[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
. 134 Widows in the Economic CommunityIn her petition to the Massachusetts General Court for a license tosell wines & some other Liquors out of doors, to Accommodate strong &Seafaring men, the widow Elizabeth Hall noted first that she was impov-erished by her husband s sudden death in Jamaica and was caring for fivechildren; then she assured the magistrates that she sought all Lawfull &honest means for the procuring & providing a competent maintenance. Widows frequently ran inns or taverns to the approbation of the commu-nity.11 However, when that same community deemed a widow s behaviorquestionable, it swiftly rescinded its approval.For example, Alice Thomas,whom we met in the previous chapter diffidently seeking help from themagistrates, less carefully constructed an identity as a shopkeeper andinnholder.12 Before her husband s death, in 1662, Thomas ran a coffee orcook shop.The brewhouse left her by her husband led to Thomas s trou-bles, and not just because of the many debts he also left her.In January1672, Suffolk County magistrates convicted Edward Naylor of frequentingthe widow Alice Thomas s bawdy house, convicted Mary Moor and sev-eral other women of fornication, and convicted and imprisoned Thomasfor the shameful crimes of abetting a burglary, of giving frequent secretand unseasonable Entertainm[en]t in her house to Lewd Lascivious & no-torious persons of both Sexes, giving them oppertunity to commit carnallwickedness, of selling wine and liquor without a license, and of profana-tion of ye Lord s day. In addition to imprisonment, the court sentencedher to stand [on the gallows] one hour with a rope about her necke, oneend fastened to ye sd Gallowes, and alsoe to be carried from the prisonto her one [own] house and brought out of the gate strip t to the waste,& there tyed to a Cart s Taile, and soe to be whip t [thirty-nine times]through ye Streete to the prison. Six months after Thomas s harsh public punishment, in response towhat they deemed an alarming number of Stews, whore-House[s], orBrothel House[s], the magistrates enacted a law establishing the samepunishment for all like crimes.In the same month, the court grantedThomas liberty during the daylight hours and then her complete freedomin exchange for her leaving Boston.On October 15, Thomas petitionedthe General Court for permission to return to Boston.According to her,the injunction was very much to her damage and inconvenience sinceshe was unable to improve her house and she was exposed to many in-convenient and uncomfortable journeys over the water. Because the mag-istrates prohibited Thomas from selling or renting her living in Boston, she claimed she was unable to support herself or to pay her debts. Widows in the Economic Community 135Such an appeal to self-support normally would have been enough tomove the court to rescind its banishment.13 However, the magistrates didnot allow Alice Thomas to return to Boston for another three years.Themale authorities and Thomas perceived her role as an economic providermarkedly different, but they apparently reached an accommodation be-cause after her return she seems to have become a well-behaved, hard-working member of the Boston community.When she died, in 1697, sheleft an estate valued just over £863, which she divided among two daugh-ters, two sons-in-law, seven grandsons, and eleven granddaughters.De-spite her generosity, a widow who provided for herself and her family in atroublesome manner represented a potential economic threat to the com-munity.Alice Thomas was not a unique example.In 1677, the Suffolk County Court fined Abigail King for entertainingStrangers and admonished her not to entertain any lodgers in her housewithout approval of the selectmen.14 The court expressed concerns thatwere even more clearly stated in its charges against Elizabeth George.15 OnOctober 29, 1678, the court convicted and fined George for selling Strongdrinke without licence. The magistrates had renewed her license for theprevious two years but declared that the license had allowed her only to keepe a house of publique Entertainment & to Sell wine beere & Sider. What happened in those two years? On April 30 and July 30, 1678, CharlesLidgett and Edward Pegge, respectively, were presented for being unsea-sonably at the house of Widdow George Ordinary Keeper. Although themagistrates did not bring charges of sexual misconduct against the menor against George, clearly they believed the three had behaved inappropri-ately.To punish the widow George for overstepping her bounds, the mag-istrates revoked her license.Nonetheless, she continued the business (eventhough the court imposed numerous fines on her) because she needed tosupport herself and her family.She was, if nothing else, a hardworkingwidow, but she also proved to be a weak and foolish widow.Althoughmany married women ran inns and taverns, so-called public houses, withtheir husbands, they were predominantly male gathering places wheremen could avoid communal restraint.Widows who inhabited this male-dominated and disreputable space faced suspicions of unsuitable, likelysexual, conduct.These concerns were not necessarily unfounded.The HampshireCounty Court presented the widow Kellum of Enfield, Massachusetts, for Lascivious carriages in that she was found.under the bed cloatheswith a man who was a Stranger. The Suffolk County Court charged Sarah 136 Widows in the Economic CommunityBuckminster of Suffolk County with fornication and with having a bastardchild.The Maryland General Court presented Susanna Dunn of CharlesCounty, Maryland, for living as man and wife with Philip Carey for twoyears, as well as for having a bastard child.These incidents might not haveoccurred in taverns (the records do not say), but they do suggest the so-cial and economic consequences of widows inability to support them-selves.The case of the widow Hannah Hownsell makes the point moreclearly.In 1683, the Suffolk County Court charged the poore distressed widow with fornication.In trying to defend herself, Hownsell explainedher plight and asked the magistrates to consider the Povertye of Me. Shehad Nothing to live on butt What I Gitt by hard Labor. Sometimes work-ing diligently was not enough; some widows who could find no other wayto support themselves and their family stooped to prostitution.Unmoved,the court ordered Hounsell whipped and placed into some good Familywhere shee may bee under Government. 16Widows revealed little of their tavern-keeping activities in their wills;in fact, only six Suffolk County widows (and none in any other countyin Massachusetts, Maryland, or South Carolina) indicated that they oper-ated taverns.Perhaps it was because, as the evidence suggests, tavernswere the headquarters of the classic lower-class vices cursing, fighting,lewdness and drunkenness. 17 What widow, Being weak of body but firmof mind and memory, 18 desired to be remembered the way Alice Thomasand Elizabeth George were? Yet, clearly some did, for historians tell usthat those numbers grossly underrepresented the number of reputablewidowed tavernkeepers.Moreover, advertisements from South Carolinareveal that even though tavern keeping remained a suspect way for wid-ows to earn a living, they found a way around the dilemma.Mary Bedonaddressed her business to Gentlemen that will be so kind as to be Cus-tomers. She assured them that they would meet with the best Recep-tion and Entertainment in her Power [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl matkasanepid.xlx.pl
. 134 Widows in the Economic CommunityIn her petition to the Massachusetts General Court for a license tosell wines & some other Liquors out of doors, to Accommodate strong &Seafaring men, the widow Elizabeth Hall noted first that she was impov-erished by her husband s sudden death in Jamaica and was caring for fivechildren; then she assured the magistrates that she sought all Lawfull &honest means for the procuring & providing a competent maintenance. Widows frequently ran inns or taverns to the approbation of the commu-nity.11 However, when that same community deemed a widow s behaviorquestionable, it swiftly rescinded its approval.For example, Alice Thomas,whom we met in the previous chapter diffidently seeking help from themagistrates, less carefully constructed an identity as a shopkeeper andinnholder.12 Before her husband s death, in 1662, Thomas ran a coffee orcook shop.The brewhouse left her by her husband led to Thomas s trou-bles, and not just because of the many debts he also left her.In January1672, Suffolk County magistrates convicted Edward Naylor of frequentingthe widow Alice Thomas s bawdy house, convicted Mary Moor and sev-eral other women of fornication, and convicted and imprisoned Thomasfor the shameful crimes of abetting a burglary, of giving frequent secretand unseasonable Entertainm[en]t in her house to Lewd Lascivious & no-torious persons of both Sexes, giving them oppertunity to commit carnallwickedness, of selling wine and liquor without a license, and of profana-tion of ye Lord s day. In addition to imprisonment, the court sentencedher to stand [on the gallows] one hour with a rope about her necke, oneend fastened to ye sd Gallowes, and alsoe to be carried from the prisonto her one [own] house and brought out of the gate strip t to the waste,& there tyed to a Cart s Taile, and soe to be whip t [thirty-nine times]through ye Streete to the prison. Six months after Thomas s harsh public punishment, in response towhat they deemed an alarming number of Stews, whore-House[s], orBrothel House[s], the magistrates enacted a law establishing the samepunishment for all like crimes.In the same month, the court grantedThomas liberty during the daylight hours and then her complete freedomin exchange for her leaving Boston.On October 15, Thomas petitionedthe General Court for permission to return to Boston.According to her,the injunction was very much to her damage and inconvenience sinceshe was unable to improve her house and she was exposed to many in-convenient and uncomfortable journeys over the water. Because the mag-istrates prohibited Thomas from selling or renting her living in Boston, she claimed she was unable to support herself or to pay her debts. Widows in the Economic Community 135Such an appeal to self-support normally would have been enough tomove the court to rescind its banishment.13 However, the magistrates didnot allow Alice Thomas to return to Boston for another three years.Themale authorities and Thomas perceived her role as an economic providermarkedly different, but they apparently reached an accommodation be-cause after her return she seems to have become a well-behaved, hard-working member of the Boston community.When she died, in 1697, sheleft an estate valued just over £863, which she divided among two daugh-ters, two sons-in-law, seven grandsons, and eleven granddaughters.De-spite her generosity, a widow who provided for herself and her family in atroublesome manner represented a potential economic threat to the com-munity.Alice Thomas was not a unique example.In 1677, the Suffolk County Court fined Abigail King for entertainingStrangers and admonished her not to entertain any lodgers in her housewithout approval of the selectmen.14 The court expressed concerns thatwere even more clearly stated in its charges against Elizabeth George.15 OnOctober 29, 1678, the court convicted and fined George for selling Strongdrinke without licence. The magistrates had renewed her license for theprevious two years but declared that the license had allowed her only to keepe a house of publique Entertainment & to Sell wine beere & Sider. What happened in those two years? On April 30 and July 30, 1678, CharlesLidgett and Edward Pegge, respectively, were presented for being unsea-sonably at the house of Widdow George Ordinary Keeper. Although themagistrates did not bring charges of sexual misconduct against the menor against George, clearly they believed the three had behaved inappropri-ately.To punish the widow George for overstepping her bounds, the mag-istrates revoked her license.Nonetheless, she continued the business (eventhough the court imposed numerous fines on her) because she needed tosupport herself and her family.She was, if nothing else, a hardworkingwidow, but she also proved to be a weak and foolish widow.Althoughmany married women ran inns and taverns, so-called public houses, withtheir husbands, they were predominantly male gathering places wheremen could avoid communal restraint.Widows who inhabited this male-dominated and disreputable space faced suspicions of unsuitable, likelysexual, conduct.These concerns were not necessarily unfounded.The HampshireCounty Court presented the widow Kellum of Enfield, Massachusetts, for Lascivious carriages in that she was found.under the bed cloatheswith a man who was a Stranger. The Suffolk County Court charged Sarah 136 Widows in the Economic CommunityBuckminster of Suffolk County with fornication and with having a bastardchild.The Maryland General Court presented Susanna Dunn of CharlesCounty, Maryland, for living as man and wife with Philip Carey for twoyears, as well as for having a bastard child.These incidents might not haveoccurred in taverns (the records do not say), but they do suggest the so-cial and economic consequences of widows inability to support them-selves.The case of the widow Hannah Hownsell makes the point moreclearly.In 1683, the Suffolk County Court charged the poore distressed widow with fornication.In trying to defend herself, Hownsell explainedher plight and asked the magistrates to consider the Povertye of Me. Shehad Nothing to live on butt What I Gitt by hard Labor. Sometimes work-ing diligently was not enough; some widows who could find no other wayto support themselves and their family stooped to prostitution.Unmoved,the court ordered Hounsell whipped and placed into some good Familywhere shee may bee under Government. 16Widows revealed little of their tavern-keeping activities in their wills;in fact, only six Suffolk County widows (and none in any other countyin Massachusetts, Maryland, or South Carolina) indicated that they oper-ated taverns.Perhaps it was because, as the evidence suggests, tavernswere the headquarters of the classic lower-class vices cursing, fighting,lewdness and drunkenness. 17 What widow, Being weak of body but firmof mind and memory, 18 desired to be remembered the way Alice Thomasand Elizabeth George were? Yet, clearly some did, for historians tell usthat those numbers grossly underrepresented the number of reputablewidowed tavernkeepers.Moreover, advertisements from South Carolinareveal that even though tavern keeping remained a suspect way for wid-ows to earn a living, they found a way around the dilemma.Mary Bedonaddressed her business to Gentlemen that will be so kind as to be Cus-tomers. She assured them that they would meet with the best Recep-tion and Entertainment in her Power [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]