touching the supposed witchcraft in New England_, including the "Report"
of the Trials given by Mather in his _Wonders of the Invisible World_.
The work is prefaced by an _Epistle to the Reader_, couched in plain but
pungent language, in which he says: "It is a great pity that the matters
of fact, and indeed the whole, had not been done by some abler hand,
better accomplished, and with the advantages of both natural and
acquired judgment; but, others not appearing, I have enforced myself to
do what is done. My other occasions will not admit any further scrutiny
therein." A Postscript contains some strictures on the _Life of Sir Wm.
Phips_, then recently printed, "which book," Calef says, "though it bear
not the author's name, yet the style, manner, and matter are such, that,
were there no other demonstration or token to know him by, it were no
witchcraft to determine that Mr. Cotton Mather is the author of it."
The real agency of Sir William Phips, in demolishing, with one stern
blow, the Court of Oyer and Terminer, and treading out the witchcraft
prosecutions, has never, until recently, been known. The Records of the
Council, of that time, were obtained from England, not long since. They,
with the General Court Records, Phips's letter to the Home
Government--copied in this article--and the Diary of Judge Sewall,
reveal to us the action of the brave Governor, and show how much that
generation and subsequent times are indebted to him, for stopping, what,
if he had allowed it to go on, would have come, no man can tell "where
at last."
Calef speaks of Sir William, kindly: "It is not doubted but that he
aimed at the good of the people; and great pity it is that his
Government was so sullied (for want of better information and advice
from those whose duty it was to have given it) by the hobgoblin Monster,
Witchcraft, whereby this country was nightmared and harassed, at such a
rate as is not easily imagined."
Such were the contents, and such the tone, of Calef's book. The course
he pursued, his carefulness to do right and to keep his position
fortified as he advanced, and the deliberate courage with which he
encountered the responsibilities, connected with his movement to rid the
country of a baleful superstition, are worthy of grateful remembrance.
Mather received intelligence that Calef had sent his book to England, to
be printed; and his mind was vehemently exercised in reference to it. He
set apart the tenth of June, 1698, for a private Fast on the occasion;
and he commenced the exercise of the day, by, "first of all, declaring
unto the Lord" that he freely forgave Calef, and praying "the Lord also
to forgive him." He "pleaded with the Lord," saying that the design of
this man was to hurt his "precious opportunities of glorifying" his
"glorious Lord Jesus Christ." He earnestly besought that those
opportunities might not be "damnified" by Calef's book. And he finished
by imploring deliverance from his calumnies. So "I put over my
calumnious adversary into the hands of the righteous God."
On the fifth of November, Calef's book having been received in Boston,
Mather again made it the occasion of Fasting and Praying. His friends
also spent a day of prayer, as he expresses it, "to complain unto God,"
against Calef, he, Mather, meeting with them. On the twenty-fifth of
November, he writes thus, in his Diary: "The Lord hath permitted Satan
to raise an extraordinary Storm upon my father and myself. All the rage
of Satan, against the holy churches of the Lord, falls upon us. First
Calf's and then Colman's, do set the people into a mighty ferment."
The entries in his Diary, at this time, show that he was exasperated, to
the highest degree, against Calef, to whom he applies such terms as, "a
liar," "vile," "infamous," imputing to him diabolical wickedness. He
speaks of him as "a weaver;" and, in a pointed manner calls him _Calf_,
a mode of spelling his name sometimes practised, but then generally
going out of use. The probability is that the vowel _a_, formerly, as in
most words, had its broad sound, so that the pronunciation was scarcely
perceptibly different, when used as a dissyllable or monosyllable. As
the broad sound became disused, to a great extent, about this time, the
name was spoken, as well as spelled, as a dissyllable, the vowel having
its long sound. It was written, _Calef_, and thus printed, in the
title-page of his book; so that Mather's variation of it was
unjustifiable, and an unworthy taunt.
It is unnecessary to say that a fling at a person's previous occupation,
or that of his parents--an attempt to discredit him, in consequence of
his having, at some period of his life, been a mechanic or
manufacturer--or dropping, or altering a letter in his name, does not
amount to much, as an impeachment of his character and credibility, as a
man or an author. Hard words, too, in a heated controversy, are of no
account whatever. In this case, particularly, it was a vain and empty
charge, for Mather to call Calef _a liar_. In the matter of the account,
the latter drew up, of what took place in the chamber of Margaret Rule:
as he sent it to Mather for correction, and as Mather specified some
items which he deemed erroneous, his declaration that all the rest was a
tissue of falsehoods, was utterly futile; and can only be taken as an
unmeaning and ineffectual expression of temper. So far as the
truthfulness of Calef's statements, generally, is regarded, there is no
room left for question.
In his Diary for February, 1700, Mather says, speaking of the "calumnies
that Satan, by his instrument, _Calf_, had cast upon" him and his
father, "the Lord put it into the hearts of a considerable number of our
flock, who are, in their temporal condition, more equal unto our
adversary, to appear in our vindication." A Committee of seven,
including John Goodwin, was appointed for this purpose. They called upon
their Pastors to furnish them with materials; which they both did. The
Committee drew up, as Mather informs us, in his Diary, a "handsome
answer unto the slanders and libels of our slanderous adversary," which
was forthwith printed, with the names of the members of the Committee
signed to it. The pamphlet was entitled, _Some Few Remarks_, &c. Mather
says of it: "The Lord blesses it, for the illumination of his people in
many points of our endeavour to serve them, whereof they had been
ignorant; and there is also set before all the Churches a very laudable
example of a people appearing to vindicate their injured Pastors, when a
storm of persecution is raised against them."
This vindication is mainly devoted to the case of the Goodwin children,
twelve years before, and to a defence of the course of Increase Mather,
in England, in reference to the Old and New Charters. No serious attempt
was made to controvert material points in Calef's book, relating to
Salem Witchcraft. As it would have been perfectly easy, by certificates
without number, to have exposed any error, touching that matter, and as
no attempt of the kind was made, on this or any other occasion, the only
alternative left is to accept Hutchinson's conviction, that "Calef was a
fair relator" of that passage in our history.
His book has, therefore, come down to us, bearing the ineffaceable stamp
of truth.
It was so regarded, at the time, in England, as shown in the manner in
which it was referred to by Francis Hutchinson and Daniel Neal; and in
America, in the way in which Thomas Hutchinson speaks of Calef, and
alludes to matters as stated by him. I present, entire, the judgment of
Dr. John Eliot, as given in his _Biographical Dictionary_. Bearing in
mind that Eliot's work was published in 1806, the reader is left to make
his own comments on the statement, in the _North American Review_, that
I originated, in 1831, the unfavorable estimate of Cotton Mather's
agency in the witchcraft delusion of 1692. It is safe to say that no
higher authority can be cited than that of John Eliot: "CALEF, ROBERT,
merchant, in the town of Boston, rendered himself famous by his book
against Witchcraft, when the people of Massachusetts were under the most
strange kind of delusion. The nature of this crime, so opposite to all
common sense, has been said to exempt the accusers from observing the
rules of common sense. This was evident from the trials of witches, at
Salem, in 1692. Mr. Calef opposed facts, in the simple garb of truth, to
fanciful representations; yet he offended men of the greatest learning
and influence. He was obliged to enter into a controversy, which he
managed with great boldness and address. His letters and defence were
printed, in a volume, in London, in 1700. Dr. Increase Mather was then
President of Harvard College; he ordered the wicked book to be burnt in
the College yard; and the members of the Old North Church published a
defence of their Pastors, the Rev. Increase and Cotton Mather. The
pamphlet, printed on this occasion, has this title-page: _Remarks upon a
scandalous book, against the Government and Ministry of New England,
written by Robert Calef_, &c. Their motto was, _Truth will come off
conqueror_, which proved a satire upon themselves, because Calef
obtained a complete triumph. The Judges of the Court and the Jury
confessed their errors; the people were astonished at their own
delusion; reason and common sense were evidently on Calef's side; and
even the present generation read his book with mingled sentiments of
pleasure and admiration."
Calef's book continues, to this day, the recognized authority on the
subject. Its statements of matters of fact, not disputed nor
specifically denied by the parties affected, living at the time, nor
attempted to be confuted, then, and by them, never can be. The current
of nearly two centuries has borne them beyond all question. No assault
can now reach them. No writings of Mather have ever received more
evidence of public interest or favor. First printed in London, Calef's
volume has gone through four American editions; the last, in 1861,
edited by Samuel P. Fowler, is presented in such eligible type and so
readable a form, as to commend it to favorable notice.
It may be safely said that few publications have produced more immediate
or more lasting effects. It killed off the whole business of Margaret
Rule. Mather abandoned it altogether. In 1694, he said "the forgetting
thereof would neither be pleasing to God nor useful to men." Before
Calef had done with him, he had dropped it forever.
Calef's book put a stop to all such things, in New and Old England. It
struck a blow at the whole system of popular superstition, relating to
the diabolical world, under which it reels to this day. It drove the
Devil out of the preaching, the literature, and the popular sentiments
of the world. The traces of his footsteps, as controlling the affairs of
men and interfering with the Providence of God, are only found in the
dark recesses of ignorance, the vulgar profanities of the low, and a few
flash expressions and thoughtless forms of speech.
No one can appreciate the value of his service. If this one brave man
had not squarely and defiantly met the follies and madness, the
priestcraft and fanaticism, of his day; if they had been allowed to
continue to sway Courts and Juries; if the pulpit and the press had
continued to throw combustibles through society, and, in every way,
inflame the public imaginations and passions, what limit can be assigned
to the disastrous consequences?
Boston Merchants glory in the names, on their proud roll of public
benefactors, of men whose wisdom, patriotism, and munificence have
upheld, adorned, and blessed society; but there is no one of their
number who encountered more danger, showed more moral and intellectual
prowess, or rendered more noble service to his fellow citizens and
fellow men, every where, than ROBERT CALEF.
I again ask attention to the language used in the _North American
Review_, for April, 1869. "These views, respecting Mr. Mather's
connection with the Salem trials, are to be found IN NO PUBLICATION OF A
DATE PRIOR TO 1831, when Mr. Upham's _Lectures_ were published."
Great as may be the power of critical journals, they cannot strike into
non-existence, the recorded and printed sentiments of Brattle, the
Hutchinsons, Neal, Watts, Bentley, Eliot, Quincy, and Calef.
XX.
MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS. CONCLUSION.
There are one or two minor points, where the Reviewer finds occasion to
indulge in his peculiar vein of criticism on my book, which it is
necessary to notice before closing, in order to prevent wrong
impressions being made by his article, touching the truth of history.
A pamphlet, entitled, _Some Miscellany Observations on our present
debates respecting Witchcraft, in a Dialogue between S and B_, has been
referred to. It was published in Philadelphia, in 1692. Its printing was
procured by Hezekiah Usher, a leading citizen of Boston, who, at the
later stages of the prosecution, had been cried out upon, by the
accusing girls, and put under arrest. Its author was understood to be
the Rev. Samuel Willard. The Reviewer claims for its writer precedence
over the Rev. John Wise, of Ipswich, and Robert Pike, of Salisbury, as
having earlier opposed the proceedings. Wise headed a Memorial, in favor
of John Proctor and against the use of spectral evidence, before the
trials that took place on the fifth of August; and Pike's second letter
to Judge Corwin was dated the eighth of August.
The pamphlet attributed to Willard is a spirited and able performance;
but seems to allow the use of spectral evidence, when bearing against
persons of "ill-fame."
Pike concedes all that believers in the general doctrines of witchcraft
demanded, particularly the ground taken in the pamphlet attributed to
Willard, and then proceeds, by the most acute technical logic, based
upon solid common sense, to overturn all the conclusions to which the
Court had been led. It was sent, by special messenger, to a Judge on the
Bench, who was also an associate with Pike at the Council Board of the
Province. Wise's paper was addressed to the Court of Assistants, the
Supreme tribunal of the Province. The _Miscellany Observations_, appear
to have been written after the trials. There is nothing, however,
absolutely to determine the precise date; and they were published
anonymously, in Philadelphia. The right of Wise and Pike to the credit
of having first, by written remonstrance, opposed the proceedings, on
the spot, cannot, I think, be taken away.
The Reviewer charges me, in reference to one point, with not having
thought it necessary to "pore over musty manuscripts, in the obscure
chirography of two centuries ago." So far as my proper subject could be
elucidated by it, I am constrained to claim, that this labor was
encountered, to an extent not often attempted. The files of Courts, and
State, County, Town, and Church records, were very extensively and
thoroughly studied out. So far as the Court papers, belonging to the
witchcraft Examinations and Trials, are regarded, much aid was derived
from _Records of Salem Witchcraft, copied from the original documents_,
printed in 1864, by W. Eliot Woodward. But such difficulty had been
experienced in deciphering them, that the originals were all subjected
to a minute re-examination. The same necessity existed in the use of the
_Annals of Salem_, prepared and published by that most indefatigable
antiquary, the late Rev. Joseph B. Felt, LL.D. In writing a work for
which so little aid could be derived from legislative records or printed
sources, bringing back to life a generation long since departed, and
reproducing a community and transaction so nearly buried in oblivion,
covering a wide field of genealogy, topography and chronology, embracing
an indefinite variety of municipal, parochial, political, social, local,
and family matters, and of things, names, and dates without number, it
was, after all, impossible to avoid feeling that many errors and
oversights might have been committed; and, as my only object was to
construct a true and adequate history, I coveted, and kept myself in a
frame gratefully to receive all corrections and suggestions, with a view
of making the work as perfect as possible, in a reprint. As I was
reasonably confident that the ground under me could stand, at all
important points, any assaults of criticism, made in the ordinary way,
it gave me satisfaction to hear, as I did, in voices of rumor reaching
me from many quarters, that an article was about to appear in the _North
American Review_ that would "demolish" my book. I flattered myself that,
whether it did or not, much valuable information would, at least, be
received, that would enable me to make my book more to my purpose, by
making it more true to history.
After the publication of the article, and before I could extricate
myself from other engagements so far as to look into it, I read, in
editorials, from week to week, in newspapers and journals, that I had
been demolished. Surely, I thought, some great errors have been
discovered, some precious "original sources" opened, some lost records
exhumed, so that now, at last, no matter by whom, the story of Salem
witchcraft can be told. My disappointment may be imagined, when, upon
examining the article, it appeared that only one error had been
discovered in my book, and that I now proceed to acknowledge.
The Reviewer says: "Thomas Brattle, the Treasurer of Harvard College,
(not William Brattle, a merchant of Boston, as Mr. Upham states) wrote,
at the time, an account of Salem Witchcraft." This was not an error of
the press, but wholly my own, as it is in the "copy," sent to the
printers. In finding the interesting relations held by the Rev. William
Brattle with the Salem Village Parish, after the death of Mr. Green, he
being called to act as their patron and guide, and eventually marrying
Green's widow, his name became familiar to my thoughts, and slipped
through my pen. Every one who has gone through the drudgery of
proof-reading knows what ridiculous and, sometimes, frightful, errors
are detected, even in the "last revise." Upon opening the volume, when
it came to me from the binder, I saw this error and immediately informed
my publishers. It is pleasing to think that it cost the Reviewer no
pains to discover it, as the right name stands out in the caption of the
article, which is in capital letters--_Massachusetts Historical
Collections, I., v., 61_--where alone he or I could have seen it.
Mistakes in names and dates--always provoking, often inexplicable--are a
fate to which all are liable. In a friendly, elaborate, and able notice
of my book, in a newspaper of high character, it is stated that Salem
Village, was the home of the family which gave General Rufus Putnam to
"the War of 1812;" and George Burroughs is called "_John_" Burroughs.
It is sometimes as hard to correct an error, as it is easy to fall into
one. In pointing out my inadvertent mistake, the Reviewer unwittingly
reproduces it. His sentence, just quoted, is liable to convey the idea
that William Brattle was "a merchant of Boston." As he has been kind
enough, all through his article, to tell what I ought to have read, and
seen, and done, I venture to suggest that his sentence ought to have
been constructed thus: "Thomas Brattle, a merchant of Boston, (not
William, as Mr. Upham says.)"
A queer fatality seems to have attended this attempt to correct my
error.
A reader of the _North American Review_ cannot fail to have noticed the
manner in which the late Rev. Dr. Peabody, as well as myself, is held up
to ridicule, for having called Cotton Mather, "Dr." when referring to
any thing previous to his having received his Doctorate. Perhaps we were
excusable. By usage, such honorary titles, and indeed all titles, are
applied retrospectively, running back over the life, indefinitely. The
_Encyclopaedia Americana_, Eliot's _Biographical Dictionary_, and one of
the last numbers of the _Historic Genealogical Register_, all give that
title to Increase Mather, referring to a period anterior to its having
been conferred upon him. The title was given by the learned editor of
the _Massachusetts Historical Collections_, to Cotton Mather, in the
caption of his letter to Governor Dudley. In the _Mather Papers_,
letters written a score of years before that degree had been conferred
on him, are endorsed "Doctor Cotton Mather." If the high authority of
the _North American Review_ is to establish it, as a literary canon,
that titles are never to be given, except in relation to a period
subsequent to their conferment, writers must, hereafter, be very
careful, when cursorily alluding to anything in the earlier lives of the
Duke of Marlborough, Lord Castlereagh, the Duke of Wellington, Doctor
Franklin, Doctor Channing, or Doctor Priestley, to say, Mr. Churchill,
Mr. Stewart, Mr. Wellesley, Mr. Franklin, Mr. Channing, or Mr.
Priestley.
What renders this making of a great matter out of so trivial a point, by
our Reviewer, amusing, as well as ridiculous, is that he is the first to
break his own rule.
"'Tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard."
The critic is caught by his own captions criticism. In the passage,
pointing out the error in the name of Brattle, he calls him, "at the
time" he wrote the account of Salem witchcraft, "the Treasurer of
Harvard College." Brattle held not then, and never had held, that
honorable trust and title, though subsequently appointed to the office.
It is not probable that Cotton Mather will ever find a biographer more
kind and just than the late W. B. O. Peabody, whose mild and pleasant
humor was always kept under the sway of a sweet spirit of candor and
benevolence, and who has presented faithfully all the good points and
services of his subject--_Sparks's American Biography, Vol. VI._ But the
knight errant who has just centered the lists, brandishing his spear
against all who have uttered a lisp against Cotton Mather, goes out of
his way to strike at Doctor Peabody. He inserts, at the foot of one of
his pages, this sneering Note: "Mr. Peabody says; 'Little did the
venerable Doctor think,' etc. The venerable Doctor was twenty-nine years
of age! and was no Doctor at all."
Let us see how the ridicule of the Reviewer can be parried by his own
weapons. Indulging myself, for a moment, in his style, I have, to say
that "this Reviewer has never seen" Worcester's Dictionary, nor
Webster's Dictionary, in neither of which does time or age enter into
the definition of _venerable_. The latter gives the sense as follows:
"Rendered sacred by religious associations, or being consecrated to God
and to his worship; to be regarded with awe, and treated with
reverence." Further: "This Reviewer should have been familiar enough
with the original sources of information on this subject," to have known
that it was common, in those days, to speak and think of such persons as
Cotton Mather, although not old in years, as "venerable." All the
customs, habits, ideas, and sentiments of the people invested them with
character. Their costume and bearing favored it. The place they filled,
and the power they exercised, imparted awe and veneration, whatever
their years. All that age could contribute to command respect was
anticipated and brought, to gather round the young Minister, when hands
were laid upon him, at his ordination, by the title he thenceforth wore,
of "Elder." By his talents, learning, and ambition, Cotton Mather had
become recognized as a "Father in the Church;" and his aspect, as he
stood in the pulpit of "North Boston," fulfilled the idea of
venerableness. And we find that this very term was applied to the
representative centre of a consecrated family, in the "Attestation" to
the _Magnalia_, written by John Higginson, venerable in years, as in all
things else, in some Latin lines of his composure: "_Venerande
Mathere_."
In the popular eye, Cotton Mather concentrated all the sacred memories
of the great "decemvirate," as Higginson called it, of the Mathers, who
had been set apart as Ministers of God; and he was venerable, besides,
in the associations connected with the hallowed traditions of his
maternal grandfather, whose name he bore, John Cotton.
An object is _venerable_, whether it be a person, a building, a
locality, or any thing else, around which associations gather, that
inspire reverence. Age, in itself, suggests the sentiment, if its
natural effect is not marred by unworthiness; so does wisdom. Virtue is
venerable, whatever the age. So are all great traits of character; and
so is every thing that brings to the mind consecrated thoughts and
impressions. There was much in Mather's ancestry, name, and office, to
suggest the term, without any regard whatever to his years. If applied
to him by the people of that day, or by a writer now, in reference to
any period of his life after entering the ministry and being classed
with the Elders of the Church and the land, it was entirely legitimate
and appropriate.
While acknowledging the one error, detected by the Reviewer, I avail
myself of the opportunity to apprise those who have my book of a
probable error, not discovered by him. In Vol. II., p. 208, the name of
"Elizabeth Carey" is given among those for whose arrest Warrants were
issued, on the twenty-eighth of May, 1692. On page 238, the name
"Elizabeth Cary" is again mentioned. The facts are, that Calef, (_p.
95_,) says: "MAY 24TH: Mrs. Carey, of Charlestown, was examined and
committed. Her husband, Mr. Nathaniel Carey, has given account thereof,
as also of her escape, to this effect." He then gives a letter going
into much interesting detail, evidently written by her husband, and
signed "Jonathan Carey." Hutchinson (_History, ii., 49_,) repeats
Calef's account, calling the woman, "Elizabeth, wife of Nathaniel;" and
gives the substance of her husband's letter, without attempting to
explain, or even noticing, the discrepancy as to the name of the
husband. Not knowing what to make of it, I examined the miscellaneous
mass of papers, in the Clerk's office, and found, on a small scrip, the
original Complaint, on which the Warrant was issued. It is the only
paper, relating to the case, in existence, or at least to be found here.
In it, the woman is described as "Elizabeth, the wife of Capt. Nathaniel
Carey of Charlestown, mariner." This seemed to settle it and I let it
pass, without attempting to explain how "Jonathan Carey" came to appear
as the husband of the woman, in the letter signed by that name. I am now
quite convinced that, in this case, I was misled, together with Calef
and Hutchinson, by paying too much regard to "original sources." I am
satisfied that the authority of the letter of "Jonathan Carey," must
stand; that the woman was his wife, "Hannah;" and that the error is in
the original "Complaint," here on file.
The facts, probably, were, that, it being rumored in Charlestown that a
Mrs. Carey was "cried out upon," without its being known which Mrs.
Carey it was, Jonathan, determined to meet the matter at the threshold,
took his wife directly to the spot. He arrived at Salem Village, in the
midst of a great excitement, bringing together a crowd of people, half
crazed under the terrors of the hour. Nobody knew him, which would not
have been so likely to have been the case with his brother, Nathaniel,
who was a more conspicuous character. He could find no one he knew,
except Mr. Hale, who was formerly a Charlestown man, and whom he soon
lost in the confusion of the scene. The accusing girls were on the look
out, and noticing these two strangers, enquired their names, and were
told, _Mr. and Mrs. Carey_. They had been crying out upon _Elizabeth
Carey_, and thinking they had her, informed Thomas Putnam and Benjamin
Hutchinson, two persons perfectly deluded by them, who instantly drew
up the Complaint. In the hurry and horrors of the moment, the error in
the names was not discovered: _Jonathan_ and _Hannah_ were sent
forthwith to prison, from which they broke, and escaped to New York. The
girls, thinking they had got _Mrs. Elizabeth Carey_ in prison, said no
more about it. As Jonathan and his wife were safe, and beyond reach, the
whole matter dropped out of the public mind; and Mrs. Elizabeth remained
undisturbed. This is the only way in which I can account for the strange
incongruity of the statements, as found in the "Complaint," Calef, and
Hutchinson. The letter of Jonathan Carey is decisive of the point that
it was "Hannah," his wife, that was arrested, and escaped. The error in
Calef was not discovered by him, as his book was printed in London; and,
under the general disposition to let the subject pass into oblivion, if
possible, no explanation was ever given.
I cannot let the letter of Jonathan Carey pass, without calling to
notice his statement that, upon reaching New York, they found "His
Excellency, Benjamin Fletcher, Esq., very courteous" to them. Whatever
multiplies pleasant historical reminiscences and bonds of association
between different States, ought to be gathered up and kept fresh in the
minds of all. The fact that when Massachusetts was suffering from a
fiery and bloody, but brief, persecution by its own Government, New York
opened so kind and secure a shelter for those fortunate enough to escape
to it, ought to be forever held in grateful remembrance by the people of
the old Bay State, and constitutes a part of the history of the Empire
State, of which she may well be proud. If the historians and antiquaries
of the latter State can find any traces, in their municipal or other
archives, or in any quarter, of the refuge which the Careys and others
found among them, in 1692, they would be welcome contributions to our
history, and strengthen the bonds of friendly union.
The Reviewer seems to imagine that, by a stroke of his pen, he can, at
any time, make history. Referring to Governor Winthrop, in connection
with the case of Margaret Jones, forty-two years before, he says that he
"presided at her Trial; signed her Death-warrant; and wrote the report
of the case in his journal." The fact that, in his private journal, he
has a paragraph relating to it, hardly justifies the expression "wrote
the report of the case." Where did he, our Reviewer, find authority for
the positive statement that Winthrop "signed the Death-warrant?" We have
no information, I think, as to the use of Death-warrants, as we
understand such documents to be, in those days; and especially are we
ignorant as to the official who drew and signed the Order for the
execution of a capital convict. Sir William Phips, although present,
did not sign the Death-warrant of Bridget Bishop.
The Reviewer expresses, over and over again, his great surprise at the
view given in my book of Cotton Mather's connection with Salem
witchcraft. It is quite noticeable that his language, to this effect,
was echoed through that portion of the Press committed to his
statements. My sentiments were spoken of as "surprising errors." What I
had said was, as I have shown, a mere continuation of an ever-received
opinion; and it was singular that it gave such a widespread simultaneous
shock of "surprise." But that shock went all around. I was surprised at
their surprise; and may be allowed, as well as the Reviewer, to express
and explain that sensation. It was awakened deeply and forcibly by the
whole tenor of his article. He was the first reader of my book, it
having been furnished him by the Publishers before going to the binder.
He wrote an elaborate, extended, and friendly notice of it, in a leading
paper of New York city, kindly calling it "a monument of historical and
antiquarian research;" "a narrative as fascinating as the latest novel;"
and concluding thus: "Mr. Upham deserves the thanks of the many persons
interested in psychological inquiries, for the minute details he has
given of these transactions." Some criticisms were suggested, in
reference to matters of form in the work; _but not one word was said
about Cotton Mather_. The change that has come over the spirit of his
dream is more than surprising.
The reference, in the foregoing citation, to "psychological enquiries,"
suggests to me to allude, before closing, to remarks made by some other
critics. I did not go into the discussion, with any particularity, of
the connection, if any, between the witchcraft developments of 1692 and
modern spiritualism, in any of its forms. A fair and candid writer
observes that "the facts and occurrences," as I state them, involve
difficulties which I "have not solved." There are "depths," he
continues, "in this melancholy episode, which his plummet has not
sounded, by a great deal." This is perfectly true.
With a full conviction that the events and circumstances I was
endeavoring to relate, afforded more material for suggestions, in
reference to the mysteries of our spiritual nature, than any other
chapter in history, I carefully abstained, with the exception of a few
cautionary considerations hinting at the difficulties that encompass the
subject, from attempting to follow facts to conclusions, in that
direction. My sole object was to bring to view, as truthfully,
thoroughly, and minutely, as I could, the phenomena of the case, as bare
historical facts, from which others were left, to make their own
deductions. This was the extent of the service I desired to render, in
aid of such as may attempt to advance the boundaries of the spiritual
department of science. I was content, and careful, to stay my steps.
Feeling that the story I was telling led me along the outer edge of what
is now knowledge--that I was treading the shores of the _ultima Thule_,
of the yet discovered world of truth--I did not venture upon the world
beyond. My only hope was to afford some data to guide the course of
those who may attempt to traverse it. Other hands are to drop the
plummet into its depths, and other voyagers feel their way over its
surface to continents that are waiting, as did this Western Hemisphere,
for ages upon ages, to be revealed. The belief that fields of science
may yet be reached, by exploring the connection between the corporeal
and spiritual spheres of our being, in which explorations the facts
presented in the witchcraft Delusion may be serviceable, suggested one
of the motives that led me to dedicate my volumes to the Professor of
Physiology in Harvard University.
The Reviewer concludes his article by saying that the "History of Salem
witchcraft is as yet unwritten," but, that I must write it; and he tells
me how to write it. He advises a more concise form, although his whole
article consists of complaints because I avoided discussions and
condensed documents, which, if fully gone into and spread out at length,
would have swelled the dimensions of the work, as well as broken the
thread of the narrative. It must be borne in mind, that a reader can
only be held to the line of a subject, by an occasional retrospection
and reiteration of what must be constantly kept in view. The traveler
needs, at certain points and suitable stages, to turn and survey the
ground over which he has passed. A condensation that would strike out
such recapitulations and repetitions, might impair the effect of a work
of any kind, particularly, of one embracing complicated materials.
The Reviewer says that, "by all means, I must give references to
authorities," when I quote. This, as a general thing, is good advice.
But it must be remembered that my work consists of three divisions. The
History of Salem Village constitutes the First. This is drawn, almost
wholly, from papers in the offices of registry, and from judicial files
of the County, to which references would be of little use, and serve
only to cumber and deform the pages. Everything can be verified by
inspection of the originals, and not otherwise. The Second Part is a
cursory, general, abbreviated sketch or survey of the history of
opinions, not designed as an authoritative treatise for special
students, but to prepare the reader for the Third Part, the authorities
for which are, almost wholly, Court files.
As to the remaining suggestion, that I must divide the work into
Chapters, with headings, there is something to be said. When the nature
of an historical work admits of its being invested with a dramatic
interest--and all history is capable, more or less, of having that
attraction--where minute details can fill up the whole outline of
characters, events, and scenes, all bearing the impress of truth and
certainty, real history, being often stranger than fiction, may be, and
ought to be, so written as to bring to bear upon the reader, the charm,
and work the spell, of what is called romance. The same solicitude,
suspense, and sensibilities, which the parties, described, experienced,
can be imparted to the reader; and his feelings and affections keep pace
with the developments of the story, as they arise with the progress of
time and events. Headings to Chapters, in historical works, capable of
this dramatic element, would be as out of place, and as much mar and
defeat the effect, as in a novel.
As for division into Chapters. This was much thought of and desired; but
the nature of the subject presented obstacles that seem insurmountable.
One topic necessarily ran into, or overlapped, another. No chronological
unity, if the work had been thus cut up, could have been preserved; and
much of the ground would have had to be gone over and over again.
Examinations, Trials, Executions were, often, all going on at once.
There is danger of a diminution of the continuous interest of some
works, thus severed into fragments. There are, indeed, animals that will
bear to be chopped up indefinitely, and each parcel retain its life: not
so with others. The most important of all documents have suffered
injury, not to be calculated, in their attractiveness and
impressiveness, by being divided into Chapter and Verse, in many
instances without reference to the unity of topics, or coherence of
passages; dislocating the frame of narratives, and breaking the
structure of sentences. We all know to what a ridiculous extent this
practice was, for a long period, carried in Sermons, which were
"divided" to a degree of artificial and elaborate dissection into
"heads," that tasked to the utmost the ingenuity of the preacher, and
overwhelmed the discernment and memory of the hearer. He, in fact, was
thought the ablest sermonizer, who could stretch the longest string of
divisions, up to the "nineteenthly," and beyond. This fashion has a
prominent place among _The Grounds and Occasions of the Contempt of the
Clergy and Religion_, by John Eachard, D.D., a work published in London,
near the commencement of the last century--one of the few books, like
Calef's, which have turned the tide, and arrested the follies, of their
times. In bold, free, forcible satire, Eachard's book stands alone.
Founded on great learning, inspired by genuine wit, its style is plain
even to homeliness. It struck at the highest, and was felt and
appreciated by the lowest. It reinforced the pulpit, simplified the
literature, eradicated absurdities of diction and construction, and
removed many of the ecclesiastic abuses, of its day. No work of the kind
ever met with a more enthusiastic reception. I quote from the Eleventh
Edition, printed in 1705: "We must observe, that there is a great
difference in texts. For all texts come not asunder, alike; for
sometimes the words naturally fall asunder; sometimes they drop asunder;
sometimes they melt; sometimes they untwist; and there be some words so
willing to be parted, that they divide themselves, to the great ease and
rejoicing of the Minister. But if they will not easily come in pieces,
then he falls to hacking and hewing, as if he would make all fly into
shivers. The truth of it is, I have known, now and then, some knotty
texts, that have been divided seven or eight times over, before they
could make them split handsomely, according to their mind."
An apology to those critics who have complained of my not dividing my
book into Chapters, is found in the foregoing passage. I tried to do it,
but found it a "knotty" subject, and, like the texts Eachard speaks of,
"would not easily come in pieces." With all my efforts, it could not be
made to "split handsomely."
This, and all other suggestions of criticism, are gratefully received
and respectfully considered. But, after all, it will not be well to
establish any canons, to be, in all cases, implicitly obeyed, by all
writers. Much must be left to individual judgment. Regard must be had to
the nature of subjects. Instead of servile uniformity, variety and
diversity must be encouraged. In this way, only, can we have a free,
natural, living literature.
In passing, I would say, that in meeting the demand made upon me by the
Reviewer, to rewrite the history of Salem witchcraft, I shall avail
myself of the opportunity to correct the single error he has mentioned.
In a re-issue of the work, I shall endeavor to make it as accurate as
possible. Anything that is found to be wrong shall be rectified. The
work, in the different forms in which it was published, is nearly out of
print. When issued again, it will be in a less costly style and more
within the reach of all. From the result of my own continued researches
and the suggestions of others, I feel inclined to the opinion that no
very considerable alterations will be made; and that subsequent
editions, will not impair the authority or value of the work, as
originally published in 1867.
In preparing the statement, now brought to a close, the only object has
been to get at, and present, the real facts of history. Nothing, merely
personal, affecting the writer in the _North American Review_ or myself,
can be considered as of comparative moment. Many of the expressions used
by that writer, as to what I have "seen" or "read" and the like, are, it
must be confessed, rather peculiar; but of very little interest to the
public. Any notice, taken of them, has been incidental, and such as
naturally arose in the treatment of the subject.
In parting with the reader, I venture so far further to tax his
patience, as to ask to take a retrospective glance, together, over the
outlines of the road we have travelled.
In connection with some preliminary observations, the first step in the
argument was to show the relation of the Mathers, father and son, to the
superstitions of their times culminating in the Witchcraft Delusion of
1692, and their share of responsibility therefor. The several successive
stages of the discussion were as follows:--The connection of Cotton
Mather with alleged cases of Witchcraft in the family of John Goodwin of
Boston, in 1688; and said Goodwin's certificates disposed of: Mather's
idea of Witchcraft, as a war waged by the Devil against the Church; and
his use of prayer: The connection between the cases, at Boston in 1688,
and at Salem in 1692: The relation of the Mathers to the Government of
Massachusetts, in 1692: The arrival of Sir William Phips; the impression
made upon him by those whom he first met; his letter to the Government
in England: The circumstances attending the establishment of the Special
Court of Oyer and Terminer, and the precipitance with which it was put
into operation: Its proceedings, conducted by persons in the interest of
the Mathers: Spectral Testimony; and the extent to which it was
authorized by them to be received at the Trials, as affording grounds of
enquiry and matter of presumption: Letter of Cotton Mather to one of the
Judges: The Advice of the Ministers: Cotton Mather's probable plan for
dealing with spectral evidence: His views on that subject, as gathered
from his writings and declarations: The question of his connection with
the Examinations before the Magistrates: His connection with the Trials
and Executions: His Report of five of the Trials: His book entitled _The
Wonders of the Invisible World_; its design; the circumstances attending
its preparation for the press; and the views, feelings, and expectations
of its author, exhibited in extracts from it: Increase Mather's _Cases
of Conscience_: The suppression of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, by
Sir William Phips: Cotton Mather's views subsequent to 1692, as gathered
from his writings.
In traversing the field thus marked out, I submit that it has become
demonstrated that, while Cotton Mather professed concurrence in the
generally-received judgment of certain writers against the reception of
spectral evidence, he approved of the manner in which it had been
received by the Judges, at the Salem Trials, and eulogized them
throughout, from the beginning to the end of the prosecution, and ever
after. He vindicated, as a general principle, the _admission_ of that
species of testimony, on the ground of its being a sufficient basis of
enquiry and presumption, and needing only some additional evidence,--his
own Report and papers on file show how little was required--to justify
conviction and execution. This has been proved, at large, by an
examination of his writings and actions, and is fully admitted by him,
in various forms of language, on several occasions--substantially, in
his statement, that Spectral Testimony was the "chief" ground upon which
"divers" were condemned and executed, and, explicitly, in his letter to
Foster, in which he says that "a very great use is to be made" of it, in
the manner and to the extent just mentioned; and that, when thus used,
the "use for which the Great God intended it," will be made. In the same
passage, he commends the Judge for having admitted it; and declares they
had the divine blessing thereupon, inasmuch as "God strangely sent other
convincing testimony," to corroborate, and thereby render it sufficient
to convict. In his Address to the General Assembly, years afterward, he
fully admits that the Judges, in 1692, whose course he applauded at the
time, allowed persons to be adjudged guilty, "merely because" of
Spectral Testimony.
My main purpose and duty, in preparing this article, have been to
disprove the absolute and unlimited assertions made by the contributor
to the _North American Review_, that Cotton Mather was opposed to the
_admission_ of Spectral Evidence; "denounced it as illegal,
uncharitable, and cruel;" and "ever testified against it, both publicly
and privately;" and that the _Advice of the Ministers_, drawn up by him,
"was _very specific_ in _excluding_ Spectral Testimony."
It has been thought proper, also, to vindicate the truth of history
against the statements of this Reviewer, on some other points; as, for
instance, by showing that the opinion of Cotton Mather's particular
responsibility for the Witchcraft Tragedy, instead of originating with
me, was held at the time, at home and abroad, and has come down, through
an unbroken series of the most accredited writers, to our day; and that
the influence of the Mathers never recovered from the shock given it, by
the catastrophe of 1692.
The apology for the great length of this article is, that the high
authority justly accorded to the _North American Review_, demanded, in
controverting any position taken in its columns, a thorough and patient
investigation, and the production, in full, of the documents belonging
to the question. It has further been necessary, in order to get at the
predominating tendency and import of Cotton Mather's writings, to cite
them, in extended quotations and numerous extracts. To avoid the error
into which the Reviewer has fallen, the peculiarity of Mather's style
must be borne in mind. Opposite drifts of expression appear in different
writings and in different parts of the same writing; and, not
infrequently, the clauses of the same passage have contrary bearings. He
often palters, with himself as well as others, in a double sense.
Quotations, to any amount, from the writings of either of the Mathers,
of passages having the appearance of discountenancing spectral evidence,
can be of no avail in sustaining the positions taken by the Reviewer,
because they are qualified by the admission, that evidence of that sort
might and ought, notwithstanding, to be received as a basis for enquiry
and ground of presumption, and, if supported by other ordinary
testimony, was sufficient for conviction. That other testimony, when
adduced, was, as represented by Mather, clothed with a divine authority;
having, as he says, been supplied by a special Providence, and been
justly regarded, by the "excellent Judges," as "an encouraging presence
of God, strangely sent in." It could, indeed, in the then state of the
public mind, always be readily obtained. No matter how small in quantity
or utterly irrelevant, it was sufficient for conviction coming after the
Spectral Evidence. To minds thus subdued and overwhelmed with "awe,"
trifles light as air were confirmation strong.
It is to be presumed that his warmest admirers would not think of
comparing Cotton Mather with his transatlantic correspondent and
coadjutor, as to force of character, power of mind, or the moral and
religious value of their writings. Yet there were some striking
similarities between them. They were men of undoubted genius and great
learning. They were all their lives awake to whatever was going on
around them. Earnestly interested, and actively engaging, in all
questions of theology and government, they both rushed forthwith and
incontinently to the press, until their publications became too
voluminous and numerous to be patiently read or easily counted. Of
course, what they printed was imbued with the changing aspects of the
questions they handled and open to the imputation of inconsistency, of
which Baxter was generally disregardful and Mather mostly unconscious.
Sir Roger L'Estrange was one of the great wits and satirists of his
age. His style was rough and reckless. A vehement and fierce upholder of
the doctrines of arbitrary government, he was knighted by James the
Second. His controversial writings, having all the attractions of
unscrupulous invective and homely but cutting sarcasm, were much
patronized by the great, and extensively read by the people. All
Nonconformists and Dissenters were the objects of his coarse abuse. He
issued an ingenious pamphlet with this title: "_The Casuist uncased; in
a Dialogue betwixt Richard and Baxter, with a moderator between them,
for quietness sake._" The two disputants range over a variety of
subjects, and are quite vehement against each other; the Moderator
interposing to keep them to the point, preserve order in the debate,
and, as occasion required, reduce them to "quietness." At one stage of
the altercation, he exclaimed: "If an Angel from Heaven, I perceive,
were employed to bring you two to an agreement, he should lose his
labor." Great was the amusement of all classes to find that the language
uttered by the combatants, on each side, was taken from one or another
of writings published by Richard Baxter, during his diversified
controversial life.
If any skilful and painstaking humorist of our day, should feel so
disposed, he might, by wading through the sea of Cotton Mather's
writings, pick up material enough for the purpose; and, by cutting in
halves paragraphs and sentences, entertain us in the same way, by giving
to the public, through the Press, "_A Dialogue betwixt COTTON and
MATHER, with a Moderator between them for quietness sake._"
THE
HISTORICAL MAGAZINE;
AND
Notes and Queries concerning the Antiquities,
History and Biography of America.
This Magazine was commenced in January, 1857, for the purpose of
furnishing a medium of intercommunication between Historical Societies,
Authors, and Students of History, and supplying an interesting and
valuable journal--a miscellany of American History. On the first of
July, 1866, it passed into the hands of the undersigned, by whom it is
still conducted, with the support and aid of a large body of intelligent
readers, and the assistance of the foremost historical writers in the
country.
Among the contributors to the past volumes are Hon. Edward Everett, Hon.
George Bancroft, Jared Sparks, LL.D., Hon. Peter Force, Hon. James
Savage, Hon. Robert C. Winthrop, Wm. Gilmore Simms, Esq., Henry R.
Stiles, M.D., Geo. Gibbs, Esq., Hon. John R. Brodhead, J. Carson
Brevoort, Esq., Henry R. Schoolcraft, Esq., Benson J. Lossing, Esq.,
Hon. Henry C. Murphy, Samuel G. Drake, Esq., Sebastian F. Streeter,
Esq., Alfred B. Street, Esq., E. B. O'Callaghan, LL.D., Prof. W. W.
Turner, Buckingham Smith, Esq., Evert A. Duyckinck, Esq., Brantz Mayer,
Esq., Hon. John R. Bartlett, Samuel F. Haven, Esq., Dr. R. W. Gibbs,
John W. Francis, M.D., D. G. Brinton, M.D., George H. Moore, Esq., John
G. Shea, LL.D., Rev. E. H. Gillett, D.D., John Ward Dean, Esq., Henry
O'Reilly, Esq., Rev. Pliny H. White, Hon. E. E. Bourne, and Hon. Thomas
Ewbank.
The eleven volumes already published contain an immense mass of matter
relating to American History and kindred studies, such as cannot be
found collected elsewhere, rendering it a work absolutely necessary in
all libraries. Few historical works now appear that do not acknowledge
indebtedness to it.
The Contents of the Historical Magazine may be generally classed under
the following heads:
I. Original Papers, involving points of research in historical studies,
presenting new facts, or the discussion of Federal and Local topics of
interest, in Essays, by writers versed in American History.
II. The Collection of Original Letters, Correspondence, Diaries, &c.,
hitherto unpublished, of Americans of Eminence.
III. Biographical and Obituary Notices of persons distinguished in the
service of the country, whether in office, political life, literature,
or science.
IV. Accurate reports of the proceedings of the numerous American
Historical, Antiquarian, Geographical, Numismatic, and other kindred
Societies.
V. Notes and Queries of curious and important topics, new and old, with
replies, by a large body of contributors.
VI. Reprints of rare and interesting Tracts, old Poems out of print,
&c., &c.
VII. Miscellany and Anecdotes.
VIII. Carefully prepared and impartial Notices of New Books and
Engravings, especially those relating to the History, Antiquities, or
Biography of America.
IX. Historical and Literary Intelligence, Announcements, &c.
The Historical Magazine is printed on fine quality of paper, similar in
form and size to this sheet, and published in monthly numbers, of
sixty-four pages each, at FIVE DOLLARS A YEAR. Single numbers
SEVENTY-FIVE CENTS.
HENRY B. DAWSON, Morrisania, N. Y.
CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME I, NEW SERIES.
BERGEN, Hon. TUNIS, Bay Side, L. I.
BRINTON, Doctor D. G., Westchester, Pennsylvania, the celebrated
Ethnologist.
BRODHEAD, Hon. J. ROMEYN, the historian of New York.
DAWSON, HENRY B., author of _Battles of the United States_, etc.
DEAN, JOHN WARD, Secretary of the New England Historic-Genealogical
Society.
ELLIS, Rev. GEORGE B., D.D., Charlestown, Massachusetts.
EWBANK, Hon. THOMAS, Vice-president of the American Ethnological
Society.
FORCE, General PETER, Washington, D. C.
GILLETT, Rev. E. H., D.D., the historian of the Presbyterian Church.
KAPP, FRIEDRICH, the biographer of Steuben, De Kalb, etc.
LAWRENCE, EUGENE, Columbia College, New York.
MOORE, GEORGE H., Librarian of New York Historical Society.
NEW YORK CITY, Corporation of.
O'REILLY, HENRY, the veteran printer and telegraphist.
ROCKWELL, Prof. E. F., Davidson College, North Carolina.
SCOTT, BENJAMIN, Chamberlain of the City of London.
SHEA, J. GILMARY, LL.D., historian of the Catholic Missions.
SMITH, Hon. BUCKINGHAM, St. Augustine, Fl.
STONE, WILLIAM L., biographer of Sir William Johnson, etc.
WETMORE, General PROSPER M., New York.
UNPUBLISHED ARTICLES BY
ADAMS, SAMUEL, of Boston.
ALLEN, ETHAN, of Vermont.
ANDERSON, Lieut. THOMAS, of Delaware [His Diary during the Revolutionary
War].
ASHLEY, Doctor JOHN, of Deerfield, Massachusetts.
ASHMUN, Rev. J., Washington, D. C.
BARKER, JACOB, New Orleans.
BEATTY, Captain WILLIAM, of Maryland. [His Diary and Correspondence].
BENSON, EGBERT, on the Constitution of New York.
BURR, AARON, of New York.
CARROLL, CHARLES, of Carrollton.
COLDEN, DAVID C., of New York.
COOPER, J. FENIMORE, of New York.
DEARBORN, General HENRY, of Massachusetts.
DOWNING, EMANUAL, of England.
DRAYTON, WILLIAM H., of South Carolina.
DROWNE, Doctor SOLOMON, of Rhode Island.
FITZHUGH, WILLIAM, of Virginia.
FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN, of Pennsylvania.
GERRY, ELBRIDGE, of Massachusetts.
GREENE, General NATHANIEL, of Rhode Island.
HOOPER, A. M.
HOWELL, DAVID, of New Jersey.
HUMPHREYS, Colonel DAVID, of Connecticut.
HUNTINGTON, General JED., of Connecticut.
JAY, JOHN, of New York.
JEFFERSON, THOMAS, of Virginia.
KENDALL, AMOS, [on the Jackson Cabinet.]
KING, RUFUS, of New York. [On the Constitution of New York.]
LA FAYETTE, General.
LAURENS, HENRY, of South Carolina.
"MASON and DIXON," the Surveyors.
MILLER, General JAMES, of New Hampshire.
MOOERS, General BENJAMIN, of Plattsburg, New York.
MORRIS, ROBERT, of Pennsylvania.
PAGET, Admiral, R.N.
QUITMAN, General, of Mississippi. [Autobiographical letter.]
RANDOLPH, JOHN, of Roanoke, Virginia.
RIKER, Recorder RICHARD, of New York.
RUSH, Doctor BENJAMIN, of Pennsylvania.
TALLMADGE, Major BENJAMIN, of Connecticut.
TOMPKINS, DANIEL D., of New York.
VAN BUREN, MARTIN, of New York.
WASHINGTON, General GEORGE.
WHEELWRIGHT, Rev. JOHN, of Boston. [The celebrated Fast-day Sermon, for
preaching which he was banished from Massachusetts.]
WOLCOTT, OLIVER.
CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME II, NEW SERIES.
1.--ORIGINAL ARTICLES.
Hon. E. E. BOURNE, President of the Maine Historical Society.
Rev. PLINY H. WHITE, President of the Vermont Historical Society.
Hon. J. HAMMOND TRUMBULL, President of the Connecticut Historical
Society.
Hon. THOMAS EWBANK, Vice-president of the American Ethnological Society.
GEORGE HENRY MOORE, Librarian of the New York Historical Society.
Rev. Doctor BALLARD, Secretary of the Maine Historical Society.
S. F. HAVEN, Librarian of the American Antiquarian Society.
H. A. HOLMES, State Librarian, Albany.
E. B. O'CALLAGHAN, LL.D.
J. GILMARY SHEA, LL.D., New York City.
Doctor E. H. DAVIS, the Ethnologist.
Doctor D. G. BRINTON, Westchester, Penn.
J. WINGATE THORNTON, Boston.
Professor GEORGE W. GREENE, of Rhode Island.
Hon. WILLIAM WILLIS, Portland, Me.
W. GILMORE SIMMS, LL.D., of South Carolina.
WILLIAM SWINTON, New York City.
WILLIAM H. WHITMORE, Boston.
Rev. E. H. GILLETT, D.D., Harlem, N. Y.
Professor E. F. ROCKWELL, Davidson College, N. C.
J. R. SIMMS, Fort Plain, N. Y.
JAMES RIKER, Harlem, N. Y.
CHARLES EDWARDS, New York.
Captain E. C. BOYNTON, U.S.A., West Point.
Colonel THOMAS F. DE VOE, "the historical Butcher."
Captain GEORGE HENRY PREBLE, U.S.N.
JOSEPH SABIN, New York.
HENRY O'REILLY, New York.
Doctor JOSEPH COMSTOCK, Liberty Hill, Conn.
J. WILLIAMSON, Belfast, Me.
Rev. A. H. QUINT, D.D., New Bedford, Mass.
RUDOLPHE GARRIGUE, Morrisania, N. Y.
Editors of the _Methodist_, New York.
2.--INEDITED ARTICLES.
SAMUEL L. BOARDMAN, Augusta, Me.
F. W. SEWARD, Assistant Secretary of State of the United States.
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK.
BUCKINGHAM SMITH, St. Augustine, Fla.
Professor GEORGE W. GREENE.
Hon. JOHN SULLIVAN, Exeter, N. H.
Professor RAU, New York.
E. F. DE LANCEY, New York.
3.--WRITERS OF INEDITED PAPERS.
Captain HENRY SEWALL, of the Revolutionary Army.
SEU-KI-YU, Governor of Fuh-Kien, China.
HARRISON GRAY OTIS.
JEFFERSON DAVIS.
JOHN ADAMS.
General WADE HAMPTON, U.S.A.
The Citizen GENET.
General WASHINGTON.
Colonel DAVID CROCKETT.
General LA FAYETTE.
RUFUS KING.
General WINFIELD SCOTT, U.S.A.
THOMAS JEFFERSON.
Colonel HENRY MURRAY, R.A.
CHARLES V., of Spain.
Colonel DAVID HUMPHREYS, of the Revolutionary Army.
Governor BELCHER, of Massachusetts.
Reverend J. H. LIVINGSTON, D.D.
CHARLES CARROLL, of Carrollton.
SAMUEL HUNTINGTON, President of the Continental Congress.
General WILLIAM HEATH, of the Revolutionary Army.
General M. GIST, of the same.
Colonel BENJAMIN TALLMADGE, of the same.
Doctor B. RUSH.
Governor THOMAS NELSON, of Virginia.
SOLOMON DROWNE, M.D., of the Revolutionary Army.
Lieutenant-governor COLDEN, of New York.
General JOHN SULLIVAN, of the Revolutionary Army.
HENRY CLAY.
WILLIAM J. DUANE.
Colonel RICHARD M. JOHNSON.
JARED SPARKS, LL.D.
Hon. ALEXANDER H. EVERETT.
Major HENRY LEE.
AARON BURR.
JAMES MUNROE.
ETC., ETC., ETC.
CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME III, NEW SERIES.
AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY, Worcester, Mass.
BALLARD, D.D., Rev. EDWARD, Brunswick, Maine. Secretary of the Maine
Historical Society.
BALLARD, FRANK W., New York City.
BARTLETT, Hon. J. RUSSELL, Providence. R. I. Secretary of State of Rhode
Island.
BLEECKER, R. WADE, New York City.
BOARDMAN, SAMUEL L., Augusta, Maine.
BOURNE, Hon. E. E., Kennebunk, Maine. President of the Maine Historical
Society.
BREVOORT, Hon. J. CARSON, Brooklyn. President of the L. I. Historical
Society.
BRODHEAD, J. ROMEYN, LL.D., New York. The historian of New York.
BRINLEY, Hon. GEORGE, Hartford, Conn.
BURNS, C. DEF., New York City.
BUSHNELL, CHARLES J., New York City.
DEAN, JOHN WARD, Boston, Mass. Author of _Life of Nathaniel Ward_, etc.
DE COSTA, Rev. B. F., New York City. The historian of Lake George, etc.
DE VOE, Colonel, THOMAS F., New York City. The historian of the Markets.
DRAKE, SAMUEL G., Boston, Mass. The historian of the Town of Boston,
etc.
DUANE, Colonel WILLIAM, Philadelphia.
DUNSHEE, HENRY W., New York City. The historian of the Dutch School, in
N. Y.
DUYCKINCK, EVERT A., New York City. Author of _Encylo. of Amer.
Literature_, etc.
EWBANK, Hon. THOMAS, New York City. V. P. of The American Ethnological
Society.
FISH, Hon. HAMILTON, New York City. President of the New York Historical
Society.
FRANCIS, LL.D., The late JOHN W., New York.
GIBBS, GEORGE, Washington, D. C. Author of _The Administration of
Washington and Adams_.
GILLETT, D.D., Rev. E. H., Harlem, N. Y. The historian of the
Presbyterian Church.
GODFREY, JOHN E., Bangor, Maine.
GREENE, Prof. GEORGE W., East Greenwich, R. I. Author of _Life of Gen.
Nathaniel Greene_, etc.
GREENWOOD, ISAAC J., New York City.
HALL, Hon. HILAND, North Bennington, Vermont. Lately President of
Vermont Historical Society.
HATFIELD, D.D., Rev. E. F., New York City. The historian of
Elizabeth-town, N. J., etc.
HAY, Hon. WILLIAM, Saratoga Springs.
HELMICK, C. C., Washington, D. C.
HOFFMAN, FRANCIS S., New York City.
IRVING, PIERRE, Tarrytown, New York. The biographer of Washington
Irving.
JONES, Colonel M. M., Utica, New York. Assistant Secretary of State of
New York.
KAPP, FRIEDRICH, New York City. Biographer of Generals Steuben, De Kalb,
etc.
KELBY, WILLIAM, New York City. Of the New York Historical Society.
KETCHUM, Hon. EDGAR, Harlem, New York.
LONG ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY, Brooklyn.
MCCOY, JOHN F., Brooklyn, New York.
MCKEEN, Doctor, Topsham, Maine.
MCKNIGHT, CHARLES, Poughkeepsie, New York
MOORE, GEORGE HENRY, LL.D., New York. Librarian of New York Historical
Society.
MORSE, C. H., Washington, D. C.
NEILL, E. D., Washington, D. C. The historian of Minnesota.
NEW YORK, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF.
O'CALLAGHAN, LL.D., E. B., Albany, N. Y. Historian of New Netherland.
PAINE, NATHANIEL, Worcester, Massachusetts. Treasurer of the Amer.
Antiquarian Society.
PERRY, Rev. WILLIAM STEVENS, Litchfield, Conn. Secretary of House of Lay
and Clerical Delegates of General Convention of P. E. Church.
PREBLE, Captain GEORGE HENRY, U.S.N.
ROCKWELL, Professor E. F., Davison's Col., N. C.
RUSSELL, J., Washington, D. C.
SARDEMANN, Rev. J. G., Weser, Germany.
SCOTT, LEWIS A., Philadelphia.
SCOTT, M. B., Cleveland, Ohio.
SHEA, LL.D., JOHN GILMARY, Elizabeth, N. J. Historian of the Catholic
Missions.
SHEPPARD, J. H., Boston. Librarian of N. E. Historic Genealog. Society.
SIGEL, General FRANZ, Morrisania, N. Y.
SIMMS, LL.D., WILLIAM GILMORE, Charleston, S. C. The historian of South
Carolina.
SMITH, BUCKINGHAM, St. Augustine, Florida.
STILES, Doctor HENRY R., Brooklyn, N. Y. Author of _History of Windsor_;
_History of Brooklyn_; etc.
STONE, Rev. E. M., Providence. Secretary of R. I. Historical Society.
TAYLOR, ASHER, New York City.
THORNTON, J. WINGATE, Boston. Author of _Ancient Pemaquid_, _Landing on
Cape Ann_, etc.
TIEDEMAN, H., Amsterdam, Holland.
TRUMBULL, Hon. J. HAMMOND, Hartford, Conn. President of the Connecticut
Historical Society.
WALWORTH, MANSFIELD TRACY, Albany.
WHITE, Rev. PLINY H., Coventry, Vermont. President of Vermont Historical
Society.
WHITMORE, WILLIAM H., Boston.
WILLIAMSON, Hon. JOSEPH, Belfast, Maine.
WILLIS, Hon. WILLIAM, Portland, Maine. Late President Maine Historical
Society.
WOOL, Major-general JOHN E., U.S.A.
WYNNE, T. H., Baltimore. Editor of _The Westover Papers_, etc.