Eleanor Kuhns's Blog, page 12
March 12, 2017
Housecleaning - 1798
Besides all the other tasks involved in keeping house, wives also kept the house clean. As much as they were able - the standards of cleanliness were lower than ours. (I think women of the the past, both recent and long ago, would be stunned by the clorox infused wipes we use.) But there were no vacumn cleaners then, only brooms and they were mostly twigs or broom grass tied to a pole. The Shakers again invented a machine that tied on the straw for a more modern broom - and their brooms were highly prized.
But I digress.
The brooms had to be used to sweep the dirt and the floors were scrubbed on hands and knees with the harsh soap I mentioned earlier. What about carpets? Yes, they were swept. But every Spring well - run households had an annual and dreaded Spring Cleaning. All carpets were taken and beaten thoroughly to rid them of the accumulated dust, dirt and other unsavory objects.
Floors and windows, if the house had them, were washed and bedding was aired. Anything silver was polished, and not with the handy silver wipes either. Elbow grease was the common technique. Curtains were washed and rehung.
Children were impressed into helping and more affluent women hired help, usually unmarried girls from around the neighborhood. Spring cleaning usually took several days and contemporary accounts, especially from husbands, express frustration and annoyance at the disruption.
But the lot of women, and the work expected of them, was improving. See next week's blog.
But I digress.
The brooms had to be used to sweep the dirt and the floors were scrubbed on hands and knees with the harsh soap I mentioned earlier. What about carpets? Yes, they were swept. But every Spring well - run households had an annual and dreaded Spring Cleaning. All carpets were taken and beaten thoroughly to rid them of the accumulated dust, dirt and other unsavory objects.
Floors and windows, if the house had them, were washed and bedding was aired. Anything silver was polished, and not with the handy silver wipes either. Elbow grease was the common technique. Curtains were washed and rehung.
Children were impressed into helping and more affluent women hired help, usually unmarried girls from around the neighborhood. Spring cleaning usually took several days and contemporary accounts, especially from husbands, express frustration and annoyance at the disruption.
But the lot of women, and the work expected of them, was improving. See next week's blog.
February 20, 2017
Housekeeping - 1790s. Laundry
Housekeeping - 1790s – Laundry
Another really labor intensive and, to my mind, awful job was laundry. Water was heated in one of those large heavy kettles and the wet laundry was stirred in it. Water had to be carried from the well and if no well had been dug, from the nearest spring. Clothing was scrubbed clean on a washboard.
I own an antique washboard. I am probably the third or fourth generation to own it - but of course I don't use it. It is is a small washboard, probably used for lingerie. The washboards used for heavier clothing would have been much larger.
The laundry detergents we use now did not exist. Usually soap was made from wood ashes and fat. The wood ashes were soaked in a barrel. Why, you may ask. Because wood ashes contain lye. Mixed with fat, lye makes a hard and very harsh soap. Getting one's mouth washed out with soap must have been incredibly unpleasant!
On the frontier, this lye soap was also used to wash bodies. Lydia, since Rees travels regularly to cities like Salem and Philadelphia, and also because Maine was not the frontier in the 1790's, would have access to other soaps. Castile soap was made with olive oil and was first created in Spain -thus the name. One of the first manufactured soaps for skin was Pears soap and it was made with glycerine. It was not produced until 1807. (Ivory, the so pure it floats soap, was not produced until the 1840s. But I digress.)
Since clotheslines had not been invented yet, laundry was usually draped over bushes or shrubs to dry – that must have been fun in the winter. The Shakers invented a variety of methods to dry clothing indoors. If you visit Hancock Village you can see one method with a kind of folding screen like contraption. We can also thank them for inventing clothespins – the kind whittled from one piece of wood with two prongs.
Wealthier women hired a laundress who washed the linen – and later the cotton – sheets and clothing. (For those literary people, Beatrix Potter's Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle was a laundress. Emmett Otter's mother was a laundress as well ). Until calico came in vogue, (since it was cotton it could be washed) only the body linens were laundered. The silks and velvets were not. (Can I say yuck?) After a few wearings they were passed down to a favored servant. Contemporary accounts describe how these pieces of clothing, gowns mostly, were cut up and the still wearable pieces added to other dresses or made over into other clothing.
Monday was wash day, Tuesday was ironing day. (Wednesday was sewing or mending day for those interested.) Flatirons were heated by the fire and when it reached the proper temperature was used. When it cooled it was put back into the fire and another iron was taken from the hearth. The Shakers also invented a chemical to put into the clothing before ironing to reduce the wrinkling: this was many decades before it was used in the World.
When I think of how much laundry my small family generates and imagine trying to keep up with a large family I shudder. And on laundry day, cooking meals still had to be done. Any free time was spent on spinning or, if a loom was owned, on weaving. Since looms were very expensive not every household had the money to purchase one - that is why itinerant weavers like Rees had jobs. Looms of course were passed down - and that is the genesis of the word heirloom.
Many women - I read one statistic that put the number as high as 50% - could not read or write. Girls did not always go to school. They were too busy working in the home.
I think it bears repeating also that women worked usually with a heavy infant in their arms or a toddler at their heels and were probably pregnant besides.
Another really labor intensive and, to my mind, awful job was laundry. Water was heated in one of those large heavy kettles and the wet laundry was stirred in it. Water had to be carried from the well and if no well had been dug, from the nearest spring. Clothing was scrubbed clean on a washboard.
I own an antique washboard. I am probably the third or fourth generation to own it - but of course I don't use it. It is is a small washboard, probably used for lingerie. The washboards used for heavier clothing would have been much larger.
The laundry detergents we use now did not exist. Usually soap was made from wood ashes and fat. The wood ashes were soaked in a barrel. Why, you may ask. Because wood ashes contain lye. Mixed with fat, lye makes a hard and very harsh soap. Getting one's mouth washed out with soap must have been incredibly unpleasant!
On the frontier, this lye soap was also used to wash bodies. Lydia, since Rees travels regularly to cities like Salem and Philadelphia, and also because Maine was not the frontier in the 1790's, would have access to other soaps. Castile soap was made with olive oil and was first created in Spain -thus the name. One of the first manufactured soaps for skin was Pears soap and it was made with glycerine. It was not produced until 1807. (Ivory, the so pure it floats soap, was not produced until the 1840s. But I digress.)
Since clotheslines had not been invented yet, laundry was usually draped over bushes or shrubs to dry – that must have been fun in the winter. The Shakers invented a variety of methods to dry clothing indoors. If you visit Hancock Village you can see one method with a kind of folding screen like contraption. We can also thank them for inventing clothespins – the kind whittled from one piece of wood with two prongs.
Wealthier women hired a laundress who washed the linen – and later the cotton – sheets and clothing. (For those literary people, Beatrix Potter's Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle was a laundress. Emmett Otter's mother was a laundress as well ). Until calico came in vogue, (since it was cotton it could be washed) only the body linens were laundered. The silks and velvets were not. (Can I say yuck?) After a few wearings they were passed down to a favored servant. Contemporary accounts describe how these pieces of clothing, gowns mostly, were cut up and the still wearable pieces added to other dresses or made over into other clothing.
Monday was wash day, Tuesday was ironing day. (Wednesday was sewing or mending day for those interested.) Flatirons were heated by the fire and when it reached the proper temperature was used. When it cooled it was put back into the fire and another iron was taken from the hearth. The Shakers also invented a chemical to put into the clothing before ironing to reduce the wrinkling: this was many decades before it was used in the World.
When I think of how much laundry my small family generates and imagine trying to keep up with a large family I shudder. And on laundry day, cooking meals still had to be done. Any free time was spent on spinning or, if a loom was owned, on weaving. Since looms were very expensive not every household had the money to purchase one - that is why itinerant weavers like Rees had jobs. Looms of course were passed down - and that is the genesis of the word heirloom.
Many women - I read one statistic that put the number as high as 50% - could not read or write. Girls did not always go to school. They were too busy working in the home.
I think it bears repeating also that women worked usually with a heavy infant in their arms or a toddler at their heels and were probably pregnant besides.
February 14, 2017
Housekeeping circa 1798 Cookery
Housekeeping – Food Preparation
Without refrigeration or canned goods, food was prepared from scratch, usually three times a day. Breakfast might consist of mush, pancakes, eggs - familiar food. Supper was a usually a light meal of leftovers from the noon dinner or mush and milk.
So cooking was all day, every day. Churning butter and making cheese, smoking meat (men did the butchering but women took care of the meat afterward) and all the food preservation had to be fitted in around the basic cooking. Churning butter, for example, was a time consuming process. It was usually handed off to a child but since it took skill to pat the butter into crocks this was a task reserved for Mother.
Cheese making was another skill. Everything had to be spotless and the temperatures just so.
Women prepared meals over an open fire or on the hearth of a fireplace. (The average household used between 30 and 40 cords of wood a year – equal to about one acre of timber). Stoves had been invented by then. Immigrants who came from countries with wood shortages brought tile stoves. Ben Franklin invented a stove in 1741 – but that were not designed for cooking. The 1800s saw the development of stoves – heavy cast iron devices that h led eventually to the large ranges – but they did not take off until after 1815 or so, until then women cooked over an open fire. If the fire went out during the night, a child might be dispatched to a neighbor for a coal. Otherwise a tinderbox might be used. I’ve seen people demonstrate cooking over an open fire. One woman, who is very experienced at these demonstrations, took three hours to get the fire started.
As we all know an even temperature is not possible with an open fire. Some of the early fireplaces had ovens for bread and other baked goods built into the brick surround. It must have been quite an art to determine the right temperature for bread or other food. It also explains the boiled desserts and breads: i.e. Boston brown bread or the boiled puddings. So much easier to boil something in a mold without worrying about the temperature. Think about A Christmas Carol by Dickens and the Christmas dinner at the Cratchit house. The turkey had to be roasted elsewhere and the Christmas pudding was boiled.
Baked goods, while I’m on the subject, were stored in crocks but without plastic wrap, went stale pretty quickly. Baking therefore had to be undertaken several times every week.
Most women used the hearth as a cook surface and a variety of pans to cook on it near the fire. The spider, a three-legged pan, was one such piece of equipment used to bake food. The Dutch over was another. Placed on the hearth, they baked the food slowly in the heat from the fire. Women could then turn their attention to other chores.
Fireplaces had look swinging handles that could be pushed over the fire to heat water or cook stew. Some of the big pots that women were lifting from floor level, however, weighed 60 pounds. Yes, sixty, and that’s empty. Now add water and meat. Add that to the likelihood of burning, not only the food, but you as well and cooking was certainly a challenge. So much for the weaker sex.
A final note: The stoves and ranges, although an advance over cooking over an open fire, were known to be temperamental. Contemporary accounts from that period talk about the necessary training a girl had to have before she could really use one of the stoves.
Without refrigeration or canned goods, food was prepared from scratch, usually three times a day. Breakfast might consist of mush, pancakes, eggs - familiar food. Supper was a usually a light meal of leftovers from the noon dinner or mush and milk.
So cooking was all day, every day. Churning butter and making cheese, smoking meat (men did the butchering but women took care of the meat afterward) and all the food preservation had to be fitted in around the basic cooking. Churning butter, for example, was a time consuming process. It was usually handed off to a child but since it took skill to pat the butter into crocks this was a task reserved for Mother.
Cheese making was another skill. Everything had to be spotless and the temperatures just so.
Women prepared meals over an open fire or on the hearth of a fireplace. (The average household used between 30 and 40 cords of wood a year – equal to about one acre of timber). Stoves had been invented by then. Immigrants who came from countries with wood shortages brought tile stoves. Ben Franklin invented a stove in 1741 – but that were not designed for cooking. The 1800s saw the development of stoves – heavy cast iron devices that h led eventually to the large ranges – but they did not take off until after 1815 or so, until then women cooked over an open fire. If the fire went out during the night, a child might be dispatched to a neighbor for a coal. Otherwise a tinderbox might be used. I’ve seen people demonstrate cooking over an open fire. One woman, who is very experienced at these demonstrations, took three hours to get the fire started.
As we all know an even temperature is not possible with an open fire. Some of the early fireplaces had ovens for bread and other baked goods built into the brick surround. It must have been quite an art to determine the right temperature for bread or other food. It also explains the boiled desserts and breads: i.e. Boston brown bread or the boiled puddings. So much easier to boil something in a mold without worrying about the temperature. Think about A Christmas Carol by Dickens and the Christmas dinner at the Cratchit house. The turkey had to be roasted elsewhere and the Christmas pudding was boiled.
Baked goods, while I’m on the subject, were stored in crocks but without plastic wrap, went stale pretty quickly. Baking therefore had to be undertaken several times every week.
Most women used the hearth as a cook surface and a variety of pans to cook on it near the fire. The spider, a three-legged pan, was one such piece of equipment used to bake food. The Dutch over was another. Placed on the hearth, they baked the food slowly in the heat from the fire. Women could then turn their attention to other chores.
Fireplaces had look swinging handles that could be pushed over the fire to heat water or cook stew. Some of the big pots that women were lifting from floor level, however, weighed 60 pounds. Yes, sixty, and that’s empty. Now add water and meat. Add that to the likelihood of burning, not only the food, but you as well and cooking was certainly a challenge. So much for the weaker sex.
A final note: The stoves and ranges, although an advance over cooking over an open fire, were known to be temperamental. Contemporary accounts from that period talk about the necessary training a girl had to have before she could really use one of the stoves.
February 7, 2017
Housekeeping - 1790's. Food preservation
While I was buying canned tomatoes for chili, I really looked at the can. What an amazing invention. Think about it. Before preserving food in tin cans (1815 at the behest of Napoleon) food was smoked, brined, pickled, salted. If housewives didn't put up enough food through the summer their families could starve.
Napoleon wanted food troops could carry with them. Canning food really took off during the US civil war. Before that, tinned food was a luxury item for the wealthy.
Refrigeration is another wonderful invention (and it also took a great leap forward shortly after the Civil War).
Another amazing invention, in my opinion, is refrigeration. We take it for granted but refrigeration, especially mechanical refrigeration, is pretty new.
Ice has been used to cool food for millennia. In 400 BC Persian engineers had already mastered the technique for storing ice. Ice was brought in from the mountains and stored underground in specially designed spaces. The ice was used to chill treats for royalty. (Of course )
In England during the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries in England low lying areas near the Thames were flooded in winter. The ice was stored in an ice house, insulated by sawdust, moss or something similar. As early as 1823 ice was imported from Norway and of course in the US, ice was transported from the North to the South, i.e from Maine to points as far away as South Carolina. This led to a new industry: the ice trade. Ice was cut from frozen ponds and streams and stored in ice houses before being shipped - eventually - around the world. As one would expect, the citizens of New York City and Philadelphia became huge consumers during their long hot summers.
The ice trade revolutionized the U.S meat, vegetable and fruit industries. It led to the invention of ice boxes; yes, wooden boxes lined with zinc or tin and other insulators like moss, sawdust or cork, with a box for ice. A drip pan underneath caught the melted water. The horse drawn wagons of ice and the ice man became a familiar sight. By 1907 81% of the households in New York City had ice boxes and they are widely credited with a drop of 50% of infant mortality in the summer.
Mechanical ice began to be produced in the late 1800s but was chancy and the process used toxic ammonia gas. Mechanical refrigerators did not go to the homes until the various fluorocarbons were developed.
Prior to refrigeration milk spoiled quickly; in fact, all perishable foods spoiled quickly. People had cold cellars to cool food and put milk down the well to cool it. I read that cheese was an attempt to use milk, and store it, before it soured.
So, to my way of thinking, canned food and the refrigerator are even more important than indoor plumbing.
Napoleon wanted food troops could carry with them. Canning food really took off during the US civil war. Before that, tinned food was a luxury item for the wealthy.
Refrigeration is another wonderful invention (and it also took a great leap forward shortly after the Civil War).
Another amazing invention, in my opinion, is refrigeration. We take it for granted but refrigeration, especially mechanical refrigeration, is pretty new.
Ice has been used to cool food for millennia. In 400 BC Persian engineers had already mastered the technique for storing ice. Ice was brought in from the mountains and stored underground in specially designed spaces. The ice was used to chill treats for royalty. (Of course )
In England during the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries in England low lying areas near the Thames were flooded in winter. The ice was stored in an ice house, insulated by sawdust, moss or something similar. As early as 1823 ice was imported from Norway and of course in the US, ice was transported from the North to the South, i.e from Maine to points as far away as South Carolina. This led to a new industry: the ice trade. Ice was cut from frozen ponds and streams and stored in ice houses before being shipped - eventually - around the world. As one would expect, the citizens of New York City and Philadelphia became huge consumers during their long hot summers.
The ice trade revolutionized the U.S meat, vegetable and fruit industries. It led to the invention of ice boxes; yes, wooden boxes lined with zinc or tin and other insulators like moss, sawdust or cork, with a box for ice. A drip pan underneath caught the melted water. The horse drawn wagons of ice and the ice man became a familiar sight. By 1907 81% of the households in New York City had ice boxes and they are widely credited with a drop of 50% of infant mortality in the summer.
Mechanical ice began to be produced in the late 1800s but was chancy and the process used toxic ammonia gas. Mechanical refrigerators did not go to the homes until the various fluorocarbons were developed.
Prior to refrigeration milk spoiled quickly; in fact, all perishable foods spoiled quickly. People had cold cellars to cool food and put milk down the well to cool it. I read that cheese was an attempt to use milk, and store it, before it soured.
So, to my way of thinking, canned food and the refrigerator are even more important than indoor plumbing.
January 6, 2017
Gardening catalogs arrive
One of my favorite times of the year is this one - when gardening catalogs begin to arrive3 and I can start planning my summer garden. I always plant veggies like peas, broccoli, tomatoes. But every year I also add something new. One year I tried broccoli rabe. I got so little before the weather turned and the heat came in. One year I tried bok choy. I quickly discovered that I don't like bok choy enough to eat it several times a week. (Come to think of it, I even get tired of tomatoes.)
One year I tried patio corn.
It did not do well.
Beets, however, were such a success I plant them now every year.
I always plant lots of beans, too. Green beans that is. They freeze beautifully and I always have a wonderful harvest.
One of my New Year's resolutions was to try herbs other than basil and rosemary. So I plan to plant oregano and tarragon.
What new vegetable am I going to try? I think kidney and pinto beans. We'll see how they work out.
When I have something that fails I always think how lucky I am to live when the crop does not feed my family. I belong to a CSA and I can always go to the local supermarket. Even as recently as 70 or so years ago this was not true, a crop failure might mean hunger or starvation.
One year I tried patio corn.
It did not do well.
Beets, however, were such a success I plant them now every year.
I always plant lots of beans, too. Green beans that is. They freeze beautifully and I always have a wonderful harvest.
One of my New Year's resolutions was to try herbs other than basil and rosemary. So I plan to plant oregano and tarragon.
What new vegetable am I going to try? I think kidney and pinto beans. We'll see how they work out.
When I have something that fails I always think how lucky I am to live when the crop does not feed my family. I belong to a CSA and I can always go to the local supermarket. Even as recently as 70 or so years ago this was not true, a crop failure might mean hunger or starvation.
August 19, 2016
Goodreads Giveaway
The giveaway for twenty copies of The Devil's Cold Dish ends in a little more than a week. I have not been as on top of this as I should be; I am moving and what a grueling process. It has been like moving ten houses, even though we are just moving from one house to another. Getting rid of baby stuff alone has been a major headache.
It will be over soon - at least that is what I keep telling myself.
It will be over soon - at least that is what I keep telling myself.
June 8, 2016
Malice, resentment - and witchcraft
No doubt there were many causes of the hysteria. The summer was cool and wet, prime growing conditions for a fungus called ergot on the rye. It releases a toxin similar to LSD. So it is possible that people were suffering hallucinations and genuinely thought they saw the devil and women flying around. If so, the climate that summer had a tremendous effect on history.
Another contributing factor: Tituba, a slave owned by Samuel Parrish. Variously described as an Indian or a black slave, she told Samuel Parrish's daughter and a group of girls stories which drove much of the content of the visions. Her testimony and was a direct cause of the eventual hangings of women described as her confederates. (Ironically, Tituba was set free.) A shadowy character, she has been also described as practicing voodoo. Her testimony. at least to me, reads more like the Christian belief in demons and the devil.
Then there are the girls themselves. To modern eyes, the easy belief in the veracity of a group of girls is incredible. Samuel Parrish believed in the truth of the accusations until the end of his life. I suspect there is another explanation. Women, and young girls especially, at this time were supposed to be quiet, meek and submissive. The claims made by these girls and the charges against others in the village put them on center stage. I do not wonder that they kept ratcheting up their stories; anything to keep that attention.
The hysteria ended in 1693. After 1700 reparations began to be paid to the surviving victims and families of the executed. But belief in witches and the trials did not end. In the new United States a trial and a judicial solution to perceived witch craft became unlikely (and I imagine that the uncritical acceptance of spectral evidence by Samuel Parris in Salem had a lot to do with increasing skepticism) but accusation and hanging by mobs could still happen.
In Europe women were still attacked and in some cases executed for witchcraft: in Denmark - (1800), in Poland( 1836) and even in Britain (1863). Violence continued in France through the 1830's. Accusations continued in the United States as well. In the 1830s a prosecution was begun against a man (yes) in Tennessee.
Even as recently as 1997 two Russian farmers killed a woman and injured members of her family for the use of folk magic against them.
There were two incidents of note in New York State. In 1783, Ann Lee, the spiritual heart of the new faith now commonly known as the Shakers, was arrested and charged for blasphemy One hundred years earlier she might have been hanged as a witch or devil worshipper. But she was released. Persecution of the Shakers continued however. And Lydia, my primary female character who is a former Shaker, would have been a target.
The final trial for witchcraft took place in 1816 in Nyack. Jane Kannif, the widow of a Scotch physician, lived in a small house on Germonds Road in West Nyack. An herbalist and widow of an apothecary, she treated neighbors that came to her with herbs and methods she learned from her late husband. But she was eccentric. According to the people at that time she dressed oddly, was unsociable and wandered around talking to herself. She was regarded as insane or worse yet a witch. It was decided to take her to Auert Polhemus's grist mill and using his great flour scales weigh her against the old Holland Dutch family Bible, iron bound, with wooden covers and iron chain to carry it by. If outweighed by the Bible, she must be a witch and must suffer accordingly. She was taken to the mill, put on the scales, and weighed. Since she weighed more than the Bible, the committee released her.
So what happened in Salem? It seems as though the town lost its collective mind.
Despite the attention paid to the accusations and the trials and hangings, for me the real focus lies with the rest of the village, those who saw family and friends turn on them. Think what it must have been like living there at this time. Salem was a small community. Those accused were friends, family and neighbors of their accusers. How could you forgive the ones who hanged one of your family members as a witch and terrorized the others? Especially since the accounts make is clear that some of the charges sprang from the worst of human nature: greed, revenge and malice. What kind of amends would be enough? Would financial reparations ease the grief? I know this is something I could never forgive. And I would guess that, despite the end of the witch hunts, this village remained troubled for years. In fact, many of those whose family members had been accused or hanged moved away to a new village called Salem's End. After those experiences, how could anyone ever trust again?
Although PTSD is not a term they used, I am certain those who survived their experiences in Danvers suffered from it the rest of their lives. People on both sides: the accused and the accusers, changed their names. One of the hanging judges was a Hathorne; Nathaniel Hawthorne added the w. And the Nurse family, right in the thick of the storm, moved away and became Nourses.
That brings me full circle, back to The Devil's Cold Dish. Rees has a history with several people in his hometown and Lydia, a former Shaker, would surely be suspect. What if -?
Another contributing factor: Tituba, a slave owned by Samuel Parrish. Variously described as an Indian or a black slave, she told Samuel Parrish's daughter and a group of girls stories which drove much of the content of the visions. Her testimony and was a direct cause of the eventual hangings of women described as her confederates. (Ironically, Tituba was set free.) A shadowy character, she has been also described as practicing voodoo. Her testimony. at least to me, reads more like the Christian belief in demons and the devil.
Then there are the girls themselves. To modern eyes, the easy belief in the veracity of a group of girls is incredible. Samuel Parrish believed in the truth of the accusations until the end of his life. I suspect there is another explanation. Women, and young girls especially, at this time were supposed to be quiet, meek and submissive. The claims made by these girls and the charges against others in the village put them on center stage. I do not wonder that they kept ratcheting up their stories; anything to keep that attention.
The hysteria ended in 1693. After 1700 reparations began to be paid to the surviving victims and families of the executed. But belief in witches and the trials did not end. In the new United States a trial and a judicial solution to perceived witch craft became unlikely (and I imagine that the uncritical acceptance of spectral evidence by Samuel Parris in Salem had a lot to do with increasing skepticism) but accusation and hanging by mobs could still happen.
In Europe women were still attacked and in some cases executed for witchcraft: in Denmark - (1800), in Poland( 1836) and even in Britain (1863). Violence continued in France through the 1830's. Accusations continued in the United States as well. In the 1830s a prosecution was begun against a man (yes) in Tennessee.
Even as recently as 1997 two Russian farmers killed a woman and injured members of her family for the use of folk magic against them.
There were two incidents of note in New York State. In 1783, Ann Lee, the spiritual heart of the new faith now commonly known as the Shakers, was arrested and charged for blasphemy One hundred years earlier she might have been hanged as a witch or devil worshipper. But she was released. Persecution of the Shakers continued however. And Lydia, my primary female character who is a former Shaker, would have been a target.
The final trial for witchcraft took place in 1816 in Nyack. Jane Kannif, the widow of a Scotch physician, lived in a small house on Germonds Road in West Nyack. An herbalist and widow of an apothecary, she treated neighbors that came to her with herbs and methods she learned from her late husband. But she was eccentric. According to the people at that time she dressed oddly, was unsociable and wandered around talking to herself. She was regarded as insane or worse yet a witch. It was decided to take her to Auert Polhemus's grist mill and using his great flour scales weigh her against the old Holland Dutch family Bible, iron bound, with wooden covers and iron chain to carry it by. If outweighed by the Bible, she must be a witch and must suffer accordingly. She was taken to the mill, put on the scales, and weighed. Since she weighed more than the Bible, the committee released her.
So what happened in Salem? It seems as though the town lost its collective mind.
Despite the attention paid to the accusations and the trials and hangings, for me the real focus lies with the rest of the village, those who saw family and friends turn on them. Think what it must have been like living there at this time. Salem was a small community. Those accused were friends, family and neighbors of their accusers. How could you forgive the ones who hanged one of your family members as a witch and terrorized the others? Especially since the accounts make is clear that some of the charges sprang from the worst of human nature: greed, revenge and malice. What kind of amends would be enough? Would financial reparations ease the grief? I know this is something I could never forgive. And I would guess that, despite the end of the witch hunts, this village remained troubled for years. In fact, many of those whose family members had been accused or hanged moved away to a new village called Salem's End. After those experiences, how could anyone ever trust again?
Although PTSD is not a term they used, I am certain those who survived their experiences in Danvers suffered from it the rest of their lives. People on both sides: the accused and the accusers, changed their names. One of the hanging judges was a Hathorne; Nathaniel Hawthorne added the w. And the Nurse family, right in the thick of the storm, moved away and became Nourses.
That brings me full circle, back to The Devil's Cold Dish. Rees has a history with several people in his hometown and Lydia, a former Shaker, would surely be suspect. What if -?
June 6, 2016
Witches and witchcraft
With the release of my new book, The Devil's Cold Dish, just over a week away, I decided to reprise some of my research and the reasons I wrote this book.
While I was researching Death in Salem, I visited this city several times. Since Will Rees, my amateur detective (and traveling weaver) visits Salem in the mid 1790's. a full one hundred years after the trials, I did not write about them. I alluded to them of course but by 1796 Salem is a wealthy and cosmopolitan city, the wealthiest in the new United States and the sixth largest.
But I couldn't get the witch trials out of my head. Why did it happen? What happened to the people afterwards, especially to the people who saw their loved ones accused and, in some cases, hanged? That question formed the beginning of The Devil's Cold Dish.
The facts of Salem's witch trials are these. In 1692, a group of girls including the daughters of the village minister Samuel Parrish claimed that they were being tormented by witches - and the girls accused some of the women in Danvers (this did not happen in Salem but within a small village just outside). Before the fury ended,150 people were imprisoned and 19 people - and two dogs- were hanged.
Because the people executed as witches were not allowed to be buried in sacred ground, the cemetery in Salem has monuments bearing witness to the names. No one is sure where these people are buried. It is thought the families cut down many of the accused after they were hung and buried them in secret.
One man, Giles Corey, was pressed to death. He cursed all future Sheriffs of Salem to die of some chest (respiratory) illness. Apparently most have, but in an era without antibiotics (forget about good hygiene or healthy food) I don't think that is surprising.
What happened? Reasons given for the explosion of belief and hangings in Salem are many.
This event occurred in Massachusetts after several centuries of the trials and burnings in Europe. Probably everyone is familiar with the Biblical injunction about not suffering a witch to live. In 1200 Pope Gregory IX authorized the killing of witches. In 1498 Pope Innocent VIII issued a declaration confirming the existence of witches and inquisition began. Thousands, mainly women, were burned at the stake during the 1500s and 1600s. (Accused witches in this country were never burned. They were hanged instead.)
This was a superstitious age and belief in magic was widespread. Girls used spells to try and see the faces of future husbands and superstitions regarding illness, birth, and harvest were rife. Harelips were caused when the mother saw a rabbit, birth marks because the mother ate strawberries, for example. One of my favorites: to protect a mother and child during birth an ear of corn was placed on the mother's belly. But I can't believe EVERYONE believed in the supernatural. In fact, one of the essayists of the time, Robert Calef, suggested that the trials had been engineered by Cotton Mather for personal gain. (I doubt that. Evidently fighting out different opinions in print is not a new phenomenon). And anyway, other motivations for accusing someone of witchcraft have been documented. Sometimes it was for gain: the old biddy hasn't died and I want her little farm, for example. (No surprise there, right?) Sometimes it was to settle scores. Apparently at least part of the reason behind the accusations directed at the Nurse family had at the bottom resentment and the desire for payback.
Tituba, a slave owned by Samuel Parrish, and her stories she told the girls played a part. Variously described as an Indian or a black slave, her testimony apparently drove much of the content of the stories and was a direct cause of the eventual hangings of women described as her confederates. (Ironically, Tituba was set free.) A shadowy character, she has been also described as practicing voodoo. Her testimony. at least to me, reads more like the Christian belief in demons and the devil. Once she was released, however, she, like the girls whose fits started the terror, faded into obscurity.
Then there are the girls themselves. To modern eyes, the easy belief in the veracity of a group of girls is incredible. Samuel Parrish believed in the truth of the accusations until the end of his life. I suspect there is another explanation. Women, and young girls especially, at this time were supposed to be quiet, meek and submissive. The claims made by these girls and the charges against others in the village put them on center stage. I do not wonder that they kept ratcheting up their stories; anything to keep that attention.
Then there is the possibility of ergot poisoning. Ergot is a fungus that grows on rye during wet and cool summers. It releases a toxin similar to LSD. So it is possible that people were genuinely suffering hallucinations.
The hysteria ended in 1693. After 1700 reparations began to be paid to the surviving victims and families of the executed. But belief in witches and the trials did not end. In the new United States a trial and a judicial solution to perceived witch craft became unlikely (and I imagine that the uncritical acceptance of spectral evidence by Samuel Parris in Salem had a lot to do with increasing skepticism) but accusation and hanging by mobs could still happen.
In Europe women were still attacked and in some cases executed for witchcraft: in Denmark - (1800), in Poland( 1836) and even in Britain (1863). Violence continued in France through the 1830's. Accusations continued in the United States as well. In the 1830s a prosecution was begun against a man (yes) in Tennessee.
Even as recently as 1997 two Russian farmers killed a woman and injured members of her family for the use of folk magic against them.
While I was researching Death in Salem, I visited this city several times. Since Will Rees, my amateur detective (and traveling weaver) visits Salem in the mid 1790's. a full one hundred years after the trials, I did not write about them. I alluded to them of course but by 1796 Salem is a wealthy and cosmopolitan city, the wealthiest in the new United States and the sixth largest.
But I couldn't get the witch trials out of my head. Why did it happen? What happened to the people afterwards, especially to the people who saw their loved ones accused and, in some cases, hanged? That question formed the beginning of The Devil's Cold Dish.
The facts of Salem's witch trials are these. In 1692, a group of girls including the daughters of the village minister Samuel Parrish claimed that they were being tormented by witches - and the girls accused some of the women in Danvers (this did not happen in Salem but within a small village just outside). Before the fury ended,150 people were imprisoned and 19 people - and two dogs- were hanged.
Because the people executed as witches were not allowed to be buried in sacred ground, the cemetery in Salem has monuments bearing witness to the names. No one is sure where these people are buried. It is thought the families cut down many of the accused after they were hung and buried them in secret.
One man, Giles Corey, was pressed to death. He cursed all future Sheriffs of Salem to die of some chest (respiratory) illness. Apparently most have, but in an era without antibiotics (forget about good hygiene or healthy food) I don't think that is surprising.
What happened? Reasons given for the explosion of belief and hangings in Salem are many.
This event occurred in Massachusetts after several centuries of the trials and burnings in Europe. Probably everyone is familiar with the Biblical injunction about not suffering a witch to live. In 1200 Pope Gregory IX authorized the killing of witches. In 1498 Pope Innocent VIII issued a declaration confirming the existence of witches and inquisition began. Thousands, mainly women, were burned at the stake during the 1500s and 1600s. (Accused witches in this country were never burned. They were hanged instead.)
This was a superstitious age and belief in magic was widespread. Girls used spells to try and see the faces of future husbands and superstitions regarding illness, birth, and harvest were rife. Harelips were caused when the mother saw a rabbit, birth marks because the mother ate strawberries, for example. One of my favorites: to protect a mother and child during birth an ear of corn was placed on the mother's belly. But I can't believe EVERYONE believed in the supernatural. In fact, one of the essayists of the time, Robert Calef, suggested that the trials had been engineered by Cotton Mather for personal gain. (I doubt that. Evidently fighting out different opinions in print is not a new phenomenon). And anyway, other motivations for accusing someone of witchcraft have been documented. Sometimes it was for gain: the old biddy hasn't died and I want her little farm, for example. (No surprise there, right?) Sometimes it was to settle scores. Apparently at least part of the reason behind the accusations directed at the Nurse family had at the bottom resentment and the desire for payback.
Tituba, a slave owned by Samuel Parrish, and her stories she told the girls played a part. Variously described as an Indian or a black slave, her testimony apparently drove much of the content of the stories and was a direct cause of the eventual hangings of women described as her confederates. (Ironically, Tituba was set free.) A shadowy character, she has been also described as practicing voodoo. Her testimony. at least to me, reads more like the Christian belief in demons and the devil. Once she was released, however, she, like the girls whose fits started the terror, faded into obscurity.
Then there are the girls themselves. To modern eyes, the easy belief in the veracity of a group of girls is incredible. Samuel Parrish believed in the truth of the accusations until the end of his life. I suspect there is another explanation. Women, and young girls especially, at this time were supposed to be quiet, meek and submissive. The claims made by these girls and the charges against others in the village put them on center stage. I do not wonder that they kept ratcheting up their stories; anything to keep that attention.
Then there is the possibility of ergot poisoning. Ergot is a fungus that grows on rye during wet and cool summers. It releases a toxin similar to LSD. So it is possible that people were genuinely suffering hallucinations.
The hysteria ended in 1693. After 1700 reparations began to be paid to the surviving victims and families of the executed. But belief in witches and the trials did not end. In the new United States a trial and a judicial solution to perceived witch craft became unlikely (and I imagine that the uncritical acceptance of spectral evidence by Samuel Parris in Salem had a lot to do with increasing skepticism) but accusation and hanging by mobs could still happen.
In Europe women were still attacked and in some cases executed for witchcraft: in Denmark - (1800), in Poland( 1836) and even in Britain (1863). Violence continued in France through the 1830's. Accusations continued in the United States as well. In the 1830s a prosecution was begun against a man (yes) in Tennessee.
Even as recently as 1997 two Russian farmers killed a woman and injured members of her family for the use of folk magic against them.
May 31, 2016
Painting - how I spent Memorial Day weekend
This past weekend my husband and I painted both the front porch and walk and the deck.
In the process, as I was pouring paint into the roller pan, the paint spilled out and absolutely coated my shoe.
Why are we painting? Surely we could have hired someone?
Well, been there. In February I replied to an Angie's list special deal for a painter for the boys' room. By May, when the painter had rescheduled three times and not shown up twice, I gave up and painted the room myself. I had planned to have the painter move from the small project to the larger. So much for the deal and also for Angie's list.
I know how to paint. My father was a painter. I remember at the age of ten painting windows. My father was old school. He didn't believe in tape. No, he wiped off the paint over and over until I could do it perfectly without tape. But I digress.
And don't even get me started on landscapers. The first one took the deposit and disappeared, never to be seen again. I am interviewing the fourth today. If he shows. Again a job I could do but who has time?
I do think the painting job came out nicely.
front walk
In the process, as I was pouring paint into the roller pan, the paint spilled out and absolutely coated my shoe.
Why are we painting? Surely we could have hired someone?
Well, been there. In February I replied to an Angie's list special deal for a painter for the boys' room. By May, when the painter had rescheduled three times and not shown up twice, I gave up and painted the room myself. I had planned to have the painter move from the small project to the larger. So much for the deal and also for Angie's list.
I know how to paint. My father was a painter. I remember at the age of ten painting windows. My father was old school. He didn't believe in tape. No, he wiped off the paint over and over until I could do it perfectly without tape. But I digress.
And don't even get me started on landscapers. The first one took the deposit and disappeared, never to be seen again. I am interviewing the fourth today. If he shows. Again a job I could do but who has time?
I do think the painting job came out nicely.
front walk
May 23, 2016
Child Soldiers
In an interesting juxtaposition of events, I just finished reading Boy Soldiers of the Revolutionary War by Caroline Cox at the same time I saw The Fifth Wave. (I think I have read way too many books and seen too many movies like this - I found the plot predictable. But I digress.)
Anyway, both had as core ideas the use of children in war.
According to Cox, some boys enlisted in the Continental Army as young as nine. You read that right - nine. Admittedly, they became drummers and fifers and quite a few entered the army with fathers or older brothers. Cox reminds the reader that all children were well accustomed to hard work then and that even toddlers might be put to collecting wood or other chores.
Cox researched pension documents to confirm the existence of these boy soldiers. From their testimonies, the officers were more concerned with the physical strength of these boys than any moral concerns about putting children into war. Even though the musket was lighter than it had been (due in advances in the technology of bullet making) ten pounds still had to be carried. The soldiers also had to forage for food and were significantly more at risk of dying from disease than from any actual fighting.
What I found so interesting were the actual reasons for enlisting. In some cases patriotism was the reason but usually enlisting was prompted from more pragmatic reasons. Boys ran away from strict fathers, stepfathers and masters to whom they were apprenticed. In some cases, the father or master who could choose someone to serve in their stead chose the boy. (Can you imagine?) In some cases impoverished and/or orphaned boys joined because they had nothing else and at least they would be fed. For many of them, the army became their family. Not all served as drummers or fifers either.
One of my favorite stories involves a boy who joined the Patriot cause while his father served on the Loyalist side. Conversation at supper must have been wild. The father finally compelled the boy to desert the Continental Army and join the British but when the father was killed in battle the boy returned to the Continental Army.
By the War of 1812, opinions about child development had changed. Boys 18 and older were permitted to enlist and the age of majority had been set at 21. Although some boys accompanied their fathers into the army, they usually served as servants more than soldiers.
Anyway, both had as core ideas the use of children in war.
According to Cox, some boys enlisted in the Continental Army as young as nine. You read that right - nine. Admittedly, they became drummers and fifers and quite a few entered the army with fathers or older brothers. Cox reminds the reader that all children were well accustomed to hard work then and that even toddlers might be put to collecting wood or other chores.
Cox researched pension documents to confirm the existence of these boy soldiers. From their testimonies, the officers were more concerned with the physical strength of these boys than any moral concerns about putting children into war. Even though the musket was lighter than it had been (due in advances in the technology of bullet making) ten pounds still had to be carried. The soldiers also had to forage for food and were significantly more at risk of dying from disease than from any actual fighting.
What I found so interesting were the actual reasons for enlisting. In some cases patriotism was the reason but usually enlisting was prompted from more pragmatic reasons. Boys ran away from strict fathers, stepfathers and masters to whom they were apprenticed. In some cases, the father or master who could choose someone to serve in their stead chose the boy. (Can you imagine?) In some cases impoverished and/or orphaned boys joined because they had nothing else and at least they would be fed. For many of them, the army became their family. Not all served as drummers or fifers either.
One of my favorite stories involves a boy who joined the Patriot cause while his father served on the Loyalist side. Conversation at supper must have been wild. The father finally compelled the boy to desert the Continental Army and join the British but when the father was killed in battle the boy returned to the Continental Army.
By the War of 1812, opinions about child development had changed. Boys 18 and older were permitted to enlist and the age of majority had been set at 21. Although some boys accompanied their fathers into the army, they usually served as servants more than soldiers.
