pounds, &c., all faithfully recorded with the names of their respective donors. How soon does a little reflection change any disposition we may have to smile, into a feeling of respect, and even of admiration! What, in fact, were these humble benefactions? They were contributions from the res angusta domi"; from pious, virtuous, enlightened penury, to the noblest of all causes, the advancement of education. The donations were small, for the people were poor; they leave no doubt as to the motives which actuated the donors; they remind us of the offering, from "every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing, to the work of the tabernacle of the congregation;" and, like the widow's mite, indicate a respect and zeal for the object, which would have done greater things, had the means been more abundant.'

Among the donations of more importance, every scholar will feel interested in knowing the fact, that the celebrated Theophilus Gale, author of that remarkable work, the Court of the Gentiles,' and no less distinguished for his independence of character than his learning, bequeathed his books to this University, and that they constituted more than half of its library at that period. Another illustrious donor was the well known Bishop Berkeley, who presented some of the Greek and Latin. classics, and whose visit to the University, on the 17th of September 1731, is particularly noticed.†

In connexion with the library we are naturally reminded of the printing press at Cambridge, which, as Mr. Peirce observes, was the first one established in America, north of Mexico. It is an interesting fact, too, that in consequence of the publication of some small religious treatises, which were thought to be too liberal,' the General Court, in 1662, saw fit to appoint two licensers,' Major General Gookin, and the Rev. Mr. Mitchel, of Cambridge. The very next year the press was restored to its former liberty; but the fears of the Government being again awakened, they passed a still more rigorous order than before. They permitted no press to be established except at Cambridge, and required for every book a previous licence from the President of the college, from Mr. Sherman, Mr. Mitchel, and Mr. Shepherd, or any two of them; subjecting every offender to the forfeiture of his press, and interdiction of his employment.' But what will surprise § Pp. 26, 27.

* Hist.

P. 47.

† P. 160.

P. 6.

the reader at the present day, is this singular fact; that after the licensers had permitted the printing of one work, the General Court directed them to re-examine it, and in the mean time forbade its farther progress through the press. The work, which so troubled the rulers of our country at that time, was no other than the celebrated treatise ascribed to Thomas à Kempis, entitled 'Imitation of Christ.' Upon this curious occurrence Mr. Peirce makes the following remark, Which is most to be admired, the liberality of the Puritan licensers, who must have regarded popery as the most frightful of monsters, in allowing the work of a Roman Catholic monk to be printed, or the bigotry of the Court in forbidding it, is left to others to determine.'

Another interesting fact, connected with the literature of that early period in our history, is, President Mather's establishment, about 1679, of a 'philosophical society of agreeable gentlemen, who met once a fortnight, for a conference upon improvements in Natural Philosophy and additions to the stores of Natural History.' This society was of short duration; but it made some contributions to science, which are to be found in the Transactions of the Royal Society of London.* In 'their pursuits of science it will excite surprise at the present day, that there was a general opposition to inoculation for the small pox; but it should ever be remembered, to the honor of the famous Cotton Mather, that he was one of the few who had the intrepidity to recommend and encourage it. This he did in opposition to most of the physicians and of the multitude,' but with the support of the clergy. To such a height was the rage of the populace carried, that a lighted shell, filled with gun-powder, was one evening thrown into his parlor window!

The first head of the University was Nathaniel Eaton, who was called simply Master, or Professor. His successor, Dunster, took the title of President, which has been kept up to the present time, with the exception of Mr. Willard, of Boston, in 1701, who took the title of Vice-President; which, as our author seems to intimate, though with some doubt, was given with the view of avoiding a direct collision with an order requiring that the Presidents should reside in Cambridge. We ought to add, that for a short period the title of Rector was also used.§

* P. 56.

† P. 69.

P. 141.

§ Pp. 73.79.

We may here mention that our author gives an account of the well-known controversy, which arose in President Leverett's time, respecting the rights of 'Resident Fellows,' to be members of the Corporation; which was brought up again, a few years ago. After a general statement of the subject, Mr. Peirce remarks,

The merits of this question are left to others to decide; and, with the aid of the full and able discussion, which the only other attempt of a similar nature has recently produced, this will not probably be found a difficult task.'

Our readers will find abundant entertainment in various details of academic regulations and usages in the early periods of the college history. In the time of President Leverett a law was passed for reforming the extravagancys of Commencements,' and providing, that henceforth no preparation nor provision of either plumb cake, or roasted, boyled, or baked meates or pyes of any kind shal be made by any Commencer;' and that no such have any distilled lyquours in his chamber, or any composition therewith,' under penalty of a fine of twenty shillings, and forfeiture of the prohibited provisions.' An additional act was passed, that if any, who now doe or hereafter shall stand for their degrees, presume to doe any thing contrary to the said act, or goe about to evade it by plain cake,' they shall forfeit the honors of the College.'

Another law was made to prohibit the costly habits of many of the scholars, their wearing gold or silver lace or brocades, silk night-gowns, &c., as tending to discourage persons from giving their children a college education, and as inconsistent with the gravity and decency proper to be observed in this society.'

These laws, however, as the author justly observes, may be regarded, perhaps, rather as indications of the spirit of the times than as evidences of any unusual corruption in this society.'

We may here remark, that the commons gave occasion to dissatisfaction in early times, as they have more recently. This was one of the principal causes of complaint against the first Master, Eaton; in which case, however, it seemed that the blame lay principally with Mrs. Eaton, whose examination' on that subject was first brought before the public, from the archives of the General Court, by our learned historian,

1

Mr. Savage, and forms one of the most amusing articles of the Appendix to the present volume.* Mr. Peirce observes, that an idea of the quality of the commons may be formed from the accounts given by Dr. Holyoke, a graduate of 1746, and by Judge Wingate, of 1759; the former of whom stated to him, that the breakfast was two sizings of bread, and a cue of beer;' and the evening commons were a pye.' The latter says,' As to the commons, there were in the morning none, while I was in college. At dinner we had, of rather ordinary quality, a sufficiency of meat of some kind, either baked or boiled; and at supper, we had either a pint of milk and half a biscuit, or a meat pie, or some other kind. Such were the commons in the Hall in my day. They were rather ordinary; but I was young and hearty, and could live comfortably upon them. I had some class-mates who paid for their commons, and never entered the Hall while they belonged to the college. We were allowed at dinner a cue of beer, which was a halfpint, and a sizing of bread, which I cannot describe to you. It was quite sufficient for one dinner."†

The author of the present History briefly considers the question, often agitated, Whether it is expedient to retain the system of Commons at the University; and he decides in favor of preserving it. As the question is of no small importance, practically speaking, we here give his remarks upon the subject, which, we think, are entitled to the consideration of those whose business it is to regulate this matter:

'That there are strong reasons, why the Commons should be supported, might be fairly inferred from the very fact of their having continued so long, though, on one side or another, so continually assailed. Such, indeed, a little reflection will show to be the truth. The Commons unite the very important advantages of furnishing a salutary diet, and of contracting the expense of a College education by keeping down the price of board. Their beneficial effects are extended beyond the walls of the College. To a great degree the Commons, it is believed, regulate the price and quality of board even in private families; and thus

* P. 31 of Appendix.

P. 219. We have a suspicion, that the word cue, which, it seems, was the fourth part of a quart, is only the name of the letter Q, as the initial of the Latin quadrans, quartus, &c. Beaumont uses the same word cue for a farthing, which means a fourth part, or fourthing, if we may coin that word.

secure in the town a general style of living, at once economical and favorable to health and to study. But the very circumstance, which is their chief recommendation, is the occasion also of all the odium which they have to encounter; that simplicity, which makes the fare cheap, and wholesome, and philosophical, renders it also unsatisfactory to dainty palates; and the occasional appearance of some unlucky meat, or other food, is a signal for a general outcry against the provisions. To remove, as far as possible, all grounds of complaint with respect to the price as well as the quality and conditions of the Commons, regulations, during President Holyoke's time, were frequently made in them by the Corporation and Overseers, who were exceedingly desirous that all the members of the College, officers living within the walls, as well as students, should be in Commons.'

To those persons who still regard the health of their children. as of importance, and who can reason at all in their own case, these views of the author will approve themselves as founded on experience. But,--without intending to be very rigid on this point, we fear there is some reason for applying, in our day, the remark made by Quinctilian, upon the youth of Rome,-Ante palatum eorum quam os instituimus; fit consuetudo, deinde natura;-and children become the victims of the over-tenderness of parents. This subject, however, will necessarily come into view in the attention now beginning to be bestowed on that much neglected matter, physical education in general.

The discipline of the University was enforced anciently by corporal punishment, as well as pecuniary mulcts. The author gives the following extraordinary instance, accompanied with his own reflections upon it:

'At the period when Harvard College was founded, one of the modes of punishment in the great schools of England and other parts of Europe was corporal chastisement. It was accordingly introduced here, and was no doubt frequently put in practice. An instance of its infliction, as part of the sentence upon an offender, is presented in Judge Sewall's MS. diary, with the particulars of a ceremonial, which was reserved probably for special occasions. His account will afford some idea of the manners and spirit of the age: " June 15, 1674, Thomas Sargeant was examined by the Corporation finally. The advice of Mr Danforth, Mr Stoughton, Mr Thacher, Mr Mather (the present) was taken. This was his sentence:

"That being convicted of speaking blasphemous words con VOL. XXXVIII.-NO. 83.

50