Enigmas of Early Nantucket

fey Roland L. Warren

(This article is excerpted with slight modifications from the final chapter of the author's Mary Coffin Starhuck and the Early History of Nantucket, published by Pinyry Press, Box 803, Andover, NY 14806.)

Every genealogist, historian, and biographer knows that the effort to track down what actually happened can often be engrossing. At times, one achieves a clear victory, putting to rest certain ambiguities with the aid of newly uncovered documents not utilized by earlier writers; at other times, one establishes new facts only to find that they open up additional questions which remain unanswerable. Often, the task at hand is simply to come to the best conjecture as to what actually occurred, and in what sequence, by putting together all the information available and trying to make the best judgment possible.

An example of a "new" fact not earlier reported had to do with Dionis Coffin's court case. In the year 1653, she was brought into court at Newbury, Mass., for violating a law passed by the General Court in 1645, fixing the price of a quart of beer at two pence, and fixing the quality at four bushels of malt to the hogshead. She was accused of charging three pence per quart, an apparent infraction. None of the written accounts of this event take into consideration that in 1651, the Court had passed a subsequent law specifying a sliding scale: one penny for two bushels per hogshead beer, two pence for four bushels per hogshead, and three pence for beer with six bushels of malt per hogshead. Thus, Dionis' price of three pence for the higher quality beer was entirely in conformity with the existing law of 1651, and she never should have been hailed into court. Similarly, those who have narrated the episode have neglected to mention that at the very time that Dionis' court case came up, the General Court rescinded the more per-missive legislation, uppon complaynt of sundry abuses & inconveniences by occasion of the libtie for sellinge beere at three pence the quart," and went back to the one quality-one price ruling of two pence per quart. Apparently, in accusing her, the authorities had overlooked the 1651 law, and, stung by their error in taking Dionis Coffin to court, they thereupon rescinded the law which had caused them the embarrassment.

A more frustrating example is what happened to Edward Star-

12

Historic Nantucket buck's wife, Katherine, when he moved his family to Nantucket. There is no record of her having moved to the island, and there is no record of her death either on the island or on the mainland. The Genealogical Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire claims, without documentation, that she was still living in 1678. Alexander Starbuck writes: His wife doubtless died in Dover." Anderson asserts, quite didactically, that when the first party landed on Nantucket, Starbuck was a widower. Another writer even asserted that "both Tristram Coffin and Edward Starbuck were widowers." My first draft, therefore, had Katherine die before Starbuck settled in Nantucket; and in order to have her die, I made frequent mention of her declining health.

It was only while examining probate court records in Concord, N. H. that I came upon a deed signed by both Edward Starbuck and his wife Katherine in 1678. The Genealogical Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire had been right, after all. But until this discovery, how could I know?

This new information only caused more perplexity, however. For although the deed, which pertained to land in Dover, N. H., was duly recorded, there was no indication where it had been signed by the two of them, and no indication where Katherine lived at the time. I spent hours and days trying to track down whether or not she ever moved to Nantucket with her husband. The alert reader may wonder why there is no mention of her in the treatment of the Starbucks on Nantucket. Reluctantly, I simply left her out of that part of the book.

In most such incidents where different sources conflicted, I was not so cowardly. Rather, I examined all the sources and then made what seemed the most educated guess.

Mary Starbuck's reputation as Nantucket's "great woman" derives principally from Richardson's use of that term twice in referring to her, and his employment of other terms of great praise. It seems supported by Thomas Story's favorable words about her, as well as his selecting her to be the one to start a Quaker Meeting on the island. Much of her alleged greatness stems from Richardson's allusions to her as the "great woman." One can therefore imagine my shock when for purposes of verification.I perused a different edition of Richardson's journal, published by Quakers in Philadelphia in 1880, and found that in both of Richardson's crucial references to her, this edition said only "the woman," not "the great woman." Thus, this most important reference to her greatness" by an eye witness was placed in question.

I therefore sought and found the earliest edition that I could get

my hands on, the third edition of 1759, and found there that both references were to "the great woman." So the "great" designation was not, as I had momentarily feared, a recent addition inserted by some enthusiastic editor, but antedated by over a century the Quaker edition which did not contain it. That was reassuring; hut the question remained: Why was the "great" adjective omitted from the 1880 Quaker edition? I do not know. Perhaps it was just an aberrant instance of the characteristic Quaker posture of "one downmanship— that is, to down-play alleged virtues as a defense against false pride.

In this connection, the third missionary, Thomas Chalkley, wrote in his journal that "at this Time (1698) a Friend was convinced, whose Name was Starbuck, who became very serviceable...etc." It is customary among historians to identify Mary as this Starbuck; but a careful consideration of the flow of events regarding both Mary and her son Nathaniel impels me to the conclusion that Story was referring not to Mary but to her son Nathaniel, and that is the way this present hook treats it.

There are numerous instances where the episodes reported in the present volume seemed likely, although they could not be established with certainty.

Did Tristram and family come to Salisbury in Robert Clement's ship? It seems highly probable, since Clement was sailing at that time, and both he and Tristram were associates soon after in the purchase of Pentucket (now Haverhill). I have therefore followed Mirick and Allen Coffin in this assumption.

Did James Coffin accompany the Macys in the fall of 1659 to spend the winter on Nantucket? I have found no authentic documentation for this, but most historians include him in the party, and I have done likewise.

It seems strange that the Macy party would have risked settling in Nantucket so late in 1659, with winter almost upon them. Most writers say it was the fall of 1659. The poet Whittier had them fleeing to Nantucket the very day that Thomas Macy was discovered harboring the Quakers from the storm; but this immediacy seems apocryphal. The sequence, fairly well documented: The Court's warrant was dated October 18, 1659. Macy wrote his apologetic letter to the Court on October 27. The Court gave its decision in his case on November 12. That date would have been ominously late for Macy to move his family to the desolate west end of Nantucket, without shelter against the imminent winter. The penalty was not large (thirty shillings), and did not call for imprisonment, so there is little reason to believe that he was forced to leave at that late date.

On the contrary, knowing that he owned a share of Nantucket, and knowing that the court sentence might be more severe than it actually turned out to be, he might well have left before the sentence was passed, early enough to get at least a start toward a shelter against the winter on Nantucket. Given the known facts, this seemed to he the most plausible reconstruction.

When did Tristram Coffin actually move his family to Nantucket? Mirick says in 1662 and Hinchman says in 1660. Starbuck leaves the question open, pointing out that the first documentary evidence of his settling there is the July 15, 1661 meeting of the proprietors on the island. Even the fact that they met there does not prove that all the signatories to that meeting actually were settled on Nantucket at the time. I concluded, though, that Tristram probably moved his family there in the late summer of 1660. Incidentally, I had Tristram make an earlier trip to the island the preceding May, because that was the date of the deed to the island signed by the sachems Wanamamack and Nickanoose, at which time he was probably on the island to receive it.

Did Tristam take his mother to Nantucket, along with the rest of his family? Sylvanus Macy, who said the move occurred in 1660, said that he did. But Mirick reports that "Joan, his mother, died in Boston, 1661, aged 77," and cites Sewall for the note that "Mr. Wilson preached her funeral sermon, and, as was then said, embalmed her memory." Mirick's version appears more convincing, and is supported by the Boston vital statistics record, listed for 1661: Joan Coffme deceased the 30th of May." So, Boston it was.

Was Peter Folger ever a Quaker? Guba states that Peter Folger "embraced Quakerism in 1680, ten years before his death," but I find no basis for the statement. True, Hoyt, writing a few years later than Guba, also states that Peter Folger embraced Quakerism," but the use of precisely the same words suggests that he may merely have been repeating Guba's assertion. I do not give these assertions credulity.

Were Jethro Coffin and Mary Gardner married in the year 1686, and was this the year the Jethro Coffin house was built? The evidence is less than definitive on each count, but widely held tradition affirms 1686 as the date for both events, and I have found no reason to put them either earlier or later.

Which Nathaniel Starbuck gave the land in 1709 for the first Quaker Meeting House? Leach states that it was Nathaniel, Jr., but a careful reading of the town meeting's record suggests that his father, Mary's husband, gave the land. In this connection, Leach also mentions that the first town meeting house was constructed

in 1717, but Starbuck, probably following Worth, cites a town record from June 4, 1707 designating William Gayer and Richard Gardner to supervise repairs on the Town House. As a minor blessing, this date was not crucial to the present book.

Without bothering to go into detail, it may be of interest to list some other problematical questions where I felt it necessary to make the most plausible conclusions based on inadequate data:

In what year was Tristram Coffin first authorized to run the ferry between Newbury and Salisbury? Different records from the time vary from 1644 to 1647.1 hedged this one, but placed it some time after Mary's birth.

When did Capaum Harbor close up? Fortunately, most of the conflicting reports place the event later than 1717, so I did not have to decide.

Did Peter Coffin's sloops—and other sloops, as well—actually sail into and moor inside Capaum Harbor, as many authors report? My guess is that it was too shallow, and safer to moor outside.

Was Mary Starbuck baptized by Peter Folger? Following several accounts, I guessed, "Yes," but without conclusive evidence.

Unless some truly amazing discovery of other historical documents is made, we shall have to rest with the most plausible guesses that can be made on some of the details of this dramatic period of Nantucket's settlement. Nevertheless, the major historical outlines are well documented. It is a proud history deserving our attention and respect.

PHILIP MORRIS: 'SCONSET'S POSTMASTER FOR ALMOST THIRTY-FIVE YEARS By

John C. Lathrop

(Continued from our Spring issue)

When word circulated that Anna Barrett was about to give up her long hold on the Post Office, three persons from the village were ready to contend for the office. Mrs. Morris, Nellie, was one - the only woman - and in the tradition, Rudolph Sharf, who lived on the south side near Low Beach, and, of course, Phil Morris. Maxwell Deacon, of the Nantucket Post Office, picked a day in February for a three hour examination. No interviews were held at the Old Town Building before or after the written examinations. On May 15,1928, Mrs. Charles Morris received a telegram from Washington for Phil. Although he was at work for Allie Pitman, greenskeeper for the Sankaty Head Golf Club, as a member of a seasoned crew rushing to open the course for a new year, his mother found him and reported that he had been appointed. He was to start at once. Phil had told the boss he liked so much, of his application, and the possibility of short notice, should he be successful.

The office of Postmaster at 'Sconset was, at this time, an independent one. Phil had a fixed amount of operating money, including an allowance for hiring seasonal help. Regulations were exact. Phil was responsible to the federal office in Boston and was subject to many unannounced inspections. Supplies came from Boston as well.

During the summer season - June through September - the Postmaster was allowed hourly help. The pay for an "indefinite clerk" was low. Phil appointed this help and he was responsible for those he hired. He and the Village were blessed by unusual continuity, competence and loyalty. Over the years, the 'Sconset ladies associated with the Post Office were his wife, Nellie, Mrs. Ellenwood Folger, Sarah Morris, Mary Talford, Dorothy McCall, and Mary Egan. Lyla Folger, with her striking red hair, holds all Post Office continuous service records. She had worked under Anna Barrett.

Deep in the Post Office's work space was a radio. If the Red Sox were playing, it would he turned on. Everyone knew that Phil was a prime fan, and that he would have current information on the Sox. Occasionally, Phil was able to get to Fenway to see a game. Mr. John Brush, whose house on the North Bluff was done by Fred Hill, was a baseball team owner who took Phil to games in Boston,