| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- DonnaAckermann - 30 Oct 2009
Incest in Colonial Massachusetts, 1636-1710 | |
<
< | Please feel free to add comments, critiques, and/or suggestions.
This is NOT ready for review quite yet. | >
> | This paper is now ready for review. Thank you. | | | I. Historical Context | | | England was displeased with this law because of its use of the death penalty for crimes for which the English did not impose the death penalty. In August 1695, the Court at Whitehall, namely the Lord Justices and Privy Council, addressed several laws that Massachusetts Bay Colony had passed, including “An Act, For the punishing of Capital Offenders.” The Lord Justices, after consulting with His Majesty’s Privy Council, “thought fit to signify Their Disapprobation and Disallowance of” these laws. These laws were therefore “repealed and declared void and of none Effect.” Massachusetts clearly heeded the Privy’s Council disallowance of the Capital Offenders act, as, according to a memorandum included in the copy of repealed acts, the colony responded to the repealed acts by passing several other acts to address many of the crimes that were included in the Capital Offender Act. For example, the colony passed individual acts to address high treason, murdering bastard children, murder, and rape. The inclusion of this memorandum makes it unclear if the Privy Council approved of these newly passed acts or was merely recording that they were passed. While an act to ban incest is not included in the memorandum of those laws passed in response to the repeal of the Capital Offenders Act, the Massachusetts General Court soon passed an additional statute specifically to address incestuous marriages.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
| |
<
< | The Great and General Court or Assembly of Massachusetts then passed “An Act to prevent Incestuous Marriages” on May 29, 1695. According to the dates of this act and the order repealing the first act, it seems that the repeal (in August 1695) happened after the new incest act was passed (in May 1695). One possible explanation for that is that time frame the repeal of the first act happened before the second act was passed, but the repeal was not officially recorded until after it was passed. Howard suggests there was a “Letter from the Privy Council,” which explained why the Capital Offender act was repealed; perhaps that letter arrived earlier. In any event, regardless of the dates, the later act regulating incestuous marriages became the official law of the colony. The act specifically refused to determine the breadth of the Biblical commandment with respect to incestuous marriages and served only to prevent confusion. It then listed the prohibited degrees within which a man may not marry, including several relationships of affinity. While the act specifically forbade a man from marrying his brother's wife or his wife's sister, it did not prohibit marriages between first cousins. Any marriage that was within the included prohibited degrees was void, and all children resulting from such marriages were unable to inherit.
Notes
:
:
:
:
,:
| >
> | The Great and General Court or Assembly of Massachusetts then passed “An Act to prevent Incestuous Marriages” on May 29, 1695. According to the dates of this act and the order repealing the first act, it seems that the repeal (in August 1695) happened after the new incest act was passed (in May 1695). One possible explanation for that is that time frame the repeal of the first act happened before the second act was passed, but the repeal was not officially recorded until after it was passed. Howard, the author of A History of Matrimonial Institutions, suggests there was a “Letter from the Privy Council,” which explained why the Capital Offender act was repealed; perhaps that letter arrived earlier. In any event, regardless of the dates, the later act regulating incestuous marriages became the official law of the colony. The act specifically refused to determine the breadth of the Biblical commandment with respect to incestuous marriages and served only to prevent confusion. It then listed the prohibited degrees within which a man may not marry, including several relationships of affinity. While the act specifically forbade a man from marrying his brother's wife or his wife's sister, it did not prohibit marriages between first cousins. Any marriage that was within the included prohibited degrees was void, and all children resulting from such marriages were unable to inherit. | | | In contrast to the first act that addressed incest, this
act does not provide the death penalty. Rather, those who are convicted of marrying or having carnal relations within the prohibited degrees were to be whipped, forty lashes at the most. All convicted persons were also “for ever after [to] wear a Capital I of two inches long” on the outside of their garments; failure to wear the letter on their clothing subjected them to an additional fifteen lashes. Finally, those couples whose marriage was void because of this statute could no longer cohabit together as man and wife.
Notes
:
| | | Cotton was born in 1663, married three times, was awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree by the University of Glasgow in 1710, and died in 1728 at the age of sixty-five. During his life, Cotton Mather had a personal library of about 2000 books, and he himself published about 388 works. In addition to being part of Increase's Answer, one of Cotton's most famous works was the Magnalia Christi Americana, which details the history of New England in about eight hundred pages. Published in 1702, the Magnalia was based on many sources, including diaries, letters, manuscript histories, interviews, and sermons.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
| |
<
< | b. Church's View of Marriage between First Cousins
Where the church and colonial government seemed to have differed was regarding whether marriages between first cousins were allowed. While the colonial government never expressly addressed the issue, presumably making these marriages lawful, the church not only explicitly addressed the issue but was adamant that such unions were wrong. In his “Propositions Concerning the Marriage of Cousin-Germans,” published as part of the Magnalia Christi Americana, Cotton Mather discussed his views on Cousin-Germans—first cousins—marrying each other. Mather recognized that the Bible did not prohibit first cousins from marrying but still opposed such marriages, based on Biblical principles. He believed that the degree of consanguinity considered to create an unlawful marriage was based on the positive moral law of God. Therefore, he felt that a marriage between first cousins “may be very inexpedient; it borders as near as is possible to what is unlawful. There is no need of coming so near, while we have such a wide world before us.” Drawing on how historical religious figures in the past viewed marriage between first cousins, Mather therefore recommended that the best way to proceed was to abstain from marrying one’s cousin. In addition to the unlawful Biblical aspect of first cousins marrying, Mather also recognized the more practical consequence of such marriages, namely that a main goal of marriage, to promote and extend alliances, would not be achieved.
Sewall shared in Cotton Mather’s opinion that it was not recommended that first cousins marry each other, as Sewall saw first cousins marrying each other as being the same as marrying a dead wife’s sister: “it is not easy to conceive how a man marrying his Sister, should be a Capital crime; and yet the Marriage of Cousins Germans should be blameless and Commendable, whereas they make the very next Relation of equal degree.” Therefore, Sewall did not distinguish between the different forms of marriage; he treated all blood and affinity relationships the same, in that they all make the marriage wrong in God's eyes. Sewall seemed to go a step further than Cotton Mather by viewing first cousin marriages not only as being doubtful but also as being actually prohibited by the Bible. Sewall’s logic was that “if the Scripture Reckons Grandfathers, Fathers: the Scripture likewise Reckons Cousin Germans among Brothers and Sisters, and so uncapable of Intermarriage.” Sewall unequivocally believed that “[d]egrees of Consanguinity and Affinity do equally affect Marriage,” and therefore, in a letter dated February 23, 1703/4, to his nephew John Sewall, Sewall attempted to prevent his nephew from marrying the widow of his first cousin: “who can think it a comly and pleasant Sight for a Grandfather to see his own Children joined together in Marriage? Who can think it prudent and profitable for Cousin Germans to seek a Marriage-Union?” (It also appears that Sewall re-sent this letter in 1708, but the circumstances are unclear.) As there were so many other lawful choices available, Sewall, as Mather did, advised that cousins should do that which is safe and honorable, namely they should refrain from marrying each other. Sewall compared marriage to land ownership in order to clarify his position. As Sewall explained, when a man buys land, he makes sure that he has the clear title to the land. “Much more ought a man to be concernd, to chuse such a Woman to be his wife, to whom he may have a good, clear, indisputable Title, without the least Flaw or Appearance of it.” It is unclear whether his cousin heeded his advice or not.
In Sewall’s opinion, the Roman Catholic Church was too restrictive in forbidding marriage between cousins, but English law was too permissive. The Roman Catholic Church prohibited marriage between first, second, and third cousins. In Sewall’s opinion, Pope Gregory discouraged first cousins marrying, but subsequent popes outright banned those marriages in order to profit from the dispensations that people would need to obtain before marrying a first cousin. English law, on the other hand, permitted marriage between first cousins. What appears in Sewall’s letter book as a “Memoranda,” wherein he “transcribes the following passage out of Dr. Fuller’s Engl. Worthies of London, p. 202,” seems to be included almost to bolster Sewall’s own opinions. Fuller’s passage suggests that the English Parliament passed a statute approving of the marriage between first cousins because of the relationship between King Henry and Katharine Howard (as Katharine was first cousin to Anne Boleyn.) A month after the statute permitting first cousins to marry was passed, Katharine Howard became queen. Sewall believed that Queen Katharine’s subsequent execution was evidence that marrying first cousins should not be allowed.
Notes
:
:
,,,:
:
:
,,,:
:
:
:
:
,:
:
,:
:
:
:
| >
> | a. Church’s View of Marriage within a Relationship of Affinity, especially Marriages between a Man and his deceased Wife’s Sister | | | | |
<
< | Sewall expressed his opinions about the Roman Catholic Church and English law in a letter to John Williams, dated August 23, 1707, wherein he tries to dissuade Williams from marrying his first cousin. What is particularly interesting is John Williams’ response, which Sewall recorded in his letter book only a week after Sewall sent his original letter. According to John Williams, marrying one’s cousin is not forbidden; if anything, it is expressly commanded, and in his actions, he is directed by God. Evidently, Sewall’s letters did not carry the weight of law, and his private opinions did not influence Williams at all. Williams not only ignored Sewall’s recommendation but cited God’s desires as his rationale for doing so. Williams’ response is the only occasion when the result or outcome of Sewall’s advice with respect to incestuous marriages is included. Based on this one response, it appears that the church had strong views opposing incestuous marriages, but those views were not binding by any means.
Notes
:
:
| >
> | Similar to the view of the colonial government, the church opposed marriages involving a relationship of affinity, such as a marriage between a man and his dead wife's sister. Sewall, as well as the Mathers, opposed such unions. In his Magnalia Christi Americana, Cotton Mather specifically addressed whether it was lawful for a man to marry his wife’s sister, the most common relationship of affinity that was addressed. Mather relied on the Bible to support his view that marriage between a man and his wife’s sister was prohibited. His reasoning was that a man and his wife’s sister were related within the first degree of affinity and therefore their marriage was unlawful. According to Mather, whatever degree of affinity exists between a person and a man, that same degree of affinity exists between a person and the man’s wife. Mather's position mirrors the belief generally held by all Puritans "that relations by marriage deserved equal recognition with those by birth, because they understood literally the Biblical dictum that man and wife are one flesh.” It was not uncommon in colonial Massachusetts for people to marry two or three times, but a man’s remarriage did not end his relationships with his first wife’s relatives – they were still considered his kin. Therefore, Mather reasoned, if a man was forbidden to marry his own kin, he was also forbidden from marrying his wife’s kin.
Notes
:
:
,:
:
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | Sewall was not the only Puritan who opposed these marriages between first cousins. In a diary entry from September 15, 1685, Sewall notes that Mr. Willard “seems to be against the Marriage of First-Cousins.” Mr. Willard probably refers to Samuel Willard, who was a close friend of Sewall and also served as pastor of the Old South Church, to which Sewall belonged.
Notes
:
:
| >
> | Interestingly, Mather avoids the debate to a certain extent by not distinguishing between a sister of a wife who is alive and a wife who has died, as the Biblical prohibition only explicitly forbids a marriage with a living wife’s sister. Technically, there is no prohibition against marrying a deceased wife’s sister, but since it was forbidden to marry the sister when the wife was alive, it makes sense that Mather and others thought such a marriage should be discouraged even when the wife had died. The Puritans, in “their anxiety to obey the Mosaic law, they even exceeded its requirements.” Mather further supported his reasoning based on English law, as it was forbidden in England to marry two sisters. Should a man marry his wife’s sister, Mather believed excommunication from the church was the appropriate punishment. Mather thus relied on the punishment established in the Bible. While the death penalty was available for those who had a relationship with their stepmother or daughter-in-law, excommunication was prescribed for those who marry their sister.
Notes
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | Despite Mr. Willard’s support, one of Sewall’s diary entries demonstrates that he was isolated because of his beliefs about first cousins marrying each other. In his entry of May 7, 1696, Sewall recounts that Colonel Shrimpton marries his son to his wife’s sister’s daughter (Shrimpton’s son marries Shrimpton’s niece, i.e. first cousins marry each other). Sewall was not invited to the wedding, even though most of the town was invited. Sewall writes that he was “glad not to be there because the lawfulness of the inter-marrying of Cousin-Germans is doubted.” However, Sewall is upset that people are talking about him behind his back, that Colonel Shrimpton has spoken ill of Sewall to defend his actions (in marrying his son to his niece). The entry continues with Sewall’s prayer to God that God provide good people for Sewall to be around, and that he and his family go to heaven. It appears that Sewall may have responded to the attacks against him, as Sewall also asks forgiveness for his “unsuitable deportment” at the table last Sabbath, the wedding day.
Notes
:
,,,,:
| >
> | The most comprehensive religious source on marriages with a wife’s sister is Increase Mather’s 1695 work, “The Answer of Several Ministers in and near Boston, to that Case of Conscience, Whether it is Lawful for a Man to Marry his Wives Own Sister?” Several ministers of Boston, Charlestown, and Dorchester, including Samuel Willard, Cotton Mather, and Increase Mather gathered to discuss their adamant views against marrying one’s deceased wife’s sister. Increase Mather led the meeting and recorded its conclusions in his work mentioned above. In a message to the reader, a prologue of sorts, Increase noted that it is particularly troubling that some “professors of Religion in a Land of Light” would not oppose the practice of marrying one’s wife’s sister, especially when even “Heathen Nations have detested it,” based on no principle but nature. Increase included the viewpoint that some people believe that death ends all relationships, making it lawful for a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister. But Increase disagreed with this position because, according to its logic, a man could marry his mother-in-law after his wife died, or by extension, a man could marry his stepmother after his father died. The Bible expressly addressed that a man may not marry his father’s wife in I Corinthians 5:1, which Increase Mather cited as proof that a man may not marry his wife’s sister, given the implications that permission to marry one’s wife’s sister would lead to a relationship that is expressly forbidden.
Notes
:
:
,:
:
| | | | |
>
> | Increase also presented the additional viewpoint of those who believed that the marriages were sinful, but that once a couple married, they should not be separated. Increase felt, however, that such an opinion was “strange and contradictory.” “It is as if it should be affirmed, that because men have transgressed against the light of nature, they may do so still, and live in that sin though it be to the Eternal Damnation of their Souls.” Increase believed these marriages are “wickedly incestuous.” By allowing the civil government to allow these couples to remain married was to question “whether Magistrates may not indulge in the most scandalous transgressions of the Moral Law, and so bring the guilt of those Crimes upon the Government and upon the whole Land where they are perpetrated.” Increase then cites Mark 6:18, where it says “It is not Lawful for thee to have thy Brothers Wife,” to support his point that John the Baptist’s intent in stating that prohibition was that the couple should no longer live together as Man and Wife. Increase further cited Ezra 10:3, 11 and Nehemiah 13:25 for the proposition that when a marriage was contrary to the Law of God (as is a marriage with a wife’s sister), it was not sufficient for the couple “to confess their fault, or to inhibit the like practice in others for the future, but the guilty Persons were made to put away all such Wives.” Finally, Increase referred the reader to the enclosed answer, which would “satisfy the Consciences” of those who truly wanted to know.
Notes
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | b. Church’s View of Marriage between a Man and his deceased Wife’s Sister | >
> | In response to the actual question of whether it was lawful for a man to marry his wife’s own sister, Increase was adamant in his position that it is unlawful for such marriages to take place because they were “utterly Unlawful, Incestuous, and an Hainous [sic] Sin in the Sight of God.” He explained his reasoning in five numbered paragraphs, revolving around the Bible’s text, what other nations and people have thought, and what may happen if these marriages continue. His first reason was based on the Bible’s lack of distinction between relationships of consanguinity and those of affinity. In Leviticus, kin includes both kinds of relationships. It then becomes clear, according to Mather, that if a man cannot marry his own sister, he cannot marry his wife’s sister. His second reason was also based on the Bible’s text, as the Bible expressly prohibits marriage between a man and his brother’s wife, “Which Implies that a man may not Marry his Wives Sister, who is as near akin to him as his Brothers Wife.” In the ministers’ view, if the Bible expressly prohibits one relationship, it implies a prohibition against the correlating relationship. So for example, when the Bible expressly forbids a nephew and aunt to marry, it implicitly forbids an uncle and niece to marry. Thus, marrying one’s wife’s sister is a relationship that is prohibited by implication. It is weak to argue that just because such marriages were not expressly forbidden that they were allowed.
Notes
,:
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | Sewall’s letter to Mrs. Pease illustrates his view on marriage between a man and his dead wife’s sister. In Mrs. Pease’s case, her first and second husbands both died, and now the brother of her first husband, Samuel Cranston, wants to marry her. In a letter to Mrs. Judith Pease, dated March 19, 1710/11, Samuel Sewall forbids Mrs. Pease from marrying her dead first husband’s brother because it violates the law of England and of God. Sewall rests the prohibition on Leviticus 18:16, which states that one should not uncover the nakedness of his brother’s wife. As Sewall understands it, if Mrs. Pease was once the wife of his brother, she is always the wife of his brother. Mrs. Pease’s daughters from her first marriage are evidence that she and Samuel Cranston are kin, since he is still their uncle even though her first husband, Samuel’s brother, has died. In his letter, Sewall refers to the case of Governor Blake, governor of South Carolina, to support his position. Apparently, although no corresponding letter is mentioned, fifteen years prior to Mrs. Pease’s situation, Governor Blake wanted to marry his wife’s sister, sought advice on the matter, learned that it was prohibited, and did not marry her. It is unclear from this letter if Mrs. Pease heeded Sewall’s advice or not.
Notes
:
:
:
,,,:
:
| >
> | The ministers cited as the third reason the practices of other nations that have condemned these marriages. Greeks and Romans, who did not even have the Bible to rely upon, banned such marriages, as did Jewish and Christian nations. Furthermore, England itself has prohibited such marriages. The fourth reason was that well-educated, learned, holy men—both in the past in other places and in the present within this nation—agreed that such marriages were unlawful. European universities also condemned such a practice.
Notes
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | In his Magnalia Christi Americana, Cotton Mather specifically addresses whether it is lawful for a man to marry his wife’s sister. Mather relies on the Bible to support his view that marriage between a man and his wife’s sister is prohibited. His reasoning is that a man and his wife’s sister are related within the first degree of affinity and therefore unlawful. According to Mather, whatever degree of affinity exists between a person and a man, that same degree of affinity exists between a person and the man’s wife. “Puritans believed that relations by marriage deserved equal recognition with those by birth, because they understood literally the Biblical dictum that man and wife are one flesh.” It was not uncommon in colonial Massachusetts for people to marry two or three times, and in fact, both Sewall and Cotton Mather each married thrice. But a man’s remarriage did not end his relationships with his first wife’s relatives – they were still considered his kin. Therefore, Mather reasons, if a man is forbidden to marry his own kin, he is also forbidden from marrying his wife’s kin.
Interestingly, Mather avoids the debate to a certain extent by not distinguishing between a sister of a wife who is alive and one who has died, as the Biblical prohibition only explicitly forbids a marriage with a living wife’s sister. Technically, there’s no prohibition against marrying a deceased wife’s sister, but since it was forbidden to marry the sister when the wife was alive, it makes sense that Mather and others thought such a marriage should be discouraged even when the wife had died. The Puritans, in “their anxiety to obey the Mosaic law, they even exceeded its requirements.” Mather further supports his reasoning based on English law, as it was forbidden in England to marry two sisters. Should a man marry his wife’s sister, Mather believes excommunication from the church is the appropriate punishment. Mather is clearly relying on the punishment established in the Bible. While the death penalty is available for those who have a relationship with their stepmother or daughter-in-law, excommunication is prescribed for those who marry their sister.
Notes
:
| >
> | Finally, the ministers feared the repercussions of such marriages. The Bible refers to these marriages as “wickedness” and “abomination;” these marriages provoke God to “send enemies upon a People, and to make their Land desolate.” If, after hearing the ministers’ opinion about these marriages, people continue to marry as such, “We may fear what God will do.” Such marriages are a practice for which God punished the Heathen Nations, and “it is a burning Shame, that ever it should be heard of in such a Land of Uprightness as New England once was and ever ought to be.” New England was held to a very high standard, and these marriages were simply inappropriate for such an enlightened place. The “Answer” was so influential that it “led directly to the passage of the celebrated law against incestuous marriages” of May 1695. Clearly, the church and colony government were aware of each other’s views and acted in harmony. While Sewall did not sign Increase's Answer--he was technically not a minister afterall--he was aware of its existence, and according to his April 13, 1711 diary entry, he even borrowed Cotton's book to copy its text. While the entry dates to shortly after the relevant period of inquiry for this essay, it is useful to cite the diary entry for proof that Cotton Mather and Sewall relied on each other for support in their beliefs and for actual source material. Evidently, Sewall and Cotton Mather were united in their beliefs and discussed those beliefs with each other.
Notes
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | The most comprehensive religious source on marriages with a wife’s sister is Increase Mather’s 1695 work, “The Answer of Several Ministers in and near Boston, to that Case of Conscience, Whether it is Lawful for a Man to Marry his Wives Own Sister?” Several ministers of Boston, Charlestown, and Dorchester, including Samuel Willard, Cotton Mather, and Increase Mather gathered to discuss their adamant views against marrying one’s deceased wife’s sister. Increase Mather led the meeting and recorded its conclusions in his work mentioned above. In a message to the reader, a prologue of sorts, Increase notes that it is particularly troubling that some “professors of Religion in a Land of Light” would not oppose the practice of marrying one’s wife’s sister, especially when even “Heathen Nations have detested it,” based on no principle but nature. Increase includes the viewpoint that some people believe that death ends all relationships, making it lawful for a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister. But Increase disagrees with this position because, according to its logic, a man could marry his mother-in-law after his wife died, or by extension, a man could marry his stepmother after his father died. The Bible expressly addresses that a man may not marry his father’s wife in I Corinthians 5:1, which Increase Mather cites as proof that a man may not marry his wife’s sister, given the implications that permission to marry one’s wife’s sister would lead to a relationship that is expressly forbidden. | >
> | Perhaps relying on the Answer's text and reasoning, Sewall believed marriages between a woman and her dead husband's brother was an additional relationship of affinity that should be forbidden, as explained in his March 19, 1710/11 letter to Mrs. Judith Pease. In Mrs. Pease’s case, her first and second husbands both died, and now Samuel Cranston, the brother of her first husband, wanted to marry her. Sewall forbade Mrs. Pease from marrying her dead first husband’s brother because it violated the law of England and of God. Sewall rested the prohibition on Leviticus 18:16, which states that one should not uncover the nakedness of his brother’s wife. As Sewall understood it, if Mrs. Pease was once the wife of his brother, she is always the wife of his brother. Mrs. Pease’s daughters from her first marriage are evidence that she and Samuel Cranston are kin, since he was still their uncle even though her first husband, Samuel’s brother, died. In his letter, Sewall referred to the case of Governor Blake, governor of South Carolina, to support his position. Apparently, although no corresponding letter is mentioned, fifteen years prior to Mrs. Pease’s situation, Governor Blake wanted to marry his wife’s sister, sought advice on the matter, learned that it was prohibited, and did not marry her. It is unclear from this letter if Mrs. Pease heeded Sewall’s advice or not, but Sewall was definitely opposed to marriages within a relationship of affinity, as were Cotton Mather, Increase Mather, and the colonial government.
Notes
:
| | | | |
<
< | Increase also presents the additional viewpoint of those who believed that the marriages were sinful, but that once a couple married, they should not be separated. Increase feels, however, that such an opinion is “strange and contradictory.” “It is as if it should be affirmed, that because men have transgressed against the light of nature, they may do so still, and live in that sin though it be to the Eternal Damnation of their Souls.” Increase believes these marriages are “wickedly incestuous.” By allowing the civil government to allow these couples to remain married is to question “whether Magistrates may not indulge in the most scandalous transgressions of the Moral Law, and so bring the guilt of those Crimes upon the Government and upon the whole Land where they are perpetrated.” Increase then cites Mark 6:18, where it says “It is not Lawful for thee to have thy Brothers Wife,” to support his point that John the Baptist’s intent in stating that prohibition was that the couple should no longer live together as Man and Wife. Increase further cites Ezra 10:3, 11 and Nehemiah 13:25 for the proposition that when a marriage was contrary to the Law of God (as is a marriage with a wife’s sister), it was not sufficient for the couple “to confess their fault, or to inhibit the like practice in others for the future, but the guilty Persons were made to put away all such Wives.” Finally, Increase refers the reader to the enclosed answer, which will “satisfy the Consciences” of those who truly want to know. | >
> | In two instances, Sewall specifically commented on the colonial court and legislature's actions with respect to incestuous marriages. When the statute against incestuous marriages was passed in late May 1695, Sewall recorded the vote in his diary entry of June 14, 1695, noting that the bill against incest passed, with twenty-four votes opposed and twenty-seven votes in favor. Sewall notes that the vote was close because many ministers submitted arguments argued against the law, as many of them had married their wives’ sisters. Apparently, the church debated the proper incestuous marriage prohibitions, and a small consensus emerged that marrying one's dead wife's sister was wrong. Both the Mathers and Sewall supported--and influenced--what the colonial government did, and ultimately the bill passed, in part to clarify that these marriages were against the law of God. Evidently, ministers' opinions directly influenced how the civil government acted, and in the case of this statute, there was enough church support to justify a colonial government ban on incestuous marriages with a man's dead wife's sister.
Notes
:
| | | | |
<
< | In response to the actual question of whether it is lawful for a man to marry his wife’s own sister, Increase is adamant in his position that it is unlawful for such marriages to take place because they are “utterly Unlawful, Incestuous, and an Hainous [sic] Sin in the Sight of God.” He explains his reasoning in five numbered paragraphs, revolving around the Bible’s text, what other nations and people have thought, and what may happen if these marriages continue. His first reason is based on the Bible’s lack of distinction between relationships of consanguinity and those of affinity. In Leviticus, kin includes both kinds of relationships. It then becomes clear, according to Mather, that if a man cannot marry his own sister, he cannot marry his wife’s sister. His second reason is also based on the Bible’s text, as the Bible expressly prohibits marriage between a man and his brother’s wife, “Which Implies that a man may not Marry his Wives Sister, who is as near akin to him as his Brothers Wife.” In the ministers’ view, if the Bible expressly prohibits one relationship, it implies a prohibition against the correlating relationship. So for example, when the Bible expressly forbids a nephew and aunt to marry, it implicitly forbids an uncle and niece to marry. Thus, marrying one’s wife’s sister is a relationship that is prohibited by implication. It is weak to argue that just because it is not expressly forbidden that such marriages are allowed. | >
> | The Editor’s Note in Sewall’s Diary specifies that the incest bill did not outlaw the corresponding marriages between a woman and her husband’s brother or nephew. However, Sewall himself indicated that such marriages were already considered unlawful, even before the incest statute was passed, based on the Court of Assistants case. In his entry from December 25, 1691, Sewall noted that the Court of Assistants declared null Hannah Owen’s marriage to her husband’s brother. Sewall recorded that she was forced to make a public confession before the Congregation, pay court fees, and go to prison. There is no way to know whether Sewall was aware of Hannah Owens' case because of his role as a Superior Court Judge (even though her case was heard by a different court) or whether court cases were generally well-known to the colonists. Either way, Sewall's diary further confirms that the church and colonial government both opposed marriages within a relationship of affinity.
Notes
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | The ministers cite as the third reason the practices of other nations that have condemned these marriages. Greeks and Romans, who did not even have the Bible to rely upon, banned such marriages, as did Jewish and Christian nations. Furthermore, England itself has prohibited such marriages. The fourth reason is that well-educated, learned, holy men—both in the past in other places and in the present within this nation—agree that such marriages are unlawful. European universities also condemned such a practice. | >
> | b. Church's View of Marriage between First Cousins | | | | |
<
< | Finally, the ministers feared the repercussions of such marriages. The Bible refers to these marriages as “wickedness” and “abomination;” these marriages provoke God to “send enemies upon a People, and to make their Land desolate.” If, after hearing the ministers’ opinion about these marriages, people continue to marry as such, “We may fear what God will do.” Such marriages are a practice for which God punished the Heathen Nations, and “it is a burning Shame, that ever it should be heard of in such a Land of Uprightness as New England once was and ever ought to be.” New England was held to a very high standard, and these marriages were simply inappropriate for such an enlightened place. The “Answer” was so influential that it “led directly to the passage of the celebrated law against incestuous marriages” of May 1695. Clearly, the church and colony government were aware of each other’s views and acted in harmony. While Sewall did not sign Increase's Answer--he was technically not a minister afterall--he was aware of its existence, and according to his April 13, 1711 diary entry, he even borrowed Cotton's book to copy its text. While the entry dates to shortly after the relevant period of inquiry for this essay, it is useful to cite the diary entry for proof that Cotton Mather and Sewall relied on each other for support in their beliefs and for actual source material. Evidently, Sewall and Cotton Mather were united in their beliefs and discussed those beliefs with each other. | >
> | Where the church and colonial government seemed to have differed was regarding whether marriages between first cousins were allowed. While the colonial government never expressly addressed the issue, presumably making these marriages lawful, the church not only explicitly addressed the issue but was adamant that such unions were wrong. In his “Propositions Concerning the Marriage of Cousin-Germans,” published as part of the Magnalia Christi Americana, Cotton Mather discussed his views on Cousin-Germans—first cousins—marrying each other. Mather recognized that the Bible did not prohibit first cousins from marrying but still opposed such marriages, based on Biblical principles. He believed that the degree of consanguinity considered to create an unlawful marriage was based on the positive moral law of God. Therefore, he felt that a marriage between first cousins “may be very inexpedient; it borders as near as is possible to what is unlawful. There is no need of coming so near, while we have such a wide world before us.” Drawing on how historical religious figures in the past viewed marriage between first cousins, Mather therefore recommended that the best way to proceed was to abstain from marrying one’s cousin. In addition to the unlawful Biblical aspect of first cousins marrying, Mather also recognized the more practical consequence of such marriages, namely that a main goal of marriage, to promote and extend alliances, would not be achieved. | | | | |
>
> | Sewall shared in Cotton Mather’s opinion that it was not recommended that first cousins marry each other, as Sewall saw first cousins marrying each other as being the same as marrying a dead wife’s sister: “it is not easy to conceive how a man marrying his Sister, should be a Capital crime; and yet the Marriage of Cousins Germans should be blameless and Commendable, whereas they make the very next Relation of equal degree.” Therefore, Sewall did not distinguish between the different forms of marriage; he treated all blood and affinity relationships the same, in that they all make the marriage wrong in God's eyes. Sewall seemed to go a step further than Cotton Mather by viewing first cousin marriages not only as being doubtful but also as being actually prohibited by the Bible. Sewall’s logic was that “if the Scripture Reckons Grandfathers, Fathers: the Scripture likewise Reckons Cousin Germans among Brothers and Sisters, and so uncapable of Intermarriage.” Sewall unequivocally believed that “[d]egrees of Consanguinity and Affinity do equally affect Marriage,” and therefore, in a letter dated February 23, 1703/4, to his nephew John Sewall, Sewall attempted to prevent his nephew from marrying the widow of his first cousin: “who can think it a comly and pleasant Sight for a Grandfather to see his own Children joined together in Marriage? Who can think it prudent and profitable for Cousin Germans to seek a Marriage-Union?” As there were so many other lawful choices available, Sewall, just as Mather did, advised that cousins should do that which is safe and honorable, namely they should refrain from marrying each other. Sewall compared marriage to land ownership in order to clarify his position. As Sewall explained, when a man buys land, he makes sure that he has the clear title to the land: "Much more ought a man to be concernd, to chuse such a Woman to be his wife, to whom he may have a good, clear, indisputable Title, without the least Flaw or Appearance of it.” It is unclear whether his cousin heeded his advice or not.
Notes
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | i. When Church Comments on Civil Government’s Actions | >
> | Sewall believed the colonial government, based on God's law, needed its position on marriages between first cousins to be somewhere between the Roman Catholic Church and English law. In Sewall’s opinion, the Roman Catholic Church was too restrictive in forbidding marriage between cousins, but English law was too permissive. The Roman Catholic Church prohibited marriage between first, second, and third cousins. In Sewall’s opinion, while Pope Gregory only discouraged first cousins marrying, subsequent popes outright banned those marriages in order to profit from the dispensations that people would need to obtain before marrying a first cousin. English law, on the other hand, permitted marriage between first cousins. What appears in Sewall’s letter book as a “Memoranda,” wherein he “transcribes the following passage out of Dr. Fuller’s Engl. Worthies of London, p. 202,” seems to be included almost to bolster Sewall’s own opinion that the English were too permissive. Fuller’s passage suggests that the English Parliament passed a statute approving of the marriage between first cousins because of the relationship between King Henry and Katharine Howard (as Katharine was a first cousin to Anne Boleyn.) A month after the English statute permitting first cousins to marry was passed, Katharine Howard became queen. Sewall believed that Queen Katharine’s subsequent execution was evidence that marrying first cousins should not be allowed. | | | | |
<
< | In two instances, Sewall commented on what the court and the legislature were doing with respect to incestuous marriages. Since the court and statutes did not address first cousins who marry, Sewall’s comments addressed marriages between a man and his deceased wife’s sister. When the statute against incestuous marriages was passed in late May 1695, Sewall recorded the vote in his diary entry of June 14, 1695, noting that the bill against incest passed, with twenty-four votes opposed and twenty-seven votes in favor. Sewall notes that the vote was close because many ministers submitted arguments argued against the law, as many of them had married their wives’ sisters. Ultimately, however, the bill passed, in part to clarify that these marriages were against the law of God. Evidently, ministers directly influenced how the civil government acted, and the passing of the bill was well known to the public.
Notes
:
| >
> | Sewall expressed his opinions about the Roman Catholic Church and English law in a letter to John Williams, dated August 23, 1707, wherein he tries to strike a blance between the two extremes and to dissuade Williams from marrying his first cousin. What is particularly interesting is John Williams’ response, which Sewall recorded in his letter book only a week after Sewall sent his original letter. According to John Williams, marrying one’s cousin is not forbidden; if anything, it is expressly commanded, and in his actions, he is directed by God. Evidently, Sewall’s letters did not carry the weight of law, and his private opinions did not influence Williams at all. Williams not only ignored Sewall’s recommendation but cited God’s desires as his rationale for doing so. Williams’ response is the only occasion when the result or outcome of Sewall’s advice with respect to incestuous marriages is included. Based on this one response, it appears that the church had strong views opposing incestuous marriages between first cousins, but those views were not binding by any means, especially as the colonial government never addressed first cousins. | | | | |
<
< | The Editor’s Note in Sewall’s Diary specifies that the incest bill did not outlaw the corresponding marriages between a woman and her husband’s brother or nephew. However, Sewall himself indicated that such marriages were already considered unlawful, even before the incest statute was passed. In his entry from December 25, 1691, Sewall noted that the Court of Assistants declared null Hannah Owen’s marriage to her husband’s brother. She was forced to make a public confession before the Congregation, pay court fees, and go to prison. Sewall addressed a Court of Assistant’s case, making it evident that the colonial government and religious figures influenced each other. | >
> | Indeed, not only was Sewall's advice ignored, but he felt isolated and was even targeted for his position on first cousins, on at least one occasion. In his diary entry of May 7, 1696, Sewall recounted that Colonel Shrimpton married his son to his wife’s sister’s daughter (Shrimpton’s son marries Shrimpton’s niece, i.e. first cousins marry each other). Sewall was not invited to the wedding, even though most of the town was invited. Sewall wrote that he was “glad not to be there because the lawfulness of the inter-marrying of Cousin-Germans is doubted.” However, Sewall was upset that people were talking about him behind his back, that Colonel Shrimpton spoke ill of Sewall to defend his actions (in marrying his son to his niece). The entry continues with Sewall’s prayer to God that God provide good people for Sewall to be around, and that he and his family go to heaven. It appears that Sewall may have responded to the attacks against him, as Sewall also asked forgiveness for his “unsuitable deportment” at the table last Sabbath, the wedding day. Despite this one entry expressing isolation, it appears that Sewall's position on first cousins was shared not only by Cotton Mather but by other ministers, too. | | | | |
>
> | In a diary entry from September 15, 1685, Sewall noted that Mr. Willard “seemed to be against the Marriage of First-Cousins.” Mr. Willard probably refers to Samuel Willard, who was a close friend of Sewall and also served as pastor of the Old South Church, to which Sewall belonged. Mr. Willard also signed Increase's Answer regarding men marrying their wife's sisters. While there was debate about the proper incest prohibitions, the church's majority view appears to have been that marriages with first cousins were questionable, if not outright unlawful. TO be safe in God's eyes, first cousin marriages should be avoided even though the colonial government did not address these marriages.
Notes
:
| | | c. When Incest is Discussed in General Terms | |
<
< | Both Cotton Mather and Sewall refer to incest in a more general sense, without explaining the specifics of their reference. Towards the end of Sewall’s diary entry from April 8, 1702, Sewall refers to Mrs. Thacher, who, on her deathbed, was troubled about her marriage to her first husband Mr. Kemp because there was “some smell of Relation between them.” Sewall does not explain what he means by this, or if Mrs. Thacher specified her concern any further. Likewise, in Magnalia Christi Americana, Mather speaks of two situations where incest is a valid ground for divorce (which a civil magistrate handles). First of all, if “there be incest in a marriage,” divorce is appropriate. Presumably, Mather would consider this ground to cover both marriages between first cousins and marriages with a deceased wife’s sister, as Mather considered both types of marriages to be incestuous. Also, divorce was appropriate where a person had sex before marriage with someone who was related to the person’s current spouse. Interestingly, Mather cited the degrees made incestuous by the law of God, not the law of the colony, as those that should determine who is “related” for purposes of granting a divorce. Between 1639 and 1692, Massachusetts had forty divorce actions, including only one action brought because of incest and two actions brought because of affinity, all of which were discussed above. The more common causes of divorce were adultery and desertion. It appears that divorce, or even voiding marriages, as a result of incest did not often happen. People seemed therefore to have heeded Sewall and Mather’s advice and avoided any marriage that could have been potentially problematic.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
| >
> | Both Cotton Mather and Sewall refer to incest in a more general sense, without explaining the specifics of their reference, also believing these general instances of incest were problematic. Towards the end of Sewall’s diary entry from April 8, 1702, Sewall refers to Mrs. Thacher, who, on her deathbed, was troubled about her marriage to her first husband Mr. Kemp because there was “some smell of Relation between them.” Sewall does not explain what he means by this, or if Mrs. Thacher specified her concern any further. Likewise, in Magnalia Christi Americana, Mather speaks of two situations where incest is a valid ground for divorce (which a civil magistrate handles). First of all, if “there be incest in a marriage,” divorce was appropriate. Presumably, Mather would consider this ground to cover both marriages within a degree of affinity, including marriage with a deceased wife’s sister, and marriages between first cousins, as Mather considered these types of marriages to be incestuous. Also, divorce was appropriate where a person had sex before marriage with someone who was related to the person’s current spouse. Between 1639 and 1692, Massachusetts had forty divorce actions, including only one action brought because of incest and two actions brought because of affinity, all of which were discussed above. The more common causes of divorce were adultery and desertion. It appears that divorce or void marriages as a result of incest or affinity did not often happen. People seemed therefore to have heeded Sewall and Mather’s advice and avoided any marriage that could have been potentially problematic. Interestingly, with respect to divorce, Mather cited the degrees made incestuous by the law of God, not the law of the colony, as those that should determine who is “related” for purposes of granting a divorce. Ultimately, the ministers expressed their views based on what they believed was necessary to comply with divine law. The colonial law only mattered to the extent it followed Biblical law; otherwise, colonial law was not the Puritan colonists' primary concern.
Notes
:
| | |
IV. Conclusion | |
<
< | While incest was not a common topic of discussion in colonial Massachusetts, when it was addressed, it was taken very seriously because of the important role of marriage in society and the fact that marriage was a form of worshipping God. Marriage between first cousins was never regulated by the court nor the colonial legislature; only the church viewed its lawfulness as doubtful, and ministers and devout Puritans therefore discouraged such marriages. Both the colonial government and the church agreed that marriage between a man and his dead wife’s sister was unlawful. While marriage between a woman and her dead husband’s brother was not explicitly forbidden, it too was considered unlawful by both the colonial government and the church. And when a forbidden marriage occurred, capital punishment was deemed unacceptable by the English Privy Council; instead, the colonial legislature decided corporal punishment, wearing a capital “I” on one’s clothing, and the couple’s separation were appropriate punishments. In a society where Church and State blurred together, where the colony was founded to serve God, incest was considered a crime, not a sin. The colony’s positive law existed in part to specify how to serve God properly, and it is evident that the church and the Bible influenced the laws of the colonial government and how the colony treated incest. | >
> | While incest was not a common topic of discussion in colonial Massachusetts, when it was addressed, it was taken very seriously because of the important role of marriage in society and the fact that marriage was a form of worshipping God. Marriage between first cousins was never regulated by the court nor the colonial legislature; only the church viewed its lawfulness as doubtful, and ministers and devout Puritans therefore discouraged such marriages. Both the colonial government and the church agreed that marriage within a relationship of affinity, especially between a man and his dead wife’s sister, was unlawful. While marriage between a woman and her dead husband’s brother was not explicitly forbidden, it too was considered unlawful by both the colonial government and the church. And when a forbidden marriage occurred, capital punishment was deemed unacceptable by the English Privy Council; instead, the colonial legislature decided corporal punishment, wearing a capital “I” on one’s clothing, and the couple’s separation were appropriate punishments. In a society where Church and State blurred together, where the colony was founded to serve God, incest was considered a crime, not a sin. The colony’s positive law existed in part to specify how to serve God properly, and it is evident that the church and the Bible influenced the laws of the colonial government and how the colony treated incest. | | | Documents | | | | |
>
> | Please feel free to add comments, critiques, and/or suggestions. | | |
| META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="Mather_Cousins.pdf" attr="" comment="Mathers View on Marrying Cousins" date="1256936458" name="Mather_Cousins.pdf" path="Mather Cousins.pdf" size="262086" stream="Mather Cousins.pdf" user="Main.DonnaAckermann" version="1" |
|---|
|
|