Part 33

1672. Mr. Richard Bellingham, Governour of the Massachusets in New-England.

NOTE.

The book is reprinted literally, except in the following items:—

Page 86, line 21, “Planets” is corrected to Plants.

Page 104, line 4, “Richards” is printed Richard; and, line 5, “Water” is corrected to Walter.

FOOTNOTES:

Willis, in N. E. Geneal. Register, vol. ii. p. 204; and New Series of the same, vol. i. p. 31. Williamson, Hist. of Maine, vol. i. p. 682.

Dr. T. W. Harris, in N. E. Geneal. Register, vol. ii. p. 306, has corrected the mistake of Williamson and other writers as to Henry Josselyn of Scituate’s being of kin to Mr. Josselyn of Black Point; and Mr. Willis, who had adopted the same error in his first paper, already cited, now admits, in his second, that there is not “any evidence that” the proprietor of Black Point “left any children, or ever had any.”

Letter of Rev. J. Hunter, 12th April, 1859.

See also a Pedigree of Joselyne from the Visitation of Hertfordshire in 1614, furnished by Mr. S. G. Drake to the New-England Genealogical Register, vol. xiv. p. 16. This is probably one of the sources from which Lodge’s account was derived.

Lodge, Peerage of Ireland, vol. iii. p. 65, and ante.

Lodge, ubi supra. Annual Register, 1771, p. 174.

But there is no doubt that the author was himself as far from sharing in the serious English thought of the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay as he was from joining in their evangelical faith. Yet there is hardly more than one place in either of his books (Voyages, pp. 180-2) where this is offensively brought forward. It is worthy of remark, however, that Josselyn’s family, in England, was attached rather to the Puritan side. “His family connections,” says Mr. Hunter, in the letter already referred to, “appear to have been adherents to the cause of the Parliament; particularly the Harlakendens, in whose regiment a Jocelyn, named Ralph, was a chaplain.” Nor is this all. “In the year 1663,” continues the learned authority just cited, “there was a slight insurrectionary movement in the North; which was easily put down by the government, and the leaders executed. In a manuscript list of persons who were either openly engaged, or who were vehemently suspected of being favorers of the design, I find in the latter class the name of Capt. John Jossline.” This plot was not discovered till January, 1664; and our John Josselyn “departed from London,” as he says at page one of this volume, “upon an invitation of my only brother,” the 28th of May of the year previous. But, if it be possible that our author was the person intended in the manuscript list as one strongly suspected of being engaged in a design against the Royal Government, the evident uncertainty of this is too great to permit us to discredit his own exposure of his political leanings,—as in the Voyages, p. 197, where, speaking of Sir F. Gorges, he says, “And, when he was between three and fourscore years of age, did personally engage in our royal martyr’s service, and particularly in the siege of Bristow; and was plundered and imprisoned several times, by reason whereof he was discountenanced by the pretended Commissioners for Forraign Plantations,” and so forth,—or in the face of another passage to be quoted further on, in which he acknowledges “the bounty of his royal sovereigness,” to question the sincerity—which there is nothing in either of his books to throw doubt upon—of his general adhesion to the Royalist side. “The family in Hertfordshire,” says Mr. Hunter, “were nonconformists; but the spirit of nonconformity seems to have spent itself at the death of Sir Strange Jocelyn, the second baronet, who died in 1734. But we may trace the Puritan influence in the present Earl of Roden, who is a conspicuous member of the religious body in England called the Evangelical.”—Ms. ut sup.

And see the Voyages, p. 187, for an account of a “Barbarie-Moor under cure” of the author, when he “perceived that the Moor had one skin more than Englishmen. The skin that is basted to the flesh is bloudy, and of the same Azure colour with the veins, but deeper than the colour of our Europeans’ veins. Over this is an other skin, of a tawny colour, and upon that Epidermis, or Cuticula,—the flower of the skin, which is that Snake’s cast; and this is tawny also. The colour of the blew skin mingling with the tawny, makes them appear black.” Dr. Mitchell, the botanist of Virginia, has a paper upon the same topic,—the cause of the negro’s color,—in the Philosophical Transactions; but this appears less in accordance with more recent researches (Prichard, Nat. Hist. of Man, p. 81) than Josselyn’s observations.

“His book is a curiosity, sometimes worth examining, but seldom to be implicitly relied on.”—Savage, in Winthrop, N. E., vol. i. p. 267, note.

Reprinted, the third edition, with an introductory essay and some notes; Boston, 1764,—the edition made use of in these notes.

Biographie Universelle, in loco.

He is called Botanicus Regius by Cornuti, p. 22; and the same title is given to both the Robins, in the printed catalogue of plants cultivated by them. Tournefort indicates the office of Vespasian Robin, at the new Botanic Garden, as follows: “Brossæus ... primus Horti præfectus, studiosis plantas indigitandi numeri præposuit Vespasianum Robinum diligentissimum Botanicum.”—Inst. Rei Herb., vol. i. p. 48. And the recent writer in the Biographic Universelle, says, more expressly, that the royal ordonnance establishing the garden names Vespasian Robin “sub-demonstrator” of botany, with a stipend of two hundred francs yearly. According to this writer, the two Robins were not, as has been said, father and son, but brothers; and Vespasian the elder. This one must have reached a great age, as the celebrated Morrison, who visited France in 1640, and remained there twelve years, calls himself his disciple.—Biog. Universelle, in loco.

Tournefort, ubi supra.

Cornuti autem parum fuit in plantarum cognitione versatus, ut manifestum est ex ineptis appellationibus quibus utitur in Enchiridio Botanico Parisiensi, et descriptionibus speciosis ab Herbariorum stylo tamen alienis.—Tournef. Inst., vol. i. p. 43. Compare, as to the botanical merits of Cornuti, the writer in Biographic Universelle, who says that Cornuti’s terminology, to which Tournefort took exception, was that of Lobel; and farther, that the catalogue—Enchiridium Botanicum Parisiense—which is annexed to Cornuti’s larger work, is in several respects creditable to him.—Biog. Univ., in loco.

Mention of New-England plants may be found in earlier writers than Cornuti or Josselyn; but what is said is now rarely available. Gosnold’s expedition was in 1602; and the writer of the account of it tells us that the island upon which his party proposed to settle (Cuttyhunk, one of the Elizabeth Islands) was covered with “oaks, ashes, beech, walnut, witch-hazel, sassafrage, and cedars, with divers others of unknown names;” beside “wild pease, young sassafrage, cherry-trees, vines, eglantine, gooseberry-bushes, hawthorn, honeysuckles, with others of the like quality;” as also “strawberries, rasps, ground-nuts, alexander, surrin, tansy, &c., without count.”—Mass. Hist. Coll., vol. xxviii. p. 76. And so the writer of Mourt’s Relation, in 1620, speaks of “sorrel, yarrow, carvel, brook-lime, liverwort, watercresses, &c.”, as noticed, “in winter,” however, at Plymouth.—Hist. Coll. vol. viii. p. 221. There is much here which is true enough, though the “eglantine” of the first writer is an evident mistake, as doubtless also the “carvel” of the other; but we have no reason to suppose that either of these passages ever had any scientific value. Josselyn, so far as his Botany goes, does not belong to this class of writers. There are important parts of his account of our plants, in which we know with certainty what he intended to tell us; and, farther, that this was worth the telling. And the credit which fairly belongs to the new genera of American plants, in some sort indicated by him, shall illustrate as well those other portions of his work where what he meant is a matter rather of deduction from his particulars, such as they are, in the light of his only here-and-there-cited authorities, than of plain fact. His English names—common, and perhaps often indefinite, as they strike us—had more of scientific value, in botanical hands at least, when he wrote, than now; and, there is good reason to suppose, were meant to indicate that the plants intended, or in some cases the genera to which they belonged, were the same with those published, under the same names, by Gerard, Johnson, and Parkinson.

Winthrop’s Journal, by Savage, edit. 1, vol. i. p. 64, note. See also Bancroft’s character of the younger Winthrop, in History of the United States, vol. ii. p. 52.

Eliot, Biog. Dict., in loco.

Eliot, Biog. Dict., in loco.

Interleaved Almanacs of 1646-48, cited by Savage (Winthrop, N. E., vol. ii. p. 332), mention “Tankard” and “Kreton” (perhaps Kirton) apples, as well as Russetins, Pearmains, and Long-Red apples; beside “the great pears,” and apricots, as grown here. In the Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay (Records of Mass., vol. i. p. 24), there is an undated memorandum, “To provide to send for Newe England ... stones of all sorts of fruites; as peaches, plums, filberts, cherries, pear, aple, quince kernells,” &c., which the “First General Letter of the Governor,” &c., of the 17th April, 1629, again makes mention of (ibid., p. 392); and Josselyn (Voyages, p. 189) remarks on the “good fruit” reared from such kernels. But, if this were the only source of our ancestors’ English fruit, the names which they gave to the seedlings must have been vague.—For other early notices of cultivated fruit-trees, see Savage Gen. Dict. 4, p. 258, and the same, 4, p. 621. Saml. Sewall, jun. Esq., of Brookline, had trees grafted with ‘Drew’s Russet,’ and ‘Golden Russet’ apples, in 1724. (Gen. Reg. 16, p. 65.)

Gronov. Fl. Virg., edit. 2. In Mr. Dillwyn’s (unpublished) “Account of the Plants cultivated by the late Peter Collinson,” from his own catalogue and other manuscripts, I find Collinson quoting Mr. Dudley’s paper on Plants of New England, above mentioned; but not that on the Evergreens.—Hortus Collins., p. 41.

Eliot, Biog. Dict., and Allen, Amer. Biog. Dict., in locis.

Mss. Cutler, penes me.