« НазадПродовжити »
forth was ordained Minister at Roxbury; that in the new charter of 1672, Mr Danforth, being named as one of the fellows, is called “ Samuel Danforth, Fellow of the said College ;" and that in 1674, on his death, he is styled “in the College records,” the Senior Fellow. This state of the case, says Mr Ticknor, will leave no doubt, “ that Samuel Danforth was a member of the Corporation from 1650 to his death."
To this state of the case, continues Mr Ticknor, have been objected the two following circumstances; the one, that Capt. Johnson, speaking of Mr Danforth the year after his settlement at Roxbury, mentions him as a person,
“ now called to the office of teaching elder at Roxbury, who was one of the fellows of this College." This says Mr Ticknor“ meant only that he had left the College, not that he had resigned his place in the Corporation ;” and farther on, the passage in Johnson's “Wonderworking Providence” is said by Mr Ticknor to be “ loosely written." This mode of reply' evidently assumes the thing in controversy and to be proved, viz. that there were fellows of different kinds at this period, and that when it is said that Danforth now the minister at Roxbury, was a fellow of the College, it meant only, Mr Danforth who is settled in Roxbury, was a tutor, and is still a fellow of the Corporation. Against such latitude of interpretation, it is not necessary to enter a protest. Neither do we see why the remark of Johnson is to be regarded as “loosely written.” This is to be sure a matter of taste. To our apprehension the expression is antithetically precise ; and it is, moreover, from the pen of a man, peculiarly versed in College affairs, as the chapter from which it is cited shows; and who was two years after, and probably for this reason, placed by the Court on a committee of general visitation. But we shall not leave the matter here ; the facts of the case, so called, are but a part of them.
In 1664 a translation of Norton's letter to Dury was published, signed by the Ministers of the colony, and by the President and Fellows of Harvard College, included within a bracket under that title. The name of Danforth is among the Ministers, not among the Fellows; and the four that do sign as fellows were young residents. It may be replied to this, that as the names of four fellows only are subscribed to this paper, Danforth was probably the fifth. We ask then why he did not subscribe his name among them; if a fellow at all, he was the eldest and most respectable; and it is far more likely that there was a vacancy, than that the most important signature should be omitted. We
submit it to the impartial, whether, when a document of an ecclesiastical nature, purporting to be subscribed, among others, by the President and Fellows of the College, in their official capacity, exhibits but four names, it is not a more reasonable presumption that there was a vacancy in the board, than that the oldest Fellow instead of subscribing the document officially as such, should subscribe only as one among forty Ministers.
Again it was usual in the early periods of the College, for the Corporation and Overseers to meet in convention. In 1667, such a meeting is recorded, and the names of those present are preserved, Danforth is among the Overseers, not among the Corporation. Had he been a member of both, his name would have stood in both lists ; or if only on one, then it would have stood on the list of the Corporation, as the select, self-perpetuating, originating body. When in 1707, on President Leverett's accession, the charter of 1650 was revised, a similar convention of the Corporation and Overseers, was held. In the record of this meeting, Messrs Brattle and Hobart, who were members both of the Corporation and Overseers, are recorded in the lists of both; and of this meeting, we are told, by Chief Justice Sewall, in his diary, (the Chief Justice was graduated under the old charter, was for many years a resident Fellow, and in 1707 was an Overseer,) that this meeting was “formed according to the old charter.” Had then Danforth in 1667, been a member of both bodies, he would, agreeably to the form of meetings under the old charter, have been recorded in the lists of both; he is recorded only as an Overseer. That he is spoken of at his death in 1674, as the “Senior Fellow," certainly proves nothing in this argument; for he was constituted Senior Fellow, by the new charter of 1672. That in this new charter of 1672, he is designated as “Samuel Danforth, fellow of the said College,” also proves nothing, because it proves too much. He is, says Mr Ticknor, “the only person so described, as well as the only person named in both charters."
This is most true, and the clause italicized doubtless gives the reason why he alone was thus designated. At all events, this reason could not have been (as argued against the memorialists) that at the time of giving the new charter, he was also a fellow under the old charter, because this was equally true of Messrs Richardson and Brown, who are not so designated. We know, that at a later period viz. 1712, the circumstance of having been named in the first charter was thought peculiarly honourable. President Leverett calls Mitchell unus e diplomatariis, one of the charter fellows.
Whether, however, this be or be not the reason why Danforth alone of the five fellows in the charter of 1672, receives the epithet of fellow, the reason could not have been, by any rule of logic, that he was at the time also a fellow under the old charter, because this, so far from being true of him alone, was true of two others of the five, who nevertheless are named without the epithet.
But we will submit one other consideration, which in our judgment, proves, as far as a negative can be proved, that Danforth did not continue to be a Fellow, under the charter of 1650. The most respectable committee of both houses of the General Court in 1722 state, in their report, that it was the intent of the charter of 1650, that " none of the Fellows of the Corporation be Overseers.” At this time, 1722, the ancient records of the Corporation (from which a few extracts only in a subsequent hand now remain), and the Old Book of the Overseers (also now lost with the exception of a few quotations), were in being. There were also living, members of the board of Overseers, who had taken their degree under the old charter ; Chief Justice Sewall was one ; and John Danforth, also at this time a member of the Overseers, the minister at Dorchester, the son of the elder Danforth now in question, was graduated in 1677. Now, on the supposition that Mr S. Danforth had been for twenty-two years, from the first giving of the charter a Fellow of the Corporation and an Overseer, is it conceivable, that the committee of both houses should have reported, that it was the intent of the charter that none of the Fellows should be Overseers? Would it not, out of the records of the Overseers and Corporation, now lost but then extant, have been easy to prove of Danforth or of any
had it been true of him or any other, that he united both offices ? Would not the Corporation, in their elaborate memorial in 1723, have urged some such thing, for the very same reason, that Danforth's case is now so much pressed by their successors? Would not John Danforth have stood up and said, “My father's case proves, that under the old charter Fellows were Overseers ; ” would not old Chief Justice Sewall have told the committee, that, when he took his degree, the Minister at Roxbury was sitting in the pulpit at the President's side, as a Fellow And does not the clear assertion of the most responsible men in the community in 1722 remaining uncontradicted, when, had it been erroneous, such various means of disproving it then existed which are now lost, satisfactorily show, that Danforth could not have been, as is alleged, a Fellow of the College after his removal to Roxbury ?
This being the only case that Mr Ticknor has specified, we are authorized in concluding that it remains unproved by him, that any one of the five fellows under the old charter was nonresident.
But we are told by Mr Ticknor that it is incredible that all the five Fellows could have been tutors, at a time when there were but thirty students, especially as the president gave instruction. The memorialists did not contend that they were all tutors, but only residents, employed in instruction or government, or both. It does not appear, at any period after 1650 till 1674, that the number of five was ever full. The court in 1653 sent a commission to inquire how many fellows were needed; in the document cited from 1664, there were four fellows; at the recorded meeting in 1667, there were three. Whether the number was ever full between 1650 and 1672, is not certain ; but it is certain, that in the list of fellows contained in the college catalogue, Danforth is the only one, in all this interval, alleged to have been non-resident. When it is asked whether five fellows were wanted in 1650, beside the president, as teachers, we ask whether four were wanted in 1664, or three in 1667. It is well known that the president and two tutors conducted the instruction long after the time spoken of, and till the college had considerably increased in numbers. Of the five named in the charter, those who were not employed in teaching may have been employed in such offices as that of librarian, of butler, or merely in private study; which is peculiarly probable of him, who was but a graduate of ten months' standing.
But we must pass, without notice, a great deal advanced on both sides, in order to call the attention of our readers, to an argument, which seems to us of itself conclusive. We allude to the argument drawn from the form of inducting fellows. This is a statute but a few weeks older than the charter, drawn up by one of the charter fellows, then also a tutor, and probably drawn up at this period in compliance with the order of court, requiring a draft of the power and liberties of the fellows; a statute in force and operation for twenty-two years after the charter ; interrupted during the period of the several temporary charters ; revived with alterations very important to this argument in 1712; and even declared by Mr Lowell, to be still unrepealed, though long disused.
This statute is entitled “ Admitiendis Sociis,” and a public assent to it was required of the fellows. The original is in Latin; and the following is a translation.
1st. “ You will give all due reverence to the honored magistrates and reverend ministers, and to the president, as the Overseers, of the College.
2d. “You will religiously take upon yourself the care, so long as you shall here abide, of observing all the wholesome laws, statutes, and privileges of this society, as much as in you lies, and that they may also be observed by all the members of this college, each in his place.
3d. “You will advance all and singular the students, which are or may be committed to your care, in divine and human learning, each according to his capacity; and you will chiefly be careful, that they conduct themselves honestly and blamelessly.
4th. “You will sedulously provide, as far as in you lies, that the college suffer no detriment, in its charges, buildings, revenues, or any thing else appertaining, or which may appertain to the college, while you dwell here.
5th. “We then, the Overseers of the college, promise that we will not be wanting to you, in any thing that concerns you ; on the contrary, we will confirm you by our power and authority, in all your administrations, against all opposers, and, in proportion to the means of the college, we will furnish you stipends, which shall suffice for your food and clothing, and the prosecution of your
studies." How can the evidence be met, which this statute affords, that the fellows were resident stipendiaries, employed in teaching or studying ?-It cannot be met, by that hypothesis (so much resorted to, in other portions of the argument against the Memorial), that two kinds of fellows were in the contemplation of the charter; viz. fellows of the Corporation, and fellows resident but not of the Corporation ; and that this form was administered to the latter. In this case, of course, it would have been not the Overseers, but the Corporation, who would promise protection and maintenance. How then is the argument met? It is alleged, that this was a form existing before the charter, repealed by the charter, and not used after it. This, in fact, is the only answer given to this argument. We shall endeavour satisfactorily to disprove it.
As this statute of admitting fellows stands in the college book,
* This last clause, compared with the third paragraph in this form, proves that those who gave the charter, saw no incongruity in uniting in the same person the quality of teacher and learner. They followed the analogy of the English colleges.