[2] Dr. T. W. Harris, in N. E. Geneal. Register, vol. ii. p. 306, has corrected the mistake of Williamson and other writers as to Henry Josselyn of Scituate’s being of kin to Mr. Josselyn of Black Point; and Mr. Willis, who had adopted the same error in his first paper, already cited, now admits, in his second, that there is not “any evidence that” the proprietor of Black Point “left any children, or ever had any.”
[3] Letter of Rev. J. Hunter, 12th April, 1859.
[4] See also a Pedigree of Joselyne from the Visitation of Hertfordshire in 1614, furnished by Mr. S. G. Drake to the New-England Genealogical Register, vol. xiv. p. 16. This is probably one of the sources from which Lodge’s account was derived.
[5] Lodge, Peerage of Ireland, vol. iii. p. 65, and ante.
[6] Lodge, ubi supra. Annual Register, 1771, p. 174.
[7] But there is no doubt that the author was himself as far from sharing in the serious English thought of the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay as he was from joining in their evangelical faith. Yet there is hardly more than one place in either of his books (Voyages, pp. 180-2) where this is offensively brought forward. It is worthy of remark, however, that Josselyn’s family, in England, was attached rather to the Puritan side. “His family connections,” says Mr. Hunter, in the letter already referred to, “appear to have been adherents to the cause of the Parliament; particularly the Harlakendens, in whose regiment a Jocelyn, named Ralph, was a chaplain.” Nor is this all. “In the year 1663,” continues the learned authority just cited, “there was a slight insurrectionary movement in the North; which was easily put down by the government, and the leaders executed. In a manuscript list of persons who were either openly engaged, or who were vehemently suspected of being favorers of the design, I find in the latter class the name of Capt. John Jossline.” This plot was not discovered till January, 1664; and our John Josselyn “departed from London,” as he says at page one of this volume, “upon an invitation of my only brother,” the 28th of May of the year previous. But, if it be possible that our author was the person intended in the manuscript list as one strongly suspected of being engaged in a design against the Royal Government, the evident uncertainty of this is too great to permit us to discredit his own exposure of his political leanings,—as in the Voyages, p. 197, where, speaking of Sir F. Gorges, he says, “And, when he was between three and fourscore years of age, did personally engage in our royal martyr’s service, and particularly in the siege of Bristow; and was plundered and imprisoned several times, by reason whereof he was discountenanced by the pretended Commissioners for Forraign Plantations,” and so forth,—or in the face of another passage to be quoted further on, in which he acknowledges “the bounty of his royal sovereigness,” to question the sincerity—which there is nothing in either of his books to throw doubt upon—of his general adhesion to the Royalist side. “The family in Hertfordshire,” says Mr. Hunter, “were nonconformists; but the spirit of nonconformity seems to have spent itself at the death of Sir Strange Jocelyn, the second baronet, who died in 1734. But we may trace the Puritan influence in the present Earl of Roden, who is a conspicuous member of the religious body in England called the Evangelical.”—Ms. ut sup.
[8] And see the Voyages, p. 187, for an account of a “Barbarie-Moor under cure” of the author, when he “perceived that the Moor had one skin more than Englishmen. The skin that is basted to the flesh is bloudy, and of the same Azure colour with the veins, but deeper than the colour of our Europeans’ veins. Over this is an other skin, of a tawny colour, and upon that [the] Epidermis, or Cuticula,—the flower of the skin, which is that Snake’s cast; and this is tawny also. The colour of the blew skin mingling with the tawny, makes them appear black.” Dr. Mitchell, the botanist of Virginia, has a paper upon the same topic,—the cause of the negro’s color,—in the Philosophical Transactions; but this appears less in accordance with more recent researches (Prichard, Nat. Hist. of Man, p. 81) than Josselyn’s observations.
[9] “His book is a curiosity, sometimes worth examining, but seldom to be implicitly relied on.”—Savage, in Winthrop, N. E., vol. i. p. 267, note.
[10] Reprinted, the third edition, with an introductory essay and some notes; Boston, 1764,—the edition made use of in these notes.
[11] Biographie Universelle, in loco.