Property:Warning

From Protoball
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a property of type Text.

Showing 106 pages using this property.
1
<br>  +
<br>  +
<br>  +
<br>  +
-
<p>  </p>  +
1
<p> </p> <p> </p>  +
<p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <div class="table_turner_container"> </div>  +
<p> </p> <table class="stats"> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><span>Note:</span> Protoball is not familiar enough with 1860s humor to determine exactly how authentic this report is. Bare ball-shooting guns sound pretty iffy.  But 1867 was the start of Base Ball Fever, and we guess someone might have tried mounted forms of the game.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>  +
<p>7</p>  +
P
<p><br/>On the 16th inst., the Union Club, of Richmond, a new organization, comprised of residents of Richmond, sent a challenge to the Richmond Club, the message sent being as follows:<br/>ROOMS UNION BASEBALL CLUB<br/>Richmond, Va., September 16, 1866</p><br/>SECRETARY OF THE RICHMOND BASEBALL CLUB:</p><br/>Sir:–Having been authorized, I hereby challenge the Richmond Club to a match-game of baseball, single game, to be played at any time between 5th and 20th of October, and according to the rules of the National Association. Please advise me of the action of the club as early as possible. Should the club think proper to decline the challenge, you will oblige me by stating plainly the reasons therefor.</p> <p><br/>Respectfully, J. F. Dooley,<br/>Corresponding Secretary of the Union Baseball Club.</p> <p><br/>The following was the gentlemanly(!) reply:</p> <p><br/>RICHMOND, September 22, 1866<br/>J. F. DOOLEY, SECRETARY UNION BASEBALL CLUB:<br/>SIR:–Your communication of the 21st [sic] instant is before me. I am instructed to state that the Richmond Baseball Club does not desire, and will not play the Union Club a single game. We are not or do we expect to be members of the National Baseball Convention. Our reason: We are Southerners. Hoping this may be satisfactory. I am,</p> <p><br/>J. V. BIDGOOD,<br/>Secretary Richmond Baseball Club</p>  +
1
<p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">There is considerable uncertainty as to the dating of this item at c1836..</span></p> <p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">John Zinn further researched the players named in the 1871 account, and wrote on 7/28/2015:  "It feels to me that the author [whom John identifies as John W. Pangborn] is conflating a number of different things (his role, for example) into a club that played in the late 1830's. However even if he is off by 10 years, a club of some kind in the late 1840's would be something new and, as John [Thorn] suggests, important." John Zinn also reported 7/28/2015 that Bentley was 31 years old in 1836, and that Edge was 22; John W. Pangborn, the suspected 1871 author, was born in 1825 so was only 12 in 1837.</span></p> <p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">Further commenting on the credibility of this 1871 account, Richard Hershberger [19cbb posting, 7/28/2015] adds: "<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">Going from general trends of the day, the [1871 author's] use of the word "club" is very likely anachronistic.  Organized clubs playing baseball were extremely rare before the 1840s in New York and the 1850s everywhere else.  On the other hand, informal play was common, and local competition between loosely organized groups is well attested.  My guess is that this was some variant or other. As for plugging, its mention increases the credibility of the account.  Even as early as 1871, plugging was being forgotten in the haze of the past.  Old-timers describing the game of their youth therefore routinely mentioned plugging as a distinctive feature. So putting this together, this looks to me like a guy reminiscing about quasi-organized (at most) play of his youth, using the anachronistic vocabulary of a "club." </span><br/></span></p> <p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"> </span></p>  
<p><span>Dating this item as "1840s" is speculative, and turns on the ages of the Freeman<em> </em> Arguments for an alternative dating are welcome.  </span></p>  +
<p><span>Richard Hershberger and others doubt the veracity of this story. He says [email of 1/30/2008] that one other account of that day says that Abe played hand-ball, and there is mention of this being the only athletic game that Abe was ever seen to indulge in. (But also see [[1830s.16]] on a younger Abe Lincoln and town ball in the 1830s).</span></p> <p><span>Source [2] above contains other accounts of the nomination story.  They support the idea that Lincoln "played ball" the day before the nomination, but it seems fairly clear that the game played was "fives," presumable a form of handball.  For a very helpful submission from Steve Gietschier on the content of <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Herndon's Informants,</span> see the Supplemental Text, below.</span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span> </span></p>  +
<p><span>The limited availability of positions played in early game reports and summaries makes the establishment of Adams's claim to have been the first to play the shortstop position tenuous. A page in the Knick's Game Books from July 1850 show that in one practice game he played "F" for "Field" instead of his usual position of "behind" (catcher), and so may be when he first took the position. Otherwise, there is no inidication in a primary source that he played the position until 1855.</span></p>  +
<p><strong>Caution:</strong> The editor of <em>The Canadian Newcomers Magazine</em> informed us on 1/10/2008 that the Tendulkar piece "was strictly an entertainment piece rather than an academic piece." We take this to say that the verse is not authentic. Email from Dale Sproule, Publisher/Editor.</p>  +
<p><strong>Caution:</strong> The arrival of the New York style of play was still a year into the future.</p>  +
<p><strong>Caveat:</strong> "Stobbal" is usually used to denote a field game resembling field hockey or golf; thus, this account may not relate to stoolball <em>per se</em>.</p>  +
<p><strong>Caveat:</strong> Collins - and Wallace -believed that the proscribed game was shinny, and Altherr makes the same judgment - see Thomas L. Altherr, "Chucking the Old Apple: Recent Discoveries of Pre-1840 North American Ball Games," <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Base Ball</span>, Volume 2, number 1 (Spring 2008), pages 35-36.</p>  +
<p><strong>Caveat:</strong> The Wikipedia entry is has incomplete citations and could not be verified.</p>  +
<p><strong>Caveat</strong>: Angus McFarland has not been able to verify this account as of November 2008.</p>  +
<p><strong>Note </strong>that this enigmatic excerpt does not directly attribute to Crapo these references to ballplaying.  </p> <p><strong>Note</strong> that there is reason to ask whether these games, or the ones described in [[1853.7]], were known as "rounders" when they were played.  As far  as we know, his sources did not use the name rounders, and Fuess may be imposing his assumption, in 1917, that base ball's predecessor was formerly known as rounders.  His book observes, elsewhere, that in warm weather students "tried to improve their skill at the rude game of "rounders," out of which, about 1860, baseball was beginning to evolve."     </p> <p> </p>  +
<p><strong>Note:</strong> This assumes that the elevens at Haverford (see #[[1848.8]] above) don't qualify for this honor.</p>  +
<p><strong>Note:</strong> This brochure seems to imply that New York rules governed this game, but does not say so.</p>  +
<p><strong>Note:</strong> We have other no evidence that the term "<strong>Massachusetts Game</strong>" was actually in use as early as 1854.  The earliest it is found is 1858.</p>  +
<p><strong>Note</strong>: Whaaaat? See #1828.1 above, and the <a href="http://retrosheet.org/Protoball/Rounders">Rounders Subchronology</a>.</p>  +
<p>A claim that the Live Oaks, or the Olympics, preceded the Flour Citys appears above - see #1855.14.</p>  +
<p>About 30 years later, reporter William Rankin wrote that Alexander Cartwright introduced familiar modern rules to the Knickerbocker Club, including 90-foot baselines.  </p> <p>As of 2016, recent scholarship has shown little evidence that Alexander <span class="sought_text">Cartwright</span> played a central role in forging or adapting the Knickerbocker rules.  See Richard Hershberger, <em>The Creation of the Alexander <span class="sought_text">Cartwright</span> Myth (</em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Baseball Research Journal</span>, 2014), and John Thorn, "<em>The Making of a New York Hero" dated </em>November 2015, at <a href="http://ourgame.mlblogs.com/2015/11/30/abner-%3Cspan%20class=">cartwright/.">http://ourgame.mlblogs.com/2015/11/30/abner-<span class="sought_text">cartwright</span>/.</a></p> <p>John's concluding paragraph is: "Recent scholarship has revealed the history of baseball's "creation" to be a lie agreed upon. Why, then, does the legend continue to outstrip the fact?  "Creation myths, wrote Stephen Jay Gould, in explaining the appeal of Cooperstown, "identify heroes and sacred places, while evolutionary stories provide no palpable, particular thing as a symbol for reverence, worship, or patriotism."</p>  +
<p>According to Peter Morris in <em>Base Ball Pioneers </em>(McFarland, 2012, p. 253), the first club, the Excelsior, took the field in 1858. Source: William R. Griffith, <em>The Early History of Amateur Baseball in the State of Maryland</em>, (Baltimore, n.p.1997), p. 4.</p>  +
<p>According to the <em>Boston Herald</em> (April 9, 1860), the MABBP convention drew only 33 delegates from 12 clubs.</p> <p> </p>  +
<p>Anachronism alert-- in 1862 Princeton was known as the College of New Jersey.</p> <p>See also item #[[1857.23]] </p>  +
<p>As of 2016, recent scholarship has shown little evidence that Alexander Cartwright played a central role in forging or adapting the Knickerbocker rules.  See Richard Hershberger, <em>The Creation of the Alexander Cartwright Myth (</em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Baseball Research Journal</span>, 2014), and John Thorn, "<em>The Making of a New York Hero" dated </em>November 2015, at <a href="http://ourgame.mlblogs.com/2015/11/30/abner-cartwright/.">http://ourgame.mlblogs.com/2015/11/30/abner-cartwright/.</a></p> <p>John's concluding paragraph is: "Recent scholarship has revealed the history of baseball's "creation" to be a lie agreed upon. Why, then, does the legend continue to outstrip the fact?  "Creation myths, wrote Stephen Jay Gould, in explaining the appeal of Cooperstown, "identify heroes and sacred places, while evolutionary stories provide no palpable, particular thing as a symbol for reverence, worship, or patriotism."</p>  +
<p>Block advises, August 2015: </p> <p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">That Cassandra Cooke, writing in the late 18th century, would have her readers believe that baseball was part of the vernacular in the early 17th century is certainly interesting, but since one contemporary reviewer labelled her book "despicable" there is absolutely no reason to think she had any more insight into the era than we do 216 years later.</span></p>  +
<p>Caveats: Admission was charged in 1858 for the Brooklyn-New York games at the Fashion Race Course, Queens, which was enclosed but not a 'ball field'. </p> <p>             Before the Union Grounds, there were no ball field enclosed for the purpose of charging admission.</p>  +
<p>Citing the makeup of these players as differing from that of early town ball players' reports, and seeing the 1829 account as more of a morality tale than a reliable report, Richard Hershberger (email of 10/31/12) discounts this item as an account of the origins of Philadelphia town ball.</p> <p>In 1831 two organized groups, which later merged, played town ball: for a succinct history of the origins of Philadelphia town ball, see Richard Hershberger, "A Reconstruction of Philadelphia Town Ball," <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Base Ball</span>, volume 1 number 2 (Fall 2007), pp 28-29.</p>  +
<p>Dating this entry in the 1840s is highly arbitrary.  It is included only because it suggests that round ball and wicket were locally seen as common past activities at this fine college as of 1871.</p>  +
<p>Dating this remembered practice to the 1830s is somewhat arbitrary, as the writer's age in 1847 is unknown.  Locating the practice in NY State is also uncertain.</p>  +
<p>Dating this throwback game to the 1850s is arbitrary.  Correction welcomed.</p>  +
<p>David Nevard raises vital questions about this account: "I have my doubts about this item - it just doesn't seem to fit. 1) The club names don't sound right. The famous club from Medway was the Unions, not the Medways, and I haven't seen any other mention of Union Excelsiors. 2) Lowry's evolution of the longest Mass Game does not mention this one. He shows the progression (in 1859) as 57 inns, 61 inns, 211 inns. It seems like a 4 day game in 1858 would have lasted longer than 57 innings. 3) It's a recollection 50 years after the fact. $1000, 10,000 people." [Email to Protoball, 2/27/07.]</p>  +
<p>Douglass is not explicit about the period referenced here, but that it is before the Civil War.</p>  +
<p>Dup of 1862.20?</p>  +
8
<p>Even Homer nods</p>  +
1
<p>In 2016, an 1845 edition of this book was discovered, and Protoball began to explore translations of its text.  See http://protoball.org/1845.29.</p>  +
<p>It appears that Fuess, the 1917 author, viewed this game as <strong>rounders</strong>, but neither the Mowry description nor the Hardy reference uses that name. It is possible that Fuess was an after-the-fact devotee of he rounders theory of base ball. The game as described is indistinguishable from <strong>round ball</strong> as played in New England, and lacks features [small bat, configuration of bases] used in English rounders during this period.  The placement of the batter, the use of "tallies" for runs, and the 50-inning game length suggests that the game played may have been a version of what was to be encoded as the <strong>Massachusetts Game</strong> in 1858.</p>  +
<p>It is not clear that this article reflects actual wicket play, or interest, in New Orleans in 1841.</p> <p>The text appears have been 'borrowed' from a Cleveland paper: See [[1841.17]]</p> <p>However, [[1844.13]] shows that a New Orleans wicket club did call a meeting in 1844.</p>  +
<p>It is not clear whether this qualifies as the first intercollegiate game by modern rules.</p>  +
<p>It is, of course, difficult to specify a reasonable date for a fictional account like this one.</p>  +
<p>It would be desirable to locate and inspect the Josephus Clarkson diary used in Twombley [A, above.]. Clarkson, described as a ship's chandler before the war, does not yield to Google or Genealogy bank as of 6/6/2009 or 4/3/2013.  John Thorn's repeated searches have also come up empty.  Particularly questionable is Clarkson's very early identification of Cartwright as an originator of the NY game.</p>  +
<p>John Thorn, on July 11, 2004, advised Protoball that "a challenge to the citation is a photo at the NBL of the Bostons of San Francisco, with a handwritten contemporary identification 'organized 1857'."</p>  +
<p>John Zinn: <span>It feels to me that the author is conflating a number of different things (his role, for example) into a club that played in the late 1830's.  However even if he is off by 10 years, a club of some kind in the late 1840's would be something new and, as John Thorn suggests, important.</span></p>  +
<p>Lacking enclosed fields, turnstiles or ticket stubs, attendances are only visual estimates.</p>  +
<p>NOTE: DEB SHATTUCK HAS SUPPLEMENTAL DATA ON THIS EVENT AND WILL BE AMENDING THIS ENTRY ACCORDINGLY IN DECEMBER 2013.</p>  +
<p>None of these sources gives a reference to evidence of the 1856 formation of the Union Club, so we here rely on the documented reference to a planned 1858 game. </p>  +
<p>Not found in <em>Porter's Spirit of the Times</em>, Oct. 1 - Oct. 8, 1859)</p>  +
<p>Note Civil War historian Bruce Allardice's caveat, above:  "In my opinion the clubs that played weren't 'corps' clubs, but rather regimental or brigade clubs that by their play other regiments/brigades <em>claimed</em> the Third and Sixth Corps championships."</p>  +
<p>Note that while Wheaton calls his group the "first ball organization," in fact the Philadelphia club that played Philadelphia town ball had formed several years earlier.</p>  +
<p>Note: Craig Waff asks whether clubs could formally claimed annual championships this early in base ball's evolution; email of 10/28/2008. He suggests that, under the informal conventions of the period, the Gothams [who had wrested the honor from the Knickerbockers in September 1856], held it throughout 1857.</p>  +
<p>Note: as of January 2023, we are uncertain whether this game was played by modern (Knickerbocker) rules.  See John Zinn's assessment, below.</p>  +
<p>One wishes there was more evidence that this form of "base" was a ball-game, and not a game like tag or capture-the-flag.  If "base" was a ball-game, this report of native American play nearly 3 centuries ago is certainly remarkable. </p>  +
<p>Our dating of this reflection as c1850 is arbitrary. Parris writes only the the (unnamed) game was known before game the modern game arrived in 1864-65.  This reflection was reported in 1945 -- 95 years after 1850, when Parris himself was in his mid-90s'</p>  +
<p>Peter Morris'<em> A Game of Inches</em> finds other claims to the invention of the current figure 8 stitching pattern. See section 9.1.4 at page 275 of the single-volume, indexed edition of 2010.</p>  +
<p>Primary source of poem not known. From a 19CBB post by Tom Shieber, Oct. 28, 2003</p>  +
<p>Review of the <em>New York Clipper</em> did not find the reported game account.</p>  +
<p>Richard Hershberger (email of 10/6/2014) points out that the <em>Sunday Mercury</em> account of this game's key at bat "makes it clear that they were swinging strikes'[not called strikes].   </p>  +
<p>Richard Hershberger [email of 10/19/2009] notes that, in examining the article on the MA game, he found that the sides had ten players each, but seems otherwise to reflect Association rules. He notes that outside of match games, it was not unusual for clubs to depart from the having nine players on a side.</p>  +
<p>Robert E. Lee is reported to have become Superintendent of West Point in September 1852; and had been stationed in Baltimore until then; can Calthrop's date be reconciled?</p>  +
<p>Rounders and Feeder texts are cloned from 1841.1, as is 1843.3</p>  +
<p>SF early baseball specialist [[Angus Macfarlane]] points out that this game was not carried in any SF newspaper still extant, despite the fact that many were lauding the game just a few months later (email of 12/15/12). Another report (also lacking a local reference) of the foundation of a club, the San Francisco BBC, appeared in the <em>Spirit of the Times</em> on 3/27/1858. Images exist of a "Boston BBC of San Francisco" organized in 1857, but no further references are known. </p>  +
<p>See 1860.38. Either the 1860 game in Allegheny was unknown, or not considered to have been played under National Association rules.</p>  +
<p>Smoking is hazardous to your success in base ball.</p>  +
<p>Some portions of this image were indistinct, and some areas were clipped off.</p>  +
<p>Some scholars have expressed doubt about the authenticity of this diary entry, which differs from an earlier type-script version.</p>  +
<p>The "firsts" tentatively listed above are for the US play of baserunning games other than cricket.  Further analysis is needed to confirm or disconfirm its elements. </p>  +
-
<p>The date of the <em>Odyssey</em>, given here as circa 700 BCE, is not even generally agreed to by scholars.  Don't take it literally; it is presented only because formatted chronology listings need to place an entry somewhere, or otherwise omit them entirely </p>  +
1
<p>The dates that these games were originally seen are not reported.  We have assigned them to "the 1850s," but they may have been played before that.</p>  +
<p>The legend is that Cartwright played his way west. Nucciarone, page 30: "[W]hile it's easy to imagine Cartwright playing baseball when he could and spreading the new game across the country as he went, it's much more difficult to prove he did this. The evidence is scant and inconsistent."</p>  +
<p>The period when this old fashioned game -- and the others described in <span style="text-decoration: underline;">A Manly Pastime</span> was actually played in the celebrated past is not known.  We have listed "1850s" here for the dates of play merely in order to secure a place for the facts in our chronology.</p>  +
<p>The reference to cricket resulted from the translation of the Dutch word  "balslaen" into "cricket." Others have apparently translated it as "tennis."Further, "ball-playing" is a translation from "kaetsen."</p>  +
<p>The rules for this match are not known.</p> <p>Protoball suggests that this game was played by early Mass Game rules, based on the use of the best-of-five format, but this is mere speculation.</p> <p> </p>  +
<p>The text does not state the exact period that is described in this account.</p>  +
<p>The writer present no evidence as to the earliest dates of known play.</p>  +
<p>The <em>New York Sunday Mercury </em>of June 3, 1860, carries the box score of a "NEW YORK vs. CANADA' game in Schenectady, NY, between the Mohawk Club and the "Union Club of Upper Canada". The box indicates that the game was played by the New York Rules. However, the political unit called Upper Canada went out of existence in 1841.  A youthful nineteenth century prank?  See also "Supplemental Information," below, for further commentary. </p>  +
<p>There are many issues with any individual claim to invention of the curve ball.</p>  +
<p>There is no such county as Nathanial County, PA. Nor was I able to find the named individuals in the 1830 census. [ba]</p>  +
<p>There is some ambiguity about the city intended in this recollection.  Springfield IL and New Salem IL seem mostly likely locations.</p>  +
<p>This coincidence is not taken as evidence that Abner Doubleday "invented" base ball.</p>  +
<p>This entry appears to be in error caused by a mistake in binding local newspapers, and the cited <em>Telegraph</em> article may have appears as late as 1880.</p> <p>From a 5/24/2013 email to Protoball from Bruce Allardice: </p> <p>I've found proof that the 1939 WPA report on an 1851 game between Lockport and Joliet is incorrect. Below is what I've added to the Lockport entry in protoball:</p> <p> "The book "19th Century Baseball in Chicago" (Rucker and Fryer) p. 13 asserts that the Lockport <em>Telegraph</em> of Aug. 6, 1851 reported on a game between the Hunkidoris of Joliet and the Sleepers of Lockport. The book credits a 1939 WPA report on early Chicago area baseball for this.</p> <p>The authors are correct in what the 1939 report said. However, the 1939 report was incorrect. I talked to the librarian at the Lockport Public Library who told me that the 8-6-51 issue of the Telegraph was mistakenly bound with a newspaper from many years later, and that the Hunkidoris game article is from a newspaper 30 years later."</p> <p>I also looked at a microfilm copy of the 8-6-51 issue of the Lockport newspaper, and found no mention of baseball.</p> <p>Too bad, If it had been true, it would have been the first verified baseball game outside the New York area.</p> <p>The librarian (now retired, and volunteering at the Will County Historical Society) is familiar with the issue, but can't remember what newspaper or date the Hunkidori game was mentioned in.</p> <p> </p>  +
<p>This is a very early claim for town ball, preceding even New England references to bat-and-ball,  roundball or like games. It would be useful to examine C. Davidson's sources on town ball and cat.<strong>  </strong>Are we content that these games were found in NC in the 1750s?</p>  +
<p>This is more likely a game 1855-60, played at the Ridgeville schools near Cincinnati.</p>  +
<p>This item is assigned a dating of "1850s," but we lack data on when the club first played, and conceivably it reflected rules in place locally before that.</p>  +
<p>This item was originally dated 1828, and adjusted to 1825 in 2020. For some details, see<em> Supplemental Text</em> below.</p>  +
<p>This reference can be taken as an indication that "base" was played years before 1835, possibly in the New York area, but the date it was played, and the location of play, is impossible to discern from this account.</p>  +
<p>This story has been seriously questioned by recent scholarship, which has found nothing in Cartwright's own papers, or his family's, that confirm it.  The two claims -- that Cartwright laid out a ballfield and that he taught base ball widely -- are thus not found in Monica Nucciarone's thorough <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Alexander Cartwright: The Life Behind the Baseball Legend</span> (U of Nebraska Press, 2009).</p>  +
<p>This was not Harvard's introduction to the New York game.  See entry [[1858.51]].</p>  +
B
<p>Today's reader will want to determine how modern demography sees the advent of blond-haired Berbers and the evidence on the preservation of games and cultural rituals over scores of human generations.  </p>  +
1
<p>Tom Gilbert, 3/5/2021-- "Creighton’s hernia did not “rupture”— it led to a strangulated intestine which became infected; the infection killed him. We know this because both Brooklyn Health Dept records and Green-Wood Cemetery records state the cause of death as “strangulated intestine.”</p>  +
<p>We are uncertain whether the game was a running game or a field-hockey=-type game also called "stoball." </p>  +
<p>We have assigned this to a date of ca. 1830 on the basis that players in their sixties seem to have played this (same) game as young adults.  Comments welcome on this assumption.  Were the southern shores of Lake Erie settled by Europeans at that date?</p>  +
<p>We have dated this entry as reflecting 1850s play of round ball.  This dating is highly uncertain.  One of the named participants (John Puffer), is identified by Joanne Hulbert as a participant in Holliston MA ballplaying in the 1850s.</p>  +
B
<p>We have incomplete assurance that Isaiah actually referred to a ball, or even to the act of throwing.</p> <p>A compilation of 15 English translations [accessed at <a href="http://bible.cc/isaiah/22-18.htm%20on%2012/29/10">http://bible.cc/isaiah/22-18.htm on 12/29/10</a>] shows that most of them summon the image of an angry God hurling the miscreant, like a ball, far far away. (One exception, however, cites the winding of a turban, not a ball.) A literal translation is unrevealing: "And thy coverer covering, wrapping round, Wrappeth thee round, O babbler, On a land broad of sides—there thou diest."</p>  +
1
<p>We have not inspected the data on play at the Gunnery School to determine if New York rules were used.</p>  +
<p>While the preface to this book stresses that it is designed to be limited to "sports which prevail in our country," it includes sections on stoolball and rounders, neither known to have been played very widely here. </p> <p>Can we rule out the possibility that this book reflects English play, and was written for an English readership?  If so, why is cricket not included?  Because cricket is for older players?</p> <p> </p>  +
<p>While this chron entry is dated circa 1824, the installation of sections of <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Our Village</span> may have begun in 1826.</p>  +
<p>Wittke took liberties with, or misunderstood, his source. The remark quoted in <em>Porter's </em>referred to the morning practice hours of the clubs, not to games.</p>  +
<p>[B] Adelman regarded <em>Spirit</em>'s claim as "premature" because New York Rules baseball had not spread beyond the immediate area in 1857, but a more likely perspective is that such claims for baseball at this time stemmed from its presence nationwide in various forms since the colonial era.</p>  +
<p>but see #1838c.8 above - LM</p>  +
Dating this remembered practice to the 1830s is somewhat arbitrary, as the writer's age in 1847 is unknown.  Locating the practice in NY State is also uncertain.   +