The Other Samuel Johnson: A Psychohistory of Early New England

1981 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 527
Author(s):  
Cedric B. Cowing ◽  
Peter N. Carroll
Keyword(s):  
1980 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 205
Author(s):  
B. R. Burg ◽  
Peter N. Carroll

1981 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 111
Author(s):  
Bruce Tucker ◽  
Peter N. Carroll
Keyword(s):  

1980 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 911
Author(s):  
Howard M. Feinstein ◽  
Peter N. Carroll
Keyword(s):  

1981 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 553
Author(s):  
Donald M. Scott ◽  
Peter N. Carroll ◽  
Robert Mapes Anderson
Keyword(s):  

1979 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 275
Author(s):  
Darryl Hattenhauer ◽  
Peter N. Carroll
Keyword(s):  

1975 ◽  
Vol 80 (5) ◽  
pp. 1382
Author(s):  
Gerald J. Goodwin ◽  
Joseph J. Ellis
Keyword(s):  

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 549-584
Author(s):  
John M. Lund

In February 1704, a Boston laborer named Thomas Lea found himself surrounded by townspeople as he lay on his deathbed. These spectators had gathered hoping to hear a much anticipated confession of the crimes they believed Lea had committed fifteen years earlier during the Dominion of New England. In Suffolk County, many townspeople had long maintained that Lea and others had used the confusion and chaos generated by the unsettling political and legal transformations introduced to New England during the 1680s to surreptitiously gain legal title to the estate of a prosperous Braintree, Massachusetts, landowner named William Penn. Standing by Lea's bedside, one witness, who believed Lea had perjured himself at the 1689 probate administration of Penn's estate, demanded: “Thomas can you as you are going out of the World answer at the Tribunal of God to the Will of Mr Penns, which you have sworn to[?]” “Was Mr Penn living or Dead when this Will was Made?” In the presence of assembled witnesses, Lea acknowledged, “he was dead.” Other townspeople pressed Lea to reveal the role he played in what many believed had been a murder for inheritance scheme. They reminded Lea that Penn's corpse had been found covered “in blood, in his own dung” with “a hole in his back, that you might turn your two fingers into it” and, even more disturbing, “one of his [Penn's] stones in his codd [scrotum] was broken all to pieces.” Averting the onlookers' gaze, Lea “turned his head aside the other way, saying what I did I was hired to do.” For these witnesses, the death-bed confession confirmed the rumors of Lea's crimes and strengthened their belief that a wave of corruption introduced in the 1680s had sabotaged New England's distinctive Puritan jurisprudence. Indeed, townspeople had labored for years to overturn the 1689 probate of Penn's estate in an effort forestall the crown's efforts to bring New England into political and legal conformity with the dictates of the growing English empire.


1974 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 314
Author(s):  
Norman S. Fiering ◽  
Joseph J. Ellis ◽  
Richard Warch
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 87 (4) ◽  
pp. 1003-1028
Author(s):  
Sandra Slater

This piece explores the origins of the anomalous 1655 New Haven statute against sodomy that broke with legal traditions and codes both in England and New England. A lengthy and extraordinarily specific piece of legislation, the New Haven law stands in stark contrast to the minimalist language favored by the English in the early seventeenth century. When viewed within the larger context of clerical animosities, particularly between Thomas Hooker and John Cotton, there is a strong circumstantial case to make for its implementation as an extension of John Cotton's rejected Massachusetts Bay legal code,Moses His Judicials, applied by his friend and admirer John Davenport in New Haven. A devout disciple of John Cotton, John Davenport's New Haven colony relied on Cotton's influence and stood as a rebuke to Thomas Hooker's Connecticut settlements, often criticized as too spiritually lax by those in Massachusetts Bay and New Haven. While seeking to demonstrate greater piety and rigidity, John Cotton and Thomas Hooker sought to exert dominance over the other, with Cotton employing Davenport's colony as an effective castigation of Hooker's perceived liberality. This piece is reflective of trends in studies of sexuality which suggest that ideas and identities related to sexuality do not operate in isolation, but often mirror anxieties not necessarily connected to the regulation of sexual activities. This article situates the 1655 Sodomy Statue within a broader context in order to understand its origins and animosities that potentially motivated its inclusion into the New Haven legal statutes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document