lation of all the British islands at that time; hence we can claim William himself, and all his followers, as well as all other male adults of that time in England, for our English ancestors. Of course this includes all classes, criminals, as well as the nobility.

This seems impossible, but a solution has been advanced by Prof. David S. Jordan of Stanford University, in his "Footnotes to Evolution." He claims that intermarriages of those of the same ancestry have eliminated a large number of ancestors, By his permission, the following letter on the subject is copied :

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY,
CAL., Sept. 1, 1902.

COL. HENRY E. NOYES, 2611 Parker St., Berkeley, Cal.
Dear Sir: ·-

In a volume of mine, called "Footnotes to Evolution," under the head, "The Heredity of Richard Roe," you will find a number of suggestions as to genealogy, including the solution of the problem to which you refer.

As a matter of fact, there were living, say in the time of William the First, a certain number, say a million, of vigorous men, who have left numerous descendants, and whose descendants have inherited for the most part their own vigor. This million or so occur in the ancestry of nearly every Englishman of our time. If we could complete the genealogical tree, we should find that some of these men occur a thousand different times in the same genealogy. I doubt if there is an Englishman in the south of England who does not have the blood of Alfred and William the First in his own veins. His mother's family were descended from the Plantaganets, as were also his father's family, and probably Plantaganet blood from a thousand different sources runs in your veins and mine, and in those of any neighbor you may chance to meet. It is easy to prove this in every case in which a record has been kept. In most cases the

clues have been lost at the time of emigration. In other words, it is true that at the time of William the First you had an ancestry a thousand times greater than the population of England. But certain parts of this were repeated ten thousand times. Whatever line you follow, you will find somewhere at the end of it the same names.

Very truly yours,

(Signed)

DAVID S. Jordan.

Miss Harriette E. Noyes, associate author of this volume, is an example of Prof. Jordan's theory, as she is a descendant of Joseph3 (grandson of Nicholas) on the paternal and maternal side, her parents being cousins in the third degree. Her mother is also a descendant of Rev. James Noyes, brother of Nicholas.

Were there no intermarriages of ancestors, the mathematical calculation would hold good; but when there are such intermarriages, one-half of the ancestors, previous to those who intermarried, are eliminated.

ORIGIN OF THE NAME.

Those who are expecting to find recorded in this volume "A successive title long and dark,

Drawn from the mouldy rolls of Noah's Ark,"

will be somewhat disappointed. Interest is naturally felt in our ancestry and in the origin of the name, and it has been made the subject of considerable investigation. Some think it is derived from Noy, a titled English family name. Those who have made the subject of family names a study have generally agreed that the tendency has always been to shorten rather than lengthen them, whenever changed. This is natural, and tends to confirm the opinion formed from the first researches on the subject of which we have any record, as given in the memorandum of the eminent jurist, the late William Curtis Noyes, dated 20 Dec., 1847; from such a

source it is entitled to due consideration. This is supplemented and confirmed by George W. Noyes (783, chapter VI.), who went to England in 1867 to search the records there for his ancestry and the origin of the name: the notes of his researches are now in the possession of his nephew, Dr. Theodore R. Noyes, who, in answer to a letter on the subject, wrote a full account, from which the following extracts are copied, with his permission:

"281 West 114th St., New York, Dec. 3d, 1892. COL. HENRY E. NOYES, 2d Cavalry, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Dear Sir:

Your letter of the 14th ult., addressed to Rev. John H. Noyes, after some delay, was sent to his widow, my mother, who is living with me here, and has requested me to answer your queries. I am not much of a genealogist myself, but my uncle, George W. Noyes, father's younger brother, was an enthusiast in that and other antiquarian researches, and left a manuscript note book containing a summary of the result of his inquiries.

He begins with a reference to the "Domesday book," compiled by William the Conqueror about 1086, by which it appears that one of his commanders was William Des Noyers, who settled in the county of Norfolk, where he had large possessions (see Domesday book, Vol. 2, 116, 117, 135, 195 to 169). In Thierry's History of the Norman Conquest he is stated to have been one of the Barons of the Conqueror. The family continued in Norfolk and Suffolk many years, their descendants remaining to the present day (see Bloomfield's History of Norfolk). One of the family was imprisoned in the time of Mary for denying the "real presence" (see Fox's Martyrs-John Noyes).

My uncle was in England in 1867, and went to Wiltshire and Choulderton, where the father of Nicholas and James was rector about 1585 to 1616. The rector at the time of my uncle's visit was absent, so that my uncle could not get access to the register; but after his return to this country he received a courteous letter from the Rev. C. P. Clovetien, saying that the register dated

only from 1651. The rector whos tarted the register wrote on the page before beginning entries: "Mr. William Noyes, rector of Choulderton about thirty years, departed his life anno 1616. Mr. Nathan Noyes succeeded his father in the rectorie, and departed his life about 1651."

While the time from 1086 to the time of the Rev. William Noyes does not yield any regular genealogy, there is scarcely room for doubt that the family came down for five hundred years in a narrow region of Norfolk. When America is reached the line diverges into two distinct branches, those of James and Nicholas.

The following is my uncle's genealogical chart, with my own position indicated :—

William Des Noyers, Norman follower of William the Conqueror.

My uncle then goes on to detail a visit that he paid in 1865 to Atkinson, N. H., and Newburyport. He had a long talk with an old lady of 81, Judith Little, who established for him the identity of Joseph, the father of Humphrey, with the grandson of Nicholas mentioned in Savage's Genealogical Register.

Very respectfully,

(Signed) THEODORE R. NOYES."

The references in the foregoing letter have been examined and found generally correct, except that a casual reading of Thierry's History of the Norman Conquest shows William de Noyers as engaged with Roger Bigot and another Norman in despoiling some English refugees who fled from a neighboring county into Suffolk, in 1074. A careful reading would probably confirm the reference fully. Many other pages of Domesday book have records of lands held by him, or, as he is variously called, W. de Noers, W. denoes, Will de noers, Willm denuers, W. de noies, W. denoiers, W. de noiers, W. denoiers, Willi de noies, Willm denoiers. (The French name, translated, means, "William (of the) Walnut trees." The prefix "de" or "des" would naturally be dropped first, leaving, as the Anglicised form of the name, "William Noyers," which differs by only one letter from the name of our known English ancestor.

Some of the lands referred to were described as formerly the property of Bishop Stigand, who had taken a prominent part at the coronation of William, but was later deposed from his office and dispossessed of his lands, which were allotted to Normans. Stigand was Archbishop of Canterbury, and held much property which he was accused of having obtained illegally.

We are indebted to an expert in mediæval history (a member of the faculty of the California State University) for translating the abbreviated Latin of Domesday book.

Quite a number of other opinions as to the origin of the