USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 12
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46
Chapter VI Saints and Sinners
I HE INITIAL social concepts of the settlers stemmed from a religious core that considered life to be a period of preparation, albeit through active stewardship, during which relationships should be ordered to accord to immutable principles.1 Such a premise tended to make attitudes conservative and arrangements static. Andrews feels that this was more true of Connecticut than of Massachusetts, be- cause of the comparatively meager political and commercial contacts which Connecticut had with England and the continent.2 Miller feels that this was more true of the second generation than of the first, be- cause of an isolation stemming from a new conviction that destiny of the settlements was separate from that of Europe, which made them con- sciously and truly colonial and provincial.3 However, modifications emerged slowly and painfully and in spite of an entrenched aversion to change.
Initial Concepts
The social structure, presumed to be based on the law of nature and sanctioned by revelation, envisioned the arrangement of people in hierarchical ranks. Although status was not heritable, it had been ex- pected that there would be little flux. Calculations were upset by the rise of the lowly to wealth, and alarmingly confounded by the fall of many from security, especially when some of these latter were landed and industrious individuals. Success was presumably a gift of God, re- flecting his judgment of effort and dedication. There was some reluc- tance, however, to accept changes in material status as final indications of divine appraisal which justified alteration in stratification. Wealth
123
SAINTS AND SINNERS
acquired by mere competition might be no more than a semblance of divine blessing and losses no more than trials, rather than indications of a status ordained by God. Changes in material status, then, were not immediately matched by commensurate social and political position.4 However, a thread of dissent led slowly to alterations in arrangements and was reflected in adjustments in thought.
Theory held that persons of differing endowments and qualifica- tions "need a differing station to be disposed into, the keeping of which is both the beauty and strength of such a society."5 There was an or- derly classification of people as superior and inferior and a precise de- lineation of their proper relation. Inferiors owed superiors reverence and submission, not only for their eminence in degree, but also as the cause of the inferiors' well-being.6 The majority were merely tools and instruments for others to work by, not proper agents to effect anything of themselves. If left alone, they would destroy themselves or be de- stroyed. Violent insurrections and contempt and disesteem on the part of the inferior was repugnant therefore, since his subjection was neces- sary. The role Hooker allowed people in election did not relieve them subsequently from the obligation of submitting to duly constituted authority.7 In Connecticut, Davenport exhorted the people to "perform all duties to them whom you have chosen, . . whether they be good or bad, by virtue of their Relation between them and you; . . . so wives to their husbands, . . . and servants to their masters."$ Everyone should stay in his proper place, observing the obligations appropriate to his status.
The maintenance of due order did not rest solely on voluntary conformity to general precepts, however. The majority, the non-mem- bers of the covenant, were presumed to have paralyzed wills, and al- though they had uses, they were not fit to be trusted with certain great obligations, such as that of government, or left to make their own determinations. Only those accepted among the covenanted could be presumed to have achieved freedom of will, and voluntarism had to be limited to them. Only the judgment of these visible saints could be de- pended upon for an unerring application of God's will in determina- tion of proper conduct. Individual freedom was circumscribed by the imposition of this determination, as laws were enforced and penalties
124
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
exacted to compel conformity. The Puritan idea of liberty has been de- fined as the freedom to do as the better judgment of the brethren should prescribe, with rebellion simply indicating a lack of will.ยบ
Status carried obligations for all, for presumably free will and ac-
(Courtesy Mills Coll., Conn. State Lib.)
EAST LYME-THOMAS LEE HOUSE AND LITTLE BOSTON SCHOOL (OLDEST SCHOOLHOUSE STILL STANDING IN CONNECTICUT)
tion were subordinated to the public good. Community service was a duty, rather than a privilege, and not one that could be refused. When necessary, fines were imposed for refusal to serve, as in connection with the offices of Constable and Surveyor of the Highways, and if deputies absented themselves from Court sessions without leave.10
The obligations of the governing class were considered heaviest. The covenant was to be administered by an oligarchy of saints, a "sav-
125
SAINTS AND SINNERS
ing remnant" which by enforcing the terms of the contract would ob- tain a blessing for all. With this justification for power, the saints aspired to tighter control than that exercised in any European state, and at- tempted to maintain their stringent standards long after Massachusetts had found some amelioration necessary. The governing group had the responsibility of restraining human depravity through regulation.11
Regulations detailed the terms of the covenant in all phases, in- cluding the enforcement of the moral dictates of the Church, and served to guide conduct. Enforcement to implement civil regulation and bind conduct was based on a close supervision of the population, in which church officials shared responsibility with civil magistrates. The tithingmen, for example, who, it has been said, kept all but themselves attentive to the sermon on Sunday, were men of authority throughout the entire week. Each was supposed to watch several families, usually ten, during the week. Supervision ranged from an enforcement of learning the catechism to keeping "all persons from swimming in the water." They could inspect the ordinaries, direct the keeper to sell no more liquor to anyone fancied to be drinking too heavily, and report the names of "idle tiplers and gamers." They had a "spetial eye out" for all bachelors, who were also carefully watched by constables, deacons, elders, and heads of families. The tithingmen helped collect ministerial rates, warned people out of town, watched to see that no young people walked abroad on the eve of the Sabbath. They reported all those "who lye at home," as well as the "sons of Belial strutting about, setting on fences."12
The supervision of these small affairs was enforced by citation be- fore court, admonition, fines, whipping, branding, confinement in stocks, or imprisonment. Oftentimes the imposition of a penalty was left to the discretion of the court, at other times the punishment was explicit. In addition there were fourteen capital crimes: idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, "direct" murder, murder by such "guile" as poisoning, murder by false testimony, bestiality, sodomy, adultery, rape of a bethrothed or married woman, kidnaping, conspiracy and rebel- lion, unjustified cursing and striking of parents, and disobedient per- sistence in sin by children over sixteen. In addition to civil punish- ment, church members could be deprived of the privilege of taking
126
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
the sacrament. The pastor might authoritatively suspend anyone sus- pected of scandal without waiting for action of the Church to pro- nounce excommunication. There is recorded one instance of visiting the sins of a father on his children, who were deprived of baptism be- cause their sire abused another at a tavern.13
These means enabled the coercion of the majority, which theory had supposed to be necessary to achieve external conformity to fixed arrangements assumed to reflect immutable principles. Such coercion was inherently intolerant of criticism, schism, or heresy. Rebellion merely indicated a lack of will, and John Cotton had warned that re- bellion would be cloaked in specious equity and legality. There was no predisposition to consider arguments that were "but the devises of Satan, that so pernicious errours might more easily be entertained."14 As in Massachusetts, the question of consent was considered to have been disposed of initially and to entail submission thereafter: the civil complaint of Bulkeley in Connecticut became as impotent as that of Child in Massachusetts.15 The limits of admissible speculation were de- fined by law, and criticism of magistrates and church officials or even of church music was prohibited and generally punished when it defied prohibition. A New Haven man was severely whipped for declaring that he received no profit from his minister's sermons. In New Haven. too, Madam Brewster was tried in high court for declaring that carrying contributions to the Deacons' table was "like going to the High Alter" and "savored of the Mass." Intolerance was defended as a necessity in a new colony, though as has often been pointed out, the argument lost weight as Rhode Island continued to exist on the face of the earth in contradiction to the prophesies of the ministers.16
Intolerance of non-conformity could not suppress the more sub- tle ways in which dissent was registered. Even the legendary woes of the tithingman in and out of church attest its existence. That stories of his being outwitted with impunity were enjoyed enough to be recorded. seems to indicate a sympathetic chafing at restriction on the part of hearers. Such dissent grew until many regulations became unenforce- able in the face of general disregard. Criticism of the basic premise of the infallibility of magistrates seems indicated by the reported growing inclination to employ the aid of lawyers. Connecticut, by law, had for-
127
SAINTS AND SINNERS
bidden them to defend a criminal. When the court observed that this prohibition was flaunted, they imposed a fine of 10 shillings and per- mitted the practice to continue. It was asserted that for lawyers to di- rect men in their causes was unnecessary and wicked, the charge an outcry against the practice and its inconvenience.17
Although in retrospect the administration of the government seems to have consisted largely in meddlesome interference with per- sonal affairs and to have meted out harsh penalties for small offenses, no immediate general resentment was aroused among the people. They were familiar with the modes of punishment which had been brought over from England where a larger number of capital crimes still were listed and other penalties severe.18 There was general consent to gov- ernance by Biblical precept and acceptance of the idea that a selected few could best distinguish and apply these principles. To the extent that the system was attacked, criticism stemmed from experience gained in living with its inadequacies and discomforts, and balancing these against its "seasonable merriment."
One was free to marry and make a living, as well as to go to church on Sunday and Lecture Day. It was forbidden to celebrate Christmas or May Day. However, Thanksgiving, Election Day and Commence- ment were holidays, and on training days, a silk handkerchief, or, per- haps, even a pair of shoebuckles, were offered by some of the wealthier citizens as prizes for young men's marksmanship. Morison points to such levity as an indication that the Puritans were less fanatic after they were in power than was indicated by the pamphlets written before.19 Yet, they were still suspicious of natural appetites and instincts and believed these should be regulated stringently.
Marriage and Divorce
Marriages were encouraged, including among the clergy. Cal- vinists considered the object of sexual relations to be the perpetuation of the race, not sensuous pleasure. Marriages offered practical advantages where population was sparse. Large families might be burdensome in England, as was John Winthrop, Sr.'s, but in New England, with an earth to improve and labor scarce, they were economically advanta- geous.20 God's chosen people had a mandate to increase and multiply
128
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
and people the earth.21 There was suspicion of the unmarried man, who was generally required to live under family supervision. It was exceptional when Windsor, in 1652, allowed two unmarried men to keep house together "so they carry themselves soberly and do not en- tertain idle persons to the evil expense of time by day or night."22 There was no room-save that where spinning, weaving, and other tasks were performed-for the spinster, who was also known as webster, shep- ster, litster, brewster, and baxter in testimony to the role she filled.23 Merely to escape public disapproval was an inducement to marriage.24
Matrimony was a practical business. Both the daughter and her father demanded to be assured of the economic worth of a potential hus- band, and the will of the parent and guardian was an important ele- ment. This is indicated in the affair of Lydia Frost and Henry Grey. Grey had more than Lydia had "stood upon," but the father was harder to satisfy.25 In 1643 the General Court forbade any person, male or female, to make or entertain any proposal without the knowledge and consent of those under whose disposition they lived.26 This was supple- mented by an order of 1640 that such contracts had to be published eight days before marriage.27 Marriage ceremonies were not performed by the clergy, but by any magistrate or other authorized person. It became the practice, however, for the minister to preach a sermon the following Sunday from a text selected by the new bride, and in- terrupted for the bride and groom to stand to show their wedding costumes.28
No general law provided for divorce until 1677, but divorces were granted earlier. These were generally granted because of desertion as- sumed from extended absence. In the first case in 1655 concerning Goody Beckwith the period of absence was not indicated, but the case of Sarah North in 1660 based assumption on a seven year period. This seemed to decline slightly, for in 1676 Sarah Towle was allowed to remarry when her husband had been away only six years, and in 1677 "fiue yeares and upwards" was the basis for one divorce. Not all divorces were based on simple desertion, however. In the case of Robert Wade, whose wife had refused for fifteen years to join him or to permit him to gain "fellow- ship" with her in England, divorce was granted in 1657, since she was guilty of "vnworthy, sinfull, yea, unnaturall cariage towards him."
129
SAINTS AND SINNERS
Elizabeth Rogers was released because the "righteousness of her de- sires" was clear, and she was given custody and support for her children, their father "being so hettridox in his opinion and practice . . . haue- ing in open court declared that he did vtterly renownce all the vissible worship of New England, and professedly declare against the Christian Sabboth as a meere invention, &c." In 1677, it was provided that no divorces would be granted except in the case of adultery, fraudulent con- tract, or willful desertion for three years with total neglect of duty, or seven years' providential absence.29 After divorce, as after death of one spouse, remarriage was immediate.30
Early Houses
The villages of Connecticut settlers very quickly began to look different from their English counterparts. This divergence has been ex- plained variously. It has been suggested by Norman M. Isham, elab- orated by J. Frederick Kelly, and accepted by many followers, that the colonial style evolved in America on the basis of accretion from single- room, end chimney houses into two-room, central chimney houses which finally incorporated a lean-to.31 This explanation has been at- tacked by Anthony N. B. Garvan,32 because, he asserts, it was premised on knowledge of a single type of architecture and because the chronol- ogy of extant houses does not accord with these plans. Although some houses definitely had successive additions, he points out that the various plans seem to have been built concurrently, since all types survive from 1 660 and no single type seems dominant.
To Garvan the divergence between Connecticut colonial and Eng- lish architecture seems explainable in large part by the rebuilding in England after the London fire and after the Restoration which intro- duced new fashions. These did not influence Connecticut, since she was isolated because of a lack of economic and political contact and an ab- sence of migration from England.33 Although Garvan finds an English precedent for practically every aspect of Connecticut building, these are all found in English architecture before 1630. Environment, per- haps, determined the relative importance which each basic type as- sumed in the colony and the slight modifications which are evident.
130
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Shingles, for example, were substituted for thatch in roofing because of availability. Even this substitution, however, seemed tied to English tradition, since the fact that they were sometimes pegged in the manner conventional in England when tiles were used for roofs suggests that they were considered a facsimile for tile.34
Since Connecticut settlers came from various classes and various counties of England they could be assumed to be familiar with the architectural types conventional for each of these groups and locales. There may have been, in addition, a certain familiarity with architec- tural features typical of London and certainly with those London fea- tures, such as the overhang of upper stories, which had been transposed to the English countryside. English architecture, according to Garvan, had developed a distinguishable type of house for each status: the one and a half story, two-room copy hold house of the husbandmen; the yeo- man's central chimney, carefully-ordered house, with a lean-to, necessary, because of the weight of the thatched roofs, to provide an extra wall to receive some of the thrust; the manor houses with their central halls, and the town house. Garvan believes that settlers at first chose from these the type of house which fitted his station and that therefore Connecti- cut architecture had diversity from the beginning. In Connecticut, he distinguishes the leaders' houses, especially at New Haven, as built on the manor plan; the proprietors' houses, found on the main streets, as based on the yeoman's central chimney in England; the houses of farm- ers of moderate means derived from the one and a half storied husband- man's house; and one room houses, used by the poorer and as a tem- porary expedient. In addition, there were some rock houses based on the Irish bawn or "stronghouse."35
Uniformity of Connecticut architecture came, Garvan suggests. as landholdings, absence of great trade, and homogeneity of population tended toward an economic leveling. Of the first houses, those built by the proprietors, following the yeoman's central chimney plan, became the ideal, since isolation left the second generation with a knowledge only of what they saw in the colony and new fashions in manuals were beyond their tools and construction experiences. Massachusetts and New York changed styles to follow European variations because of their contacts, but Connecticut provided a contrast. Central chimney houses
131
SAINTS AND SINNERS
became typical of Connecticut colonial architecture and lingered on,36 because the colonists did their own building and built as they knew how and because the style was practical for New England's climate.
Because of the extraordinary domination of the center chimney house in Connecticut, it justifies a closer examination. The similarities of these houses are striking and include even typical dimensions. Most front rooms, for ex- ample, measure ap- proximately 16 feet square. Extra inches, or fractional measure- ments, are probably not a departure from the convention, but rather reflect the inac- curacy of measuring standards.37
The center chim- ney gave the greatest possible heat reten- tion in view of a con- struction that sent most of the heat heav- enwards until it was learned to curve the backs of fireplaces. CROMWELL-ONE OF THE MIDDLETOWN UPPER HOUSES, BUILT BY THE KIRBY FAMILY 150 YEARS AGO Built into the chim- ney were usually three fireplaces in first floor rooms and two or three upstairs. Proportions al- lowed an enclosed area in front of the chimney, between the two front rooms, which held front stairs and very rarely a small fireplace under them, and provided an entrance way. This was called a "porch" and served the function of later storm entrances. One front room was spoken of as the "parlor," even if it were necessary to keep beds in it. This room frequently contained a wide, side doorway, the "funeral door," neces- sitated by the small, narrow porch, at least, except when double front
132
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
doors were used. The other front room was termed the "Hall" and be- came the dining hall.38
The kitchen across the rear was the family living room. Its fireplace was furnished for cooking with crane, jack, spit, and pot hook. Utensils were made with legs or used with separate frames providing legs of various heights to enable adjustment in distance from the fire. Baking was done in a bake kettle or in a dutch oven built into one side of the chimney. Occasionally in the later houses these ovens contained their own flue. Authorities differ as to whether this permitted a fire to be built directly in the oven or whether it merely allowed coals to be banked against the recessed oven door. In the retained or reflected heat bread baked very slowly and it is no wonder that commercial bakers flourished from the beginning. Meats, fruits, and vegetables hung from the beams.39
Because of drafts, a settle was regularly placed in front of the fire. This was a highbacked bench with cupboard space underneath. Chil- dren sat on stools at the fire's edge. There was, perhaps, one chair for the head of the house, sometimes one with a back that would turn down to provide a small table. The room was furnished for dining by a table that could be reduced in size when not in use. Trestles and boards were much used at first, then gatelegs and dropleaves. A prized possession, placed in this room or in a front room, was a cupboard for the display of pewter. Originally this was Jacobean, as were all of the earliest pieces of furniture. The colonists did not begin with the light and graceful pine pieces conventionally associated with these houses. Knives and spoons were used, but forks were a rarity, which explains the large num- bers of napkins regularly inventoried. Wooden trenchers were common and pewter pieces widely owned. Silver was rare. Tankards of leather, wood, or pewter were provided-but not one for each person. Instead, they were large and continually passed around. The comfort of the room was increased by the protection offered by the flanking pantry and birthroom.40
Upstairs were the parlor chamber, hall chamber, and kitchen cham- ber or chambers. Ladders furnished access to the first rude garrets, but soon both front and back stairs were general.41 This did not represent the luxurious provision of service stairs but compensated for the
133
SAINTS AND SINNERS
inconvenience otherwise entailed by the central position of the chimney. Backstairs provided access to rear chambers without violating the privacy of the front ones.
Ells were oftentimes added to the houses. Sometimes this was to enable the kitchen to be moved back, though usually a kitchen ell was added so late as to be of entirely different architectural conception from the remainder of the house. More frequently ells were to accommodate family increases. Sometimes they were miniature center chimney boxes providing independent kitchen and living areas. At times they provided additional sleeping rooms or space for equipment to enable spinning and weaving for cloth manufacture. Houses were often divided in wills and parcelled to different members of the family during their lives.42
Structurally, the houses placed all weight on rock foundations, typically four feet wide and formed by large rocks on each side and rock rubble in the middle. Integral to the structure were summer beams running across the longest dimension of the house. These tied into the chimney and into cross beams. Usually beams were encased. Some in- sulation was provided by the practice of filling the space between the sheathing and clapboarding with mud and straw wattle.43
The earliest houses had very small windows with small panes set in lead, for putty was not used. Houses with full, though still short windows, customarily had 24 panes in each window. Oiled paper was widely used before glass could be procured. When glass was available, it was set into wooden frames with small hand-forged nails. The windows admitted as much air as light. Low ceilings continued, as supplementary light was from candles laboriously made from tallow, bayberry, and wax or from smoky whale oil lamps and lanterns. The second story overhung the first and provided protection-not against Indian attack except in a few garrison houses but against the elements- for the downstairs doors and windows. The reason for the overhang was originally structural, perhaps, but was retained as decorative. It was an old English feature providing useful additional space in upper story, formed in Connecticut usually by hewing the corner posts and inter- mediates to the height of the first floor and moulding the overhang, which constituted a simplification of the English feature.44 Although brick-making began early, bricks were not at first made in quantities
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.