[463] Weston, in 1622, got into serious trouble with the English government, in regard to some ordnance and military stores, which he had obtained a license to send to New England, and had then sold to the French, with whom the English were at war. (Bradford, p. 150.) He seems to have been in hiding in consequence of this transaction; and early in 1623 went on board of one of the fishing-vessels in the disguise of a blacksmith, and came out in her to the stations on the Maine coast. There he must have learned of the extreme straits, if not of the abandonment, of his plantation at Wessagusset, and he set out, with a companion or two, in an open boat, for Massachusetts Bay. He was wrecked near the mouth of the Merrimac, and barely escaped with his life. The savages there stripped him to his shirt, and in this plight he reached Thomson’s plantation at Piscataqua. Thence he found his way to Plymouth, arriving there, not as Morton says, “with supply and means to have raised [his company’s] fortunes,” but in absolute destitution. Bradford’s account of his reception and of what ensued (pp. 133-4, 149-53) is very different from that given in the text; and, it is hardly necessary to add, reads much more like the truth.
[465] The incident here alluded to was the seizure of the Swan, under a warrant issued by Captain Robert Gorges, acting as Lieutenant of the Council for New England, in November, 1623. The Swan was a small vessel of 30 tons measurement, which Weston had sent out with his expedition, in 1622. His plan was, when the larger vessel—the Charity, in which his company went out—returned to England, to have the Swan remain in New England, to be used for trading purposes. Accordingly, all through the winter of 1622-3, it had been at Wessagusset, except when employed by the people there in obtaining supplies in connection with the Plymouth people. When, in March, 1623, Wessagusset was abandoned, the company went in the Swan to the Maine fishing-stations. Here Weston found the vessel in the course of the following summer, and recovered possession of her. He then began to trade along the coast. Meanwhile, in September, Captain Robert Gorges arrived, and immediately set out to look for Weston, in order to call him to account for the ordnance transactions referred to in the preceding note, and also for the disorderly conduct of his people at Wessagusset during the previous winter. Starting for the eastward, he was driven into Plymouth Harbor by heavy weather, and while he was lying there the Swan made its appearance with Weston on board. Bradford’s account of what ensued, including the seizure of the vessel, differs toto cœlo from that in the text. He says that Captain Robert Gorges, acting as governor-general under his commission from the Council for New England, at once organized a sort of a court,—he, Bradford, acting as an assistant in it,—and proceeded to arraign and try Weston. As a result of the whole proceedings Gorges threatened to send Weston under arrest back to England. Through the intercession of Bradford, however, he was mollified, and finally Weston was released on his own promise to appear when called for. Gorges then went to Wessagusset, leaving Weston with the Swan at Plymouth. After a time Gorges seems to have concluded that it would be very convenient for him to have control of the Swan, at any rate for that winter. Accordingly he sent a warrant to Plymouth for its seizure and the arrest of Weston. Bradford, not liking this proceeding, took some exception to the warrant, and refused to allow it to be served. At the same time it was intimated to Weston that he had better take himself and his vessel off. This he would not do. Apparently his crew was mutinous and unruly, their wages being long in arrears, and the Swan destitute of supplies. He seems to have looked upon arrest and seizure as the best way out of his difficulties. Presently a new warrant came from Gorges, and both vessel and prisoner were removed to Wessagusset. This was in November. There they passed the winter of 1623-4. Towards spring Gorges went in the Swan to the eastward, Weston accompanying him, apparently as a pilot. The tidings received there led the disappointed young Lieutenant of the Council to decide on immediately returning to England. Accordingly he came back to Wessagusset, and thence went probably to the fishing-stations, very possibly in the Swan. Before leaving he effected some sort of a settlement with Weston,—Bradford intimates much to the advantage of the latter,—who was released from arrest, had his vessel restored to him, and was compensated for whatever loss he had sustained. Weston thereupon reappeared at Plymouth, and thence went to Virginia. He seems to have traded along the coast for some years, but finally drifted back to England, where in 1645 he died, at Bristol, of the plague. (Bradford, pp. 140-53. Young’s Chron. of Pilg., pp. 296-8, 302.)
[466] This chapter relates to incidents of no apparent consequence, and of which there is no other record. It is not easy even to fix the time at which they occurred, and it would seem as if Morton, in his rambling, incoherent way, had confused the events of one year with those of another. The only time when “35 stout knaves” were landed, at all in the way described, at Plymouth, was in July, 1622, when the Charity brought in there Weston’s company. Yet Morton speaks of there then being “three cows” at Plymouth, which would indicate that Morton’s arrival, referred to in the text, was not in July 1622, but at some time subsequent to the spring of 1624, when Winslow brought over “three heifers and a bull, the first beginning of any cattle of that kind in the land.” (Bradford, p. 158.) Yet Weston, again, had no “barque” at Plymouth after 1623. The chapter seems to have been introduced simply for the purpose of working on the church prejudices of Laud against the Puritans. (See supra, 93-4.) There is in it a combination of “the booke of common prayer” and “claret sparklinge neate,” which is suggestive of the Book of Sports as well as of “the Word of God.”
[467] Bradford, p. 158.
[468] Facilis descensus Averno. Æneid, vi. 127.
[469] A killock is a small anchor. The phrase in the text means that the wind caused the boat to drag her anchor, and she went ashore and was stove in.
[470] The episode of Lyford and Oldham, in the history of the Plymouth plantation, is told in detail by Bradford. The account in the text differs from Bradford’s account only in that it is the other side of the story. (See Bradford, pp. 172-88.)
[471] See infra, 324, note. Though Lyford frequently exercised in the Plymouth church, as an elsewhere ordained brother, he was never installed as its pastor. When admitted to it, Bradford says he made “a large confession,” saying, among other things, “that he held not himself a minister till he had a new calling.” (Bradford, pp. 181, 185, 188.)
[473] This chapter and Chapter XIII. (pp. 273-6) relate to the same matter. It is impossible to venture a surmise even as to their meaning. It would seem clear that they have no historical value, but relate rather to some humorous incident—having the full seventeenth-century flavor of coarseness—which occurred in the settlement of Boston Bay. Apparently, judging by the expressions, “this goodly creature of incontinency” (Infra, *129), “that had tried a camp royal in other parts” (*121), some English prostitute found her way out to Mount Wollaston, in company with one of the adventurers there, and subsequently went on to Virginia. She may have come with Wollaston, and been left in Boston Bay when her companion went to Virginia, and then followed him, giving birth to a child on the way. This would explain the allusion to Phyllis and Demophoön subsequently made (p. *129). It is, however, a mere surmise on a subject not worth puzzling over.
[474] It does not need to be said that this is one of Morton’s preposterous statements. As the settlement of Virginia dated from 1607, the twenty-seven years he speaks of was equivalent to saying, “up to the time at which he was writing,” viz. 1634. Virginia was then not only a much older settlement, but it had a population largely in excess of that of New England.
[476] This chapter and Chapter XII. are, historically speaking, as inexplicable as Chapters IX. and XIII. There is nothing in any of the contemporaneous records to indicate who is referred to under the pseudonym of Bubble.
[477] One of the smallest of the islands in Boston Bay, still called by the same name. It lies off Mount Wollaston, and a mile or so away, and between it and Pettuck’s Island. (See Shurtleff’s Description of Boston, p. 360.)
[481] Squanto is apparently referred to here. (Supra, 244, note 2.) There is no incident in Squanto’s life—of which there is a quite detailed account to be gathered from the early Plymouth records—which is suggestive of the events described in the text.
[482] The first part of Don Quixote was published in 1605, and the second part in 1615. It was first translated into English by Thomas Skelton, in 1612-20.
[483] The reference here is to the story of Demophoön and Phyllis, told by Ovid (Heroides, II.) Demophoön, son of Theseus and Phædra, accompanied the Greeks to Troy; and on his return, Phyllis, the daughter of the Thracian king Sithon, fell in love with him, and he consented to marry her. But before the nuptials were celebrated, he went to Attica to settle his affairs at home, and as he tarried longer than Phyllis had expected, she began to think that she was forgotten, and put an end to her life. She was metamorphosed into a tree. (See Smith’s Dictionary, title Demophoön.)
[486] John Scogan was the famous court buffoon, attached to the household of Edward IV., whose head Justice Shallow makes the youthful Falstaff break at the court gate (Henry IV. Part II. act iii. sc. 2), though Falstaff is represented as having died at least twenty years before Scogan could have been born. In regard to him, see Doran’s Court Fools, pp. 123-30. “Scogan’s choice,” in Morton’s day, seems to have been a popular expression, signifying that a choice of some sort is better than no power to choose at all. It was derived probably from the story of Scogan, that he was once ordered to be hanged, but allowed the privilege of choosing the tree. He escaped the penalty by being unable to find a tree to his liking. Morton uses the expression again, see infra, *137. But the reference here is as obscure as “the poem.”
[489] “Ye Roman Goddes Flora.” (Bradford, p. 237.)
[492] Morton here confounds his experience in Boston, two years later, with that at Plymouth in 1628. In 1630 the master of the Gift refused to carry him back to England. (Supra, 44.) In the spring of 1628, however, no vessel seems to have arrived at Plymouth from England, as Allerton then brought over an assortment of goods, and came in a fishing-vessel by way of the Maine stations. (Bradford, p. 232.) Allerton returned to London in the course of the succeeding summer or autumn, but it is not probable then any vessel left Plymouth in June, 1628, bound for England. (Supra, 29.)
[493] It was not until towards the close of the summer of the next year that Morton returned to Massachusetts in company with Allerton. (Supra, 36-7.)
[494] Morton implies above that the “Poem” which follows was written shortly after the events to which it relates occurred, and before his return to New England in 1629. It was then, it seems, “in use” in London. The name of Ben Jonson appears in the margin of the original edition, as of this reprint, and opposite the first two lines, as above. Exactly what this signifies it is impossible now to say. Some critics that I have consulted are inclined to think that Jonson, who was then about fifty-five years old and at the height of his fame, may have written all the verses. Others suggest that Morton, by putting the name in the margin, meant to imply that Jonson wrote them all, and that this was another of the unscrupulous tricks of the author of the New Canaan. Neither explanation commends itself to my judgment. The first five verified lines are a paraphrase of five lines at the beginning of one of Jonson’s productions, for a poem it is not. In his published works (Gifford’s ed. [1816], vol. viii. p. 241) they appear as follows:—
With the last of the foregoing lines the paraphrase stops, and the rest of the verses in the New Canaan are, it must in justice be said, not only more cleanly, but in other respects superior to those to be found in Jonson’s works. Indeed, where the latter are not unintelligible, they are almost unequalled for the nastiness in which the writer seems to revel. Gifford not too strongly remarks of them, “I dislike the subject.” Morton, it appears to me, abandoning, at the sixth line, the paraphrase with which he began, went on with a production of his own, but very properly put Jonson’s name opposite the lines he borrowed from him. The remainder is in his own style, and not inferior to the mass of the contemporary verse. He himself explains it. The “nine worthy wights” are Standish and his party, who were sent to arrest him. The “prodigeous birth,” was the establishment of the Mount Wollaston plantation. The “seven heads” were the seven persons composing the company at Mount Wollaston at the time of the arrest. The “forked tail” was the Maypole, with its antlered top. The fear that the Hydra of Ma-re Mount would devour “all their best flocks” refers to the apprehended competition in the fur trade. The “Soll in Cancer” indicates the season; the “thundering Jove” the storm, in which Morton made his escape from his captors at Wessagusset. The arrest at Mount Wollaston is passed over very lightly. Then follows the discussion among the magistrates at Plymouth, as to the disposition to be made of the prisoner. Standish would seem to be designated under the name of Minos. He recommends death. Eacus is more difficult to identify. In the preceding chapter (Supra, 288), Morton speaks of him as being the one whose “voice was more allowed of then both the others.” My supposition is that, by Eacus, Morton meant Dr. Samuel Fuller, who then apparently (Bradford, pp. 264, note, 306, note) stood, next to Standish, at the head of the assistants. Morton says that he “confounded all the arguments that Eacus could make;” and he afterwards, in the New Canaan, refers to Fuller with peculiar bitterness. (Infra, 298.) “Sterne Radamant” is clearly Bradford, “the cheif Elder.” The remainder of the poem calls for no explanation; and the whole of it is much less unintelligible than is usual with Morton.
[496] “Brave Christmas gambols” were, it may be remarked, not greatly in vogue in the Plymouth of 1628. (See Bradford, p. 112.)
[498] The personage referred to, in this amusing but extremely scurrilous chapter, is Dr. Samuel Fuller. There is a notice of Dr. Fuller in Young’s Chron. of Pilg. (p. 222, note), and in Eliot’s Biog. Dict. He was one of those who came over in the Mayflower; but that he was born in the County of Somerset, and bred a butcher, appears only from the statement in the text. At Plymouth, besides being the physician of the colony, he was a magistrate and a deacon of the church. He died there, of an infectious fever, in 1633, and his best possible epitaph is read in Bradford (p. 314): “A man godly, and forward to do good, being much missed after his death.”
[500] Paul’s Walk, as the central nave of old St. Paul’s was called, was in the reign of Charles I. much what a business arcade is now. There is a vivid description of it, with extracts from writers of the time, in W. H. Ainsworth’s romance, Old St. Paul’s (B. II. ch. 7). See also, Gardiner’s Charles I. (vol. ii. p. 11).
[501] The visit of Dr. Fuller to Salem, referred to in the text, may have taken place in 1628. Though he was also there in 1629; and again in 1630, when he likewise visited Charlestown. (Young’s Chron. of Pilg., p. 222, note.)
[502] This description of the usual effect of sea-sickness I take to be peculiar to Morton.
[503] Endicott’s first wife was Anna Gover, a cousin of Governor Cradock. Little is known of her. She came to New England with her husband, and died during the very early days of the settlement, as she seems to have been in failing health in September, 1628. Endicott was married to his second wife August 18, 1630; on the 17th of the following month he sat among the magistrates at Boston in judgment upon the author of the New Canaan, who had been “sent for” just five days after the marriage, which seems to have taken place at Charlestown. (Winthrop, vol. i. p. *30; Young’s Chron. of Mass., pp. 131, 292; Supra, 43-4.)
[504] This was the case of Roger Clerk, of Wandsworth, attached in the chamber of the Guildhall of London, before the mayor and aldermen, on the 13th of May, 1382, on a plea of deceit and falsehood as to Roger atte Hacche. The record is to be found in Riley’s Memorials of London and London Life (pp. 464-6), and is very curious as illustrating English manners in the time of Richard II. Morton’s reference would indicate that the case had then been handed down as a tradition for two hundred and fifty years. It seems that Clerk gave Hacche a bit of old parchment, rolled up in “a piece of cloth of gold,” asserting that it was very good for the ailments with which his wife was afflicted. Upon being arraigned, Clerk contended that upon the parchment was written “a good charm for fevers.” Upon examination, no word of the alleged charm was found in the paper. The court then told the prisoner “that a straw beneath his foot would be of just as much avail for fevers, as this charm of his was; whereupon, he fully granted that it would be so. And because that the same Roger Clerk was in no way a literate man, and seeing that on the examinations aforesaid, (as well as others afterwards made,) he was found to be an infidel, and altogether ignorant of the art of physic or of surgery; and to the end that the people might not be deceived and aggrieved by such ignorant persons etc.; it was adjudged that the same Roger Clerk should be led through the middle of the City, with trumpets and pipes, he riding on a horse without a saddle, the said parchment and a whetstone, for his lies, being hung about his neck, an urinal also being hung before him, and another urinal on his back.”
The punishment of the “pillory and the whetstone,” as it was called, was that ordinarily imposed on those telling falsehoods. In another case in the same volume (p. 316) it is thus given in detail: “The said John shall come out of Newgate without hood or girdle, barefoot and unshod, with a whetstone hung by a chain from his neck, and lying on his breast, it being marked with the words,—‘A false liar;’ and there shall be a pair of trumpets trumpeting before him on his way to the pillory.”
[505] The person referred to in this chapter was probably the Rev. Francis Bright, of whom very little is known. He was one of the three ministers sent over by the Massachusetts Company in 1629, Higginson and Skelton being the other two. In June of that year, when Graves and the Spragues were sent by Endicott to effect a settlement at Charlestown, Bright accompanied them as “minister to the Company’s servants.” (Young’s Chron. of Mass., pp. 316, 376.) As such, he was the Caiaphas, or high-priest, of that region, and it naturally devolved on him to “exercise his guifts on the Lords day at Weenasimute.” Morton further says that the person he refers to had been a silenced minister in England. That Bright had been silenced is not known, but both Skelton and Higginson had been (Magnalia, B. I. ch. iv. § 4; Neal’s Hist. of Puritans, vol. ii. p. 229); and, though Hubbard intimates that Bright was a conformist (p. 113), yet, in the Company’s letter to Endicott, the three ministers are stated to have “declared themselves to us to be of one judgment, and to be fully agreed on the manner how to exercise their ministry.” (Young’s Chron. of Pilg., p. 160.) Winthrop, Morton adds, “spied out Caiphas practise; and he must be packing.” Bright returned to England shortly after Winthrop’s arrival. Johnson says (Wonder-working Providence, p. 20) that he “betooke him to the Seas againe,” when he saw that “all sorts of stones would not fit in the building.”
Samuel Skelton is referred to by Morton a few pages further on (Infra, 306) as “Pastor Master Eager,” which name may be taken to imply “covetousness” in him. But, though Skelton might be termed the “Caiphas” of the country, he was not silenced by Winthrop. He can, therefore, hardly be the person here aimed at.
[508] Iosua Temperwell. Under this name Morton always designates Governor John Winthrop.
[509] Caiaphas was the high-priest of the Jews; Jonas, or Jonah, was the first Hebrew prophet sent to a heathen nation. The propriety of these two Biblical allusions in this connection is, therefore, apparent enough. The allusion to Demas is more obscure, as he is only mentioned by Paul as a fellow-disciple who had forsaken him, “having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica.” (II. Timothy iv. 10.)
[514] By this name Morton designates Matthew Cradock, the first Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Company, though he never came to America. Cradock was a wealthy London merchant, and as such subscribed largely to the funds of the company. In regard to him, see Dr. Young’s note in Chron. of Mass. (p. 137).
[515] It is not clear who Morton may have intended to designate by this name. John Washburne was the secretary and “collector for the company” at the time Endicott was sent over, but of him nothing is known. (Young’s Chron. of Mass., p. 55.) It would seem more probable that Increase Nowell was the person Morton had in mind. Nowell was one of the original patentees, contributing money to forward the purposes of the company, serving on committees, &c. (Ib. p. 262.) He came to New England with Winthrop, and was among the magistrates who were present at the trial of Morton in September, 1630. (Records, vol. i. pp. 73, 75.) He was the first ruling-elder of the Charlestown church. He is described as having been “a worthy pious man” (Eliot); and if he was the person intended by Morton,—which is not at all clear,—the propriety of calling him Ananias, if it rests on anything, is not apparent from the record.
[516] The “covered case,” in which Governor Winthrop is supposed to have brought over the charter of 1629, is still to be seen in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth at the State House in Boston; and that in which Endicott brought over the patent of 1628 was, it may be inferred from the text, similar in appearance. It very much resembles the case for “some instrument of musick,” being a flat, narrow box, 2 feet 10 inches long, by 3½ inches wide and 3 inches deep. It has a species of circular annex, so to speak, at its middle, intended to contain the seal. This annex, like the box, is of wood, and is 7 by 8 inches in surface, and the same in depth as the main case, of which it is a part. The whole is covered with stamped leather, now brown and mouldered with age. There are, however, some things about this case which suggest doubts as to its having been made quite so early as the time of Charles I.
[517] In regard to this meeting at Salem, and the action taken at it, see supra, 38-40. No record or other mention of it, except that contained in the text, has come down to us.
[519] This refers to the famous Salem ordination of Skelton and Higginson, July 20 and August 6, 1629; in regard to which see Palfrey, vol. i. pp. 295-6.
[522] The arrival of Winthrop’s fleet in June, 1630, is here referred to. It has already been stated that Iosua Temperwell is intended for Governor Winthrop. It will be noticed that Morton, much as he disliked him, always refers to Winthrop, if not with respect, yet with a certain restraint of tone and insinuation which he did not show to others, such as Endicott, Fuller and Standish.
[524] Supra, 47. See, also, the petition of Winslow, while a prisoner in the Fleet, to the Lords of the Council. (Proc. of Mass. Hist. Soc. 1860-2, p. 133.)
[526] T. W. Higginson, who in 1866 published a translation of Epictetus, furnishes me the following note on this allusion: “The phrase ‘bear and forbear’ has always been received as the formula especially characteristic of Epictetus. It is most explicitly preserved to us in the Noctes Atticæ of Aulus Gellius (B. XVII. ch. xix. §§ 5-6). Gellius says: ‘Verba duo dicebat: Ἀνέχου καὶ ἀπέχου,’ having previously explained their meaning. There was in 1634 no English translation of any portion of Epictetus containing the phrase; nor was he an author then much read at the English universities. Morton probably, therefore, got the quotation from the Latin of Aulus Gellius; if, indeed, he did not pick it up in listening to the talk of some more scholarly man,—possibly Ben Jonson.”
[527] Ille hæc ludibria fortunæ, ne sua quidem putavit, quæ nos appelamus etiam bona. (Paradoxa, I. 1.)
[528] I am unable to suggest any explanation of the allusions contained in this chapter. There is no apparent clew either to the “zealous Professor” whose conscience did not permit him to cut tombstones, or to the “gentleman newly come into the land,” who “incurred the displeasure” of Governor Winthrop and was degraded.
[529] “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
[530] “Antonomasia (Rhet.). The use of the name of some office, dignity, profession, science or trade, instead of the proper name of the person; as where his majesty is used for a king, or his lordship for a nobleman, or when, instead of Aristotle, we say the philosopher; or, conversely, the use of a proper name instead of an appellative, as where a wise man is called a Cato, or an eminent orator a Cicero, the application being supported by a resemblance in character.” (Webster.)
[531] The phrase “them that are without [the church]” calls for no explanation. It was common in early New England, and both Lyford and Bradford are found using it (Bradford, pp. 184, 187) exactly as Morton uses it, who probably picked it up at Plymouth.
[532] Innocence Fairecloath is the name under which Morton alludes to Philip Ratcliff. This man was a servant or agent of Governor Matthew Cradock. He got into trouble with Endicott and the members of the Salem church, and, according to Winthrop, “being convict, ore tenus, of most foul, scandalous invectives against our churches and government, was censured to be whipped, lose his ears, and be banished the plantation, which was presently executed.” (p. *56.) Another authority speaks of the offence as a “most horible blasphemy.” (III. Mass. Hist. Coll., vol. viii. p. 323.) In the Records of Massachusetts (p. 88), under date of June 14 (24 N. S.), 1631, the sentence read as follows: “It is ordered, that Philip Ratcliffe shall be whipped, have his ears cut off, fined 40 l., and banished out of the limits of this jurisdiction, for uttering malicious and scandalous speeches against the government and the church of Salem, &c., as appeareth by a particular thereof, proved upon oath.” The severity of this sentence caused much scandal in England after Ratcliff returned there, and in April of the next year Edward Howes wrote out to John Winthrop, Jr.: “I have heard diverse complaints against the severitie of your Government especially Mr. Indicutts, and that he shalbe sent for over, about cuttinge off the Lunatick mans eares, and other grievances.” (III. Mass. Hist. Coll., vol. ix. p. 244.) In regard to Ratcliff’s subsequent connection with the Gorges-Mason attacks on the company before the Privy Council, see supra, 50-2, 62, and Proceedings of Mass. Hist. Soc., vol. xx., January meeting, 1883.