Popular mythology conjures up images of Puritan New England as a pious, homogenous, agrarian community, a "Citty upon a Hill" intended to inspire the English homeland to turn to Puritan ways. (1) However, Puritan New England was more than a collection of small, agrarian communities. The harbors of New England supported shipping and fishing industries, and abundant timber and ore supplies inspired the Puritans of North America to pursue a colonial version of the English iron industry. These new American Ironworks required skilled labor; it was not possible simply to take the offspring of Puritan farmers and merchants and turn them into iron workers. The experienced, skilled laborers needed were mostly recruited from England and, generally, were not Puritans. Stephen Innes describes these iron workers as having "had a long, and apparently well-earned, reputation for stout-hearted truculence and profane living." (2) How, then, did these most un-Puritan individuals function in Puritan Society?
Essex County Court records concerning the Leonards, a family of immigrant iron workers, will be examined as a case study of the social integration of outsiders into a typical Puritan community. The Leonards do seem to epitomize the "truculent and profane" iron workers that Innes describes. The court cases involving the various Leonard family members often seem to be of a different, darker character than other, perhaps more typical, cases. While most Puritan lawsuits involved boundary lines and bad language, the Leonards were brought before the court charged with arson and highway robbery. As skilled and thus valued iron workers, the Leonard family was tolerated for pragmatic reasons. But the level of toleration shown by the community seemed to go beyond mere pragmatism. Even though the Leonard family was never fully integrated into the Puritan community, they were none the less accepted as members of that community.
The Puritans of New England were not renowned for their willingness to accept outsiders into their communities. According to The book of the general lauus and libertyes concerning the inhabitants of the Massachusets, individuals, and whole towns, were statutorily prohibited from allowing any stranger to reside within the jurisdiction for more than three weeks without permission from a magistrate. (3) As an illustration, in May 1663 John Emery was charged with harboring Quakers, and "also was presented on suspicion of breaking the law in entertaining Mr Greenland four months." (4) A cursory reading of the Essex court records reveals that Greenland was a doctor who was singularly unsuccessful in controlling his carnal lust. A more detailed recitation of his exploits is unnecessary here, but as a stranger to the community, Greenland's behavior made him undesirable to that community, and the community had an interest in, and took action toward, securing his removal. In fact, six citizens even went so far as to file an additional suit against Emery, "[f]or breach of a town order of Newbery, in entertaining Mr. Greenland to the great prejudice of the town." (5) But why would a community that refused to tolerate an amorous physician extend toleration to a family of rude, profane iron workers? The answer may lie in some combination of the Leonards' relationship to the church and the relative scarcity of the iron working skills that they possessed.
Although Puritans resisted mixing with outsiders, their theology compelled them to take an active interest in the affairs of any individuals who were at least nominally accepted into the covenanted community. They had a strong commitment to order, homogeneity and consensus and a desire to maintain peace and harmony. It was quite acceptable, indeed it was expected, for members of the community to keep watch over one another, to make sure that their neighbors were striving to live a virtuous life. "If thy brother be in want," asserted Governor John Winthrop in the Arbella sermon, "and thou canst help him, thou needst not make doubt what thou shouldst doe; if thou lovest God, thou must help him." (6) It was this Puritan desire to help a brother in spiritual want that compelled them to maintain such strict vigilance. Though the judgements they made against one another seemed harsh at times, there was also a willingness to forgive offenders and welcome them back into the community. The Essex court records show that Henry Leonard, the head of the family, became a member of the church and there were no cases of Leonard family members being fined for not attending services. (7) Perhaps the physician, Mr. Greenland, was more of an outsider than any of the Leonards were.
Beside their nominal connection with the church, Henry Leonard and his sons also possessed skills which were of considerable value to the community. Almost from the beginning of English colonization, plans were made for establishing an iron industry in North America. In the early 1600s, men such as Captain John Smith and Sir Francis Bacon pointed out the advantages that North American iron production would enjoy, chiefly abundant iron ore and streams to provide water power. (8) Dwindling resources in England, particularly the timber that was required to make charcoal, led to a willingness among established iron producers to invest in building ironworks in the colonies. Once facilities were built, however, it was necessary to staff them with laborers already skilled in the iron making process. According to Innes, this was "difficult and dangerous labor that tended to attract--and produce--semi-brutalized workers." (9) Skilled workers were needed in mines, in the furnaces and forges, and in the charcoal pits. Workers who made charcoal, known as colliers, were perhaps the most skilled in the iron trade. Their craft involved the careful arranging of as many as thirty cords of wood into piles which were then burned, creating the charcoal. The smoldering piles had to be tended constantly for as long as a week, with the collier making adjustments to prevent the pile from caving in or burning unevenly. (10) Colliers and the other skilled workers needed to man the colonial Ironworks were generally recruited in England, as were the Leonard family who, according to Innes, "may have been recruited from kinsman Richard Lennard's furnace in Brede, Sussex (in the Weald)." (11) Innes places the arrival of the first of the "extended clan" at the Hammersmith Ironworks at Lynn in the mid-1640s. (12) Court records dealing with the branch of the Leonard family that settled in Essex County span the years 1649 to 1679 and provide some insight into the integration of iron workers into Puritan society.
In the earliest of the Essex County court cases, the Leonard family appeared in cases arising from conflicts with neighbors. The first case involving a Leonard family member occurred in September of 1649. Mary, the wife of Henry Leonard, was fined for "speaking opprobrious words to" her neighbors. (13) The following year, a dispute arose between Henry and Mary Leonard and another couple, Larance (Lawrence) Turner and his wife Sarah. First, Turner sued Henry and Mary for defamation, then Henry and Mary sued Turner and Sarah for battery. (14) There was no verdict recorded for either case and the exact nature of the defamation charges leveled in the first case was not made clear in the depositions. Many stories of drunken and lascivious acts were recounted, but none of them involved the Leonards and even the Turners' involvement seemed somewhat marginal. The overall impression left is that the depositions were intended to support the truthfulness of whatever defamatory statements were made by the Leonards. There were no depositions in the battery case. It seems odd that Henry Leonard charged both Lawrence and Sarah Turner with battery. Perhaps this suit was brought mostly as retaliation for the Turner's defamation suit. There was clearly more going on between the Leonards and the Turners, and others, than can be discerned from the available sources.
Beside conflicts with neighbors, the court records also provide some indications of Henry Leonard's early involvement with the iron industry. During this period, he seemed to be an employee of the Ironworks at Lynn. The Lynn Ironworks were owned by investors in England and run by an agent appointed by them. There were many cases throughout the Essex court records involving the financial difficulties, and eventual court-ordered receivership, of the Lynn Ironworks, but the Leonard's involvement with these cases was minimal. In June of 1656, Henry gave a deposition in connection with the ongoing financial difficulties of the Ironworks at Lynn. (15) In June of 1658, Henry and two others were accused of violently preventing an official from impounding iron under a court ordered attachment. (16) Finally, in June of 1660, Henry was deposed in a suit over damage to property caused by an overflowing dam at the Lynn Ironworks. (17)
In addition to being gainfully employed, Henry Leonard also took a major step toward becoming a full-fledged member of the community. In June 1668 he took the freemen's oath, which indicated that at some previous time he had become a full member of the church. (18) This is particularly interesting since many life-long Puritans did not become full members, taking seriously the pronouncements of their ministers that that step should not be taken lightly. Was Henry Leonard fully aware of the gravity of the oath he took, and did he take it with the intention of living up to it? Or was his official conversion merely a move toward upgrading his social status?
The next series of cases reveal a pattern of debt and a decline of business interests, and perhaps social standing, that plagued the Leonard family in the early 1670s. There are some early indications that Henry Leonard was in debt prior to 1672. In September of 1650 he was sued by Joseph Armitage for debt though no verdict was recorded, and in September of 1656 he was sued by "John Hathorne, assignee and attorney of Nicholas Pinion" for debt and the case was withdrawn. (19) However, by comparison, the debt cases that began in 1672 were far more serious. At some point prior to 1672, Henry acquired one sixteenth interest in the Ironworks at Rowley Village and one eighth interest in the Ironworks at Topsfield. (20) In the period between June of 1672 and March of 1674, sixteen different cases were filed against Henry Leonard by a variety of plaintiffs. In the beginning, the cases were mostly for debt. By 1673, cases filed for breach of covenant and failure to supply promised iron and coal began to appear. Ten of the sixteen cases were decided against Henry, the six remaining cases were withdrawn. Of the six withdrawn cases, five occurred during or before June of 1673. It is reasonable to assume that these cases were settled out of court, probably for bar iron. Many writs were recorded which show that judgements awarded at this time were paid in bar iron, suggesting that, at least in the beginning, Henry was still actively producing iron. (21) However, early in 1674, the records show that two attachments were entered against Henry's interests in the Ironworks at Topsfield and at Rowley Village respectively. (22) It seems clear that Henry Leonard suffered serious financial losses during this period. During this time of financial crisis, one particular case stands out. As in the earlier dispute with Lawrence and Sarah Turner, Henry Leonard appeared to use the court to fight back. In March of 1673, Ambrose Makefashion, a collier, sued Henry for failure to pay for services rendered. The verdict was decided in favor of Makefashion, but Henry claimed the collier used a cart that was too small and, therefore, delivered less than the amount of coal contracted for. The court agreed and abated 20li from the judgement. Henry appealed the decision to the next Court of Assistants. (23) Three months later, Henry Leonard sued Ambrose Makefashion for non-performance of a covenant, a case stemming from the same incident, and won. According to the records, Henry recovered damages for wood that was cut and not coaled, wood that was lost due to inefficiency, and "for a months rent that I was forced to lie still for want of the coles." (24) However, this case was reviewed in September 1673 at Ipswich (the initial case was in Salem) and the decision was reversed.
Early in 1674, the cases begin to reflect the collapse of Henry Leonard's business enterprises. In March, auditors were appointed to examine the accounts in the case of John Gould v. Henry Leonard.(25) In April, the owners of the Ironworks at Rowley Village entered into an agreement which, in part, gave "libertie to Mrs Leonard for a weeke or fortnight to remove her goods out of the house..." which was part of the Ironworks property. (26) It seems likely that this signaled the end of Henry's business empire. This is the last case involving Henry Leonard as a litigant.
At the same time that Henry's financial ruin was beginning, his sons Nathaniell and Thomas made their first appearance in the Essex County court records. In May 1672, Nathaniell and Thomas Leonard, along with others, were fined for breach of peace and swearing. (27) This was just one month before the debt cases against Henry began in earnest. In April of 1674, just at the end of the flurry of debt cases against Henry, Nathaniell Leonard sued Hanna Dowling, a servant, for defamation. In a separate suit, Samuell Leonard, a third son of Henry, also sued Hanna.
Both suits were withdrawn. (28) In June 1674, the same Hanna Dowling made a complaint against Nathaniell, Samuell, and Thomas Leonard for "several misdemeanors and lascivious carriages." The court found that "several of the charges having been proved several years since," the Leonard boys were to be whipped or fined. (29) In the depositions, conflicting charges were leveled against both Hanna Dowling and the Leonards. Some of the Leonard men, it is not clear which, were accused of running naked footraces around the pond. Mary was accused of immodestly dressing in the morning with men in the room and all the Leonards were accused of using foul language. (30) In three of the depositions that were offered as testimony against Nathaniell, Samuell and Thomas, the family was referred to simply as "the Leonards." Being grouped in such a way seems to suggest that the deponents saw the Leonards as a distinct, autonomous group.
The timing of both cases involving Hanna Dowling seems significant also. The Leonard boys' defamation suits against her preceded her suit against them. Presumably the defamation suits were brought because Hanna was spreading gossip about them, but were other factors at work here? Since the court declares that several of the charges had been proved years before, why were those charges being heard at this time and not when the offences occurred? If those charges had been dealt with in informal ways at an earlier time, the fact that the court referred to them in this case demonstrates a predisposition to find the Leonards guilty based on their past behavior. Perhaps the boy's past infamy and the defamation suits filed by them, combined with the families' financial difficulties, made them more attractive targets for litigation than they would have been had they remained socially acceptable, silent and successful.
Another sign that the Leonard family was increasingly in trouble with the law occurred in June of 1674. Nathaniell Leonard was bound to good behavior "for abusing the marshal in the execution of his office and striking him." According to the only deposition in the case, the marshal was attempting to serve a warrant. It was not disclosed what the warrant was for, only that it was served at "the works" and was to be served "upon Samuel, Nathaniell, Thomas and John Lenord... ." (31) This was the only mention of John Leonard in the Essex County court records and his exact relationship to the others was not revealed.
It was not only the sons of Henry Leonard that became subjects of litigation during the period of his financial difficulties; his wife Mary also came under the scrutiny of the court. In the depositions from Hanna Dowling's suit against the Leonard boys, Joseph Bexby accused Mary Leonard of immodest behavior and of using "...very bad words, as Diuell & Damn yee & many words which I haue been ashamed to heare; which wicked Expressions haue been very Freequent wth them." (32) In June 1674, on the heels of the Hanna Dowling case, Mary Leonard was charged with, and admonished for, "several uncivil carriages." The charges were supported in a deposition made by Daniel Bexbey, presumably someone related to Joseph Bexby, who swore "that he had several times heard Goody Lenard use bad language and sing indecent songs, etc." (33) From the order of the depositions in the Dowling case and the timing of this one, it seems that Mary was not attacked until after she gave testimony in support of her sons. The fact that both of her accusers were named Bexby may be significant; the charges may have been the culmination of a recent feud between neighbors. However, it is also possible that these more recent attacks were a renewal of the attacks first made upon her twenty-five years earlier when Mary was fined for "speaking opprobrious words to" her neighbors.
It is significant that these cases involving alleged misbehavior by members of the Leonard family occurred at the same time as the debt cases. Clearly the two phenomena were related, but how? One explanation may be that the Leonards were particularly vulnerable to those social prosecutions because people were hostile toward them on account of their debt. Conversely, the Leonard misbehavior may have encouraged people to call in their debts. Perhaps both were true to some degree. A second explanation may be that Puritan theology drove the community to become more involved in the lives of members whom it perceived to be in trouble. The Leonard's loss of social standing due to their fading business fortunes may have been seen by the community as a loss of God's favor, a failure on the part of the Leonards to live according to God's will. The community responded by increasing their vigilance on the Leonards in an attempt to strongly encourage them to live a more virtuous life and thereby restore God's favor. If everything that happens in the community is tied to its members submission to God's will, then a failing business could be just as disruptive to the peace and harmony of that community as naked footraces around the pond. Apparently, the younger Leonards continued to be resistant to God's will, at least as personified by the laws and standards of the Puritan community. A mere three months after the debt cases involving Henry and the character cases involving Mary and the boys, a case appeared in the Essex courts that seems to signal an escalation in the degree of Leonard lawlessness. In September 1674 the owners of the Ironworks at Rowley Village sued Nathaniell Leonard, Ensigne John Gould and Thomas Baker for trespass. The verdict was for the plaintiff. (34) The case involved a fire which did serious damage to the works and people obviously suspected that the fire was set, either accidentally or deliberately, by Nathaniell. The depositions in the case show that Nathaniell was disgruntled over the treatment he and his family had received at the hands of the Ironworks owners and their agents. He was initially working at the Rowley Ironworks under an agreement which required that he and his brothers Samuell and Thomas "were to repair the chimneys, backs, &tc., to stop the leak in the dam..." and then, using raw materiels provided by the owners, they were to make "good merchantable bar iron with due care and diligence, with as little loss of coal or mine as may be, for which the Leonards were to be allowed 5li. 10s. p C." (35) A later agreement identified Gould and Baker as the owners' agents, and also specified that Mary Leonard was to be allowed to remain in the residence that was part of the Ironworks property, unless Nathaniell and Samuell failed to live up to that agreement, in which case the owners empowered Gould and Baker "to putt the sd mrs Leonard out of possession out of the said house and to remove her goods." (36) One deposition indicated that Nathaniell told Baker and Gould that he would go to work under "the old agreement" and when
they forbade him to do so, he went to work anyway "and threatened John Gould when he found him at the works, etc." (37) Some of the owners claimed that Nathaniell was employed "without their consent or knowledge" and that he burned the forge "either wilfully or through extreme carelessness and negligence." (38) In another deposition, it was alleged that "Goodwife Leonard and Nathaniel Leonard said they were done at the works and would work no more and deponent saw that their goods were gone out of the house, save a few trifles." (39) Presumably, Nathaniell quit working and Mary took her goods and cleared out of the house before the fire was set. It seems clear that the Leonards were not happy with the contractual arrangements. In a related case a deponent named William Smith stated that he heard Mary Leonard make "a sad complaint of how the owners had abused them, and she did not question but that God would right their case, for they had done no wrong," and that "the works would be ruined either by fire or water." (40) There was no direct evidence that Nathaniell Leonard started the fire, either deliberately or accidentally. But the circumstantial evidence seems pretty conclusive and when the case was reviewed in March of 1675 the court again found for the plaintiff.
While the Rowley Ironworks burning case was somewhat ambiguous as to the cause of the fire, a Topsfield arson was not. Thomas Leonard, Nathaniell's brother, was found to be under great suspicion of having burned down the coal house at the Topsfield Ironworks in July of 1675. He was bound to good behavior and was to be whipped if found within seven miles of Topsfield or the Ironworks.(41) It seems reasonable to assume that Thomas's act of arson was committed in retaliation for, or at least is related to, the treatment that his brother and mother received in the Rowley Ironworks case.
After the burning cases, two of the Leonard boys seemed to indulge in a string of lawless acts. In July 1675, at roughly the same time that Thomas was tried for the burning of the coal house at Topsfield, a marshal's deputy was sued "[f]or neglecting to serve an execution against Samuell Leonard." (42) The exact nature of the execution was not revealed. That same month, Samuell "made an escape from under the hands of justice to some parts in Coneticot Colony, court desired that the said Colony return him, if found, as a runaway." (43) There was a judgement entered in July against Thomas for fighting, stemming from an incident that apparently took place in June of 1675. (44) In November of 1676, "Thomas Leonard, Mr. Purchas and Ensign John Gould were freed from their bonds." (45) It was not made clear for what offences they were bound.
The lawless acts committed by Samuell and Thomas that took place between July 1675 and November 1676 were relatively tame when compared to the events of March 1677. At that time, "Thomas Leonard, Samuel Moore and Blaze Vinton for robbing upon the highway, were ordered to be branded upon the forehead with the letter B" and to pay restitution to the victims. Moreover, "for affronting and abusing Bellringer and Stace upon the highway, they were fined and bound for good behavior." (46) One of the assaults was described by the first victim, William Lattimore:
The first salutation that I had Tho. Lennard bid me stand: and asked me whoe was thare and I made Answer we ware men: then Lenard chalinged us of our horsis to try our manhood and said that he would take me by ye Iylides and make my heels strik fiar against the eliment: sum small spass aftar these words the aboue said lennard and Samuell more followed me and plucked me of my horse and robed me and touck from me: a gould ring tow shilings in monny of silver and Gould ribbin: and Fower yards of silver twest. (47) Richard Simons, himself "pulled from his horse" and struck "as many as a hundred blows," was with Lattimore at the time and supports his testimony. Simons was saved from being robbed when someone came from Gorg Darling's house, presumably a licensed ordinary, and rescued him. (48) On another day, Lenard Bellringer was beaten by the terrible trio, this time on horseback, and told "never to sit on a bridge when gentlemen pass by." (49) John Bassay testified that he and two others saw Thomas Leonard, Vinton and Moore go into Darling's, then leave after a time, and when they heard a commotion they went out and saw the trio assaulting Simons, whom they rescued. There were several other depositions, and all of them confirmed the guilt of the suspects. Unlike many cases in the Essex courts, there was no conflicting testimony. The nature of the crime and the testimony presented against Thomas Leonard and the others is particularly shocking because it seems so violent when compared to the average case that came before the court. Engaging in the kind of deliberate and premeditated criminal behavior described seems to preclude any notion that Thomas Leonard was attempting to live up to the religious standards of the Puritan community.
The Leonard boys, particularly Samuell and Thomas, seemed to have fallen to a extraordinarily low level of sin and anti-social behavior, but far from being executed like persistent Quakers, they were accepted back into the community. Four years after Thomas burned the coal house at Topsfield and Samuell escaped to Connecticut, a mere two years after Thomas committed highway robbery, Henry, Nathaniell, Samuell, and Thomas Leonard all contributed to a church collection to pay a new minister to come to Topsfield. (50) The presence of Samuell in particular indicates the degree of forgiveness and reintegration practiced by the community, for when Samuell escaped to Connecticut he was considered a fugitive from justice. There is no mention in the Essex County records of his return or of any consequences suffered by him. Since it is likely that these individuals had to be there in person to make the contributions to the minister fund, it seems that Samuell, Thomas and the other male members of the Leonard family were once again welcome in their Puritan community.
Even though the Leonard family was never fully integrated into the Puritan community, they were none the less accepted into it, however grudgingly. Certainly, the reason that Henry Leonard and others like him were initially tolerated was that they possessed iron working skills, skills that were needed and valued by the community. However, the acceptance of the Leonard clan seems to be more than just toleration for pragmatic reasons. In later years, were their skills really so unique as to make them indispensable? It is clear that the sons of Henry Leonard, at least Thomas and Samuell, took a sharp turn away from the community after their father's financial setback and the burning of the works at Rowley Village. If they possessed any iron working skills, surely those skills were not worth the amount of trouble that they caused. The courts saw to it that they were punished, but the courts never made an attempt to remove them from the community. Henry had taken the Freemen's oath, and all the male members of the family were at least nominally active in the church, as shown by their contributions to the fundraising for a new minister. Could their acceptance by the community stem from both a pragmatic need for their skills and a recognition of their conversion, however partial and incomplete, to Puritan religious values?
It seems that the Leonard family was resistant to conforming completely to the standards of the community. Many of the cases in which they were involved and many of the charges made against them in depositions demonstrate the extent to which the Leonards, wilfully and even with great relish, violated social norms. However, they were never run out of town like Quakers or other strangers; the community always seemed willing to readmit them. Though the life they lived was often far from virtuous, their neighbors continued to watch over them and, sometimes forcefully, point them in the proper Puritan direction. The Essex County court records, then, demonstrate that Puritans were willing to forgive offenders and welcome them back into the community. Their priority was forgiveness and redemption, not condemnation and exclusion.
Notes
1. Stephen Innes, Creating the Commonwealth: The Economic Culture of Puritan New England. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1995) 6. 2. Innes 252. 3. The book of the general lauus and libertyes concerning the inhabitants of the Massachusets. (Cambridge, Mass.: Printed according to order of the General Court, and are to be solde at the shop of Hezekiah Usher in Boston, 1648. [Early English books, 1641-1700; 698:12.]) 49. 4. George Francis Dow, ed. Records and files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts. Reprint ed. 9 Vols. (Salem, Mass. : 1911-78; cited hereafter as Essex) 3:66-67. 5. Essex 3:75. 6. Innes 343, n 95. Innes quotes Winthrop, "Modell of Christian Charity," Winthrop Papers, 2:286. 7. There are some indications of Leonards paying fines in the later volumes of the court records, but it is not specified what those fines were for. As the Leonard boys were in trouble much of the time, it cannot be assumed that those fines were for non-attendance. There are many examples of individuals being fined specifically for non-attendance, and the Leonards never appear in this context. 8. Innes 245-46. 9. Innes 250. 10. Innes 257. 11. Innes 263. 12. Innes 263. 13. Essex 1:174. 14. Essex 1:198-99. 15. Essex 1:425. 16. Essex 2:99. 17. Essex 2:210-11. 18. Essex 4:38. 19. Joseph Armitage v. Henry Leonard, Essex 1:194; Pinion v. Henry Leonard Essex 2:1. 20. Essex 5:271 for Rowley and Essex 5:265 for Topsfield. 21. For example, Essex 5:173 and 197. 22. See note 20. 23. Essex 5:130. 24. Essex 5:196. 25. Essex 5:290. 26. Essex 5:396. 27. Essex 5:31. 28. Essex 5:326. 29. Essex 5:351. 30. Essex 5:351-55. 31. Essex 5:358. 32. Essex 5:354. 33. Essex 5:355. 34. Essex 5:396. 35. Essex 6:2. 36. Essex 5:396. 37. Essex 6:4. 38. Essex 6:2. 39. Essex 6:4. 40. Gould v. Putnam, (July 1675) Essex 6:34. 41. Essex 6:54. 42. Essex 6:36. 43. Essex 6:56. 44. Essex 6:63. 45. Essex 6:222. 46. Essex 6:256. 47. Essex 6:257. 48. Essex 6:257. 49. Essex 6:257. 50. June of 1679, Essex 7:237-38.
Works Cited
The book of the general lauus and libertyes concerning the inhabitants of the Massachusets. Cambridge, Mass.: Printed according to order of the General Court, and are to be solde at the shop of Hezekiah Usher in Boston, 1648. (Early English books, 1641-1700; 698:12.)
Dow, George Francis, ed. Records and files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts. Reprint ed. 9 Vols. Salem, Mass.: 1911-78.
Innes, Stephen. Creating the Commonwealth: The Economic Culture of Puritan New England. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1995.
No comments:
Post a Comment