Historical Studies Journal

Threads of Exclusivity: The Moral and Social Implications of Sumptuary Laws in Massachusetts, 1620-1705

By: Britney Berlin

Abigail Philips was “a young Gentlewoman, the Daughter of worthy, pious, and credible Parents, in Charlestown,” who attracted the attention of Puritan clergyman Cotton Mather.^[1] Mather found her to be a discrete, pious woman of agreeable charms and obliging deportment.^[2] The two shared sixteen years of marriage before Abigail succumbed to smallpox in the winter of 1702. Having been held in great esteem, countless mourned her passing and as many as 100 guests attended her funeral. Each guest received one of two books from her husband: Ornaments for the Daughters of Zion or Death Made Happy and Easy.^[3] The first of these books, Ornaments for the Daughters of Zion, warned against women wearing excess apparel and directed women on how to express the fear of God in their clothing.^[4] Although previously published a decade earlier, Mather felt compelled after the passing of Abigail to recirculate it as a form of worship.

Mather’s criticism of excessive fashion was not an isolated view during this period. Puritan society’s stance on fashion was evident in the multiple laws passed in the previous decades attempting to regulate it.^[5] Excess apparel could refer to anything deemed superfluous, like slashed clothes, specific types of caps, gold or silver girdles, belts, ruffs, and beaver hats. However, these laws primarily banned excessive lace and regulated who could wear silk hoods and scarves. They were passed to discourage people from pride and vanity by preventing people from dressing above their station.^[6] This served as a way to clearly define one’s social position, which helped uphold a clear social hierarchy. Although these laws applied to everyone, women—especially those worth less than 200 pounds—were fined for excess apparel most often.

Previous historians have tended to examine Massachusetts’ sumptuary laws tangentially while focusing on other topics rather than in their own respect. Some authors have viewed the laws through a moral lens, focusing on their role in preventing townsfolk from sinning.^[7] Other historians have argued differently, like C. Dallett Hemphill, who posits that Puritan society used institutions like the family, the church, and the court to preserve traditional inequality. According to Hemphill, these institutions would create rules of decorum as a way to uphold social hierarchies. She emphasizes the role of the courts in regulating status and behavior and uses sumptuary laws as an example.^[8] Integrating both perspectives paints a more nuanced picture of the societal ideals underpinning Massachusetts’ sumptuary laws.

While historians have typically either highlighted the role of sumptuary laws in reinforcing moral ideals or in upholding the social hierarchy, the role of sumptuary laws actually transforms from one into the other. Through the examination of letters, sermons, legislation, and court cases, it becomes clear that the reasons for sumptuary laws changed during the latter half of the 17th century. These changes coincide with New England’s economy becoming more self-sustaining. During this time, class divides became more prominent and the power of the Church began to wane. The regulation of clothing through sumptuary laws started as a way to prevent pride and vanity, but evolved into a way of upholding the social hierarchy by specifically targeting poorer people and ignoring the pride and vanity shown by the newly formed elite class.

New England’s Attempts to Forswear Pride and Vanity

When the Puritans began settling in New England, they saw it as a chance to be a moral beacon and stressed the importance of ignoring temptation. In 1621, Robert Cushman gave a sermon at Plymouth warning against excessive pride and vanity.^[9] He discussed Apostle Paul’s teachings, their meaning, and how they applied to Puritans. “I…press these things,” said Cushman, “because I see many men both wise and religious, which yet are so tainted with this pestilent self-love.”^[10] Of these people, he observed, “no varieties of dainties is too good for them, no silk, purple, cloth, or stuff is too good to clothe them.”^[11] Cushman pointed out the hypocrisy that these men could condemn the poor for idleness while ignoring their own faults. He stated that with the birth of the settlement, it was “no time for men to look to get riches, brave clothes, [and] dainty fare,” instead urging them to focus on necessities, share wealth, “and say, brother, neighbor, friend, what want ye, any thing that I have?”^[12] Nine years later, John Winthrop would give a sermon declaring that New England “shall be as a citty upon a hill. The eies of all people are upon us.”^[13] As such, New England needed to set a good example. Like Cushman, Winthrop believed New Englanders “must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of other’s necessities.”^[14] Both these men saw potential in New England to become a pristine settlement free from pride and vanity if its people would foreswear superfluities. This idea of superfluities, such as excess apparel, leading to pride and vanity, is cited by early sumptuary laws as the reasoning for banning such things.

Sumptuary laws emerged in Massachusetts as a way to discourage immoral behavior like wearing excessive fashions. The General Court passed the first sumptuary law on the 3rd of September 1634, banning the making and buying of clothing “with any lace on it, silver, gold, silk, or thread, under the penalty of forfeiture of such clothes.” The law also forbade making or buying any slashed clothes; cutwork, embroidered or needlework caps; all gold or silver girdles; hatbands; belts; ruffs; and beaver hats. This was the Court’s self-proclaimed attempt to suppress new and immodest fashions that they deemed superfluous and unnecessary. Unlike later laws, which included exemptions for the wealthy, this law applied to everyone regardless of gender or class. This, in connection with the law stating it was “occasioned by reason of some new & immodest fashions,” does seem like it intended to encourage broader societal morality.^[15] As such, it’s not hard to accept that the Court’s first attempt to regulate clothing was likely the result of Massachusetts’ Puritan ideals.

The Court’s first attempt to regulate clothing proved ineffective, resulting in a new law with a harsher penalty. A few years later, on the 28th of October 1636, another order was passed banning the making or selling of any bone lace or other lace under penalty of 5 shillings per yard of lace made or sold. Any tailor who added lace to a garment would be fined ten shillings for every offense.^[16] The fine was presumably an attempt to deter the wearing of excessive fashion. However, this would also prove ineffective as in 1639, another law was passed stating, “there is much complaint of the excessive wearing of lace, & other superfluities.”^[17] Again, this law attempted to regulate these things, which the Court deemed useless for anything but nourishing pride and setting an “evil example to others.” This law permitted officers and members of churches to regulate clothing in their towns, but any repeat offenders would need to be presented to the court.^[18] In 1641, Thomas Barnes appeared before a judge in violation of the lace law, who admonished and discharged him; Thomas’s case would be the only one brought to court.^[19] The lack of other cases following this law illustrates that this law wasn’t enforced, likely due to the economic strife New England experienced in the 1640s. Despite numerous attempts, early sumptuary laws proved ineffective at regulating the excessive fashion of the vain and prideful.

Here, Hemphill’s ideas of overlapping institutions of enforcement start to connect with the moral reasoning behind these laws.^[20] The religiosity of Puritan society had influenced previous sumptuary laws, but it wasn’t until a 1651 law that the Church gained explicit authority to enforce them. This highlights a unique dynamic in which the Church had a similar level of authority to that of the court system. However, the introduction of a less Puritan demographic to Massachusetts in the following decades resulted in the Church gradually losing some power.

A New Hierarchy Emerges

An economic depression during the 1640s caused a textile shortage that resulted in prior sumptuary laws being repealed. As an English colony, Massachusetts was not expected nor allowed to produce its own textiles, instead relying on shipments from England.^[21] This became an issue when shipments of goods from England decreased due to a decrease in immigration from England to the colonies.^[22] In 1640, “absolute necessity” forced the court to pass an order encouraging the manufacturing of linen and cotton wool by figuring out who could create textiles and how the skill could be taught to children.^[23] This law hints at the severity of the economic depression, which would only get worse when the start of the English Civil War further limited shipments. In 1644, all prior sumptuary laws regarding apparel and lace were repealed.^[24] The Puritan mindset regarding excess apparel hadn’t changed, as exemplified by later laws, but the textile shortage necessitated the elimination of sumptuary laws. By loosening restrictions, officials hoped to alleviate some of the stress of the textile shortage caused by decreased shipments.

New England’s economy eventually stabilized, inviting internal strife and greater social stratification. Young societies, especially colonies, rely on social cohesion to survive, for which religious principles can serve as a unifying and governmental structure. However, as economies stabilize, the need for homogeneity decreases. This, combined with class divisions that occur as economies develop, increase the potential for conflict—as was the case with New England.^[25] Along with decreased shipments during the economic depression of the 1640s, there were also fewer English fishing boats, which allowed New England to carve out a niche in the fishing industry. Fishing became the backbone of New England’s economy, allowing it to thrive. Unfortunately for the Puritans, this work attracted a rowdy group of workers who didn’t adhere to Puritan ideals of morality or comportment. Their dependence on the fishing industry forced them to accept these deviants, but it didn’t stop them from viewing these men as lesser.^[26] The Church held no power over those who don’t believe in its tenets, necessitating a new secular governing social structure. Thus, Puritan society became stratified according to wealth. This model still placed fishermen lower in the social hierarchy since their bosses paid them poorly, but it allowed the fishermen to understand precisely why they were considered lesser without needing to adhere to the Church’s doctrines. Understanding one’s social position helped the establishment of class systems as it allowed the upper classes to exert more influence since others could recognize the source of their status and power. This new hierarchy paired well with the emergence of a wealthy mercantile class that strove for the elite status formerly reserved for ministers.^[27] The increased wealth disparity and inclusion of outsiders into Puritan society allowed a new class-based hierarchy to emerge in New England.

Some Are More Equal Than Others

Sumptuary laws, which affected lower socioeconomic classes and virtually excluded the rich, upheld this new social hierarchy. In 1651, the General Court passed a new sumptuary law banning people worth less than 200 pounds from wearing gold or silver lace, buttons, silk hoods or scarves, or great boots. Anyone who violated this order would have to pay ten shillings per offense. The order exempted magistrates, soldiers, and formerly wealthy people.^[28] This explicit exemption of elites, who were “left to theire discretion in wearinge of apparrill,” showcases a notable distinction from previous orders.^[29] By targeting poorer populations, this law upheld a system of inequality where classes were distinctly stratified. The numerous court cases related to excess apparel that followed its passing show the law’s active enforcement. These cases don’t provide much information on their own, usually being one to two sentences along the lines of “Abigail, wife of Arthur Kippin, fined for excess in clothing, wearing broad bone lace.”^[30] However, when collectively observed, patterns emerge in who the court charged and why, which can provide insight into these laws and their purpose.

Only the poor were fined for excess apparel, but the authorities charged women for superfluous fashion more often than men. Starting in 1652, there were seven instances of the court fining people for excess apparel.^[31] Some of these cases involved multiple people being presented for dressing above their station. The court fined seven men and four women for possession of items like gold and silver lace, broad bone lace, silver and gold buttons, a silk hood, boots, and ribbons. The only fine specified was in the case of Richard Greene, who was ordered to pay 2 shillings and 6 pence.^[32] The following year, eighteen people appeared in court for excess apparel, twelve of which authorities discharged on account of being worth more than 200 pounds. Sixteen of those accused were women.^[33] Although initial cases focused on men, women were disproportionately accused regardless of wealth. This pattern continued in the following decades, with the remaining court cases being entirely about women.^[34] The court didn’t fine wealthy women for their outfits, but their presence in court cases highlights how women were more likely to be accused. The law may have explicitly targeted poorer people, but in practice, it also targeted women, systemically reinforcing ideas of wealth and gender that correspond to the social hierarchies in Massachusetts.

The exclusion of the rich from this law makes it clear that the law did not intend to stop excessive pride and vanity but rather to provide a visual distinction between the poor and the wealthy in Massachusetts. Hemphill discusses the 1651 law in the context of manners and how New Englanders saw the poor trying to emulate gentlefolk as a breach of decorum.^[35] However, by distinguishing how social groups could dress, the Puritans also developed a method of visually gauging one’s social status. The desire to visually express wealth is seen in Puritan portraiture from the 1670s. These paintings generally featured clergymen, merchants, military officers, government officials, or their families, as only the wealthy could afford to have their likenesses painted.^[36] These portraits illustrate that the wealthy not only wore banned fabrics but actively flaunted them. Notably, some of these paintings depict children wearing lace, ribbons, and other excessive fashions.^[37] This comes after a 1662 addendum to prior sumptuary laws that established a fine for dressing children in excess apparel.^[38] In her analysis of Thomas Smith’s portraits, Lillian Miller highlights how the paintings are designed to demonstrate the subject’s rank. The painter has made sure to depict the coat of arms, ornate uniforms, symbols of power, and symbols of wealth to signify the subject’s status. The inclusion of these emphasizes the importance of family and social status during this time.^[39] The Puritan elites had no issue showing off displays of pride and vanity, especially since they were exempt from the law against excess fashion.

Material evidence from the latter part of the 1600s suggests that the gentry class still wore silk and lace during daily life. Archaeologists have excavated a 17th century privy located in Boston at the Cross Street Backlot site. The privy is estimated to have been constructed during the 1660s, possibly in 1666, when Katherine Naylor married her second husband. A combination of historical records and examination of strata indicates that Katherine Naylor and her family used it until around 1710.^[40] The excavation unearthed numerous scraps of fabric, including silk. Of the 161 fragments, they found 35 silk fabrics, 22 silk ribbons, and 6 silk mixtures. Silk taffeta comprised the majority of the fabrics, as it was commonly used in women’s gowns, hoods, and aprons.^[41] Whether the Naylor family disposed of these scraps intentionally or not, the sheer amount of silk textiles found in the privy would indicate that the gentry still commonly used silk during this period. A bobbin lace fragment, which was likely used as trimming on clothing, was also found in the privy.^[42] The discovery of these textiles provided material evidence that people, especially the elite, still wore excess apparel despite attempts to limit it.

Increase Mather’s Failed Reformation

Despite its evolution into a tool for class distinction, some still viewed regulating clothing as a moral issue. In 1674, Increase Mather gave a sermon advocating for social reform in New England due to moral corruption.^[43] In his speech, he criticized superfluous fashion, declaring it prideful and sinful. He also claimed “disobedience in Inferiours towards Superiours, in Families in Churches, and in the Commonwealth” resulted from pride. Despite his critique that the pride of inferiors resulted in them disobeying their superiors, he also acknowledged that New England had been oppressing and exploiting the poor. This caused Increase Mather to fear that “the Oppressing Sword will come upon us, because of the Oppressions.”^[44] His words illustrate that even contemporaries could recognize the unfair treatment of the poor. Mather’s sermon denounced the mistreatment of the poor while also warning against pride, demonstrating that he still saw excess apparel as a moral issue.

Letters from this period indicate that others shared Increase Mather’s perspective but that laws ineffectively regulated clothing. Three years after Mather’s sermon, John Westgate sent a letter to him urging for a moral reformation in Boston as he believed other towns would see the excess apparel abound in Boston and follow suit.^[45] The reformation still hadn’t been accomplished by the following year when Samuel Petto sent a letter to Increase Mather discussing whether sumptuary laws would help the issue.^[46] It seems they didn’t, given that Mather later received an anonymous letter expressing concerns about too much fashion in Boston.^[47] Mather’s writing and the letters he received indicate that people still held a genuine belief that excess apparel was an issue of pride that contributed to the broader moral corruption in New England.

The Merging of Moral and Social Ideals

Perhaps as part of his father’s attempted reformation, Cotton Mather published the aforementioned Ornaments for the Daughters of Zion in 1692. In this work, the moral and social reasonings for the regulation of clothing coalesce. He believed that women must wear clothing that demonstrated “modesty, gravity, and sobriety” and that to wear anything else was a “defilement” that showed a lack of virtue.^[48] A woman who prioritized fashion would, as he said, “break all the other Eight Commandments as well as the Sixth and the Eighth, which are thereby notoriously violated.”^[49] Mather’s work explains why the Church saw excess apparel as a bad thing. However, he also clearly states the role clothing had in upholding social hierarchies by saying, “The Ranks of People should be discerned by their clothes.” This directly expresses the desire to visually distinguish between the wealthy and the poor. He connected dressing above one’s rank to pride and vanity while subsequently ignoring the pride and vanity displayed by Puritan elites. Mather’s book evidences that Massachusetts enacted sumptuary laws for both moral and social reasons. Cotton Mather explained that excess apparel can symbolize sin while also suggesting that women and poor people are more likely to engage in it.

Similarly, in his Magnalia Christi Americana, Mather admonished the poor for their pride despite abundant evidence that elites also displayed excessive pride. Mather claimed that “Pride in respect of Apparel hath greatly abounded; Servants and the poorer sort of People are notoriously guilty in this matter, who… go above their Estates and Degrees, thereby transgressing the Laws both of God and Man.”^[50] However, of the 46 people presented for excess apparel 17 of them presumably had more than 200 pounds, leading to their discharge.^[51] This means a little over a third of the cases involved wealthy people. Furthermore, based on paintings, material evidence, and complaints of excessive apparel, it’s clear that the elites were still wearing superfluous fashions. Interestingly, one of Mather’s relatives was depicted wearing lace, ribbons, and pearls in a portrait done after her death, which were all status symbols and could be considered superfluous fashion.^[52] Evidence suggests that the elite were just as guilty of excess apparel as poorer people, if not more so. However, they weren’t persecuted for it, as sumptuary laws upheld a social hierarchy that elevated the rich above the poor.

From the founding of New England, the Puritans saw its potential as a shining example of what society could be. However, people like Cushman also saw that it could easily be corrupted. So, when superfluous fashions became more popular, the Puritans decided to regulate them before excessive pride and vanity became prevalent. Unfortunately, the sumptuary laws mainly proved ineffective and were rarely enforced. They were later completely repealed during a textile shortage that occurred as part of an economic depression. As New England’s economy stabilized, class divides became more prominent, resulting in a wealth-based social hierarchy emerging. Afterward, when the General Court passed a new sumptuary law, it specifically excluded those worth more than 200 pounds from its regulation, signaling the switch from upholding a moral standard to upholding a social standard. The Courts no longer concerned themselves with preventing excessive pride and vanity except in those worth less than 200 pounds. Subsequently, the wealthy emphasized status symbols in their portraits, hinting at a desire to differentiate themselves from others. They had no issues displaying and wearing previously banned fabrics, indicating that they did not fear penalization for pride and vanity. Increase Mather and a few others expressed concern about the growing issue of excess apparel and its moral implications. However, they could not effectively implement any type of reform. Mather’s son, Cotton Mather, perfectly exemplified how concerns regarding clothing regulation related not only to moral concerns like the desire to prevent sin, but also to social concerns like preventing the poor from emulating the elite.

Concerns about excess apparel disappeared from legislation after 1675 but still appeared in church records into the early 1700s. In 1675, the General Court passed a law warning against immorality that mentioned concerns about excess apparel and left fining such offenses up to county courts’ discretion.^[53] This law marked the last instance of excess apparel being mentioned in legislation. The last court cases enforcing legislation about excess apparel happened in 1676.^[54] However, it’s been speculated that concerns about excessive clothing influenced the witch trials, given the frequency with which clothing, including silk and lace garments, was mentioned in testimonies.^[55] Churches continued to warn against excess apparel in the following decades, as seen in the moral guidelines a Wenham-based church wrote in 1705 ordering church members not to engage in superfluities like excess apparel.^[56] Although sumptuary laws faded out of fashion in Massachusetts, they continued in other parts of the world for a variety of reasons. For example, in 1721, the House of Commons in England prohibited wearing calico.^[57] Then, in 1746, King George II passed the Dress Act, making it illegal to wear kilts or other Highland dress in Scotland.^[58] Sumptuary laws have played a pivotal role in the regulation of clothing throughout history. Understanding how and why they were used in colonial Massachusetts provides a better understanding of the nature of these laws.

Notes

1. Cotton Mather, Diary of Cotton Mather, 1681-1724: 1681-1708 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1911), 121. ↑
2. Mather, Diary of Cotton Mather, 405. ↑
3. Mather, Diary of Cotton Mather, 449-50. ↑
4. Cotton Mather, Ornaments for the Daughters of Zion. Or The Character and Happiness of a Virtuous Woman: In a Discourse Which Directs the Female Sex How to Express the Fear of God in Every Age and State of Their Life; and Obtain Both Temporal and Eternal Blessedness, (1692; reis., Boston: S. Kneeland and T. Green, 1741). ↑
5. Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, ed., Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, 5 vols. (Boston: W. White, 1853-4), vol. 1, 126, 183, 274-5; Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, ed., Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, 5 vols. (Boston: W. White, 1853-4), vol. 2, 84; Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, ed., Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, 5 vols. (Boston: W. White, 1853-4), vol. 3, 243-4. ↑
6. Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, ed., Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, 5 vols. (Boston: W. White, 1853-4), 274-5; Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, ed., Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, 5 vols. (Boston: W. White, 1853-4), vol. 3, 243-4. ↑
7. Thomas A. Foster, New Men: Manliness in Early America (New York: NYU Press, 2011); Wendy Lucas, “Damned by a Red Paragon Bodice: Witchcraft and the Power of Cloth and Clothing in Puritan Society,” Massachusetts Historical Review 20 (2018): 119–49. ↑
8. C. Dallett Hemphill, Bowing to Necessities: A History of Manners in America, 1620-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). ↑
9. Robert Cushman, The Sin and Danger of Self-Love Described, in a Sermon Preached at Plymouth, in New-England, 1621 (Boston: Charles Ewer, 1846), 11. ↑
10. Cushman, The Sin and Danger, 23. ↑
11. Cushman, The Sin and Danger, 21. ↑
12. Cushman, The Sin and Danger, 28. ↑
13. John Winthrop, “A Modell of Christian Charity,” Papers of the Winthrop Family 2, Massachusetts Historical Society. ↑
14. Winthrop, “A Modell of Christian Charity.” ↑
15. Shurtleff, Records of the Governor, vol. 1, 126. ↑
16. Shurtleff, Records of the Governor, vol. 1, 183. ↑
17. Shurtleff, Records of the Governor, vol. 1, 274. ↑
18. Shurtleff, Records of the Governor, vol. 1, 274-5. ↑
19. John Francis Cronin and John Noble, Records of the Court of Assistants of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay, 1630-1692, vol. 2, 3 vols. (Boston: County of Suffolk, 1901), 116. ↑
20. Hemphill, Bowing to Necessities, 18. ↑
21. Carey Blackerby Hanson, Early American Children’s Clothing and Textiles: Clothing a Child 1600-1800 (New York: Focal Press, 2024), 22. ↑
22. Hanson, Early American Children’s Clothing, 22. ↑
23. Shurtleff, Records of the Governor, vol. 1, 294. ↑
24. Shurtleff, Records of the Governor, vol. 2, 84. ↑
25. D. Morgan Pierce, “Prerevolutionary Stratification,” Komazawa University Foreign Language Collection: The Semiannual Periodical of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Department of English and Department of Foreign Languages, no. 8 (2010): 141-142. ↑
26. Daniel Vickers, Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850 (Chapel Hill: UNC Press Books, 1994), 97. ↑
27. Pierce, “Prerevolutionary Stratification,” 143. ↑
28. Shurtleff, Records of the Governor, vol. 3, 243-4. ↑
29. Shurtleff, Records of the Governor, vol. 3, 244. ↑
30. Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts: 1636-1656, 9 vols. (Salem: Essex County, 1911). vol. 1, 273. ↑
31. Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts, vol. 1, 270-4. ↑
32. Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts, vol. 1, 272. ↑
33. Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts, vol. 1, 278, 285, 303-4, 306. ↑
34. Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts: 1662-1667, 9 vols. (Salem: Essex County, 1913). vol. 3, 66, 70; Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts: 1675-1678, 9 vols. (Salem: Essex County, 1917). vol. 6, 72-3, 134-5. ↑
35. Hemphill, Bowing to Necessities, 18. ↑
36. Lillian B. Miller, The Puritan Portrait: Its Function in Old and New England (Massachusetts: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1985), 176. ↑
37. Alice Mason, ca. 1670, Oil on canvas, Adams National Historic Site; David, Joanna, and Abigail Mason, 1670, Oil on canvas, 39 1/2 x 42 1/2 in., Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco; Elizabeth Clarke Freake (Mrs. John Freake) and Baby Mary, ca. 1671-1674, Oil on canvas, 42 1/2 × 36 3/4 in., Worcester Art Musuem; Margaret Gibbs, 1670, Oil on canvas, 40 1/2 x 33 1/8 in., Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Robert Gibbs at 4 1/2 Years, 1670, Oil on canvas, 40 1/8 x 33 in., Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. ↑
38. Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, ed., Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, 5 vols. (Boston: W. White, 1853-4), vol. 4, 41-2. ↑
39. Miller, The Puritan Portrait, 173-4. ↑
40. Dana B. Heck and Joseph F. Balicki, “Katherine Naylor’s ‘House of Office’: A Seventeenth-Century Privy,” Historical Archaeology 32, no. 3 (1998): 35. ↑
41. Margaret T. Ordoñez and Linda Welters, “Textiles from the Seventeenth-Century Privy at the Cross Street Back Lot Site,” Historical Archaeology 32, no. 3 (1998): 81. ↑
42. Ordoñez and Welters, “Textiles from the Seventeenth-Century Privy,” 83. ↑
43. Increase Mather, The Day of Trouble Is near. Two Sermons Wherein Is Shewed, What Are the Signs of a Day of Trouble Being near. And Particularly, What Reason There Is for New-England to Expect a Day of Trouble. Also What Is to Be Done, That We May Escape These Things Which Shall Come to Pass. Preached (the 11th Day of the 12th Moneth, 1673. Being a Day of Humiliation in One of the Churches in Boston. / By Increase Mather, Teacher of That Church; [Seven Lines of Scripture Texts] (Cambridge: Marmaduke Johnson, 1674). ↑
44. Increase Mather, The Day of Trouble Is near, 22. ↑
45. “The Mather Papers,” in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, vol. 8, 4 (Boston: The Society, 1792), 578. ↑
46. “The Mather Papers,” 347. ↑
47. “The Mather Papers,” 668. ↑
48. Mather, Ornaments for the Daughters of Zion, 54. ↑
49. Mather, Ornaments for the Daughters of Zion, 59. ↑
50. Cotton Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana : Or, The Ecclesiastical History of New-England, from Its First Planting in the Year 1620. unto the Year of Our Lord, 1698. In Seven Books … (London : Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, at the Bible and three crowns in Cheapside, 1702),88-9. ↑
51. Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts, vol. 1, 270-4, 278-9, 285, 303-4, 306; Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts, vol. 3, 66, 70; Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts, vol. 6, 72-3, 134-5. ↑
52. Portrait of Elizabeth Eggington (1656-1664), 1664, Oil on canvas, 36 1/4 x 29 3/4 in., Wadsworth Atheneum Collection. ↑
53. Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, ed., Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, 5 vols. (Boston: W. White, 1853-4), vol. 5, 59-60. ↑
54. Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts, vol. 6, 134-35. ↑
55. Lucas, “Damned by a Red Paragon Bodice.” ↑
56. Joseph Gerrish, Church Records, 1674-1719, in the First Church in Wenham, Massachusetts, (Boston: Congregational Library & Archives), 26. ↑
57. Great Britain House of Commons, Journals of the House of Commons, vol. 19 (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1803), 493. ↑
58. Danbury Pickering, The Statutes at Large, From the 15th to the 20th Year of King George II (Cambridge: Printed by Joseph Bentham, 1762), 526. ↑