Lemuel Shattuck; Dutton & Wentworth, Boston, 1855. pp 8 - 14

The name of SHATTUCK is of doubtful origin. Whether it was assumed as a while in nearly its present form, or whether it is compounded of parts of other names; or whether it had any specific meaning; or what changes it underwent antecedent to the date of its earliest history known to s, is now entirely hypothetical. Its proper orthography is SHATTUCK; and its proper pronunciation as if written Shat’-uk, with the accent on the first syllable. This spelling and pronunciation should be insisted upon, and every deviation from it avoided. Few names, however, have been presented in a greater variety of written forms. This has been occasioned, probably, by the different modes of its pronunciation, and by a representation of its phonetic sounds by letters. Sometimes it is written nearly in conformity with the true orthography and pronunciation, as SHATAC, SHATTAUK, SHATHOOKE, SHATHAUK, AND SHATOC, SHATTOCK, SHATTOCKE. At other times the pronunciation is varied by substituting the sounds of ‘d’ for ‘t’ and ‘o’ for ‘u’ and is written SHADDUCK, SHADOCK, SHADOC, AND CHADDOCK, CHADDUCK, CHADOCK, and CHADOC. It is also written SHADDIC, CHADWICK, CHADWYKE, SHADIOKE, CHADIOC. SHATTOCKE was the spelling in use when our first American ancestors emigrated to this country, and it is still in use in some of the municipal registers in England.

CHADDOCK, or CHADDUCK, as a distinct name, has been occasionally, though rarely, borne by persons from the first settlement of New England. WINTHROP, in 1643, makes mention of "one Captain John CHADDOCK, son of him that was governor of Bermuda, a godly gentleman." There was a Thomas CHADDOCK of Newbury, who married Sarah WALCOTT in 1674. Elias CHADDOCK (sometimes written SHADDOCK and SHADOCK) died in Windsor, Conn., in 1676, leaving a daughter Hannah, and a widow Hannah who married, in 1678, Benjamin EGELSON. James CHADDUCK was paid, in 1676, by the governor at Hartford, 5 pounds " for his services as commissioner, besides his soldier’s pay." Samuel and John SHADDOCK were taxed in Boston in 1695. What the true name in these cases was, whether CHADDOCK, SHATTUCK, or CHADWICK, or whether they were, or were not, all one name, is uncertain. Rev. Calvin CHADDUCK, who was graduated at Dartmouth College in 1791, and afterward lived in Rochester and Hanover, and died in Virginia, (see Barry’s History of Hanover, pp. 70, 93, 263,) was father of E. N. CHADDOCK, once of New Bedford, and now of Boston. His mother, Malatiah, died in the latter place, October 5. 1854, aged 84. The father of Rev. Calvin was Joseph CHADDUCK of Brookfield, and his grandfather is said to have been of Reading, and his original name is supposed to have been CHADWICK. David "SHADDOCK," probably a descendant of this Joseph, now of Buffalo, was the son of Isaac SHADDOCK, and born in Boston.

CHADWICK has sometimes been regarded another form of the name of SHATTUCK, and as originating from the same source. This may have been true as to its origin in England, but it has ever been borne by separate and distinct families form the first settlement of this country. There was a Charles, a John, and a Thomas CHADWICK, in Watertown, sons of Charles CHADWICK, and contemporary with our ancestor, the first William SHATTUCK, and, as far as can be ascertained, not his relatives. Their names were, however, occasionally written both ways in the records, the one for the other. Entries of "John CHADWICK," April 7th, and "John Shadduck," June 4th, 1685, relating to the same person, are found upon the records of Watertown. The entry of " Mary SHATTUCK, daughter of John and Mary SHATTUCK, born the 14th of December, 1678," should be Mary CHADWICK, daughter of John and Sarah CHADWICK. There was a Samuel CHADWICK (sometimes written SHATTUCK,) in Woburn, in 1675. He had children who lived in Reading, and he was probably the ancestor of Rev. Calvin CHADDUCK, before mentioned. Joseph CHADWICK, who married Mary JENKINS,, in Malden, in 1732, is supposed to have been his grandson. Others of this name are found elsewhere in New England. A curious illustration of the variations, in its orthography appears upon the records of Worcester County. In 1765, "Henry SHADDICK" was appointed administrator on the estate of his father "Joseph CHADWICK." In 1767, "John SHADDICK" of Worcester, executed a will, mentioning his son "Joseph CHADWICK:" while in 1787, "David SHATTUCK," of the same family, purchased lands. The true name of these cases was undoubtedly CHADWICK, but it is curious that such variations should appear in official documents, nearly contemporary, relating to the same family. Thomas P. SHADDICK, now of Boston, whose father lives in Middletown, Conn., probably originated from the CHADWICKs.

The name of SHATTUCK, though not very rare, cannot be considered as very common. It occasionally appeared upon the records of Essex County, in connection with Samuel SHATTUCK and his posterity, from 1641 to 1735; but it afterwards became extinct in that line. It, however, has appeared in that county relating to Joseph SHATTUCK of Andover, a different branch of the family, and has continued there for the last hundred and twenty-five years. In Watertown, Middlesex County, the residence of our first American ancestor, it often occurred for the first hundred years after its settlement, but for the last hundred years is not found upon the town records. Three of the grandsons of he first William settled in Groton. Descendants of the other two were the principal settlers of that part of Groton which is now comprised within the town of Pepperell. This territory, originally a part of Groton, was incorporated, in 1742, as a separate parish, and, in 1753, as a town. The SHATTUCKs and their connections were the largest original proprietors, and owned the largest part of this town. The name is now and ever has been, more common there than any other. In 1761, of the 106 families then in Pepperell, 11, or nearly 11.25 percent, bore the name of SHATTUCK. In 1853, of 426 legal voters, 36. or nearly 8.25%, bore the same name. Rev. Mr. Emerson, the first minister of Pepperell, is said to have remarked, that " he sometimes regretted that he did not marry a SHATTUCK, for he should then have been related to the whole town"! The name does not appear in the Indices of the Suffolk Records prior to 1800, excepting in connection with William SHATTUCK, then a distinguished merchant of Boston, or his family. A mortgage deed to Josiah SHATTUCK of Cambridge occurs, as the only exception. William, just mentioned, is the only instance which appeared in the Boston Directory, and first appeared in 1809, then the only representative of the name. In 1830, five of the name are found in the Directory; in 1835, six; in 1840, ten; in 1845, nineteen; and in 1850, twenty-one. It has not often appeared in the Directories of other cities. In that of New York, for 1853, one only is found; two in Philadelphia, none in Baltimore, two in Buffalo, and two in Cincinnati. It now occurs, however, in nearly every state in the Union. From a statement, presently to be exhibited, it is supposed that four or five thousand of all ages and sexes are now existing who bear the name, all of whom, probably, originated from William SHATTUCK, the Memorials of whose posterity constitute the principal part of this work.

Thirteen of the name of SHATTUCK had graduated at the different colleges in New England prior to 1853. Six at Harvard-- Benjamin, 1709; Stephen, 1756; Benjamin, 1797; George C., 1831; George O., 1851. Five at Dartmouth-- Caleb, 1794; Nathaniel, 1801; George C., 1803; Cortland W., 1840; Jonathan C., 1842. One at Burlington-- Erasmus D., 1848. And one at Middletown-- David O. One by the name of CHADDUCK, at Dartmouth-- Calvin,1791; Five by the name of CHADWICK, one at Harvard-- Benjamin, 1770; two at Dartmouth-- George, 1825; William, 1830; one at Yale-- Joseph, 1821; and one at Bowdoin-- Edmund, 1840. Dr. George C. SHATTUCK left a legacy to Harvard College, Which has been set apart to constitute four scholarships, and denominated "SHATTUCK Scholarships." The name is therefore likely to be perpetuated in that institution.

Few attempts have been made to ascertain the European origin and history of the family. Our design has been to trace our ancestors back to that heroic and noble band of Puritan emigrants who first settled New England, and gave it its distinctive character; and to exhibit the different generations of their descendants, Americanized and modified by the circumstances of their existence, and by the peculiar institutions they have aided in founding, and with which they have been connected or surrounded. This has been considered a sufficient gratification for the labor required. The difficulties of authenticating a connection between an American and English ancestor are so great, that we prefer to leave the problem unsolved, rather than to assume any relationship from any cause unsupported by conclusive evidence.


FOOTNOTE: After this was written we received the valuable work of the Rev. Joseph Hunter of London on "The Founders of New Plymouth." In a note (p.6.) the author desires, "in the most friendly spirit, to offer a hint or two to our brethren in New England," and says;--"No genealogy is of the least value that is not supported by sufficient evidence from records or other contemporary writing. The mere possession of a surname which coincides with that of an English family is no proof of connection with that family. Claims of alliance founded on this basis are not the legitimate offspring of laborious genealogical inquiry, but of self love, and the desire to found a reputation for ancestorial honor where no such honor is really due. Search out the history of your ancestors by all means: but claim no more than you can show to belong to you. As far as you can "prove" you are safe, and you are doing a work that is good: but the assumption of the armorial distinctions of eminent English families who happen to bear the same nobility or gentry of England. When it can be "proved", well and good: but no terms can be too severe to reprobate it where there is no proof, or even where there is no show of probability. It may lead to unfounded claims, not only to honor, but to property." And he proceeds to state that Winslow, Brewster, and Bradford are the only passengers in the Mayflower who have been traced to an English birth place. Guided by these wise suggestions, some of our genealogical structures would have to be repaired or remodeled before they would become safe dwelling places.


A tradition has existed that the family ere of German origin; but if such be the fact, which is not improbable, it must have existed there in a very remote antiquity. It may have been, and probably was, among the Angles and Saxons, or Anglo-Saxons of the northerly part of Continental Europe, who peopled England and America with their most shrewd and energetic races. If we adopted terms in common use in our day, we might denominate ourselves Americanized-Anglo-Saxons.

A friend of ours, in making researches for other purposes. incidentally met with some facts, from which it appears that he found the name in Old England more than a hundred years before the settlement of New England. In the year 1525 Samuel SHATTOCKE and Alice SHATTOCKE of Tolland, in Somersetshire, appear upon the Rolls which contain the Assessments of the Subsidies granted by Parliament. At Wells, in that county, are deposited the will on John SHATTOCKE of Beckenaller, proved in 1533, which mentions son Thomas and relative John GRANT; and the will of Alexander SHATTOCKE of Bagborough, proved in 1588, which mentions sons Alexander, Robert, and William. Daughters Joan and Dorothy, wife Susan, executrix, brother Richard SHATTOCKE, and witnessed by George SHATTOCKE and others. In the Subsidy Rolls for 1597, John Shattuck was assessed for lands, and William SHATTOCKE and Joanna SHATTUCK of Burland were assessed for goods; Henry SHATTOCKE of Bishops for lands; Isota SHATTOCKE, widow of Elworthy, for lands; Thomas SHATTOCKE of Cumberland, for lands; Robert SHATTOCK of Norton, for goods; Henry SHATTOCKE of Westminster, for goods. In the same Rolls for 1628, Humphrey SHATTOCKE of the same place was assessed for lands. And in 1642, Philip SHATTUCK of Taunton, Thomas SHATTOCKE of Kingston, the widow SHATTOCKE of Staplegrove, and Henry SHATTOCKE of Norton, were assessed for the same purpose,. In the parish register of St. Lawrence in Reading, Berkshire, are found the baptism of the following children of William SHATTUCK:--William, May 3, 1628; Susan, Sept. 14, 1632; Elizabeth, April 29, 1635. Also, the marriage of Samuel SHATTUCK and Mary SNELL, July 19, 1628; and the burial of Elizabeth SHATTUCK, Dec. 31, 1636. The name might probably be discovered in other counties, by an examination of the records.


FOOTNOTE: A Catalogue of a London Bookseller, for 1854, advertises a manuscript almanac, described as "very cleverly written, in exact imitation of printing type, a work of untiring labor, the whole interspersed throughout with verses on the months, chronology, &v. 8vo, neat, 1 Pound 1 Shilling." Under the title, "Calendarium Astronomicum; a Compleat Ephemeris of the Celestial Motions, for the year of Christ, 1704, with drawings of the Eclipses, 1703 to 1763, exactly calculated from "Astronomina Carolina," by JOHN CHATTOCK, Schoolmaster of Castle Bromwick, in Warwickshire."


These facts show that the family were owners of land and other property--evidences of respectability at that time, in that country. The name is still found in some of the counties above mentioned, and in other parts of England. John SHATTOCKE, whose name appears in the London Directory for 1824, and George SHATTUCK, in that of 1841, are the only instances of its occurrence in those years in that city.

In printed works we often find mentioned names which it has been supposed were once synonymous with ours. William CHADDOCK was one of the "pilgrims from England to Rome," in 1582. Joseph CHADDOCK, Esq. married May CHETHAM of Derbyshire, in 1703. Thomas CHADDOCK was of Congleton, in 1831. And this name occasionally, though rarely, occurs elsewhere. In 1570 there was a CHITTOCK who owned a manor in Norfolkshire, but whether this name had an origin similar to the other names we have mentioned is conjectural.

CHADWICK is a name of great antiquity in England, In Burke’s Landed Gentry, and in his Commoners, (Vol. III, P. 444,) it is stated that William de CHADWYKE, said to have been the first of the name upon record, was born about the year 1355, five hundred years ago, and was living in 1413. He had sons William and John de CHADWYKE, and perhaps other children. There was also a Nicholas de CHADWYCKE, nearly contemporary with the above William, but whether a relative or descendant is not positively stated. He was born in the time of Edward III, and died before 1443. He also had a son, John de CHADWICK. Alliances were formed between these and other patrician families; and from them have descended a long line of nobility and gentry, some of whom are still existing in England. There were other descendants, who were not entitled to armorial bearings. The family were possessed of large estates in the hamlet of CHADWICK, in Lancashire, and elsewhere. CHADIOKE is another ancient name, which bears some resemblance to SHATTUCK, and which, it is conjectured, might have been originally the same. There was a Sir John de CHYDEOKE (sometimes written CHIDEOKE, and CHADEOKE,) who was one of the Barons of Somersetshire, as early as the thirteenth century; and who, in the time of Henry VII, was described as one of the "noble families related to the Blood Royal." From him were descended, in male or female lines, many families of great distinction, and of great wealth, as well as others in the untitled ranks.


FOOTNOTE: See Nichols’s " Collectanea Topographica and Genealogica," and Burke’s Encyclopedia of Heraldry.


History shows that as great and even greater alterations have been made in process of time in the orthography of names, as would be required to change CHADDOCK, CHADWICK, and CHADIOKE into SHATTUCK. And an assumption that some of the families by the name of SHATTUCK, in Somersetshire and elsewhere, already mentioned, and even our own American ancestor, William SHATTUCK, were descended from William de CHADWYKE, or John de CHADIOKE, might not be farther from the truth than are some genealogical deductions we have seen published. And yet such an assumption is not proved; and it rests upon probabilities too feeble to be claimed with entire confidence. If any portion of noble blood, derived from these sources, courses in our veins, it is imperceptible, and is too small to remain uncontrolled by larger portions derived from other sources.

Transcribed by Robert Kline, June 1998.