Re: When did Robert Cros(s) arrive in Dedham???cleanup & update
-
In reply to:
When did Robert Cros(s) arrive in Dedham???
Herbert Nichols 1/15/03
Please ignore my last message and replace it with this.
thankyou, herb
There has been some discussion in the past on when
Robert first appeared in The Colonies.
An article on John Gould may shed some additional light on
on that, and also MAY shed some additional light on his social status.
As you may know Mary Cros(s)man d. Robert married John
Gould August 21 1673.
In Volume 12 of Great Migration Newsletter (see NEHGS)
R C Anderson discusses Jarvis Gould and his son John.
John is re-identified as h. of Mary andmarriage date
is given Aug 21, 1673. (mysource for the marriage was
NEHGR 1863:Proprietor's Records of Taunton, perhaps Anderson's was the same)
In this article Anderson identifies Robert with
"{1641,Dedham}"
I DO NOT KNOW WHAT INFORMATION ANDERSON INTENDS
TO CONVEY WHEN HE USES THE SYMBOLS "{" & "}"
But looking at how he uses other, related symbols,...
He uses "[" & "]" to enclose specific citations
He uses "(" & ")" to enclose comments e.g.
"Jarvis Gould "BIRTH:About 1605 (aged 30 on 6 April 1635 [Hotten 48])"
It is clear to me that Anderson uses "{" and "}" to connote
something other than either of the above.
One connotation that comes to mind is -say-
a) "According to other -but unspecified- information"
(perhaps something like "aet"?
b) Another connotation that comes to mind is -say-
"The best guess we have for event".
c) Another connotation that comes to mind is -say-
"The FIRST record of his appearance in the colonies is"
The connotation could EVEN be something like -say-
d) "all reliable sources agree that ..."
The exact INTENDED connotation is probably clearly spelled
out somewhere, perhaps at the beginning of Volume I of this
newsletter.
Be that as it may, and with which ever meaning is the correct one,
here we have the most important, capable, and authoratative
genealogist of all (concerning this Colonial era), in some
fashion connecting Robert to Dedham 1641*.
Later in this article Anderson quotes from a 6 Apr 1677
Boston real-estate transaction which identifies Robert
Crossman of Taunton as an attorney.
The exact text from Anderson ...
'On 6 April 1677, "Robert Crosman of Taunton ..., yeoman,
attorney to John Gold of Taunton aforesaid, cordwainer, and
Mary Gould, wife of the said John Gould" sold to' ...
Note that this has Robert Anderson including an EXACT quote
from a legal document (the part in double quotes)
This is the first time I have seen a reference to Robert as
an attorney. Would this have been in the same sense we see
the term used now? I don't know. But, it seems unlikely
that there was a Law School around in 1677, although
Harvard had been around for 40 odd years then; and even
less likely that he was an attorney in the formal sense.
But then there really didn't need to be a "Law
School". You could simply "read the law". This was in fact
true here in Mass into the 20th century. It wasn't
necessary to go to law school,OR EVEN COLLEGE; just pass the exam.
Does anybody know whether the concept of "Passing the Bar"
existed in Mass Bay or Plymouth colony then?
Anyways, what I'm guessing is that this document is simply
identifying Robert as a representative of John Gould in a legal forum.
To bolster that guess, note that Robert is identified as
R.C of Taunton,YEOMAN.
I think that if he had REALLY been an attorney in the sense
that we understand it now, he would at least have been
entitled to the more exalted honorific of ESQUIRE, rather
than simply "farmer/landholder"
*
Up on my high-horse, now!
"How soon will it be now before one of you says to somebody
else OR WORSE YET, posts on-line. "Robert was in Dedham
in 1641"? We do not know that from THIS article. Since Robt
Chas. Anderson did not cite a source (which he does RELIGIOUSLY)
AND since he doesn't explain what "{" & "}" MEAN all we can
read into this is that there somehow some kind of association,
however reliable or unreliable among: Robert, Dedham & 1641.
(I dunno, maybe he sent a letter to Dedham then, from ENGLAND, from the West Indies)
I hope that somebody will look into this and tell us precisely what Anderson intended.
And for Gawds sakes please don't speculate! You would just
be wasting your time and ours.
If you EVER say that Robert was in Dedham in 1641 OR that
Robert was an attorny, using this post as the source, then
SHAME ON YOU, you simply will not be knowing what you are
talking about and you will be doing an important disservice
to genealogical scholarship!
Read the above AGAIN. And if you want to say
MORE than the MULTIPLE and much weaker POSSIBILITIES
I have suggested then you darn well OWE the genealogical
community the courtesy and respect of FIRST finding out
EXACTLY what Anderson INTENDED when he used the
symbols "{" and "}".
Ok, off my high-horse, now.