|
Written by John Plummer
Transcribed by  David
Phelps
Clarification of the Identity of George
Parkhurst
Several difficulties exist in reconciling George Parkhurst with the Recovery passenger. Parkhurst does not seem to have been in New England as early
as 1633/34. Colket repeats a previously published statement placing him
in Massachusetts "ca 1635." 4
However, neither Colket nor prior writers have provided proof of this
date; and the present writer has found none. The first documentable record
of him in the New World is at Watertown, Massachusetts, in 1642. 5
He probably followed his brother-in-law, the Reverend Timothy Dalton 6,
who emigrated from England to Dedham, Massachusetts. Dalton's arrival
in the colony can be placed after his April 1636 suspension by his bishop
and before 18 July 1637, when he was admitted as a proprietor of Dedham.
Parkhurst's arrival was prior to the marriage of his daughter Mary, about
1639, to a man who moved from Dedham to Watertown in 1638, Reverend Thomas
Carter. 7
Since dissenting ministers who left a region often took relatives and
flock with them, this appears to be a more logical time for Parkhurst
to have come to the colonies. Finally, Parkhurst has been identified as
being from the English county of Suffolk; 8
and not one of the Recovery passengers appears to have come from Suffolk
or it's neighboring shires.
Dating the Recovery's List
The date which appears on the Recovery's passenger roll, 31 March 1633,
is misleading. The vessel had not left by 30 April 1633, when one of it's
passengers witnessed a lease in England. 9
The subsequent voyage would have taken only two months or so; yet no reference
has been found to any passengers, in the New World, until nearly a year
and a half later.
On 1 September 1634, Mr. Thomas Newberry and Robert Elwell are both mentioned
in records of colonial Dorchester. 10
Two days later, three passengers (Newberry, John Hardy, and John Pope)
were made freemen of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. 11
Frequent mentions are made thereafter to Recovery passengers. It would
seem that the clerk who entered the passenger list wrote 31 March 1633
in error for 31 March 1634. Under the Old Style dating then in effect,
the year 1634 would have begun only one week earlier.
Correcting the date of the Recovery's voyage also helps to clarify two
other records that have perplexed researchers.
First, Stephen Terry, another of the passengers, appears in a colonial
Dorchester record 3 April 1633. 12
This date can be reconciled with his appearance on the Recovery list only
if the ship's roster was actually compiled on 31 March 1634; it would
seem that he left the colony for England in the spring of late 1633 and
returned on the Recovery the following year (early 1634).
Second, the "Recovery of London" is almost certainly the ship that Coldham
places at London on 8 March 1633/34, 13
a mere twenty-three days before the corrected date; and it is surely this
voyage of the Recovery which is referred to in the diary of William Whiteway
of old Dorchester in Dorsetshire, who wrote: "April 17, 1634, Mr. Newburgh
[sic] of Marthwoodvale and many others set saile from Waimouth towards
New England." 14 Mr.
"Newburgh" was more precisely, Mr. Thomas Newberry, whose name led the
list of passengers aboard the Recovery.
Accepting the premise that the passenger list should have been dated
31 March 1634, then the ship sailed into Massachusetts Bay in late June
or July 1634; 15 and
it was very likely one of the fourteen said to have arrived that June. 16
Previous: << Identifying
George P[?] of the Recovery
Next: Settlement Patterns of the Recovery
Passengers >>
David
Phelps
![[Opens external site in new window]](../../resources/Icons/ico_external_site.gif)
Phelps
Family Research
304 Bridlewood North
Colleyville, Texas 76034
|
