See, Afterthoughts & Modifications at the Beacon site.
- Vol. II, No. 6 -- Following changes incorporated into a 2nd Edition on Dec. 30, 2012: Page 1, change 1592 to 1492. (Before 1623/24), Son, Richard, was born in 1621. Page 2 (1623/24), Thomas, George, and Richard came with their parents. Page 3 (1630), Winthrop went southwest rather than west. (1635), remove that Richard was born in 1632. Page 5 (1935), change to John Lowell Gardner II. (1999 New entry), On March 20, David Goss talked to the ESOG about the old planters who received land in Beverly. Thomas Gardner was not in that group see (Discussion).
... This Annals view is sketchy, at this point, and not complete. It will be filled in (and edited) so as to provide a sound point of reference.
- Vol. II, No.5 -- In regard to the 1992 exoneration, it should read that, in that year, the Massachusetts House of Representatives issued "a resolution honoring those who died" during the time of the trials. In 2001, Governor Jane Smith signed an exoneration for the remaining five: Bridget Bishop, Susannah Martin, Alice Parker, Wilmot Redd and Margaret Scott. Others had been exonerated,earlier.
- Vol. I, No. 4 -- Where there is reference to Giles Corey's sons (2nd page, 1st column, last paragraph), it ought to have been his sons-in-laws (and his daughters).
02/12/2019 -- Gardner's Beacon is now in its ninth volume (last issue, Vol. VIII, No. 2). As well, we have a new site at which we'll work at new ideas for presentation: TGSoc.org. On the Publications page, we will provide an additional facility for handling submissions of Comment & Criticism. This was a section in Dr. Frank's The Massachusetts Magazine. The Gardner Annals is now in its fifth volume. We have had two print releases, so far: Vols I & II and Vols III & IV which included issues of Gardner's Beacon, Vols I thru III and Vols IV thru VII, respectively.
08/15/2014 -- See Source Change, Vol. IV, No 1. Issue of references: Genseric (the Vandal) or John Fiske (we know the latter is the author - the question arises: why lift this whole book to a particular site when archive.org has a perfectly good digital copy that is free to read? is it not obvious that duplicates, such as this, can cause some problems to come to fore?).
03/27/2014 -- While reviewing the site, I found a couple of misspeaks in Vol. I, No. 3.
12/30/2012 -- More corrections added. Set up for, and publish, the 2nd edition.