A Genealogical Dictionary of  The First Settlers of New England,
Before 1692

Volume #4
Weld - Weller 

By James Savage

Special thanks to Robert Kraft and his assistant, Benjamin Dunning for scanning this book and to Warren Wetmore for perfecting the text and providing technical help in presenting this work for researchers to enjoy.

Weld Continued:

Even without suppos. any unworthy fear in him that prompt. what he wish to have consid. as a sec. ed. of a Book bef. issued by ano. person, and that, as he says, "the necessity of the times call for it, and its requisite that God's great works should be made known," he might deceive himself into the hope, that "Antinomians and Familists condemn." tho. issued by the same publisher, the same yr. if publish. without preface, would to taken to be a different composure from Short Story, with a preface one quarter as large as the whole work. Well might he believe, that in those stirring times of extreme convulsion and civil war, nobody would have the leisure and take the trouble to ascertain, that his publicat. was indeed two faces under one hood. Next may our scrutiny be applied to his excuse of "being earnestly presseed by divers to perfect" the work, "by laying down the order and sense of this story." Perhaps any other man, with half as much literary skill as T. W. would have giv. a very differ. ORDER to his materials, at least so far as chronology is concered. If he did not print the Apology for the Gen. Ct. of Mar. 1636-7, begin. p. 46 before the result of the Synod 30 Aug. - 22 Sept. foll. wh. begins on p. 1, he would naturally (unless blinded by a strong sensibility) have giv. it place prior to the preced. of not merely a later sess. of the same, but of ano. Gen. Ct. in Nov. 1637, wh. begins on p. 21 See our Col. Rec. I. 187 to 205. What good reason for breach of such natural sequence of time can be conjectur. I see not, nor is it necessary to think of a bad one; especial. as in putting all the matter bef. p. 46, Mr. Weld, the Editor, seems to have arrang. with high regard to this point, making a blunder of Oct. 2 for Nov. 2 as date of open. the session of the Ct. that the postponement of Mrs. Dyer's unhappiness, wh. had been at two public lectures of the first ch. largely spoken of by Mr. Cotton (as Winthrop tells, in his Hist.) when prob. Mr. Weld and other min. from the neighb. twons (wh. usually attend. the Thursday lect. were present) 17 Oct. might seem to be in a fit place. A reasonable cause for this breach of natural order may be found in the circumstances that led Weld (but would lead no other person) to think more of Mrs. Hutchinson than any thing else in the long agony of the antinom. controv. In Nov. 1637 she was commit. to custody of Joseph Weld, own br. of the casuist, in the town of Roxbury, her banishm. being suspend. until the spring. While thus a prisoner for more than four mos. all access of husband, childr. friends denied, exc. with leave of the Ct. as in Col. Rec. I. 207-25 is seen, she was expos. to visitat. of any holy inquisitor; and the min. of R. must have used his sacred office with equal ardor for her conversion, and [[vol. 4, p. 468]] vexation at his ill success. This will explain to milder natures, the wondrous malediction with wh. he closes the Short Story. Still the suspicion arises, from the anxious reference to "laying down the order and sense of the story," that the ill arangement is due to design rather than accident. How else could occur the interrupt. on p. 43, where the parag. ends wiht the words "issue whereof is set down in the next," when we are unable to find the next, and connnect. thread for more than fifteen pages onward, or a chasm of near one quarter of the surface of the vol. Would not any ingenuous mind, on sec. reading, become suspicious at the apparent anxiety express. in that "addr. to the Reader" (whether spring. from fear or ill-will), lest the writer of the long preface, might be thot. to have had too intimate connex. with the prodution of the ensuing short story? Words are liable to misapprehens. we all know, from carelessness or ignor. of him who uses them; but especially when equivocat. is resolv. on; and in writing much more than in oral speech, we wish for precision, not ambiguity. Yet an author's idea may be mistaken when he intended to be punctiliously precise, tho. less frequent. than if he be habitual. careless. His words convey sometimes more, or others less than he intend. 

Of course two readers may obtain from the same words quite dissimilar impressions. A recent example will illustrate. In note 1, on p. 238 of Winthrop I. my first ed. 1825, I had printed this remark. "The work has not, I presume, been often quoted within a century." Of course the same words stand in the next ed. 1853. Citing this passage, the writer, careless or over cautious, of the review in Geneal. Reg. 1854, adds, "and yet we know that it has been very often quoted within a quarter of a century." On cursory perusal, this may, in one man's opin. seem a contradiction; while a slower reader would perhaps give it very differ. name. If the two readers call for solution of the oracular ambiguity of the writer, prob. a short minute's explanat. would make their judgments agree.

Now to conclude the point of priority of issue -- the fictitious titlepage "Antinom. and Fam. condemn." assum. in Geneal. Reg. to be "no doubt a printer's error," as if by fortuitous concourse of atoms, it fell into that place, I had presum. to be unique, having only heard of the single copy in the Coll. Libr. I have gain. recent knowl. of ano. copy in the collection of Rev. Dr. Choules, since his d. together with his copy of Short Story, dispers. by auction. Whatever value, more or less, was then due to my infer. from the Coll. copy, as a device to cover Weld's connect. with the Book, is of course doubled, and proportional. weaken. is the assumpt. that it was "no doublt printer's error." Evidence positive, is, also, obtain. that the Choules copy of Short Story, with the note to Reader, Preface, and P. S. and ano. own. by Col. Aspinwall, whichever [[vol. 4, p. 469]] of the two were first struck off, came both from the press BEF. the delusive publicat. of the same work under the title of "Antinomians," &c. 

WITHOUT the malignant preface. The testimony is indubita. it appeals to the eye; and tho. the form of ea. of the 66 pages in all the copies is unchanged, slight correct. of errors in the earlier ones are traced clearly in the later. For instance, the sig. of p. 1 of Short Story, in the copies of Aspinwall and Choules, is C. 2; -- of p. 3 is C. 3, and so onward to p. 65 wh. is L. 2, whereas the two copies of Coll. and Choules of the same work, under the NEW title without Preface, begin. (as does the Athenaeum copy with the Preface and old title) with B. for sig. of p. 1, and so proced. to p. 65 wh. is K. Will any sagacious observer doubt about priority? Each of the copies, of so great rarity, has worth of its own; and that of our Athenaeum, tho. wanting the four last pages, derives high value from the notes in sev. places, writ. by Thomas Prince above one hundred and twenty yrs. since, especially his testimon. on the title-page, "Preface and conclusion by Thomas Welde." This is the well-kn. handwrit. of the Annalist. My presumpt. is that this identical tract was once his, for in his own catal. he inserts, in its proper place, "T. Welde's Short Story, &c. London 1644," and it is not now found in his N. E. library.

A very valua. copy of the unmutilat. work, own. by Charles Deane, concurs with the Coll. copy depriv. of its Preface, and issued under the new name, in every word and letter, monk or friar, or other irregularity, like the imperfect copy of the Athenaeum, exc. as bef. explain. in the changed place of a single word, slighted, on p. 62, that requir. no editorial cunning, but must have been done by a compositor. Will any one doubt that Mr. Deane's copy (after the Preface, wh. is not seen in the Coll. copy) was struck off from the same forms as that, when he compares not pages merely, but words, and even letters in each, as on p. 12, the remarkab. first letter of Error 65, unlike any other in the long enumeration, or p. 4, the strange initial of Confutation 19, or asks, without expecting answers, why the letter C. should have different shapes, proudly beginning Confutat. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 15, 18, 20 to 40 inclus. 42-56 inclus. 61-65 inclus. 68-75 inclus. 81 and 82, in ITALIC TYPE in each of the books, while it subsides into the modest Roman in 4, 5, 8, 9, and all the others? Similar exact conformity as to the spelling of the word, according to the then established usage, Errour, is found in both, and similar, also, is the use or non-use of the double e in be, he, me, she. For instance "Antinomians and Familists" of the Coll. Libr.has the important word, for the first twenty times that it heads a parag. p. 1-4 spelled without u; but the next nineteen times, the u creeps in; the [[vol. 4, p. 470]] ensuing twenty-seven times it is ejected; fourteen times next follow. is bless. with u; and lastly No. 81 is written with five letters, and No. 82 with six; while in every one of them Mr. Dean's copy of Short Story agrees. More striking is this conformity, because apparently earlier copies vary much in such petty particulars. The solitary, abnormal E. in Mr. Dean's copy, Error 65, changes places with Col. Aspinwall's E. in Error 72, and so no complaint of partiality can arise.

Still, it may be said the identity of Dean's "Short Story" with Coll. "Antinomians and Familists" being established, nothing is yet clearly shown to prove, wh. first came from the press, but only that, whichever was first, the other follow. very soon, perhaps in few hrs. or even minutes. Now by comparing with Dean's copy (that has the preface) that of Aspinwall (wh. is equally complete) it may easily be seen that A's. is several hours, or even days, earlier in its issue. But bef. taking up the preface, where the diversity is greater, let the curious student look at two or three small points in the body of the work, wh. is identical in substance, and seeming. in letter also, with the Coll. tract that wants the preface. On p. 1 in the Confutat. 4 and 5, the citation from the prophet Isaiah viii. 20, in A's. copy writ. Eas, in D's. and Coll. copies becomes Esay; p. 2, under Error 8, Corinth. in A's. copy, is properly shortened inthe otehr two to Cor.---p. 3, line 5, true (in the brackets) it changed from Italic, as it is in A's. copy, into Roman letters to conform with other Roman letters in the same passage of the other copies; p. 21, in the blunder of date of the term of Court (wh. could not have been mistak. by Gov. Winthrop) October in A's. copy is abbrev. in the others to Octob. Weld in London wrote the wrong mo. P. 33 in two places, A's copy has Hutchinson, but in seventeen other places the name is Hutchison, without n in sec. syl. while the other copies give the name every time without that letter, so preserving uniformity betw. spell and sound; p. 35, the rule "I permit not a Woman to teach," in A's. copy is print. in the Italic; in the other two, in Roman character, conformably to the rest of the page, and the cap. W. of A. is reduced in these to a small letter; and other examples abundantly serve to prove, that A's. was the earlier impression, correct. by the compositor in later ones. 

The texture of the paper in the different copies seems different, Aspinwall's being manifest. coarser. The top of Aspinwall's p. 7 is printed 9, and 10 is used for 8, 11 for 9, and so on, until, by giv. 15 and 16 twice, his copy agrees with others, in all the later pages; but the other copies throughout have a military accuracy of count. A correct. copy may certain. well seem later than one less correct, and instances enough may be seen in that of Col. A. having double e, where Mr. Deane's has single e, as in the passage on p. 62, so oft. refer. to, the latter reads "she [[vol. 4, p. 471]] had so much slighted" when the former adds an e to the first word, and crowds ano. e. bef. i in the last word. May I not suggest, with becoming modesty, that the better copy is the later?

Yet more direct is the evidence (to the same point) derived from what printers call overrunning or spacing out, to improve the appearance of a line or a page. Several such I pass by in the first fifteen pages, as also words chang. from Italic to Roman letters, but on 16th p. the top line of Aspinwall's copy contains at the end the citat. "Acts 15; 9," wh. is made the whole of sec. line in the others. Then to equalize the number of lines in the respective pages, the last line of A's. copy becomes first of p. 17 in the others. Many more might be quoted, but beside that it would be tiresome to do it, the GREAT evidence of unlikeness of beginning and ending of lines, without changing word or letter, exc. in space, is found in the preface. Let the introduct. note to the Reader, sixteen lines in A's seventeen in D's copy, be compar. in the two books by laying one alongside of the other, and the same heavy mass of ornament at the top of the page is seen, -- as well as the beautiful decoration around the big I. with wh. Weld opens in ea. -- the types are the same in every letter, exc. that "straite of time" in A's. copy gains one letter in D's. by spell. "straight." Yet, altho. the initials append. (T. W.) are identical in both, the technical sig. 

A. 2 in Aspinwall's is deficient in Deane's; so also A. 3 on the p. next but one of A. in D's. appears *3; and the page in A's. copy with sig. B. has two stars in D's. copy instead of a letter, and so onward, until the page last but one of the preface in A's copy, with sig. C. becomes sig. A. and last but two in D's copy. Of the earlier impress. every one of the lines is overrun, and spaced out in the later. The same cap. I. imbedd. in an ornam. wh. is seen in the opening of note to the reader for both copies of A. and D. appears the first letter on p. 1 of three copies of Aspinwall, Coll. and Deane; but in the third the color of the decoration is very much darker than in those two. Very great variety is seen in the preface, especially in the ornament across the first page, and the types for title, while hardly a letter is changed, and the forms plainly are the same; that is, the types were never distrib. A's. copy gives the first word "AFTER," while D's uses Italic caps. for the whole word; and the first letter is twice as large in the latter copy, and five-fold more decorat. Nine lines of the first page run over from Aspinwall's to the sec. of Deane's; and the last nine lines on the next of A. become ten lines in D. and twelve lines at the foot of next p. in A. swell into fourteen upon the top of the foll. in D. The accumulat. is seventeen on D's next page, eighteen on next; but with that number the addition ceases; and the Col's awkward squad is made to dress regularly in lines thus altered; [[vol. 4, p. 472]] that is the last eighteen lines, inclus. of the previous signat. T. Welde, closing the preface, run over form the foot of Aspinwall's page, and spread upon the upper middle of Deane's. 

Nothing else is seen to change betw. Aspinwall's and Deane's beyond the trifling amendm. that a compositor naturually introduces, such as substituting "and" for &, and reduc. the author's name from Roman caps. to Italic in conformity with the preced. type. Deane's is the most correct exemplar, but Aspinwall's for its very incorrectness ten times more valuable in petty history.

Will any one but Mr. Drake believe, that all the succession of appearances proves nothing to strengthen into certainty my conject. how Weld desired to supply a shield for his temerity, or a cover for his cowardice? -- that the long title-page of "Short Story" was not print. bef. "Antinomians and Familists" was writ.? -- that this new title for the same book instead of a "printer's error" sprang not from design and intent to mystify? -- or that it is wrong in me, at this late day, to expose such a typograph. curiosity? Would any London printer in 1644, I dare to ask, after having a corrected copy of a work, as Antinomians and Familists (if printed first) is shown to be, immediately after issue, from the same forms, an impression of Rise, Reign, and Ruin, with a copious preface and address to the Reader, and postscript, containing many errors and obliquities of type (in the BODY of same work) as Aspinwall's and Choules's copies exhibit? Two questions natural. arise to embarrass those that would glad. seem believers of Weld's ingenuousness, -- first, wh. was corrector of the press that obtain. aft. three or four trials, as pure a text for "Short Story," as was enjoy. by "Antinomians and Familists," if this tract were print. bef. that, when both tracts are tak. from the same types lock. up into the same form AT LAST, when "Antinomians and Familists" agree wholly with the latest impression of the Short Story? -- sec. who gave Thomas Weld the right to put a preface equal to one fourth of the tractate, with an address to the Reader, beside "laying down the order and sense wh. in the book is [was] omit." "as also additions to the conclusion of the book?" 

He prob. utter. indirect suggestions, ambiguas spargere voces, that the orig. work was above six yrs. bef. concoct. in Boston, where Winthrop was in the chair of Gov. when SHORT STORY was purch. in London by the King's purveyor, perhaps in few hours from its issue, and where I doubt not the publisher of ANTINOMIANS AND FAMILISTS had act. as the Editor of what, on our side of the water, when forgotten on the other, was down to 1843, always called Weld's Rise, Reign, and Ruin.

As to any moral delinquency in my regard "to the memory of Mr. Welde." that may be left in silence, without fear, to any human tribunal; but in the Court of criticism, I can kiss the rod cheerfully, and [[vol. 4, p. 473]] desire only that my submiss. continue until competent opinion be obtained as to whose back it should fall upon. Yet the sentence pronounc. against my criminality, in exposing the attempt at decept. by Rev. T. Weld, may lessen the reverence due to the spotless judicial ermine, even on the shoulders of the historian of Boston. 

Some readers perhaps will rejoice that so many hours were giv. to this investigat. by sev. of my friends, tho. that the collation of both copies of Mr. Choules's vol. under the true and the spurious title, was confin. of necessity to few hours by a most cautious reader in the auction room, only few days bef. the sale, is much regret.; yet they may hereafter be on their guard against the artifice of a casuist, that for a season delud. the sagacity of the sublibrarian of Harv. and triumph. over the innocence of Felt.

*THOMAS, Roxbury, s. of the preced. b. in his f's parish in Eng. where certif. of his bapt. may be seen, freem. 1654, m. 4 June 1650, Dorothy, d. of Rev. Samuel Whiting of Lynn, had Samuel, bapt. 20 July 1651, d. at 2 yrs.; Thomas, 12 June 1653, H. C. 1671; Samuel, again, b. 10, bapt. 19 Aug. 1655; John, 9, bapt. 11 Oct. 1657, wh. d. 25 July 1686, prob. unm.; Edmund, 29 Sept. bapt. 2 Oct. 1659; Daniel, bapt. 16 Mar. 1662, d. says town rec. that omit. his b. next yr.; Dorothy, 2 or 28 Apr. 1664; Joseph, 3 May 1666; and Margaret, 29 Nov. 1669; but of the three last, my list of bapt. extend, only half way thro. 1662, is defic. He was greatly esteem. as in Col. Rec. IV. pt. 2, pp. 434 and 55, was rep. 1676 and 7, and d. of fever, 17 Jan. 1683. His wid. d. 31 July 1694; and d. Dorothy m. 12 May 1686, William Dennison, and next Samuel Williams of Roxbury; Margaret m. 17 Mar. 1690, Nathaniel Brewer. 

*THOMAS, Dunstable, s. of the preced. may have liv. at Ipswich, and there when adm. freem. 1675, but preach. sev. yrs. bef. he was ord. when the ch. was found. 16 Dec. 1685, and had m. 9 Nov. 1681, Elizabeth d. of Rev. John Wilson of Medifield, had Elizabeth b 13 Oct. 1682; and Thomas, 7 Feb. 1685, H. C. 1701, wh. d. at Roxbury, 21 July 1704. His w. d. 19 July 1687, and he m. next, Mary, d. of Habijah Savage of Boston, and so gr.gr.d. of the pestifer. Mrs. Hutchinson, wh. his gr.f. so painfully labored to convert from, the errors of her imagina. and all in vain, whereby he was in spirit and in print compel. to leave her under the delusions of the gr. adversay; had Samuel, b. 4 Mar. 1701, d. at 13 yrs.; and Habijah, H. C. 1723, posthum. 2 Sept. 1702, unless 20 June, as Roxbury town rec. has it, be tak. as more prob. He serv. as rep. for Deerfield soon aft. overthr. of Andros, if Farmer's Collect. in 3 Mass. Hist. Coll. IV. 291 be not distrust. and d. 9 June 1702, and his wid. d. 2 June 1731. Of this name Farmer in MS. says nineteen had been gr. in 1834, of wh. I find fourteen at Harv. and three at Yale. [[vol. 4, p. 474]]

WELDEN, CHRISTOPHER, Charlestown, d. says Farmer, wh. gives him distinct. of sen. 29 Apr. 1668; yet I much doubt this must be mistake, unless he were only transient, not perman. resid. for he was not householder in 1658, nor do I see the name among ch. mem. nor find any jr. ROBERT, Charlestown, chos. a capt. d. 16 Feb. 1631, bur. with milit. honors two days aft. He is respectful. ment. both by Winthrop I. 45, and Dudley. On the list of Boston ch. mem. No. 91 is Elizabeth W. and append. is writ. "gone to Watertown," wh. furnish. Bond occasion for conject. doubly felicit. that she was wid. of the capt. and that she bec. w. of Rev. George Phillips, whose first w. had d. at Salem soon aft. arr. 1630, and wh. had sec. w. Elizabeth in 1631.

WELLER, ELIEZER, Westfield, freem. 1681, was s. of Richard of Northampton, by w. Hannah Pritchard, perhaps d. of Nathaniel, m. 14 Sept. 1674, had Eliezer, b. 8 Oct. 1675; Hannah, 16 Feb. 1678; Elizabeth 17 Apr. 1680; and ano. d. b. 19 May 1682, d. with the mo. in two days; and he d. 16 Aug. 1684. JOHN, Northampton, sw. alleg. 8 Feb. 1679, m. 24 Mar. 1670, Mary, d. of Alexander Alvord, had John, b. 14 Feb. 1671; Mary, 11 Sept. 1672; Hannah, 14 May 1674; Elizabeth 12 Feb. 1676; Sarah, 15 Apr. 1678; Thomas, Aug. 1680; and Experience, 4 Dec. 1682; rem. soon aft. to Deerfield, there d. 1686. His s. both sett. at New Milford. NATHANIEL, Westfield, s. of Richard of Northampton, by w. Deliverance, d. of Thomas Hanchet, had Thankful, b. 15 Oct. 1674; Sarah, 6 June 1677; and Deliverance, 20 Aug. 1679, d. at 17 yrs. and his w. d. 22 Nov. 1711. He was deac. and d. nine days bef. his w. 

RICHARD, Windsor, m. 17 Sept. 1640, Ann Wilson, had Rebecca, b. 10 May 1641; Sarah, 10 Apr. 1643; John, bapt. 10 Apr. 1645; Nathaniel 16 July 1648; Eliezer, 24 Nov. 1650; and Thomas, 10 'Apr. 1653, wh. d. unm. at 22 yrs. rem. to Farmington, where his w. d 10 July 1659; and he m. 22 June 1662, Elizabeth wid. of Henry Curtis, wh. had drawn him to Northampton; took o. of alleg. 8 Feb. 1679; perhaps of Deerfield 1682, d. at Westfield prob. with his ch. 1690. Sarah m. 20 Nov. 1662, John Hannum of N.

November 2000

You are the 3327th Visitor to this USGenNet Safe-Site™ Since March 9, 2001. 99,000 visitors since before this counter was installed.

Html by Warren Wetmore and Debbie

[Register Index][AHGP][Blackwell's New England Books Project]