Talk:William Phips/Archive 1

Search for treasure ship
The article says Phips "searched vainly" for a treasure ship, then states he found it and gathered a large sum of money from it. If he found it, how could the search be in vain? Or is the statement about finding the treasure false? There is no citation. ++Arx Fortis 03:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

May need to double-check the dates for return from England....
I will check this further, but my understanding was that Phips and Mather did not return from England until September of 1782. I have always thought that their absence was part of what allowed the trials to get as far as they did. If they were present in May, it would have been more likely that Increase and not his son Cotton would have been called upon for the amicus relationship he had to the court in the Danvers/Salem accusations; although Cotton's experiences and writings about the 1688 Glover trial made him a likely candidate for such a brief, I should think that his father's position would have pre-empted his.

Having researched the stones for all participants in the trials during the Tercentenary 1992 in Salem, I did this work a bit ago, but I think I'm correct in this; can check further for sources.168.122.12.202 (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oyer and Terminer
I think one of the most interesting and important parts of his life is the Oyer and Terminer court he set up for Salem. that's at least his most important contribution to modern culture. It is my understanding that his Oyer and Terminer court operated even after the slaem trials for several years, until his wife was accused of witchcraft and he dissolved the court. I cant source it though, it's just from a lecture.

Da Baron (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering
The sentence "and there is no evidence Phips was unfaithful during his long absences from home" seems strange, as it has nothing to do with anything, and besides, how does anyone really know? Nice article btw! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Historians can often deduce the existence of affairs and the like from extant documentation (generally letters and personal correspondence). Baker and Reid (who make the assertion reproduced here) presumably did some digging for this sort of evidence.  I thought it worth including as one piece of commentary on Phips' character; it does relate to the previous sentences talking about his marriage.  Magic ♪piano 23:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Lounsberry
Approximately half of the references in this article refer to Alice Lounsberrys 1941 Biography of Phips. This work is, according to C. P. Stacey in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, a curious mixture of research and imagination, largely uncritical. Just for the record...--Janneman (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Her book is indeed at times somewhat unreliable (in a manner typical of hagiographic biographies written 40-50 years earlier). Much of what is cited to her here was checked against other sources.  Magic ♪piano 00:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Trip to England
The first paragraph in the "Governor of Massachusetts Bay & the Salem Witch Trials" section lacks dates for the events. It also doesn't specify whether or not the charter discussions took place through letter exchanges or in England because Phips traveled there (correct answer). Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Errata in monographs regarding Phips
In 1928, Viola F Barnes, arguably the best historian of Phips to date, wrote that Cotton Mather "did history ill-service" with his anonymous, self-interested, and deceitful version of Phips' biography. Barnes' seems to have been out-of-sync with the times because a revision of the Mathers was being simultaneously launched by a group of socially conservative "Harvard men" (see K. Murdock's Cotton Mather: Selections including Life of Phips). One miscalculation can have a cascading effect. I want to begin a list here of errata regarding Phips. Any and all welcome to add new entries, and to discuss of course.

Nick Bunker (2018) Young Benjamin Franklin
Bunker p. 48, has the 1683 writ of quo warranto delivered to NE "carried by HMS Golden of the Royal Navy." Bunker cites as his source a monograph from 1989, wherein I was unable to locate a reference (albeit scanning online only) or find the original source. This wiki article currently has the writ carried by Edward Randolph in the HMS Rose captained by Phips. This is based on several verifiable sources, along with a photo of the ship's agreement and Randolph's signature on it. I believe the Rose became a target and was de-masted during the Boston revolt of 1689 when Randolph was imprisoned with the governor Andros.

A minor discrepancy concerning a ship might be symptomatic of a larger miscalculation. Bunker doesn't mention Phips though his treasure hunt was written about by one of Bunker's (and Ben Franklin's) favorite sources, Daniel Defoe. Phips and Increase Mather were on opposite sides in 1683 but formed a coalition government in London in 1691 leading to dramatic events. Bunker writes in brilliant detail about the conditions for Puritans in England and emigration to Boston in 1683, then mostly skips to the birth of Ben Franklin in 1706. An understanding of Boston in the 1690s seems necessary to interpret the sentiments of Ben Franklin's audacious Silence Dogood, and other young writers in the New-England Courant, and the reason so much of their ire was directed at the Mathers. Lewismr (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mark Peterson (2019) The City-State of Boston
Peterson's book arrives within months of Bunker's, and is also fond of quoting Dafoe, but unlike Bunker, Peterson finds agreement and adds further support to this encyclopedia (in current form) with respect to the delivery of the quo warranto via Phip's "quarrelsome passenger Edward Randolph" on the ship the Rose. Peterson references the excellent study of the treasure-hunting by Peter Earle but there is nonetheless a minor errata in the next paragraph when he writes Phips "failed to find the Conception" in 1684. This was Capt. Stanley's task that year, not Phips. This language suggests to me too much reliance on Baker and Reid who seem to never tire of combining "fail" + Phips. I tend to chalk this up to the Mather enthusiasm peaking at the time of the publication of Baker and Reid. As the Mather's stock rose, that of Phips (and Calef) needed to fall. There's no other way to account for the disaster of 1692-- someone in power must be blamed. Everyone agrees that Stoughton was villainous, but not quite powerful enough to pull off terrorizing the entire Province alone. This issue is exactly why it is so important to understand the complex relationship between Phips and the Mathers including the disruptions in Boston harbor back in 1683. This coalition of strange bedfellows is what VF Barnes seemed to understand so well, but that became lost to 20th c historians following the "Harvard men." (How many academic disciplines remain based upon work done in the 1930s?). This is the larger errata from Peterson relative to Phips and sadly, it could have been avoided by simply relying more on primary materials like Peterson's oft-cited Sam Sewall (contains quite a bit about Phips' Anglican leaning and sabbath breaking), Robert Calef (not in the index of Peterson), and Joshua Scottow's history printed in 1694. The omission of the latter seems most amazing relative to Peterson's main thesis, as it is so much about Boston's mission, John Cotton and the early Planters, and recommends non-schism (non-separatism) with the Church of England and discusses Phips prior to Phips' death. Scottow rebuffs Cotton Mather and Mather's Magnalia, began the same year Scottow's book was printed, could be seen as a response and an attempt to regain control of the narrative. It seems odd that someone as brilliant as Peterson is satisfied with relying so heavily Cotton Mather's self-interested version of history. 14:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)