Study of Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in New England

Katie Numan

Doctor Coronado

ENGL 327

28 March 2016

Study of Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in New England

            The most studied of anthologies of Puritan and Colonial texts are primarily comprised of detailed accounts from individuals on their experiences related to the New World. Alternatively, collections of historical documentation of  legal proceedings in Colonial America, which are not included within general anthologies, give a more comprehensive or broad view of how the culture functioned. Rather than the individualistic bias given through popular writings of the time, the study of legal documents suggests a lack of bias, or at least generally accepted Colonial thought, which acts as framework for other texts to be placed within. Amongst these legal writings  are the Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in NewEngland: Printed by the Order of the Legislature of the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts, edited by Nathaniel B. Shurtleff and David Pulsifer. Though these collections contain multiple volumes to cover individual court cases from a range of offenses, narrowing the scope to study court cases related to sexual misconduct is most beneficial in gaining understanding of the culture, as sexuality ties so heavily to religion, and can therefore be examined through multiple lens. Additionally, the court records detail not only the specifics of the crimes themselves, but also the assigned sentences or punishments. Similar acts may have completely different consequences depending on the context of the situation—this only gives readers more contextual understanding in learning about pre-1800 North America. It is not the cases themselves that make the text important to understanding, but the concept of applying what is generally the cultural accepted thought, by law, to the individuals in that culture. Rather than the popularly anthologized individual's reaction to general thought, this is the general thought reacting to the individual.

            However, these compendiums of information have only become more heavily researched by scholars within the past century. The increase in research only arose from a noticed deficiency by experts in the field. In his article, Colonial Court Records and the Study of Early American History: A Bibliographical Review, Michael G. Kammen discusses the creation of published collections of Colonial court records, and why their inclusion as a relevant area of study has been so slow-coming. As an explanation, he suggests, "The notion has persisted that after the Revolution judges undertook to decide what rules had been adopted in colonial times, acting on the assumption that their function to declare the law included a knowledge of its history" (Kammen 737). Since court records were not readily available at the time, the assumption led to historians finding the original cases to be of little relevance, as the same practices were said to be held by more recent judges that had adopted Colonial thought.

            The assumption that Colonial law mirrored that of English law also cannot be accurately made. An additional criticism that Kammen's review makes towards the lack of value of early American legal records suggests that  research "...has shown that the terms, forms, and substantive law of early America were  not necessarily those known to the king's courts... Much of early American law was thus derived from the districts in England that produced the colonial migrations" (Kammen 738-739). If Colonial law was formed from a multitude of different districts, and therefore beliefs, it cannot be universally be defined as English law itself. Additionally, even traditional English law at the time was split between secular law and canon law. In her study on adultery in Stuart England, Veronika Christine Pohlig makes the distinction between the two quite clear. While crimes of sexual nature could be handled by either secular or ecclesiastical courts, the existing records show much more activity in ecclesiastical courts than the secular. In addition, "those records provide a rather good picture of contemporary social structures as church courts catered to a rather wide social spectrum since litigants and witnesses included servants, labourers, yeomen, husbandmen and tradesmen as well as the occasional gentleman" (Pohlig 10-11). In lieu of a more standardized final verdict of cases, the socially constructed courts of England had more conceptual punishments, often involving penance or some form of public shaming, though forms of these do show up within the documented Colonial records.

            However, the most substantial difference is the separation of courts. In the volumes of records edited by Shurtleff and Pulsifer, the cases are those from a general court— not necessarily secular or ecclesiastical, but more so a combination. As a generalized court, readers are able to see how at the time religion, and more generally speaking social structures, tied to government.  It also shifts away from trying to understand and emphasize the differences and overlaps between American and English court systems, but instead to more closely examine the implications of the cases within the realm of the period and the culture. This can be seen through a comparative study of cases of similar nature that have slight differences between them, which lead to completely different sentences. Such is the case for two documented accounts of adultery. This first of these, occurring on September 3, 1639 is as follows:

            Mary, the wyfe of Robert Mendame, of Duxborrow, four using dallyance diuers tymes with Tinsin, an Indian, and after committing the act of vncleanesse with him, as by his owne confession by seuerall interpreters is made apparent, the Bench doth therefore censure the said Mary to be whipt as a carts tayle through the townes streets, as to weare a badge vpon her left sleeue during her aboad within this gouerment; and if shee shalbe found without abroad, the to be burned in the face with a hott iron; and the said Tinsin, the Indian, to be well whipt with a halter about his neck at the post, because it arose through the allurement [and] inticement of the said Mary, that hee was drawne therevnto. (Shurtleff 132)

In this specific case punishments were assigned to both parties as they were active participants in the alleged crime. However, when compared to another case of adultery, one factor of the case leads to a much different result. The second of these cases, which took place on December 7, 1641 reads as follows:

            Forasmuch, as Thomas Bray, of Yarmouth, a single person, and Anne, the wyfe of Francis Linceford, haue committed the act of adultery and vncleanesse, and haue diuers tymes layne in one bed together in the absence of her husband, which hath been confessed by both parties in the publike Court, the Court doth censure them as followeth: That they both be seuerely whipt immediately at the publik post, [and] that they shall weare (whilst they remayne in the gouerment) two letters, namely, and AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof; and if they shalbe found at any tyme in any towne or place within the gouerment without them so worne vpon their vppermost garment as aforesaid, that then the constable of the towne or place shall take them, or wither of them, omitting so to weare the said two letters, and shall forthwith whip them for their negligence, and shall cause them to be immediately put on againe, and so worne by them and either of them... (Shurtleff 28). 

While both cases of adultery involve two willing participants, the outlier in the first case is the fact that one of the alleged adulterers was an Indian. Because of this, if Mary Mendame was found in public without the badge of her adultery on her sleeve, she was to be branded on her face with a hot iron. For Anne Bray, who committed the same crime and was subject to the same initial punishment, if she were to not wear her badge of adultery, her secondary punishment would be an additional whipping. Simply comparing these two cases shows the significance of what is means to be a Colonist versus being an Indian. Clearly, fraternizing with a Native was culturally accepted to be a more serious offense. This thought is expanded from an individual perspective and applied as a general thought.

            These cases only represent a portion of the cultural information that can be pulled out from early American court records as a whole. To really get an understanding of the period, it is essential to have a more historical frame to contextualize other texts. Though they may offer individual thoughts that viewpoints, those very thoughts may not be reflective of the thoughts of the society. Looking towards a more public documentation of a key part in how Colonial America was governed and regulated is an effective way to achieving a more general understanding.

Works Cited

Kammen, Michael G.. “Colonial Court Records and the Study of Early American History: A Bibliographical Review”. The American Historical Review70.3 (1965): 732–739. Web.

Pohlig, Veronika Christine. Adultery in Early Stuart England. Diss. Freie Universität Berlin, 2010.

Shurtleff, Nathaniel B, and David Pulsifer. Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, in New England: Printed by Order of the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Boston: Press of W. White, 1855. Print.