Those Crazy Puritans

In researching Heritage Crossing, I am taking the approach that the Puritans had a reason for why they did what they did, and unless in obviously direct violation of the ten commandments, I have the burden to explain in the story why an action was correct for the time. As a former auditor, I just cannot abandon my call to independence and objectivity in whatever I stand to report, even in writing …a historical novel.

For example:  The Massachusetts Bay Colony General Courts prosecuted men and women who dressed beyond their station and means. In one case, an unskilled laborer was found to continue to wear ruffled sleeves on his shirts, and powdered wig. After fair warning, he did it again and was fined five pounds.

While we might find the General Court action today archaic and laughable, that was not the case then. The Massachusetts Bay Colony directly supported the Congregationalist Churches and prosecuted men and women who violated the laws of God and Christian principles. There was no separation of church and state at that time, although Connecticut was a wee bit more liberal even then. Nonetheless, the question I had to ask if I intended to follow my objective approach to researching my Puritan history, was first to ask whether a person’s attire was a direct reproach to God. The answer was no. Thou shalt not wear ruffles or a powdered wig was not one of the ten commandments. Hmmm. Okay, blatant legalism, right?

No. So. What was going on? Well folks back then respected the sovereignty and providence of God. They believed that each and every man and woman was given their portion, and during colonial times there were four so apportioned classes of people: Educated/Professional, Proprietor/Professional, Skilled Laborers, and Unskilled Laborers. Everyone was expected to be grateful for what they had (and apparently wore.) Some of you aren’t so old that you weren’t told growing up how you should eat everything on your plate and be grateful for what you have. Same idea. For someone to wear an item that was obviously beyond their means or station–well, that was a gross rejection of God’s plan, grace and goodness. It was clearly covetousness, which was a violation of the 10th commandment, or chicanery–someone falsely representing themselves for illicit gain.

The way I figure it, those crazy Puritans thought that if God wanted a man or woman in ruffles (not stocks because those don’t look so good around the neck), he would have elevated the person to that class. Anything short of clearly accepting and being grateful for what God has given us had to be addressed and corrected to preserve the more important principle of our thanksgiving.

I hope I didn’t ruffle you.