Chapter 4

October 28, 1636, the General Court of Massachusetts "agreed to give 400 (pounds) toward a schoale or colledge, whearof 200 (pounds) to be paid the next yeare, & 200 when the worke is finished, & the next Court to appoint wheare & what building." On November 15, 1637, the "Colledg is ordered to be at Newtowne." On November 20, 1637, occurs the following record of the General Court: "The Governor Mr. Winthrope, the Deputy Mr. Dudley, the Treasurer Mr. Bellingham, Mr. Humfrey, Mr. Herlakenden, Mr. Staughton, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Damport, Mr. Wells, Mr. Sheopard, & Mr. Peters, these, or the greater part of them, whereof Mr. Winthrope, Mr. Dudley, or Mr. Bellingham, to bee alway one, to take order for a colledge at Newtowne."

May 2, 1638, the General Court changed the name of Newtowne to Cambridge, and, on March 13, 1639, "It is ordered that the Colledge agreed upon formerly to be built at Cambridge shall bee called Harvard Colledge." It appears that before this time there had been a school; but the name of college was not assumed until the above date. The teacher of this school was Mr. Nathaniel Eaton, who has left an unenviable reputation, and made an inauspicious beginning of that institution which was to attain to such distinction. He finally got into serious trouble, in consequence of his brutal conduct and for one act in particular, which led to his leaving the school and town. Governor Winthrop, in his History of New England has given a graphic description of the event, which Mr. Sibley has also reproduced, in a note, and which will interest more readers than would ever have the privilege of reading either work. I will therefore give the extract in full. Speaking of Eaton and the pupil whom he punished, Winthrop says: "The occasion was this: He was a schoolmaster and had many scholars, the sons of gentlemen and others of best note in the country, and had entertained one Nathaniel Briscoe, a gentleman born, to be his usher, and to do some other things for him, which might not be unfit for a scholar. He had not been with him above three days but he fell out with him for a very small occasion, and, with reproachful terms, discharged him, and turned him out of his doors; but, it being then about eight of the clock after the Sabbath, he told him he should stay till next morning, and, some words growing between them, he struck him and pulled him into his house. Briscoe defended himself and closed with him, and, being parted, he came in and went up to his chamber to lodge there. Mr. Eaton sent for the constable, who advised him first to admonish him, etc., and if he could not, by the power of a master, reform him, then he should complain to the magistrate. But he caused his man to fetch him a cudgel, which was a walnut tree plant, big enough to have killed a horse, and a yard in length, and, taking his two men with him, he went up to Briscoe, and caused his men to hold him till he had given him two hundred stripes about the head and shoulders, etc., and so kept him under blows (with some two or three short intermissions) about the space of two hours, about which time Mr. Shepherd (the clergyman) and some others of the town came in at the outcry, and so he gave over. In this distress Briscoe gate out his knife and struck at the man that held him, but hurt him not. He also fell to prayer, (supposing he should have been murdered), and then Mr. Eaton beat him for taking the name of God in Vain."

He was charged in open court with these cruelties to Briscoe, and it was there proved that he had been unusually cruel on other occasions, often punishing pupils with from twenty to thirty stripes, and never leaving them until they had confessed what he required. He was also charged with furnishing a scant diet to his pupil boarders, keeping them on porridge and pudding, though their parents were paying for better fare. He appears to have admitted the evil, butt threw the blame upon his wife. The court found him guilty. At first he denied his guilt. He was put in care of a marshal for safe keeping, and, on the following day, the court was informed that he had repented in tears. In the open court "he made a very solid, wise, eloquent, and serious (seeming) confession." The court was so much moved and pleased by this act of contrition that they only censured him and fined him twenty pounds and ordered the same amount to be paid to Briscoe. The church intended to "deal with him," but he fled to the Piscataqua settlements. He was apprehended, and promised to return to Cambridge, but finally escaped and fled, on a boat, to Virginia.

The college was named for the Reverend John Harvard, who came to this country from England in 1637, settled In Charlestown, and died the following year. He left a legacy, including his library, to the new institution of learning, which was a princely benefaction for the time. As a suitable recognition for this first large donation, the institution was called Harvard College. The exact place of Mr. Harvard's burial is unknown. It was somewhere "about the foot of Town Hill." It was in the old burial-ground near the old prison in Charlestown, in all probability, and the monument to his memory, if not over his grave, is likely very near it. The inscriptions on this monument explain the time and cause of its erection. On the eastern side of the shaft, looking toward the land of his birth and education, we read:--

"On the twenty-sixth day of September, A.D. 1828, this Stone was erected by Graduates of the University of Cambridge in honor of its founder, who died at Charlestown, on the twenty-sixth day of September, A.D. 1638."

This is in his mother-tongue. On the side looking toward the seat of learning which bears his name is the following inscription, in classic Latin:

"In piam et perpetuam memoriam Johannis Harvardii, annis fere ducentis post obitum ejus peractis, Academiae quae est Cantabrigiae Nov-Anglorum alumni, ne diutius vir de literis nostris optime meritus sine monumento quanivis humili jaceret, hunc lapidem ponendum curaverunt." The following is a literal translation:--

"In pious and perpetual remembrance of John Harvard, nearly two hundred years after his death, the alumni of the University at Cambridge, in New England, have erected this stone, that one who deserves the highest honors from our literary men may be no longer without a monument, however humble."

Edward Everett delivered the address at the dedication of the monument. The closing passage of his oration is as follows:--

"While the College which he founded shall continue to the latest posterity, a monument not unworthy of the most honored name, we trust that this plain memorial also will endure; and, while it guides the dutiful votary to the spot where his ashes are deposited, will teach to those who survey it the supremacy of intellectual and 'moral desert, and encourage them, too, by a like munificence, to aspire to a name as bright as that which stands engraven on its shaft,--

'Clarum et venerabile nomen Gentibus, et multum nostrae quod proderat urbi.'"

The citizens of New England entered most heartily into the idea of establishing this college and contributed whatever they could; utensils from their homes, stock from their farms, their goods, merchandise, anything, in fine, which they had to give, so anxious were they to educate their youth, and especially to provide for an educated ministry. Peirce, in his History of the college, says:--

"When we read of a number of sheep bequeathed by one man, of a quantity of cotton cloth worth nine shillings presented by another, of a pewter flagon worth ten shillings by a third, of a fruit-dish, a sugar-spoon, a silver-tipped jug, one great salt, and one small trencher salt, by others; and of presents or legacies, amounting severally to five shillings, one pound, two pounds, &c., all faithfully recorded with the names of the donors, we are at first tempted to smile; but a little reflection will soon change this, disposition into a feeling of respect and even of admiration."

"How just," says President Quincy, "is the remark of this historian! How forcible and full of noble example is the picture exhibited by these records? The poor emigrant, struggling for subsistence, almost houseless, in a manner defenceless, is seen selecting from the few remnants of his former prosperity, plucked by him out of the flames of persecution, and rescued from the perils of the Atlantic, the valued pride of his table, or the precious delight of his domestic hearth;--'his heart stirred and his spirit willing' to give according to his means, toward establishing for learning a resting-place, and for science a fixed habitation, on the borders of the wilderness!"

Mr. Sibley gives an extract from New England's First Fruits, a work printed in London, not long after the first class was graduated. It gives us the feelings of the emigrants about their new institution. It says:--

"After God had carried us safe to New England, and wee had builded our houses, provided necessaries for our liveli-hood, rear'd convenient places for God's worship, and settled the Civil Government; One of the next things we longed for, and looked after, was to advance LEARNING and to perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the Churches, when our present Ministers shall lie in the dust. And as wee were thinking and consulting how to effect this great Work, it pleased God to stir up the heart of one Mr. HARVARD (a godly Gentleman, and a lover of learning, there living amongst us) to give the one halfe of his Estate (it being in all about 1700 pounds) toward the erecting of a Colledge, and all his Library." The edifice is described as "faire and comely within and without, having in it a spacious Hall, where they daily meet at Commons, Lectures, Exercises, and a large Library, with some books to it."

The rules and regulations of Harvard in early times are interesting to us of later generations. The following are specimens:--

"When any scholar is able to read Tully, or such like classical Latin author EXTEMPORE, and make and speak true Latin in verse and prose suo (ut aiunt) Marte, and decline perfectly the paradigms of nouns and verbs in the Greek tongue, then may he be admitted into the College, nor shall any claim admission before such qualifications."

"Every one shall consider the main end of his life and studies, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life."

"Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day, that they be ready to give an account of their proficiency therein, both in theoretical observations of language and logic, and in practical and spiritual truths, as their Tutor shall require."

"They shall honor as their parents, magistrates, elders, tutors, and aged persons, by being silent in their presence (except they be called on to answer)."

"None shall pragmatically intrude or inter meddle in other men's affairs."

"No scholar shall buy, sell, or exchange any thing, to the value of sixpence, without the allowance of his parents, guardians or tutors."

"The scholars shall never use their mother tongue, except that in public exercise of oratory, or such like, they be called to make them in English."

"Every scholar, that on proof is found able to read the original of the Old and New Testament into the Latin tongue, and to resolve them logically, withal being of honest life and conversation, and at any public act hath the approbation of the Overseers and Master of the College, may be invested with his first degree."

"No scholar whatever, without the fore-acquaintance and leave of the President and his Tutor, or, in the absence of either of them, two of the Fellows shall be present at or in any of the public civil meetings, or concourse of people, as courts of justice, elections, fairs, or at military exercise, in the time or hours of the College exercise, public or private. Neither shall any scholar exercise himself in any military band, unless of known gravity, and of approved sober and virtuous conversation, and that with the leave of the President and his Tutor."

"No scholar shall take tobacco, unless permitted by the President, with the consent of their parents or guardians, and on good reason first given by a physician, and then in a sober and private mariner."

"No Freshman shall wear his hat in the College yard, unless it rains, hails, or snows, provided he be on foot and have not both hands full."

"Freshmen are to consider all the other classes as their Seniors."

"No Freshman shall speak to a Senior with his hat on; or have it on in a Senior's chamber, or in his own if a Senior be there."

"All Freshmen shall be obliged to go on any errand, for any of his Seniors, Graduates or Undergraduates, at any time, except in studying hours, or after nine o'clock in the evening."

The faculty, if they were knowing to it, could stop the performance of an improper errand. They would have been likely to know little about them.

Pages might be quoted of these curious and interesting rules and customs. But these must suffice. Enough has been given to show the immense progress which has been made from the time of the cruel Eaton to that of the dignified, able, and judicious President Eliot, under whose fortunate administration, the University has wonderfully increased, materially and in every way.

The first President was Henry Dunster, a man of learning and cultivation. He entered upon his office, August 27, 1640, and left it, October 24, 1654. It was during his administration that most of those unique rules were established which I have quoted. We can see in them the evident origin or occasion of hazing the Freshmen, which would naturally follow such rules. At the present day, be it known, the custom has entirely ceased. The Freshmen of to-day are treated like gentlemen by all classes. All the students are placed on their honor, in every way, save only in some necessary particulars. Hazing has passed into history as a barbarous custom of the past, and the deportment of the students to-day is that of gentlemen, with very rare exceptions, such as might be expected among so large a number. In the great Memorial Hall, where they eat, the best of deportment is always to be seen, and everywhere there is now a pride, in all departments of the University, in observing the proprieties of good conduct. Indeed this has always been the rule. The hazing has never been so extensively practised as many have supposed; and no body of men can anywhere be found, in Congress, legislatures, schools, academies, or colleges, whose deportment excels in excellence that of the students of Harvard University. This observation is demanded from the fact that many parents, some of whom are known the writer, have decided to send sons to other institutions, on the very ground of the influence of college customs and habits.

* * * * *

THE DEFENCE OF NEW YORK, 1776.

By Henry B. Carrington, U.S.A., LL.D.

[The siege of Boston gave to the Continental Army that instruction in military engineering, and that contact with a disciplined foe, which prepared it for the immediate operations at New York and in New Jersey. (See The Bay State Monthly, January, 1884, pages 37-44.)

The occupation and defence of New York and Brooklyn, so promptly made, was a strategic necessity, fully warranted by existing conditions, although temporary.]

It is not easy to reconcile the views which we take, in turn, through the eye and object lenses of a field-glass, so that the real subject of examination will not be distorted by too great nearness or remoteness.

If we bring back to this hour the events of one hundred years ago, it is certain that the small armies and the smaller appliances of force then in use will seem trifling, in contrast with those which have so recently wearied science and have tasked invention in the work and waste of war.

If we thrust them back to their proper place behind the memory of all living men, we only see a scattered people, poorly armed, but engaged in hopeful conflict with Great Britain, then mistress of the seas, proudly challenging the world to arms, and boldly vindicating her challenge.

In an effort to reproduce that period and so balance the opposing factors that the siege of Boston and the deliverance of Washington at Brooklyn and New York shall have fair co-relation and full bearing upon the resulting struggle for National Independence, there must be some exact standard for the test j and this will be found by grouping such data as illustrate the governing laws of military art.

It has never been claimed that the siege of Boston was not the legitimate result of British blunder and American pluck. In a previous paper, the siege itself has been presented as that opportunity and training-school exercise which projected its experience into the entire war, and assured final triumph. It has not been as generally accepted, as both philosophical and necessary, that the fortification and defence of Brooklyn became the wise and inevitable sequence to that siege.

Let us drop a century and handle the old records.

If Great Britain had not called continental auxiliaries to her aid in 1776, her disposable force for colonial service would have been less than half of the army of Washington.

Until the fortification of Brooklyn and New York had been well advanced, the British ministry had not been able to assign even fifteen thousand men for that service. General Clinton did, indeed, anchor at the New York Narrows, just when General Charles Lee reached that city for its defence, but did not risk a landing, and sailed for South Carolina, only to be repulsed.

The British Crown had no alternative but to seek foreign aid. The appeal to Catharine of Russia for twenty thousand men was met by the laconic response, "There are other ways of settling this dispute than by resort to arms." The Duke of Richmond prophetically declared, "The colonies themselves, after our example, will apply to strangers for assistance." The opposition to hiring foreign troops was so intense, that, for many weeks, there was no practical advance in preparations for a really effective blow at the rebels, while the rebellion itself was daily gaining head and spirit.

The British army, just before the battle of Long Island, including Hessians, Brunswickers, and Waldeckers, was but a little larger than that which the American Congress, as early as October 4, 1775, had officially assigned to the siege operations before Boston. That force was fixed at twenty-three thousand, three hundred and seventy-two men. General Howe landed about twenty thousand men. With the sick, the reserves on Staten Island, all officers and supernumeraries included, his entire force exhibited a paper strength of thirty-one thousand, six hundred and twenty-five men. It is true that General Howe claimed, after the battle of Long Island, that his entire force (Hessians included) was only twenty four thousand men, and that Washington opposed the advance of his division with twenty thousand men. The British muster rolls, as exhibited before the British Parliament, accord with the statement already made. The actual force of the American army at Brooklyn was not far from nine thousand men, instead of twenty thousand, and the effective force (New York included) was only about twenty thousand men. As the British regiments brought but six, instead of eight, companies to a battalion, there is evidence that Washington himself occasionally over-estimated the British force proper; but the foreign battalions realized their full force, and they were paid accordingly, upon their muster rolls. Nearly three fifths of General Howe's army was made up from continental mercenaries. These troops arrived in detachments, to supplement the army which otherwise would have been entirely unequal to the conquest of New York, if the city were fairly defended.

If, on the other hand, Washington had secured the force which he demanded from Congress, namely, fifty-eight thousand men, which was, indeed (but too tardily), authorized, he could have met General Howe upon terms of numerical equality, backed by breast-works, and have held New York with an equal force.

This estimate, by Washington himself, of the contingencies of the campaign, will have the greater significance when reference is made to the details of British preparations in England.

While Congress did, indeed, as early as June, assign thirteen thousand additional troops for the defence of New York, the peremptory detachment of ten battalions to Canada, in addition to previous details, persistently foiled every preparation to meet Howe with an adequate force. Regiments from Connecticut and from other colonies reported with a strength of only three hundred and sixty men. While the "paper strength" of the army was far beyond its effective force, even the "paper strength" was but one half of the force which the Commander-in-chief had the right to assume as at his disposal.

Other facts fall in line just here.

At no later period of the war did either commander have under his immediate control so large a nominal force as then. During but one year of the succeeding struggle did the entire British army, from Halifax to the West Indies inclusive (including foreign and provincial auxiliaries), exceed, by more than seven thousand men, the force which occupied both sides of the New York Narrows in 1776. The British Army at that time, without its foreign contingent, would have been as inferior to the force which had been ordered by Congress (and should have been available) as the depleted American army of 1781 would have been inferior to the British without the French contingent.

The largest continental force under arms, in any one year of the war, did not greatly exceed forty thousand men, and the largest British force, as late as 1781, including all arrivals, numbered, all told, but forty-two thousand and seventy-five men.

The annual British average, including provincials, ranged from thirty-three to thirty-eight thousand men. The physical agencies which Great Britain employed were;, therefore, far beneath the prestige of her accredited position among the nations; and the disparity between the contending forces was mainly in discipline and equipment, with the advantage to Great Britain in naval strength, until that was supplanted by that of France.

To free the question from a popular fallacy which treats oldtime operations as insignificant, in view of large modern armies and campaigns, it is pertinent to state, just here, that the issues of the battle-field for all time, up to the latest hour, have not been determined by the size of armies, or by improvements in weapons of war, except relatively, in proportion as civilized peoples fought those of less civilization; or where some precocity of race or invention more quickly matured the operations of the winning side.

If the maxims of Napoleon are but a terse restatement of those of Caesar, and the skill of Hannibal at Cannae still holds place as a model for the concave formation of a battle-line, so have all the decisive battles of history taken shape from the timely handling of men, in the exercise of that sound judgment which adapts means to ends, in every work of life. Thus it is that equally great battles, those in the highest sense great, have become memorial, although numbers did not impart value to the struggle; but they were the expression of that skill and wisdom which would have ensured success, if the opposing armies had been greater or less.

If a timely fog did aid the retreat of Washington from Brooklyn, in 1776, so did a petty stream, filled to the brim by a midnight shower, make altogether desperate, if it did not, alone, change, the fortunes of Napoleon at Waterloo.