![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This week I am blogging about a Puritan-protesting ancestor named Herodias Long. She was different than what you'd expect in 17th century Puritan country in a lot of ways.
Her very name starts her in life as different. Who names their child for Herodias, of Bible infame? Possibly her parents wanted a Biblical name that hadn't been taken? She lived through a plague in England at age 12 that took the life of her father, and at age 13 was sent away to London by a mother who couldn't support her. There she met and married a man named John Hicks. Hicks took his child bride to the colonies in 1638, settling in Weymouth, MA. They were not admitted to the Puritan church and may have been early followers of Anne Hutchinson. They moved the next year to Rhode Island, joining the other not-Puritans. At some point John Hicks began beating his wife. Many women might have suffered this abuse in silence, for all the reasons we know, and a child bride, cut off from her own family and even entire land of her birth, had less reason than most for defiance and self-esteem in this situation. But in 1643, the mother of at least two children and only 19, she complained to the governor of Rhode Island that her husband beat her. Her faith in the legal system seems well founded, since by May of 1644 Hicks had failed to appear before the General Court to answer her complaint, and seems to have left Newport altogether. Herodias then lived with a neighbor, George Gardiner. They were viewed as living in sin, so Gardiner was commanded to appear in court. Herodias was granted a divorce, which sounds commonplace now, but was literally unheard of at that time and place. There were no laws allowing for it and the court seems to have been really reluctant about it. Herodias's divorce remains the first one on Rhode Island record. Here is the wonderful language describing the decision:
"This witnesseth tht in the yeare 1643, decemb. the 3d/ Harrwood Hicks, wife to John Hicks, made her Complaint to us of Many greevances, & exstreeme violence, that her Husband used towards her, uppon which she desired ye peace of him uppon ye Examination whereof we found such due grounds of her Complaints by his Inhumane & barbarous Carriages such Crewell blows on Divers parts of her body, with many other like Cruelties, that we fearing the ordenarie & desperate afects of such barbarous Cruelties, murthering, poysioning, drowning, hanging, wounds & Losse of Limbes, Could not but bind him to ye peace, Moreover we found him soe bitterly to be Inraged, & soe desparate in his Expreshions, uppon which the poore woman fraught with feares, Chose Rather to subject herselfe to any Miserie than to Live with him; He also as desirous thereof as She, Solicited us to part them, with much Impretunyty we therefore diligently observing & waighing, ye prmeses Conceived & Concluded, that it were better, yea farr better for them to be separated, or devorced than to Live in such bondage being in such parfect hatred of one another, & to avoayde & prevent the said desperate hazards premised, yet observing & knowing how Odious this act was amongst men, Refused to order theire separation, but tould them theire act should be theires wherein if they agreede we would be witnesses thereof uppon which they Came to an accord, & declared it to us which Accordingly we doe testifie the same, being perswade that god had separated them soe Inmeewtablie, that they were free from that marriage bond before god, Now we being Majestrates in this place, & in Commission for ye peace, & by order we are to walke accordinge to ye Lawes of England, under grace of our Soveraigne, had no direct Rule to walke by to devorce them did therefore under grace by our Authoritie declare them duly separate in wittness where of we therfor sett to our hands
this is a True Coppie Pr me
William Coddington
Wm. Lytherland John Coggeshall
Record[er] Nicho. Easton”
---Rhode Island colonial records
They were excused of having broken any law, but when Herodias described their wedding years later she said they just summoned some friends and declared to them that they were married. Who needs a pastor? A few years later Rhode Island codified matrimonial laws and adultery was now punishable by death. Even so, they didn't formally marry, but John Hicks acquired a divorce from the Dutch whom he lived with in New Amsterdam, so when Gardner was again charged with bedding another man's wife, in 1665, he was let off again. He and Herodias had around eight children by then.
Meanwhile, Anne Hutchinson's "Quaker" movement was growing and the established Puritan communities in Massachusetts felt so threatened that they sentenced any Society of Friends sympathizer to flogging and even death. While not known to be a Quaker, Herodias was friends with Mary Dyer, a prominent organizer. Quakers and others who protested these unjust floggings began a campaign of civil disobedience, daring to set foot in Puritan-held land. Herodias walked (I might say "marched"?) 50 miles from Newport to her old home of Weymouth, carrying a nursing infant, and pregnant. When she arrived, she preached against the Puritan intolerance laws, but was arrested and given ten lashes. A 12-year-old girl named Mary Stanton who accompanied her also got ten lashes.
Something soured between Herodias and George Gardner by 1664. Herodias is found in that year owning her own land and not using the name Gardner. She applied for a divorce, citing the peculiar nature of their original wedding. It was granted, but again, the laws surrounding who could live with whom were clarified, and not in a good direction. Anyone co-habiting without having proper civil or religious authorization would be lashed and the number of lashes would go up with each repeat offense.
Herodias, apparently more averse to marriage than to lashes (!) is found two years later co-habiting with a wealthy married man named John Porter. They were both summoned to court, and they both failed to appear. They were repeatedly summoned, and eventually John Porter refused on the grounds of illness. His appearance was postponed, but the next time it was Herodias who was ill. This went on for years. Eventually Porter appeared in court but was mysteriously found not guilty. (?) Herodias, who had also been charged, never came to court, and when her case came up, John Porter represented her and she was found not guilty. Soon after, Herodias used the name Porter, but no wedding is known of. She stayed with Porter until his death.
Herodias lived to the age of 99. She is my 9X great-grandmother.
Often Herodias is in the records under a different first name. Harwood, Hewdias, Herod, Harrid, etc. It may be that the Bible reading people of New England were more familiar with Herodias's Biblical role than were her parents who named her, so she may have presented herself as Harwood or Hewdias. I have to think the records that call her Herod, Harrid, or Horrid may have been a tiny bit prejudiced.
Her very name starts her in life as different. Who names their child for Herodias, of Bible infame? Possibly her parents wanted a Biblical name that hadn't been taken? She lived through a plague in England at age 12 that took the life of her father, and at age 13 was sent away to London by a mother who couldn't support her. There she met and married a man named John Hicks. Hicks took his child bride to the colonies in 1638, settling in Weymouth, MA. They were not admitted to the Puritan church and may have been early followers of Anne Hutchinson. They moved the next year to Rhode Island, joining the other not-Puritans. At some point John Hicks began beating his wife. Many women might have suffered this abuse in silence, for all the reasons we know, and a child bride, cut off from her own family and even entire land of her birth, had less reason than most for defiance and self-esteem in this situation. But in 1643, the mother of at least two children and only 19, she complained to the governor of Rhode Island that her husband beat her. Her faith in the legal system seems well founded, since by May of 1644 Hicks had failed to appear before the General Court to answer her complaint, and seems to have left Newport altogether. Herodias then lived with a neighbor, George Gardiner. They were viewed as living in sin, so Gardiner was commanded to appear in court. Herodias was granted a divorce, which sounds commonplace now, but was literally unheard of at that time and place. There were no laws allowing for it and the court seems to have been really reluctant about it. Herodias's divorce remains the first one on Rhode Island record. Here is the wonderful language describing the decision:
"This witnesseth tht in the yeare 1643, decemb. the 3d/ Harrwood Hicks, wife to John Hicks, made her Complaint to us of Many greevances, & exstreeme violence, that her Husband used towards her, uppon which she desired ye peace of him uppon ye Examination whereof we found such due grounds of her Complaints by his Inhumane & barbarous Carriages such Crewell blows on Divers parts of her body, with many other like Cruelties, that we fearing the ordenarie & desperate afects of such barbarous Cruelties, murthering, poysioning, drowning, hanging, wounds & Losse of Limbes, Could not but bind him to ye peace, Moreover we found him soe bitterly to be Inraged, & soe desparate in his Expreshions, uppon which the poore woman fraught with feares, Chose Rather to subject herselfe to any Miserie than to Live with him; He also as desirous thereof as She, Solicited us to part them, with much Impretunyty we therefore diligently observing & waighing, ye prmeses Conceived & Concluded, that it were better, yea farr better for them to be separated, or devorced than to Live in such bondage being in such parfect hatred of one another, & to avoayde & prevent the said desperate hazards premised, yet observing & knowing how Odious this act was amongst men, Refused to order theire separation, but tould them theire act should be theires wherein if they agreede we would be witnesses thereof uppon which they Came to an accord, & declared it to us which Accordingly we doe testifie the same, being perswade that god had separated them soe Inmeewtablie, that they were free from that marriage bond before god, Now we being Majestrates in this place, & in Commission for ye peace, & by order we are to walke accordinge to ye Lawes of England, under grace of our Soveraigne, had no direct Rule to walke by to devorce them did therefore under grace by our Authoritie declare them duly separate in wittness where of we therfor sett to our hands
this is a True Coppie Pr me
William Coddington
Wm. Lytherland John Coggeshall
Record[er] Nicho. Easton”
---Rhode Island colonial records
They were excused of having broken any law, but when Herodias described their wedding years later she said they just summoned some friends and declared to them that they were married. Who needs a pastor? A few years later Rhode Island codified matrimonial laws and adultery was now punishable by death. Even so, they didn't formally marry, but John Hicks acquired a divorce from the Dutch whom he lived with in New Amsterdam, so when Gardner was again charged with bedding another man's wife, in 1665, he was let off again. He and Herodias had around eight children by then.
Meanwhile, Anne Hutchinson's "Quaker" movement was growing and the established Puritan communities in Massachusetts felt so threatened that they sentenced any Society of Friends sympathizer to flogging and even death. While not known to be a Quaker, Herodias was friends with Mary Dyer, a prominent organizer. Quakers and others who protested these unjust floggings began a campaign of civil disobedience, daring to set foot in Puritan-held land. Herodias walked (I might say "marched"?) 50 miles from Newport to her old home of Weymouth, carrying a nursing infant, and pregnant. When she arrived, she preached against the Puritan intolerance laws, but was arrested and given ten lashes. A 12-year-old girl named Mary Stanton who accompanied her also got ten lashes.
Something soured between Herodias and George Gardner by 1664. Herodias is found in that year owning her own land and not using the name Gardner. She applied for a divorce, citing the peculiar nature of their original wedding. It was granted, but again, the laws surrounding who could live with whom were clarified, and not in a good direction. Anyone co-habiting without having proper civil or religious authorization would be lashed and the number of lashes would go up with each repeat offense.
Herodias, apparently more averse to marriage than to lashes (!) is found two years later co-habiting with a wealthy married man named John Porter. They were both summoned to court, and they both failed to appear. They were repeatedly summoned, and eventually John Porter refused on the grounds of illness. His appearance was postponed, but the next time it was Herodias who was ill. This went on for years. Eventually Porter appeared in court but was mysteriously found not guilty. (?) Herodias, who had also been charged, never came to court, and when her case came up, John Porter represented her and she was found not guilty. Soon after, Herodias used the name Porter, but no wedding is known of. She stayed with Porter until his death.
Herodias lived to the age of 99. She is my 9X great-grandmother.
Often Herodias is in the records under a different first name. Harwood, Hewdias, Herod, Harrid, etc. It may be that the Bible reading people of New England were more familiar with Herodias's Biblical role than were her parents who named her, so she may have presented herself as Harwood or Hewdias. I have to think the records that call her Herod, Harrid, or Horrid may have been a tiny bit prejudiced.