||Savage, James. Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England
||Boston, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
Charlestown, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
Dover, Strafford, New Hampshire, United States
Massachusetts, United States
New Haven, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
Weymouth, Norfolk, Massachusetts, United States
||1635 - 1790
||LUDDEN - LUDKIN
|Volume 3, Page 128
Index, with me he adopts Luddam, yet, for change of sec. d to h he
says, "I follow Prince, wh. follow. or used Winthrop in the original." As
the last three words are print. in Italics it might seem, that an insinuation
was intend. that I had not used or follow. the orig. A candid
reader need not be distressed with such a suspicion, or presume that Mr.
Drake believ. such a thing; for the venerable MS. in its original ink is
accessib. and here more plain than often it appears. Winthrop wrote the
name twice in the same short sentence, the first time, as it was print. by
me, and the sec. as giv. in Webster's Ed. of 1790, with h aft. double dd.
I was content with one form. Prince struck a mid. course, and the historian
of Boston mioht learn from inspection, that the petty deviation
from the orig. is seen in the scrupulous annalist, Hale's Ed. 407, and
not in the annotator. of Winthrop Nobody would blame Winthrop for spelling
the name two ways in one sentence, nor Prince for so slight variance
from both; nor quarrel with Secr. Porter in transcrib. the copy
that Webster print. for obeying the latter form of Winthrop's writing of
the name with an h, nor with me for accepting the earlier form, without
that letter. After inspection of the ancient MS. Mr. Drake would
observe that his criticism was more than unnecessary; and his readers
may excuse the error by inferring that instead of the open, bold Roman
types, the natural overflow of his benignant impulses sought the more
modest Italic character of censure. JOHN, Weymouth, wh. may have
been s. of the preced. was a soldier on Conn. riv. under capt. Turner, in
Mar. 1676. This name is not rare in the W. part of Mass.
LUDDINGTON, WILLIAM, Charlestown 1642, liv. in the part wh. bec.
Malden, by w. Ellen had Mary, b. 6 Feb. 1643; had, also, Matthew, 16
Dec. 1657, d. next mo.; rem. to New Haven, but the time is unkn. there
had William; Henry, wh. d. unm. 1676; Hannah; John; and Thomas; and
d. at the East Haven iron works, 1662. His wid. m. next yr. John Rose.
His inv. calls him of Malden, but the fam. was perpet. at New Haven,
by WILLIAM, prob. the eldest surv. s. wh. m. Martha, perhaps d. of
John Rose, had Henry; Elinor; and William, b. 26 Sept. 1686. By
sec. w. m. 1690, Mercy Whitehead, he had Mercy, b. 31 May 1691;
Hannah, 13 Mar. 1693; John, 31 Jan. 1695; Eliphalet, 28 Apr. 1697;
Elizabeth 1699, d. young; Dorothy, 16 July 1702; and Dorcas, 16 July
1701. The name is very rare of any other stock certain. but in the
spring of 1635 a Christian L. aged 18 embark. at London, on board the
LUDECAS or LEUDECOES, DANIEL, Dover 1659. His w. d. 1 Nov.
1662; and he d.in 1664.
LUDKIN, AARON, Charlestown, prob. s. of George or William, but
may have been younger br. of them, or otherwise relat. came, we may
Categories: Boston, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States | Charlestown, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States | Dover, Strafford, New Hampshire, United States | Massachusetts, United States | New Haven, New Haven, Connecticut, United States | Weymouth, Norfolk, Massachusetts, United States
Help fund new features!