{"id":56531,"date":"2020-02-26T12:28:15","date_gmt":"2020-02-26T17:28:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.genealogybank.com\/?p=56531"},"modified":"2024-05-29T12:06:39","modified_gmt":"2024-05-29T16:06:39","slug":"our-puritan-ancestors-mass-bay-residents-waged-a-fashion-war-in-the-colony","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.genealogybank.com\/blog\/our-puritan-ancestors-mass-bay-residents-waged-a-fashion-war-in-the-colony.html","title":{"rendered":"Our Puritan Ancestors: Mass Bay Residents Waged a Fashion War in the Colony"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction:<\/em><\/strong> In this article, Melissa Davenport Berry describes the fashion laws in effect in 17th<\/sup> century Massachusetts \u2013 and how both women and men flaunted the law. <\/em>Melissa is a genealogist who has a website, americana-archives.com<\/a><\/em>, and a Facebook group, New England Family Genealogy and History<\/a><\/em>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Author\u2019s Note:<\/em><\/strong> This article is extracted from my \u201cDaily News Newburyport\u201d story about sumptuary laws published back on 23 June 2013, but GenealogyBank\u2019s Historical Newspaper Archives<\/a> provided more articles and I am stepping it up a notch.<\/p>\n

A popular article published in 1895 was \u201cThe Law and Woman\u2019s Dress,\u201d which ran in many newspapers across the country. Do not be fooled, Lads \u2013 you were mentioned here too, and the early court records are loaded with your fashion transgressions.<\/p>\n

\"An<\/a>
New York Herald (New York, New York), 7 July 1895, page 2<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Our Puritan ancestors\u2019 foibles reveal that human nature is no different today. In the Bay Colony, leaders and church officials waged a campaign of rigid scrutiny, censoring the lifestyle and habits of everyday citizens. Simplicity in dress was the law \u2013 but like any other infringement on personal liberties carried out in the name of God, these sanctions would not go down without a struggle. A fashion war raged, and it seems that the legislature could no more ban fashion than it could heretics or tipplers.<\/p>\n

In seventeenth century Massachusetts, the men of the cloth pleaded to Governor Winthrop to repress \u201cmen of leisure and power\u201d who emulated London fashions, spoiling the pure terrain. These \u201chorrids of vanity\u201d caused \u201calarm and disgust among the pious families.\u201d<\/p>\n

To remedy this, \u201cThe Simple Cobler of Aggawam,\u201d published by Rev. Nathaniel Ward, targeted the colony\u2019s ladies, stating they had \u201cno true grace or valuable virtue\u201d if they \u201cdisfigure themselves with such exotic garbs\u201d and are no better than \u201cFrench flirts.\u201d<\/p>\n

The holy rollers used sermons to blame these so-called \u201chaughty women\u201d for wars and bad harvests. The magistrates began enforcing sumptuary laws that prevented extravagance by limiting clothing expenditures. \u201cImmodest fashions\u201d with lace, silver, gold thread and other \u201citems of adornment\u201d that had \u201clittle use or benefit, but to the nourishment of pride,\u201d were strictly forbidden, as were \u201cslashed apparel, great sleeves, great boots, ribbon, and double ruffs.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 1636, a law forbidding lace \u2013 except for the upper class \u2013 was passed, and next came prohibitions against \u201cgreat britches, knots of rybon, broad shoulder bands, double ruffles, and capes.\u201d Despite these laws, garments of splendor and other wearable loot poured in \u2013 historical records show that our ancestors were quite stylish.<\/p>\n

The most notorious of the \u201cVanity Fair\u201d was Madame Rebecka (Swayne) Symonds, widow of Deputy Governor Samuel Symonds. Madame had three marriages before she tied the knot with Samuel, and all were beneficial to her purse and wardrobe budget. She was always starving for the newest trends, and she had the means and the connections to stock her trunks.<\/p>\n

Family letters reveal her appetite for finery. Her son John, born from a marriage to John Hall, a wealthy London merchant, dutifully supplied her with the latest and most glamorous garb. Apparently, Madame was more worried about catching the plague than tweaking the noses of local lawmen. Her luxury booty arrived with correspondence from Hall assuring her that he purchased the \u201cfinery himself, in safe shops, from reliable dealers, and kept all for a month in his own home where none had been infected.\u201d<\/p>\n

The family letters are housed in the American Antiquarian Society and referenced in Alice Morse Earles\u2019 book Two Centuries of Costume in America, Volume 1<\/em>. Though her garments carried no contagious germs, Madame Symonds was surely dressed to kill that season. And she wasn\u2019t the only one.<\/p>\n

\"Illustration:<\/a>
Illustration: Mrs. Simeon Stoddard. This portrait is from Alice Morse Earle\u2019s book \u201cTwo Centuries of Costume in America, Volume 1\u201d from 1903. The caption reads: \u201cMehitable Minot, daughter of John Minot and Hannah Stoughton, widow of Thomas Cooper and Peter Sargent. Boston woman of distinction She did take a 4th husband, the richest merchant in town, Samuel Shrimpton. With four husbands all of wealth she was always richly dressed, as in this portrait print. She is often compared to Madame Symonds.\u201d<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Judge Samuel Sewall, on the prowl for a wife, set his sights on the widow of Samuel Ruggles: Martha Woodbridge, daughter of Rev. John Woodbridge and Mercy Dudley and granddaughter of Gov. Thomas Dudley. Samuel not only adored her pedigree, but her chic garb as well. He wrote to Martha\u2019s brother, Rev. Thomas Woodbridge of Connecticut, noting fond memories of Martha\u2019s great style:<\/p>\n

\u201cI have sometime met your Sisters Martha and Mary, at the end of Mrs. Noyes\u2019s Lane, coming from their Schoole at Chandler\u2019s Lane, in their Hanging Sleeves; and have had the pleasure of Speaking with them: And I could find in my heart to \u00a0speak with Mrs. Martha again, now I my self am reduc\u2019d to my Hanging Sleeves. The truth is, I have little Occasion for a Wife, but for the sake of Modesty, and to cherish me in my advanced years (I was born March 25, 1652). Methinks I could venture to lay my Weary head in her Lap, if it might be brought to pass upon Honest Conditions; you know your Sister\u2019s Age, and Disposition, and Circumstances better than I do. I should be glad of your Advice in my Fluctuations.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The word got back to Martha, but she was not impressed \u2013 this fellow was never going to get under her sleeves. His diary notes his attempts, and after Martha rejected his two proposals, he moved on to woo Widow Gibbs.<\/p>\n

While the genteel usually got a minor shunning for their extravagance, for colonists with a yearly income of less than 200 pounds, wearing the style of polite society was criminal. To give falsehood of your station in the Puritan Republic was against God\u2019s law. The General Court announced its \u201cutter detestation and dislike\u201d that \u201cover-proud commoners\u201d of \u201cmean condition, education and callings should take upon them the garb of gentlemen.\u201d Infractions resulted in punishment and fines. Tailors were forbidden from making garments \u201ccontrary to the mind and order of the Governors,\u201d and if the grand jurors failed to bring indictments against guilty persons, the courts would impose fines on them.<\/p>\n

In 1653, Jonas Fairbanks and Robert Edwards were charged for wearing \u201cgreat boots,\u201d a cavalier fashion of excessive leather. John Chubb was admonished for \u201cexcess in apparel, beyond that of a man of his degree.\u201d Henry Bullock and Mark Haskall of Salem, Massachusetts, were fined for their \u201cexcess in apparel in boots, ribbons, gold and silver.\u201d In Ipswich, George Palmer was fined 10s. for wearing silver lace, and Samuel Brocklebank for the same, but discharged due to his higher station of income.<\/p>\n

The writer of this 1828 letter to the editor, identified only as \u201cY.,\u201d told the story of Jonas Fairbanks and his offensive boots, and reveals a more tolerable attitude than was prevalent in the 1600s:<\/p>\n

\u201cYes, Jonas was ambitious \u2013 ambitious of gaining distinction by dress\u2026 Could Jonas but be permitted to wear \u2018great boots\u2019 the measure of his ambition would have been satisfied. It would seem a very harmless thing to be indulged in this, and somewhat arbitrary to say to a citizen of goodly leg \u2018walk not in great boots.\u2019\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"An<\/a>
Newburyport Herald (Newburyport, Massachusetts), 12 December 1828, page 1<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

No one was safe from the fashion police. Ipswich\u2019s Arthur Abbott, agent who dispensed the fine dress goods to Madame Symonds via her son in London, could not dodge a fine slapped on his wife, Elizabeth (White) Abbott, for the public wearing of a silk hood. He \u201ccheerfully\u201d paid 10s. to the court \u2013 no doubt he liked his wife in the fine silk styled in the London fashion after Madame Pepys.<\/p>\n

Here are a few records (1653-1677) from the Quarterly Courts of Essex County and Massachusetts Town Records regarding residents\u2019 fashion violations. Note how often violators were excused, or \u201cdischarged,\u201d because they were wealthy.<\/p>\n