I spotted this bookplate online today from Eli Whitney:
http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads//2014/04/whitney.png
The coat of arms at the bottom of the bookplate corresponds with the Whitney coat of arms shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_(surname)
And it’s similar to the arms of Henry Whitney currently on our Roll of Early American Arms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_(surname)
So, shouldn’t we add Eli’s arms to the roll?
Possibly, but I’m suspicious of the bookplate as evidence. This does not have the look of a something produced during Eli Whitney’s lifetime (d. 1825), particularly the two fly rods adorning the frame of the picture. I’m thinking there may have been someone else of the same name living 75-100 years later.
Hmmm… Maybe. I’m not familiar enough with fishing equipment to know when they were introduced. I guess more research is warranted.
arriano;101989 wrote:
Hmmm… Maybe. I’m not familiar enough with fishing equipment to know when they were introduced. I guess more research is warranted.
Neither am I, but I’ve gotten reasonably familiar with bookplate design as a result of heraldic research, and this looks more like late 19th/early 20th century than early 19th.
Joseph McMillan;101990 wrote:
Neither am I, but I’ve gotten reasonably familiar with bookplate design as a result of heraldic research, and this looks more like late 19th/early 20th century than early 19th.
Good eye, Joe:
Quote:
Bookplate of Eli Whitney by W.F.Hopson 1903
You can faintly see the year 1903 at the bottom right:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5030/5700837828_caf50b32b5.jpg
—Guy
Eli Whitney "iv"? 1847-1924—grandson of the inventor.
Eli9 Whitney, Jr. (Eli8, Eli7, Eli6, Nathaniel5, Nathaniel4, Nathaniel3, John2, John1), son of Eli8 and Sarah Perkins (Dallibar) Whitney, was born 22 Jan 1847, New Haven, CT, was baptized 13 Jun 1847, New Haven, CT,[1] and died 23 Jun 1924, New Haven, CT.
—Guy
Entry from Burke’s pg 1105:
Whitney, co. Hereford: a knightly family of remote antiquity, founded by Eustace, living in 1086, styled De Whitney, from the lordship of Whitney, which he possessed. Az a cross chequy or and sa.
All remaining Whitney entries carry very heavy differences. Seems unlikely that the arms illustrated would have passed undifferenced for that long.
Terry Baldwin;101993 wrote:
Entry from Burke’s pg 1105:
Whitney, co. Hereford: a knightly family of remote antiquity, founded by Eustace, living in 1086, styled De Whitney, from the lordship of Whitney, which he possessed. Az a cross chequy or and sa.
All remaining Whitney entries carry very heavy differences. Seems unlikely that the arms illustrated would have passed undifferenced for that long.
Not necessarily. For one thing, no one was bearing heraldic arms in 1086 (heraldry as we know it didn’t begin until the next century), so the arms as described by Burke would first have been used by Eustace’s descendants at some unspecified date. And since arms pass down all male lines in England (with differencing for cadency always more theoretical than real), there’s no reason to assume a priori that there aren’t people living today who are entitled to the arms.
Also, note that on the arms claimed by the Whitney family of New England the cross is checky Or and Gules, not Or and Sable. (I suspect that Crozier’s attribution to Eli’s ancestor of a cross compony instead of checky is yet another in what I’m learning is a distressingly long series of botched blazons in Crozier’s work, especially the General Armory. As usual, he gives no source for the arms.)
That doesn’t mean that the American family actually was entitled to the arms. I would look for proof of descent from Eustace. Alternatively, my view is that proof of descent from someone known to have used the arms before they appeared in a widely available reference establishes at least a prima facie case for entitlement. I’m not aware that this family actually used these arms until the late 1800s, however.
Very True Joseph, Burke’s in known to be error prone without a date reference. I did not for a moment think that the arms dated back to 1086, only the family, which I did not state clearly. However, I also found in Papworth’s Ordinary, (page 609) with a source reference for a Eustace de Witeneye (Harl Ms 6137 (Roll circa 1262-92) Az a cross countercompony ar and gu. and further a Robert de Whitneye (Printed 1834 from Newling’s MS, Roll circa 1392-97) Az a cross countercompony or and gu. The surname spellings are as listed. These at least have the tinctures closer, you think?
Terry Baldwin;101996 wrote:
Very True Joseph, Burke’s in known to be error prone without a date reference. I did not for a moment think that the arms dated back to 1086, only the family, which I did not state clearly. However, I also found in Papworth’s Ordinary, (page 609) with a source reference for a Eustace de Witeneye (Harl Ms 6137 (Roll circa 1262-92) Az a cross countercompony ar and gu. and further a Robert de Whitneye (Printed 1834 from Newling’s MS, Roll circa 1392-97) Az a cross countercompony or and gu. The surname spellings are as listed. Countercomponee, old term for chequy??. These at least have the tinctures closer, you think?
Counter-compony means there are two rows of checks. In the 13th-14th centuries the number of rows was probably a matter of artistic taste—the same arms might be shown with three rows on one emblazonment and two on another. But with things having been standardized and regulated during the visitations, a cross with more than two rows of checks would be blazoned checky.
A quick google of the published visitation records turns up, in the 1634 visitation of Herefordshire, the arms Azure a cross checky Or and Gules, with the crest a bull’s head couped Sable armed per fess Gules and Argent, as the arms of Sir Robert Whitney of Whitney and family. Presumably a descendant (or at least would-be descendant) of old Eustace, since that name appears repeatedly in the pedigree.
The same arms were confirmed with a crescent for difference in the first quarter to Eustace Whitney of Gorsington, presumably a distant cousin but there doesn’t appear to be any overlap in the pedigree going back five generations before 1634.
The extensive genealogy The Whitney Family of Connecticut (1878 ) includes on pages xvi to xxii a pedigree tracing the immigrant Henry Whitney, described in a 1655 Hertfordshire will as "one other of the sonnes of my brother Thomas Whitnee, now living in New England," back to Herefordshire in 1549. Obviously I haven’t checked the author’s homework, but a superficial look at least shows citation to specific records documenting the links.
Nice work Joseph. I must really bring myself up on on-line sources, way too used to the hardcover volumes. Thanks for hints on other sources.
Regards
