3. |
Daniel Maud. Tremont Street. |
|
Schoolmaster. |
|||||
“ |
37, |
13, |
4. |
Robert Howen. Scollay Square. |
|
“ |
38, |
14, |
4. |
Edmund Jackson. Scollay Square. |
|
“ |
39, |
15, |
5. |
John Mellowes. Sudbury Street. |
|
“ |
40, |
16, |
6. |
Gabriel Fish. Union Street. |
|
“ |
41, |
17, |
6. |
Henry Pease. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
42, |
18, |
6. |
John Smith. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
43, |
19, |
6. |
John Davies. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
44, |
20, |
7. |
James Johnson. Cambridge Street. |
|
45, |
21, |
8. |
Bartholomew Cheevers. Hanover Street. |
||
“ |
46, |
22, |
8. |
John Arnold. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
47, |
23, |
8. |
John Jackson. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
48, |
24, |
9. |
John Oliver. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
49, |
25, |
9. |
William Werdall. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
50, |
26, |
9. |
John Hill. North Street. |
|
“ |
51, |
27, |
9. |
Thomas Marshall. Union Street. |
|
“ |
52, |
28, |
10. |
John Lowe. North Street. |
|
“ |
53, |
29, |
10. |
Henry Symons. North Street. |
|
Admitted in 1643 — died 1645. |
|||||
“ |
54, |
30, |
11. |
John Milom. North Street. |
|
“ |
55, |
31, |
11. |
David Phippeni. North Street. |
|
Admitted as inhabitant 1641. |
|||||
“ |
56, |
32, |
11. |
John Cole. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
57, |
33, |
12. |
Nathaniel Chappell. Sudbury Street. |
|
Servant of Atherton Haugh until 1634. |
|||||
“ |
58, |
34, |
12. |
James Hawkins. Sudbury Street. |
|
“ |
59, |
35, |
13. |
William Kirkby. Sudbury Street. |
|
“ |
60, |
36, |
13. |
Richard Sanford. Court Street. |
|
Admitted 1641. |
|||||
“ |
61, |
36, |
13. |
Robert Meeres. Scollay Square. |
|
“ |
62, |
37, |
13. |
Henry Fane. Court Street. |
|
“ |
63, |
37, |
13. |
Jeremy Houtchin. Scollay Square. |
|
“ |
64, |
38, |
13. |
Thomas Makepeace. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
65, |
38, |
13. |
Benjamin Thwing. Scollay Square. |
|
Inhabitant in 1642. |
|||||
“ |
66, |
39, |
13. |
William Wilson. Scollay Square. |
|
“ |
67, |
39, |
14. |
Joshua Scotto. Scollay Square. |
|
“ |
68, |
40, |
14. |
Alexandre Beck. Scollay Square. |
|
“ |
69, |
40, |
14. |
John Biggs. Court Street. |
|
“ |
70, |
41, |
14. |
James Browne. Court Street. |
|
“ |
71, |
41, |
15. |
Thomas Hawkins. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
72, |
42, |
15. |
Thomas Buttolph. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
73, |
43, |
16. |
Christopher Stanley. Washington Street. |
|
This lot is not described. It was purchased of John Evered, who married the widow of Thomas Fairweather. |
|||||
“ |
74, |
44, |
17. |
Hugh Gunnison. Adams Square. |
|
“ |
75, |
44, |
17. |
John Glover. Adams Square. |
|
“ |
76, |
45, |
17. |
George Burden. Dock Square. |
|
“ |
77, |
45, |
17. |
William Hudson, Junior. Dock Square. |
|
“ |
78, |
46, |
17. |
Samuel Greames. Elm Street. |
|
“ |
79, |
46, |
17. |
Sarah Knight. Elm Street. |
|
Her husband died in 1639. |
|||||
“ |
80, |
47, |
18. |
Francis Dowse. Elm Street. |
|
Servant of George Burden until 1639. |
|||||
“ |
81, |
47, |
18. |
George Bates. Elm Street. |
|
“ |
82, |
48, |
18. |
Anne vid. George Hunne. Elm Street. |
|
He died June 1640. |
|||||
“ |
83, |
48, |
18. |
John Button. Union Street. |
|
84, |
49, |
18. |
Nicholas Willis. Union Street. |
||
“ |
85, |
49, |
18. |
George Barrell. Union Street. Admitted in 1638. |
|
“ |
86, |
50, |
18. |
Thomas Painter. Union Street. |
|
“ |
87, |
50, |
19. |
James Everill. Hanover Street. |
|
“ |
88, |
51, |
19. |
John Coggan. State Street. |
|
“ |
- |
51, |
20. |
A duplicate of No. 107. |
|
“ |
89, |
52, |
20. |
William Franklin. Dock Square. |
|
“ |
90, |
52, |
20. |
Robert Nash. Dock Square. |
|
“ |
91, |
53, |
20. |
George Foxcroft. Dock Square. |
|
“ |
92, |
53, |
21. |
Edward Bendall. Faneuil Hall Square. |
|
“ |
93, |
54, |
21. |
Edward Tyng. Faneuil Hall Square. |
|
“ |
94, |
54, |
21. |
James Oliver. State Street. |
|
“ |
95, |
55, |
21. |
David Sellick. State Street. |
|
“ |
96, |
55, |
22. |
William Pierce. State Street. |
|
“ |
97, |
56, |
22. |
Isaac Grosse. Faneuil Hall Square. |
|
“ |
98, |
56, |
22. |
Wm. Davies, Junior. State Street. |
|
“ |
99, |
57, |
22. |
William Hudson, Senior. State Street. |
|
“ |
100, |
57, |
22. |
William Davies, Senior. State Street. |
|
“ |
101, |
58, |
23. |
Robert Scott. State Street. |
|
“ |
102, |
58, |
23. |
William Parsons. Water Street. |
|
“ |
103, |
59, |
23. |
James Davies. Water Street. |
|
“ |
104, |
59, |
23. |
Henry Webb. State Street. |
|
“ |
105, |
60, |
23. |
Richard Fairebanks. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
106, |
60, |
24. |
Wm. Corser. Devonshire Street. |
|
“ |
107, |
61, |
24. |
John Leverit. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
108, |
61, |
24. |
Richard Parker. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
109, |
62, |
25. |
Richard Truesdale. Cornhill Square. |
|
“ |
110, |
62, |
25. |
Valentine Hill. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
111, |
63, |
25. |
Major Robert Sedgwick. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
112, |
63, |
25. |
Mr. Richardson Hutchin. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
113, |
64, |
25. |
Thomas Scotto. School Street. |
|
“ |
114, |
64, |
25. |
Henry Messinger. Tremont Street. |
|
“ |
115, |
65, |
26. |
Richard Croychely. Court Street. Married Alice, widow of Wm. Dinely, Aug. 5, 1639. |
|
“ |
116, |
65, |
26. |
Richard Tapping. Court Street. |
|
“ |
117, |
66, |
26. |
Benjamin Gillom. Broad Street. |
|
“ |
118, |
66, |
26. |
Benjamin Ward. Batterymarch Street. |
|
“ |
119, |
67, |
27. |
John Compton. Broad Street. |
|
“ |
120, |
67, |
27. |
Nathaniel Woodward. Milk Street. |
|
“ |
121, |
68, |
27. |
Edward Hutchinson. Milk Street. |
|
“ |
122, |
68, |
27. |
Richard Sherman. Milk Street. |
|
“ |
123, |
69, |
27. |
John Spoore. Milk Street. |
|
“ |
124, |
69, |
27. |
William Pell. Milk Street. |
|
“ |
125, |
70, |
27. |
William Dinsdale. Milk Street. |
|
“ |
126, |
70, |
27. |
Robert Rice. Milk Street. |
|
“ |
127, |
71, |
27. |
John Kenrick. Milk Street. |
|
“ |
128, |
71, |
28. |
James Perr. Milk Street. |
|
“ |
129, |
72, |
28. |
Nicholas Parker. Milk Street. |
|
130, |
72, |
28. |
Nathaniel Bishop. Milk Street. |
||
“ |
131, |
73, |
28. |
John Steevenson. Milk Street. |
|
“ |
132, |
73, |
28. |
Zaccheus Bosworth. School Street. |
|
“ |
133, |
74, |
29. |
John Synderland. School Street. |
|
“ |
134, |
74, |
29. |
Richard Cooke. School Street. |
|
“ |
135, |
75, |
29. |
John Lugg. School Street. |
|
“ |
136, |
75, |
29. |
Arthur Perry. School Street. |
|
“ |
137, |
76, |
30. |
Francis Lyle. Washington Street. Inhabitant in 1638. |
|
“ |
138, |
76, |
30. |
Thomas Millard. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
139, |
77, |
30. |
Willlam Aspinwall. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
140, |
77, |
30. |
Thomas Grubb. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
141, |
78, |
30. |
Ephraim Pope. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
142, |
78, |
31. |
Edmund Dennis. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
143, |
79, |
31. |
Edward Jacklin. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
144, |
79, |
31. |
William Townsend. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
145, |
80, |
31. |
Jane Parker. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
146, |
80, |
32. |
Robert Blott. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
147, |
81, |
32. |
[Rev.] Mr. [Henry] Flint. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
148, |
81, |
32. |
Mr. [Thomas] Flint. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
149, |
82, |
32. |
Anthony Harker. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
150, |
82, |
32. |
Thomas Clark. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
151, |
83, |
32. |
Raph Mason. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
152, |
83, |
32. |
Robert Wing. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
153, |
84, |
33. |
Richard Carter. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
154, |
84, |
33. |
Jacob Leger. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
155, |
85, |
33. |
Mr. William Coleborne. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
156, |
85, |
33. |
Edward Belchar. Boylston Street. |
|
“ |
157, |
86, |
33. |
William Talmage. Boylston Street. |
|
“ |
158, |
86, |
33. |
Robert Walker. Boylston Street. |
|
“ |
159, |
87, |
33. |
William Brisco. Boylston Street. |
|
“ |
160, |
87, |
34. |
Ralph Roote. Boylston Street. |
|
“ |
161, |
88, |
34. |
William Salter. Boylston Street. |
|
“ |
162, |
88, |
34. |
Jacob Eliot. Boylston Street. |
|
“ |
163, |
89, |
34. |
Garret Bourne. Essex Street. |
|
Servant to Wm. Colebourne until 1635. |
|||||
“ |
164, |
89, |
34. |
John Cranwell. Boylston Street. |
|
“ |
165, |
90, |
34. |
Edward Rainsford. Essex Street. |
|
“ |
166, |
90, |
34. |
David Offley. Essex Street. |
|
“ |
167, |
91, |
34. |
Mr. Owen Roe. Essex Street. |
|
“ |
168, |
91, |
34. |
John Pelton. Essex Street. |
|
“ |
169, |
92, |
35. |
Griffith Bowen. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
170, |
92, |
35. |
[Clement] Cole. Washington Street. Servant of Capt. Keayne in 1635. |
|
“ |
171, |
93, |
35. |
John Odlinn. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
172, |
93, |
35. |
Walter Sinet. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
173, |
94, |
35. |
Robert Woodward. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
174, |
94, |
35. |
Thomas Wheeler. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
175, |
95, |
35. |
William Blantaine. Washington Street. |
|
176, |
95, |
35. |
John Hurd. Washington Street. |
||
“ |
177, |
96, |
36. |
Robert Hull. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
178, |
96, |
36. |
Job Judkins. Washington Street. |
|
Elizabeth Purton. Washington Street. |
|||||
Omitted or overlooked; should have been listed. |
|||||
“ |
179, |
97, |
36. |
Nathaniel Woodward. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
180, |
97, |
36. |
John Marshall. Washington Street. |
|
Admitted as inhabitant in 1640. |
|||||
“ |
181, |
98, |
36. |
Richard Hogg. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
182, |
98, |
36. |
Nathaniel Eaton. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
183, |
99, |
36. |
Francis East. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
184, |
99, |
36. |
Charitie White. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
185, |
100, |
36. |
Richard Waite. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
186, |
100, |
36. |
Edward Fletcher. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
187, |
101, |
37. |
Robert Reinolds. Washington Street. |
|
“ |
188, |
101, |
37. |
John Palmer, junior. Summer Street. |
|
“ |
189, |
102, |
37. |
Amos Richardson. Summer Street. |
|
“ |
190, |
102, |
37. |
John Palmer, senior. Summer Street. |
|
“ |
191, |
103, |
37. |
Gamaliel Waite. Summer Street. |
|
“ |
192, |
103, |
37. |
Benjamin Negoos. Summer Street. |
|
“ |
193, |
104, |
37. |
Madie Engles. Summer Street. |
|
“ |
194, |
104, |
37. |
William Deming. Summer Street. |
|
“ |
195, |
105, |
37. |
Richard Gridley. Summer Street. |
|
“ |
196, |
105, |
38. |
John Harrison. High Street. |
|
“ |
197, |
106, |
38. |
Nicholas Baxter. Summer Street. |
|
“ |
198, |
106, |
38. |
Edward Browne. South Street. |
|
“ |
199, |
107, |
38. |
Mathew Iyons. South Street. |
|
“ |
200, |
107, |
38. |
William Setherland. South Street. |
|
“ |
201, |
108, |
38. |
Wm. Teft. Summer Street. |
|
“ |
202, |
108, |
38. |
Thomas Munt. Bedford Street. |
|
“ |
203, |
109, |
38. |
Jonathan Negoos. Bedford Street. |
|
“ |
204, |
109, |
38. |
Thomas Foster. Bedford Street. |
|
“ |
205, |
110, |
39. |
Richard Woodhouse. Bedford Street. |
|
“ |
206, |
110, |
39. |
Georg Griggs. Summer Street. |
|
“ |
207, |
111, |
39. |
Thomas Bell. Summer Street. |
|
“ |
208, |
111, |
39. |
Richard Hollich. Summer Street. |
Mr. Kenneth B. Murdock: presented a communication on:
THE TEACHING OF LATIN AND GREEK AT THE BOSTON LATIN SCHOOL IN 1712
On March 12, 1710–11, “At a Meeting of the Free-Holders and other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston,” the Selectmen offered a “Memorial,” as follows:
Whereas according to the Information of Some of the Learned, who have made Observation of the easie & pleasant Rules and Methods used in Some Schools in Europe, where Scollars, p’haps within the compass of one year, have attained to a Competent Proficiency So as to be able to read, and discourse in Lattin, and of themselves capable to make Considerable progress therein: and that according to the methodes used here Very many hundreds of boyes in this Town, who by their Parents were never designed for a more Liberal Education, have Spent two, three, four years or more of their more Early days at the Lattin School, which hath proved of very Little, or no benefit as to their after Accomplishmt.
It is therefore proposed to the Town that they would Recomend it to those Gentlem whom they shall chuse as Inspectors of the Schools, Together with ye ministers of the Town, To Consider whether in this Town (where the Free School is maintained chiefly by a Town Rate on the Inhabitants) That Supposeing the former more Tedious and burthensome methode may be thought the best for such as are designed for Schollars (which is by Some questioned). Yet for the Sake & benefitt of others, who usually are the greater number by far in Such Schools, — Whether it might not be adviseable that Some more easie and delightfull methodes be there attended and put in practice. And to Signifie to ye Town their thoughts therein, in order to the Encouragemnt of the same.
It was voted “That the Said Memorial be So recomended to the Inspectors of the School, and Ministers of the Town as is therein Set forth.”23
Slightly less than a year later Nathaniel Williams, headmaster of the Boston Latin School, sent to Nehemiah Hobart, then Senior Fellow of Harvard, a letter in which he said: “The Inclosed is an acct of the Methods of Instruction in the School offerd to your Correction alteratiō or advancemt as you shall see meet.”24 With it he sent a detailed account of the teaching of Latin and Greek at his school in 1712, which seems to be the earliest full record of the curriculum there. Evidently the “Memorial” of the Selectmen had at least the effect of making Williams take account of stock in respect to the methods of teaching at the Latin School, and led him to ask Hobart’s advice.
The “new method” of teaching, reports of which had interested the Selectmen, was apparently a plan like those advocated in John Locke’s Thoughts Concerning Education, London, 1693; in John Clarke’s An Essay upon the Education of Youth in Grammar-Schools, London, 1720; or, much earlier, by Charles Hoole in his New Discovery of the Old Art of Teaching Schoole, London, 1660. Just how far Williams’s plan for teaching Boston boys followed the systems outlined in these books, is a matter for students of the history of education. Professor A. O. Norton says that, in his opinion, Williams’s scheme does not show much response to the “new” methods, but he points out, too, that no teacher can wholly transform his ways in a few months, so that Williams may be forgiven for his failure to meet completely the Selectmen’s wishes in the brief interval between their vote and the sending of his letter to Hobart.25
The text of Williams’s account of the curriculum is:
- 1. 2. 3. The three first years are spent first in Learning by heart & then acc: to their capacities understanding the Accidence26 and Nomenclator,27 in construing & parsing acc: to the English rules of Syntax Sententiae Pueriles28 Cato & Corderius29 & Æsops Fables
- 4 The 4th year, or sooner if their capacities allow it, they are entred upon Erasmus to which they are allou’d no English,30 but are taught to translate it by the help of the Dictionary and Accidence, which English translatiō of theirs is written down fair by each of them, after the recital of the lesson, and then brought to the Master for his observation and correction both as to the Translatiō & orthography: This when corrected is carefully reserved till fryday, and then render’d into the Latin of the Author exactly instead of the old way of Repitition,31 and in the afternoon of that day it is (a part of it) varied for them as to mood tense case number &c and given them to translate into Latin, still keeping to the words of the Author. an Example of which you have in the paper marked on the backside A. These continue to read Æsops Fables with ye English translation, the better to help them in the aforesd translateg. They are also now initiated in the Latin grammar, and begin to give the latin rules in Propr: As in pres: & Syntax in their parsing;32 and at the latter end of the year enter upon Ovid de Tristibus (which is recited by heart on the usual time of fryday afternoon) & upon translating English into Latin, out of mr Garretson’s Exercises.33
- 5. The fifth year they are entred upon Tullies Epistles (Still continuing the use of Erasmus in the morning & Ovid de Trist: afternoon) the Elegancies of which are remarkd and improv’d in the afternoon of the day they learn it, by translating an Englishx34 which contains the phrase somthing altered, and besides recited by heart on the repetition day. Ov: Metam: is learn’d by these at the latter end of the year, so also Prosodia Scanning & turning & making of verses, & 2 days in the week they continue to turnx Mr Gar: Engl: Ex: into Latin, w̄ the afternoons exerc: is ended, and turn a fablex into verse a distich in a day.
x vid letter B
x v: Let. C
x v: I
- 6. The sixth year they are entred upon Tullies Offices & Luc: Flor:35 for the forenoon, continuing the use of Ovid’s Metam: in the afternoon, & at the end of the Year they read Virgil: The Eleganciesx of Tull: Off: are improved in the afternoon as is aforesd of Tull: Epistl. & withal given the master in writing when the lesson is recited, & so are the phrases they can discover in Luc: Fl:. All which that have been mett with in that week are comprehended in a Dialoguex on Fryday forenoon, and afternoon they turn a Fablex into Lat: Verse. Every week these make a Latin Epistle, the last quarter of the Year, when also they begin to learn Greek, & Rhetorick.
x v: D
[x] vid letter E
- 7. The seventh Year they read Tullie’s Orations & Justin36 for the Latin & Greek Testamt Isocrates Orat: Homer & Hesiod for the Greek in the forenoons & Virgil Horace Juvenal & Persius afternoons, as to their Exercises after the afternoon lessons are ended they translate Mundays & Tuesdays an Engl: Dialogue containing a Praxis x37 upon the Phrases out of Godwin’s Roman Antiquities.38 Wensdays they compose a Praxis on the Elegancies & Pithy sentences in their lesson in Horace in Lat:x verse. On Repition days, bec: that work is easy, their time is improved in ye Forenoon in makeing Dialoguesx containing a Praxis upon a Particle out of Mr Walker39, in the afternoon in Turning a Psalmx or something Divinex into Latin verse. Every fortnight they compose a Theme, & now & then turn a Theme into a Declamation the last quarter of the year.
x v: F
x v: G
x v: H
x v: I
x v: K.
This document makes it evident that Greek and Latin were thoroughly studied at the Latin School in 1712 — so thoroughly studied, indeed, that there can have been but little time for other subjects. Quite apart from its interest as the earliest extant description of the method of teaching at the school, Williams’s description has interest from the point of view of literary history. The books read in school by young Americans must have stuck in their minds sometimes, just as the books Dryden studied as a boy stuck in his. He wrote English as he did partly because of his thorough training in writing Latin, and it is certain that pupils of the Boston Latin School who later became authors were to some extent influenced in their writing by the sort of education dispensed by Nathaniel Williams and his helpers.40
During Williams’s headmastership he probably taught Benjamin Franklin, Joseph Green, Ebenezer Turell, Mather Byles, Thomas Hutchinson, Oxenbridge Thacher, Samuel Adams, Samuel Langdon, and Royall Tyler — certainly he had many of these in his classes even though some may have acquired their school training elsewhere.41 Of these men all achieved some fame with the pen or on the rostrum, and some, at least, gave proof that the classics they encountered in school were not forgotten in later life, nor did they ignore all that they had learned of classical prosody or formal rhetoric in the days when the “making of Latin” had been a daily task.
This being so, it is worth while to compare the books used and the classic authors read at the Latin School in Williams’s time, with those read and used earlier, so far as they can be discovered, and also with those mentioned in later eighteenth-century descriptions of the school. An attempt to collect all the evidence which might be unearthed would be a long task; only a few of the more accessible, and presumably representative, sources are referred to here.
These sources are Cotton Mather’s poem on, and biographical sketch of, Ezekiel Cheever, in which he mentions many books as having been used by that worthy in instructing his pupils;42 John Barnard’s brief references to his experiences at the Latin School;43 a list of books “learnt” by Benjamin Dolbeare, Junior, at “Mr John Lovell’s Latin School”;44 a letter of Harrison Gray Otis, telling of his studies in 1773 and thereafter;45 a similar communication from Dr. James Jackson, relating to 1785,46 and a list of books used in the head-mastership of Samuel Hunt which began in 1776.47 Cotton Mather’s remarks on the Latin School apply probably to the 1670’s; Barnard’s recollections were of his own course there, which began in 1688; Dolbeare’s list covers the period from 1752 to 1759, and the other data concern the period of the Revolution.
Cotton Mather says, “We learnt Prosodia,” and adds that Cheever taught “Lilly,” or Lily’s Latin grammar. Similarly the Sententiae Pueriles is mentioned. There are references also to Corderius’s Colloquies, Ovid’s De Tristibus and Metamorphoses, Cicero’s De Officiis and Orations, Virgil, Homer, Cato, as well as to the making of themes. Elsewhere Mather says that as a boy he learned Terence and Aesop.48 Whether this was at school or not is uncertain, but Mather does call Cheever a “Christian Terence,” and in connection with the rest of the poem in which it appears this phrase suggests that Terence was among the authors studied by Cheever’s pupils.
Barnard’s notes are meagre, and show only that he learned composition and prosody, and put Aesop into Latin verse. The only book named by Mather which is not included in Williams’s schedule is Terence, assuming that Cheever taught it. Williams’s list, however, adds several texts not spoken of by Mather or Barnard: in Greek, Hesiod, Isocrates, and the Greek Testament; in Latin, Justin’s and Lucius Florus’s histories, Horace, Juvenal, Persius, and Cicero’s Epistles. He also adds to Mather’s list Garretson’s Exercises, Godwin’s Roman Antiquities, and Walker’s Treatise on Particles.
Forty years later Dolbeare’s record of books studied at the Latin School omits Cicero’s De Officiis, Ovid’s De Tristibus, Hesiod, Cato, Sententiae Pueriles, Godwin, Lucius Florus, Walker and Isocrates, but adds a few titles which have not appeared before: Eutropius, Caesar’s Commentaries, Clarke’s Introduction to the Making of Latin, Castalio,49 King’s Heathen Gods, and the Gradus ad Parnassum.50 Terence now appears definitely.
The list of books used during Hunt’s headmastership shows the same titles except that Terence is left out. There are no additions to Dolbeare’s record, save for the reappearance of the De Officiis. Otis’s letter mentions Xenophon, and Dr. Jackson’s speaks of Erasmus’s Colloquies, not listed by the other witnesses since Williams.
Some books, Cheever’s Accidence among them, seem to have been constantly used. Aesop, for example, appears in five of the records used in compiling this paper. Latin composition and prosody were taught always. Cicero, Ovid, Homer, Virgil and Corderius appear regularly. Caesar comes in comparatively late, and Xenophon still later. Williams’s account alone mentions Hesiod, Juvenal, Persius, Lucius Florus, Godwin, Walker and Isocrates.
This brief and necessarily incomplete glimpse of the varying usage in respect to certain texts at the Latin School reveals the classic authors whom all Boston schoolboys of the period are most likely to have read. It was to these authors, therefore, that Bostonian writers of the time turned for classical allusions when they wished to adorn their pages with a tag of Latin or Greek and at the same time appeal to their readers with the effect that only a “familiar quotation” can make. It is no accident that the eighteenth-century writings in this part of the colonies, histories, political tracts, orations, and the rest, show more direct acquaintance with Aesop, Cicero, Virgil, and Homer than with Shakespere. English literature was not taught in schools; Latin and Greek was. Similarly, what a Boston schoolboy in the years before the Revolution learned of rhetoric, of the art of poetry, and of literary style in general, he learned in his study of the classics. Therefore in his own writing in English he was apt to test the vernacular by the rules of Latin style. Much of the flavor of the American books of the period was acquired from the remembered teachings of schoolmasters like those who held sway at the Boston Latin School in 1712 or 1776.