What Happened To Granger's Animals After He Confessed In Bradford's Narrative?
The Plymouth Colony Annal Project
Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
© 1998 Copyright and All Rights Reserved
By Lisa Yard. Lauria
Academy of Virginia
Contents
II. Upper-case letter Offences: Sodomy
Three. Uppercase Offences: Rape
IV. Capital Offences: Buggery
V. Adultery
VI. Fornication
Vii. Attempts and Propositions
8. Lascivious and Suspicious Conduct
IX. Miscellaneous Offences
X. Equality in the Court?
11. Existent vs. Ideal Culture: A Summary
XII. References
Appendix I: The Laws
Appendix Ii: The Court Records
I. The Laws Governing Sexual Misconduct
The initial laws governing sexual misconduct in Plymouth Colony were part of the 1636 codified of laws. Prior to this appointment, iii cases of sexual misconduct were presented and ruled in the Court, two for fornication before marriage and 1 for "attempting uncleanes" (PCR 1:12, fifteen). Based on these cases, one can assume that the people of Plymouth operated under an unwritten lawmaking of moral behave before 1636. The new laws embodied this code, and distinguished between capital letter and criminal sexual offences. "Sodomy, rapes, and buggery" were declared "capital offences lyable to death" (PCR 11:12). Criminal offences include "ffornication and other uncleane carriages to exist punished at the discretion of the Majestrates according to the nature thereof" and "ffornication earlier contract or marriage" (PCR 11:12). Upon showtime reading the listed offences, 1 might think the double listing of fornication equally redundant, but I see this as an deed of clarification. While the second listing of fornication is ambiguous, I translate it as an outlaw of fornication before and after entering contract. I base of operations this interpretation on the court records that include convictions for fornication before and during the period of contract. In June of 1645, the General Court passed an human activity that outlined the penalisation for fornication. Every person who committed fornication "earlier or without lawfull contract" was to be imprisoned for upward to three days and either whipped or fined ten pounds. If a couple was in the period of contract, or engagement, at the fourth dimension of fornication, then the fine was reduced to 5 pounds per person (PCR eleven:46). This enactment was incorporated into the 1658 codification of laws. As I shall illustrate beneath, the size of the fines for fornication followed this legislation for the most office. However, imprisonments seem to have been abandoned soon after.
Ambiguities regarding adultery in the 1636 codification pose an interesting problem. In the records, adultery was originally listed as a criminal offence. It was so crossed out and added to the list of capital offences with the qualifier "to be punished" (PCR xi:12). The confusion reflected in the records played out in adultery cases throughout the colony'due south history. While adultery was never punished as a capital offence, information technology was handled as a very serious criminal offence. In the 1658 revision of the laws a more specific penalisation for adultery was stipulated.
Not only were convicted adulterers to exist severely whipped twice, but they were to forever display the nature of their crime upon their person. Hawthorne's infamous crimson letter of the alphabet was not a pure fiction. While the legislation did not specify a color for the textile letters, at least one court example did specify that they be ruby-red. Three cases of adultery appeared before the Court before the 1658 enactment, and in each case, at least one of the convicted party was forced to brandish letters upon the outer garment.It is enacted by the court and the authoritie therof that whosoeuer shall comitt Adultery shalbee seuerly punished past Whiping two seuerall times; namely once whiles the Court is in being att which they are convicted of the fact and the 2cond time as the Court shall guild and likewise to weare two Capitall letters namely A D cut out in cloth and sowed on theire vpermost Garments on theire arme or backe; and if att whatever time they shalbee taken without the said messages whiles they are in the Gouernment soe worn to bee forth with taken and publickly whipt. (PCR 11:95)
The most curious piece of legislation pertaining to sexual misconduct is a 1645 enactment that outlawed wearing "visors and strang apparell to laciuious ends and purposes." The diction of the passage suggests that the exercise of disguising oneself for purposes of sexual misconduct had become a trouble in Plymouth -- "wheras some abuses haue formerly cleaved out amongst u.s. by disguiseing"(PCR 11:48). The penalty for wearing a disguise for lascivious ends was a public whipping or a fine of fifty shillings for the first offence. A 2d offence increased the fine to five pounds, and, if the Bench thought it necessary, a "bound to the behauior." In 1658, the enactment was included in the codified of laws. The curious thing about this legislation is that no case of disguises being worn by masked lovers appears in the court records. The absence of such data indicates that some degree of particular is missing from the written account of the courtroom cases.
In June of 1670, the General Court passed the final piece of legislation concerning sexual misconduct. It stated "that whosoeuer haueing comitted vncleanes in another Collonie and shall come up hither and haue not satisfyed the police where the fact was comitted they shalbe sent backe or heer punished according to the Nature of the crime as if the acte had bine heer done"(PCR xi:229). The motivation for the development of this law suggests to me that one or several persons from neighboring colonies may have fled to Plymouth upon confidence of a sexual offence elsewhere. Regardless, this enactment clearly indicates that Plymouth Colony was not about to be a safety harbor to those information technology accounted moral deviants.
In the sections below, I examine the actual court cases of sexual misconduct in Plymouth Colony betwixt 1633 and 1691. I take grouped the cases into 8 categories of capital and criminal offences. The categories roughly include: sodomy, rape, buggery, adultery, fornication, attempts and propositions, lascivious and suspicious conduct, and miscellaneous sexual offences. I recognize that these categories are not conspicuously singled-out -- some cases fall into more than ane category and, in others, the wording of the case is vague.
Two. Capital Offences: Sodomy
But ane articulate case of sodomy appears in the court records of Plymouth colony. The case was heard on March 1, 1641/1642 and involved 3 men, Edward Michell, Edward Preston, and John Keene. The showtime ii men were presented on charges of "lude & sodomiticall practices disposed to sodomye" with i another. The tertiary, John Keene, was propositioned by Edward Preston, but "he resisted the temptacion, and vsed meanes to discouer information technology." Neither Michell nor Preston was sentenced to expiry for his crime, fifty-fifty though the 1636 laws clearly list sodomy as a uppercase offence. Both men were sentenced to a double whipping, once at Plymouth and a 2nd time at Barnestable. John Keene, since he resisted the temptation and obviously brought the crime to the knowledge of the court, was "appoynted to stand up by" while the other two men received their punishment. Upon first reading, this seems like a strange ruling on the function of the Court. Why did they particularly want Keene to be present? The answer may lie in the final phrase of John Keene'south ruling -- "though in some thing he was faulty"(PCR 2:35-36). Peradventure the means used to discover the crime involved a lesser degree of immoral behavior, and the Court'due south ruling was a punishment. While the Court recognized Keene's desire to bring this crime to justice, they did not disregard his deportment.
The second instance is the August half-dozen, 1637 ruling involving John Alexander and Thomas Roberts. While not direct labeled in the records as a case of sodomy, it is conspicuously an act of homosexual behavior. The Oxford English language Lexicon defines sodomy every bit "an unnatural form of sexual intercourse, esp. that of one male person with another." The definition is ambiguous, but since this case is clearly an human action of unconventional sexual relations between two men, I feel justified in including it hither. The text of the record reads every bit follows:
John Allexander [and] Thomas Roberts were both examined and plant guilty of lude behavior and uncleane carriage i w[ith] another, by frequently spendinge their seede one vpon some other, w[hich] was proued both past witnesse & their owne confession; the said Allexander found to haue beene formerly notoriously guilty that way, and seeking to allure others therevnto. The said John Allexander was therefore censured by the Court to exist seuerely whipped, and burnt in the shoulder w[ith] a hot atomic number 26, and to exist perpetually banished the gouernment of New Plymouth, and if he be at whatsoever tyme establish westward[ith]in the aforementioned, to bee whipped out againe by the appoyntment of the next justice, et cetera, and so as oft as he shall be institute w[ith]in this gouernment. W[hich] penalisation was appropriately inflicted.
The punishment inflicted on John Allexander -- severe whipping, branding, and banishment -- speaks to the severity of his crime in the optics of the Court. However, he was not put to death. Roberts' punishment resembles that of Michell and Preston. While he was not whipped a second time, his prospects for owning land later on his fourth dimension of indenture were placed in jeopardy.Thomas Roberts was censured to be severely whipt, and to returne to his m[aster], Mr. Atwood, and to serue out his tyme w[ith] him, but to exist disabled hereby to enjoy whatever lands westward[ith]in this gouernment, except hee manefest better desert. (PCR 1:64)
David Hackett Fischer traces the Puritan disdain for sodomy (and all forms of "unnatural sex" to a passage in the volume of Genesis, "where Onan 'spilled his seed upon the ground' in an effort to forbid formulation and the Lord slew him." Fischer relates that "seed-spilling in general was known as the 'hideous sin of Onanism'" in Massachusettes (1989:93). The story from the book of Genesis explains why both sodomy and buggery might have been listed every bit crimes punishable past death. The ruling for John Allexander seems to rank very high on the listing of criminal punishments. I have encountered only one criminal punishment that was more severe, that being for buggery (see below). The punishment inflicted on Edward Michell and Edward Preston was severe, but nowhere close to a capital punishment. Every bit I will show below, some cases of adultery -- a crime "to be punished" -- were punished more than severely than this particular example of sodomy.
III. Capital Offences: Rape
2 rape cases survive in the court records of Plymouth Colony. Rape is the second of the three crimes listed as punishable by death, simply neither case resulted in capital punishment. The showtime case was presented earlier the Court of Administration on October 30, 1677. Ambrose Fish was indicted "for that hee, haueing not the feare of God before his eyes, did wickedly, and contrary to the lodge of nature, . . . by force carnally know and rauish Lydia Fish, the girl of Mr Nathaniell Fish, of Sandwich aforsaid, and against her will, shee being then in the peace of God and of the Kinge" (PCR 5:245-46). Eugene Aubrey Stratton, while not reliable on all matters concerning Plymouth, suggests that Ambrose Fish may take been Lydia'southward brother (1986:199). Nevertheless, his sentence was based on the Court's requirement of two witnesses for capital crimes. Since Lydia was the merely witness, Ambrose was sentenced to a whipping at the post instead of capital letter punishment.
The second case raises some interesting issues. It was heard past the Court of Assistants on October 31, 1682, and involved "Sam, the Indian," and Sarah Freeman. The jury found Sam "guilty by his owne confession, in wickedly abusing the body of Sarah Freeman by laying her downe vpon her backe, and entering her trunk with his." If Sam truly did confess to raping Sarah, then the courtroom had two witnesses. However, the ruling reads every bit follows, "although in an ordinary consideration hee deseued death, yett considering hee was simply an Indian, and therfore in an incapasity to know the horiblenes of the wickednes of this abominable act, with other cercomstances considered, hee was centanced past the Courtroom to exist seuerly whipt att the post and sent out of state" (PCR 6:98). Stratton sees this case as evidence of differential handling of Native Americans and colonists in the upholding of the law (1986:107), but one case does not make a design. Two things must be kept in mind. From my scanning of the records, Native Americans were treated as equals in all other matters of the court. Furthermore, only one person was ever put to expiry for a sexual criminal offence in the history of the colony -- the buggery case of Thomas Graunger. I have to wonder if the case would accept turned out any differently if the human had been white. Since there are so few cases in the records, reaching a conclusion is hard.
Another business arises from the case of Sam. Colonial historians concur that rape was non a cultural practise of Native Americans. Laurel Thatcher Ulrich writes that this fact astonished the Puritans of New England: they were "amazed at the sexual restraint of Indian men, who never raped their captives" (1980:97, 174). Is Sam's case the merely recorded Native American rape of an English woman, or was the "rape" contrived by Sarah? The court records indicate that Sam confessed to sexual intercourse with Sarah, but, if rape was unknown to him, how did he know what he was confessing to? Was Sam fluent in English, or did the translator do a little of his own interpreting? Since no other witnesses spoke to the truth of the occurrence, we must non dismiss the possibility that Sam, while he may exist guilty of fornication, was not guilty of rape.
IV. Majuscule Offences: Buggery
Possibly the best known sexual offence in the history of Plymouth Colony is the 1642 instance of young Thomas Graunger who was found guilty of "buggery with a mare, a cowe, two goats, diuers sheepe, two calues, and a turkey" and sentenced to death past hanging (PCR 2:44). The bodily courtroom account of this example is very brief, but William Bradford describes it at length in Plymouth Plantation:
I include Bradford'due south full business relationship for 2 reasons: information technology conveys a tone of sorrow and it refers to penalization "according to the law," not of the Court, but of God. Leviticus 20:15 of the King James Bible reads, "and if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to expiry: and ye shall slay the beast." Recalling the story of Onan "spilling his seed" and the Lord subsequently slaying him, the ideal code of sexual and moral behave as outlined in the laws of Plymouth appears to be based on what the colonists believed to exist the law of God. God's law dictated that a buggerer must be put to death, and the unfortunate beast must be slain. In the outset instance of buggery to exist heard before the court, the ruling was based on this constabulary. Even so, the tone of Bradford's rendition of the execution is not one of a man who rejoices in the playing out of justice. Rather, he is sad that such a example ever came before the Court. Bradford follows the story by questioning "how came it to pass" that such wickedness appears in the colony (1952:321).He [Thomas Granger] was this year detected of buggery, and indicted for the same, with a mare, a cow, two goats, five sheep, ii calves and a turkey. Horrible it is to mention, simply the truth of the history requires information technology. He was first discovered past one that accidentally saw his lewd practice towards the mare. (I forbear particulars.) Being upon information technology examined and committed, in the end he non merely confessed the fact with that creature at that time, merely sundry times earlier and at several times with all the remainder of the forenamed in his indictment. And this his gratis confession was not only in individual to the magistrates (though at commencement he strived to deny information technology) but to sundry, both ministers and others; and after, upon his indictment, to the whole Court and jury; and confirmed it at his execution. And whereas some of the sheep could not and then well exist known by his clarification of them, others with them were brought before him and he declared which were they and which were not. And accordingly he was cast by the jury and condemned, and after executed about the 8th of September, 1642. A very sad spectacle it was. For first the mare and and so the cow and the rest of the lesser cattle were killed earlier his face, according to the law, Leviticus xx.15; and and then he himself was executed. The cattle were all cast into a cracking and large pit that was digged of purpose for them, and no use made of any role of them. (1952:320-1)
In 1643, John Walker is asked to appear before the next General Court to answer to the thing of his "lying with a bitch" (PCR 2:57). I cannot determine whether the bitch in question was a female person dog or a lewd woman. The Oxford English Dictionary lists both definitions as advisable for the period. In either example, no mention is ever made near this case in a future court. The Full general Courtroom of March 6, 1655/1656 set William Honywell gratuitous, "haueing bine committed to jayle on suspision of buggery with a brute," considering there was non sufficient evidence to convict him (PCR 4:116).
The final case of animality to appear earlier the court concerned Thomas Saddeler, who was arraigned for buggering a mare in October of 1681.
Not surprisingly, considering what happened to Granger, Saddeler pleaded not guilty and the case went before a jury of twelve men. The jury constitute him guilty "of vile, beastly, and presumtuous attempts to buggery with a mare in the highest nature." Although he was not sentenced to decease, his penalisation was the nearly severe example of criminal penalty that I have seen in the records. He was "to be seuerly whipt att the post, and to sitt on the galloss with a rope about his necke during the pleasure of the Court, and to be branded in the forehead with a Roman P to signify his abominable pollution, and soe to depart this gouernment" (PCR 6:75). Saddeler'south sentence resembles the penalization inflicted on John Allexander for "spilling his seed," just, in ii notable ways, it was more severe. Saddeler's brand was on his forehead rather than his shoulder, and he was forced to sit in the gallows with a rope around his neck. The later speaks to the severity of his criminal offense. He was not sentenced to death, simply he was not to forget that his criminal offense was punishable by death. The caption for the "lighter" sentence is that Saddeler was plant guilty of "attempts to buggery," not a committed act of buggery. In a 1642 letter from William Bradford to Richard Bellingham, Bradford offered his opinion that although an attempted crime may be equal in the eyes of God, he does non believe that a magistrate should have the power to sentence the individual to death (1952:319). In this passage, I encounter a distinction between the ideal law of God and the constabulary of the Courtroom.Thomas Saddeler, one thousand art indited . . . for that m, haueing not the feare of God before, nor carrying with thee the dignity of hamaine nature, but beingness seduced by the instigation of the diuill, on the third of September in this nowadays yeer, 1681, by force and armes, . . . a certaine mare of a blackish couller and then and there being in a certaine obscure and woodey place, . . . then and there thou didest tye her head vnto a bush-league, and then and there, wickedly and most abominably, confronting thy humaine nature, with the aforementioned mare then and there being felloniously and carnally didest endeavour, and the detestable sin of buggery so and there felloniously m didest committ and doe . . . . (PCR vi:74)
Five. Infidelity
Leviticus 20:ten reads, "the man that committeth infidelity with some other man's wife, even he that committeth infidelity with his neighbour'due south wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely exist put to death." Here again, the laws of Plymouth reflect an ideal ready forth as the police of God -- adultery was punishable by decease. Still, why was the police force qualified with the phrase "to exist punished?" The twenty-second chapter of Deuteronomy restates the constabulary of Leviticus, simply proceeds to qualify that police force. I believe that the post-obit verses may explicate the confusion reflected in the 1636 codification of laws.
Co-ordinate to the Bible, betrothed women who were raped and protested could not be put to death for an deed of adultery. The passage does non specify what should happen to a wife if she cries out.22. If a man be institute lying with a adult female married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: and so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. 23. If a damsel that is a virgin be matrimonial unto an husband, and a human find her in the urban center, and lie with her; 24. And then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they dice; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's married woman: and so g shalt put away evil from amid yous. 25. But if a man discover a betrothed dryad in the field, and the human being force her, and prevarication with her: and so the human being only that lay with her shall die: 26. But unto the damsel one thousand shalt do nil; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for equally when a man riseth confronting his neighbour, and slayeth him, however is this affair: 27. For he constitute her in the field, and the matrimonial damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
Like Hebrew law, seventeenth century Puritans defined adultery as any deed of fornication with a married or betrothed woman. The definition has serious implications not only for the people living under the law, but also for the interpretation of the Plymouth courtroom data. Married men who had sexual intercourse with unmarried women were punished for fornication, non adultery. Therefore, examination of the cases of adultery within the colony is not a truthful reflection of the caste of adultery in Plymouth. John Demos points out that "the master business organisation, the essential element of sin, was the woman's infidelity to her hubby" (1970:97). The chemical element that sets adultery cases autonomously from acts of fornication is the criminal offence done to the husband. Every bit I shall shortly show, adultery was 1 reason a husband could exist divorced from his wife. The double standard reflected in this particular crime will be discussed in greater length in some other section.
Nine cases in the Plymouth court records refer to adultery in some class. Three of these cases result in a penalization much like that presented in the 1658 codification of laws. Interestingly, all three of the cases appear earlier the court prior to 1658, which leads i to believe that the 1658 enactment was in response to a precedent that had been set. The second instance to appear before the court most closely conforms to the law outlined in 1658. On December 7, 1641, Thomas Bray and Anne Linceford both confessed to committing infidelity in the absenteeism of Anne'due south husband. Their penalisation included an firsthand severe whipping at the public postal service in Plymouth, a 2nd whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an Advertising, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR two:28). Failure to wear the messages would result in some other whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments.
The beginning case, involving Mary Mendame and Tinsin, an Indian, was sentenced in the court on September 3, 1639. Mary was sentenced to be "whipt at a carts tayle" and "weare a badge vpon her left sleeue." However, Tinsin was to be "well whipt with a halter about his neck at the mail service" (PCR i:132). According to Eugene Aubrey Stratton, "whipping at a cart'due south tail while the cart was drawn through town was considered a more astringent penalization than whipping at the post" (1986:196). Stratton cites but two other instances of this particular penalisation, i for committing "uncleanes" and one for whoredom (Run across PCR one:132, PCR four:106). The "lighter" sentence for Tinsin was rationalized "because it arose through the allurement & inticement of the said Mary, that hee was drawne therevnto" (PCR 1:132). This ruling reminds me of the rational for the lighter judgement inflicted on Sam and his credible rape of Sarah Freeman. Is Tinsin given a break because he is "but an Indian" with "an incapasity to know the horiblenes" of his deportment (PCR 6:98)?
The instance between Katheren Aines and William Paule ended with an unusual confidence. The instance was first brought before the Courtroom of Assistants on Feb 3, 1656 (PCR 3:110-11), but for desire of more data, it was referred to the next General Courtroom on March fifth of that year (PCR 3:111-12). The two were not clearly convicted of adultery, only they were sentenced for "vnclean and laciuiouse behauior." William was publicly whipped and, every bit an additional penalization, he was forced to pay the costs of his cursory imprisonment. Katheren was whipped in one case at Plymouth and in one case at Taunton and forced to wear a red B on her right shoulder for the balance of her time in the colonly. Nonetheless, the most unusual part of the ruling was the penalization inflicted on Alexander Aines "for his leaueing his family, and exposing his wife to such temtations, and beingness every bit baud to her therin." He was sentenced to pay the fee for his married woman's imprisonment and sit in the stocks while she and William were whipped. The records do not indicate how long Aines was absent from his family, but abandonment was grounds for divorce in the colony.
On Oct 29, 1671, Mary Attkinson and John Bucke appeared before the court to respond for their adultery that resulted in a child. Curiously, the jury was non in doubt as to whether or not the couple committed fornication, only whether or non Marmeduke Attkinson, the former married man of Mary, was live at the time the act was committed. Since the jury could non be sure, Mary and John were plant guilty of fornication and given the selection of paying a ten pound fine or being whipped. Non surprisingly, they chose the fine (PCR 5:81-2). On June 10, 1662, Thomas Bird was sentenced to exist whipped for "seuerall adulterouse practices and attempts" with Hannah Bumpas (PCR 4:22).
The three remaining court references to adultery appear not when the guilty parties are brought before the court, but when the husbands of the women involved announced earlier the court to petition for a divorce. On July 4, 1673, John Williams is granted a divorce from his wife, Sarah attributable to her "violat[ing] her wedlock bond by committing actuall infidelity with some other human, and hath a child past him" (PCR five:127). Samuell Hallowey appeared earlier the court several times pleading for a divorce from his married woman, Jane. Jane insisted, "shee hath committed adultery with diuers persons" (PCR five:32, 41-42). In June of 1689, John Glover petitioned the courtroom for a divorce from his wife. Mary Glover, who "violat[ed] the marriage covenant by entertaining some other human or men into bed fellowship," later infected her hubby "with that filthy & noysome disease called the pox" (PCR 6:190). I think it is interesting that in at least two of these cases (I am unsure about Hallowey) a divorce was granted, simply the wife was never punished for her actions. Did the courtroom consider the divorce to be a penalisation in itself?
Adultery was a difficult crime to prove. Since all cases involved a married adult female and Puritans did non use contraception, an illegitimate kid would be difficult to separate from all the rest. Testify of this is reflected in the case of Robert Badston who accused Charles Wills, "that hee had lyen west[ith] his wife, the Court, haueing examined the euidences respecting the case, did not discover him guilty of that fact . . . because the said Robert Badston hath ofttimes companied with his said married woman by beding with her, both earlier and subsequently the child was borne" (PCR v:253). It is possible that adultery happened far more frequently than we see evidence of in the records. However, the low frequencies of other capital offences may bespeak a harsh legal and moral code that was well respected by the people.
VI. Fornication
Fornication was past far the nigh mutual sexual offence to come earlier the Plymouth courts. Betwixt 1633 and 1691, threescore nine cases of fornication were presented. I include "carnal copulation," "uncleans," and births of illegitimate children with fornication. The enactment of 1645 that outlined the punishment for crimes of fornication distinguished between acts committed before and after the time of marriage contract. The fine for fornication after contract was only v pounds per person -- half the fine for fornication before contract. Interestingly, but four of the threescore nine cases clearly occurred during the period of marriage contract. The chart below shows the percentages of fornication cases that occurred during the period of contract, before contract simply between couples who eventually married, and completely outside of intended wedlock. The split up betwixt somewhen married and never married couples is a virtually fifty-50 segmentation.
In 1646, the General Courtroom ordered that each town maintain a annals of births, deaths, and marriages. Based on these registers (their accuracy is questionable) I calculated the number of marriages for each year betwixt 1645 (some registers be before 1646) and 1686 (the last year I have records for). Assuming that an act of fornication would be discovered within a year of the union, I grouped the marriages into six-year intervals. The chart beneath compares the pct of marriages involving premarital fornication for each of the half-dozen-year intervals. The overall percent of marriages involving premarital fornication for the twenty-one year period is 11%.
Throughout the history of the Colony, the punishment issued to those committing fornication was well-nigh usually a fine or a whipping. In the event that the adult female involved became pregnant with an illegitimate child, the man had to marry the adult female or pay regular sums of money to the mother for the keeping of the kid. Earlier the enactment of June 1645, the punishments for fornication seemed to be of a slightly unlike nature than after this appointment. Fines were rarely issued. Rather, those defendant were sentenced to sit in the stocks or to exist whipped. One man was even told to "make a paire of stocks" within the next 2 months (PCR 1:164). A curious feature of several convictions in the early on 1640s was the diff sentencing given to men and women. In each of the cases, the man suffered corporal punishment while the woman either sat in the stocks or stood by watching (PCR 1:162 and two:37, 85-86). Afterward June of 1645, the distribution of punishments was more equal. However, some cases emerge where only the male appears to have been punished. In these cases, the woman'southward name is not mentioned and the fine paid was half the amount it should accept been (Run across PCR four:106 for example). Moreover, the curt imprisonments suggested in the 1645 act were either non carried out or did not get written in the records. The first case of fornication heard by the court afterwards the approving of the act best illustrates the upholding of the constabulary, except for the curiosity mention higher up -- the wife was non sentenced. On October 27, 1646, "John Tompson, coming into this Courtroom and acknowledging his fault of incontinency with his wife before matrimony, but subsequently contract, was fined [five pounds] [and] imprisoned according to order, but paying his fees, was released of his imprisonment" (PCR ii:109-10). What happened to Mrs. Tompson? Under the law, she was also subject to a five pound fine.
For the almost part, the fornication cases follow a pattern, but amongst them, some interesting ones stand out. Take for instance the servant, Jane Powell, who admitted to fornicating with another servant, however escaped penalisation past pleading, "shee was alured thervnto by him goeing for water one euening, hopeing to haue married him, beeing shee was in a sadd and miserable status by difficult seruice, wanting clothes and liuing discontentedly." The court saw her "expressing great sorrow for her euell" and chose to clear the sentence and send her home (PCR 3:91).
While Jane Powell received no punishment, several individuals were issued sentences that seem a touch on harsher than the rest. "Sarah Ensigne, for committing whordome agreuated with diuers cercomstances, was centansed by the Court to bee whipt att the carts taile" -- a more severe whipping than at the post (PCR 4:106). In June of 1661, Thomas Burge, Jr. found guilty of committing "vncleanes" with Lydia Gaunt. His sentence included a double whipping, merely the records point a debate "conserning the capitall letters to bee worne according to the law" (PCR 3:221). Did Thomas commit adultery? Letters were generally not worn for non-capital offences, and this case says that they were to be worn "according to the police force." The only law that spelled out the wearing of messages was that of adultery.
Two cases of incest are included among those of fornication. While at that place is no specific law outlining the punishment for incest, the record of Christopher Winter'south hearing in March of 1668/1669 declares it "a very hainous and capitall crime" (PCR 5:13). Neither case brought a total guilty verdict, and then I cannot say how it would accept been punished. The offset case between Thomas Atkins and his daughter, Mary was presented earlier the Court of Assistants on August 7, 1660 and was ruled in the General Court on October second of that yr. The jury establish Atkins not guilty of incest, but did dominion that he was guilty of offering "some vnclean, insestious attempts to his daughter" while boozer. He was sentenced to corporal punishment past whipping. On March 2, 1668/1669, Christopher Winter and his daughter, Martha Hewitt, were presented to the Court of Magistrates under suspicion of committing incest. Seven points of suspicion were presented, and Martha's hubby, John, and his father, Thomas, each testified before the Courtroom (PCR 5:13-fourteen). In June, the example came before the Full general Court, merely "the grand enquest constitute not the nib, and soe hee was released"(PCR 5:21). The suspicions presented to the court included Martha's adament refusal to proper name the begetter of the child she was begotten with, and Winter'south "indulgence to his said daughter since this wickednes, although knowne formerly to be very austeer to his children" (PCR 5:13).
7. Attempts and Propositions
The only written law governing attempted acts of fornication is the 1636 codification that gives the Magistrates liberty to determine penalization for "uncleane carriages" according to the nature of the offence (PCR xi:12). When a penalization was listed in the records, it commonly took the grade of a fine or a whipping. These sentences reflected those issued for acts of fornication, but practical only to i individual. Had these attempts been successful, each would have resulted in a case of fornication, rape, or adultery depending on the parties concerned and their reactions. A mutual type of case to appear before the court was that of John Pecke in March 1654/1655. He was presented to the General Court "for laciviouse carriages and vnchast in attempting the chastitie of his fathers maide seruant, to satisby his fleshly, beastly lust, and that many times for some yeares space, without any intent to marry her, only was alwaies resisted by the mayde, every bit he confesseth" (PCR 3:75). Pecke was fined fifty shillings, merely whippings were equally common. A slightly more unusual example was that of Nathaniell Hall, a married man, who not just used "vnciuill words and carryages towards Elizabeth Berry" but gave "writings to the said Elizabeth Berry to intice her" (PCR 5:169). He was sentenced to pay a 5 pound fine or to be publicly whipped.
I was surprised to discover that seven of the fifteen cases of attempted acts and propositions were attempts of adultery. In each instance, a male colonist attempted the chastity of another human's married woman. Several of these cases did non appear to make information technology past the phase of presentment, only those that did resulted in a fine or whipping. In October of 1668, Samuell Worden lodged a complaint against Edward Crowell and James Maker "for goeing in his absence into his house in the dead fourth dimension of the dark, and for threatening to breake vp the dore and come in att the window, if not lett in, and goeing to his bed and attempting the chastity of his wife and sister, by many laciuous carriages, and affrighting of his children" (PCR v:8). Both men were sentenced to pay ten pounds bond for their practiced behavior and "alsoe to defray all the charge the Samuell Worden hath bine att in the vindication of his wifes innosensy, or to exist seuerally whipt." The court and then reduced the bond payment by four pounds at the "humble petition" of the two men. Earlier in the records of the colony, Richard Turtall is presented to the court "for laciuiouse carriage toward Ann Hudson, the wife of John Hudson, in taking hold of her coate and inticing her past words, as alsoe past taking out his musical instrument of nature that hee might prevaile to lye with her in her owne house" (PCR 3:97). His penalty was not recorded.
Attempts and propositions well-nigh usually concern men approaching women. In i example, however, the reverse is truthful. On March ane, 1641/1642, Lydia Hatch appeared earlier the court "for suffering Edward Michell to attempt to abuse her body by vncleanesse" (PCR 2:35). At the same time, she was also accused of "lying in the aforementioned bed with her blood brother Jonathan" -- an act that smells of incest. Her sentence was public whipping.
VIII. Lascivious and Suspicious Carry
I have included under the to a higher place heading those cases that did not involve an actual act of fornication, only where the behavior of the accused party led other colonists to suspect the sexual intentions of the defendant. Although lascivious carriage was never clearly divers in the court records, Cornelia Hughes Dayton defines it as "sexual 'dalliance' where intercourse could not be proven" (1995:163). I think of information technology equally everything between and including flirtations and flagrant displays of sexual intentions. Cases of suspicious acquit include those where an offence was suspected just could not exist proved. In June of 1655, Hugh and Mary Cole were fined twenty shillings for "keeping visitor each with other in an vndecent style, att an vnseasonable fourth dimension and place, earlier marriage" (PCR iii:82). It is probable that the couple was suspected of fornication, but without a pregnancy, there was no proof. Several cases of suspicious conduct betwixt a married woman and a man sally from the records. Equally in the above case, the court and other colonists doubtable sexual misconduct but have no proof. The courtroom can exercise nothing simply ask the individuals to avert the visitor of one another. The March 1665/1666 instance of Jonathan Hatch and Francis Crippin is one adept example -- "wheras Jonathan Hatch hath bine bedevilled of vnnesesarie frequenting the house of Thomas Crippin, and therby hath giuen occation of suspision of quack behauior towards Francis, the wife of the said Crippin, the Court hath admonished him and warned him for the future not to giue such occation of suspision equally aforsaid by his soe frequently resorting to the said business firm or by coming in the companie of the said woman, equally hee will anware it att his perill" (PCR 4:117).
Alongside the mutual accusations of lascivious carriage, some unusual cases sally. Ann Savory was sentenced to sit in the stocks for accompanying Thomas Lucas alone "att vnseasonable time" and "being found drunke att the same fourth dimension vnder an hedge, in vnciuell and abominable manor" (PCR 3:212). The records are unclear as to whether they were both drunk under the hedge, simply 1 can imagine what the other colonists thought of such behavior. Amongst the records included in this department is a possible case of homosexuality between ii women. On October 2, 1650, the wife of Hugh Norman was presented "for misdemenior and lude behauior with Mary Hammon vppon a bed." She was forced "to make a publick acknowlidgment, so fare equally conveniently may bee, of her vnchast beahuior," and was warned "to take heed of such cariages for the time to come, lest her former cariage come up in remembrqance against her to brand her punishment the greater" (PCR ii:163).
In add-on to some unusual cases, several unusual punishments nowadays themselves in these cases. In March of 1655/1656, John Gorum is fined forty shillings "for vnseamly railroad vehicle towards Blanch Hull att vnseasonable fourth dimension, beingness in the nighttime." Interestingly, Blanch Hull is fined fifty shillings "for not crying out when shee was assaulted by John Gorum in vnseemly carriage towards her vpon her owne relation" (PCR 3:97). I sense a flake of injustice and inequality in this ruling; it besides reminds me of the verse in Deuteronomy where a women's weep can make up one's mind whether or not she is punishable past death. On March five, 1660/1661, the Full general Court saw fit to punish two different people (one man and one woman) for their lascivious carriages by sentencing them to "sitt in the stockes, with a paper on his[her] hatt on which his[her] fact was written in capitall letters" (PCR 3:210). This was the just instance of this diverseness of penalisation that I saw in the records.
Nine. Miscellaneous Offences
Several of the cases that I accept listed every bit miscellaneous could be included in the previous section, but I include them here for their uniqueness. In 1653, the General Courtroom ordered "that Teag Jones and Richard Berry, and others with them, bee caused to part theire vnciuell liueing together" (PCR 3:37). No straight accusation of sexual misconduct was stated, but "vnciuell liueing together" could mean many things. Timothy Hallowey was fined 20 shillings "for misdemenor in frequent kising the married woman of John Hathewey, and for existence att the business firm of the said Hathewey att vnseasonable time, and for neglecting to appeer att Court according to summons" (PCR 4:50). Since he was bedevilled of iii offences at one time, I cannot say what the penalty is for frequently kissing another human being's wife. At the other end of the spectrum was the case of John and Elizabeth Williams. On May one, 1666, John appeared before the Court of Assistants to respond for several offences among those, "rendering her [his wife] to bee a whore, and for persisting on his refusing to performe marriage duty towards her according to the law of God and man" (PCR 4:121). He was not punished by this court, for the example continued into June of that twelvemonth. The most unusual case I found in the records was that of Ralph Earle, who was fined xx shillings "for drawing his wife in an vnciuell manor on the snow" (PCR four:47).
X. Equality in the Court?
Several times above, I began to address the issue of equality in Plymouth courtroom sentencing. Were punishments influenced by the gender or ethnicity of the accused individuals? The very definition of adultery brings the gender issue into view. Since adultery was defined equally sexual relations with a married adult female, a hubby received a lesser punishment than a married woman for fornication with an single partner. Demos refers to this as a possible "'double standard' of sexual morality" (1970:97). Ulrich points out that the opposite was also true -- a single woman committing fornication with a married man received a lighter sentence than the single man doing the same (1980:94). However, unmarried women were sexually agile for such a short period of their lives that the double standard was significant. The written police for adultery punished men and women as, but it was not established until 1658. Prior to that, 3 cases were heard, and only one of them distributed equal sentences -- the case of Thomas Bray and Anne Linceford (PCR 2:28). In the other two cases, the woman's punishment was more astringent. The but case heard after the 1658 enactment that brought a guilty verdict was the unclear case of Thomas Bird "for committing of seuerall adulterouse practices and attempts" with Hannah Bumpas (PCR 4:22). Only Thomas was punished for this offense, simply i might conclude that Hannah protested leading to unsuccessful attempts. While the Court appeared to dominion unequally in adultery cases before the 1658, the data do not allow for observations of how the pattern may have changed after that date.
Above I examined some early on fornication cases where the female received a lighter sentence, but that design appeared to change subsequently the enactment of the 1645 ruling on cases of "carnal copulation." The only inequality between the genders that I tin can make up one's mind afterward 1645, is the curious penalisation and naming of just i partner. Often the party punished is the male, just that is not always the case (See PCR 4:162). David Hackett Fischer writes that throughout New England "men and women were punished in an exceptionally even-handed mode for sexual transgressions," merely in some cases of fornication "males suffered more severely than females" (1989:89)
Throughout the Plymouth Colony Records, Native Americans appeared before the court and received sentences equal to those of the colonists. Only three Native Americans were brought earlier the court for sexual offences. I already discussed the rape and adultery case in detail higher up. The third is a case of fornication where both parties were whipped at the post. Nathaniel Soule, the homo involved, was besides ordered "paye ten bushells of Indian corne to the said Indian adult female towards the keeping of the child" (PCR 5:163). I case of fornication involving a male person slave appeared in the records of the court. Like the case involving a Native American, both parties were whipped and the human was ordered to "pay xviii pence per weeke to said Attractive towards the maintainance of said child for a year" (PCR 6:177). I see only 2 signs of inequality that one could argue in these cases. Commencement that the option of a fine was not included the written account, and, secondly, that the regular sums to exist paid to the women are less than were customary.
XI. Real vs. Platonic Culture: A Summary
The police force of Plymouth Colony fix forth a very loftier standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say information technology was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and infidelity (for a fourth dimension) were all crimes punishable past death. Fornication and other lascivious acts exterior of marriage were strictly forbidden. However, when faced with a capital criminal offense, the court avoided execution in all but 1 case. While the punishments issued by the court were severe, they were not the ideal proposed in 1636. If 11% of marriages involved premarital sex resulting in pregnancy, the actual frequency of premarital sexual practice must exist even higher. I cannot be sure what the pregnancy rate was for Plymouth, only some quick calculations provide a crude guess. If nosotros assume ane) that women are sexually active all days of the year except during menstruation and 2) that they are fertile for only a few days each month, then roughly ane out of five sexual episodes result in pregnancy -- that'southward a 50% rate of premarital sex activity. I realize that the approximate is very high, but the point is that sexual activity before union was a common occurrence in the colony. The people of Plymouth respected the law and strove to live upward to a loftier ideal of moral conduct -- this fact was reflected in the many cases where violators were brought to justice on their ain accord or by a beau colonist. Nonetheless, occasionally they faltered.
XII. References
- Bradford, William
Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647. Ed. by Samuel Eliot Morison. New York: Knopf (1952). - Dayton, Cornelia Hughes
Women Earlier the Bar: Gender, Law, & Society in Connecticut, 1639-1789. Chapel Hill: University of Due north Carolina Press (1995). - Demos, John
A Little Commonwealth: Family unit Life in Plymouth Colony. London: Oxford Academy Printing (1970). - Fischer, David Hackett
Albion's Seed: Iv British Folkways in America. London: Oxford Academy Press (1989). - PCR
Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in New England. Ed. by Nathaniel Shurtleff and David Pulsifer. New York: AMS Press. 12 5. in 6. - Stratton, Eugene Aubrey
Plymouth Colony: Its History & People, 1620-1691. Salt Lake City: Ancestry Publishing (1986). - Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher
Good Wives: Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England, 1650-1750. New York: Vintage Books (1980).
Source: http://www.histarch.illinois.edu/plymouth/Lauria1.html
Posted by: youngwermell.blogspot.com
0 Response to "What Happened To Granger's Animals After He Confessed In Bradford's Narrative?"
Post a Comment