Killed Strangely: The Death of Rebecca Cornell 9780801471452

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
1. A Death in the Family
2. The Background of a Tragedy
3. The Contentious World of Thomas Cornell
4. Doubting Thomas: Or, Considering the Alternatives
5. A Community Renders a Verdict
6. Life after Death
Notes
Index

Citation preview

2672_FM.qrk 6/25/02 4:53 PM Page i

Killed Strangely

2672_FM.qrk 6/25/02 4:53 PM Page ii

The house in which Rebecca Cornell died. Situated on West Main Road in Portsmouth, Rhode Island, the structure was modernized in the late 1830s and subsequently destroyed by fire on December 21, 1889. Her room was on the first floor to the left of the entry. Old Cornell House, Americana (New York, Feb. 1911), p. opp. 111. Milstein Division of United States History, Local History & Genealogy, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

2672_FM.qrk 6/25/02 4:53 PM Page iii

Killed Strangely t h e d e at h o f r e b e c c a c o r n e l l

ELAINE FORMAN CRANE

c o r n e l l u n i v e r s i t y p r e s s Ithaca & London

Copyright © 2002 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512 East State Street, Ithaca, New York 14850. First published 2002 by Cornell University Press First printing, Cornell Paperbacks, 2009 Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Crane, Elaine Forman. Killed strangely : the death of Rebecca Cornell / Elaine Forman Crane. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8014-4002-1 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-8014-7527-6 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Cornell, Rebecca, 1600–1673. 2. Cornell, Thomas, 1627?–1673. 3. Homicide—Rhode Island—Portsmouth—History—17th century— Case studies. 4. Trials (Murder)—Rhode Island—Portsmouth—History— 17th century—Case studies. 5. Portsmouth (R.I.)—History—17th century. I. Title. HV6534.P68 C73 2002 364.15'23'097456—dc21 2002004077 Cornell University Press strives to use environmentally responsible suppliers and materials to the fullest extent possible in the publishing of its books. Such materials include vegetable-based, low-VOC inks and acidfree papers that are recycled, totally chlorine-free, or partly composed of nonwood fibers. For further information, visit our website at www.cornellpress.cornell.edu. Cloth printing Paperback printing

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

2672_FM.qrk 6/25/02 4:53 PM Page v

For Stephen

2672_FM.qrk 6/25/02 4:53 PM Page vi

2672_FM.qrk 6/25/02 4:53 PM Page vii

Rebecka Cornell widdow was killed Strangely at Portsmouth in her own Dwelling House, was twice Viewed By the Crowners Inquest digged up and buried again by her Husbands Grave in their own Land upon the 8th day of the 12 Mo 1672. —Society of Friends records, Newport, Rhode Island

2672_FM.qrk 6/25/02 4:53 PM Page viii

2672_FM.qrk 6/25/02 4:53 PM Page ix

contents Acknowledgments, xi Introduction, 1 1

A Death in the Family, 8

2

The Background of a Tragedy, 59

3

The Contentious World of Thomas Cornell, 87

4

Doubting Thomas: Or, Considering the Alternatives, 105

5

A Community Renders a Verdict, 145

6

Life after Death, 174 Notes, 191 Index, 227

2672_FM.qrk 6/25/02 4:53 PM Page x

2672_FM.qrk 6/25/02 4:53 PM Page xi

acknowledgments My partner in crime for this project is Stephen Crane. His legal expertise, research assistance, and interpretive skills made it a far more interesting story than it otherwise would have been. Fordham University has also been a collaborator, and I am grateful for the Faculty Fellowship, released time, and travel funds that moved the project forward. The assistance of Nancy McCarthy and Laura Ebert in the Office of Research was extremely helpful, as was the input by three graduate students: Steve Spishak, Greg Ripple, and Steve Harris. The personnel at the Walsh Library went out of their way as usual, and I am especially indebted to Charlotte Labbe and her staff in the interlibrary loan office for their willingness to obtain the arcane material necessary for this project. Betty Garity also deserves thanks for alerting me to newly released and otherwise relevant books that would have escaped my attention. Jorene Robbie at the Fordham Law School helped me navigate the essential legal sources. I am particularly grateful to the Folger Library in Washington, D.C., for accepting me in a seminar in early modern legal history and for providing a travel fellowship to make it possible. Most of the research for this book was conducted in Rhode Island, where Steve Grimes initiated the investigation by producing the original record of this case at the Rhode Island Judicial Archives in Pawtucket. The usual suspects are responsible for helping me uncover information at the Newport Historical Society, where Ron Potvin, Joan Youngken, Bert Lippincott, and Dan Snydacker ex-

2672_FM.qrk 6/25/02 4:53 PM Page xii

tended the welcome mat once again. Gwen Stearn, Ken Carlson, and Tracy Croce made research at the Rhode Island Archives in Providence considerably easier. My thanks also to Isabella Casselman and Rita Wood for allowing me to peruse seventeenth-century documents at the Portsmouth Historical Society. The Portsmouth Town Clerk, Carol Zinno, helped to track down various land records, wills, and deeds, while Robert Pimental and Rosemary Finneran provided material at the Portsmouth Free Public Library that was unavailable anywhere else. I am also grateful to Richard Stattler at the Rhode Island Historical Society for setting aside time to assist me with manuscript documents there. I offer special thanks to Herbert Hall for his guided tour of the very overgrown Cornell burying ground on the site of the old homestead in Portsmouth. In Massachusetts, Jane Fiske at the New England Historic Genealogical Society provided me with her typed transcript of the court proceedings. Anyone who has tried to read seventeenth-century documents knows the value of this contribution. At the Massachusetts Historical Society, Jennifer Tolpa, Alyson Reichgott, and Amy Reichgott graciously responded to my research needs, and Bill Milholme made the Massachusetts Archives less daunting by pointing me in the right direction each time I lost my way in the microfilm cabinets or voluminous finding aids. The staff at the Essex Institute in Salem were as capable and generous with their time as always. I would also like to thank Reinhard Battcher at the Bristol Historical and Preservation Society and Elizabeth Bernier at the Old Colony Historical Society in Taunton. The curators at the Lizzie Borden House in Fall River offered insights into that case as well. I am indebted to Tom Knoles and Joanne Chaison at the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester and to Linda Rasori at the Plymouth County Commissioners’ Office. Thanks, too, to the staff of the Connecticut Historical Society in Hartford. The librarians at the New York Public Library have been hearing thank-yous from me for many decades, but I am even more impressed with their expertise now than I was when I first started working there. It is one of the world’s great research institutions, and for this stint I am particularly grateful to the staff of the American History and Genealogy Room. The New-York Historical Society librarxii

Acknowledgments

2672_FM.qrk 6/25/02 4:53 PM Page xiii

ians were no less helpful in providing material from their collections. I am a newcomer to the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society, and I am both surprised and delighted with their collection and the freedom with which members are able to use it. Upstate, I offer thanks to Norman Carlson at the Fenton Historical Center and to Michelle Henry and the Chautauqua County Records Administration. At the Monmouth County Historical Society in New Jersey, Carla Tobias and Jane Peck found material that I would never have even thought to ask for. Since this is a transatlantic study, I would like to acknowledge the assistance of the Friends Library in London; Nigel Cochrane of the Albert Sloman Library, University of Sussex; and Jennifer Butler of the Essex Record Office. My gratitude also extends to those people and institutions whose invitations to talk about Thomas and Rebecca Cornell resulted in marvelous insights from the audience: Joyce Botelho at the John Nicholas Brown Center, Ron Hoffman at the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Edith Gelles at the Bay Seminar in Early American History and Culture, and John Tyler at the Colonial Society of Massachusetts. Each one of the following conspirators helped further the manuscript in different ways, and I offer my thanks to all: Christine Cornell, Nancy Curtin, John Demos, Jay Fliegelman, Elise Geltzer, Cynthia Herrup, Sam Hoffman, John Kaminski, Paul Montclare, Mary Beth Norton, Elizabeth Reis, Michael Rubin, Sheila Skemp, David Voorhees, Lauren Wachtler, Michael Weiss, and Jamie Zinaman. Also, a very belated recognition of my mentor at Cornell University, Clinton Rossiter, who made me realize how much the details matter. My thanks as well to Sheri Englund and the staff of Cornell University Press, who transformed a work in progress into a book. There is some irony in Cornell’s publishing this story, but I suspect Rebecca Cornell would have liked it that way.

Acknowledgments

xiii

2672_FM.qrk 6/25/02 4:53 PM Page xiv

2672_FM.qrk 6/25/02 4:53 PM Page xv

Killed Strangely

2672_FM.qrk 6/25/02 4:53 PM Page xvi

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 1

Introduction Saturday, February 8, 1673, was a fine winter day. From the west window of her room, Rebecca Cornell could observe the bare branches of the trees in her orchard. Beyond them lay the frigid water of Narragansett Bay, where screeching seagulls skimmed the surface and the sun’s rays bounced from whitecap to whitecap. The seventy-three-year-old widow had felt poorly that morning, but the soothing warmth from a cheerful fire restored her sense of wellbeing and by noon she was “something better.” Indeed, by late afternoon she might have been found relaxing in her usual chair, puffing away on a clay pipe. She remained in her chamber as candlelight replaced sunlight and five o’clock came and went. Sometime after dark, however, that same fire, now churlishly malevolent, claimed Rebecca Cornell’s life after burning her “to a cole.” Morning brought snow and a hastily convened coroner’s inquest that pronounced Rebecca’s

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 2

death “an Unhappie Accident.”1 Her family, presumably stunned by the tragedy, laid her to rest beside her late husband on Monday, February 10. Less than two weeks later, Rebecca Cornell’s son, Thomas, was arrested for the murder of his mother. • • • Thomas Cornell may have killed his mother. On the other hand, it is possible he did not. Either way, the Cornell case is surely one of early New England’s darker moments—and doubly so. The nature of Rebecca Cornell’s death was ominous to begin with, and the events surrounding the incident have languished in the shadows of historical obscurity. This is unfortunate since it is a compelling tale, one that begs to be told not only because of our fascination with violence at a distance, but because it involves complex historical issues about which there is rarely enough evidence to permit critical analysis. If, on one level, the trial of Thomas Cornell may be read as an exposã, the depositions also expose features of seventeenth-century family and community dynamics usually shielded from scholarly view. As a result, the surviving evidence propels the significance of the Cornell case far beyond the immediate event. The documents reveal the distance between the New England family of historical imagination and the realities of seventeenth-century domestic life. Instead of the harmony and respect that sermon literature, laws, and a hierarchical/patriarchal society attempted to impose, evidence illustrates filial insolence, generational conflict, disrespect toward the elderly, power plays between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, adult dependence on (and resentment of ) aging parents who clung to purse strings, sibling rivalry over inherited property, and discord between stepmother and stepchildren. If all this appears uncomfortably familiar to modern readers, it is also true that historians have only recently—and reluctantly—read such tensions backward into seventeenth-century New England. This is especially true when, as in this case, domestic disharmony slips over into domestic abuse. It is one thing to record friction between parents and children over the disposition of property; it is quite another to demonstrate hostility severe enough to degenerate into physical aggression. The Cornell case may not be early New 2

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 3

England writ large, but this particular microcosm does illustrate the human frustrations, family fault lines, and personal frailties that rarely surface in nonjudicial seventeenth-century documents. It is because of such evidentiary gaps that the extent to which seventeenth-century families enjoyed harmonious relations remains unclear. The dearth of assault cases and the sparse references to parental or spousal mistreatment may bear little relationship to the incidence of such hostility. It is impossible to know whether the small number of prosecutions is indicative of a large number of peaceable kingdoms or a high threshold of toleration for abusive behavior. By their very nature, criminal trial papers always illustrate exceptional, even aberrational, examples of human behavior. And because an alleged lapse of prescriptive conduct is involved, the legal process demands that participants (other than the defendant) resolve, on the most elementary level, matters of “right” and “wrong.” In so doing, those who testify and sit in judgment reveal community standards as well as the elasticity of such ground rules. More concretely, through open testimony, a trial airs the values and expectations of a society as codified by its legal system. Criminal proceedings may emphasize wrongdoing, but societal norms play the more important role, by crouching in the background, waiting to pounce on the evil that men do. An application of such premises to the Cornell case suggests that by clearly delineating unacceptable behavior, trial testimony simultaneously refined and demonstrated the boundaries of permissible behavior at that time and place. Friends and neighbors defined those perimeters by tolerating, mediating, and only belatedly exposing the relationship between mother and son. To condone matricide was unthinkable. Yet the reluctance of townspeople to intervene at any stage prior to Rebecca Cornell’s death (as disclosed by the depositions) reveals that the community gave Thomas Cornell considerable leeway in dealing with his mother—even to the point of abuse. Neighbors may have disapproved, but they did not intrude. Not only does the evidence in this case bridge the gap between prescriptive literature and reality, it also offers new insights into seventeenth-century legal culture, a curious amalgam of medieval and modern ideas. The Cornells lived in an Anglo-American colony where both liberty of conscience and supernatural visions were introduction

3

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 4

firmly recognized in law. Thus, one of the most revealing features of this story is the way ancient folklore and superstitions seamlessly merged with modern legal institutions to enforce a particular vision of the world. Court papers illustrate how Rhode Islanders reconciled aspects of common law with the invisible world of God, ghosts, and the Devil in order to uphold “justice”—as they perceived it. Richly detailed, the evidence leaves no doubt that communal efforts dictated the outcome of this case. On one level, this study enhances our understanding of hotly debated issues relating to juries, evidence, and attorneys; on another, it attempts to forge an alliance between legal and social history by concentrating on a widely shared legal culture as well as on elite legal institutions in a transitional period. The latter years of the seventeenth century saw legal, social, and religious shuffling on all fronts. New Englanders wrestled with procedural matters such as defendants’ rights, the allocation of power between bench and jury, and the personal knowledge that jurors brought to deliberation. In a short time, the invisible world would square off against the Enlightenment and both Increase and Cotton Mather would have second thoughts about spectral evidence, but for the Cornell case legal niceties pertaining to visions and victims remained undisturbed. During these decades, households underwent a transition as demographic trends contributed to an increasing number of second marriages, stepchildren, and three-generation families. That same demography was intimately connected to religious upheaval since the children of the founding generation showed less inclination than their parents to live a godly life. This brings us to Thomas Cornell. If, in fact, Cornell murdered his mother, it is the only fully recorded case of matricide in colonial America. But whether or not he was guilty of homicide is less the focus of this narrative than is the confluence of events surrounding the tragedy and the ways in which family, community, and authorities responded to Rebecca Cornell’s life and death. Both chronologically and thematically, the story concentrates on the society in which this grim episode played out. Rebecca Cornell’s death was an event of cataclysmic proportions, affecting not only her family and community, but neighboring towns as well. Relationships among people 4

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 5

both before and after the incident, attitudes of friends and family, and what was said and not said for the official record simultaneously shed light on the immediate event and the larger Anglo-American world in which the episode occurred. The first settlers of Rhode Island were Puritans. They were not the best sort of Puritans, perhaps, but they were Puritans nonetheless. Although they clung to a few doctrinal points that unsettled their more orthodox brethren in the adjacent colonies, they still drew on a common English heritage. What this means, of course, is that Rhode Islanders lived in a contradictory world that was at once integrated and fragmented. When pieced together, the historical shards of this case form a multipeopled composition in which characters with shared expectations and understandings merge into a socially coordinated whole. When that human aggregate is splintered, however, each individual is reduced to an isolated component of the cohesive cluster we label family or community. Viewed from this narrower perspective, each personal story discloses the competing beliefs that merge in a single person to produce an identity consistent with time and place, yet at odds with those whose belief systems reflect, in kaleidoscopic fashion, different images. The Cornell case is the story of individual impressions, and it is the story of community worldview. • • • The most important source for this narrative is an extraordinary collection of depositions that survive only because the Rhode Island General Assembly (in an attempt to create an official memory) in 1673 ordered that they be recorded and preserved. Two dozen in number, the statements range in length from a paragraph or two to the equivalent of a full modern small-print book page. They represent a cross section of the Portsmouth, Rhode Island, community: family and friends of Rebecca Cornell, servants, and colleagues of Thomas Cornell who served with him on committees or in the General Assembly. Plymouth Colony residents also had something pertinent to say. Even Rebecca’s ghost testified through her brother, John Briggs. In addition to the depositions, reports from two coroner’s juries survive, as well as lists of inquest jurors, grand jurors, and trial introduction

5

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 6

jurors, and records of the continuing dispute between members of Thomas Cornell’s family. Diaries, letters, deeds, and wills add to the document pile. Town meetings set the scene, but genealogical background provides a human dimension to the case and indicates how networks based on religion, class, and gender operated to affect the outcome. Was Thomas Cornell guilty? One reading of the evidence allows us to absolve Thomas Cornell of stabbing his mother and burning her body. Another suggests that Rebecca may have committed suicide or that someone else murdered her. Or her death may even have been accidental. To be sure, the scenario described in the depositions of friends and family indicates a troubled household, but not necessarily one in which antagonism would inevitably erupt into violence. Lingering discomfort with the verdict resulted in two subsequent trials for the same crime: both Thomas Cornell’s wife and his Indian servant, Wickhopash, were arrested and tried for Rebecca Cornell’s murder in the years following 1673, a surprising sequence of events given the decisive nature of the original verdict. The willingness of participants to revisit the incident also tells us something about their outlook on the world. But the story is far more than a who-done-it. Most intriguing from a historical standpoint are the records that highlight intrafamily discord and demonstrate how this small community responded (or failed to respond) to Rebecca’s fears and complaints. Furthermore, they show how religion, politics, and gender controlled the story line. In short, despite Thomas Cornell’s personal standing in this patriarchal, deferential society, it was the power of the invisible world, the strength of Quaker authority, and the force of female voices that ultimately weighted the scales of justice. And as fact blended with hearsay and hearsay melted into lore, these multilayered forces intertwined with the legal culture of early modern Anglo-America. But how to tell the tale? The sequence of events is great drama, but it is not the whole story, and it need not be told chronologically. Rebecca Cornell’s death and her son’s trial are the starting points for a more ambitious attempt to unravel the nature of late-seventeenthcentury New England. Since Thomas’s alleged culpability is inextri6

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 7

cably linked to his relationship with his family as well as to the external social forces that shaped his life, these developments take center stage as the story twists and turns. In each of these settings, the context of his life becomes pretext for a crime. Readers looking for a thesis, an answer, a satisfactory conclusion to the main event will be disappointed, since the Rashomon qualities of this case preclude any easy solution. Capitalizing on the ambiguities created by the evidence, the book offers alternative story lines that lead to Rebecca Cornell’s untimely demise. As a result, the reader is asked to consider the same evidence more than once, but from different perspectives. The discussion implicitly suggests that historians always make choices as they construct narratives and that there are usually valid alternatives to whatever interpretation is presented as truth. But, having prodded the reader toward ambivalence, fairness demands an explanation and justification of the verdict by returning Thomas Cornell to the world in which he lived and the people with whom he rubbed elbows. Clearly, Cornell’s trial was inseparable from the social permutations and legal culture in which it took place. In another time, another venue, the sequence of events might have been different. On second thought, if Rebecca’s ghost continued to keep her vigil, perhaps not. It cannot be entirely coincidental that the sign outside the Portsmouth, Rhode Island, Baptist Church on February 8, 1998 (the three hundred twenty-fifth anniversary of her death) informed the public that “A Man Is What His Mother Makes Him.”

introduction

7

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 8

One A Death in the Family Thomas Cornell was forty-six years old in February 1673; by seventeenth-century norms he was already well advanced in life. Nothing is known of his appearance, but if he observed contemporary style he would have been clean shaven with shoulder-length (or slightly shorter) hair. If he resembled many of his male descendants, he would have had a pronounced nose and dark eyes. Given his status in the community, he may have followed the latest London fashions, although unlike the “best sort”—William Coddington, for example— he probably did not count a wig among his possessions.1 Cornell, his seventy-three-year-old mother Rebecca, wife Sarah, four sons from a previous marriage, and two daughters from his current marriage lived in the reasonably large (albeit crowded) home owned by the widowed Rebecca in Portsmouth, Rhode Island, not far from the Newport border to the south. One male servant and a male lodger completed

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 9

this very extended household. Under such circumstances, privacy certainly eluded all but the most persevering, and it is a tribute to Thomas and Sarah that they were expecting their third child.2 Multigenerational families such as the Cornells were rare in colonial America, particularly among the more affluent, who seemed to prefer independent households. Where three generations coresided, however, a parent (or parents) were likely to have taken in a married daughter or son whose spouse had died. Such was the case with the Cornells. Thomas had been left a widower with young children, and he may have chosen to alleviate the burdens of childcare by remaining with his mother until he could install a second wife. Or there may have been financial pressures compelling him to accept Rebecca’s on-site presence in exchange for the more comfortable lifestyle her home provided. Either way, the middle-aged Thomas Cornell was still dependent on his mother, and this relationship must have sorely tested his psychological comfort level.3 Male-headed households were the rule in the patriarchal and hierarchical communities that dotted seventeenth-century New England. Yet Rebecca Cornell owned this particular homestead and showed no signs of relinquishing her authority. Prevailing wisdom held that men—particularly middle-aged married men—governed their dependents, especially women. Yet Rebecca was Thomas’s mother, and he was dependent on her. How could he govern her? Yet, how could he not govern her? His very masculinity and social standing were at stake. On any given day, Thomas Cornell might have been found attending to some of the never-ending chores that running a farm entailed. Outdoor work consumed less time in February, of course. A deep blanket of snow protected his fields from wind erosion or sudden thaw, but, still, paths required shoveling to provide access to the fallen tree limbs that were the family’s main source of firewood. A few dry days would have allowed Cornell—or his servant—to chop the limbs where they had dropped, but more likely the cold wet weather forced him to drag heavy branches to a sheltered lean-to where a sharp axe stood ready to cut and split the wood. Cornell’s grazing cattle could forage on their own, but a conscientious farmer and herdsman frequently checked on his stock when it was pastured a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

9

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 10

at a distance.4 Sarah’s tasks included milking the cows inside the barn, but Thomas was responsible for repairing the barn roof each time winter tore off a shingle. All this was cold work, even if the prodigious number of Rhode Island sheep (Cornell’s among them) alleviated the chill by keeping their owners supplied with woolen clothing. A linen shirt, loose knee-length waistcoat, and breeches allowed the maneuverability required for these chores, and a cloak or coat provided an extra layer of warmth. By 1673, the tall-crowned hats of the 1650s and 1660s had given way to a flatter top, but Cornell’s hat would still have had a brim, and he might even have worn an undercap. Knitted wool hose, leather knee-length jack boots, and leather gloves made him all but impervious to the elements.5 The 100-acre Cornell grant stretched from Narragansett Bay eastward to the main road that ran north-south along the western side of Aquidneck Island. It is possible that a late-nineteenth-century photograph purporting to show the original Cornell homestead does, in fact, portray the wood frame house in which Rebecca Cornell died.6 This two-story home, which was eventually consumed by fire at the end of the nineteenth century, was in keeping with seventeenth-century Rhode Island architecture, even if it did not follow the distinctive stone end design for which Rhode Island was famous.7 The extremely small glass window panes (twelve over twelve) also hint that the Cornell house in the picture had a seventeenth-century origin. And even if the windows in the photograph were not original (earlier ones may have been leaded casement with small diamondshaped panes), sash windows were already popular by the turn of the eighteenth century.8 Six windows across on the second floor east side, five across on the first (because of the front door), the number of windows in the photograph suggests a fairly large house—which in turn reflects the prosperity of its owner. A roomy interior entryway welcomed people into the Cornell home. Without a floor plan we can only guess how many rooms surrounded the central chimney (probably made of stone), but it is certain that the most dramatic feature of Rebecca’s first-floor chamber would have been the large walk-in fireplace. The afternoon sun poured into her room from a westerly facing window, and two doors 10

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 11

MASSACHUSETTS

RHODE ISLAND

PLYMOUTH COLONY Dartmouth

Aquidneck Island

MAP OF AQUIDNECK ISLAND SHOWING POSITION OF CORNELL GRANT P O RT S M O U T H

West R oad

Cornell Grant

Broa dw ay

N E W P O RT

Town of Newport

Map showing the 100-acre Cornell homestead on Aquidneck Island. The tract bordered Narragansett Bay just north of the line dividing Portsmouth from Newport. Adapted from John Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family (New York, 1902).

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 12

provided access: one on the south wall leading to the outside and another on the north wall leading to a common room or kitchen where the family congregated for meals. The wall between these two interior rooms gave the appearance of being “a perticion of bords,” but since that wall contained the chimney, it was far thicker than such a description implies.9 Seventeenth-century Rhode Island chimneys were so deep, in fact, that they could accommodate a stairway along one side, an architectural feature that was usually positioned just inside the front door to provide an entryway and access to the second floor. A first-floor room with southern and western exposures and a glowing hearth would have made Rebecca Cornell as comfortable as one could be during February in Rhode Island. There is no evidence that she shared this chamber with anyone, despite the abundance of people in the household. Her son and daughter-in-law must have been assigned less spacious accommodations. Indeed, Henry Straite, a lodger in the Cornell household, suggested that the common room served a double purpose as both kitchen and “Mr Thomas Cornells roome.”10 The children probably slept upstairs. Rebecca’s bed occupied the eastern side of her chamber. The bedstead was canopied and surrounded with a valance and curtains, the heavy fabric acting as a buffer between cold drafts and sleeping woman. If winter refused to remain outside altogether, it barely made its presence known within the room. The bed curtains would have been the most opulent display of textiles in the house, since window curtains and floor coverings were rarely found in seventeenth-century rooms. They are likely to have been green, the most sought-after color for bedhangings, although red and blue were nearly as popular in fashion-conscious homes. Rebecca’s material comfort also would have been enhanced by a matching rug blanket and her regular linens: pillows, cases, sheets, and blankets. The great bed was one of the most valued household objects at this time, and its possession said much about household hierarchy. A chair, placed comfortably close to the fireplace, was among the few additional articles of furniture in the room, although there may have been a spinning wheel where Rebecca produced yarn to knit or sell. A basin and candlestick would have sat on a small table somewhere within easy 12

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 13

Built by Stephen Mumford, a member of the second inquest jury in the Cornell case, this house is typical of late-seventeenth-century Rhode Island design. The floor plan of the house, originally constructed with one room on either side of the central chimney, would have been similar to that of the Cornell house. The Newport Historical Society, Newport, Rhode Island.

reach. Her chamber pot would have been discreetly unobtrusive under the bed, but readily accessible in case of need. Perhaps the walls of the room were painted; if so, they would have been red or decorated with marbling. Perhaps they were simply plastered. In either case, by seventeenth-century standards, the Cornell family lived well.11 Indeed, they lived very well. Rebecca’s “great chest” stood alongside a “new bench” in the “new roome” of the house, an addition built prior to 1664. Perhaps a wedding gift crafted in Essex, England, the oak chest would have been one of a few prized possessions to have made the Atlantic crossing. Or it may have been produced locally by one of a growing number of skilled New England artisans. The chest would have had ornate carving on its front panels and perhaps even on its sides, a plain lid, and four short square legs. A locked drawer might have housed Rebecca’s good linen suit and her wedding petticoat, a half-century old in 1673. Also in the new room, perhaps, was Rebecca’s “great silver boule.” a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

13

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 14

Of English or New England origin, it probably rested on the shelf of a simple cupboard, along with her other silver valuables: a dram cup, two delicately etched wine cups with handles, and spoons. Rebecca Cornell’s two gilt spoons, covered with a thin layer of gold, would have been displayed there as well, a reminder of special occasions past, present, and future.12 It is likely that Thomas’s rapier hung on the wall of the new room, to be taken down for militia exercises or worn if he rode more than a few miles away from areas settled by the English. The town provided swords and muskets for the protection of each inhabitant, and, although these weapons had a purpose, Thomas’s rapier could have been a symbolic legacy from his father as well; Thomas Sr. had been elected a militia ensign in 1644.13 Whatever the name given to the room on the other side of the chimney wall—fire room, great room, keeping room, common room, hall, or kitchen—it contained the hearth where meals were cooked, bread baked, water heated, and clothes dried. Lamps added light to this room, along with smells, smoke, and drippings from burning tallow. Thomas’s two young daughters played here, while their older stepbrothers teased them, exchanged stories, or competed at backgammon. A cupboard containing everyday eating utensils and table linens must have stood on one wall, not too far from the long trestle table at which the family took meals. Just as the master bed and chamber were rife with symbolism, so too was this great room the scene of rituals designed to reinforce status and hierarchy. The head of the household sat at one end of the table in a large armchair, while his wife and older children gathered on long benches or square backless “joint stools.” The baby fingered food from her perch atop a highchair. Family members and guests were distanced from the head of the household according to their rank and social status.14 We will never know whether Rebecca Cornell, as matriarch and legal owner of the homestead, claimed the right to sit at the head of the table or whether she graciously relinquished that privilege in favor of her eldest son, who was a married man and a respected member of the community in his own right. Her possession of the great bed suggests that she was keenly aware of her place in this household, although what she claimed by right would have been perceived as self-indulgence by her son and daughter-in-law. Such ri14

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 15

valry only fueled the antagonism between mother and son as furniture became a symbolic weapon in the contest for control over people and space. • • • Thomas Cornell returned home late in the afternoon on February 8, 1673. Hearing that his mother had not been well, he went to her room a little after sunset, where he found his oldest son and namesake. Eventually, as darkness eclipsed dusk, Rebecca’s eighteenyear-old grandson left the room while her son remained and talked with her for about one and a half hours. It was seven o’clock when Thomas left the room and began to wind a “Quill of yarne,” a task that he half-finished before supping with his family in the large room adjoining Rebecca’s. Two weeks later, Thomas would explain that Rebecca had refused to join the family at the table that evening because the menu included “salt-mackrill,” a dish that “made her Dry” during the night. No such qualms prevented the rest of the family from enjoying their meal as they passed the fish from person to person, each slicing a piece with a knife while holding the fish with the other not-so-clean hand.15 After the family had eaten, Sarah, Thomas’s wife, sent Edward, another of her teenage stepsons, to inquire whether her mother-inlaw would care for boiled milk or something else in place of the fish that Rebecca had rejected. To all outward appearances, this was a considerate gesture, since the elderly woman would have been able to ingest boiled milk more easily than solid foods. At age seventythree, Rebecca Cornell was likely to have had few, if any, teeth and her refusal of the fish may have been partly due to her inability to chew it. In any case, by the time Edward left the great room to do his stepmother’s bidding, somewhere between forty-five minutes and an hour had elapsed since Rebecca’s son had left her room. Approaching the chamber and opening the door, Edward called out, “Grandmother, Grandmother.” Receiving no response, Edward entered the room, spied flames, rushed out, and demanded a candle in order to inspect the fire. Everyone else “rann in, in hast.” Henry Straite, an apprentice who boarded at the Cornells’, was the first to reach the room. The rest followed “in A Huddle.” Seeing a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

15

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 16

fire on the floor, Straite “clapt his hands upon it” and despite the threat of scorched fingers, raked the residue away from what was apparently a body burned beyond recognition. Straite, in a panic, shouted “here is A Drunken Indian burnt to Death”—a strange remark since the presence of a drunken Indian (alive or dead) in Rebecca Cornell’s room seems somewhat incongruous. Straite lifted an arm, shook it, and spoke in an Indian tongue to the lifeless form. And yet, in context, perhaps this scenario was not so strange after all. Rhode Islanders expected drunken Indians to commit crimes. Sneak attacks, break-ins, and violence were associated with darkskinned natives, and if Rebecca’s charred flesh had taken on a bronze cast (which is likely under the circumstances), Straite might easily have mistaken these remains for an intruder. It was Rebecca’s son, Thomas, who first realized the victim’s identity. His eyes were drawn to the inert figure on the floor and, aided by the flickering light of a candle, he “clapt his hands and cryed out, Oh Lord, it is my mother.”16 James Moills, a servant of Cornell who had returned from George Lawton’s house with Henry Straite earlier that evening, described Rebecca “lying on the floore, with fire about Her, from her Lower parts neare to the Armepits.” He recognized her only “by her shoes.”17 The records do not reveal who ran from house to house summoning neighbors to view the dreadful scene. We do know that those who witnessed the remains that night were all male: John Gould, John Spencer, Job Hawkins, George Lawton, John Albro, Hugh Parsons, and Joshua Coggeshall. We do not know who kept watch over Rebecca’s body throughout the long and sleepless night as she lay on the floor in the room where she died. Sunday morning, February 9, brought snow. William Baulston, coroner for Portsmouth in 1673—but also a long-time friend and associate of Rebecca’s husband as well as a confidant of Rebecca and executor of her will—hastily impaneled a twelve-man inquest panel. The jury, several of whom had viewed Rebecca’s remains the night before, found her “Cloths very much Burnt by fire, and Her Body very much scorched and burnt by fire.” After “diligent Inquirie” of witnesses and after they had “caused” the body to be “stripped” of its “Residue” of unburned clothing, the inquest panel “turned and Han16

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 17

dled” Rebecca’s body in order to complete their investigation. It must have been a grisly and difficult task since the overnight hiatus invited rigor mortis to set in. That the inquest jurors “caused” any remaining clothing to be removed from the charred flesh hints that they themselves eschewed so grotesque a chore. Perhaps it was more seemly for women to disrobe one of their own sex, even a corpse; perhaps turning and handling Rebecca’s remains was as much as the men could bear. After performing their onerous duties, the all-layman panel concluded that Rebecca Cornell “was brought to her untimely death by an Unhappie Accident of fire as Shee satt in her Rome.”18 It was an unexpected incident, an unusual event—and, in this case, a disaster. On Sunday evening, Elizabeth Parsons (Hugh’s wife), along with Goodwife Earle (Sarah Earle Cornell’s mother?), prepared the body for burial. Sarah, Rebecca’s daughter-in-law, was curiously absent from the small group that performed this ritual. Whether it was because of friction between the two women or because Sarah suspected she was pregnant and was thus reluctant to confront a corpse is not revealed in the record. Sarah took folklore seriously, and if she believed—as many of her contemporaries did—that a dead body could spirit away the fetus or that contact might result in some deformity or birthmark, she had good reason to stay away.19 On Monday, February 10, a grieving family buried what remained of a mother, grandmother, sister, and aunt. Although the family plot bordered the tranquil water of Narragansett Bay, Rebecca Cornell did not rest in peace. • • • Two nights later—on February 12—Rebecca Cornell’s ghost startled her brother, John Briggs, with an unexpected visit. Not surprisingly, her appearance concerned her gruesome death. Briggs, a sixtyfour-year-old grandfather in 1673, was inextricably linked to the history of Portsmouth, as well as to the Cornell family itself. Born and married in England, he appears to have either preceded or followed his sister and her husband to New England, where Briggs and his brother-in-law, Thomas Cornell Sr. continued to have much in common. If, as genealogists indicate, they were doubly related by a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

17

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 18

Burial plot of the Cornell homestead, containing the graves of Rebecca Cornell and her husband Thomas, as well as their descendants. Her son Thomas is buried elsewhere. From John Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family (New York, 1902), p. opp. 38. Milstein Division of United States History, Local History & Genealogy, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

marriage to one another’s sister, they must have enjoyed long evenings together at family gatherings. Although unable to write, Briggs was a long-standing town leader who had once served on numerous committees with his sister Rebecca’s husband. As a magistrate, town councilman, and deputy to the Rhode Island General Assembly, Briggs was clearly a respected member of the community. His interests, like those of his brother-in-law, extended to Dartmouth, in Plymouth Colony, where the two of them had invested in land.20 He was also conciliatory. Acquitted in a civil case, Briggs “of his owne Free Will Paide the Costs of Court,” even though the plaintiff bore responsibility for those charges. Three years later, Briggs put up a bond for an Indian’s appearance in court, which sug18

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 19

gests he exercised good will toward some members, at least, of that community. His associates trusted him enough to look favorably on his application to borrow funds from the town treasury, allowing him “what mony ther can be spared.”21 All in all, Briggs was a credible man with a good reputation. Thus, when John Briggs shared his remarkable story with the authorities on February 20, the vision he described could not be easily dismissed. Why he waited a full week before revealing this incident is something of a mystery. Perhaps he needed time to consider a course of action; perhaps his public admission followed private consultation with family, friends, or neighbors. In any case, when Briggs finally recounted the strange visitation to the deputy governor and council, he began by explaining that the apparition appeared as he “lay in his Bedd . . . being betweene Sleepeing and Wakeing.” In that state “he felt something heave up the Bedclothes twice and thought some body had beene coming to bed to him, where upon he Awaked.” Turning over in bed, “he perceived A Light in the roome, like to the Dawning of the day, and plainely saw the shape and Apearance of A Woman standing by his Bed side.” Frightened, he “cryed out, in the name of God what art thou, the Aperition Answered, I am your sister Cornell, and Twice sayd, see how I was Burnt with fire.” In the dim light, Rebecca Cornell appeared to be severely burnt “about the shoulders, face, and Head.”22 Briggs’s account had to be taken seriously because ghosts were taken seriously in 1673 Portsmouth, Rhode Island.23 Disagreements might arise over the purpose of a particular nocturnal vision, but for a thousand years and more ghosts had been bona fide members of the invisible world, and few would be foolhardy enough to challenge their existence. Yet doctrine without dispute was unthinkable in Christendom, and during the Protestant Reformation theologians began to scrutinize and reinterpret the nature of such apparitions. Since Protestants denied purgatory in the belief that human souls went directly to either heaven or hell without delay or a return ticket, it followed that ghosts could not be the souls of dead people. Protestant teaching was very firm on this point, and in theory at least this separated Catholicism from Protestantism. According to reform thinking, ghosts were the spirits of the dead who always had a reason a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

19

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 20

for their appearance. Usually, their presence was designed to correct an injustice that might not be detected by other means. “Murder will out,” and the spirit of a murder victim often appeared to a third party to urge him or her to denounce a murderer when conventional evidence proved inadequate for prosecution. In short, ghosts had a social role to play. They reinforced moral standards by warning potential perpetrators that even in the absence of human witnesses, a victim could seek retribution. God, after all, had seen the crime, and God sent ghosts as His representatives. Of course, the Devil could trick people into thinking that God had sent ghosts, which meant that Puritans needed to evaluate each situation cautiously, but this is one of those areas where the seeds of Catholicism, folklore, and Puritanism forced a hybrid religious identity to flower.24 When Increase Mather published his Illustrious Providences in 1684, he admitted that “the ghosts of Dead men do sometimes appear,” although he was quick to point out that it was usually to reveal some great injustice. Such “apparitions” came to uncover “some sin not discoverable in any other way.” They were to rectify “some act of injustice done, or . . . some murder committed,” Mather explained. At the same time, specters could not be seen by just anyone. They were on assignment to specific people, with particular ends in mind. It was “a thing notoriously known,” Mather assured his readers, “that the Ghosts of dead persons have sometimes appeared so that the sin of Murder . . . might be discovered.” They had done so in the past; they would do so again.25 So even Puritans, the harshest critics of magic and medieval superstitions, viewed ghosts as providential and reflective of God’s power and purpose. Ghosts were not without their critics. They would not come under serious attack until Enlightenment skeptics discredited the invisible world in the eighteenth century, but their existence had already been challenged by a few disbelievers a century earlier. In The Anatomy of Melancholy (1621), Robert Burton insisted that apparitions were produced by melancholy humors or even indigestion: “never any . . . visions, phantasms, apparitions . . . revelations, but immoderate fasting, bad diet, sickness, melancholy, solitariness, or some such thing were the precedent causes.” Unfortunately, Burton added, such delusions gave the Devil the opportunity to deceive 20

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 21

people. And in 1651, Thomas Hobbes asserted in Leviathan that ghosts resulted from the “distemper of some of the inward parts of the Body,” rather than from any external force.26 But John Briggs was probably a believer. He had been among the first generation of Puritan settlers, and even though he leaned toward Antinomianism, his acceptance of the invisible world would not have been undermined by such heresy. Indeed, if Briggs swore he “saw” a ghost, he was either intentionally or unintentionally ratifying the orthodox position on this subject. Moreover, since an occasional caller from the invisible world was a relatively uncontroversial theological matter, even the most contentious Quakers and Baptists would have been unlikely to question this point. In short, for anyone to challenge the appearance of a ghost while this solid citizen was either dreaming or “betweene Sleepeing and Wakeing” was to challenge God’s method of law and order. Under the circumstances, Rebecca Cornell’s ghost picked the perfect mediator. The apparition did not accuse anyone directly. She said to her brother, “see how I was burnt,” which was slightly more accusatory than if she had said “see how I am burnt,” but still only hinted at deliberate malfeasance by another person. Furthermore, the ambiguity of her remark may have been carefully crafted, since Rhode Island law seriously discouraged accusations that could not be proven— perjury to take a life was a capital crime. It is no wonder then that Rebecca’s ghost and her conduit, John Briggs, exercised caution while relating the manner of Rebecca’s death.27 Yet both were shrewdly cautious. Acting as intermediary, the apparition shielded the teller from criminal prosecution and conditioned the listener through suggestion and innuendo. The spirit thus became an extralegal agent in a situation where the narrator was reluctant to take responsibility for the information conveyed. Tradition (in the form of supernatural testimony) and modernity (punishment for unfounded allegations) were thus reconciled in law, even as Briggs ever so subtly implied that Rebecca’s death was not accidental. Briggs went even further to disassociate himself from whatever tale the apparition might tell. The physical appearance of Rebecca Cornell’s ghost (according to her brother) differed from the condition of the corpse as described by witnesses who observed it on the a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

21

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 22

night of February 8. Thomas Cornell remembered that his mother’s clothing was “burnt of on her below and some above,” and James Moills testified that fire surrounded Rebecca Cornell’s remains “from Her Lower parts neare to the Armepits.”28 But Briggs asserted otherwise: he maintained that the ghost’s shoulders, face, and head were disfigured by burns—a description that effectively disguised the apparition. As a result, Briggs was unable to identify his visitor. She claimed to be his sister Cornell; if the apparition was lying, well, John Briggs couldn’t be held responsible for that, could he? From a distance of more than three hundred years, John Briggs’s testimony is difficult to assess, and we are left with at least three possible interpretations of his story. First, John Briggs saw an actual ghost. Second, John Briggs was dreaming and thought he saw a ghost. Third, John Briggs was lying. The first construction is possible—but not probable. The third would have put Briggs’s own life in danger if the implication of wrongdoing proved false. Moreover, Briggs’s religious convictions—even in Rhode Island—should have prevented him from fabricating such a tall tale. Yet Briggs must have been keenly aware of his nephew’s behavior and perhaps believed him capable of murder. In that case, Briggs’s ethical beliefs might have receded in the face of more urgent considerations. By trading on what he knew was a widespread acceptance of the supernatural, Briggs could manipulate people and set in motion a sequence of events that would bring about certain ends. Thus, despite the risk, Briggs may have been stirred by resentment to avenge the death of his sister and widow of his old friend (not to mention brother-in-law) in a way that was calculated to bring results. Rebecca Cornell was far more empowered as a ghost than as an elderly widow. Notwithstanding the plausibility of such Machiavellian tactics, however, the second interpretation is the most likely, especially since Briggs admitted he had been dreaming about Rebecca before the ghost’s appearance. In other words, it would have been easier for Briggs to imagine the presence of a ghost if he were already convinced of its existence. The ghastly circumstances of Rebecca’s death and Briggs’s own intellectual conditioning may have triggered a ghostly intervention at a time when Briggs was most susceptible, “betweene Sleepeing and Wakeing.” By appearing at that moment, the 22

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 23

ghost’s presence was timed to a precise formula, suggesting that Briggs was responding to his own conscious (or subconscious) beliefs. The prescribed ritual also called for Briggs to question the apparition’s identity in a particular manner with which he was obviously familiar: “In the name of God, what art thou?” Briggs demanded. His deposition does not include what should have been the usual followup question: “What is it you would have of me?” although the query may have been lost in the transcription process as Secretary John Sanford hastily scribbled down the essential points. In the eighteenth century, Daniel Defoe, another believer, argued that in order to distinguish between a genuine apparition and the Devil, the initial question should be posed as “In the name of God what Business hast thou here?” on the assumption that the Devil, having no legitimate business to conduct, would flee at the question.29 But Briggs left the second formulaic question unasked. How Briggs knew what to say to the apparition is an intriguing question in itself. It is unlikely he read any treatise on the subject, which suggests that this was language that had been passed along by word of mouth over time and across the ocean. Sunday sermons may have included some helpful hints, but it is just as likely that Briggs had absorbed these phrases in front of a winter fire or over a tankard of brew. That the apparition appeared when and where it did may also have resulted from a severe case of guilt pangs and regret over Briggs’s inability to protect his sister, especially if he had had advance notice of circumstances that might have contributed to her death. Briggs had not intervened before, but he could punish his nephew now. There can be little doubt that Briggs was acting out a familiar scenario, one that would be replayed whenever the wheels of justice seemed to be moving too slowly or in the wrong direction. Years later, Cotton Mather would relate “A Narrative of an Apparition” that was strikingly similar to the structure of Briggs’s account. In Mather’s rendition, “Mr. Joseph Beacon . . . about Five a clock in the morning, as he lay, whether Sleeping or Waking he could not say . . . had a view of his Brother . . . His countenance was very Pale, Ghastly, Deadly, and he had a Bloody Wound on [the] Side of his a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

23

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 24

Forehead!” In this story, the ghost described the murderer in some detail, hoping that his brother would seek an indictment against the assailant. Beacon’s apparition reassured his astounded brother by saying, “I’ll Stand by you and prove the indictment,” which was a step further than Rebecca Cornell’s ghost was prepared to go.30 The apparitions of deceased individuals also flit in and out of the 1692 witchcraft narratives, particularly during the proceedings against the Reverend George Burroughs. A widower twice over, the minister was arrested for acting in wizard-like fashion, but his case record reveals a man also suspected of murder. To “prove” the charge, apparitions appear as his former wives, voicing accusations that were far more specific and incriminating than the hints Rebecca Cornell passed along through her brother. The apparition team sought out the young female accusers, who subsequently described the visitation in language that was both formulaic and rehearsed. Susannah Sheldon testified that Burroughs’s wives appeared “in their winding sheets and said that man killed them.” Ann Putnam confirmed that the women wore winding sheets, adding that “their blood did cry for vengance against him.” Mary Walcott also experienced a visit from the same pair, declaring that “there appeared to me Mr. Burroughs’ two first wives in their winding sheets . . . and told me that Mr. Burroughs had murdered them and that their blood did cry for vegance againt him.” Whatever gossip swirled around town, Sheldon, Putnam, and Walcott were privy to it.31 Because apparitions were closely linked to dreams, dreams (and their implications) were subjected to intense scrutiny by New Englanders, who construed them as windows into the invisible world. People recorded dreams in their diaries and attempted to interpret them in the context of their personal cosmology. Violence, frustrations, and fears, suppressed in the daylight hours, emerged from their holding cells after dark to taunt sleepers conditioned to believe they had meaning. “I dreamed that I was going by a red bich which had a puppie and shee bit at me and I struck her and struck my wife in the face either with my hand or fist which waked my wife and she waked me and asked me what I did doe.”32 Quakers, in particular, believed that God spoke directly to them through dreams, or what were called “night visions.” Such messages 24

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 25

“Narrative of an Apparition,” in which Cotton Mather describes the appearance of the ghost of a recently murdered man. The apparition was seeking his brother’s help in bringing the guilty party to justice, and the narrative is very similar to the one related by John Briggs, Rebecca Cornell’s brother. From Cotton Mather, Wonders of the Invisible World (Boston: Benjamin Harris for Samuel Phillips, 1693), 79, MHS #3252. Courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston.

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 26

were therefore sacred since they reflected God’s desires and instructions. It followed then that if dreams legitimized events and imbued them with divine authority, interpreting them and acting on them were measures of one’s faith.33 It is impossible to say with certainty whether John Briggs was sympathetic to Quaker teachings, but he certainly had Antinomian tendencies, and dream interpretation was among the Antinomian spiritual practices that Quakers were quick to adopt. It is also clear that a number of Quakers would eventually affect the outcome of this story, and testimony about “signs in the night” may have resonated powerfully as prosecutors and jurors decided Thomas Cornell’s fate. Peter Easton, a Friend who admittedly succumbed to “the terrors of the night,” would be a member of the second inquest jury to investigate Rebecca Cornell’s “untimely death.”34 Whatever cultural forces were at work, however, John Briggs consciously or subconsciously constructed a ghost in time-honored fashion. Theoretically, the apparition could have been someone else— Thomas Cornell Sr., Rebecca’s husband, for one—but for reasons best known to Briggs, he “chose” his sister. Perhaps he thought the charred victim herself would resonate most powerfully; perhaps Rebecca’s reputation was a factor; perhaps Thomas Cornell Sr.’s death eighteen years earlier made him less of a “terror in the night” in 1673. Rebecca Cornell’s ghost may have been a product of Briggs’s imagination, but, even so, Briggs authored her lines. She identified herself clearly, presumably because the fire had disfigured her features and, although she called attention to her burns, she mentioned no other injuries. She accused no one. The conscious, rational Briggs also decided when and with whom to share his vision. If his nephew had been arrested immediately, Briggs might never have come forward at all. Indeed, the dream itself might never have materialized. • • • However these puzzle pieces came together, John Briggs was one of several people to confide in the authorities during the week following February 12. John Russill also unburdened himself. Whether the fact that Russill’s daughter, Mary, had married Thomas Cornell’s brother, John, in 1669 had anything to do with his revelation was known only to himself, but, in any case, John Russill had important 26

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 27

information to impart. Sometime shortly after Rebecca Cornell’s death, Russill reported, George Soule, the thirty-four-year-old constable of the town of Dartmouth in Plymouth colony, had approached Russill with a startling piece of information. Soliciting secrecy, Soule confided to his sixty-five-year-old “Anchant frind” that on a visit to Rebecca Cornell’s house, Cornell had revealed her intention to remove to her son Samuel’s home in the spring, “but shee feared shee should be made away before that time.” Despite Soule’s pleas for secrecy, Russill could not keep this volatile information to himself and in a statement to the authorities on February 20 swore to the truth of what he reported. If, fearing for her life, Rebecca Cornell had pointed a finger at anyone, Russill did not disclose a name. His account hints at foul play, but not by a specific person.35 As tongues wagged and rumors spread, such accounts became “Suspitious Reasons,” serious enough to draw the attention of the governor, deputy governor, and council. After listening to Briggs and Russill on February 20, the deputy governor and council (instead of the coroner) immediately convened a second inquest panel and took the highly unusual step of exhuming Rebecca’s body for another examination.36 This time, medical men were in attendance. Two surgeons from Newport, Henry Greenland and Simon Cooper, “riped open” Rebecca Cornell’s body after it had been disinterred on February 20.37 Their charge was to see “whether any wound might be found on Her.” In retrospect, it is unlikely that the contribution of such professionals completely resolved any ambiguities or lingering doubts. Inquests were performed from time to time in seventeenthcentury New England, but the presence of surgeons and the internal examination of a body were limited to a relatively few cases. Indeed, the first postmortem in New England for which there is an official account was in 1662. Moreover, medical practice had not advanced commensurate with seventeenth-century discoveries about anatomy and circulation. Colonial physicians had little access to European centers of advanced learning and usually acquired their skills through apprenticeship to older surgeons, who practiced traditional medicine. Thus, despite progress in pathology during the 1600s, colonial autopsy procedures relied on outdated techniques.38 Given these circumstances, Rebecca Cornell’s autopsy does not a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

27

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 28

inspire overwhelming confidence. Nevertheless, a “Dilligent search” of her remains in the presence of the inquest jury terminated in a shocking discovery: “A Suspitious wound on her in the upper-most part of the Stomake.” It is imposible to know whether the surgeons “found” a wound because suspicions predisposed them to do so or whether it actually existed. Nevertheless, an informal report some weeks later expanded on the formal inquiry, noting that the “hole,” which “went in neare her hartt,” appeared to have been made “with sume instramen licke, or the iron spyndell of a spining whelle.” The surgeons had also found “cloted bloud a greatt deall,” a condition consistent with a blow to the chest.39 John Cranston, deputy governor and, coincidentally, “Practitioner in Phisick and Chyrurgery,” concurred with the findings. That same day, the twenty-four-man inquest panel revised the judgment of its predecessor: Rebecca Cornell had come “bye her Death” not only as a result of burns, but from a “Suspitious wound.” The authorities took Thomas Cornell into custody. The day after the second inquest (February 21), the governor, deputy governor, and assistants engaged Thomas Cornell in a second round of questioning. He confirmed his brief statement of February 9, describing the sequence of events on the night of his mother’s death and explaining Rebecca’s absence from the dinner table. He added new details, noting that he had returned home “from his Occations,” a reference to his work, activities, or the fact that he had been outdoors relieving himself. Cornell also embellished the original account with his own interpretation of what had happened to his mother. He “judged that her Clothes tooke fire from A Cole” that fell “From Her Pipe as shee sat Smoaking in Her Chaire.” Aware, no doubt, of recent gossip, he sought to quiet suspicions. In his opinion, he added, no one was “Instrumentall in any Measure to procure her death.”40 It is unclear at what point the authorities became convinced otherwise, but in the following weeks, as witnesses came forward to tell their stories, circumstantial evidence mounted against Thomas Cornell. No one had seen him commit the crime; no one openly accused him; no one ever produced a murder weapon. But none of this mattered—various components of the belief system shared by Cor-

28

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 29

nell’s family, friends, and neighbors would eventually determine the outcome of this extraordinary case. After taking Cornell’s statement on February 21, the authorities began a discovery process to build a case against him. To do so, the government relied on long-standing legal procedures embedded in the Rhode Island civil code of 1647, which in turn was grounded generally in English common law and specifically in Michael Dalton’s The Countrey Justice.41 Accordingly, this was not simply a murder case, but one that involved petty treason. To “maliciously” kill a father or mother was only slightly less heinous than killing a king or queen and was “the highest and most unnatural” crime. It remained so even if the parent “gave neither meat, drink, nor wages” to a son or daughter. In short, no mitigating factors stood between the crime, conviction, and death by hanging. As a suspected murderer (not to mention potential arsonist), Cornell could not be freed on bail.42 Malefactors from both Portsmouth and Newport shared the jail in which Thomas Cornell would spend the next three months. The building, centrally located in Newport, was no more than fifteen years old, having been completed after considerable prompting, even threats, by the General Assembly. It had a keeper and chimney, which meant that if a wood supply existed nearby and if the jailer was concerned with his own comfort, Cornell might not have suffered unduly from the harsh March winds. Jailhouse amenities included “necessaries,” a vague term referring to Cornell’s essential needs such as food and bedding. The state contributed 3 pence per day toward his “maintenance,” but conditions must have been far from ideal since officials had shown little interest in maintaining the prison once it was completed.43 What is remarkable about Rhode Island’s legal culture is the curious blending of past and present. On the one hand, supernatural events were accepted as compelling evidence in the case. On the other, Rhode Island was far ahead of its sister colonies—and even England itself—in protecting defendants’ rights. Sometimes past and present were easily reconciled; sometimes they clashed, which is only to say that this evolutionary process eventually produced a Rhode Island common law that owed much to liberal Quaker principles.44

a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

29

Therefore, hearsay by a ghost became part of the record in the Cornell case, and the law demanded a written record during discovery as the state collected evidence. Indeed, Cornell was entitled to a copy of that record in order to defend himself. Rhode Island was the earliest of the New England colonies to embrace jury trials and was unique in its insistence on the defendant’s right to an attorney. Three hundred years before Gideon v. Wainwright, Rhode Island provided court-appointed attorneys for those who could not afford them. True, the rule initially applied only to civil cases, but even in criminal proceedings after 1669 defendants could call on counsel at trial to argue points of law “that may make for the clearing his innocencye.” Common law lagged behind, allowing attorneys to plead only technical defects in the indictment in felony cases.45 There is no evidence to indicate whether a lawyer assisted in Thomas Cornell’s defense. The governor, deputy governor, and assistants made up the Rhode Island Court of Trials in 1673, and selected members of this far-fromdisinterested group collected evidence for Cornell’s trial.46 On February 22, the long and tedious process began. That day, the authorities heard from those men who had been present at the Cornell farm on the night of February 8: Henry Straite and John Moills (the former an apprentice to a neighbor, the latter a Cornell servant), and Thomas Cornell’s four sons, Thomas Jr., Stephen, Edward, and John. Thomas’s wife, Sarah, was not examined until the second week in April when several other women gave testimony as well. Thomas Jr.’s story was almost identical to that of his father; the other sons, all teenagers, maintained that they did not know how their grandmother died, but confirmed that their father was the last person to see her alive. After testifying, the brothers trudged home, conscious that the truth of their words had placed their father in a precarious legal position.47 In the weeks and months that followed Cornell’s arrest, over a dozen witnesses offered their versions of the events surrounding the death of Rebecca Cornell. On one level, the proceedings were deceptively straightforward: deponents presented information to the governor, deputy governor, several assistants, and a secretary. The outcome of the case depended on information supplied by these deponents, yet how the ruling gentry composed the list of witnesses is 30

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 31

unknown, as is the voluntary or coerced nature of their appearance. Similarly, it is left to guesswork whether witnesses responded to specific questions or related their stories without interruption. Only once was the place at which they met acknowledged (“at Mr. Joshua Coggeshall’s house”), but whether they routinely gathered there or alternated among private homes is lost to history altogether.48 Moreover, if such an appearance in front of men of the highest rank was an intimidating experience for any of the deponents, there is no record of particulars. We may assume that by the time Governor Easton, Deputy Governor Cranston, and the council met to interrogate witnesses, they already possessed considerable information about the case—information that may have made impartial questioning somewhat problematic. And if deference to authority played any role in the proceedings, biased questions were not likely to elicit unbiased answers. The formalities also required a written transcript of the testimony. In this case, the recorder or secretary was John Sanford, a former deputy to the General Assembly and recent town clerk of Portsmouth. As a member of both inquest juries, he had already heard many of the lurid details, but he was even closer to the case than the rest of the investigating team. John Sanford was an executor of Rebecca Cornell’s will. His duties as recorder of testimony required him to transcribe “so much thereof as shall be material to prove the Felony,” a rule that gave Sanford considerable power to interpret what was said behind closed doors. Given his unique position, Sanford the secretary and Sanford the executor could work hand in hand to uphold the trust that his office and Rebecca Cornell had placed in him. By law, he had two days to process the salient points of testimony that would “prove the Felony” committed against his old friend. If exonerating information shed doubt on the truth of the narratives that Sanford constructed, such words never made their way into the official record.49 By the time that Sanford actually sat down to compose his formal transcript, the information in his possession had already passed through at least two stages of interpretation. First, one might argue that even after death Rebecca Cornell was the official narrator, since it was her complaints during life, her storytelling, and her accusaa d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

31

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 32

tions (not to mention the words of her ghost) that the deponents repeated to their listeners. Even in her distress, Rebecca chose what to reveal. Second, the witnesses themselves were free to edit their stories as they saw fit. Rebecca Cornell’s friends translated what they saw and heard; they refined, or even exaggerated, the stories and formulated them in such a way as to present a consistent narrative that had a particular end in mind. Yet it is unlikely that the witnesses thought of themselves as liars or part of a conspiracy rather than as participants in a process designed to further the ends of justice. If depositions included ghosts and bleeding corpses that heightened their dramatic impact, if borderline fictions could bring a guilty party to confess, so be it. Such versions of events were the ammunition of a semiliterate population that had neither a professional police force nor many alternative means of expressing widely held beliefs. Witnesses played to their audience and, with the help of John Sanford, the depositions became a collective representation of contemporary legal culture. Sanford’s role was to arrange the script in such a way as to maximize both coherence and credibility.50 Since the object of the examinations was to build a case for the prosecution, it is hardly surprising to see damaging evidence emerge to further that end. At the same time, it is interesting to note which information captured the attention of the court. The second time Henry Straite related his story, he added a detail that was seemingly inconsequential, yet it ever so slightly undermined Thomas Cornell’s account. “Mrs. Rebecca Cornell,” he said, “usialy used to be at Supper with us.” Her absence had attracted enough attention for Straite to inquire “why shee was not at supper with them.” Straite found the reason for her absence puzzling, and said so: “at other times when they have had Mackrill for supper . . . Mrs Rebecca Cornell used to be called, & did use to come and supp with the rest.” James Moills corroborated Straite’s account. Unless Mrs. Cornell was ill, he said, she “did usually be at meales with Her son Thomas etc.”51 This small contradiction in itself was not terribly detrimental to Cornell’s case. But Moills claimed to have seen something that night that sounded potentially ominous. He told his listeners that he saw “a piece of her Garment . . . lyeing upon A Brand on the fire.” Surely

32

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 33

the assembled group must have asked themselves how this object was connected to Rebecca Cornell’s death. And they must have asked Moills how he could be so certain that the fabric came from clothing she had been wearing. In all the excitement, any burning rag could have deceived the eyes, could it not? Moills thought otherwise. Rebecca Cornell’s absence at the dinner table could be explained away by her dislike of “Mackrill.” At the same time, the question of whether anyone had summoned her to dinner seems to have been a matter of concern, especially after Henry Straite noted that it was customary to tell her that the meal was about to be served. Eighteenyear-old Thomas indicated that no one sent for his grandmother “as at other times” because, presumably, she had already declined to join the family. Depending on Rebecca’s time of death, this variation of a small daily routine might have contributed to the tragedy.52 Eyewitness accounts of the death scene consumed the attention of the authorities, whose interest in specific details suggests a determined effort to unravel the awful sequence of events. Over and over again the interrogators returned to two points: the position of the body and the condition of the bedstead near which Rebecca lay. The deponents who discovered Rebecca’s body agreed on the essentials, although what conclusions the authorities drew from their testimony is hard to say. They found Rebecca on the floor with her head toward the door on the south side of the room, her feet positioned toward the opposite door. She lay on her left side with her back toward the bed, her face looking to the window in the western wall. When the governor, deputy governor, and three assistants examined Thomas Cornell on February 21, he offered his own theory of what had happened. The “Valins . . . and the upper part of the Curtaines” started burning where “Shee stood when Shee was on fire.” If so, Rebecca was conscious long enough to rise from her chair where, according to her son, a coal from her pipe had ignited her clothing. None of the other witnesses ventured a guess as to how the curtains and valance at the foot of the bed had caught fire, but they all concurred that the fire about the bedstead was out by the time they rushed into her room. This last point must have been of some importance since the questioners consistently returned to it. Perhaps it

a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

33

Outside

Bar Latch

East

re pl

Bed

(lying on left side with face toward west window)

Door

Fi

Chimney

ac e

H rth

ea

Family room (with back-toback fireplace)

North

Diagram of the death scene, reconstructed from deposition testimony. Rebecca Cornell is lying on her left side facing the window on the west wall of her room. Her feet point toward the door on the north side of the room and her head toward the opposite door. Her back is to the bed. Based on trial depositions, Rhode Island Supreme Court, Judicial Records Center & Archives, Pawtucket.

South

Door

Window

West

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 34

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 35

Oak four-poster bed, early to mid-seventeenth century, Christchurch Mansion, Ipswich. With its headboard and tester, bed curtains and coverlet, it would have been much like the one belonging to Rebecca Cornell, who may have brought hers with her from England. Photograph from Jenny Gibbs, Curtains and Drapes: History, Design, Inspiration (London: Cassell, 1996), 337. General Research Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. Courtesy of Ipswich Borough Council Museums and Galleries, England.

occurred to them that someone had deliberately extinguished the burning bedhangings to prevent the entire house from erupting into flames. But if this was on their minds, such thoughts were never transcribed into the official record.53 A little over a week later, George Soule arrived in Portsmouth and appeared before the governor and an assistant, Richard Smith. Soule, who had originally confided only in John Russill, now expanded on his conversation with Rebecca earlier that winter. Yes, she had been detera d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

35

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 36

mined to remove to her son Samuel’s house in Dartmouth even though Soule had tried to dissuade her by insisting that “shee was better where she was.” “A difference was arisen between her and her son Thomas, about rent,” Soule reported. Rebecca had been agitated, “in a Passion,” he added, suggesting a loss of rationality that allowed Rebecca’s emotions to control her tongue. The conversation had become even more heated as revelations of one monetary dispute followed another. According to Rebecca, Thomas also had threatened that “he would have the Hundred pound Bond out of her hand.” What did Soule think Thomas meant by that remark, Rebecca had inquired? She had implicitly answered her own question by insisting that she would go to Samuel’s “if shee was not otherwise disposed of, or made away.”54 In a passion or not, Rebecca Cornell appeared to have feared for her life, and Soule’s obvious miscalculation of the danger she faced may have prompted the belated disclosures to salve his conscience. Thomas Cornell consistently denied any involvement in his mother’s death. Faced with mounting circumstantial evidence, however, not to mention the devastating implications of his mother’s supernatural appearance, Cornell countered wonder with wonder to buttress his defense. By saying that no person had hastened Rebecca Cornell’s death, Thomas Cornell left the legal door ajar for an avenging God. Thomas, himself, made only one comment suggestive of that defense in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. Sometime during the week preceding his arrest, as Cornell, his wife Sarah, and some friends discussed the awful event, John Pearce, a fortyone-year-old mason, heard Cornell say to the group “that his Mother in her life time had A desire to have A good fire . . . that he thought God had answered her ends, for now shee had it.” Eventually, such sarcasm would work against him, but at the time Thomas saw no danger in insinuating that Rebecca Cornell had suffered from God’s displeasure. Few doubted illustrious providences in 1673; even fewer doubted that God could exhibit His wrath through “remedilesse and sudden fires.”55 Rebecca Cornell’s ghost was not the only creature from the invisible world to make an appearance as this strange case unfolded. Sarah Cornell, Rebecca’s daughter-in-law, publicly fashioned another, even though long-standing precedent disallowed the testimony of wives 36

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 37

against their husbands. Indeed, the reliance that Rhode Islanders placed in Michael Dalton’s legal treatise, The Countrey Justice, suggests that they adhered to the rule “that the wife cannot be produced, either against or for her Husband.” She was not to “give evidence,” nor even “be examined against her husband; for by the Laws of God, and of this Land, she ought not to discover his counsell.”56 Yet Rhode Island was shaping its own legal identity, and in this instance Sarah Cornell’s testimony was, apparently, considered vital to the proceedings, English precedent notwithstanding. On April 10, after a number of men had been deposed, and a few days before most of the women would be examined, Sarah told her story. She did not speak under oath, yet her account, at least in part, also implicated God. Thomas visited with his mother that evening, Sarah reported, although it is unclear from her testimony exactly when he “tooke a Quill of yarne in his hand to winde.” He may have taken the quill (and the spindle on which it sat) into her chamber. After he emerged, however, “he winded halfe a Quill of yarne, and then went to Supper.” Eventually, Sarah sent one of the boys to see if Rebecca would have some dinner. Thus far, Sarah Cornell’s story confirmed earlier accounts. But then she added new information. When Edward opened his grandmother’s door, “the Great Dogg being in her roome, Leaped out over the Boy.” A dog vaulted over a standing teenager? Not likely. Some Rhode Islanders kept dogs in 1673, but no one had spoken of a family pet before, and even if none of the deponents had noticed it or thought the incident worth mentioning, it is puzzling that the family ignored what should have been a loudly barking canine in the next room.57 An ordinary dog crazed by smoke and flames would have created enough commotion to alert the family to some misfortune. The absence of any corroborating comment in what were generally consistent and repetitive depositions is indeed puzzling—unless this “Great Dogg” was the legendary beast of English folklore. Such dogs appeared in tales as “immense,” “huge,” “enormous,” or simply as “a great black dog.” Indeed, Essex County, England (the Cornells’ point of origin), claimed its own beast, a hideous hound known as Black Shuck, who was as large as a calf with drooping ears, huge bright eyes, and a crimson tongue. These malevolent creatures were a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

37

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 38

often associated with flame and fire and could be either the ghost of a person come to rectify a wrong or the Devil in the shape of a dog. Either way, black or great dogs brought ill luck or even death, particularly to evil doers. Common belief held that God sent such sinister apparitions to “terrifie” people and confirm his power. In the Cornell case, Sarah Cornell’s slyly disguised accusation insinuates that this great dog was really an imp or devil, a “familiar,” long associated with witches in English popular thought. Indeed, the dog may have been Satan himself, whose presence at this catastrophic moment suggested that he had come to claim Rebecca’s soul. Thomas’s wife seems to have been implicating her mother-in-law in witchcraft.58 And as she gingerly dropped this hint, Sarah empowered herself at Rebecca’s expense—simultaneously enjoying a satisfying moment that might have been difficult to achieve during Rebecca’s lifetime. The great dog would make an appearance again two decades later during the Salem witchcraft trials, confirming its association with Satan. During her examination, Tituba described the vision that prompted her to harm the children. The vision took different forms, but on several occasions it appeared “like a great dog.” Prodded to elaborate, Tituba admitted that “the black dog said serve me.” Upon responding to the “great black dogge” that she “was afrayd,” he had threatened to hurt her.59 Beyond the appearance of the great dog, Sarah Cornell suggested in other ways that supernatural forces were at work. She did not know how her mother-in-law came to die. She could not “Imagine,” what had happened, she added, but interpreted it “as A wonderfull thing.” But it was not just the death itself that was full of wonder— the circumstances of the event were equally awe-inspiring. It was all the “more” wonderful because “part of her Clothes being Cotton and wooll, the wooll was burnt and the cotton Remained whole.” In the natural world, this was not likely to happen. The properties of cotton make it more susceptible to flame than wool, a fabric that singes slowly and only then burns. Given these unnatural circumstances, other-worldly forces were surely involved. Indeed, it was so unusual that three witnesses, John Gould, John Spencer, and Job Hawkins were summoned for the purpose of confirming the strange work of the fire on the cloth. Not until George Lawton and John 38

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 39

Albro “went into the roome” after “being sent for” had anyone even smelled “the scent of the Burning of the Clothes.” Richard Smith, one of the assistants, corroborated the absence of such an odor. No one “smelt her wolone cloths” as the fire ate away at them, even though “severall pepoll” were in “the next rome.”60 Such testimonial staging of these illustrious providences suggests that nothing less than a contest over Rebecca Cornell and her relationship with God was at stake. The subtle battle of words took place within a general consensus regarding God’s role as director of the universe, since neither Rebecca’s ghost nor the Devil in disguise could act out their parts “without a permission from him, in whose hand they are.” If, as John Briggs and his Quaker allies would have had it, a nod from God sent Rebecca’s ghost back to right the wrong perpetrated on her, Rebecca was presumably in God’s favor. Alternatively, if Sarah Cornell was correct and Rebecca was a witch whose familiar God had turned into a “Great Dogg,” the Devil himself, or a barghest (a doglike goblin), the elderly woman had clearly angered the Almighty. Moreover, the material evidence associated with her death was open to conflicting interpretations. Iron spindles and fire brands were benign as well as malevolent symbols, since these instruments had both quotidian and satanic uses. Thus, even after death Rebecca Cornell was at the center of a controversy in which the line between theology and folklore was considerably blurred.61 Other family members, uncertain what to believe, attempted to shed light on the circumstances surrounding Rebecca’s death. Robert Coe, the justice of the peace, took Rebecca Cornell Woolsey’s deposition in Flushing, New York, the same day that Sarah Cornell appeared before the deputy governor and the council in Newport. Woolsey was Sarah’s sister-in-law, Thomas’s fifty-one-year-old sister, and Rebecca Cornell’s daughter. She lived in New York and only occasionally visited her mother. Rebecca Woolsey was not in an enviable position on April 10, 1673. Her mother had met a gruesome death; her brother stood accused of murder. What could she say? Should she take sides? Woolsey took a different tack altogether and, in so doing, added another ingredient to what was already an unsettling and inconclusive affair. According to Woolsey, during her last conversation with her a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

39

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 40

mother in Rhode Island, Rebecca Sr. had remarked that her daughter “looked very poorly.” In response, Rebecca Jr. had explained that she was recovering from smallpox, that she was “Afflicted and Troubled,” and “that shee was sometimes Perswaded to Drowne her selfe, and sometimes to stabb her selfe.” Whether or not Rebecca Sr. realized that some of her daughter’s symptoms were menopausal, the older woman had counseled prayer and then admitted that she too “had beene divers yeares possest with an evill spirit, and that shee was divers times Perswaded to make away with Her selfe.” Fortunately, God had restrained her. Rebecca Jr. had indicated that she would tell her brother Thomas, but her mother had “charged her not to tell hime,” and the younger woman had agreed to abide by her mother’s wishes. Intentionally or unintentionally, Woolsey implied that Rebecca Cornell might have yielded to the “evil spirit” and committed suicide.62 This was not the first time that the possibility of suicide had been introduced. On March 3, twenty-eight-year-old Mary Cornell, Rebecca’s daughter-in-law and wife of Thomas’s brother John, testified under oath. Whether she gave her deposition at home in Plymouth or the authorities summoned her to Portsmouth is not known. “About 3 or 4 yeares past,” she recalled, “being at her Mother in Laws,” Mary had been present when Rebecca returned to the house, out of breath. Rebecca had “beene in Her Orchard . . . running after Piggs, and said she being weake, and had no help, and shee being disregarded, shee thought to have stabd A Penknife in her Heart, that she had in her hand, and then she should be ridd of Her Trouble.” Nevertheless, she had been able to “Resist the Devill.”63 Mary Cornell did not evaluate the information that she had just shared with the authorities, but in addition to a potential suicide case, the governor and his assistant were now forced to consider other disturbing information. All had not been well at the Cornell farm. The family had not acted toward Thomas’s mother as seventeenth-century New England guidelines prescribed. They were not respectful of Rebecca’s advanced age, she had felt “disregarded,” and even worse, this troubling situation had surfaced three or four years earlier. Rebecca Cornell had been unhappy enough to have contemplated suicide. Initially, she had resisted that impulse. But did the Devil ultimately prevail? 40

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 41

The most damaging testimony against Thomas Cornell was collected during the second week of April 1673. Mary Almy, wife of another respected citizen, John Almy, confirmed that she had “severall times observed an Undutyfullness in Thomas Cornell,” information that she felt obligated to share with others. Rebecca had complained to Mary that “shee was much neglected, and that shee was forced in the winter season, in the cold wether to goe to her Bed unmade, and unwarmed.” If she “could not Eate as all the foalkes of the House could, and at their times of Eateing,” no alternative remained but to fast, “for there was nothing brought in for Her to Eate.”64 A pattern of neglect and ill treatment was beginning to emerge from this testimony, but Mary Almy had even more incriminating information to impart. Although her account may be hearsay by modern legal standards, in 1673 it was accepted into evidence. According to Mary Almy, Anthony Shaw’s wife had overheard a conversation between Thomas Cornell and his wife, Sarah, that Mrs. Shaw had subsequently related to Almy. The alleged täte-à-täte had taken place in prison where the Cornells, in quest of “Privacy,” had gone “into a Private roome.” Apparently the walls were too thin to prevent innuendo-filled words from reaching Mrs. Shaw’s ears. “If you will keepe my Councell I will keepe yours,” Thomas and Sarah had pledged. “And soe they spake each together.” If those words referred to deeds committed the night of February 8, Thomas Cornell had not acted alone. Moreover, if this alleged conversation actually took place, the language hints that they were familiar on some level with the contemporary rules of evidence as outlined by Michael Dalton. “Keepe my Councell,” they ostensibly admonished each other— words reminiscent of Dalton’s stricture that a wife should not “discover” her husband’s “counsell.” Perhaps an attorney had advised them that in their case conjugal silence was a two-way street.65 Elizabeth and Hugh Parsons testified the same day. The Cornell family had summoned the sixty-year-old Elizabeth, along with Goodwife Earle, to lay out Rebecca’s body on Sunday evening, February 9. In the course of performing the grim task, Elizabeth recalled “that then there was noe Apearance of Blood about the Corps.” By the next day, however, rumors were afloat that “the corps did purge.” This would have been an extraordinary event, so Elizabeth returned a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

41

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 42

on Monday, February 10, “to see whether the corps did purge or not.” On arriving, Elizabeth noted that “there had beene in the roome where the Corps lay, Thomas Cornell with William Hall to measure the Corps” for a coffin. Examining the body once again, Elizabeth observed that the corpse “did not purge,” but instead “shee had bled fresh Blood at the nose.” There was no accusation, merely a simple observation that had special meaning for people who shared beliefs about the operation of the natural world.66 According to ancient folklore, purging purified a body. It freed the body from defilement or evil; it cleared a person’s character of a charge or a suspicion of guilt. But Rebecca’s body did not purge itself, presumably because she was not guilty of wrongdoing. Thus, God was not responsible for striking Rebecca Cornell down for some earthly infraction (as her son and daughter-in-law had implied). She had not been a bad mother; she had not committed suicide. She did not deserve retributive punishment. But Rebecca’s body had shown signs of fresh blood, and her son “had beene in the roome.” In 1673 people knew that a corpse might bleed at the touch or even approach of its murderer.67 Such a belief reinforced the idea that even in the absence of human witnesses, God saw all and would reveal the guilty party through providential means. Ordinarily, such popular beliefs were given legal weight only in the discovery process in order to bring the suspect to the point of prosecution, although there seems to have been no reason why the same evidence could not be introduced at the actual trial. “In cases of secret murthers, and in cases of Poysoning, witch-craft, and the like secret offences, where open and evident proofes are seldome to be had, there (it seemeth) half proofes or probable presumptions are to be allowed, and are good causes of suspition, and are sufficient for the Justices of Peace to commit the party so suspected.”68 Reputable ghosts and bleeding corpses surely fell into this category, especially when they were the products of sworn depositions. Apparitions and dead bodies could not be cross-examined, of course, which limited the ability of a defendant to confront his accuser, but seventeenthcentury rules of evidence were somewhat vague on this specific point. Nevertheless, contemporary legal experts warned that such testimony never justified imposition of the death penalty, which pre42

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 43

sumably was enough of a safeguard. In any case, such powerful folklore must have influenced the jurymen who were well aware of the gossip surrounding Rebecca Cornell’s death. Hugh Parsons, Elizabeth’s husband, sat on both inquest juries, and several of his fellow inquest jurors eventually served as grand jurors. Hugh Parsons first appears in the Portsmouth records in 1658/9.69 These documents do not reveal whether this sixty-year-old man was the same Hugh Parsons who had been acquitted of witchcraft in Massachusetts in 1651, but if he was clearly his reputation and character had been rehabilitated by 1673. Hugh Parsons of Portsmouth had served at one time or another as constable and grand juror. He had nothing to say about folklore or superstition, but his deposition on April 11 was potentially threatening to Cornell’s case nonetheless. Parsons had been summoned to the Cornell home on the night of Rebecca’s death. Following Joshua Coggeshall into Rebecca’s chamber, Parsons had heard Coggeshall say that the door in the room leading to the outside of the house “was fast Bolted.” At Cornell’s trial, however, Lieutenant Joseph Torrey would tell the jury that on February 20, the day the second coroner’s jury had met, Thomas Cornell had asserted that on the fateful night, the outside door “was not Lockt, neither was there ever any Lock upon the Dore.”70 Such contradictory evidence might suggest that Cornell was hedging his bets. If he was wrong in maintaining, as he had, that his mother’s death was providential and that no one but God was “Instrumentall” in effecting her demise, he was still leaving the door open for an unidentified murderer. Or was he? Not all outside doors in seventeenth-century New England homes had “locks.” All outside doors were likely to have had “bars” or “latch-bars” equipped with strings, but if Thomas Cornell was simply indicating the absence of an iron lock, he was, no doubt, telling the truth. Similarly, Torrey’s account may have been accurate as well. Given the uneasy—and deteriorating—relationship with neighboring Indians as well as the lateness of the hour that February evening, the outside door of Rebecca’s room was probably secured in whatever way existing hardware permitted. If “fast Bolted” was an exaggeration, surely the most perfunctory attention to security would have hindered easy access.71 a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

43

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 44

Hugh Parsons completed his account with still more incriminating testimony. Glancing around Rebecca’s room, Parsons had noticed that “upon the hearth there was burnt sinders lay in A traine, and almost covered the floare in such A manner as if shee had beene drawne thether.” The dying Rebecca had not dragged herself, Parsons insinuated; she had been dragged. The combination of folklore and circumstantial evidence stirred up by Elizabeth and Hugh Parsons provided strong brew for the prosecution. A few days later, on April 14, another couple recorded what they knew about the hostile relationship between Rebecca Cornell and her son Thomas. Nicholas and Sarah Wilde were contemporaries and, perhaps, long-time friends of the elder Cornells. Nicholas was seventy-three, his wife sixty-one. They survive in the Aquidneck records only as parties to the volatile dispute among the Baptists. At first embracing Seventh Day doctrine in 1665 and 1666, they reverted to First Day principles in 1668, thereby becoming “apostates” according to those who clung to the Sabbatarian faith.72 Notwithstanding their religious proclivities, Rebecca had felt close enough to the Wildes to confide in them. “About a yeare ago,” Nicholas recalled, Rebecca had come to the Wildes’ home “& there Complained of Her son.” Rebecca had explained the financial agreement whereby Thomas was to pay £6 rent yearly and to provide for a maid. Yet “he refused to pay,” she had declared, blurting out more about the financial tensions between mother and son than the Parsons needed to know. Rebecca had revealed that her son insisted he would meet his other obligations only if she released him “of that Hundred Pound he was Engaged to pay her.” Furthermore, “her son told her shee must pay the Rates,” but “if shee would forgive the hundred pound” he would take responsibility for those taxes.73 Thomas Cornell was indebted to his mother and strapped for cash. It is unclear, however, whether Cornell was in financial distress or whether his explanation to his mother that “he must Build, and required the Hundred pound toward it” meant that he had some project in mind for which he needed capital. Either way, Rebecca refused on the grounds that by succumbing to Thomas’s wheedling, “she should wrong her other Children, for she thought he had Enough.”

44

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 45

But there was more. The entire family treated her shabbily, she had complained. She had been “forced to goe out in the snow for wood and hath falne with the wood under Her when they have beene in the House and saw it all.” This “was such A griefe and Trouble to her, that shee hath beene afraide of being Provoaked, and hath prayed to the Lord against it.”74 Overwhelmed “with great griefe and Trouble of Spirit,” Rebecca had broken down and wept. Sarah Wilde not only corroborated her husband’s story, but elaborated on Rebecca’s account of her son’s wickedness. Thomas, “one time being Angry with her, lookt very firce upon Her, and nasht, or sett his Teeth at her, and sayd shee had beene A Cruell Mother to hime.” Rebecca had denied her son’s accusations to his face and had added (either to Thomas or Sarah Wilde) that “his Carriage and Expressions therein was A great Trouble or Terror to Her.” Only God’s support and the Scriptures had quieted her fears.75 Three other women, closer in age to Thomas’s wife than to Rebecca, also testified on April 14. The women were all related to one another either by blood or marriage and, like Rebecca, were Quakers. They were neighbors and had visited with the older woman from time to time. Their testimony, like that of previous witnesses, confirms that Rebecca Cornell’s suffering had an extensive history. Rebecca had complained to Joane Coggeshall eighteen months earlier that her son “carryed himselfe very unkindely to Her.” In addition to his refusal to pay rent, he “was soe High and soe Crose, that shee durst hardly speake to hime.” Her reluctance to inflame her son apparently had little influence on him, and Thomas continued to hurl words at his mother. He told her “Her name did stinke about the Island, or Country,” implying a blot on her reputation.76 Thomas’s conduct was so offensive that Rebecca had admitted “she intended to gett men to speake to him about it.” At the same time, she cautioned Joane Coggeshall against sharing her confidences, for fear “shee should live a sadd life” if her son learned of their conversation. Rebecca Cornell had turned to a number of people for help, none of whom actually intervened by informing the authorities about her distressing situation. Their hesitation implies a reluctance to become involved, despite the contentious relationship between Rebecca and

a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

45

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 46

her son. They also may have hesitated because, to all appearances, his behavior did not include physical force. If he ever struck her, she never admitted it. He had a temper, was cross, angered easily, and looked fierce. These were not indictable offenses. Even so, Rebecca’s expectations and what she perceived to be communal expectations about the respect and duty a son owed his mother were, in fact, being defied. The men she “did nominate” to confront her son were William Baulston, John Easton, and Walter Clarke.77 All were highranking government officials. In a curious twist of fate, Baulston was the coroner who summoned Rebecca’s inquest jury, and Easton, wearing his attorney general’s hat, presented the grand jury’s indictment against Cornell. Easton and Clarke were among those who presided over the trial.78 In changing circumstances, neighbors, friends, and confidants became accusers, inquisitors, and judges. One further witness testified on April 14. Patience Coggeshall remembered a conversation that had taken place on a brilliant fall day in 1670 when she and her “sisters” (Wait Gould and Joane Coggeshall) had walked with Rebecca Cornell in her orchard. As they collected “under a Damzen Tree,” Rebecca had wept and “related to them the sad Condition of Life she lived with her son Thomas.” She had told the women about Thomas’s refusal to engage a maid for her and admitted that her son and his current wife “were very cross to her.” Patience had asked Rebecca “how the children carryed themselves toward her.” “How could they carry it kindly to Her when their father was so cross,” she had retorted.79 Rebecca, recalled Patience, “was afrayed there would be mischiefe don.” But it was not only “mischiefe” perpetrated by her son that she had feared. Her daughter-in-law appeared threatening as well. Thomas’s wife, Sarah, “was of such a Desperate Spirit” that on one occasion she had run after a stepchild “with an Axe.”80 Rebecca (at age seventy) had “prevented her strikeing the child.” Apparently one of Rebecca’s concerned listeners had asked her why she did not live with one of her other children. Her response was that “she had made over her Estate to Her Son Thomas”—an irrevocable act since it took the form of a deed of gift. But, she had added, “if shee had thought her son Thomas first wife would have dyed before her, shee

46

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 47

would not have made it over to him.” By implication, Rebecca had counted on her first daughter-in-law, Elizabeth, to mediate the longstanding differences that existed between mother and son. • • • Except for John Pearce’s testimony on May 7, Thomas Cornell’s case languished for a month while an unremitting easterly wind chilled the air and kept spring in abeyance.81 The Court of Trials finally convened in Newport on Monday, May 12. Originally a circuit court, the “Generall Court of Tryalls” had moved from town to town until the charter of 1663 gave Rhode Island a more centralized judicial system. Subsequently, all sessions took place in Newport. The first cases heard by the court on May 12 were civil matters that did not require an indictment. Both parties were represented by counsel in the first case: Caleb Carr for the plaintiff and Joseph Torrey for the defense. A second debt action followed the first, Joseph Torrey now acting for the plaintiff. A trespass case further delayed the feature show, as did several criminal matters that were on the grand jury’s calendar that day. Caleb Carr’s interest was at stake here as well, since his black female servant, Jobba, was on trial for “Carnall Copulation.” Rape, fornication, and adultery cases were swiftly disposed of before the court turned its attention to the most serious matter on the docket.82 The governor and assistants made up the court, which had exclusive jurisdiction in capital trials, the preamble to which was a grand jury indictment.83 Although English grand juries usually consisted of twenty-three members, with twelve needed to return a true bill, the typical colonial grand jury contained only twelve to sixteen men. An English grand jury could hear prosecution witnesses, but none for the defense. Presumably, Rhode Island, with its close attention to English law, followed suit: the standard of proof was lower than it would be for the trial, and the benefit of doubt went to the prosecution. The grand jury that considered the accusation and information against Thomas Cornell consisted of twelve men, all of whom had to agree that there was reason to try him for murder. As a result,

a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

47

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 48

twenty-four like-minded men (twelve grand jurors and twelve trial jurors) were required to rule against him before he could be convicted.84 Most, if not all, knew Thomas Cornell from better times or had been involved in some capacity with his case. Thus, unanimity among the grand jurors was furthered by the four members who had previously heard testimony against Cornell during the second inquest and may already have been prejudiced against him. In the course of the Reformation, English grand juries were frequently packed. Whether this practice had spilled over to Rhode Island is unknown.85 On May 12, the grand jury indicted Thomas Cornell. They found that on February 8, 1673, “Thomas Cornell did violently kill his Mother, Rebecca Cornell, Widdow, or was ayding or Abetting thereto, in the Dwelling House of his sayd Mother . . . which act of his is Murder.” Thomas was “cald for and brought forth into Court,” where he listened to the charge and pleaded not guilty. The court proceeded to engage a jury. Cornell’s trial consumed the following week, an extremely lengthy proceeding at a time when both English and colonial trials were generally swift, lasting a few hours at most.86 The trial jury consisted of twelve men, all of whom were required to agree on a verdict. Although Cornell’s status was such that few, if any, were his “peers,” these were no mean citizens. Due to the serious nature of the case, each juror was a man of substance who held property worth at least £40. Like their English counterparts, they would be drawn from middling groups of farmers, tradesmen, and artisans. Cornell could challenge the right of each juror to sit on his case. He was entitled to unlimited challenges for cause and twenty peremptory challenges (for no particular reason). It appears that Cornell took advantage of this opportunity, but “after all Lawful Liberty granted by the Court as to Exceptions” had been exhausted, “The Jurriors were sollemnly Engaged on the case and sent forth.”87 Recent studies conclude that seventeenth-century judges had enormous influence over the way in which a jury received evidence, even though there were few guidelines about the content of that evidence itself. Judges commented on testimony and frequently emphasized the strengths or weaknesses of particular bits of information.

48

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 49

Thus, how the jury perceived testimony depended on how the judges permitted it to be presented and what commentary they might offer.88 Theoretically, at least, the odds were in Cornell’s favor—as he must have known. Rhode Islanders were less likely to convict in homicide cases than elsewhere in New England. Until 1670, no Anglo-American colonist had been hanged for a capital crime there, a fact that must have come to Thomas Cornell’s attention when he deliberated on the jury whose manslaughter verdict led to the first execution in Rhode Island in 1670. In 1671–72, juries heard three more capital cases, which resulted in an acquittal, a conviction, and a verdict somewhere in-between.89 Thomas Cornell knew that if he was convicted he was likely to hang. Even benefit of clergy would not be available to him since that ancient device was denied in cases of arson as a matter of law in both England and Rhode Island. Jurors began with a presumption of innocence. They were required to dispense justice “according to evidence,” as well as “to the light of their consciences,” a prescriptive formula that gave them wide latitude during deliberation. In addition, the English guru of Rhode Island’s criminal justice system, Michael Dalton, had laid out specifics for jurors to consider in his treatise The Countrey Justice. Jurors might evaluate a defendant’s parentage, education, and character. What was his nature? Was he a quarreler or bloody-minded? Was he in good or poor financial standing? They were asked to consider whether the suspect was “of evil fame or report.” Did he have any blood about him, on his apparel? Did the dead body bleed in his presence? Was there any former malice and did the accused have anything to gain?90 The willingness and ability of the jurors to reconcile medieval superstitions with modern evidentiary standards makes the Cornell case a striking example of the friction between traditional Christian folklore and evolving common law. Legal as well as religious identities were fashioned—and refashioned. Thus, despite the long history and acceptance of the ancient sign of bleeding, by 1673 questions had arisen about the trustworthiness of such evidence. But although the ordeal by touch had been repudiated and tainted with

a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

49

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 50

paganism by the end of the seventeenth century, it is also true that this sign was invoked well into the eighteenth century by jurors who remained assured of its significance.91 Furthermore, jurors were well aware that apparitions who appeared in visions or dreams were not always reliable. Such a specter might be a spirit sent by God to right a wrong, or it might be the Devil up to his usual mischief. Used cautiously and in conjunction with other evidence, testimony about ghosts was safe enough, but the members of Thomas Cornell’s jury were not likely to have convicted him merely on the say-so of a ghost. Besides, Rebecca’s spirit had been ambiguous: “see how I was Burnt” was not equivalent to accusing Thomas of a violent crime.92 Although hearsay of all kinds drew criticism in England after the Restoration on the grounds that such testimony was not subject to cross-examination, it was not until the mid-1700s that loose guidelines relating to hearsay were established. Thus, if Rebecca Cornell’s spirit was not likely to take the stand to confirm or deny John Briggs’s account, the absence of evidentiary standards also permitted the Cornell jury to hear other testimony that would be excluded under modern rules of evidence, such as the conversation overheard by Anthony Shaw’s wife, but reported by Mary Almy. Although, on the positive side, Rhode Island statistics gave Cornell an advantage, he would still be tried in the only jurisdiction in New England where a defendant could be convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. Eyewitness testimony was required only in cases of high treason, so the absence of any witnesses to Cornell’s alleged crime was no assurance that the jury would acquit. Nevertheless, there were other safeguards. Although English rules of evidence were slow to emerge in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the law demanded that witnesses who provided written testimony during the discovery phase of the proceedings (that is, in February, March, April, and early May) tell their story in open court unless they were incapacitated. This requirement offered the defendant an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses as they completed their testimony and to refute the charges against him. Cornell also had the right to defend himself at the completion of the prosecution’s case. He could call character witnesses on his behalf, who would testify 50

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 51

without being sworn. It was up to Thomas Cornell to explain why he was innocent, although if he testified in his own defense it would not be under oath, theoretically a protection against self-incrimination. At the same time, the judges probably questioned Cornell and he, rather than incur their displeasure, undoubtedly answered their questions.93 We will never know how heated the atmosphere became as Cornell tried to explain away the events of February 8. Whatever efforts Thomas Cornell made in the courtroom, they were for naught. Sometime after the last witness testified in court on May 16, a unanimous jury found him guilty of murder. And as if to ratify the jury’s decision on that judgment day, God hurled “haile . . . Thunder and Lighten” toward New England.94 No juror later explained in writing what had persuaded him of Cornell’s guilt—or at least no such letters or diaries have surfaced. Only one person close to the case, Richard Smith, described the evidence in such a way as to make the jury’s decision seem less a perverted version of events than a calibrated reflection of their seventeenth-century worldview. In a letter to John Winthrop Jr. (governor of Connecticut), one of the assistants who had taken depositions in the case hinted that the “devilging” of John Briggs’s vision, the “unkindnes” of Cornell toward his mother, the wound made by the “iron spyndell,” and the fact that Thomas “was the last man in her company” strongly influenced the verdict.95 Furthermore, although Smith did not explicitly say so, his comment that Rebecca had “no coten cloths about her” was a tacit refutation of the assertions made by Thomas and Sarah Cornell and James Moills that she had been wearing an apron and petticoat made of cotton and wool. According to Sarah’s deposition, only the woolen cloth had been consumed by fire—an illustrious providence that had been invoked to shift the blame from Thomas to God.96 Although cloth made of cotton and wool was a Rhode Island staple,97 lending credence to the theory that God was responsible for an anomalous charring, the jury decided that Thomas Cornell was the more likely culprit. Once the jury reached its decision, it was up to the court to impose sentence. Although murder was a capital offense, the gallows did not await all murderers. English courts routinely circumvented a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

51

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 52

the death penalty in such cases, and in the post-Reformation years the Crown was similarly inclined to pardon capital felons, especially in the face of thin evidence. In Rhode Island, the court’s sentence could be appealed to the General Assembly (with the court’s permission), and the Assembly “upon address” could either pardon the offender or mitigate the sentence. A death sentence did not require a unanimous bench: a ruling by “the Major part of the Judges” was sufficient to send the prisoner swinging. There is no reason to think that the court’s decision was anything less than unanimous in Cornell’s case, although the circumstantial nature of the evidence may have given at least a few of the jurists a moment’s pause. Indeed, the very size of the bench may have precipitated a militant debate. Yet, whatever ambivalence their private qualms or secret deliberations might have stirred, their public stance was unequivocal.98 The court remanded Cornell to prison where he would remain until the following Friday, May 23, when at “about one of the Clocke,” he would be “carryed from the sayd goale to the place of Execution, the Gallows, and there to be Hanged by the neck untill . . . Dead.” Their haste to carry out judgment is somewhat surprising, since under the Rhode Island code of 1647 convicted felons in death-penalty cases were entitled to a reprieve “to the next Court.” Yet no one appears to have raised a question about this procedural matter. Moreover, the jails being less secure than might be supposed, the court “ordered that a strict watch be kept in and about the prisson untill the day of the Execution” and that the prisoner “be manacled and surely fastned to the great chaine.” Robert Taylor, who appropriately divided his time between ropemaking and jailkeeping, saw to the conditions of Cornell’s confinement. Prisoners did occasionally escape from jail (two in 1669 alone), and since there were some supporters who believed in Cornell’s innocence and might assist his flight, Constables James Clarke and James Browne were “Authorized and desired to Asist the Generall Serjant in settinge and orderinge the watch,” which numbered “Eight in the Night time and four in the day time.” The court issued a warrant to seize Thomas Cornell’s estate.99 For those not intimately involved in the drama, the routine of 52

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 53

daily life continued as usual. Locals prepared extra goods for the Saturday market in the hope that the large crowds drawn to a double execution on Friday might stay an extra day. On Tuesday, Dr. John Cranston, who could not have been looking forward to the postmortem duties he would be called on to perform on Friday, completed his purchase of Gould’s Island in Narragansett Bay. The court, having discharged its onerous duty in the Cornell matter, returned to legislative business and passed an omnibus property bill on Thursday, May 22. The fruit trees bloomed in the Cornell orchard.100 Cornell shared death row, such as it was, with another convicted prisoner that last week. The Indian Punneane ( John to the English) had been sentenced to hang alongside Cornell for the rape and murder of Lettice Bulgar in her own home the preceding March during a drunken binge. Surprisingly, there had been no Indians on the jury, as there usually were in cases involving Native Americans. If the two men conversed—if they lamented their fate or engaged in dark humor—to pass the time, they would have had to do so in Punneane’s language, since he spoke no English. If Cornell lacked bilingual skills, perhaps they merely gazed at each other and ate in sorrowful silence. Perhaps their sleep—perchance a dream—was disturbed by taunts from late-night revelers who staggered by the jail. Sarah visited her husband, no doubt. His sons must have paid their last respects. His friends, and certainly William Earle, would have stopped by to offer words of solace. It is of some interest that in the few days left to him, Cornell did not petition the General Assembly for clemency. William Thomas, who had been under sentence of death in June 1671, had sought remission of his sentence in this manner since he had been convicted of burglary, which under common law was pardonable. The General Assembly considered William Thomas’s plea, but “after long and very Searious debate of the matter” they denied his request and the execution proceeded as scheduled. It is possible, therefore, that the negative response to William Thomas’s petition persuaded Cornell that such an effort would be futile. He may have had good reason, since he had an insider’s perspective on the Assembly debate: Cornell had been a member of that distinguished body when it had denied Thomas’s petition. Indeed, in a curious twist of fate, Cornell may a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

53

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 54

have voted to confirm William Thomas’s death sentence himself.101 If the memory of that case was not enough to discourage Cornell, he must have realized that his only remaining option was to petition the king directly, “it being one of his royall prerogatives” to issue pardons in such cases. Presumably such a move would have stopped the clock, but for whatever reasons Cornell appears to have decided against it. At the same time, life—or, rather, death—could have been worse. According to the Rhode Island code of 1647, Cornell could have been charged with petty treason for murdering his mother, in which case he would have been drawn (that is, eviscerated), before hanging.102 The Rhode Island General Assembly did hear from Thomas Cornell, albeit indirectly. The records do not reveal whether some of Cornell’s friends (“pertickularly William Earll”) were motivated by a belief in his innocence or by compassion when, shortly before his execution, they appealed to the General Assembly on his behalf. The petition they forwarded and endorsed was not for a pardon, as one might have expected, but rather a request from Cornell to be buried alongside his mother on the family farm. In not so many words, Thomas Cornell continued to protest his innocence. The General Assembly denied the motion, but agreed “that if his friends have a desire, they may interr the body in lands lately to him belonging,” as long as the site was close to the road and far removed from his mother’s grave. Furthermore, the Assembly continued, “if the Collony see cause, they may from time to time sett up such monuments on or at the grave as they shall see cause; or otherwise, the said Thomas Cornell is to be burried under or near the gallows.”103 Cornell had good reason to hope that the ambiguous “they” referred to his friends rather than to the authorities. William Earle and company might engrave a few kind words on a discreet marker, but, if left to the authorities, any monument would be erected as an unkind reminder of a dreadful deed and a cautionary tale for time to come. Cornell’s widow-to-be was not consulted about any of the foregoing matters. The gallows would probably have been located atop Miantonomi Hill, a bucolic spot that became the preferred setting for public executions. A short walk north from the center of Newport, the location 54

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 55

was convenient to Portsmouth residents as well as to their Newport neighbors to the south. This was all to the good, since throngs of people were expected to gather for an event where law, religion, and popular culture took on performance qualities. Francis Brinley, a Rhode Island assistant who had taken testimony in the case, remembered years later that “a great Number of Spectators were there” to witness the macabre drama.104 If other public executions were a measure of attendance at this one, a raucous horde of perhaps a thousand watched as Thomas Cornell, a rope expertly knotted around his neck, emerged from the cart in which he had been carried and climbed up the ladder to the gallows on May 23. Even though he belonged to no organized church, perhaps a minister said a few last words or even satisfied the expectant crowd with an execution sermon in keeping with the ritual.105 The surviving records contain neither an execution sermon nor any evidence of a minister who might have made Cornell’s last morning bearable. Yet, because executions were symbolic moments, it is unlikely that he went to the gallows unaccompanied by God’s representative. A willing candidate might have been the Baptist minister, John Clarke, for whom Cornell had done a service some years earlier when he helped to apportion Clarke’s £100 travel expenses among community members to everyone’s satisfaction, despite the rancor that had delayed settlement.106 And if this ritual included a minister’s attendance, it would also require a sermon, parts of which may be reconstructed at a distance since such sermons contained formulaic talking points. The issues were sin and redemption, no small matters since the crowd and the felon were inextricably linked on this day. Members of the audience were sinners who associated and identified with the murderer. They would have been reminded that Cornell had slain his mother with inflammatory words long before he had thrust the spindle into her stomach and burned her flesh. Anger and harsh language were tantamount to murder. Thus, even though no surviving sermon tells us precisely what was said at Thomas Cornell’s execution, Increase Mather’s response to the execution of a murderer a dozen years later might stand in for the event of 1673.107 Indeed, Mather’s execution sermon of 1686 might as well have a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

55

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 56

been written specifically for Thomas Cornell. In the later case the condemned felon was one James Morgan, who had killed a man with an iron spit. And because of the nature of the weapon, Mather’s sermon began by invoking Numbers 35.16: “And if he smite him with an instrument of iron (so that he die) he is a murderer, the murderer shall surely be put to death.” The use of an iron instrument, as opposed to wood or stone, emphasized Mather, “makes the murder to be more evident,” because “the least nail of Iron might easily kill.” No man will strike another “with an Instrument of Iron, except Blood and Murder be in his Heart.”108 Thus, the word “iron,” belatedly added to the margin of Richard Smith’s March 1673 letter to Governor Winthrop (and meant to be inserted before the word “spyndell”), was a crucial element of the state’s case against Thomas Cornell. Mather insisted that murderers should not be spared the death penalty. “The murderer is to be put to death by the hand of public justice,” since “men may not pardon or remit the punishment of that Sin.” Furthermore, murderers must be executed “so that Land where the murder is committed may be purged from the guilt of Blood.” In brief, “murder is such a Crime as does pollute the very Land where it is done; not only the person that has shed blood is polluted thereby, but the whole Land lieth under pollution until such time as Justice is done upon the murderer.” In this theater, the spectators and the convicted killer were part of the same drama: the fate of one hung on the hanging of the other. “One murder unpunished,” warned Mather, “may bring guilt and a Curse upon the whole land, that all the Inhabitants of the Land shall suffer for it; so that mercy to a Murderer is cruelty to a people.”109 Cornell’s audience was ensnared in his guilt. The “theatre of the gallows” also demanded repentance. Repentance was a sign of Christ’s intercession; a convicted murderer on the precipice of eternity could expect “Eternal Death and Damnation” if he or she did not conform to the prescribed ritual. The drama for the audience, therefore, was whether the convicted murderer would confess and how sincerely he or she repented (as judged by gestures, words, and tone).110 Given the choice of heaven or hell, most murderers played out their role by admitting the crime in a last dying speech. Only rarely did a convicted felon deviate from the script and 56

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 57

continue to proclaim an innocence that would assure his tumble to the nether world. It is likely that when criminals confessed on the gallows they were affirming the legitimacy of the public power that put them there, thus reinforcing the very community values they had flouted.111 Repentance brought the sinner back into the community—at least symbolically. Thomas Cornell knew what the execution ritual prescribed. Therefore, a refusal to confess would be imbued with meaning. To confess to an uncommitted sin—especially one as heinous as this— would have been a sin itself; thus a persistent denial of guilt would raise the possibility that he was, in fact, innocent.112 On the other hand, if the performance was as carnivalesque as it is made out to be, perhaps Cornell would have viewed a refusal to admit to the crime as an inversion of the proceedings, a deliberate subversion of the ritual.113 In this scenario, his request through friends to be buried near his mother might be seen less as a maudlin bid for sympathy (or an indication of innocence), than as an act of defiance by a faction that sought to challenge the new ruling gentry—the Quaker coalition— from which they had been excluded. Once the preambles were concluded, the multitude must have pushed and shoved to get close enough to hear Cornell, should he choose to unburden himself and repent at the last minute. Perhaps he did. It is more likely, however, that if he said anything at all, he reiterated his innocence and thereby disappointed an audience whose redemption was closely linked to Cornell’s through this collectively expiating ceremony. But perhaps the condemned man remained silent, and by this implicit lack of remorse found an even more subtle way to prevent a communal cleansing from taking place.114 Since repentance was God’s triumph over the Devil, Cornell’s silence would have devastated the believers in this community.115 Silence meant that Cornell did not “die well”—unless, of course, he was innocent. At the proper moment, Robert Butterworth, the executioner, either pushed Cornell off the ladder from his own perch above the scaffolding or pulled the ladder away from below. A mesmerized crowd stared as Cornell’s body contorted, grew limp, and swung from side to side in the gentle May breeze. Even if his spinal cord a d e at h i n t h e fa m i ly

57

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 58

was severed immediately, Cornell was almost certainly conscious for several unbearable seconds—perhaps as many as thirty—while his brain exhausted its oxygen supply. Whether his audience was silenced by the awful spectacle or whether they responded by chanting and stomping was not recorded. Two men were dispatched that spring day, one watching despondently as the other strangled. The executioner, Butterworth, received a handsome allowance of £4 for doing double duty. We do not know whether Sarah Cornell, who was in an instant transformed from wife to widow, attended the chilling performance or whether any of Thomas’s children were among the spectators. Sarah was pregnant in May 1673 and, not long after the execution, gave birth to her third daughter. She named the child Innocent.116

58

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 59

Two The Background of a Tragedy Although Rhode Island had its share of unsavory characters, the Cornell family was not among them, nor could anyone have predicted the tragic circumstances in which they would become entangled. In the early 1630s, Thomas Cornell Sr. and his wife, the former Rebecca Briggs, had been counted among the more respectable families of Essex County, England, where they lived in or around the market town of Saffron Walden before emigrating to New England. This ancient community had been best known for wool production and woven cloth in medieval times, but by the early modern era saffron fields and a malting industry had expanded the town’s economic base. By 1600 there were six malt houses in Saffron Walden. The traditional cloth from the area was white, but locally produced saffron dye satisfied the tastes of those who preferred bright orange-yellow. Indeed, Saffron Walden sup-

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 60

plied this dye for the entire region. A multipurpose plant, saffron was also used as an aromatic food flavoring or for medicinal purposes as a stimulant or sudorific. Weavers’ cottages (attached twostory structures with dormers) lined Gold Street and shared a communal courtyard in the rear. A grammar school, opened by two women in 1525, offered a rudimentary education for those who cared and could pay. The town’s many inns were likely to have been better attended than its school, however, and although people took pride in the once glorious Church of St. Mary the Virgin where the Cornell children were baptized, the community was a hotbed of nonconformity.1 Thomas Cornell Sr. never took advantage of the grammar school, but his inability to write did not prevent him from attaining the office of constable in Saffron Walden. Such a position implies that Cornell was a well regarded, perhaps even prosperous citizen, since seventeenth-century constables were usually recruited from the better or middling sort.2 Other Cornells appear sporadically in the Essex court records during this period, some as reputable citizens, others as likely prospects for the constable’s net. Mary Cornell was a burglary victim, John an inquest juror, and Dorothy a witness. But Anne and Jane Cornell were charged with contempt (for Puritan heresies, no doubt), Ursula as a receiver of stolen goods, Edward for committing burglary and robbery, and, most seriously, Rob Cornell for raping a five-year-old, Mary Wastlyn. This last Cornell was hanged.3 Despite the few black sheep, the large Cornell-Cornwell-Cornwall clan could claim a distinguished lineage as far back as King John. And Thomas Sr. and Rebecca were doing their part to perpetuate the family line by parenting eight living children in their fifteen married years before emigrating in 1638. Indeed their enthusiasm for propagating seems excessive by community standards.4 In any event, he was forty-five and she thirty-eight when they sailed for Massachusetts Bay with their large brood. In that same year, James Cornell, possibly an older half-brother, witnessed a deed between the Indians and the Reverend John Wheelwright.5 A nephew, the son of Thomas’s elder half-brother William, had preceded them to Roxbury five years earlier, along with his wife, Joan, and their former 60

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 61

minister from Terling, Thomas Weld. This was the William Cornell who moved on to Connecticut after serving in the Pequot War, eventually becoming a constable there in 1664. It is all but certain, then, that this was a respectable Puritan family seeking refuge from the oppressive atmosphere of old England. Safely ensconced in Massachusetts, another probable nephew, John Cornell, guarded his newly found freedom by protesting the presence of Anabaptists in the Bay Colony. A man of good standing, John was chosen by the constable of Dorchester for grand jury service in 1662.6 He died in Dorchester in 1675 at age sixty-four, two years before William’s death in Middletown, Connecticut. Occasional references to William, John, James, and Samuel Cornell in the Connecticut records suggest that this branch of the family was well established in Hartford by the mid-seventeenth century.7 Other Cornells make shadowy appearances in Boston, documenting not only their existence but also their status in the community. George Cornell’s presence on a subcommittee of the General Court is convincing evidence that the Boston Cornells were solid citizens.8 Even Elizabeth Cornell did nothing to tarnish that reputation when she paid an Indian in rum instead of local (and legal) currency. She was a stranger to the “jurysdicksian,” she explained, whose family had lost all they had “by fier in the barbadoes,” and thus she had been unable to pay cash for what she owed. She, her “ould” husband, and two children were not the only Cornells whose lives would be disrupted by fire.9 Thomas Jr. was Thomas and Rebecca Cornell’s third child and eldest son. He was baptized in 1627, which was probably the year of his birth. This would make him eleven when he accompanied his parents, four sisters, and three brothers to Boston. Their arrival coincided with upheaval: the aftermath of the Antinomian controversy, the banishment of Ann Hutchinson from Massachusetts Bay Colony for heresies, and the establishment of Portsmouth, Rhode Island.10 At age twenty-nine, Rebecca Cornell’s brother, John Briggs, was one of the earliest (and perhaps youngest) of the Portsmouth settlers. He was reputed to be a follower of Ann Hutchinson. Initially, Thomas Sr. and Rebecca Cornell showed signs of casting their lot with the Bostonians. He promptly bought a house and 112 t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a t r a g e dy

61

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 62

acres from one of the departing dissidents, William Baulston, and received the license for innkeeping that Baulston had abandoned. Presumably this was not an occupation requiring advanced literacy, since neither Thomas nor Rebecca could write, although one or both may have been able to read. Thomas Sr. also seems to have engaged in coastal trading and was apparently not averse to sampling his wares. He and four other men were fined by the Connecticut authorities “for unseasonable and imoderate drinking att the pinnace” in August 1639. If the relative size of the fines was in proportion to the infraction, Thomas must have consumed considerably more than his drinking buddies (the fines ranged from 10 to 30 shillings, with Cornell being the only miscreant to receive a 30-s penalty).11 Admitted as an inhabitant, a property owner with at least a temporary trade, Cornell along with his family might have adjusted comfortably to life in Boston. This was not to be. Within a short time, Cornell received a fine for selling wine without a license and beer above the maximum allowable price. As justification, Cornell explained that the cost of beer production was higher in winter because it required fire to preserve the brew from frost. He apologized for his offense and ignorance of the law, adding that “he hath not been heretofore accustomed to such housekeeping,” an admission that implies he, like so many others, had raised sheep and grain in Saffron Walden and that his wife had been a skilled spinster, as were her neighbors. Or Thomas Cornell might have been spinning a tale, since he could easily have been a maltster, brewer and/or innkeeper in Saffron Walden. In any case, the authorities abated Cornell’s fine, but refused to renew his license. They gave him a month to sell his inventory, after which time he was “to cease keeping intertainment.”12 Cornell apparently compounded his offense by propounding unpopular religious doctrines, which may be why he and Rebecca were eschewed by the First Church. As a result, Thomas was not made a freeman of Massachusetts Bay. These circumstances may have forced his hand; by 1640 the family thought it best to follow Briggs and Baulston to Portsmouth. Cornell was not denounced with the same blistering vitriol reserved for the more infamous Antinomians, but John Winthrop clearly assumed Cornell guilty by as-

62

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 63

sociation. Perhaps he was. Surely the Cornells and the Hutchinsons knew one another.13 Thomas Cornell Sr.’s neighbors and peers in Portsmouth welcomed the displaced Bostonian by making him a freeman almost immediately, and within a year “Mr. Cornell” had been granted meadowland and made constable of Portsmouth. Eventually he designed specific earmarks to distinguish his cattle from those of his neighbors.14 Samuel, the first of Thomas and Rebecca’s three Americanborn children, arrived sometime during this period, perhaps in Rhode Island. Perhaps, too, Ann Hutchinson, acting as midwife to Rebecca Cornell, delivered the infant. To all appearances, it looked as though the Cornells and Hutchinsons had made Rhode Island their permanent residence. Thus, it is unclear why these Rhode Islanders, along with several other families, chose to uproot themselves once again. William Hubbard hinted that Ann Hutchinson was not “contented” in Rhode Island and that she left “friends and neighbors . . . (with whom neither could she agree).” Another contemporary noted acerbically, and more specifically, that “the grand Mistresse” of the Antinomians left Rhode Island when competitors “drew away her Auditors.” But whether spurred by doctrinal disagreement, fear of further intrusion by the Massachusetts authorities, or, as John Winthrop maintained, the temptation of “larger accommodation” in New Netherland, their decision to move was followed by a small exodus. By early fall 1642, the Cornells, Hutchinsons, Throckmortons, and others had settled on large tracts in what is now the Bronx and lower Westchester County. How they drove their cattle or transported furniture or what route they took is unknown. The records do reveal, however, that once settled the Hutchinsons and Cornells were neighbors again by virtue of their adjoining property, even though their homesteads were separated by at least a mile.15 It also appears that Rebecca and some of the children set up housekeeping in New Amsterdam while her husband and other children were taming the wilderness outside the town. This arrangement made sense because in 1642 the Cornell family included several youngsters who were more likely to have been underfoot than foot

t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a t r a g e dy

63

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 64

soldiers on the Dutch frontier. Elizabeth had been baptized in 1637, Samuel was a toddler, and either mother Rebecca was pregnant with Joshua or he was an infant. In either case, Joshua was an appropriate name for a newborn in a new land.16 Roger Williams, another dissident who was expelled from Massachusetts to the wilds of Rhode Island, also spent the winter and spring of 1642–43 in New Amsterdam among these allies, finally sailing for Europe in June of that year to petition Charles I for a charter for Rhode Island. He missed the late August massacre of Ann Hutchinson and her children in Westchester by only a few months. In that same raid, Thomas Cornell lost considerable property but his family suffered no loss of life—rumors to the contrary notwithstanding. John Winthrop recorded that Indians had murdered those of Cornell’s family “as were at home,” but he had been misinformed. All were subsequently accounted for, a providential outcome that may have dashed Winthrop’s dour expectations since he attributed their misfortune to casting off “ordinances and churches” and eventually “their own people” by subjecting themselves “to the Dutch.”17 Nevertheless, even though fortune intervened in the form of a boat that spirited the Cornells away from the hatchets and flames that were devouring their neighbors, the Indians did succeed in rounding up and burning their cattle to death, reducing the Cornell home to ashes at the same time. Fire would not again catch up to the Cornell family for three decades, but in the meantime they were forced to rebuild their lives for a fourth time. Not surprisingly, they turned toward Rhode Island, a move that provoked another caustic remark from John Winthrop. The refugees had originally “removed” to New Netherland “only for want (as they said) of hay for their cattle which increased much, now coming back to Aquiday, they wanted cattle for their grass.” No doubt Winthrop thought his comment was laced with humor.18 As grateful as the Cornells must have been to escape with their lives, they had undergone a humbling (perhaps even humiliating) experience. Not only were they desolate over the loss of friends and property, they were forced to appeal for land to the very neighbors they had abandoned no more than a year earlier. As devout people,

64

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 65

they must have wondered why God saw fit to punish them so. Nevertheless, whatever personal misgivings Aquidneck Islanders might have had about the Cornells’ misfortunes, they responded to their needs by granting Thomas Sr. 10 acres of land there in November 1643, three months after the New Netherland attack. When Thomas and Rebecca returned to Rhode Island that fall, their oldest daughter was not with them. During her short stay in New Amsterdam she had been wooed by Thomas Willett, and in September 1643 (within weeks of the massacre) he and Sarah Cornell were married in the Dutch Reformed Church, thus establishing a permanent Cornell branch remote from Rhode Island. Perhaps Sarah wore a treasured family possession on that occasion such as her mother’s wedding petticoat, a personal item mentioned in Rebecca’s will two decades later.19 It is likely she and her mother were pregnant at the same time in spring 1644. Thomas Jr., now almost seventeen years old, may have stayed behind as well—albeit temporarily—if the soldier in the records with the same name was indeed the peripatetic teenager. With or without his parents’ permission and free of parental control for the first time, Thomas Jr. probably joined one of the two companies organized by Governor Kieft of New Netherland after the massacre of 1643. Composed of English volunteers (140 total), these two companies retaliated against the Native Americans by burning a succession of villages and killing the inhabitants. Not until August 1645 did both sides declare a truce.20 Cornell genealogists have good reason to overlook soldier Cornell’s military career, considering the blemishes on his record. He was the subject of an attempted murder as well as a defendant charged with desertion and theft in two separate proceedings in New Netherland in 1644. In the first case, a court martial convicted his assailants only to subsequently pardon them, the object of the death sentence having been “to make an impression on them and others.” In his own trial, Cornell was convicted of the lesser charge of desertion, taken to the place of execution and fastened to a stake where a marksman fired a ball over his head, “as an example to other evil doers.”21 The authorities in New Netherland seemed reluctant to in-

t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a t r a g e dy

65

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 66

flict capital punishment on convicted prisoners; Cornell would have reason—and time—to recall this reprieve nearly three decades later in spring 1673. • • • Thomas Cornell Sr. appears to have straddled the two colonies, and, as land grant followed land grant in both New Netherland and Rhode Island, he accumulated considerable property in both the Dutch and English venues. Governor Kieft of New Netherland awarded Cornell a second tract of land in July 1646, seven months before the town of Portsmouth allotted him the 100-acre homestead where his widow met her tragic death more than a quarter century later.22 Eventually two of Cornell’s daughters made New Netherland their permanent home, as did their brother Richard. Sarah, soon widowed, assuaged her sorrow by quickly marrying Charles Bridge(s) in November 1647, while she continued to trade merchandise in a shop adjacent to City Hall at Wall and Broad.23 Charles Bridge(s), alias Carel van Brugge (or Brugh) in this Dutch colony, had only been in New Netherland a short time, having arrived with Peter Stuyvesant barely six months earlier. Appointed commissary of Fort Orange in the same month as his marriage, he leapfrogged from one official post to another in the following decades. The year of his mother-in-law’s death saw him designated clerk of the English towns on Long Island. Sarah had married well.24 A month after these nuptials, Sarah’s sister Rebecca wed George Woolsey, a man allegedly descended from the discredited English cardinal. They, too, were joined in the Dutch Church, where their first children were baptized.25 It is difficult to say whether this affiliation was a matter of conscience or convenience, but it is fairly likely that the pair absorbed at least some Dutch culture in the two decades before the English conquest. And as Joris Wolzen, George Woolsey may have learned to read and write Dutch. His wife, however, was unlikely to have picked up such skills, since she lacked the ability to sign her name even in her native English.26 One can only wonder how a Dutch environment impinged on English identity. Language and law were modified in a public context, but a change of name to reflect Dutch dominion might have al66

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 67

tered people’s personal outlook as well. Did Charles Bridge(s) declare himself Carel van Brugge? How quickly did George Woolsey metamorphose into Joris Wolzen? By what process was Richard Cornell transformed into Ritzert Cornewel (or Ritsgert Carnel)? What’s in a name?—especially after the English conquest of 1664 or during the Anglo-Dutch conflict in the early 1670s. Whether Sarah and Rebecca’s brother Richard lived in New Amsterdam continuously in the 1640s and early 1650s is unclear. He seems to have married Elizabeth ( Jessup?) somewhere in New Netherland in the 1650s, however, and the records of the Dutch Reformed Church acknowledge the baptism of Ritsgert Carnel’s second child there on July 4 [1657]. The church recorded another Cornell baptism in 1662, this one witnessed by Richard’s sister Sara Bridge and their brother-in-law George Woolsey.27 Richard seems to have relocated to Flushing by 1656, but for more than two decades—half their lives—these transplanted Cornell siblings lived at a distance from the rest of the family in Rhode Island. Their mother, Rebecca, must have been involved with her other, younger children at home. Yet she had grandchildren whom she rarely (if ever) saw. She could not have corresponded with them, nor could she have read about their first words or steps in letters written by her daughters since they had never learned to write. Perhaps it was for the best: the first words spoken by her New Amsterdam grandchildren could easily have been in Dutch. Family visits to Rhode Island must have been infrequent, and we can only wonder if the geographical distance between Portsmouth and New Amsterdam was compounded by a growing cultural and emotional distance between parents and children, siblings and cousins. When Rebecca Cornell died in 1673, she was already a great-grandmother twice over through her daughter Rebecca’s line and New Amsterdam had become New York.28 The Woolseys and the van Brugges lived close to one another in New Amsterdam, which meant that Sarah and Rebecca could gossip together while their husbands compared notes about the crude behavior of two sailors who had ransacked their houses during a violent melee at the end of April 1663. Richard Cornell’s bad timing had placed him at his sister Woolsey’s on that unfortunate day, and he and his brother-in-law ended up somewhat the worse for wear after t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a t r a g e dy

67

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 68

they forced the assailants from their homes. Van Brugge would have reason to remember the fracas indefinitely: he was left with a jagged scar on his face from a bloody wound.29 • • • Meanwhile, Thomas Cornell Sr. prospered in Rhode Island, becoming a substantial landholder, a juror, a member of the town council, and an appointee to various official committees. He occasionally crossed paths with his old friends Baulston and Briggs, the three of whom exchanged stories, no doubt, about their common innkeeping experiences. Cornell was trusted enough by his fellow inhabitants to be chosen town ratemaker. Sometime between the late 1640s and early 1650s he became involved in yet another land venture, this time across the border in Plymouth Colony, in what would become Dartmouth. And since the Portsmouth, Rhode Island, records make no mention of either Thomas Cornell Sr. or Jr. between 1651 and 1654, it is possible they were spending considerable time in Plymouth during that period. In fact, Thomas Cornell Jr. was among the three “inhabitants of Portsmouth” appointed to investigate the death of a fellow townsman, Thomas Bradley, who had succumbed to heat or alcohol (or both) in Plymouth in July 1653.30 It is also remotely possible that Thomas Cornell Sr., too community-minded to have simply dropped out of sight for two and a half years, was in England during those years. His friend Roger Williams embarked on a second trip to England in November 1651, just as the Cornells disappear from the Portsmouth town records, and returned to Rhode Island in summer 1654, just as the Cornells reemerge in the journal of the town meeting. Williams’s errand from the wilderness concerned the confirmation of a 1644 patent that had been jeopardized by a commission to William Coddington in April 1651, which gave Coddington a lifetime appointment as governor of Aquidneck Island. The Reverend John Clarke was also aboard the ship that sailed from Boston, as the representative of forty-one Portsmouth inhabitants and sixty-five Newporters who had urged him to be their spokesperson. These were the towns most directly affected by Coddington’s commission, and the concerned citizens were apparently taking no chances that Williams would seek to promote 68

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 69

the interests of Providence and Warwick at their expense. Much was at stake in this transatlantic protest, since Coddington’s commission had, in effect, nullified the previous charter. Whether or not Cornell Sr. was aboard the London-bound ship, he most certainly would have sided with the Williams/Clarke faction, a stand that Coddington, a Quaker, might have remembered with displeasure in the spring of 1673 when he joined the court that would preside over Thomas Cornell Jr.’s trial.31 Upon his return to Portsmouth in 1654, Thomas Cornell Jr., as his first public assignment, raised and gathered a rate for the new prison. As a measure of the respect the Cornells claimed, the town of Portsmouth favored Cornell Sr. with an appointment to the Court of Commissioners, and he was soon called on to witness an unusual divorce agreement involving Elizabeth Baulston, who, for whatever reasons, had “utterly refused to performe the marriage covenant.” Such reluctance was surely fodder for gossip among the seventy-one freemen and their families living in Portsmouth at that time.32 Wherever he was on December 5, 1651, Thomas Cornell Sr., at age fifty-eight, apparently made a will. No copy of the will exists today, but seventeenth-century references to it confirm its existence.33 According to that document, Thomas Cornell left everything to his wife, Rebecca, and made her his executrix, a common enough practice in seventeenth-century New England. Because his sons Joshua, Samuel, John, and William ranged in age from nine to nineteen, it is not surprising that he was reluctant to leave them property in 1651, although he could have conditioned such a bequest on a future birthday. On the other hand, Richard, living in New Netherland, was already twenty-two, and Thomas Jr. was twentyfour. Why he refused to apportion his real property among his adult sons at this time must be left to speculation. Indeed, there is no evidence that this patriarch ever gave any of his children any property at all—by will or otherwise. By seventeenth-century standards, this was somewhat unusual.34 Perhaps he made his will in haste; perhaps he wanted to delay distribution. Clearly, he translated his respect and affection for his wife into a devolution that bestowed authority as well as an estate on her. Given that the Cornell brothers had emigrated as a group to New t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a t r a g e dy

69

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 70

Portrait of William Coddington (c. 1610–78), deputy governor of Rhode Island (1673) and member of the bench during Thomas Cornell’s trial. One of the original Massachusetts Antinomians and a founder of Rhode Island, Coddington became a Quaker and served as governor of the colony between 1674 and 1678. Redwood Library and Athenaeum, Newport, Rhode Island.

England in the 1630s, it is safe to assume that the Puritan strain was well embedded in the paternal side of Thomas Jr.’s family. If so, Thomas Sr. may have been a demanding father, with a profile not unlike the one described by Philip Greven.35 Perhaps the Cornell children tried to please their father without success; perhaps Thomas 70

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 71

Sr. was overly critical and demanding. As the eldest son and namesake, much would have been expected of Thomas Jr. That he did not meet his parents’ expectations is evident; his rebellious behavior in New Netherland would have been a disappointment to them, and he showed no signs of the religious commitment that had motivated his parents to cross the Atlantic. His ultimate failure to win their approval (as demonstrated by their lack of financial support) comes through the records loud and clear. Five years after writing his will, Thomas Cornell died, and the widowed Rebecca was left to manage an estate, two teenage sons, and two teenage daughters. Two other sons, William (age twentyfour) and John (age twenty-two), may have been on their own. Thomas Jr. was now twenty-nine, married, and a father. His marriage and parenting had taken place during the years for which the records are silent and we know nothing other than his wife’s first name, Elizabeth. By the time of his father’s death, Thomas had already taken his place among the community-spirited citizens who willingly accepted assignments to various time-consuming committees.36 Rebecca’s daughter Ann (age thirty) was probably married by this time as well. She and her husband, Thomas Kent, seem to have lived nearby. Rebecca’s three other married children remained in New Netherland. For a time, the widow continued to hold the entire estate left to her by her husband. • • • In the year that her husband died, Rebecca Cornell was rapidly approaching old age by seventeenth-century standards. She was four years short of sixty, which meant that she was likely to have had gray hair, wrinkled skin, few teeth, and stiff limbs. Moreover, as she proceeded toward her seventh decade, Rebecca had few contemporaries with whom to share the discomforts of advancing age. In seventeenth-century New England towns, only 4–7 percent of those born lived beyond the age of sixty, thus limiting the total number of elderly in these communities to somewhere between twenty and thirtyfive people at any given time.37 In theory, at least, older people commanded respect by virtue of their achievements. Many, after all, had been among the first planters t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a t r a g e dy

71

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 72

or settlers of new communities that dotted the New England seaboard. Their upward mobility also demanded deference. Some had accumulated hundreds of acres and a variety of livestock; to the awe (and perhaps resentment) of their neighbors they were the visible beneficiaries of God’s material blessings. None of this assured them of salvation, of course, but even in Puritan New England it was better to be a “have” than a “have not.” Elderly citizens were also the memory of their communities at a time when literacy was less widespread than it would be later. On all these counts, therefore, Rebecca Cornell must have enjoyed the respect of her friends and neighbors. At the same time, however, her advanced age, material wealth, and religious dedication did not necessarily bring the outward show of respect it might have elsewhere. In the absence of any meetinghouses, Rebecca Cornell’s status could not be translated into a seat among Portsmouth’s first citizens. Moreover, her rank would not have enhanced her chances of remarriage. When a first marriage (such as the Cornells’) lasted twenty years or more, only 25 percent of the widows ever tied a second knot.38 Whether this was because widows with property chose to remain single or because widowers preferred younger brides is a matter of debate. In any case, Rebecca Cornell was following a recognized social pattern. There are also some questions about the veneration actually accorded older citizens. Some historians maintain that adherence to Puritan doctrine ensured as much respect in fact as in theory, while others point out that young people often exhibited openly negative attitudes toward their elders in language filled with scorn, disdain, and ridicule—the Fifth Commandment notwithstanding. Increase Mather denounced such filial disrespect, attributing this lack of deference to an excess of pride. Young men were particularly prone to deride those “whose parts and abilities are through age decayed.” Yet some seventeenth-century ministers were not shy about censuring the elderly as well, chastising them for being “peevish,” “full of complaints,” “fearful,” and “hard to be pleased”—accusations with which Thomas Cornell Jr. would have agreed.39 The young were ambivalent about the elderly; the aged were ambivalent about themselves. Adding to the gulf between young and old, the sons of the original settlers found it difficult to measure up to the achievements of their 72

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 73

parents. And for reasons associated with demography, this tension peaked in the third quarter of the seventeenth century when the second generation came of age. Furthermore, such generational malaise was aided and abetted by the religious controversies of mid-century, not the least of which was the parent-child rift that led to the church membership compromise called the Half-Way Covenant. Thomas and Rebecca Cornell had crossed the Atlantic to commit themselves to the city on the hill; their eldest son showed no similar spiritual inclination. The high hopes of the 1630s must have been considerably reduced three decades later. Rebecca Cornell was undoubtedly aware that in the Old World and the New, elderly people rarely lived alone or with relatives other than a spouse or child. In England, the most common arrangement was for a widow or widower to live with a married child. In New England, however, most people remained in their own homes as each child married out and created a new household. And it appears that most older New Englanders preferred to look after themselves, although few of them actually lived by themselves. Instead, the majority shared a household with an unmarried child or children, a variation of the English pattern.40 For reasons the records do not disclose, the Cornells conformed more closely to the English model. • • • In the same year that Thomas Cornell Sr. died, the first Quakers sailed into Boston harbor, creating a well-recorded social upheaval. They antagonized the people of the Bay Colony by maintaining that a holy spirit resided in each person, they preached egalitarianism instead of hierarchy, and they sought (so they said) equality between the sexes. Such theories were even more radical than those espoused by the Antinomians and posed an even greater threat to men comfortable with hierarchy and female subordination. Persecuted in Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Quakers had established a monthly meeting in Rhode Island by 1660 and a yearly meeting shortly thereafter. According to John Callender, one of Rhode Island’s earliest historians, “many and some of the Baptist Ch embraced their doctrines.” For what must have been a combination of reasons, Rebecca Cornell was one of those drawn to Quaker teachings. Indeed, the t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a t r a g e dy

73

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 74

preaching—and proximity—of Mary Dyer could have been influential. Rebecca’s son Thomas was not similarly inclined, although his son Thomas (Rebecca’s grandson) eventually embraced the Society of Friends as did the next generation of that line. There is also reason to think that Rebecca’s son John may have acquired Quaker leanings as time went on, but most of her children do not appear in the Friends’ records.41 As a result of his father’s death, Thomas Cornell, at age twentynine, became the eldest male family member, and in a general land division in December 1657 the town of Portsmouth granted him twelve acres of land. On the same day, his mother exchanged ten acres the town had granted her late husband for an equal amount elsewhere in Portsmouth. Two years later, Rebecca gave this particular parcel to her daughter Ann and Ann’s husband, Thomas Kent, and two months after Rebecca conferred title on the Kents, her son Thomas bought property in Coshena and Acookset (part of Dartmouth), in Plymouth Colony.42 It is impossible to say whether the timing was coincidental or whether Thomas seized the moment because his mother appeared to be reluctant to devolve property on her eldest son. In either case, he surely did not anticipate the bad news that he was about to receive from the town of Portsmouth, acting in its collective capacity. In January 1660, the “free inhabitants” of Portsmouth voted to revoke a grant that had allowed Cornell’s father to harvest the grass from Dyers Island. Since Thomas Jr. needed that grass for cattle fodder, it would have been no small matter to him. Even worse, since the late Thomas Cornell had not fulfilled the condition of another grant that required him to set up a brew house on the property, that grant was also forfeited, and the town demanded that his son return the land “to the towns use” by the following March. The request was unusual and Cornell refused to comply, a quarrelsome stand that required strong intervention by town officials. Townspeople may have remembered this contretemps a dozen years later when the jurors among them evaluated Cornell’s character according to common law guidelines. Yes, they might have agreed, he is a quarreler. To exacerbate matters still further, Portsmouth authorities required Cornell and two other men to relinquish acreage in order to “injoy” abutting 74

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 75

property that they were already enjoying without the town’s consent.43 They say bad news comes in threes. Such orders were fairly uncommon, the more so in this instance because Thomas Cornell was a man of some standing in the community as he entered his thirties. He was entrusted with surveying cattle and rate making. He sat as a juror at the Court of Trials in Newport, and he and Ralph Earle Sr. oversaw work on the new prison (an irony, given what followed). In 1658, Thomas Cornell was chosen town clerk, an indication that he could read and write. Land titles continued to be a source of anxiety among the people of Portsmouth, and a year later Cornell found himself on a committee formed to record and confirm “every mans Land upon him.”44 The town records kept by Thomas Cornell reveal a man who did not write very well. Even at a time when literacy was limited and spelling and grammar more arbitrary than standard, Cornell’s writing was poor compared to that of the town clerks who preceded and followed him. By comparison (and in the context of seventeenthcentury style), Cornell’s sentence structure was relatively simplistic, awkward, and wordy. His spelling was consistently reflective of his own pronunciation. His colleagues spelled creatively as well, but Cornell’s spelling seems almost childlike—as if he were slowly sounding out words as he penned them. And the sounds resonated from old England, even if syllables were occasionally omitted. Thus, muny, shilnes, jeuery, gooing, watter, feftey, boot, trette, woring, heyer, coum, and jorny were written for money, shillings, jury, going, water, fifty, boat, treat, warning, hire, come, and journey. Multisyllable words, even common ones, eluded him completely, turning exhibited, Tuesday, treasurer, subscribed, serviceable, concerning, and magistrate into excibeded, Tesewday, treshauer, subsuribed, scarviscabel, concaring, and magistras.45 Since neither of his parents was literate, Thomas may have learned to read and write in the Saffron Walden grammar school, which had been operating for over a century by the time the elevenyear-old boy emigrated to New England. For whatever reasons, he may have had little opportunity to improve his skills afterward. Given the relatively small number of men who had the capacity to take on the job of “clarke,” however, the free inhabitants of t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a t r a g e dy

75

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 76

Portsmouth could not be too choosy. At the same time, handwriting and penmanship were closely associated with gentility by the midseventeenth century, and it is possible that Cornell was aware of (and even embarrassed by) a personal deficiency that could stall his upward mobility at a time when social distinctions were becoming increasingly dependent on literacy. Thus, if Thomas Jr. saw his weak writing skill as a handicap, he could have added it to the catalogue of frustrations that became the building blocks of his psyche. It is somewhat surprising, then, that he made no effort to see that all his own sons received a proper education. Stephen, born in 1656, the second of Thomas’s four sons, never learned to write.46 During the three years that Cornell served as town clerk, he recorded wills and deeds and acted as witness to transactions made by friends and neighbors. As he copied the deed in which William Almy gave his son John (with whom William was living) a part of the farm they shared, perhaps Thomas wondered why his own father— and now his mother—were less generous. Eventually, he must have learned that William Earle’s father, Ralph, had given his son land and a house in Portsmouth. Cornell may have known about this gift as early as 1655; the information could not have escaped him after he took the younger Earle’s sister, Sarah, as his second wife sometime in the mid-1660s. Some parents made life easier for their children, although, as studies demonstrate, matters of inheritance were more closely linked to discipline and control at that time than they are today. In some wills, bequests by male parents were contingent on obedience, especially toward mothers, with the threat of disinheritance dependent on performance. No doubt many parents chose to retain control of landed property during their lifetimes to maintain themselves and to allay fears that divestiture would diminish their authority.47 Such fears were buttressed by a growing sense of insecurity and alienation as people entered their last decades. The frailties of the aged made them the butt of jokes, and their dread of ridicule increased in proportion to their diminishing abilities. Property provided economic security in a world where pensions and social security were centuries away and where one’s children could not be counted on to voluntarily provide comfort and sustenance. Thus, 76

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 77

land became the source of intergenerational controversy. On the one hand it preserved parental power; on the other, it created resentment in the younger generation, who felt their future threatened by their own parents. Indeed, young adults saw their geographical mobility jeopardized by dependent parents who needed care and attention. In many cases, affection toward elderly fathers and mothers turned into antagonism.48 Deprived of land by his parents, Cornell apparently lacked the wherewithal to participate in any of the various land schemes that attracted his contemporaries. Seventy-six men signed articles of agreement in March 1661 that transformed them into Misquamakuck (Narragansett) purchasers, a third of them Cornell’s neighbors and colleagues from Portsmouth and Newport. They were a fraternity of the leading men of those towns, bonded together by a common interest in their investments. As it turned out, almost all would play official or unofficial roles in Cornell’s trial in 1673.49 For reasons that he did not articulate, Thomas Cornell decided to leave Portsmouth in 1661, a few months after his dispute with the town. If the events were related, the records are silent; whether his intentions were to absent himself permanently or to take a temporary sojourn is unknown. Indeed, the only reason we are aware of his plans at all is because the town inhabitants ordered the return of all “writings and Records that are in the possetion of the said Thomas Cornell,” owing to his imminent removal “out of this Colony.” Wherever “out of this Colony” was (Plymouth, perhaps?), there is no mention of Thomas Cornell in the Portsmouth town records between June 1661 and October 1664.50 Still, family tensions resonated powerfully despite Cornell’s absence. In the same spring that Thomas announced his departure, his mother sold Richard Hart two parcels of land, the northern line of which bordered on Thomas’s own property. A year later Rebecca sold still more land to Hart, and her son Thomas bought still more property in Dartmouth. His father’s old friend John Briggs acquired land there at the same time, suggesting that the area was considered ripe for speculation and development. Most important, in July 1663 Rebecca Cornell deeded the family homestead to her son Thomas, the bequest to take effect at her death.51 Whether one should read t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a t r a g e dy

77

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 78

anything into the fact that twice in this short document Rebecca stipulated that her son could not claim the property until “after [her] decease” is something known only to Rebecca. Yet the form of the conveyance suggests that Thomas, at least, was acting cautiously. There was nothing remarkable in the bequest itself, but it was unusual to rest the legality of the devolution on a deed of gift rather than a will. A will was revocable; a deed of gift was not. Thomas, it appears, did not want his mother to change her mind. Four weeks later, he surrendered all rights to the property his mother had sold Richard Hart two years earlier, thus confirming Hart’s title, which apparently had been contested. The sequence of these events may not have been coincidental, nor were they likely to have been conducted with good will. Thomas wanted the homestead; his mother wanted a clear title in her earlier transaction. In October, Rebecca conferred property in Dartmouth on her son Joshua.52 Rebecca Cornell may have been thinking about writing a will for some time, but she waited another year before composing that document in late summer 1664.53 The terms suggest that Rebecca had extracted a considerable quid pro quo for her irrevocable bequest of the family homestead to her eldest son. Indeed, these terms may not have been discussed a year earlier. In her will, she confirmed that she had left him the 100-acre farm and housing and that it was “already in his possession.” She alerted her readers that Thomas had come by the homestead through that 1663 deed of gift. There were, however, conditions to that deed not expressly recorded in the document itself and that were to be “punctually” performed within five years of Rebecca’s death. According to his mother’s will, Thomas was to pay “the sum of one hundred pounds sterling” (£20 per year for five years) to Rebecca’s executors. In turn, the executors were to divide the £100 into ten equal shares and distribute £10 to each of Thomas’s ten siblings. Rebecca had not given the homestead to her son Thomas without encumbrance. In a sense, he was almost purchasing the property after his mother’s death, even if the £100 appears to be slightly below market price for comparable property.54 By providing for her other children through indirect financial be-

78

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 79

quests, Rebecca Cornell was following a tradition familiar to the world she had left behind. It was common for Essex County, England, families to bequeath the main house and land to the eldest son with the stipulation that he pay cash legacies to his brothers and sisters over time. If this was primogeniture, it was a modified form of it, and the practice appears to have leveled the economic playing field among siblings. That Rebecca was concerned about the future wellbeing of all her children is evident from the provision she made to “deliver” the income from Thomas’s yearly contributions to “any two of my children whose necessity most Requires it and needs the afore mentioned Sums most for their suplies.”55 Things could have been worse for Thomas. The early Quaker movement, propelled largely by women, was enhanced by the real and personal property they left to the Society. When Alice Cowland wrote her will in 1664, a few months after Rebecca signed her own, Cowland left her land and stone house to “frinds in the minestrey cauled Quakers by the world.” She did so with the “aprobation” of her husband, Ralph, even though he was not a member of the Society. This disparity was common enough: Mary Dyer, Sarah Brownell, Mary Woodle, Sarah Freeborn, Joan Slocum, and Sarah Sanford were among the earliest Quakers, but their husbands’ names are not to be found in the Society’s records.56 Rebecca’s 1663 deed of gift to her son forestalled any ill-conceived charitable donation of what would be Thomas’s most valuable future asset. Rebecca Cornell had already given at least three of her other sons (William, John, and Joshua) real property in Dartmouth by deed of gift, but no conditions similar to the one imposed on Thomas accompanied those grants. These gifts were confirmed in her will, and each of her remaining sons (Richard and Samuel) received a share of property in Plymouth Colony equal to that of their brothers. Thomas did not. Instead, Thomas acted as witness to the deeds from Rebecca to his brothers, and must have wondered why Samuel, not he, was singled out as Rebecca’s “loving son.”57 Three of Rebecca’s daughters (Sarah, Rebecca, and Ann) were also beneficiaries of real property, Sarah and Rebecca sharing the vast tract of land known as Cornell’s Neck in New Netherland. At the time, the name of the

t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a t r a g e dy

79

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 80

property did not evoke gallows humor—as it could have in 1673. Only the two youngest (Elizabeth and Mary) received no grants of land at all. Cornell’s Neck became contested property almost immediately after Rebecca signed her will. It was a dispute that pitted Dutch sovereignty against English claims to the same land after the surrender in 1664. The suit was decided in favor of the semi-Dutch plaintiffs, Sarah and Charles Bridge(s), who produced the original 1646 grant and patent from Governor Kieft to Sarah’s father. To bolster their case against the defendant, Thomas Pell, Sarah indicated that Thomas Cornell Sr. had been “at considerable charges in building, manuring, and planting” the vast parcel and that “after some years the said Thomas Cornell was driven off . . . by the barbarous violence of the Indians who burnt his house and goods, and destroyed his cattle”—for the second time. According to Thomas Pell, however, Native Americans did not recognize Dutch jurisdiction and “questioned Mr. Cornell’s and other plantations there about not paying for those lands, which was the occasion of their cutting them off and driving away the inhabitants.” Pell’s own claims rested on the “valuable consideration” he had paid the Indians for the property in 1654, which, along with the extensive tract, he would never recover.58 Thomas Jr. was the only son to be left personal property in Rebecca’s will, although the silver bowl so designated was entailed and the two pieces of furniture were worth comparatively little. Each daughter received some silver object or article of apparel, and Mary eventually inherited her mother’s gold ring. All of Rebecca’s residual estate was to be “Equaly Divided” among her children, whom she listed by name. Thomas was conspicuously absent. William Baulston and John Sanford, Rebecca’s “trustee and Well Beloved friends,” were named executors—not her eldest son. Thomas’s first wife, Elizabeth, was the only daughter-in-law to be specifically mentioned in Rebecca’s will. It was no small matter to leave Elizabeth a “suite of Linen,” since clothing was among the more valuable items to be distributed among legatees. That there was affection or trust between the two women is likely: when asked a number of years later why she did not live with any of her other children, Rebecca had replied that it was because “shee had made over 80

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 81

her Estate to Her Son Thomas; and that if shee had thought her son Thomas first wife would have dyed before Her, shee would not have made it over to hime.”59 It appears, then, that there was friction between mother and son at least a decade before Rebecca’s death and that the arrangement between Rebecca and Thomas positioned him as a tenant, since she required him to pay rent to her. As part of the bargain, he was also to provide a maid to attend her. One month after Rebecca Cornell signed her will, her son Thomas appeared in the Portsmouth records for the first time since his departure from the town three years earlier. His neighbors—at least those eligible to vote—welcomed him back enthusiastically and elected him deputy to the General Court, Cornell’s highest office to date. For nearly a decade, Cornell enjoyed the town’s confidence as measured by his election or appointment to one committee or office after another. He calculated the town rate, and was selected to be a town councilman. He was appreciated in nearby Dartmouth as well, serving as constable there in 1671, at the same time that he held offices in Portsmouth.60 Like his father before him and his grandson after him, Cornell was chosen, in 1666 and 1667, to serve as one of Portsmouth’s constables. To obtain such a position he must have been trusted by his fellow townspeople since Portsmouth constables, like their English counterparts, enforced laws against neighbors and arbitrated disputes among friends. Yet an unpopular edict—such as one against excessive drinking—might meet with resistance and breed hostility against the constable who tried to maintain (or restore) order. In the interests of peace, a constable might mediate behavior by choosing which type of offences to report, but even so, as neighbors and officers of the law, constables were occasionally subject to abuse, scorn, and accusations of unfairness.61 And if Constable Cornell had ever rubbed people the wrong way, hazy recollections of such incidents seven years later might have been translated into bitter feelings toward a man in whom they had once placed their trust and confidence. Cornell’s appointment as a ratemaker also implied the trust and confidence of the community, since he would have been privy to intimate financial information. Cornell was repeatedly selected to levy rates, check accounts, and audit books between the mid-1660s and t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a t r a g e dy

81

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 82

early 1670s. Indeed, the town voted that “thay were well satisfied” with the rate apportioned among townspeople by Cornell’s committee in 1665.62 The consistency with which Cornell was appointed to these committees might also indicate some skill with numbers, an ability not universally shared. It was also during this period that Cornell expanded his economic horizons by combining farming with cottage industry and trade. His sheep yielded wool, his mother’s orchard bore fruit, and his cattle were registered. They kept a productive dairy. The homestead contained a spinning wheel and/or loom, suggesting that the family may have earned income from the sale of thread or cloth. Indeed, the house contained “Tradeinge cloth”—a valuable commodity, which may be why Cornell’s Native American servant, Wickhopash, was tempted to steal two yards of it in 1671. A little more than a yard and a half of coarse woolen trading cloth (in deep blue, dark red, or steel gray) was enough to make a matchcoat—a garment worn by Native Americans in the 1660s and early 1670s. So vital was wool not only to the Cornells but to the local economy that it acted as currency, just as tobacco did in Virginia.63 Equally important to his financial future, Cornell appears to have been raising horses on his property in Plymouth Colony for the lucrative West Indian market. Two of his horses were aboard Peleg Sanford’s ketch Martha as it set sail for Barbados in spring 1666, and although one “died by the way” the loss was chalked up to Samuel Hutchinson of Boston, who had purchased the animals from Cornell. It is even possible that by the mid- to late 1660s or early 1670s “Mr” Thomas Cornell was doing well enough to be considered one of the more affluent members of the Portsmouth community.64 In an undated document listing the town’s receipts and disbursements, the figure penned in next to Thomas Cornell’s name is 18 shillings, the third highest amount among the sixty-nine names.65 Assessment lists may not be an accurate measure of financial standing, however. A ratemaker with a grudge could propel a fellow townsman to the top of the chart, while a friend in that office could reduce a rate with a stroke of the quill. Furthermore, Portsmouth’s economy was developing in a way that Thomas Cornell could not have predicted a decade earlier. By the early 1670s, the Quakers had 82

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 83

become an economic as well as a political force in the fractious colony. Taking a cue from groups that had previously prospered, the Quakers set about organizing a trading network in which family and other members of the Society were privileged. To their credit, they never excluded “common Protestants” when profit could be made, but their efforts were directed toward a self-contained mercantile organization that remained, by its very nature, an exclusive club.66 In such circumstances, Thomas Cornell was an outsider. This is not to say that he could not climb the ladder of success; it was simply a steeper ascent—and Cornell may have resented it. He may even have felt that his mother, with her affiliation, could have done more to pave his way. At the same time, personal tragedy accompanied whatever financial success he had achieved. Sometime between 1664 and 1667 Thomas Cornell’s wife died, leaving the widower with four sons, Thomas, Stephen, John, and Edward, their names further suggesting that Thomas had not taken any of the reforming religions to heart. The oldest boy was scarcely an adolescent and the youngest was either an infant or toddler. Not surprisingly, widower Cornell remarried swiftly, this time the daughter of two of Portsmouth’s earliest and most prominent settlers, English-born Ralph Earle and his wife Joan Savage Earle. Unlike her husband, Cornell’s new wife, Sarah, was a New Englander by birth, the youngest of five children. Thomas Cornell was approaching forty when he married Sarah Earle; his bride was at least a decade younger and, like Thomas’s sisters, could not write.67 Presumably, she was responsible for the care of a large house, four stepsons, and her mother-in-law, since there is no evidence that Thomas Cornell ever made good on his promise to provide a maid for Rebecca. Sarah also cooked and washed for two male boarders. Why Sarah would have taken on such a burden defies imagination, unless her age was threatening her marriage prospects. A number of Portsmouth women went to the altar in their teens; her brother William’s sixteen-year-old daughter, Mary, married John Borden, a man fifteen years her senior, on Christmas day, 1670.68 If Sarah Earle was in her mid- to late twenties when she married Thomas Cornell, perhaps she saw him as her best (or even last) hope t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a t r a g e dy

83

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 84

for a successful match. Given subsequent testimony that she had chased her stepson with an axe, she may already have had a reputation for being bad-tempered. Sarah would have been aware that her duties included catering to Thomas’s elderly mother, although she may not have realized in advance that Rebecca expected to be waited on, did not cook, grumbled about a cold bed, and preferred a special diet. On his part, Thomas would have had to spread a wide net in order to find someone willing to take on such responsibilities. Any prospective wife needed to be assertive enough and of an age to exert authority over his sons, but young enough to have the energy to do so. Under the circumstances, Sarah was an excellent candidate. Whatever precipitated this marriage—and we cannot rule out love—the unexpected death of Elizabeth Cornell must have affected the fragile relationship between Rebecca and her son. There was far less compatibility between Rebecca and Thomas’s second wife; Rebecca and Sarah may have jousted for power and control over the household. Nevertheless, Rebecca must have been cheered by the arrival of Thomas’s first daughter, Sarah, in 1668, and a second daughter, Mary, two years later. Perhaps these babies compensated for the departure of her own daughter, Elizabeth Almy, whose husband Christopher had bought land from the Indians in Monmouth, New Jersey, and had taken his pregnant wife and two young daughters to settle there in 1665. He became a trader, running a sloop between New Jersey and Rhode Island on a regular basis during the summer.69 Thomas Cornell’s apparent rise in fortune may explain his unwillingness to accompany his sister and brother-in-law to Monmouth County at that time. As a newly widowed or recently remarried man, such a move would have offered the prospect of a fresh start, had he cravings of that nature. In fact, Cornell would have been one of many shareholders in the Monmouth Patent who claimed a Rhode Island heritage, some of whom were reluctant to relocate themselves and merely purchased shares in the company. Whatever the reason— lack of assets or desire—alternative investments such as the Monmouth Patent failed to tempt Thomas Cornell.70 During these years, Thomas Cornell was involved in colony as well as local affairs. As a deputy to the General Assembly in 1664, his committee was called on to investigate “the abuse” heaped on Rhode 84

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 85

Island by Connecticut’s “intrusions” into the Narragansett region, despite the boundary settlement embodied in the newly promulgated 1663 Rhode Island charter. Elected again some years later, he conflated personal and official business by introducing a bill into the Assembly in 1671 “for the incouragement of a troope of horse”— which presumably would be purchased from his stock. Alas, the General Assembly referred the bill to the next session, where it disappears from the records. Cornell was entrusted with a letter from Rhode Island to New Plymouth urging a meeting between the leaders of both colonies to discuss how best to thwart the “perfidious designes” of the Indians.71 Of most interest to Cornell, however, must have been his assignment in April 1672 “To goe over to Narragansett, and to take a view of such places there and thereabouts, that are fitt for plantations.” The four Rhode Island deputies entrusted with this mission were to approach both English and Indian owners or claimants in the Narragansett region and to “signify unto them that the Collony doth intend such lands shall be improved by peoplinge the same.” Already involved in the thriving horse trade, Cornell must have seen such imperious expansion as an opportunity to acquire land and breed his small herd in order to take advantage of the high prices Narragansett horses commanded in the market.72 • • • Between 1638 and 1672, the saga of the Cornell family was, in many respects, similar to that of other emigrating families. Typical of the Puritans who migrated to Massachusetts Bay Colony, they began a new life with great expectations. Although their radical tendencies set them apart religiously and perhaps politically from the more orthodox Puritans in the Bay Colony, in most ways they resembled the vast majority of New England families. Their confrontation with belligerent Native Americans may have contained more drama than usual, but most families of the time could relate some harrowing story or narrow escape—real or imagined. Furthermore, all families have disagreements; generational tensions were—and are—a part of life. If early modern families were abrasive and even bruised each other from time to time, the Cornells t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a t r a g e dy

85

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 86

seem no better or worse than their neighbors. Yet Thomas Jr. reached maturity at a particularly stressful moment in the history of parent-child relations, and the strains in this particular household seem exaggerated, even by seventeenth-century standards. His mother’s reluctance to give preferential treatment to her eldest son (or even treat him on equitable terms with his siblings) speaks more of her displeasure with him than of an attempt to retain control and authority. She had, after all, bestowed property without any strings attached on her other children, even those living far away. Other pressures that threatened Thomas Cornell’s equanimity in 1672–73 exacerbated the familial discord. Besides his own personal frustrations, Cornell’s immediate community suffered incursions from Newport, and his larger society (Rhode Island) faced encroachments by Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Plymouth. The crime rate increased and so did religious animosity. In 1673, New England braced for war with the Dutch and/or their Native American neighbors. The weather conspired with Rhode Island’s enemies, killing crops and starving cattle. What was a man to do?

86

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 87

Three The Contentious World of Thomas Cornell Portsmouth was Ann Hutchinson’s town, but one would never know it from the early records. In 1639, the covenant of the “civill body Politicke” included William and Samuel, but not the more infamous Hutchinson who had sorely tested the magistrates of Massachusetts Bay Colony. Nevertheless, the town in which the Cornell family eventually settled differed little from other New England towns, despite the notoriety that had accompanied its founding in 1638. It was marked by an absence of meeting houses, but many New England towns were derelict in erecting formal structures for religious worship. People, even the most devout, held services in private homes, and the Cornells would have mingled with their neighbors in close quarters if they chose communal prayer in the early years of settlement. After 1644 or thereabouts, they might have attended John Clarke’s First Baptist Church some miles to the south in

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 88

Newport, although there is no recorded evidence that they did so. Why all these devout Puritans, who had crossed an ocean to worship as they chose, dragged their feet when building structures in which to openly exercise that freedom remains something of a mystery. Still, congregating in private homes was probably a little more egalitarian since seating was unlikely to have been assigned by age, wealth, or sex. During the first years of Portsmouth’s existence, the Town Meeting busied itself with the usual (albeit mundane) matters of community building: land division, highway planning, cattle regulations, and official appointments. Conscious of safety, the freemen ordered a watch, militia, and routine oversight of transients. When malefactors upset the social order nonetheless, they faced prison, a ducking stool, cage, and/or stocks—all provided courtesy of the government. Eventually, the members of the Town Meeting excelled at dispute resolution between couples, neighbors, and neighbors who should not have been couples. It pacified angry residents who complained that felling trees on the common was “Repugnant.” It chastised townspeople who showed “greate negligence” in failing to separate the “Rames from the Ewes in Seasonable time.” They proclaimed Charles II king (much to his relief, no doubt), and prohibited the entertainment of strangers. Town officials smoothed out “great differences” among Portsmouth inhabitants whose mania for land was insatiable. And when uncontrolled cattle damaged corn and grass causing “many harte burneings amongst Neighbours,” the Town Meeting defused the situation by encouraging each landowner to build “a Virginia fence.”1 It would take more than good fences to make good neighbors. Although liberty of conscience was one of Rhode Island’s hallmarks, such tolerance only encouraged religious bickering. Rhode Island was originally settled by dissident Puritans, many of whom had been banished from Massachusetts for their Antinomian tendencies, and these radicals soon evolved into Baptists and eventually into Quakers. Nothingarians and Churchmen also dotted the religious landscape, and, although their pursuit of profit and English heritage gave the entire group a quasi-common identity, theological nitpicking continued to impinge on the routine of daily life. It is possible that 88

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 89

tensions between mother and son were exacerbated when Rebecca Cornell hosted a traveling Quaker, who had the misfortune to die in her home.2 Ordinary wrangling turned ugly in the early 1670s, however, as the heated controversy between First and Seventh Day Baptist observers reached the boiling point. Angry silence replaced angry words when “Mr. Hiscox would have Spoke but Mr. Tory prevented it.” Then, at a time when “the hand of God” was “stretched out” over Aquidneck Island and he showed his wrath “by taking away many by Death,” the churches went their separate ways.3 In December 1671, five people withdrew from John Clarke’s Baptist church and formed the first Seventh Day Baptist Church in America. Among them were Stephen Mumford, Samuel Hubbard, and William Hiscox. First Day Baptists such as Joseph Torrey interpreted this defection as a breaking of the Baptist covenant—and they said so. The breach was slow in healing, and in October 1672 Samuel Hubbard admitted that strife still rocked Aquidneck Island. Acrimony and name-calling, Hubbard noted sadly, echoed “from the [common] adversary and the Quakers, generals, and prophane persons, and most of all from such as have been our familiar acquaintance.” On February 14, 1673, a week after Rebecca Cornell’s death, Hubbard remarked on the “many slanders” that had been “laid on Mr. John Clarke.”4 While the Baptists engaged in furious debate among themselves, the Quakers hosted their founder, George Fox. It was a propitious time for Fox to visit the colony, since the Quaker entrance into politics had taken place as a coordinated effort for the first time that year. Before 1672 only a few Quakers had served in public office, but their numerical strength (perhaps half of Aquidneck Island’s church membership) ultimately encouraged them to seek election themselves rather than remain swing voters. As a result of this policy shift, many Quakers achieved election to high office, giving them virtual control of the colony between 1672 and 1677.5 Their desire to situate themselves in a more advantageous political position may also have resulted from the religious upheavals in England at that time. Although Charles II had issued a Declaration of Indulgence in March 1672, which eased the situation for the t h e c o n t e n t i o u s wo r l d o f t h o m a s c o r n e l l

89

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 90

Quakers somewhat, Parliament lacked enthusiasm for such a move. Fearful of dissenting combinations, especially ones that would include Catholics, the House of Commons denounced the declaration, adopting a watered-down version of the king’s edict that essentially excluded Quakers from its provisions. Even this modified attempt at toleration failed when Charles adjourned Parliament before it was passed. On March 8, 1673, Charles, under pressure, rescinded the Declaration of Indulgence and the Commons passed the Test Act, which made it illegal for anyone to hold civil or military office unless he had taken the Sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. This was a move essentially directed at Catholics, but with rippling implications that kept many Protestant nonconformists out of office.6 Rhode Island Quakers would have learned about the Test Act just as Thomas Cornell’s trial was about to begin. On the intercolonial scene, religious hostility crossed the usual borders as the Quakers of Rhode Island and the magistrates of Massachusetts Bay exchanged bitter words throughout 1672–73. After Richard Bellingham allegedly burned a letter dated August 1672 from William Coddington, Rebecca Cornell’s old friend wrote yet another “letter” to Bellingham, Simon Bradstreet, and William Hawthorn, excoriating them for their persecution of Quakers in Massachusetts. Coddington labeled the Massachusetts authorities “murderers” and prophesied that God would punish them.7 Given the danger of persecution from so many sources, the Quakers had every reason to insulate themselves through a show of power wherever and whenever possible. If George Fox had been unaware of these religious potholes when he arrived in Rhode Island in spring 1672, his first Quaker host, Governor Nicholas Easton, would have enlightened him. Roger Williams, hostile to both Quaker and Baptist interests, lost no time in hurling accusations at Fox, who retaliated in kind by vigorously condemning Williams and his policies.8 During summer 1672, Fox presided over nearly a dozen large meetings in Rhode Island, at least two of which were held in Portsmouth: the Yearly Meeting at former Governor William Coddington’s house and another at the old Mott house on the west side of Portsmouth, not far from the Cornell homestead. Joshua Coggeshall may have hosted still another, since 90

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 91

the Quakers held monthly meetings in his home. It is likely that Rebecca Cornell attended one or more of these meetings. It is even more likely she was present at the July 13 meeting at a justice’s house where “all the country came.” Depending on health and commitment, Rebecca might also have participated in one of the “women’s meetings about the church affairs,” held similarly on Aquidneck Island.9 Fox’s egalitarian attitude toward women and support for separate women’s meetings permeated the atmosphere that summer; such ideas may even have enhanced Rebecca’s self-esteem and reinforced her authority as head of household, at least in her own mind. There is no evidence that her son Thomas was swept up in the Quaker fervor, and he may, in fact, have subscribed to Roger Williams’s view— a conservative position that confined women to subordinate and inferior roles. According to Williams, female preachers did “open violence” to God. Although Nicholas Easton’s wife protested this doctrinal point, Williams refused to engage in debate with her. If Thomas Cornell had remained convinced of Anglo-Puritan values that gave adult males sole authority over females and Rebecca had abandoned such hierarchical principles, mother and son were set on a collision course during the last summer of Rebecca’s life.10 Portsmouth shared Aquidneck Island with Newport to the south. Portsmouth was Newport’s elder sibling by a year, but Newport soon outgrew the earlier settlement. To be sure, the number of inhabitants was small in both places; Newport claimed only 96 freemen in 1655 and Portsmouth 71. But Newport surged ahead; in 1708, the first official census takers counted 2,200 inhabitants in that town, but only 628 in Portsmouth (98 freemen). Assuming the ratio of freemen to inhabitants remained stable, Portsmouth had a total population of roughly 473 in 1655 and perhaps no more than 500 in 1673. Portsmouth was a satellite of Newport, a fact of life that spawned resentment in 1660 when “Newport men” encroached on Portsmouth’s space and altered the town line, laying out “an othere contrary to what is spesefied upon Records between both towns.” Portsmouth, determined to rebuff its neighbor, resolved to “Renew there owld line.”11 Six years later, the neighboring communities had not resolved their dispute, and John Albro and William Dyre were t h e c o n t e n t i o u s wo r l d o f t h o m a s c o r n e l l

91

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 92

appointed “to Lay the Line of Division . . . between the two Towns of Newport and Portsmouth”—wording that implied (inaccurately) that the matter had arisen for the first time that year.12 By the time the 1660s closed, such local squabbling extended throughout Rhode Island. A “coveteous or factious and mallicious sperritt” had taken hold of “sundry townes and places” throughout the colony. Not for the first time, and certainly not for the last, the central issue was taxation. In 1671, certain local factions opposed all rates. As a result, the party in power under Governor Benedict Arnold had difficulty collecting legitimate taxes, even from “the more prudent” men who supported law, order, and taxation. In April 1671, the Assembly passed draconian measures against the antitax people, measures that called for whipping, imprisonment, and fines. As an elected deputy to the General Assembly from Portsmouth during this heated controversy, Thomas Cornell was likely to have stood with Arnold, but he probably made enemies by aligning himself with that faction. The newly elected Assembly in May 1672, now led by a Quaker governor, Nicholas Easton, repealed the more onerous and heavyhanded pieces of legislation, defusing the immediate controversy. The order of April 1672 empowering Thomas Cornell to go to Narragansett and announce the colony’s intentions to “improve” the area “by peoplinge” was also repealed on the grounds that no one “should be forced to dispose of their lands without their consent.” It is of some interest that Thomas Cornell was not returned to this Assembly and thus had no say in the proceedings. It is perhaps of even greater interest that Governor Easton presided over Cornell’s trial in May 1673.13 One further incident added to the charged atmosphere in 1672. For reasons best known to himself, Governor Lovelace of New York peremptorily granted Prudence Island to a Boston merchant, John Payne, on behalf of the Duke of York. To ensure compatibility with New York’s style of land division, Payne was to hold the island as “Sophie Manor.” Upon hearing of this claim, the Rhode Island authorities arrested Payne and threw him in prison. Payne was tried and convicted of procuring a patent from New York for property belonging to Rhode Island, but the court deferred execution of his sen92

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 93

tence until its next session in May 1673, at which time it was occupied with more pressing matters. In the meantime, Prudence Island was returned to its “early dependence on the town of Portsmouth.”14 • • • Portsmouth’s neighbors of European descent were irritating, but they were not threatening. Indians were another story, however, and, even though Roger Williams had initiated an era of good feeling with the native peoples of Rhode Island, by mid-century the inhabitants of Portsmouth were finding their indigenous neighbors something of a nuisance. In 1656, Portsmouth withdrew the welcome mat and informed Indian sachems on the mainland that the English settlers would allow access to Aquidneck Island on an invitation-only basis. Six months later, the town meeting issued an order prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to Indians, with further instructions to confiscate any liquor, beer, or wine found in the possession of Indians within the town limits.15 Since this edict interfered with potential profits, few people paid much attention to the restrictions. By 1672, however, Native American behavior had become more troubling as complaints multiplied about “great abusis and Mollestations to the Inhabitants of this Towne by the Indians Drunkenness.” Implicit in the discussion was the realization that overdrinking was as detrimental to the Indian population as to the white settlers on whom they allegedly preyed. “Much overtaken with Strong Drinke,” the Sachem Samuel died after falling into Anthony Emry’s well.16 The accident followed a quarrel between Samuel and another Indian, Tom Dumplin, during which Dumplin accused Samuel’s father of burning down a house belonging to Tom’s father and brother. Assuming such a sequence of events actually took place, this implies that arson may have been employed as a means of dispute resolution and revenge. From a Euro-American point of view, drunken Indians turned to theft and drunken Indians committed rape. In June 1671, Wickhopash (Harry, to the English) was indicted for stealing a rapier and trading goods from Thomas Cornell. He confessed the theft, but added “that he was Drunk when he did it.” If Wickhopash’s statement of extenuating circumstances was an appeal for a reduced sent h e c o n t e n t i o u s wo r l d o f t h o m a s c o r n e l l

93

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 94

tence, he was doomed to disappointment. The court sentenced him to thirty lashes (twice the usual amount), an unusually stiff fine in the form of monetary restitution to Cornell, and the threat of slavery if he defaulted on payment. The severity of the sentence may have taken him by surprise; it may also have bred resentment.17 Punneane ( John) also used overindulgence as an excuse when he faced a jury for raping Lettice Bulgar. He refused to plead one way or the other since “he doth not know whether he did the act or not for he was Drunk.” Punneane was executed on May 23, 1673. Apprehensive of further incidents, the General Assembly voted in their May session “to treate with the Indian Sachems” in order “to prevent the extreme excess of . . . Indians drunkenness.”18 Despite attempts to curtail such behavior, however, excessive drinking and overindulgence as a mitigating excuse continued to draw the attention of Euro-Americans. At the turn of the eighteenth century, John Lawson noted that Native Americans “never call any man to account for what he did, when he was drunk, but say, it was the Drink that caused his Misbehaviour, therefore he ought to be forgiven.”19 Alcohol-related or not, Native American misbehavior did not find Aquidneck Islanders forgiving, and beginning in fall 1671 one Indian after another ended up at the mercy of the Anglo-American legal system. Quashcome, Wickhopash, Winnunekin, Nicquitticksuck, Robin, and William were indicted for a variety of serious offenses ranging from burglary to grand larceny to attempted rape. Thought to be becoming increasingly brazen, such “savages” waylaid helpless women, robbed warehouses, escaped from prison, and broke into occupied homes. In one forced entry, William, an Indian, beat and wounded John Odlin’s servant, an act of violence that convinced already uneasy settlers that worse was yet to come.20 By the early 1670s colonists in and around Portsmouth were in a state of anxiety over an imminent attack by Native Americans, who were now perceived as being “treacherously inclined against the English.” The letter that Thomas Cornell carried to the governor and Council of New Plymouth in June 1671 proposed a meeting between representatives of Plymouth and Rhode Island in order to prepare for such an attack. Two months later, English settlers spoke even

94

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 95

more urgently of the “great necessity to put the colony in a posture of defense” to guard against a surprise assault. Whether these plots were real, exaggerated, or imagined, Rebecca Cornell felt threatened enough to keep a silver whistle on a chain close to her person.21 But it was not merely apprehension over an Indian attack that exacerbated tension in the early 1670s. By the summer of 1672, residents of Portsmouth had been informed of England’s declaration of war against the Dutch and that “his Majestie” had ordered Rhode Island to assume “a posture of defence” against the United Provinces. During the winter of 1672–73, the Dutch stepped up their seizure of New England vessels and merchants suffered great losses as one ship after another fell prey to aggressive Dutch men of war.22 From Thomas Cornell’s perspective, the war threatened the Barbados–New England horse trade, which in turn jeopardized his financial well-being. In addition to its other troubles, Rhode Island could count on enemies closer to home whose intention was to grasp what Rhode Islanders insisted was rightfully theirs. On the west, Connecticut continued to claim the territory south of Warwick, Rhode Island, despite repeated attempts by representatives of the two colonies to arrive at a negotiated settlement. Indeed, in 1672 Connecticut made hostile moves (“in a most rioutous, rebellious and tumultuous manner”) toward the settlement of Westerly. To make matters worse, on the north and east Portsmouth was surrounded by disputed territory stretching from Little Compton to north of Bristol that was claimed by Massachusetts Bay Colony and Plymouth Colony.23 Given such bitterness, it would not have been unreasonable for the people of Portsmouth to believe that an antagonistic world was closing in on them. The Connecticut invasion only increased the enmity between most Rhode Islanders and the Narragansett Proprietors (a group of Bostonians, Connecticut men, and investors from Plymouth), who were bent on gobbling up as much land in that rich region as the Indians and available capital would permit. It did not help matters that two Rhode Islanders, Richard Smith of Wickford and Francis Brinley of Newport, sided with the proprietors or that a third, William

t h e c o n t e n t i o u s wo r l d o f t h o m a s c o r n e l l

95

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 96

Harris, threw his lot in with Connecticut and as a result was charged with treason by the Rhode Island Assembly.24 Thomas Cornell was not a deputy from Portsmouth during that raucous session, but he sat during March and April 1672 when the harshest laws were enacted against Harris and his supporters. Thomas Cornell did not serve in May either, when several of Harris’s allies were returned to the Assembly. In that same month, Harris was acquitted of treason and released from jail. In May 1673, William Harris was one of the colony assistants who presided over the General Court of Trials and Cornell’s case.25 At the heart of these intercolonial and interconnected disputes was land, of course, although the contest was not between the forces of good (Rhode Island) and evil (Connecticut and Massachusetts), as Rhode Islanders would have everyone believe. As Sydney James explains, “simple land hunger . . . broke loose in Rhode Island” early on. The original purchasers or proprietors sought to increase their holdings at the expense of newcomers; newcomers aspired to become gentlemen equal in status to the original settlers. Seventeenthcentury rivals tried to push their competitors off the ladder of mobility using whatever tactics were necessary—legal and illegal, individual and collective. Land lust created ruthless adventurers, whose ambition extended to fraud, extortion, collusion, and who knows what else. Roger Williams railed against this acquisitiveness in a letter concerning the Connecticut controversy. He spoke of the “depraved appetite after the great vanities, dreams, and shadows of this vanishing life,” by which he meant an unnatural desire for “great portions of land in this wilderness.” It appeared to him “as if men were in as great necessity and danger for want of great portions of land, as poor hungry, thirsty seamen have, after a sick and stormy, a long and starving passage. This is one of the Gods of New England, which the living and most high Eternal will destroy and famish.” As attention turned to the development of the Narragansett region, Thomas Cornell told his mother that “he must Build.”26 Cornell had considerable time to plan his castles in the air during fall 1672. “Great rains and high tides” curtailed the usual outdoor activities, and quantities of hay were lost that autumn during the del96

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 97

uge. “Men’s stores” were “very short,” and cattle died as the moderate weather of early winter turned cold. No records remain to show whether the bad weather ruined the food crop for Thomas Cornell’s horses, cattle, and sheep, but even the threat of dwindling “stores” must have added to the concerns of this farmer-trader.27 Cold weather may have contributed to hot tempers. In November, Stephen Sebeere called Henry Palmer’s wife a witch (a less serious accusation in Rhode Island than over the border, but a nasty charge nonetheless). Henry Palmer maligned Stephen Sebeere by announcing he was not only a “French dog,” but a “french Roug.” Fornication charges suddenly escalated, a hint that the community was trying to contain social disorder through sexual continence. In fall 1672, white colonists bore the brunt of such accusations; by spring 1673, Maria, Jobba, Hope, and George (African American servants) had been added to the list of those indicted.28 That same spring, Henry Palmer would sit on Thomas Cornell’s jury as foreman. • • • Despite the refractory nature of Rhode Island society, Portsmouth did not have an unusually high crime rate, and, even when violent felons faced the justice system, juries were reluctant to convict. Before 1670, only six people were prosecuted for capital offenses, and of the six only one, a confessed murderer, was hanged. In that 1660 case, an interpreter assured the court that Waumaion had admitted killing John Clawson, which made a death sentence all but inevitable. After this episode, Rhode Island magistrates heard no other capital cases for a decade. In 1670, however, a jury found Thomas Flounders guilty of murdering Walter House by “strokes” and “blows.” Although this time the culprit protested his innocence, Flounders was hanged for manslaughter on Wednesday, November 2. Thomas Cornell was a member of the twelve-man jury that convicted him.29 Whether due to coincidence, heightened tensions, or a rise in felony prosecutions, the court adjudicated three capital cases in 1671 alone. In the aftermath of the first, William Thomas swung from a noose for burglary; in the second, a jury acquitted Francis Usleton of t h e c o n t e n t i o u s wo r l d o f t h o m a s c o r n e l l

97

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 98

murdering John John Cockrum (alias Cockerill) but banished him from Rhode Island nonetheless. The indictment in the third case charged Quashcome ( John) with “offeringe very great abusses unto Martha the wife of Edward Lay by throwinge her downe in the highway and actinge as if he would Ravish her etc.” Quashcome was unable to plead because he did not know “whether he did such an act or not, for he saith he was Cockema” (drunk? insane?). The jury convicted Quashcome, but a majority of the court refused to impose the death penalty, since “actinge as if he would . . .” was not a consummated rape as required by statute, the “etc” notwithstanding. The court, however, mindful of its responsibility, remanded Quashcome to prison, at which point he fades from the official records.30 • • • Seventeenth-century Rhode Island capital cases were rare (and convictions even rarer); it is, nonetheless, true that the number of felony prosecutions is less a measure of violent behavior than a statement of society’s willingness to tolerate or disallow such behavior. Thus, there is little reason to think that skirmishes between people (either within or outside the family circle) were less common in Portsmouth than elsewhere in Rhode Island—or New England for that matter. Indeed, court records provide good reason for believing that, as far as intrafamilial disputes were concerned, Rhode Islanders behaved remarkably like the English men and women in the world they had abandoned. Historians more or less agree that domestic assault was commonplace in early modern England, even if such battering very rarely ended in homicide.31 Occasionally a wife might suffer death at the hands of a vicious husband; once in a while a husband might receive a fatal beating from his wife. Infanticide and child murder (the most common of domestic homicides) dot the records. Data also reveal that siblings rarely murdered one another, suicide almost never followed homicide, and matricide or patricide was virtually unknown. There were no recorded cases of matricide and only two of patricide between 1620 and 1680 in Essex County (from which the Cornells had emigrated). And in a study of crime in England from the Restoration to 1800, only one case emerges (in 1679) in which a son was 98

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 99

executed for killing his mother. It is of some interest that the homicide took place during a dispute over money. All in all, the domestic homicide rate was quite low compared to modern times and, although homicides did occur within families, most were committed by perpetrators unrelated to their victims. Evidence also suggests that there was a decrease in the overall homicide rate in England between 1660 and 1800 as well as a decline in the number of executions.32 Despite the low incidence of homicide in England, however, physical assault against family members persisted throughout the early modern era. Most common between husband and wife, such behavior was sanctioned by informal guidelines that laid out the boundaries of permissible, if abusive, conduct. Generally speaking, husbands could “correct” their wives without intervention as long as no serious injury occurred; wives were discouraged from behaving aggressively toward their husbands. Parents, masters, and mistresses were obliged to prevent their children and servants from disrupting the household and were permitted the use of coercion to achieve that end. At the same time, excessive force was not only discouraged as an instrument of control but was monitored and subject to prosecution. If a husband consistently battered his wife, he was likely to be confronted by neighbors, whose obligation to intervene and restore order (if not harmony) was well understood in a society where the family was open to public scrutiny. If the husband persisted, he was likely to find himself facing the authorities on charges brought by neighbors, kin, or friends of his wife. In the absence of organized police forces local notables, such as justices of the peace, frequently acted as informal mediators. A common aspect of daily life, domestic assault was played out in front of a community in which privacy had no privilege, and where family and state were intertwined. At the same time, only rarely did such episodes reach the courts. Indictments arising from domestic assaults are almost totally absent from the Essex County records.33 • • • Although family violence was a manifestation of patriarchal power, it also arose from other causes such as financial stress. Conversations about portions, jointure, or requests for money could east h e c o n t e n t i o u s wo r l d o f t h o m a s c o r n e l l

99

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 100

ily turn rancorous and lead to a fracas that got out of hand. Usually these episodes took place between husband and wife, although fathers and sons were also potential rivals competing for limited resources. Some fathers even threatened to disinherit their sons when the latter’s behavior did not conform to the patriarch’s standards.34 Seventeenth-century New Englanders, familiar with the organization, hierarchy, and unruly nature of the English household, replicated those little commonwealths in town after town on this side of the ocean. Puritans exalted marriage over celibacy; the family was the cornerstone of New England society, and it was within the purview of the authorities to ensure that it remained so. Given such concerns, the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay took a worldwide leadership role in prohibiting wife beating and child abuse except in extenuating circumstances. They did so because such family violence could threaten the social and political stability of settlements dedicated to the word of God. That New Englanders did not always enforce the law indicates the strength and longevity of the patriarchal household as it traveled from one side of the Atlantic to the other. And since both husbands and local authorities defended male prerogatives and excused men’s violence by blaming women for being demanding, assertive, or shrewish, prosecutions for wife beating did not clog the court calendars.35 Nevertheless, a belief in the need for intervention strikes a contemporary chord to the extent that New Englanders assumed the state had an ongoing interest in the welfare of family members. Town officials were aided and abetted by Puritan ministers who, through their sermons, reinforced the idea that household violence was an intolerable breach of godly conduct. And as in England, vigilant neighbors stood ready to intervene, making peace when possible and making accusations when it was not. Similarly, the family murder rate appears to have paralleled that of England: seventeenth-century Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay records show few indictments for family murder, a crime that was not likely to escape detection. One study indicates that in Plymouth Colony between 1633 and 1802, there were only nineteen recorded cases of wife beating, husband beating, incest, or assault by children on parents. Twelve of the nineteen cases involved wife beating. Interestingly, accusations of 100

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 101

child abuse (and murder) were few indeed, a pattern inconsistent with English court records.36 How often similar cases went unrecorded, how often neighbors intervened (or looked the other way) remains incalculable. Given these variables, it is impossible to say with any certainty whether women were less likely to be abused when the family was subject to public scrutiny, as it was in the seventeenth century.37 In Massachusetts, rebellious sons above age sixteen theoretically faced the death penalty, but although the records are rife with defiant offspring, in reality none ever found himself at the wrong end of a rope. In 1635, John Pease struck and insulted his mother, but was merely whipped for this serious transgression. Nearly three decades later, a Suffolk County man cursed his father and threatened to burn his house down “about his ears,” while in Essex County, John Porter Jr., a man in his twenties, not only verbally assaulted both parents but actually attempted to level their house by fire. John, eldest son of the Porters, “frequently” engaged in “abusive” language by calling his father a “theife, lyar, simple ape and shittabed,” and his mother “Rambeggur” and “Gammar Pissehouse.” Witnesses testified he told his mother that “hir tongue went like a peare monger” and that “she was the rankest sow in the towne.” His use of gendered language may have escaped attention, but his words and actions eventually caught up with him. Porter Sr. finally took action after his son beat the servants and stabbed one of his brothers. “In the sence of his sonnes wickedness and incorrigiblenes, and the dayly danger of himself, his estate, and family,” John’s father “sought releife from authority, first more privately, which was ineffectuall, and afterwards more publickly.” It had taken years of perverse, stubborn, and rebellious behavior before John’s father finally reached out to the court system in 1663, even though the community had been long aware of his son’s conduct. Under Massachusetts law, John could have received the death penalty had his mother (as well as his father) brought charges against him. But she refused, “overmooved by hir tender and motherly affections.”38 Thus, in neither the Pease nor the Porter case did the defendants suffer more than a whipping and public humiliation. Some evidence suggests that parental abuse, as well as spousal abuse, int h e c o n t e n t i o u s wo r l d o f t h o m a s c o r n e l l

101

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 102

creased in the 1660s, although the number of reported incidents remained extremely low.39 Paradoxically, even a rebellious son could arouse the sympathy of the community if neighbors felt that he had been shortchanged by his parents. One of John Porter Sr.’s contemporaries, William Hollingsworth, told him that he “had done wrong in giving his son so little to which Porter replied that it was perhaps so, for John Rayment and others had said the same.” Thomas Cornell’s father and mother had given him nothing at all. Perhaps this is why Thomas blurted out that Rebecca “had beene A Cruell Mother to hime.” And if Rebecca did not meet community standards for a dutiful mother, Thomas’s accusation that “Her name did stinke about the Island” may have had a ring of truth to it.40 It must have been difficult for friends and neighbors to decide when to intercede without being requested to do so and, where evidence of such intervention occasionally appears in the records, it is not without a tinge of ambivalence on the part of the mediators. Whether such reluctance represents a willingness that evaporated over time or whether it was a matter of deciding by consensus exactly when a family dispute required outside help, it is clear that neighbors thought long and hard about their role. When Richard Rowland was accused in 1662 of battering his mother-in-law, Mary Smith, a Salem resident remembered that some years earlier Rowland had also assaulted his father-in-law. On the earlier occasion, neighbors had been remiss “for not bringing him before authority when he so grosely abused his father James Smith . . . before his death.” Thus, in 1662, friends of Mary Smith hastened to tell the authorities that Widow Smith had said “that if she should die, Richard Rowland would be the cause of it.” Other neighbors actually witnessed the beating and testified that Rowland struck his mother-in-law with a stick before pushing her down. Yet despite her bruises (or perhaps because of them), Mary Smith had second thoughts about prosecuting Rowland. Whether she was influenced by Goody Nicholson, who “asked her to be careful about what she said against her son because it would be blazed abroad to his disgrace,” or she decided her life could be measurably worse if she testified against him in court makes no matter. Smith retreated 102

Killed Strangely

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 103

and took responsibility for the attack. It was partly her fault, she insisted; her “one [own] hastes [hasty] disposition” led to the beating. She had spoken “out of passion,” and thus “before God and the world” Smith discharged Rowland “of all everything or things done to her.” The charges against Rowland were dismissed.41 Such retractions, as students of intrafamilial abuse well know, are all too common among battered women. There is some reason to believe that toward the end of the seventeenth century, Puritans became ever more reluctant to intervene in family quarrels. As the century waned, a woman could not count on assistance from her neighbors except in the most dire circumstances and sometimes not even then. By 1690, even accusations of domestic violence, including those relating to elder abuse, disappear from the Plymouth court records.42 In Rhode Island, however, court records indicate that neighbors and local authority figures continued to involve themselves in domestic disputes after the turn of the century, albeit hesitantly and grudgingly. When “Hammett . . . kickt his wife on the Breast,” she and her children sought refuge at John Clarke’s house. Fearing Hammett would attempt to retrieve his wife and cause a disturbance, Clarke, a constable, and two neighbors ( John James and James Peckcom) tried to persuade Hammett to go to bed. Unable to calm him, the men “Carried him before Justice Lawton,” who “committed him to prison” for an overnight stay. The next morning Hammett appeared at James’s shop and, as James explained, “in a Deriding way (as I thought) thanked me for my kindness for Carrying him to prison I told him he should Consider who gave the first Occasion and that what we Did was against our wills for Did not want to hurt him.”43 Another story of spousal assault and murder in Rhode Island emphasizes the limited nature of accusations, support, and intervention. For many years prior to her murder in 1719, William Dyre’s wife had complained of her husband’s abuse and that “she was afraid he would do her Some mischief.” Rather than seeking out the authorities, Hannah Dyre apparently shared her misgivings with friends, but since two local officials, Weston Clarke and Nathaniell Coddington, “were in power and authority,” they took it upon themselves to act on the “Reports as was spread about.” Calling on the Dyres, t h e c o n t e n t i o u s wo r l d o f t h o m a s c o r n e l l

103

2672_Part1.qrk 6/25/02 4:45 PM Page 104

Clarke and Coddington found Hannah “in a Mournfull condition,” quite ready to admit that she feared to remain in the house alone with her husband. Since there were “some people there” (an attempt to ensure her safety?), Coddington and Clarke left in order “to Consider what might be needfull to be done.” Summoned before the authorities for a second inquiry, Hannah Dyre subsequently confirmed “the unkindness and abuses of her husband unto her.” William Dyre, also present, made light of his wife’s accusations, but after Clarke and Coddington “had laid before him the troubles he was bringing on him” and threatened to jail him, Dyre appeared “Sorrowfull,” a pretence that encouraged his wife to hope “that he would be more kind and Considerate for the time to come.” Not surprisingly, Dyre’s repentence was short-lived. During a recapitulation of the events that preceded Hannah Dyre’s murder, Coddington and Clarke told the court they supposed “her neere Nighbours” could “give an account what they have heard.”44 Nearly half a century earlier, Rebecca Cornell’s neighbors had given such belated accounts as well.

104

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 105

Four Doubting Thomas: Or, Considering the Alternatives The stories we tell about the past, the ways in which raconteurs interpret and reinterpret events, build the collective memory we call history. But with each retelling, the original story is reshaped to fit a new time and place, eventually assuming a life of its own, an entity quite remote from the episode it initially depicted. After a time, the incident itself and the reconstruction of that incident share ties only as distant relatives, the latter bearing little more than a vague resemblance to some long-forgotten ancestor. Even the immediate past cannot escape editing as the perceptions of each spectator are instantly emended to conform to personal experience. As the selective memories of multiple spectators create plural images, alternative explanations for Rebecca Cornell’s death compete for attention. The solutions that resonate most persuasively look to the past and those people whose lives touched this elderly woman in one way or an-

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 106

other. More speculative answers invoke the future and call upon members of the Cornell family who would not be born for generations to come. Rebecca Cornell died violently. Thomas Cornell met a brutal death as well—presumably as a consequence of his crime. Despite the circumstantial evidence against him, however, it is not at all conclusive that he was responsible for the tragedy on February 8, 1673. As in Akira Kurosawa’s film Rashomon, based on a tale by Ryunosuke Akutagawa, alternative and equally plausible story lines explain why death confronted the elderly widow that night. Mary Almy pointed to the “undutyfullness” of Rebecca’s son, but the official record implicates Wickhopash and Sarah as well. Rebecca Cornell Jr. recalled a suicide threat, yet a household servant observed a frail elderly woman who “was not well” on the morning that preceded her death. And Sarah Cornell viewed her mother-in-law’s demise as “A wonderfull thing,” whatever double-entendre she intended. Instead of succumbing to her son, what if Rebecca was murdered by someone else or she deliberately committed suicide? What if she accidentally tripped and fell? From a seventeenth-century New England perspective, there is also another, equally viable possibility: God’s vengeance—an illustrious providence designed to punish an unrepentant sinner. What if? • • • Strong circumstantial evidence worked against Thomas Cornell. His long-term relationship with his mother was, by all accounts, rife with rancor and filled with a badly concealed enmity that was fueled by financial conflict. If Rebecca preferred to distribute her estate by Old World rules, her son Thomas was clearly more in tune with New World trends that did not give with one hand and take away with the other. Increasingly embittered by a mother who was unresponsive to the alleged prerogatives of an eldest son, resentful of his siblings who were on the receiving end of her largesse, Thomas’s frustrations mounted, and the scene was set for an escalation of domestic disharmony. It would not be the last time that second-generation sons clashed with first-generation parents bent on preserving European traditions. To add to his grievances in 1673, Thomas Cornell was a 106

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 107

Woodcut of a woman spinning, surrounded by fire (detail). The illustration is intended as an example of divine punishment for sabbath-breaking and shows God’s wrath in the form of an illustrious providence. Worcester Art Museum, Worcester, Massachusetts. Divine Examples of God’s Severe Judgment upon Sabbath Breakers, attributed to James Franklin (woodcut, 1910.48.3468).

middle-aged married man still dependent on his mother, and his masculine image as head of household suffered by her control over him. Thomas had a temper, and Rebecca had confided that she feared for her life. If her anxieties were realistic, they would surely have been based on persistent threats and/or physical abuse. In this scenario, Thomas’s invective and mistreatment of his mother were the means by which he could assert his patriarchal position in a household where other privileges had been denied him. Thomas was frustrated, he had access to the purported murder weapon, and he was the last person to see his mother alive—motive, means, and opportunity. d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

107

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 108

Theoretically, Thomas Cornell would have found it difficult to extricate himself from his debts, since his financial obligations to his mother appear to have been twofold. A careful reading of the testimony hints that the £100 bond from which he desired release was a liability separate and apart from the £100 that he was required to pay his siblings in the future. Rebecca Cornell never mentioned a bond in her will; the language in the will specifically states that Thomas’s payments to his brothers and sisters would begin at a fixed time after her death. One of the deponents, George Soule, testified that Rebecca had told him that Thomas would have the £100 bond “out of her hand,” suggesting that she actually held a promissory note signed by her son. Another witness, Nicholas Wilde, reported a conversation between Rebecca and Thomas wherein Thomas told his mother that he wanted to be released of “that Hundred Pound he was Engaged to pay her,” and that he needed the £100 to build. If we take these words literally—“out of her hand” and “to pay her” (emphasis added)—it appears that Thomas owed the second £100 to his mother directly, whereas the first, as a condition of her deed of gift to him, obliged him to pay £20 per year over a five-year period to his mother’s executors after her death.1 With regard to the £100 earmarked for division among Thomas’s siblings, Thomas had good reason to resist his mother’s generosity. He could hardly have felt close to his sisters and brothers; Rebecca and Sarah had been living in New York for decades, as had Richard. Another sister, Elizabeth, was raising her family in New Jersey. Joshua, Samuel, and Mary were considerably younger than Thomas and had little in common with him. There may have been a rift between Thomas and two other brothers, John and William, since they, along with Samuel, sued to remove Thomas’s son from the Cornell homestead in 1676. In addition, John’s wife had testified against her brother-in-law in 1673. In fact, Thomas might have been resentful of his brothers and sisters. They were not burdened with their mother’s care; they were not weighed down with the responsibility for Rebecca’s well-being. They did not have to listen to her nagging or cater to her every whim. Why should he share her estate with them? She had given them, especially his sisters, enough al108

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 109

ready. Rebecca had conferred an enormous amount of property in New York on Sarah and Rebecca Jr. Shouldn’t eldest sons inherit the most valuable real estate? Weren’t daughters obligated to care for aging parents? Despite written confirmation in 1664 that the Cornell homestead was “already in his possession,” Thomas’s indictment located the murder at “the Dwelling House of his sayd mother.” So did the minutes in the Friends Record Book. John Russill’s testimony placed a conversation at “Mrs. Rebeca Cornells House.” Joane Coggeshall referred to an incident “at the Widdow Cornell’s House.”2 Legalities aside, friends and neighbors believed the Portsmouth dwelling still belonged to Rebecca. Thus, if the depositions are an accurate reflection of the angry words that passed between Thomas and Rebecca, he must have perceived her as someone who belittled him, thwarted his independence, and curtailed his upward mobility. Although Thomas (in his various public offices) was a respected member of the Portsmouth community and a valued colonywide official, his private reputation was less exalted. Even if Rebecca had exaggerated her son’s undutiful behavior, even if such stories were completely fabricated, her female friends were convinced that Thomas Cornell lacked filial respect. And his male colleagues, who ran their households by seventeenth-century patriarchal standards, must have wondered why Cornell was still under his mother’s thumb. That there was little correlation between the public and private man is not altogether unusual, but the behavioral discrepancy does suggest that eventually allegations about his private conduct might have choked his public aspirations. Given Cornell’s pattern of office holding, it would not be surprising if his wish list included general sergeant, general treasurer, or assistant to the governor. These positions might not have been immediate goals, but it is likely that they were among Cornell’s future objectives—assuming nothing stood in his way. Ten days after Rebecca Cornell’s funeral, her body was exhumed for an autopsy. Two surgeons discovered a previously unnoticed stomach wound, which, rumor later had it, was made “with sume instrumen licke, or the iron spyndell of a spining whelle.”3 No one mentioned Thomas Cornell’s rapier, the one that had been stolen by d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

109

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 110

Wickhopash in 1671 and eventually returned to its owner. If Thomas had strayed any distance from home that afternoon, his rapier would have accompanied him and it might still have rested on his hip when he entered his mother’s chamber. Seventeenth-century rapiers had sharp points and were intended for thrusting. It was the assault (or murder) weapon of choice in old England, where people rarely used guns.4 In the colonies, rapiers were popular in hand-tohand combat with Native Americans; they also came in handy when confronting a witch’s familiar. When Abigail Williams pointed out the exact location of a gray cat in Salem, Benjamin Hutchinson “drew” and “struck” with his rapier—inflicting harm only on empty air as he thrashed about.5 In normal circumstances, such weapons were capable of causing a wound indistinguishable from that made by an iron spindle—indistinguishable, at least, to men examining a charred corpse that had been buried for ten days. A sudden, unexpected lunge at Rebecca would have stifled any scream. Terrified at what he had done, Thomas would have attempted to burn the body to cover up his crime, remaining in the room only long enough to make sure the fire did not burn out of control. When Rebecca’s grandson came on the scene, “litell feyer” was “in the rome and she not neare it wher shee laye ded.” Such precautions assured Thomas that he had made Rebecca’s death appear accidental without endangering the rest of the house or family. As a result, he would not have bothered to unbolt the outside door in order to provide an escape route for an imaginary intruder. As he left her chamber, he might have been thinking that she should not have threatened to “goe and Dwell with her son Samuell.”6 Her departure would have humiliated him; it would have exposed Thomas as a bad son. He had been in her room for one and a half hours. But perhaps he did stab her with the spindle rather than the rapier. It was rumored he did and, over time, conjecture about the murder weapon evolved into fact. An undated scrap of paper, once in the possession of the Pawcatuck Valley Historical Society, but now lost, contained the provocative words “Cornell hung, killed mother with spindle.” Whether true or partly legend, such details deepen the darker shadows of this tale. When Cornell left his mother’s room that evening, he wound half a quill of yarn. Quills enclose spindles, and it 110

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 111

is chilling to envision Cornell in the aftermath of that “excrabell murder,” sitting outside his mother’s room, calmly winding yarn on a quill that concealed the bloody murder weapon.7 Quill, spindle, mother, son, Oedipus—Freud’s version deserves a pause, if not equal time. Thomas had ample time to clean up any blood that had splattered on the floors or walls of his mother’s room. In his mind, fire would eventually obliterate the bloodstained bedhangings. But what about his own clothing? Surely such spattered garments would attract attention. But no. Not if his garments were russet, a popular reddishbrown that blended nicely with dried blood, especially in a room favored only with candlelight. Or perhaps his last “office” for the day had been to slaughter a lamb for Sunday dinner. Perhaps, too, he still wore the red-dyed woollen apron (or a leather one) that he used for such purposes.8 Who would notice anything amiss? The blood of the lambs would have mingled and become indistinguishable by the time Cornell rejoined his family in the keeping room. It is curious that anyone suggested that the missing weapon was an iron implement—curious unless idle talk linking Rebecca with witchcraft had been more widespread than the records indicate. If Thomas’s heated accusation about his mother’s reputation meant that she was tainted by witchcraft, rumors after her death might have included malicious tattle about Thomas exorcising the demons from her body by fire. Sarah as well as Thomas had implicated Rebecca in witchcraft and, even worse, Rebecca had unwittingly fueled the gossip herself. She had, she admitted, “beene divers yeares possest with an evill spirit” who had tried to bend her to his will. None of this would have been lost on orthodox thinkers who were aware that Quakers were disproportionately susceptible to witchcraft to begin with. And as believers in witchcraft knew full well, iron and fire were effective tools against malevolent agents of the invisible world. Subjecting a witch to fire rendered her incapable of passing the inheritable elements of witchcraft to her descendants. Hanging was considerably less effective.9 But of what concern was all this to Thomas and Sarah? Witches— or perceived witches—turned on those who slighted them. Refusal of food, unwillingness to repay a debt, repudiation of a promise, ridicule or mockery—all these could easily provoke retaliation. But d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

111

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 112

would Rebecca have turned on her own family? In Essex, England, a mother bewitched her own daughter after the younger woman refused to fetch wood on request. And a dispute between a grandmother and grandchild, again over an obligation to collect wood, led to another witchcraft prosecution. Rebecca had specifically complained about being forced to gather her own wood. Under the circumstances, could Thomas or Sarah take the chance? Essex County, England, had had more than the usual number of witches prior to the Cornell emigration, and family lore included stories about two members of the Cornell family who had suffered at the hands of a witch there a century earlier. Among Margery Stanton’s victims were Robert Cornell’s wife, who became sick after refusing to give Stanton milk, and John Cornell, whose cows issued blood instead of milk when he ignored Stanton’s supplications. Another John Cornell (or was it the same one?) from the village of Borley in Essex was accused of witchcraft in 1613. And in 1574, the Devil allegedly possessed a man whose last name was Briggs (Rebecca’s family name). Witchcraft acquired by marriage; witchcraft handed down by blood—who knows what tales were circulated generation after generation as grandchildren and great-grandchildren toasted their feet in front of the fire on cold winter evenings.10 Even if, as Thomas alleged, Rebecca had been a cruel mother, Thomas and Sarah had been disrespectful children, and their guilty consciences (as well as their fear of retaliation) may have overtaken common sense. If the trial jurors were predisposed to convict, they would have had little difficulty piecing together a story that made an inexplicable event an explicable one. But if we accept the jury’s finding, we must also accept a sequence of events that includes Thomas’s willingness to burn the house down around ten people engaged in evening activities, seven of whom were members of his immediate family. We must also ignore the absence of incriminating testimony about Cornell’s appearance; the nature of the crime suggests that he should have looked disheveled and agitated, his clothing stained with blood—signs strongly indicative of guilt according to seventeenth-century rules of evidence, not to mention common sense.11 Given the layout of the house, Thomas would have been unable to change his clothes before rejoining the family. No murder weapon was ever produced. 112

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 113

Moreover, Thomas’s motive was weak, despite hints of financial incentive. The £100 bond he owed? That would revert to Rebecca’s estate. The £100 to be divided among his siblings? No mention of such a sum was in the deed of gift as recorded (despite a statement to the contrary in Rebecca’s will), and Thomas may have hoped that some legal maneuver would allow him to dodge this obligation. The farm? He could sell it after her death, but where would he and his large family live? The rent? Was that onerous enough to lead to murder? A crime of passion on a night his mother ridiculed him and threatened to move away, thus exposing him as a batterer? Perhaps. But stabbings committed in rage are often identified by multiple wounds. Besides, no one testified to first-hand knowledge of any hostility of Thomas toward his mother. Even Thomas’s many siblings (with the exception of his sister Rebecca) had nothing to say for the official record. On several occasions, Mary Almy observed an undutiful son, but that was not tantamount to an accusation of physical abuse. Every other shred of testimony was indirect, consisting of alleged complaints by Rebecca to another person. Rebecca Cornell told me . . . Rebecca Cornell said . . . . Mary Almy’s testimony was as close to an accusation as anything in the records. But allegations were risky, and there was a thin line between wellintentioned (but misinterpreted) information and malicious perjury. According to English common law, “a man accusing another but upon suspition, is not to be reproved, though the party accused be proved to be innocent.” Common law and Rhode Island law parted company on this issue, however, the latter making perjury to take life one of a dozen capital offenses in its 1647 code.12 Under the circumstances, it was safer to hint at Thomas’s aggressive attitude and report what Rebecca supposedly had said than to accuse Thomas directly. And even if there had been no legal ramifications attached to perjury, lying was a sin. No matter what the ministers of Massachusetts Bay said, Puritans founded Rhode Island, and adherence to God’s laws was still a matter of priority. • • • Thomas Cornell may have single-handedly murdered his mother. But there are other, equally plausible explanations for what hapd o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

113

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 114

pened that night, particularly since two doors—one connected to the inside of the house and one to the outside—offered access to Rebecca Cornell’s room. Furthermore, a number of people were unconvinced that Thomas Cornell was guilty of matricide—or at the very least that he had acted alone. Even his indictment left room for a verdict that incorporated a coconspirator. That the charges against Cornell were not formulaic is suggested by the 1671 grand jury presentment against Francis Usleton, in which he was accused only of murder, rather than the more inclusive charge of “murther” or “aydeinge and abettinge thereto.”13 The grand jury could pick and choose according to the circumstances. And the circumstances did not work to Cornell’s advantage. For whatever reasons, witnesses put the worst possible twist on what they saw and heard, or what they thought they saw and heard. Cornell’s servant, John Moills, remembered that he had seen “A peece of her Garment, being Cotton and Wollen lyeing upon a Brand on the fire.” Without knowing whether the “brand” in question was a piece of kindling, a torch, the blade of a sword, or a similar weapon, it is difficult to assess how damning Moills’s testimony actually was. But in the tumultuous scene following the discovery of a smoldering body and room, how Moills could have been so unequivocal about the composition of the burning fabric or known it was not an old discarded rag is puzzling. Moills connected the brand to the body and in so doing hinted at foul play, leaving to the imagination whether Rebecca had been struck or torched, but clearly insinuating that a human hand had placed the brand “on the fire.” Did he do so because Thomas Cornell was a harsh master? As a member of the Cornell “family,” had Moills seen instances of Cornell’s disrespect toward his mother? In his testimony, Moill stated that, on seeing Rebecca in ill health on the morning of February 8 he checked in on her again “at noone,” suggesting that he had a friendly relationship with the elderly woman.14 Did Moills’s concerns translate into biased testimony? Similarly, when Hugh Parsons entered the room where Rebecca’s body lay, he saw “burnt sinders” that “lay in A traine and almost covered the floare in such A manner as if shee had beene drawne thether.” Why did Parsons immediately jump to the conclusion that 114

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 115

Manuscript page of transcript from Thomas Cornell’s trial. In this examination, the witness, James Moills, indicates “that when he went into the roome the night the said Mrs Cornell deceased, he saw A peece of her Garment, being Cotton and Wollen—lyeing upon a Brand on the fire.” Courtesy of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, Judicial Records Center & Archives, Pawtucket.

she had been dragged by someone other than herself? Besides, by the time Parsons entered the room that night Henry Straite had already “raked away the fire with his hands,” irrevocably rearranging the original pattern of ashes.15 From the moment neighbors rushed into the house on that terrible night, Rebecca Cornell’s death raised suspicions, later (and different) “Suspitious reasons” notwithstanding. Joshua Coggeshall was among those summoned to the Cornell home the night of February 8, and he “Emediately . . . went to the Outward Doore opening to the Southward, to see whether it were fast bolted”—a reaction indicating that an intruder, rather than accidental death, was foremost in his mind. A staunch Quaker, Joshua Coggeshall weaves in and out of the story for the next several months—as a coroner at the second inquest; as an assistant who took testimony against Cornell; as the host of the investigatory committee; as the husband of Joane Coggeshall, who described how Thomas Cornell “carryed himself very unkindely” to his mother; and as a member of the bench that presided over Cornell’s trial and imposed the death sentence. Coggeshall was also Thomas Cornell’s nearest neighbor to the south. d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

115

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 116

While not bearing Cornell any ill-will, Coggeshall must have been aware that if Cornell were hanged, his property would be forfeit. And as a member of the political inner circle, Coggeshall would have had a better than even chance of annexing the Cornell homestead to his already substantial holdings—and for a modest price, at that. Thomas Cornell’s conviction was in Joshua Coggeshall’s interest. The women whose testimony most damaged Thomas Cornell were young enough to be Rebecca’s daughters, if not her granddaughters. Mary Cornell, at age twenty-eight the youngest of the group, was John Cornell’s wife and thus Rebecca’s daughter-in-law. The rest ranged in age from thirty-three to thirty-nine. They were all contemporaries of Sarah Cornell, Thomas’s wife, who could have been no more than thirty-three (and was probably closer to thirtyone) in 1673. At least a few of the women (Sarah Cornell, Joane Coggeshall, and Mary Cornell) could swap stories about married life with husbands considerably older than they were. Of all the women, Sarah was the one whose daily existence was likely to have been the most difficult. Thomas Cornell may have been no better a husband than he was a son and perhaps even a good deal worse, since he could project the hostility he felt toward his mother onto his wife with relative impunity. In such circumstances, Sarah might have confided to her neighbors—just as Rebecca had—about their conflict-ridden household. At the very least, she might have told them how difficult it was to cook and wash and keep house for four adolescent stepsons, a demanding mother-in-law, two toddler daughters, and two lodgers. Sarah had become the maid Rebecca had been deprived of by her son. Sarah Earle Cornell had grown up in an affluent family where her mother, sisters, and servants would have shared the domestic work assigned to women. As the only able-bodied adult female in the Cornell household, however, she alone was responsible for milking the cows, picking berries and other fruit, and tending the garden—as well as for the endless indoor chores. And if Sarah had aired her complaints, when Mary Almy, Mary Cornell, Joane Coggeshall, Patience Coggeshall, and Wait Gould testified, they may not only have been recounting the trials of Rebecca Cornell: they may have been subliminally responding to Sarah’s plight as well. If they suspected 116

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 117

Sarah of complicity in her mother-in-law’s death, they never even hinted at such a possibility. If they identified with Sarah on any level, all the more reason to blame Thomas. As for Sarah’s role in the proceedings, it need only be said that her testimony alone placed a potential murder weapon in her husband’s hands. Thomas never mentioned that he had been winding yarn prior to dinner; neither did any of his sons. Sarah contributed that seemingly inconsequential tidbit of domestic trivia. If she were filled with resentment, or even rage (as other testimony confirms), if she worried about how others perceived her former words and actions, she was smart enough to deflect attention away from herself and to distance herself from any hint of collaboration. Did Sarah set her husband up for a conviction? One further issue. Thomas Cornell’s testimony indicated that forty-five minutes had elapsed between the time he left his mother’s room and the discovery of her burning corpse. Given the process by which flames consume a body, if Thomas had set the fire before leaving her chamber, his mother’s body should have shown considerably more damage than it did. According to modern forensic science, in a typical house fire human arms become charred after ten minutes. Damage increases in proportion to time, with leg, face, and arm bones showing after fifteen minutes. Twenty minutes in a hot fire expose the ribs and skull, while at thirty-five minutes, “the leg bones emerge from the reduced flesh.”16 If Thomas Cornell set the fire, his mother was aflame for threequarters of an hour. Yet on entering her chamber, Henry Straite not only “tooke hold of an Arme,” but he “shakt her” as well. Thomas “perceaved by Her shoose . . . that it was his mother,” suggesting that her footwear was still recognizable. Her son then “tooke up her head in his Armes to see if any life were in Her,” a question that would surely have been resolved with a glance had the fire done its job in the time allotted to it. Some, but not all, of Rebecca’s clothing was destroyed.17 Richard Smith’s comment that “ould Mistrs Cornall was found burned to death nerly to a cole” seems to have been exaggerated.18 None of the people who ruled on Cornell’s role in this case would have been aware of the correlation between time and fire damage, but it is possible that Thomas’s departure from his mother’s d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

117

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 118

room forty-five minutes prior to the discovery of the body (coupled with the condition of the corpse) meant that he did not set the fire after all. Even Elizabeth Parsons’ observation that two days after Rebecca Cornell’s death “shee had bled fresh Blood at the nose” is susceptible of multiple interpretations. By linking this providential phenomenon to Thomas Cornell’s presence in the room, she was implicating him in his mother’s death. She may have been right, since blood emanating from the nose or mouth could indicate previous trauma or bleeding from the stomach. Yet it was equally possible that it resulted from what physicians today refer to as “purging,” that is, when decomposed blood and bodily fluids leak from body orifices.19 • • • If the authorities (not to mention Thomas Cornell’s friends) were left with a residual uneasiness in the aftermath of his execution, if they harbored a sense that justice had not prevailed, they suppressed such feelings for a year. Yet the “excessive rains” that drenched Rhode Island during the summer of 1673 hinted that God was dissatisfied with the outcome of Cornell’s trial. To those who believed in divine punishment, the thirty houses that burned to the ground on New-England Street in Barbados a year after Rebecca’s death could have been an ominous long-distance warning that all of New England would suffer if the guilty party remained unpunished.20 Thus, in May 1674, a grand jury (five of whom had been members of Cornell’s inquest juries) indicted Wickhopash (a.k.a. Harry) “for actinge abettinge or consentinge to the Death of Mrs. Rebecka Cornell of Portsmouth.” Only the briefest records remain of Wickhopash’s trial. But of all people, why charge Wickhopash at this late date? The unrest among Anglo-American settlers and their fears about an Indian rebellion had escalated and spread by spring 1674, which, presumably, was reason enough to reach out blindly and accuse any Indian of malevolence. But Wickhopash was not just any Indian; a prior incident linked him directly to the Cornell family and provided a motive for the crime. Wickhopash had been on the losing end of a criminal action for grand larceny brought by Thomas Cornell in June 1671. 118

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 119

Convicted of stealing a rapier and trading cloth from Cornell, Wickhopash’s punishment for grand larceny had far exceeded that of other Indians found guilty of similar crimes. He had received thirty lashes, a heavy fine, and the threat of slavery if he defaulted.21 Perhaps he had stolen before; perhaps there was a longstanding animosity between the two men. Cornell’s neighbors may have belatedly remembered Wickhopash’s earlier confrontation with the law. Someone might even have heard him threaten to retaliate. Furthermore, drunken Indians were routinely suspected of seeking revenge by arson, and Henry Straite’s immediate assumption on discovering the body in Rebecca’s room that night was that “it was an Indian Drunke and Burnt.”22 We may be surprised at that assumption, but on February 8, 1673, the scene was at first glance perceived as an Indian attack gone awry. Had Ahogshake and Wawisum not burned Francis Doorby’s house to the ground during the night some years earlier?23 And had William, another Indian, not entered John Odlin’s house in Newport in 1672 and violently “beate and wound” Odlin’s servant? And had Punneane not hanged alongside Thomas Cornell in May 1673 for breaking into Lettice Bulgar’s house the previous March and raping her there—an assault that led to her death? Evidence suggests that Native Americans often sought revenge by attacking those perceived to be the most vulnerable victims—among whom were lone women. Not only were elderly women easy targets, women as a group were symbolic as the perpetrators of a lineage. When a matriarch died, the entire family was “wounded.”24 If revenge was Wickhopash’s motive, therefore, Rebecca Cornell was a likely target. Native American mutilation involved symbolism as well—if Wickhopash had stabbed Rebecca Cornell with a spindle or some other sharp metal object, he would have been telling Thomas Cornell that he, Wickhopash, did not need Cornell’s rapier to inflict damage. Although surviving documents do not associate Wickhopash with any particular tribe, it is likely that he was a Narragansett, Pokanoket, or Wampanoag, all members of the Algonkian nation. Algonkians used iron and other metals in their craft work. These tribes had leveled the most serious complaints against the English during King Philip’s War, charging that English cattle and d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

119

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 120

horses continually trampled their corn. With his cattle, horses, and sheep, Thomas Cornell may have been one of the culprits, giving Wickhopash even more reason to avenge himself for real or perceived slights. Native Americans were known to burn houses in order to force their victims outside into the open, which may have been Wickhopash’s intention. This is surely a more reasonable explanation than one where Thomas Cornell risked burning down the homestead that would become his on his mother’s death. And the new moon on February 6 meant that near total darkness had shrouded Wickhopash’s mischief.25 Night’s blanket enveloped the house that night, exuding danger and camouflaging the villainy of “savages” who lurked within yards of latched doors and shuttered windows. Thus, it is not so surprising that when Henry Straite raked the fire with his bare hands and took hold of a charred arm, he “spake Indian, supposeing it was an Indian.” The shock, even astonishment, came seconds later when Thomas Cornell followed with a light and called out, “Oh Lord it is my Mother.” On one level it is easy (albeit sobering) to explain Straite’s confusion. Rebecca Cornell’s body had been so darkened by burns that Straite mistook her for an Indian. But there is something wrong with this picture. It was, after all, Rebecca’s room; shouldn’t Straite have expected to find her there? Why was Straite’s first reaction to “spake Indian”? In short, is it possible that Straite did, in fact, bridge the language gap between Wickhopash and Thomas Cornell? That Straite responded the way he did because he knew of plans to murder Rebecca Cornell and was not at all surprised to find an Indian in her room? Could it have been a conspiracy after all? This is unlikely. Straite had no brushes with the law either before or after 1673. Bilingual but unable to write, Straite was probably what he appeared to be: a servant indentured to Gershom Woddell who boarded at the Cornells. Straite was on his way to becoming an independent farmer. A year into his indenture he had received from his master a ewe lamb whose “increace” was Woddell’s to keep, and by March 1672, his flock had grown to the point where he had registered an earmark for security’s sake.26 No, Straite is an unlikely candidate for a conspiracy. To be sure, arson was an Indian tactic—a “barbarous” method of murder and destruction, of which Thomas Cornell was well aware. 120

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 121

Yet if Cornell had set the fire as a ruse, hoping to divert any investigation away from himself and toward the Indians, his plan backfired. Instead, he was perceived as a man contaminated and degraded, a son of good Puritan stock who had degenerated into a barbarian. But a year after Cornell’s execution, the certainty upon which his conviction rested had crumbled. The Indian must have done it after all. None of the English jurors in Wickhopash’s trial could have been ignorant of the events of the preceding year and, even if they had been, the three current jurors who had been involved in Thomas Cornell’s case in 1673 would certainly have filled them in. After interpreters had translated the charges for the prisoner who stood before the court in chains, Wickhopash pleaded not guilty. The necessity of an interpreter to translate the charges against Wickhopash makes any alleged complicity with Thomas Cornell awkward at best. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for Wickhopash to abet, much less consent, to Cornell’s plan if the two men did not speak the same language. And to have included a third, Indianspeaking person in a conspiracy would have escalated the danger of exposure beyond what Cornell could risk. If Wickhopash was involved at all, he was probably “actinge” on his own. In due course, the jury of nine Anglo-Americans and three Native Americans acquitted Wickhopash on all counts, an unsurprising verdict given the composition of the jury and the ambiguity of the evidence. When the court released Wickhopash from his chains after his acquittal in May 1674, the justices demanded his presence “at their next sittinge,” although the records do not disclose the reason behind that request. Wickhopash “promissed to apeare,” of course, but on May 19, “beinge in court cald did not apeare.” No surprise there either—but was it a guilty conscience or fear of being held for no reason that prompted Wickhopash to flee? The court had been known to set aside verdicts or otherwise modify jury decisions, and Wickhopash may have decided that a discreet exit on his part was a sounder choice than valor on that spring day.27 Wickhopash disappeared from Aquidneck Island and the records. • • • By October 1675, Dartmouth and Plymouth had been laid waste as the Wampanoags torched one town after another. It was simply a d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

121

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 122

matter of time before Rhode Island towns suffered a similar fate. God’s wrath seemed unappeasable, and Metacom served admirably as an instrument of heavenly retribution. But what had the colonists done to incur such divine rage? Was it because, among their other sins, they had hanged an innocent man and Rebecca Cornell’s killer still went unpunished? Was all of the promised land to be reduced to ashes because of one colony’s persistent bad judgment? Despite any latent misgivings it might have harbored, the government of Rhode Island was content to let Rebecca and Thomas rest in peace. For whatever reasons, however, Thomas’s younger brother William was not. Baptized in 1632, William remains an elusive figure in the records, appearing only long enough after his mother’s death to raise questions in October 1675 about her murder and to bring a detainer action in company with his brothers John and Samuel in February 1676 against their nephew Thomas III. The circumstances of their mother’s death were undoubtedly traumatic, but something particularly pressing must have stimulated a return to court in fall and winter 1675, since far more immediate concerns clamored for attention: heavy war taxes, mutilated friends, ravaged property, and Indian prisoners—not to mention preparations for subsequent attacks. William was convinced that Thomas’s wife, Sarah, had played some role in Rebecca Cornell’s death. Thus, he did not prosecute the highly unusual personal indictment against his sister-in-law in October 1675 idly: he agreed to be bound in the sum of £100 to further the action. The evidence to support his charge must have been persuasive since the court took the accusation seriously and issued a warrant for Sarah Cornell’s arrest. They sent constables “to aprihend” Sarah, a hint that she was reluctant to cooperate with the authorities. She had good reason: once in custody, the judges committed her to jail “till cald for by the court.”28 Who cared for her three young daughters in her absence is unrecorded. When the court finally summoned her, they read an indictment that accused her of the “murtheringe of Mrs. Rebecca Cornell, or beinge abettinge or consenting thereto.” Given the wording of the indictment, it is unclear whether William’s purpose was to exonerate his brother altogether or to expose his sister-in-law as a coconspirator. Either way, it is no122

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 123

table that William went this route alone, although his brothers John and Samuel were willing enough to join William in suing young Thomas later that year. It is also interesting that William’s action took the form of a personal indictment, a legal device (formally an “appeal”) that had died out in England considerably earlier. Private prosecutions had never been widely used even in medieval England, and why William Cornell availed himself of this arcane legal device is puzzling. That convictions were secured by appeal more readily than by ordinary indictments in the fifteenth century was a bit of esoteric information known only to a few in Rhode Island. Nevertheless, William’s willingness to take advantage of this ancient method of prosecution shows the persistence of a transatlantic legal culture that took many twists and turns.29 Michael Dalton (the English author to whom Rhode Islanders were indebted for legal advice) affirmed the concept of private indictments, as well as the practice of putting up a bond for such a procedure. “And it seemeth fit,” he wrote in a chapter concerning evidence against felons, “that the parties grieved be bound, not only to give in evidence, but also to prefer a Bill of indictment against the prisoner.”30 Francis Doorby of Warwick, Rhode Island, had availed himself of a private indictment when he charged two Indians with burning his house to the ground one night in May 1662.31 But such indictments were rare, and it is clear that Rhode Islanders were feeling their way through this tactic in the late seventeenth-century. In another case a decade before the Cornell incident, William Harris had indicted “severall persons” for forcible entry “in his own name,” and a grand jury returned a true bill. After denying their guilt, the defendants “pleaded the Elegallity of the bill of Indictment because not Exhibited in his majestyes name.” Notwithstanding this dereliction, the trial proceeded and the defendants were convicted. They then appealed to the court to “susspend Judgment against them” on the same grounds: “his majeste is not mentioned to be the offended party.” Technically, the defendants had a point. Indictments were to be brought “in the name of the King,” albeit at the instigation of any “private prosecutor.” The court, now unsure of what position to take, referred the case to the next Court of Commissioners, a body d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

123

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 124

that simply changed the words of the original indictment to read “in his majestyes name Charles the second,” thus resolving the immediate problem without settling any point of law.32 How much William Cornell knew about this earlier case is debatable, but he was obviously knowledgeable enough about the concept of personal indictments to have brought one against his sister-in-law. Yet if Rebecca did die by someone’s hand, it is not likely that Sarah acted as the sole perpetrator. If she played a part, it was undoubtedly to aid and abet a dominating, irascible man who was a dozen or more years her senior. Seventeenth-century Portsmouth was a society where wives were duty-bound to obey their husbands, and the wide age difference in this case might have encouraged a particularly unhealthy deference on her part. In theory, she was not permitted to sin under his direction, but his “superior” wisdom and confidence may have helped her to believe what she was inclined to believe anyway. Sarah’s activities—or the lack thereof—also testify to her role as accessory rather than as murderer. No one testified that she left the common room prior to the discovery of the body, and since she was in charge of meal preparation (she sent young Edward to ask whether Rebecca “would have some milke boyled for her supper”), Sarah’s absence for any length of time at the dinner hour would surely have been noted. If she played any role in Rebecca’s death, it was to abet or consent to the crime.33 According to the testimony at her husband’s trial, Sarah was hardly a doting daughter-in-law. She lacked enthusiasm for the extra work involved in catering to her demanding mother-in-law, and, in return, Rebecca wasted no affection on Thomas’s second wife. Moreover, Sarah was overheard making a compromising remark when she conversed with her husband after he was arrested. She had a violent streak. Did Sarah egg her husband on, urging him to do something he was already disposed to do? What a bad mother, she might have said. Look what you could do with £100. The house should be yours without strings attached. Cruel mother. Too many children. Too much work. Servants to feed. Too much laundry. No maid. Not enough money. Be a man. An improvisation on Lady Macbeth—or was it Electra? In addition to Sarah’s gratuitous comment about her husband 124

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 125

winding yarn on a quill, Sarah distanced herself from any connection to Rebecca Cornell’s death in a number of ways. Whether she did so because of local whispering about the axe-wielding episode (an incident that revealed her penchant for violence) or because she was guilt-ridden over her participation will never be known. But Sarah’s testimony and actions reflect a woman whose outlook on life was shaped by seventeenth-century folk beliefs. Under ordinary circumstances she would have been one of the women to lay out her mother-in-law’s body on February 9. Sarah’s absence may speak to the early stages of pregnancy, her concern for the fetus’s safety, or, depending on her level of involvement, her fear that the body would bleed in her presence. And although Sarah could have named the baby Innocent to proclaim her belief in her husband’s integrity, she might also have done so for the opposite reason—to shield the child from the sins of the father, whose secret she kept. Moreover, if Sarah was a conspirator, the name Innocent might have been an effort to separate the baby from Sarah’s own malfeasance. Folk wisdom propounded the generational transmission of deeds and the belief that an infant could be disfigured or suffer maladies as a result of its mother’s wrongdoing.34 Finally, Sarah would have wanted to place as much doubt as possible in the collective mind of the General Assembly in the hope that they would release her husband’s estate. If that was her motive, she was successful. Although the grand jury that indicted Sarah Cornell contained two familiar names (Caleb Carr and Samuel Hubbard), no list remains of the trial jurors who considered the case against her. Nevertheless, they all would have known about the earlier trials, and it is safe to assume that a few, at least, had been involved in previous proceedings. Portsmouth sent John Anthony as a trial juror to that session and, if Sarah did not challenge him, he may have heard the case.35 Anthony had been on the original inquest jury that agreed Rebecca had died accidentally, although there is no record of Anthony’s individual assessment at that time. It is curious, however, that he was one of three men not recalled to the second inquest. There is no record either of the evidence that William offered to bolster his charge or the trial testimony presented in Sarah’s case. Whether the d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

125

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 126

all-male jury considered the possibility that a spindle was a woman’s weapon remains moot as well. Perhaps Sarah’s father, Ralph Earle, lent moral support by attending the trial, but that is no more than a guess. All that really remains on record is the acquittal and the terse comment that no one else stepped forward “to prosicute the said Sarah.” A much-relieved woman paid the court fees and went home to her children. • • • It is also possible that Rebecca’s death was accidental and she sustained her injuries while engaging in her usual activities. Rebecca was seventy-three years old, but she was not incapacitated. By hearsay testimony, she ran after pigs, prevented her daughter-in-law from striking a child with an axe, and collected wood for her fireplace. And some of her allegations of ill-treatment were at odds with corroborated details. She complained of hunger if she refused to eat what the others were served, but Henry Straite and James Moills, as well as the Cornells, testified that Sarah sent Edward on the night of February 8 to “ask her what shee would have for supper,” since she had declined the fish. Thus, after preparing food and serving ten people, Sarah offered to cook a separate dish for her mother-in-law. Rebecca also charged that the children replicated their father’s hostility toward her, but Stephen, Edward, and John told the authorities that they usually spent evenings with their grandmother. Under the circumstances, such testimony could have been either rehearsed or self-serving, but James Moills supported their version of family togetherness: “in the Eveing it was Usiall, and sildome otherwise, that one or more of the children, were in the roome with their granmother.” He was puzzled why no one attended her that particular evening, but it may have been that Rebecca had not been well early in the day and wanted to retire early.36 Under the circumstances, it is not likely that the four boys would have been hostile to their grandmother or made fun of her disabilities. Their natural mother, Elizabeth, who had died several years earlier, had had a warm relationship with Rebecca Cornell, according to Rebecca’s own words. The legacy in the older woman’s will confirms that bond. Indeed, it is more likely that after the death of their 126

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 127

mother the boys sought comfort in their grandmother’s company. Surely they must have preferred her to the young woman their father brought home as his second wife. It would not have been unusual to resent the woman who stepped in to take their mother’s place, especially since Sarah was as close in age to her oldest stepson as she was to her middle-aged husband.37 We have only Rebecca’s unconfirmed word that her grandchildren mimicked their father’s behavior toward her—just as almost all reports of her son’s behavior came through second-hand sources. At age seventy-three, it is not impossible that Rebecca Cornell suffered from some form of dementia that left her physically functional but mentally impaired. In short, the world she described could have been the world she feared, not life as she actually experienced it. Rebecca liked a good fire, her son said. And if she collected wood for that fire, she also may have made the fire herself and kept it going that evening. If so, perhaps she tripped or even fell as she stoked the open fire—a task usually reserved for her grandchildren as they whiled away the hours during the long winter evenings. She had been ill earlier in the day and had not yet eaten her evening meal. Feeling unwell, she may even have refused all meals during the day. Her dress could have caught on a brand, and, panicking, she could have been unable to extricate herself from the burning piece of wood. She could have called out weakly, but the crackling fire, clatter of pots and pans, noisy conversation, and banter of children in the next room would have muffled her cries. Smoke from the common room fireplace and strong cooking odors overpowered whatever smells emanated from the room next door. As her body became engulfed in flames, she would have fallen. Still conscious, she could have dragged herself away from the hearth, tearing her dress, but leaving the brand in the fireplace and a trail of ashes on the floor. She lay near enough the bedstead for a draft to have caught a burning cinder and ignited the bed curtains. She might not have been smoking her pipe after all. As for the suspicious stomach wound, perhaps it never existed. Even today, pathologists confuse accidental deaths with murder or suicide. Falling produces lacerations and hemorrhages (particularly in elderly people), and the condition of Rebecca’s exhumed corpse was undoubtedly susceptible to conflicting interpretations. What the d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

127

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 128

A fireplace in the home of Clement Weaver, one of the jurors who tried Thomas Cornell. This deep, walk-in fireplace is typical of seventeenth-century fireplaces in Rhode Island, and the one in Rebecca Cornell’s chamber would have been nearly identical to it. Clement Weaver House (1679), East Greenwich, Rhode Island. From Antoinette F. Downing, Early Homes of Rhode Island (Richmond, Va., 1937), 30. Art and Architecture Collection, Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

inquest surgeons saw might have been the product of autolysis, a process that accompanies the decomposition of the body. During a person’s lifetime, digestive juices dissolve food; after death they attack the gastrointestinal tract and gnaw through the stomach or esophagus. Alternately, the doctors might have confronted lividity, the settling and clotting of blood by gravity after death.38 The “Suspitious wound” may have been part of a natural process. • • • Finally, perhaps Rebecca Cornell committed suicide. Suicide was an all too frequent occurrence in New England; Puritan ministers preached against it, while parishioners continually succumbed to Satan’s wiles by hurling themselves into puddles or stabbing themselves with sharp instruments. It was not an epidemic, exactly, but there were enough cases to make it a matter of some concern by the 128

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 129

end of the seventeenth century.39 Whether Rebecca Cornell’s depression stemmed from “A sadd life” or from some form of dementia in which perception parted company with reality, her complaints, fears, and suspicions suggest the depth of despondency. However her family treated her, it is safe to say that Rebecca’s self-esteem was under attack, since she may have translated their unwillingness to care for her into a measure of her self-worth.40 Furthermore, as Rebecca Cornell wrestled with her “sad Condition,” mental demons may have joined forces with her son to attack Rebecca’s vulnerable psyche. As a Quaker convert, Rebecca would have realized that the Puritan discipline permeating the Cornell household during Thomas’s childhood had not adequately prepared him for Grace. Quaker teaching held that all children possessed the gift of Light or the Seed, so to speak, and it was the responsibility of parents to help them preserve and cultivate it. Excessive discipline was alien to Quaker doctrine; extreme permissiveness was just as detrimental to a child’s spiritual well-being.41 In retrospect, it may have seemed to Rebecca that she, herself, was guilty of some parental dereliction because Thomas was rebellious and he dishonored God. This was precisely the sort of behavior anyone might expect of a child with a faulty upbringing. In her moments of despair, Rebecca may have felt remiss and assumed at least partial responsibility for Thomas’s character flaws. If Thomas was a bad son, it was because she had been a bad mother. The aging woman had threatened suicide twice—twice that we know of. Both times she had confided in family members: her daughter Rebecca Woolsey and her daughter-in-law Mary Cornell. And on both occasions, Rebecca had hinted that thoughts of self-destruction were ongoing and of long duration rather than a new or impetuous scheme. According to her daughter, Rebecca Sr. had admitted that she had been “possest with an evill spirit” for “divers yeares” and had been “divers times Perswaded to make away with Her selfe.” Mary Cornell, the wife of Rebecca’s son John, remembered that on a visit to Portsmouth from her home in Plymouth, “about 3 or 4 yeares” prior to Rebecca’s death, her mother-in-law had poured out her woes, adding that “shee thought to have stabd A Penknife in her Heart, that she had in her hand, and then shee should be ridd of Her d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

129

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 130

Trouble.” Suicide was common enough in seventeenth-century Rhode Island to make Rebecca’s threat anything but an idle gesture. Convinced that her mother might harm herself, the younger Rebecca sought to advise “her Brother Thomas of it,” but “her Mother charged her not to tell him, soe shee did not.”42 Whether Rebecca’s threats were meant to be taken seriously is another question altogether. A deeply religious woman, Rebecca Cornell would have known that suicide was a sin. To Puritans, self-destruction was part of the Devil’s game plan and each success was chalked up to Satan’s side of the eternal ledger. Rebecca would have been aware that suicide precluded a Christian burial and that the Quakers were as concerned about the temptation to self-destruction as any other group. By acknowledging the temptation, she risked being disowned by the Society, although it is debatable whether this alone would have dissuaded her from carrying out her threat. In Rhode Island, the personal property of suicides was subject to forfeit, although real property was not confiscated and debts were left for the immediate family to deal with. Insanity was a defense for suicide, and in such cases where mental disturbance could be shown, even “goods and chattels” were left undisturbed by the colony.43 Rebecca Cornell may or may not have been aware of the legal ramifications of her threatened actions, but, in any case, the disposition of her personal estate was unlikely to have been foremost in her mind. On the other hand, she would have thought long and hard about committing a sin and being denied a Christian burial. Whatever impulses propelled her, prayer seems to have overcome the demons that possessed her, and she was able to “Resist the Devil” because “the Lord was pleased from time to time to preserve her.”44 Many good Puritans ignored the stigma associated with suicide, however, and there is good reason to take Rebecca’s threats at face value. Her daughter Rebecca Jr. confided to her mother that she, too, had considered ending her life prematurely since she “was very much Afflicted and Troubled in mind.” And the younger woman had contemplated alternative means of suicide; she was “sometimes Perswaded to Drowne her selfe, and sometimes to stabb her selfe,” suggesting that she had devoted as much thought to the means as to the execution of the deed itself. Authorities concur that suicides run in 130

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 131

families, and there is some support for the notion that it ran in a disproportionate number of Puritan families; Rebecca Cornell had been a staunch Puritan for two decades before committing herself to the Society of Friends.45 If Rebecca Cornell did commit suicide someone skillfully concealed that fact. There was no mention of any penknife found near the body, no hint that she had considered self-immolation. But no one was thinking of suicide in those frantic moments following the discovery of her body. With all the people hovering around her, with neighbors examining door locks and servants peering at fire brands, a small penknife might have been inadvertently kicked under the bed or into the fireplace. Or it might have been silently pocketed by a son whose reputation had been sullied enough by a mother who put her own needs above those of her family and whose final act had been one of reproach. And Thomas Cornell was likely to have known what would happen to the property of a suicide. • • • If, in one way or another, human agency was ultimately responsible for Rebecca Cornell’s death, compelling psychological forces must have driven the actor. Assuming for the moment that Wickhopash was innocent and Sarah merely an accessory at worst, we are left with Thomas as the protagonist or Rebecca as a woman who may have committed suicide. Narrowing the possibilities anticipates closure, but having exhausted the usual historical sources, we are running short of traditional tools that would disclose which of these last alternatives more accurately reflects the events of February 8, 1673. If, however, we temporarily suspend the historical approach and apply psychological and biological methods instead, the characters in this early American drama reveal more clearly the darker sides of their personalities. This reading suggests that the relationship between Thomas and Rebecca Cornell bears a strong resemblance to the profile of modern matricides and their mothers. Furthermore, a fast forward to the nineteenth-century Cornells indicates that much of the past was prologue. Three violent incidents in 1832, 1843, and 1892 brought the Cornell family more unwelcome notoriety. And although these d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

131

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 132

later episodes are separated from the events of 1673 by more than a century and a half, they are all tied to Rebecca Cornell’s death by their connection to the volatile debate between nature and nurture. This is not to say that analysis of these subsequent events can resolve the mystery of this seventeenth-century murder/suicide any more than the alternatives already discussed, but it does offer a way to link the distant and more recent pasts into a single narrative. Matricide was and is extremely rare. No other fully documented cases have been uncovered in colonial America, and even today the infrequency of the crime hinders sustained research into the motivations for such violence. The current literature on matricide suggests that Thomas Cornell resembles the schizophrenic men described in certain case studies, to the extent that they committed murder after a prolonged and hostile relationship with the victim. In one study of matricide, the author concluded that such murderers “perceived themselves as hopelessly locked in dependent relationships with their mothers, whom they saw as powerful, hostile, and provocative.” In other case studies, matricides saw their mothers as domineering and argumentative.46 Studies have also concluded that parent killers often lack a sense of remorse. Abuse builds such emotional stress and tension that a parricide may not even remember the explosive outburst that resulted in the death of a father or mother. From the standpoint of the perpetrator, derisive or taunting parents deserve to die and in this sense contribute to their own demise. If a son, such as Thomas Cornell, believed in his mother’s culpability, it might explain his unwillingness—or inability—to confess even during the last moments of his life. A 1941 study of an adolescent matricide acknowledged the importance of mounting situational pressures, and on the basis of a particular case study suggested that oedipal forces were at work.47 Given this hypothesis the author concluded that matricide might reasonably be expected to occur in a mother’s bedroom. Although more recent studies indicate that bedroom matricides are actually atypical, it is interesting that Rebecca Cornell died violently in her chamber and that her retention of the great bed (a symbol of both power and sex) 132

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 133

may have strained the relationship between mother and son, if only subconsciously. Another theory bears nicely on Thomas’s potential for murder, although it replaces oedipal impulses with generational conflict over possession of property. According to what has been dubbed the “evolutionary theory,” parents and children differ over the allocation of parental resources, parents having one idea and offspring another. In addition, each sibling values him/herself more highly than his or her sisters and brothers, thus engaging in a competition over the finite amount of resources that make up an estate. In such circumstances, the rivalry between parents and children that eventually leads to parricide is not based on repressed sexual envy or intergenerational competition but rather on control of resources vital to a child’s welfare.48 How much of this—if any—relates to the death of Rebecca Cornell must, of course, remain speculative. This is no less true of other intriguing psychological questions that bear on the case. Was Thomas Cornell predisposed to violence? Did Rebecca’s genes incline her toward suicide? Modern studies do not link genetics and violent behavior directly, although aggression and antisocial behavior may be connected in some tenuous way to genetics. Indeed, some studies conclude that genetic factors can, under certain conditions, strongly influence aggressive behavior.49 The same studies also indicate that aggression may persist in families over several generations, although the balance between genetic and environmental factors remains a mystery. Briefly, proof is lacking as to the exact role played by genes in human aggression, but, at the same time, that role “cannot be discounted.” Therefore, while it is too much to say that criminal behavior is inherited, most sociologists and psychologists would agree to the heritability of a tendency toward aggression that surfaces when an individual is faced with specific environmental stimulants.50 Some people—some families—are at greater risk than others, and the Cornells may have been among them. While by no means a conclusive link to the events of 1673, it is curious that three of the particularly brutal incidents that captured public attention in the nineteenth century involved members of the Cornell family. And although Sarah Maria Cornell and Alvin Cornell might not be familiar to contemporary Americans, Lizzie Borden d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

133

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 134

surely is. All three descended from the Cornells who settled in New England in the early seventeenth century, and all three were involved in unusually violent incidents ranging from suicide to homicide. Is this just coincidence, likely to happen in any American family over a long enough period? Perhaps. Sarah Maria Cornell was born in Rupert, Vermont (just over the New York border), in 1802.51 She died days before Christmas thirty years later in Tiverton, Rhode Island, a town that bordered the Massachusetts line and abutted Fall River. Some said she was the victim of the Reverend Ephraim Avery, a married Methodist minister, who murdered his pregnant lover; others insisted the despondent young woman died by her own hand. A jury acquitted Avery of murder after a sensational trial in Newport during which witnesses consistently testified to Cornell’s suicidal tendencies. The ambiguities of the case echo Rebecca’s sudden death 160 years earlier, even though the two trial juries arrived at different verdicts. While genealogists have demonstrated no direct connection between the first generation of American Cornells and Sarah Maria, presumptive evidence indicates that a link exists. Sarah Maria was the daughter of James Cornell and Lucretia Leffingwell Cornell. Little is known about her father other than his reputation as a never-do-well who was employed by Lucretia’s father in his Norwich, Connecticut, paper mill and had married the boss’s daughter. James Cornell eventually abandoned his wife and children, disappearing somewhere on the Ohio frontier, never to be heard from again. As far as his ancestry is concerned, the first generation of Cornells in New England included a James among the several brothers who had emigrated from England in the 1630s, and the Connecticut branch of the family was well established prior to 1650. Several late-eighteenth-century James Cornells were native to Dartmouth, Massachusetts, home to Thomas Cornell’s descendants, although genealogists have been unable to trace many of these James Cornells beyond their birth. The Cornells of New England had spread to upstate New York before the end of the eighteenth century, where, in 1861, one descendant, Ezra, established a university. A James Cornell born in 1771 to a Dutchess County, New York, family was descended from the Dartmouth branch of the Cornells, 134

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 135

and thus from Thomas Cornell Sr. (1595–1656). He was about the same age as Lucretia, Sarah Maria’s mother, and could have fathered a daughter born in 1802. In addition, this particular James Cornell was brother to a John who fathered another Sarah Maria, born in the second decade of the nineteenth century. Several other Sarah Marias, all descended directly from Thomas Cornell Sr. and Jr. (1627–73), follow in 1826, 1831, and 1840.52 Thus, the name sprouted among branches of the Cornell family that claimed ancestors among the first generation of settlers. No doubt the gene pool included some with Thomas Cornell’s initials. Sarah Maria Cornell’s life could not have been terribly happy. Abandoned by her father in infancy, sent to live with an aunt at age eleven, she obtained a reputation for shoplifting, thievery, and sexual promiscuity by the time she was twenty-one. Her mother and married sister distanced themselves from her, particularly after accusations surfaced that she had engaged in a sexual liaison with her brother-in-law. For the next decade she earned her living as a textile worker in various mills, during which time she became increasingly attracted to Methodism, a faith that appeared more comforting than the Congregationalism into which she had been born. A series of missionary crusaders convinced Sarah that she would be welcome as a repentant sinner, although she was fired from one mill job after another as her past continued to disrupt her present. Eventually, Sarah Maria’s Methodist supporters deserted her as well. Lacking employment as well as a roof over her head, she sought work in July 1830 as a domestic at the home of Reverend Avery in Lowell, Massachusetts, where she stayed for a week before being fired. Hoping to secure readmission to the Methodist meeting at Lowell nonetheless, she offered a series of confessions to Avery, which he used against her. She sought admission elsewhere, but was rebuffed. In spring 1832, armed with a Methodist certificate that she was a person seeking salvation (rather than one assured of it), she moved in with her sister’s family with whom she had become reconciled sometime earlier. It was during the late summer of 1832 that she attended the Methodist camp meeting where she begged Avery to return the letters of confession that she had written earlier. Their meeting took place in a secluded grove, and Sarah Maria later claimed he forced d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

135

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 136

her to have intercourse with him. By mid-September she realized she was pregnant. Sarah moved to Fall River, where in October Avery temporarily exchanged services with the local minister and Sarah met with him to apprise him of her condition. He asked her to delay any action and, according to Sarah Maria’s later account, urged her to seek an abortion if time confirmed her pregnancy. Alternating between acceptance and denial, he begged her not to expose him. During the next two months, Sarah consulted a doctor and inquired about the abortifacient oil of tansy, but eventually decided to raise the child herself. Final negotiations with Avery about her future and her promise of silence were secretly planned for the evening of December 20. On the morning of December 21, John Durfee, a farmer, discovered her body hanging by a cord from a pole on his property. A coroner’s jury initially ruled Sarah Maria Cornell’s death a suicide as a result of her seduction and pregnancy, a downfall for which they held Avery responsible. Cornell was buried. Very quickly, however, dissatisfaction with the hasty decision and accumulating evidence against Avery prompted an exhumation of the young woman’s body. A second coroner’s jury reversed its predecessor, and Ephraim Avery was arrested for the murder of Sarah Maria Cornell. At the second spectacular trial in Newport involving the Cornell family, prosecutors attempted to prove that the position and condition of the body precluded suicide. The defense provided expert testimony to the contrary. No one could positively place Avery at the scene of the crime, although he was known to have been in the vicinity. Medical testimony claimed the fetus was too large to have been conceived at the camp meeting; female testimony placed Sarah’s last menstrual period at eight days before the religious conclave. Just as ambiguity surrounds Rebecca Cornell’s death, the immediate circumstances of Sarah Maria Cornell’s death remain vague. At the same time, trial testimony makes it abundantly clear that she was an unstable person who had threatened suicide on any number of occasions. Knowing that her pregnancy—whether she kept the baby or not—meant expulsion from the Methodist circles she so desperately craved, believing that she had irrevocably stained the reputation of her family, and fearing that her future was likely to be as dim as her past, Sarah Maria Cornell may have carried out her earlier threats. 136

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 137

The evidence about Sarah Cornell’s mental condition at Avery’s trial included accusations of sadness, a gloomy disposition, and absentmindedness. One physician commented that Sarah was “a little crazy” or even “partially deranged,” testimony that could have been exaggerated to aid Avery at the expense of the victim. Another witness maintained that “she did not appear rational.” Most important for the defense, however, one witness after another recalled suicide threats made by Sarah at various times. Assaneth Bown had seen her go toward a privy with a cord in her hand. He had followed her and “saw her looking up as if to a place to fasten it to.” Sarah Cornell had told Mary Ann Lary in 1831 that “she had been out to make way with herself, but that when she came to the place her courage failed her.” “I have heard her say she had been tempted to make way with herself,” Lary repeated.53 After being expelled from Avery’s church in 1830 for fornication and lying, Sarah had become even more depressed, confirmed Nathan Howard. “When I saw her in 1831, she confessed herself guilty of the charges and said she had powerful temptations to kill herself and thought she should at some future period.” The testimony of Lucy Davol and Elizabeth Shunway followed much the same lines: “she said she had been tempted to make way with herself,” and “Maria told me she was frequently tempted to make way with herself.” Two women recalled that Sarah Maria had tried to drown herself but had either been deterred by someone or had lost courage. Sarah Worthing was the second witness to connect charges against Sarah Maria with the latter’s threat of suicide. “She once tole me that she had been accused of stealing, in consequence of which accusation she went out to hang herself, and after the rope was fixed and she was ready to swing, the thoughts of eternity prevented her doing the deed.”54 Both Rebecca Cornell and Sarah Maria Cornell had reasons to be concerned about their reputations. If Rebecca believed what her son told her—that her name “did stinke about the Island” and that she was a cruel mother55—she and Sarah Maria shared a mutual shame based, in part, on gendered standards to which they had failed to conform. Cruel mothers were deplored; unmarried female fornicators were excoriated. Thomas Cornell’s charges resonated powerd o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

137

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 138

fully in his mother’s mind, while Ephraim Avery’s barrage of accusations destroyed the peace of mind of the young woman who had admired and trusted him. Thomas betrayed his mother by his unfilial behavior; Ephraim Avery betrayed Sarah Cornell by impregnating and abandoning her. Were these scenarios precursors to suicide? Possibly. • • • The line of descent from Thomas Cornell to Sarah Maria Cornell may lack clarity, but Alvin Cornell’s lineage is straightforward. His ancestry includes both Thomas Sr. and Jr., and his parents were Paul Cornell and Betsey Soule Cornell. The name Soule is familiar: George Soule was a confidant of Rebecca Cornell, and Betsey descended, no doubt, from some line of that family. This Cornell branch had roots in Dartmouth, Massachusetts, and had relocated to New York State. Alvin Cornell was born on February 25, 1793.56 His early life centered around his farming family, and he spent his youth in Washington County. He moved north to Bennington County, Vermont, between 1812 and 1822 (to be near other Cornells?), where he dabbled in mercantile ventures. Alvin turned up in Fredonia, New York, about 1830 and devoted his energies to enterprises that were no more lucrative than his previous ones had been. He continued to lose money, and his last attempt to recoup his losses involved silk production, which held no more promise of extricating him from debt than any of his past efforts. Alvin Cornell and his wife, Hannah Haskell Cornell, raised eight children, and among their progeny every alternate child was a deafmute. Long-standing marital pressures added to Cornell’s sufferings. He perceived that his wife took a greater interest in her sister-inlaw’s school than her own domestic responsibilities. He accused Hannah of neglecting him as well as the household so that “many of the domestic chores fell upon him.” Unsuccessful as a master of his family, a failure at every business he attempted, Alvin Cornell was filled with resentment. “His family difficulties had now become so great as to call for the interference of neighbors—they took the part of his wife.” At some point, Cornell abandoned his family for periods of time, trying desperately to establish himself. He opened a school 138

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 139

in Mayville, New York. For a time he went to Michigan, but eventually returned to Jamestown in upstate New York, where he ranted about his misfortunes, hinted at his wife’s infidelity, and offered to leave his family permanently. No one seems to have objected. All this prefaced the events of February 22, 1843. Three days before his fiftieth birthday, Alvin Cornell cut his wife’s throat with a razor after striking her with an iron shovel handle. Bleeding profusely, she staggered from the kitchen of her home to the adjoining Quaker schoolroom, where she collapsed and died. Shortly thereafter, Alvin Cornell attempted suicide by slicing his own throat. Unsuccessful even at this, he wounded himself severely, but survived. While in prison, he described his domestic troubles to a halfbrother, William Fenton Cornell, and harped on his failures as a businessman. He had been tempted to commit suicide during the night preceding the murder, he said, and regretted his unsuccessful attempt the following day. Not surprisingly, he entered a plea of insanity at his five-day trial, which took place in the village of Mayville, Chautauqua County, early in 1844. During the trial, counsel for the family suggested that Alvin’s mother had been insane, shifting the blame to the absent maternal side of the family without fear of rebuttal. Alvin’s father, Paul, claimed that his first wife (Alvin’s mother) had died insane, an accusation that conveniently exonerated the Cornell side of the family. His daughter Mary agreed that her mother had been unstable. Notwithstanding the agreement between father and daughter, however, the subject of hereditary insanity became a matter of dispute during the trial, with the judge ruling on its admissibility and counsel for the prisoner taking exception to the decision. But regardless of whether his father’s or mother’s genes dominated Alvin Cornell’s personality, every witness agreed that his marriage was full of stress. Mary Cornell Osborne, Cornell’s sister, confirmed that at the very least, Hannah Cornell had been an unhappy woman who had not been at all reluctant to divulge details about her husband’s peculiarities. Hannah had also told Walter Cornell, her brother-in-law, that she feared her husband would eventually kill himself. Domestic disharmony and business setbacks appear to have preyed on Alvin Cornell’s mind in the year preceding the murder. A d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

139

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 140

witness, David Matteson, testified that Cornell had openly discussed his economic difficulties and failures with him in March and April 1842. Alvin’s Quaker sister further admitted that her brother had told her that his family was a detriment to him, and that creditors were pressing him for money. Several witnesses spoke of Cornell’s irrational behavior and testified that he had a drinking problem. Convicted of murder and sentenced to hang, Cornell’s punishment was eventually commuted to life imprisonment by Governor Wright, who was convinced of his insanity. It is apparent that in this case homicide and suicide were twin potentials of a disturbed mind, a common phenomenon that complicates rather than assists in unraveling the events of 1673. What draws all three incidents together in an interesting way, however, is the sense of persecution that the major players in each case experienced. Thomas insisted his mother was cruel, Rebecca contended her family harassed her, Sarah Maria felt tormented by ministers and congregations who refused to let her bury the past, and Alvin Cornell asserted that people conspired against him. Both Thomas and Alvin were unsuccessful heads of households. It is also curious—and perhaps not coincidental—that the same newspaper that printed selective excerpts from Alvin Cornell’s trial also contained a small article with the headline “The Rev. E. K. Avery Ridden on a Rail.” Under the dateline “Harrisburg, Midnight, Jan. 18,” the twenty-line story, culled from a recent issue of the Philadelphia Chronicle, reported that “This evening . . . the citizens were alarmed by the greatest row, perhaps, Harrisburg ever witnessed. The Rev. E. K. Avery made his appearance at the Washington Temperance Society, and was called upon to address the meeting . . . and no sooner was that motion made, than Col. Albert Clark . . . gave notice that ‘this man was the murderer of Miss Cornell,’ etc. and instantly about a dozen of young men seized a rail, on which they rode him through several streets, and finally gave him a duck in the canal.”57 Public opinion had convicted Avery when his jury had not, and even a decade after that highly publicized trial a crowd was stirred against him. Whether a mob in Harrisburg was aware of Alvin Cornell’s trial in a remote corner of New York state, how young the “young men” were, and whether they could have 140

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 141

made a connection between these two Cornell protagonists separated by time and place were questions not sufficiently newsworthy to invoke editorial commentary. • • • Although Lizzie Borden is close to a household name and although she has been immortalized in theater, dance, and fiction as well as in scholarly works, her relationship to Thomas Cornell remains buried in the yellowing leaves of genealogy books among the family trees. Without reconstructing Lizzie’s lineage limb by limb, suffice it to say that Thomas Cornell’s posthumous daughter, Innocent, married Richard Borden (b. 1671), and Lizzie Andrew Borden descended from that family some six generations later.58 Born in 1860, Lizzie was thirty-two when her parents were brutally murdered in their Fall River home on a sultry August morning in 1892. (Fall River again?) No evidence linked her directly to the grotesque crime; rumor, innuendo, and the lack of a better suspect made her the most likely candidate, however. Andrew Borden, Lizzie’s father, was a leading banker in Fall River, Massachusetts. A self-made man, Borden was known as a tight-fisted, tight-lipped, conservative man who had amassed considerable wealth but parted with it only reluctantly. Although able to afford the latest nineteenth-century amenities, he imposed a spartan lifestyle on his family, a manner of living that offended Lizzie and her sister. There were no bathrooms in the modest Borden home, and running water was limited to a single downstairs sink. Along with Andrew and Abbie Borden (Lizzie’s stepmother), the household consisted of Lizzie’s older sister, Emma, who was on Cape Cod the day of the murders, and Bridget Sullivan, the maid who cleaned and prepared meals for the Borden family. Gossip had it that relations were strained between the sisters and their stepmother, whom Andrew had married after the death of his first wife, when Lizzie was two. Whether their incompatibility stemmed from a personality clash or from the fact that Andrew’s remarriage deprived the sisters of their inheritance were questions pursued by the prosecution at Lizzie’s trial. On that stifling August morning, Mrs. Borden, presumably alone in the house with Lizzie and Bridget, suffered nineteen head wounds d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

141

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 142

while in her upstairs bedroom. No one heard her cry out, and the first hatchet blow struck her straight on, a strong indication that she knew her assailant. No one heard the heavyset woman crash to the floor. An hour or so after her death, Andrew Borden returned home and succumbed to the heat of the day by napping on a downstairs sofa. While he was asleep, the same murderer, wielding the same weapon, struck his body ten times, saturating the sofa (and, presumably, his killer) with blood. Upstairs and downstairs, the first blows did their intended jobs—the rest were gratuitous. Although the immediate response of the authorities was to search for an intruder, suspicion shifted to Lizzie within days. A pharmacist remembered someone like her buying poison earlier in the summer, and Lizzie chose the morning after the murders to burn a dress with dark stains. She said it was an old garment covered with paint. At her trial in June 1893, Lizzie was usually composed, poised, and reticent—a fine example of Victorian womanhood. Although it was more than likely someone inside the house had committed the savage crimes (where could an intruder have hidden for over an hour without leaving bloodstains?), Lizzie’s spotless reputation as a Sunday school teacher and upstanding citizen served her well. Active in the Ladies Fruit and Flower Mission and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, her virtue was unassailable. She was quickly acquitted and she and her sister lived happily ever after—well, at least comfortably ever after—in a fine Victorian house with modern conveniences bought with the proceeds of their father’s estate. Scholars, novelists, and dramatists have vigorously supported or assailed the jury’s verdict.59 Some say Bridget the maid was responsible; others are certain Lizzie slashed her parents in a passion, despite her appearance moments after her father’s bloody death in an outfit as spotless as her reputation. If she did commit these violent acts, she must have been naked when she tiptoed toward her father—a scene even more unimaginable to Victorian jurors than Lizzie’s image as a murderess. • • • But what has all this to do with the 1673 death of Rebecca Cornell? Nothing and everything. Nothing because there is no proof— 142

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 143

no proof that Thomas Cornell murdered his mother, no proof that Lizzie Borden killed her parents, no proof that Sarah Maria committed suicide. Thomas was convicted on circumstantial evidence despite his class and status. Lizzie was acquitted because the evidence was circumstantial and because of her class and status. A jury refused to find Reverend Avery guilty on a variety of grounds, not the least of which was that ministers were unlikely murderers; by implication, Sarah Maria Cornell was convicted of suicide. How strange it is that the deeper we probe the past for truth, the more ambiguous that past becomes. Yet matricide and patricide are very rare among the litany of brutal crimes. That such violence would occur twice in the same family is almost unthinkable. Thus, Lizzie Borden may indeed tell us something about Thomas Cornell. Clearly there is no specific gene for parricide, any more than for spousal homicide or suicide, but given the deadly sequence of intrafamilial violence among the Cornells, the case for predisposition or tendency or potential for human aggression in defined circumstances gains credence. The theory is strengthened, that is, unless the likelihood for such extraordinary violence either toward oneself or toward another family member is randomly spread through the generations in all families over time.60 After all the facts are assembled, however, the deaths of Alvin Cornell, Sarah Maria Cornell, and Lizzie Borden complicate rather than explicate Rebecca Cornell’s last moments. Assuming that all three descended from Thomas Cornell Sr. and Rebecca, none of the possible alternatives are any more or less convincing. If Sarah Maria committed suicide and nature trumped nurture, then Rebecca might have done the same. But if Sarah Maria was a descendant of the seventeenth-century Connecticut Cornells, then she was not a beneficiary of Rebecca’s gene pool after all, and her fate provides no clues to Rebecca’s. There is no question about Alvin Cornell’s guilt, which could implicate Thomas as a fellow murderer. But Alvin also attempted suicide after killing his wife, a sequence that illustrates his capacity for both forms of violence. Besides, his mental instability may have been his mother’s fault. Perhaps Lizzie Borden did dispatch her parents, which might make her a kindred spirit of her ancestor Thomas, but perhaps she was innocent after all. And Lizzie, unlike Alvin and Sarah Maria, was also a blood relation of Sarah d o u b t i n g t h o m a s : o r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l t e r n at i v e s

143

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 144

Earle Cornell—Thomas’s second wife—thereby raising the possibility that Lizzie’s affinity for a hatchet has more to do with Sarah, the axe-wielder, than Thomas, the alleged murderer. Alas, despite every effort at closure, uncertainty refuses to be dislodged. Competing alternatives continue to clamor for attention and demand equal time. What’s done cannot be undone, but denouement eludes the storyteller.

144

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 145

Five A Community Renders a Verdict Notwithstanding the reasons behind each alternative, this indecisive approach to the case is little more than a device designed for procrastination, to delay asking a nagging question that refuses an answer: Why did the jury convict Thomas Cornell? Rhode Island felony prosecutions were few and far between; convictions and executions even more so. The odds were in Cornell’s favor. No witness pointed a finger; no evidence linked him to the crime. The circumstances of Rebecca Cornell’s death were ambiguous; his motive was weak. A reasonable jury could have acquitted him had they been so inclined. They refused to do so. Still, Cornell’s unhappy fate aside, we have reason to be grateful that the story played out the way it did. If one grand juror or one trial juror had just said no, this macabre episode would have been condemned to historical invisibility. Instead, after what was surely one of the longer and more infamous

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 146

trials in colonial America, jurors chose to convict a man who may have been the highest-ranking colonist to suffer the death penalty for a capital crime. Why? It requires no particular insight to argue that law enforcement— that is, arrests, prosecutions, and punishments—is reflective of its social context and that the advantage generally attaches to those who are able, by reason of political or economic power, to manipulate the system. Cornell should have been able to circumvent his predicament. That he was unable to do so suggests that other, more powerful forces were at work, not least of which were pressures related to religion, politics, and gender. Aspects of the legal process inherent to this moment in time were critical to the outcome, as was the common outlook shared by those participants who were called on to render judgment. By late seventeenth-century standards, Thomas Cornell received a fair trial. Indeed, many of the legal safeguards taken for granted by twenty-first century defendants were already in place and available to him. He was entitled to an attorney; he was not coerced into a confession, nor was he required to testify against himself. Cornell was free to challenge prospective jurors and to confront them in open court. He could demand a transcript of the proceedings. And there is evidence that seventeenth-century Rhode Island jurors applied due process conscientiously, even if they were no more eager to serve as jurors than their modern counterparts. One 1672 jury explained to the court that they lacked “cleer Evidence to prove the fact, and thereupon, could not find the charge.” Other defendants were acquitted when “none appeared to make good the charge against them therefore the Court could not proceede further . . . and soe doth acquit them.”1 Perjury was not taken lightly, and conviction for or admission of this crime carried serious penalties. No one was executed for it, but John Willis had his “ears cutt” in an ignominious public ceremony in 1667 and was denied the right to testify in court for the indefinite future.2 Other features of the legal system offered protection as well: sufficient proof, presumption of innocence, and a speedy trial were not only written into law; they had been absorbed into Rhode Island’s legal culture. Such safeguards were among the widely shared expectations of those who participated on either side of the process. 146

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 147

All these procedures were favorable to Cornell. What appears to have disabled him was the standard by which jurors were selected. They knew Thomas Cornell and they were expected to know him. The degree of intimacy between jurors and the participants of a case had become the subject of controversy, however, and only a few years before Cornell’s trial a grand juror had registered discomfort with three members of the bench who were personally “concerned” (involved) with the matter currently before the grand jury.3 But no procedural changes had been made by 1673, and both grand and petty jurors were expected to assess a defendant’s character, background, and reputation in the light of their own personal knowledge before coming to any decision. Seventeenth-century jurors were asked whether a defendant was capable of committing a particular crime because of the way he had lived his life up to that point in time. Thus, jurors were not assessing criminal culpability as it involved an isolated incident; rather, they were evaluating a person’s life. One can only wonder whether such considerations narrowed the margin of error compared to today or whether impartial justice gave way to personal vendettas during deliberation. In Cornell’s case, knowledge of his character enhanced the possibility of conviction. Thomas Cornell was a well-known figure in Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Given his family background, status, and reputation, nearly everyone connected with the case was likely to have rubbed shoulders with him at some time prior to his arrest. All the members of the town council on which Cornell had served in 1671 became involved in the case two years later, and many other players were related by blood or marriage.4 Consistently elected to local and colonywide posts, Cornell seems to have been a respected, perhaps even well-liked member of the community. Yet it is inconceivable that he lacked political enemies on quarrelsome Aquidneck Island, while his religious beliefs (or lack thereof ) may have riled those deeply committed to competing persuasions. With these various social permutations at work, not to mention the publicity surrounding this shocking incident, Cornell’s chances of receiving a fair trial (by twenty-first-century standards) would have been minimal. But this was not the twenty-first century, and although such dynamics raise fundamental questions about the nature of the early Ameria community renders a verdict

147

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 148

can legal system, they were hardly ill-conceived. Indeed, they are flawed only by modern perceptions of justice. Thomas Cornell’s trial took place during a period of turmoil and transition in the English criminal justice system. An inherent part of legal proceedings by the thirteenth century, medieval trial juries had accrued considerable power. Although legal historians question the degree to which panels engaged in jury nullification, it is all but certain that they occasionally relied on mitigating factors and ambiguities in the evidence to reach a desired verdict.5 As a result, there were frequent conflicts between bench and jury, especially when the latter failed to convict on the basis of what the judge believed was overwhelming evidence against the defendant. From the mid-fifteenth century on, the trial jury suffered some reduction of power as the bench badgered, threatened, and punished panels (through attaint juries) in order to force directed decisions. A century earlier some juries had acquitted out of mercy toward the accused, but now they were reluctant to do so given the real possibility that a judge might order the panel to “reconsider,” while denying jurors food or sleep until they reached a decision in harmony with the judge’s own assessment of the evidence he had heard in court.6 In 1671, Rhode Island courts had twice refused to accept acquittals in felony cases after declaring themselves “wholy dissatisfyed” with the verdict. In neither case was the jury’s verdict reversed, but the court’s expectations were manifestly apparent to the jury, and by holding the accused for a second trial the court threw doubt on the jury’s collective wisdom—not to mention impartiality. Given the profile of the bench in Cornell’s case, the judges would probably have resisted an acquittal, and the jury would have been well aware of the controversy that would follow such a decision on their part. Nevertheless, they also knew that ultimately their decision was resistant to any challenge by the bench and that they were invested by law and custom with the definitive decision-making power.7 What was never really at issue in the early modern era, however, was the right of jurymen to invoke their personal knowledge in reaching a decision. Indeed, juries were expected to “be of the neighborhood” for precisely that reason. Such men were best positioned to understand the circumstances surrounding a felony and to assess 148

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 149

the credibility of both defendant and witnesses. Information thus gleaned from past experience would be shared with other jurors in the deliberation process. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, jurors had been the fact finders to the extent that they actually sought, collected, and produced information to be considered during the trial, although by the late Middle Ages they had ceased to canvass the neighborhood for information. In the period of legal reform that accompanied the English Civil War, radical Puritans (including many Quakers) attempted to enhance the power of the jury by arguing that juries should be able to interpret laws as well as facts—just as Christians interpreted Scripture for themselves. They remained committed to the idea that by long association, only friends, neighbors, and associates could know the true character of the defendant.8 By the seventeenth century, jurors had not been involved in their own out-of-court investigations for some time. They increasingly relied on evidence presented to them during a trial; however, the law still permitted the consideration of personal knowledge about the defendant and circumstances of the incident. At mid-century, however, both bench and bar began to question the fairness of private knowledge and to suggest that if jurors possessed relevant information about a case they should be deposed publicly instead of confining such intelligence to closed debate during deliberation. At the same time, tension persisted as long as judicial interference with jury verdicts continued, and the line between the prerogatives of bench and jury remained contested. This is the context in which Chief Justice John Vaughan rendered his decision in “Bushell’s case” in 1670. And since Rhode Islanders were keenly conscious of English legal precedent, it is safe to assume they quickly became aware of this precedent-setting decision. Bushell’s case stood for two separate but related propositions. First, Chief Justice Vaughan confirmed the right of jurors to exercise their personal knowledge about defendants and disputed events in reaching a verdict. Second, the case established the rule that the court could not impose a verdict or intimidate jurors, thus reaffirming the independence and power of the jury. In short, because of knowledge they alone possessed, Vaughan concluded, it was reasonable to suppose jurors might arrive at a verdict in defiance of evidence prea community renders a verdict

149

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 150

sented in open court. Why should a judge be permitted to punish a jury for “erroneous” verdicts if the jurors were more informed than he about the evidence? For the time being (and certainly in 1673), jurors could consider information privately circulated among themselves as well as evidence produced in open court. It would take another century and William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1768) to establish the rule that only publicly presented evidence could be considered by jurors.9 How all this played out in Cornell’s trial reflects both the retrogressive and progressive nature of Rhode Island law. Joseph Torrey, possessed of information that he had obtained as a member of the second inquest jury, sat on the grand jury that indicted Cornell and testified in open court in front of the trial jury that convicted him. Thus, even though Rhode Islanders were sensitive to the need to protect a defendant’s rights, they saw no inconsistency in allowing participants with intimate knowledge of the defendant to dominate the proceedings. Presumably, seventeenth-century Americans understood that kinship, rumors, and pillow talk could tilt the scales of justice, but they did not believe that such sources undermined the system. Quite the contrary: they believed that knowledge of a defendant’s history and character assisted in determining whether or not he or she was capable of committing a particular crime. This is not to say that nuclear family members or those interested in the outcome of a case could sit on a trial jury, but it does mean that the inquest panel, grand jury, and bench might include in-laws, friends, or enemies.10 Furthermore, these men knew one another as well as they knew the defendant, which may have permitted a more candid discussion than would have taken place among strangers. Whether or not their low conviction rate was a function of such relationships, Rhode Islanders were engaged in a familiar balancing act that sought to maintain an equilibrium between justice (bringing the guilty to account) and adequate procedural safeguards. The human networks whose web of words would eventually ensnare Thomas Cornell intersected first on the day following Rebecca Cornell’s death, when friends, neighbors, and kin metamorphosed into witnesses, coroners, and jurors. The circumstances of 150

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 151

Rebecca Cornell’s death required an inquest, and William Baulston, coroner of Portsmouth, hastily empanelled a jury on Sunday, February 9. Baulston was an old friend of the Cornell family; he and Rebecca Cornell were the same age. Baulston was an executor of Rebecca Cornell’s will. He had been her confidant and had allegedly learned from Rebecca herself that she and her son had a very troubled relationship. Yet, in the early morning hours following Rebecca’s death, a shocked, perhaps even distraught, Baulston had no reason to think that his old friend’s death was anything more than a tragic accident. All but one member of the twelve-man inquest panel lived in Portsmouth; William Dyer, the foreman, was from Newport. Half the jurors were either convinced Friends or, by virtue of family association, sympathetic to the Quaker cause. The object of their inquiry had been one of the eldest members of the Society, while Dyer, the foreman, was the son of Mary Dyer, who had been hanged for her beliefs thirteen years earlier. Interestingly, the jurors, who are listed in the original manuscript version of the court records in two columns of six names each, appear to have been divided (at least on paper) on the basis of religion. Quakers are listed on the left while non-Quakers are listed on the right. The twelve names are not arranged alphabetically. Many of the members of the inquest were among Portsmouth’s most prominent citizens. Half were current or past deputies to the Rhode Island General Assembly, and several had served the community in lesser (but still distinguished) capacities as grand jurors, town constables, or town councilors. All of them would have known Thomas Cornell, some better than others. A few were business acquaintances and one was executor of the widow Cornell’s will. Another was a distant relative. George Lawton, a miller and long-time neighbor of Thomas Cornell, had been called to the house to view Rebecca’s body the night before, as had two other inquest jurors. Two more had served with Cornell on local committees.11 If two of the men, William Baulston and Hugh Parsons, had good reason to be suspicious of the way in which Rebecca Cornell had died, they either kept those suspicions to themselves or were outnumbered by those who were convinced that Rebecca Cornell had suffered a terria community renders a verdict

151

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 152

ble accident. Rebecca Cornell was put to rest on February 10, and so too, presumably, were questions about her death. No one can be certain what was whispered behind closed doors during the next ten days, but on February 20, John Briggs and John Russill testified before Deputy Governor John Cranston and the governor’s council, which was composed of assistants elected by lower-house deputies. One of those assistants, William Baulston, was already a major player in this saga, and five others would find themselves ever more deeply involved as time went on.12 The clerk to the Assembly recorded John Briggs’s dream and John Russill’s conversation with George Soule (in which Soule had reported Rebecca Cornell’s fears for her life). After hearing this testimony, the deputy governor ordered an immediate exhumation of Cornell’s body on his own authority and that of the “major part of the Councell.” They also convened a second inquest jury to meet the same day. Thus, on the basis of evidence taken through formal procedures, two men, both related by blood or marriage to Rebecca Cornell, convinced the deputy governor and council that her death might have been more than an unhappy accident.13 There were quiet undercurrents as well. If “major part” meant that only a majority of the ten-man council (rather than the unanimous group) was in favor of a second inquest following testimony by Briggs and Soule, it is possible that those who knew the Cornells best were the ones who swayed the vote. Rebecca Cornell had already informed some of them about her son’s abusive conduct. Joshua Coggeshall, a prominent Quaker and neighbor of the Cornells, was married to Joane West Coggeshall, whose distress about Rebecca’s situation surely had reached her husband’s ears. Joane’s misgivings may have persuaded him to vote in favor of the second inquest. Which testimony carried the greatest weight is buried in the recesses of each man’s mind. The second inquest jury was twice the size of the first. The two surgeons who attended the second investigation raised the total to twenty-six. Nine of the original twelve panelists were recalled, but this time there were noticeable differences in the composition of the group.14 Apart from the two surgeons, perhaps only a quarter of the entire inquest were Friends, two of whom had participated on 152

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 153

the original panel. Thus, out of the fifteen new appointees, only four were Quakers. One of the two surgeons, Dr. Simon Cooper, was also a member of the Society of Friends, and the other, Dr. Henry Greenland, may have been as well, since both men “affirmed” their testimony.15 That prominent Friends were pivotal in determining Thomas Cornell’s eventual fate is not to be doubted; that such influence required strength in numbers at this point is less clear. Daniel Gould, a Quaker and a new appointee, had also heard from his wife, Wait, that a weepy Rebecca Cornell suspected “there would be mischiefe don” to her. Private conversations between Daniel and Wait, repeated in the presence of the inquest jury, could easily have affected their vision. The first coroner’s inquest had carefully examined Rebecca’s “scorched and burnt” body. They had even “stripped of the Residue of Clothes upon it,” turning and handling the charred corpse for a closer look. It was only after such intense scrutiny that they reached a verdict of accidental death. Did the second inquest jurors really see a “suspitious wound”16 this time where none had been visible before? Or did the collective makeup of the new jury suddenly reveal deliberate injury to Rebecca’s stomach? Equally important to the proceedings were rumors about John Briggs’s dream that undoubtedly reached the ears of Peter Easton, a new Quaker inquest juror who firmly believed in the significance of such visions and who would have been responsive to Briggs’s testimony. In his diary, Easton recorded a dream that manifested his anxiety over a debt owed to Francis Brinley, an assistant who had taken testimony in the months following Rebecca Cornell’s death. Easton was bound to the Coggeshalls through marriage and he, too, must have heard a good deal of gossip about Rebecca Cornell and her son by the time he joined the newly constituted inquest panel. A firm believer in both God and the Devil, Easton might have swapped stories with his son-in-law Weston Clarke, who happened to be another juror.17 And although the Quakers were known to close ranks when a matter concerned one of their own, other friends—if not Friends— would have looked closely at the evidence as well. James Barker, a Baptist and Rebecca Cornell’s “trustee and beloved friend,” who was a community renders a verdict

153

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 154

named an overseer of Rebecca’s will, was also a member of the second inquest. Peter Easton had dreamed about Barker, too.18 Hugh Parsons, who had been a member of the first inquest panel, must have listened closely as gossip about Rebecca Cornell’s ghost made its way around the room. He knew that within hours of the first panel’s decision on Sunday, February 9, his wife, Elizabeth, had begun to prepare Rebecca Cornell’s body for burial only to witness the fresh bleeding that was a telltale sign of murder. No doubt aware of the incident and its significance, Hugh Parsons could easily have been ready to believe the worst this time around. And he just as surely would have shared his misgivings. Edward Lay, a sixty-five-year-old former constable and a man of some standing, also served on both inquest juries, and he may have had personal considerations in mind when he evaluated the evidence. Not only had Lay’s wife been physically attacked by a male Indian two years earlier, but in 1668 she told the authorities that she feared Peter Talman might kill her. Given the likely animosity between Lay and Talman, it was just as well that Talman was bumped from the second inquest jury.19 Thomas Brooke was also a member of both inquest panels. A sheep trader and leather dresser, this “antient inhabitant” of Portsmouth was a close friend of a middle-aged mason, John Pearce. During the week following Rebecca Cornell’s death, Pearce ran into Thomas Cornell at the house of a mutual friend. As Pearce later testified, Cornell made some snide remarks about his mother’s “desire to have A good fire”—comments that Pearce could easily have shared with his friend Brooke in time for the second inquest jury to consider them when it convened on February 20.20 In his letter of March 8, 1673, to the governor of Connecticut, Richard Smith referred to people who had observed Cornell’s “unkindnes” toward his mother “after she lay dead,” which suggests that Cornell’s ill-advised remark quickly circulated among people who would pass judgment on him.21 How (or whether) a clash of personalities affected the outcome of the inquest will never be known. Indeed, it is even uncertain whether they came to a decision unanimously, by consensus, or on a simple majority vote. Nevertheless, given the accusations hurled during the 154

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 155

split of the Baptist Church in 1671, it is a wonder that Joseph Torrey, Stephen Mumford, and Samuel Hubbard could come to an agreement on any issue at all.22 Perhaps they did not. Perhaps coalitions formed that had more to do with old resentments than the immediate matter of Rebecca Cornell’s death. All of the new appointees chosen by Deputy Governor Cranston and the “major part” of the council were from Newport rather than Portsmouth, which gave distance and the appearance of propriety to the proceedings in theory, if not in fact. They knew each other through family ties, business, or community service; they knew Thomas Cornell through the same channels. If anyone qualified as “old boys,” these men did. But despite the potential for collusion to protect one of their own, the reverse is also conceivable: Cranston may have strategically placed the players in order to produce an outcome more consistent with the sentiments of an outraged—and fearful—community. With this possibility in mind, John Sanford’s role as foreman of the second inquest takes on greater meaning, given his relationship to Rebecca Cornell. Although the testimony of Briggs and Russill, not to mention the exhumation of Rebecca’s body and the deliberation of the second inquest, must have consumed most of February 20, Thomas Cornell was served with an arrest warrant immediately thereafter. Rebecca Cornell was not reinterred until March 8.23 Thomas Cornell remained in prison for the rest of the winter and into the spring while the prosecution built its case. During those months, the governor, deputy governor, and four assistants assembled the damaging testimony that would eventually help to convict Cornell. When the General Assembly met on May 6, 1673, their first order of business was to “engage” the most recently elected deputies to the Assembly from each of the four major towns.24 While William Hall was the only deputy from Portsmouth who can be linked to the Cornell case, five of the six deputies elected from Newport were intimately involved with the proceedings. At least these five, perhaps all six, were members of the Society of Friends; as deputies, all had influence over the bench that would preside during Cornell’s trial. Indeed, two of them would become part of the bench themselves.25 The admission of freemen consumed the better part of May 6, and it a community renders a verdict

155

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 156

was not until Wednesday, May 7, that the newly constituted General Assembly submitted secret ballots for governor, deputy governor, and ten assistants who would compose the court. It would have escaped no one’s attention that the most important order of business during the upcoming session was the emotionally charged and highly publicized trial of their friend and associate. Now sitting as the Generall Court of Tryalls rather than as a legislative body, the first order of business was to rule on juror challenges. Yet the extent of their participation was far more sweeping. Judicial activism was a traditional part of seventeenth-century proceedings since judges were duty bound to help inform the jury during the trial. They would actively question the defendant and in so doing unwittingly (or deliberately) reveal their position on the matter. After the completion of testimony the court would deliver the charge to the jury, and although their directive would, no doubt, invoke the jury’s duty to God and conscience, the court’s own assessment would be conveyed at the same time. Whether the latter consideration swayed the jury is a matter of historical debate, but a conviction in Cornell’s case would give the court the responsibility of imposing the death penalty.26 With all this in mind, the composition of the bench would have been of great importance to Thomas Cornell. Nicholas Easton accepted election as governor, but Dr. John Cranston refused to serve again as deputy governor, and John Coggeshall, selected as his substitute, declined as well. The Reverend John Clarke, who had already been chosen by the freemen of Newport to serve on the current grand jury, was the third man to decline the post of deputy governor. Finally, the elderly William Coddington agreed to serve (although he probably had known Rebecca Cornell fairly well through the Quaker meetings occasionally held at his house). But there were other defectors: Richard Smith and Frances Brinley, who had taken testimony throughout the prior months, now begged off after once again being elected assistants. Walter Clarke and Daniel Gould replaced them, adding to the Quaker monopoly of the group. Clarke had heard of Thomas’s abuse of his mother from Rebecca herself, and Gould had sat on the second inquest jury. That some refused to involve themselves further in the case and others saw no conflict of 156

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 157

interest may imply that late-seventeenth-century Rhode Islanders were trying to reconcile the concrete (and emotionally satisfying) notion of retributive justice with the abstract concept of due process. As it stood, nearly all the members of the General Court who would preside over the case were Friends and were already privy to events and prior testimony.27 John Easton was the attorney general who indicted Cornell. To reach that end, on May 12 a grand jury heard the evidence that had been collected over the previous months. Each of the four towns (Newport, Portsmouth, Providence, and Warwick) elected three grand jurors to serve at the Court of Trials, although not all served on the Cornell case. At their meeting on April 29, 1673, the freemen of Portsmouth selected Francis Brayton, Gideon Freeborne, and John Cooke as their representatives to the grand jury.28 They surely knew that the Cornell case would be presented to them. By this time, Brayton was rather familiar with the details of the case. Not only was he an acquaintance of Thomas Cornell, he had served on both inquest juries. John Cooke does not appear on the final list of grand jurors chosen for this case, leaving only two from Portsmouth. The other ten grand jurors were from Newport. The selection process left room for discretion, but at least those doing the selecting were following the letter of the law by confining their appointees to men from Newport or Portsmouth. The language of the Rhode Island code of 1647 was slightly ambiguous, but seems to have required unanimity among the grand jurors, a practice that departed from English custom.29 The list of grand jurors summoned by the town sergeant reveals repeat performances. Four members had already served on the second inquest jury, and since these men had already evaluated evidence directly and found grounds for suspicion, they may have been predisposed—even eager—to indict. Indeed, they may have possessed information that the attorney general did not even present to the grand jury. In addition, two of the men did triple duty as witnesses.30 A number of the grand jurors could not claim membership in the first rank of Aquidneck’s citizens. The majority was composed of lesser officials, tradesmen, or other middling sorts. Curiously, not a single Quaker can be found among them, which made this body the a community renders a verdict

157

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 158

polar opposite of the court itself. Many of the grand jurors were Baptists of one sort or another.31 The foreman, Joseph Torrey, as a past deputy to the General Assembly, was probably the most influential citizen among the grand jurors aside from the Reverend John Clarke. Like Clarke, William Hiscox was also a Baptist minister, but the two had strong religious differences that had resulted in the rupture of the Baptist Church in 1671. Brother Torrey had remained loyal to Clarke, providing human dynamics that could have caused the long-standing hostility between Hiscox and Torrey to spill over into the grand jury deliberations. The records do not reveal whether any religious rancor intruded into the discussions, but if the two camps “could not sit down at the table of the Lord,” could they temper their “hot words” long enough for a cool and rational evaluation of the accusations against Thomas Cornell? Whatever their differences, the jurors sat together at a dinner table as guests of the public treasury.32 Each town chose three men to attend the trial jury at the same time that they selected grand jury members. Portsmouth voted to send Matthew Borden, Samuel Sanford, and William Hall Jr. to represent the town, none of whom attended court and were therefore fined “twenty shillings a peece.” Their absence probably tipped the scales in favor of “justice” since Hall’s father had been in the room with Thomas Cornell when his mother’s corpse had spontaneously bled, setting off rumors of Cornell’s guilt. Besides, Hall Sr. was at the center of events as deputy to the General Assembly from Portsmouth. The freemen of Portsmouth may have been sending a message, since Borden was a Friend and Samuel Sanford was John’s brother—the same John Sanford who was an inquest juror, secretary to the deputy governor and council, and executor of Rebecca Cornell’s will. It was an ominous sign, and Thomas Cornell could not have been happy with jurors chosen by the town of Portsmouth, even if they did not serve. In the end, John Strainge, Daniell Grenell, William Allin, and perhaps John Read represented Portsmouth; the remaining jurors were from Newport.33 By what means Strainge, Grenell, and Allin were chosen escapes the written record, although it may not have been purely coincidental that all three had been constables in recent years. The rest appear to have fallen under the clause in the Rhode Island code allowing the town sergeant to choose 158

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 159

“among those that stand about, or that live in the same Towne . . . where the Colonie Court of Tryall is held.”34 There is something to be said about being in the wrong place at the wrong time. James Rogers was the Rhode Island general sergeant in spring 1673. In addition, he also wore the sheriff’s hat and oversaw the activities of the various town sergeants. Rogers had held these offices for several years, during which time he apparently aligned himself with the antitax group that had been such a scourge to Governor Benedict Arnold. By extension, Rogers’s position pitted him against Thomas Cornell, who, as deputy, must have supported Arnold’s policies, since Cornell was not returned to office when the opposing faction came to power. There is no way of knowing whether animosity existed between Rogers and Cornell, but as the official most likely to have had the final word governing the selection of jurors from a pool of people whose views he knew, Rogers was in a position to mold Cornell’s jury.35 The selection of the jury for Thomas Cornell’s trial was no easy task. Cornell was entitled to twenty peremptory challenges (for no reason) and unlimited challenges for cause (if, for example, a potential juror had been an indictor). The prosecution could challenge only for cause. Since the trial record indicates that the jurors were “sollemnly Engaged” only “After all Lawful Liberty granted by the Court as to Exceptions” had been resolved, it is safe to assume that Cornell took full advantage of his rights. It seems likely that Cornell would have used his challenges to rid the panel of Quakers, although whether such vetting would have been chalked up as peremptory challenges or as challenges for cause is impossible to know. And given the behind-the-scenes whispering campaign about the case, Cornell may have been uneasy enough to challenge potential jurors who were most familiar with his character, temperament, and habits. The jurors who eventually passed muster were worth at least 40 pounds.36 Only two can be firmly classified as Quakers, and a third would have been a known sympathizer by virtue of his wife’s affiliation.37 Thus, ten jurors were not Quakers, suggesting a religious composition only slightly or potentially “weightier” than that of the grand jury. Yet, although the trial jury was noticeably short of Quakers, the influence of prominent Friends such as the Coggeshalls, Eastons, Clarkes, and Goulds is present throughout the proceedings. a community renders a verdict

159

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 160

Their leverage resulted less from numbers or an orchestrated conspiracy than from a forceful network of powerful people positioned to spread gossip, share rumors, and traffic in innuendoes. Only one juror, John Spencer, seems to have had previous involvement with the case. He had been called to the Cornell farm the night of Rebecca’s death to view the “wonderfull” circumstance of wool that burnt and cotton that “Remained whole.”38 William Allin had served on a committee with Thomas Cornell in 1671, but apart from that prior association, none of the other jurors seem to have had an intimate relationship with Cornell in the past. Fully one-third of the jurors had been constables in recent years, and several others had served as jurors at one time or another, but compared to the inquest juries, grand jury, and bench, the trial jury was remarkably free from association with the case or with Cornell himself.39 They were all there, presumably, because “Suspitious reasons” had prompted a second inquest jury to look more closely at the cause of Rebecca’s death. Suspicious reasons had eventually led to “A Suspitious wound.”40 Outward appearances are deceptive, however. The trial jury may have had little or no former personal contact with Cornell, but by May 1673 they would have absorbed considerable information about him, courtesy of four months worth of irrepressible scuttlebutt. Under the circumstances, any presumption of innocence must have succumbed to the forces of scandalmongering. Deference, therefore, played a role in this trial, at least to the extent that the jurors yielded to those more familiar with the case. Moreover, the four constables may have been law-and-order men. Whatever other influences were at play, however, inevitably the trial jurors would be swayed not only by evidence gathered in and out of court, but by a worldview that they shared with Rhode Islanders who knew Cornell far better than they did. In a sense, they convicted Thomas Cornell for being Thomas Cornell. It is telling that he never bothered to petition the court for clemency or through it to petition Charles II. • • • Given these circumstances, it would appear that the proceedings did little to resolve the question of Cornell’s guilt or innocence. The 160

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 161

verdict was all but certain before the accusatory depositions and other testimony were aired in open court. This is not to say that the jury had been coerced in any way, but merely to suggest that their common outlook, legal culture, and values strongly influenced what was, after all, a unanimous decision.41 From this perspective, Thomas Cornell’s behavior and character collided with contemporary expectations in such a way as to provide compelling evidence of his guilt. But of what did his guilt consist? There was no way of knowing whether or not Thomas Cornell murdered his mother, a matter of some concern to the jury since it was the core of the criminal indictment against him. At the same time, and perhaps even more troubling, there were outstanding social indictments against Cornell. He was a representative of a generation that displayed irreverence toward the ideals of the founders. He was not a church member. More gravely, he breached the fifth commandment, indirectly showing disrespect to the ministry by being insolent to his mother. Other men who aspired to upward mobility achieved their goals through moderate means. Cornell pursued material gain too aggressively and at his family’s expense. He was greedy and overly stuffed with ambition. Finally, Cornell did not measure up to the standards of a seventeenth-century patriarch. The jury found Thomas Cornell guilty on all these counts. At first glance, the case appears to involve matricide, but further consideration suggests that the trial was a metaphor for and an indictment of the generational conflict that permeated so many levels of seventeenth-century New England life. As Thomas Thacher acknowledged in 1673, “there is another tryal whether the same faith and faithfulness which dwelt in our fathers in the first times of these plantations dwell in us, also their children.” This theme was popular at the end of the seventeenth century; Increase Mather harped on it again in February 1674 when he accused “the Rising Generation” of having “broken the Covenant.” Neither Thacher nor Mather mentioned Cornell directly, but their criticism was surprisingly apt.42 Not only had Thomas Cornell broken the Covenant by abandoning the faith of his figurative Puritan parents, but he had shown similar disrespect to his actual mother. And somewhere along the line, one disdainful attitude became inseparable from the other: Thomas Cornell a community renders a verdict

161

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 162

displayed the same disregard for his mother that an entire generation exhibited toward its elders.43 He was a prime example of society gone wrong, even by Rhode Island standards. Cornell’s indictment extended far beyond his own person. Although he was never actually charged for evil speech, the silent indictment against Thomas Cornell included speech crimes. Speech was either blessed or sinful according to seventeenth-century standards, but either way words were a matter of grave concern to an oral society that was still creeping toward literacy. If emotion rose from the heart, the heart commanded the tongue to speak. Therefore, talking was beyond a person’s control, and hateful or malevolent speech reflected his or her inner character.44 Included in any seventeenth-century dictionary of aggressive words were those that were either “high” or “provoking,” and Rebecca’s use of both descriptors served to emphasize her son’s verbal abuse. She had told Joane Coggeshall that Thomas “was soe High and soe Crose, that shee durst hardly speake to him.” And when Rebecca told Nicholas Wilde that she was “afraide of being Provoaked,” it was not only because of Thomas’s provocative language, but because of the way that language influenced his wife and children.45 Language per se was serious enough to invite legal action and body language could make matters even worse. Gnashing teeth implied excessive anger, and such signs of irrational behavior signaled a person out of control. Sarah Wilde reported a conversation during which Rebecca Cornell had claimed that her son Thomas had “lookt very firce upon Her, and nasht, or sett his Teeth at her.”46 Even though Rhode Island was the only New England colony without a law punishing offspring who cursed, smote, or defied a parent, residents could hardly have been unaware of the ongoing conflict between the authorities in Massachusetts and John Porter, whose reputation for unfilial behavior undoubtedly crossed colony lines. Porter’s assorted cases were about to enter their second decade as he was hauled before the court in 1672 for assaulting his father once again. But even without a statute, damaging words were public property, and they were held in common by all who heard them. According to tradition, such words had to be publicly unsaid in order to 162

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 163

rectify the situation, and if John Porter refused to conform to these rules, so too did Thomas Cornell. Cornell never retracted his charge that Rebecca was a cruel mother. He never apologized for saying that “her name did stinke.” Neighboring Massachusetts, with all the severity of its laws, could not control John Porter. Yet, even in the absence of abusive speech laws, Rhode Island could punish Thomas Cornell. His matricide conviction was based on circumstantial evidence; his conviction for verbal attacks on his mother was not.47 Other aspects of generational conflict smoldered just below the surface. The young people of Puritan New England were exhorted to defer to the elderly, and the fifth commandment demanded respect for one’s parents with the promise of future reward; but the younger generation interpreted “reward” in more concrete and secular terms than their parents and impatiently wondered how long the vague concept of “future” might be deferred. Sermons denounced young adults for being more concerned with their material than their spiritual well-being and excoriated elderly parents for being “too covetous and tenacious for the things of this world.”48 The vice of youth was the desire for earthly comfort, and the vice of old age was the disinclination to yield the property that would secure that comfort. But even though landed wealth was the source of generational politics—a way of retaining power and authority by the elderly— comments about the disposition of material wealth tell us more about the deponents who made them than their effect on the jury.49 Some of the jurors might have felt that Rebecca could have been more generous to her eldest son, but others, privy to the relationship between mother and son, must have seen Thomas as greedy and grasping. If such reflections made any impact on the jury, they obviously worked against Thomas, even if (on some level) middle-aged male jurors were sympathetic to his needs and aspirations. In the end, whatever empathy they had for this man whose dominating mother refused to relinquish control over him was overcome by more pressing considerations, not the least of which was Thomas’s alleged abuse of his mother. In this context, generational conflict has been the subject of considerable speculation, and although it is risky to project contemporary analysis backward, there is an uncanny resemblance between a community renders a verdict

163

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 164

the domestic profile of Thomas and Rebecca Cornell and the subjects of current studies. Among the accepted theories that attempt to explain elder abuse today is one that weighs the relative dependency of the elderly person on the caregiver. Concluding that an imbalance in the relationship can lead to a troubled household, one study summed up its findings: “it is not how dependent the elder is on the caregiver, but how dependent the caregiver is on the elder that increases the risk of elder abuse.”50 Assuming for the moment that Thomas was as cross, unkind, and undutiful as reported, that he was frequently angry and acted fiercely, he was, at the same time, dependent on his mother for a roof over his head. She had alienated him by charging rent, an unusual arrangement in the seventeenth century. Rebecca’s control of her property invested her with power; that same control rendered Thomas powerless, leaving him with a vengeful, grudging attitude. Contemporary psychologists also agree that a mother who holds and dispenses assets is perpetuating behavior that began during the childhood of a son or daughter. Such behavior infantilizes the adult child who, in this case, would have been further humiliated if Rebecca wielded her financial resources in front of his wife.51 And even if Rebecca’s presence had made life easier after Thomas’s first wife died, she became superfluous and the object of resentment once Thomas remarried and placed another adult female in the house. She might have gone to live elsewhere, but psychological forces detained her. Abused elders are even more likely to continue residence with their abusers than are younger victims.52 Tension over inheritance can also overwhelm otherwise harmonious family relationships and evoke hostility. Parents in early modern society frequently manipulated property in ways unfavorable to their children—reason enough for widespread discord between two generations that did not share mutual property interests.53 If contemporary psychologists are correct, such discord translates easily into elder abuse. The range of potential abuse is wide, and, because historical records are notoriously silent on this topic, it is difficult to know how widespread verbal assault (taunts, threats, and curses) might have been. If the Cornell case is at all representative, however, it permits us to observe domestic disorder in a seventeenth-century setting where the scales weighing permissible and impermissible be164

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 165

havior were weighted in favor of mistreatment. Abusive language, threats, and incivility may have been deplored in theory, but they were also ignored. A member of the General Assembly who held numerous official positions, a role model in the community, a man of rank and status, Thomas Cornell did not meet the basic obligations for his mother’s subsistence, and his entire household took its cue from him. The border between harangue and aggravated criminal harassment is flimsy indeed, and the only reason we are privy to this story at all is because the jury found that Thomas Cornell had transgressed the boundary between pardonable and unpardonable behavior. The people of Portsmouth, like those of other Anglo-American communities, held a variety of worldviews—all compatible with their time and place, even though such views were inconsistent with one another. Central to this society were its families, and in the absence of a police force, family members were responsible for the wellbeing of their loved ones. As Rebecca’s brother, John Briggs was the senior male member of this extended family, and he may have felt responsibility for his sister’s death in ways we can barely understand— hence his dream. That on some level he sympathized with the way in which Native Americans (with whom he had a good relationship) employed retaliation or revenge for perceived wrongs is speculation. But he did set in motion a sequence of events that traded death for death. Yet Thomas was not without his supporters. Thomas Cornell’s “friends, and pertickularly William Earll,” his wife’s brother, requested Thomas’s burial near his mother, and when “his friends” requested his interment on Cornell’s former property or permission to erect “monuments on or at the grave,” the General Assembly took the request under advisement.54 None of the Earle family deposed for the prosecution, suggesting that Ralph and Joan (Sarah’s parents) were unwilling to fuel the case against their son-in-law. Not only would a negative outcome make their daughter a widow, but suspicion might turn to her as the person most likely to have aided and abetted Thomas. Goodwife Parsons, not Goody Earle, claimed the body bled. Given subsequent events (the trials of Wickhopash and Sarah), there must have been a rift in the community even before the a community renders a verdict

165

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 166

trial between those who believed Cornell guilty and those who were convinced of his innocence. An individual could not come out and say that Rebecca was stingy, but he or she could think it. Plunging into psychohistory, one might conclude that in convicting Cornell on the basis of arguably thin evidence, jurors were actually punishing themselves for sympathizing with the defendant’s situation. Indeed, on some level, they may have been purging themselves of the hostility they bore toward their own mothers. Such men needed little reminding by strident ministers that they themselves were capable of homicide, and by projecting their guilt—and the punishment they so richly deserved—onto Thomas Cornell, they assuaged their collective consciences. If Thomas Cornell represented the fall of man, he personified redemption as well. During any discussion of Cornell’s guilt or innocence, his character and bearing would have come under close scrutiny as jurors considered the charges against him. Assessed according to the standards of seventeenth-century Anglo-America, Cornell would have received a less than favorable evaluation. Theoretically, Thomas Cornell should have been an established head of household. Forty-six years old in 1673, a married man with six children, Cornell was hardly the model of an early modern patriarch. Among his other failings, he did not control his dependents. It was unclear, in fact, whether he was even the nominal head of the house, since he was a dependent himself. If Cornell ruled over anything, it was an unruly family. Assuming Rebecca’s complaints were true, it was his responsibility to see that the tension between his mother and wife was kept within bounds; it was up to him to make certain that his sons showed proper deference to their grandmother (but why should they, if he set a poor example?). Assuming Rebecca’s complaints were exaggerated, it was his duty to prevent his mother from telling tales (untruths) out of school. Either way Thomas Cornell presided over a disorderly household. Cornell’s reputation was dependent on his mastery over his household and dependents, which made his position rather awkward in the eyes of the community. To rectify the situation and preserve his reputation as a patriarch, Cornell had denied his mother rent and

166

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 167

a maid, but if, in so doing, he had humiliated her, he also had compromised his already shaky financial standing. Masculinity and male identity were the stakes in this communal drama, and, taken together, Thomas’s failings must have reduced the esteem that would ordinarily have been his due. None of this would have been lost on the twelve men who judged him.55 It is not too much to say that even if Thomas Cornell did not commit matricide, he would have been judged harshly. As a wouldbe patriarch—even one who did not meet contemporary standards—he was responsible for his family’s well-being and safety. In this, as in other aspects of his life, he was a failure. And if Wickhopash, not Thomas, was the perpetrator, Thomas also had failed to protect his family from the heathen. Whatever accusations were leveled against Thomas Cornell, surely the community, as well as the jurors, found him guilty of being unprepared and unable to safeguard his household at a time when a strike by the Narragansetts was all but assured. • • • Consideration of Thomas Cornell’s guilt or innocence also required the jury to ponder the meaning of Rebecca Cornell’s terrible death. What did God have in mind? How had this pillar of the community sinned? Why would God smite such an exemplary woman, one who had confirmed the covenant by crossing the ocean? This was a woman who should have been revered and rewarded in her old age. But the script as written by her critics had it otherwise. Rebecca Cornell had sought the truth, yet found only error among the Quakers. Thus, some Rhode Island Baptists, as well as Massachusetts Congregationalists, could have agreed that she was a symbol of divine retribution. With one dreadful blow God had punished the Quakers, who were, as Increase Mather put it, “under the strong delusion of Satan.” And, as Mather pointed out, a demon might have been God’s agent, since such invisible figures occasionally dispatched a victim with an iron spindle. In a rare show of theological unity, Roger Williams would have concurred with Mather’s bitter denunciation of the Quakers.56

a community renders a verdict

167

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 168

Under the circumstances, one might think that the trial jury, with only a slight Quaker presence, would have been persuaded that Rebecca’s death was a deliberate act by the Almighty. No one was “Instrumentall in any measure to procure her Death,” Thomas insisted.57 Given God’s penchant for requital, the jury could have leaned toward acquittal. Yet the counterarguments fired by the Quaker bench from their legal arsenal were obviously more persuasive. It was not God, they must have responded, but a non-Quaker who had struck Rebecca down. This heinous crime was committed by her own son, a point that would have resonated powerfully among Quakers and nonQuakers alike. This was an act of filial disrespect beyond toleration—a son who stabbed his mother, burned her body, and set the room on fire. Furthermore, the worst fears of all godly Anglo-Americans had been realized: one of their own had been reduced to savage-like behavior. Even worse, his friends, neighbors, and jurors were in danger of losing their own claim to a civilized English identity if they did not convict him. During the unspoken deliberations, some jurors, at least, would have realized that Cornell’s acquittal would turn them into what they most reviled. And to bolster their contentions by presenting a unified front, the magistrates would have cited the non-Quakers who testified against Thomas: the Wildes and the Parsons, elderly contemporaries of Rebecca Cornell. To acquit was to condone matricide. The conviction and execution of Thomas Cornell was a show of strength by the newly established Quaker hegemony. • • • Assuming the jury convicted Thomas Cornell of the crime of matricide rather than for any subliminal reason, they must have believed him capable of such violence. And in reaching that determination, they would have privileged Rebecca’s complaints over Thomas’s denial, a consideration that takes on added importance in a society driven by oral communication. Literacy was still beyond the reach of many people, although Rhode Island legal culture had begun to rely on the written word (deeds, marriage certificates, wills). Teetering on the cusp of modernity, however, the colony con168

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 169

tinued to acknowledge the importance of an oral tradition. It was precisely because Rebecca Cornell was unable to write that she shared her woes with so many people. Repetition became “proof” (a substitute for a paper trail) of what was happening to her, and the trial depositions were the collective memory of a community that relied on what people heard, saw, and dreamed.58 John Briggs was part of this oral culture, as were Mary Cornell, Joane Coggeshall, and Elizabeth Parsons. It is also striking that in weighing the evidence, jurors were swayed more by the testimony of women and “middling” males than by one of Portsmouth’s most elite freemen, a fact that underscores the unusual nature of this case. In normal circumstances, jurors claimed higher class status than the defendant they judged in criminal matters such as assault, theft, or arson. But these were anything but normal circumstances, and Thomas Cornell could not even count on a jury of his peers—a jury that would not be intimidated by a bench potentially bent on conviction. Clearly superior (in terms of rank) to the men who tried him, Cornell had his expectations turned upside down. From the little we know about the jurors, most were middle-class artisans or farmers; at least two were cordwainers. If they saw this as a unique opportunity to topple one of Rhode Island’s leading citizens, they chose an extremely dramatic means of expressing class consciousness. Although it is questionable that class rivalry turned the jury against Thomas Cornell, it is highly likely that deference played a role in his conviction nonetheless. Torn between awe and suspicion of literacy, seventeenth-century jurors would have found the surgeon’s inquest report credible. Given the uniqueness of an autopsy and the presence of outside experts, few would have questioned the existence of a stomach wound if learned men testified to its existence. Corroboration came in the form of other witnesses who hinted about the person capable of inflicting that injury.59 Yet assuming that the jurors actually based their decision on the testimony of trial witnesses, the failure of family, friends, and neighbors to intervene anytime before Rebecca’s death remains puzzling. Rebecca was left to notify (plead with?) the authorities herself, but even so, no officials reined Thomas in prior to her death. Whether a community renders a verdict

169

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 170

the authorities had confronted him with his mother’s accusations or had merely brushed off a cranky old woman is unclear. If the latter, remorse or a sense of guilt for contributing to the tragedy probably hastened Thomas’s arrest, or even his execution, as these neighborhood mediators tried to compensate for their dereliction. By ignoring Rebecca, the men she “nominated” to act in her behalf had temporarily saved Thomas’s reputation, but in the end had refused to save his life. John Easton was the attorney general who brought the indictment against him, and Walter Clarke sat on the bench that sent him to the gallows. One thing is certain, however. Rebecca’s name could hardly “stinke”60 if the deputy governor and council (and subsequently the jury) believed John Briggs’s dream. In all this, it was as much Rebecca’s credibility as Briggs’s vision that was being judged. At the same time, community intervention may have been delayed because Thomas had never resorted to physical violence against his mother, a point that may say something about the fine line between acceptable and unacceptable conduct. By all accounts he was rude, threatening, and cross, and he denied her rent, a maid—and perhaps even food—but he did not physically assault her. At least, Rebecca had never complained that his abuse extended to physical blows. Still, she claimed to fear for her life, an admission that is consistent with her unwillingness to accuse Thomas of personal violence, since abuse victims frequently repress aspects of the experience that are most painful.61 It would appear, then, that the community allowed Thomas Cornell wide latitude in dealing with his mother, although the boundary between incivility and abuse must have been difficult to patrol. In such circumstances, the potential for abuse without penalty was strong. As historians have suggested, however, the importance of neighbors as mediators of community conduct cannot be overestimated. As witnesses to past events, they possessed comprehensive knowledge about the people who made up the town. The opinion of this “informal public” became crucial to a defendant who was subject to the disciplinary apparatus of what Mary Beth Norton describes as the “formal public,” or court. In the absence of a police force, the power of ordinary townspeople was enhanced.62 More than that, the testimony of all concerned shows the gen170

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 171

dered nature of the society in which they lived. Men seemed to focus more on Thomas’s debt to Rebecca. They took note that he had not met his obligations with regard to a maid, rent, rates, or the bond. This was a society much concerned with reputation, and Rebecca Cornell had told anyone who would listen that her son had reneged on their monetary agreements. Either unwittingly or with great deliberation, Rebecca attacked Thomas with the sort of speech that would have hurt him most. He responded in kind that she had been “A Cruell Mother,” with all the gendered innuendoes such an accusation implied.63 Reputations were at stake, although Thomas’s charge was implicitly the more dangerous. What could Rebecca have done that her reputation would have been tarnished? How could the name of such an ancient citizen, a respected, financially secure widow “stinke”? In the seventh decade of Rebecca’s life, sexual impropriety (the usual female reputation-breaker) was probably not at issue. Was the son tainting his own mother with witchcraft or implying that others had done so? It would not have been the first time that an inheritance dispute had precipitated witchcraft accusations, although such an insinuation would have been hard to swallow since witches were not indigenous to Rhode Island.64 Yet, older women were powerful people who could turn that energy against their dependents. By the middle of the seventeenth century, they were feared as a source of physical injury. Elderly women could ruin men and, as witches, had the ability to castrate.65 In the end, the jury chose to believe the testimony of women over Thomas Cornell’s disclaimers. Rebecca’s network of female friends may have exaggerated and their words may have been edited, but their recollections proved decisive nonetheless. Whether their statements were coded expressions of revenge or even subliminal warnings that sons could not intimidate aging mothers with impunity is another matter altogether. Women testified to the issues that mattered to them and that were essential to their well-being. In general terms, Rebecca had been neglected and disregarded, but Mary Cornell, Mary Almy, and Joane and Patience Coggeshall provided the specifics. They testified to Cornell’s unkindness in not securing a maid for his seventy-year-old mother as promised. She was forced to run after pigs and carry wood. She was often cold, hungry, and witha community renders a verdict

171

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 172

out proper clothing. Her sustenance was in jeopardy. Dependent women could easily put themselves in her position, and patriarchal men could not and should not condone such behavior. Moreover, Rebecca’s choice of confidants may not have been entirely coincidental. Joane and Patience Coggeshall were married to two of the most influential men in the colony. Joshua had been a coroner and was assistant to the governor in 1673. John was general treasurer of the colony in 1670 and 1671. John Almy, Mary’s husband, was a respected Portsmouth citizen as well, not to mention brother-in-law to Elizabeth Cornell Almy, Thomas Cornell’s sister. If they could not help her, who could? When Rebecca Cornell had complained to her female friends, she was either consciously or unconsciously seeking succor and assistance. She clearly felt threatened and in her desperation revealed her fears to family, friends, and neighbors. Whether it was her intention or not, the suggestion that she might be done away with actually set her son up for a murder charge, since Thomas Cornell did not meet the community standards for a dutiful son to begin with. Rebecca confided in women, and women testified that her body bled. Rebecca, herself, returned from beyond the grave to implicate her son. Alive or dead, Rebecca Cornell’s voice could be heard. From her initial complaints to her appearance as an apparition to her “testimony” (via preselected witnesses), Rebecca was responsible for the sequence of events. Even though women were not among the inquest jurors, the case turned on their rumors, gossip, and testimony. Perhaps Rebecca’s body bled—or perhaps Elizabeth Parsons saw what she wanted to see. Spectral evidence, apparitions, and ordeal by touch were criticized, even falling into disuse by the end of the seventeenth century. And yet they played an important, perhaps defining role in this case. We cannot know the dynamics involved—how much weight jurors gave to Rebecca’s accusations while alive as opposed to her reproaches after death. But there can be little doubt that the jurors listened carefully to her words. Ultimately, the Cornell case revolved around two competing visions of the invisible world—visions that resonated very powerfully in the absence of material evidence. Either God had sent Rebecca’s spirit to avenge her death, or God had punished a cruel and evil 172

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 173

mother. It was up to the jury to decide between the two, thus merging church and state in an extraordinary and dramatic manner. From this perspective, the story also illustrates the tensions produced in a world where such traditional standards of judgment were being eclipsed by modern legal principles. At that time, the world of spirits jockeyed for preeminence with the spirit of the law. Further consideration suggests that this Sophocles-like drama contains yet other features consistent with an abrasive society speeding toward the Enlightenment. Thomas Cornell was an upand-coming man. He was an achiever, a literate man of the new generation. He was ambitious and sought money to build, to expand— perhaps in the Narragansett region ready to be “improved by peoplinge,” as Cornell well knew.66 But his mother held the purse strings and he was caught between the values and expectations of a traditional society that demanded filial respect and those of an evolving society that respected, above all, financial success. In some ways, the story of Salem town and Salem village were played out a generation earlier in Newport and Portsmouth.67 And the extensive written record in the Cornell case offers rare opportunity to revisit the Puritan family and to reassess not only the prescriptive values of their society, but the ways in which people related by blood and marriage actually lived out their lives.

a community renders a verdict

173

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 174

Six Life after Death No one has had much to say about Thomas Cornell in the past three centuries. Elisha Potter’s early narrative of the most important events in Rhode Island history includes a short description of the murder of Walter House by Thomas Flounders in 1670, but no reference to the more explosive—and unsettling—homicide case three years later interrupts the account. Strangely, for May 1673, Potter chooses to highlight the General Assembly’s ongoing attempt to prevent “drunkenness among the Indians,” as if the remarkable trial that had just taken place had never existed. At the turn of the twentieth century, Edward Field devoted a few pages of his massive three-volume history of Rhode Island to the Cornell case, but he misread some of the documents and therefore misled some of his readers. The eminent Rhode Island historian Sydney James has nothing at all to say about the case, nor does the equally prominent New England

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 175

scholar Carl Bridenbaugh. Not surprisingly, genealogists (several of whom are Cornell descendants) have written it off as a “gross miscarriage of justice” prompted by a misguided belief in the supernatural. Even an unrelated genealogist, James Savage, refrained from any discussion of the incident, preferring an ambiguous and convoluted entry to a straightforward statement about the crime. A reference to Thomas Cornell Sr. indicates that “perhaps” he fathered Thomas Jr. “of whom perhaps that he was hanged for murder of his mother is all that is now wished to be known.” (Perhaps what? Wished to be known by whom?) Ezra Cornell, founder of Cornell University, includes nothing about this event in his detailed genealogy, noting only that his ancestor Thomas Cornell died in 1673 at Portsmouth. The Reverend John Cornell called the trial “a farce.” Thomas Durfee, who approaches the case from a legal perspective, concluded that “it is impossible in view of the testimony, to say that the verdict was wholly unwarranted; and yet it is almost equally impossible to feel entire confidence in it.” Irving Richman devotes a long footnote to Durfee’s assessment in the second volume of his history of Rhode Island, but provides no interpretation of his own other than to say that it was “the most remarkable case to come before the Rhode Island Courts” during the period covered by his research.1 Society of Friends records merely acknowledge that “Rebecka Cornell widdow was killed Strangely at Portsmouth in her own Dwelling House. . . .” What is even stranger was the silence surrounding her death in the months immediately following the episode. Surely news of the way in which she died, the appearance of her ghost, and her son’s arrest and subsequent conviction must have traveled far and wide. Simon Bradstreet, a New London minister, tersely recorded the incident in his diary under the heading 1673: “A man was hangd at Road Island for killing his mother.” But he includes no details or comment. Richard Smith, a Rhode Island assistant who took testimony during the pretrial stages, kept Governor John Winthrop of Connecticut informed about the proceedings. But Winthrop does not appear to have responded to Smith’s detailed missives.2 In 1673, the Boston Post Road became the first official mail route l i f e a f t e r d e at h

175

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 176

in North America.3 As riders carried the news of Cornell’s trial and execution to Massachusetts, one would expect the ever-vigilant ministers of the Bay Colony to seize the moment and proclaim the soundness of their original judgment about the scoundrels who had settled Rhode Island. But not a word flowed from their quills—no printed broadsides, no ballads, no pamphlets, no execution sermons, no narratives. Rhode Island lacked a printing press, but the one in Cambridge could easily have cranked out some vituperative commentary courtesy of a cranky minister. Even Increase Mather’s comprehensive Essay for the Recording of Illustrious Providences makes no reference to the circumstances surrounding Rebecca Cornell’s peculiar death, although Mather was an expert on such subjects and mentions other remarkable Rhode Island incidents in his tome. The literary stillness is all the more surprising since New Englanders enjoyed a good execution sermon or thrilling murder story. Until 1674, the colonial reading public had relied on English accounts of infamous crimes, but in that year one of New England’s own burst into print with what was probably the first execution sermon published in the colonies. A second followed a year later.4 Boston booksellers catered to this market and kept a steady supply of imported accounts on hand. The Triumphs of God’s Revenge against the Crying and Execrable Sin of Murther, was among the more popular anthologies of the late seventeenth century, as was Wonderful Prodigies of Judgment and Mercy, a reader that included an appealing chapter on “Judgments upon Bloody Tyrents, Murderers” . . . 5 The wall of silence confining the Cornell trial almost suggests that the crime (if indeed a crime took place) was so heinous that it had to be suppressed—erased from the collective memory and refused admittance into the canon of New England history. And because Thomas Cornell maintained his innocence to the end, his own silence may have indicated justice gone awry—an idea the authorities would surely have wanted to stifle. But if this was their ploy, it did not work. By late spring 1674, word would have spread that the Rhode Island attorney general (Peter Easton, brother to John, the former prosecutor) had brought an indictment against Wickhopash, Thomas Cornell’s sometime servant, for the murder of Rebecca Cornell. A year later, disquieting rumors of Sarah Cornell’s trial for 176

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 177

the same crime would have made the rounds as well. Such alarming news—certain to raise questions about the form God’s wrath would take if Rebecca Cornell’s real murderer had gone unpunished—must have provoked considerable discussion. Perhaps doubt, even as early as Thomas Cornell’s execution, was responsible for the unusual restraint shown by those who were usually the first to condemn. If the authorities executed an innocent man, were they themselves guilty of murder? What would God have to say about that? Although no surviving execution sermons were hurled directly at Thomas Cornell, several published sermons preached close to the dates of his trial are surprisingly analogous. The use of the jeremiad was hardly unusual, but as each minister weighed in against drunkenness and filial disobedience in the weeks and months surrounding May 1673, Cornell’s transgressions never seem far from the surface. For whatever combination of reasons, the clergy may have preferred insinuation to condemnation. A week before the start of Cornell’s trial, Urian Oakes pleaded with his congregation to consider whether a man could “take fire in his bosome? or go upon hot coals and not be burnt?” And after allowing the allusions to fire to sink in, Oakes warned, “you would account him a poor distracted creature that should so do, and think to escape without harm and inconvenience.”6 Hanging was indeed an inconvenience for Thomas Cornell. A year before Cornell’s trial, Thomas Shepard Jr. had preached an Election Day sermon in which he excoriated “divers children who when grown up . . . grow to that pride and unnaturalness, and stubbornness, that they will not serve their Parents except they be hired to it . . . and perhaps are ready to say . . . give me the portion of goods that falleth to me.” Given the date of Shepard’s oration, it was initially no more than the usual diatribe about the decline in filial respect. Its republication in 1673, however, may have been timed so that readers could not help but connect the current generation of disobedient children to the unnamed sinner from Rhode Island. The same subject intrigued another minister, Samuel Willard, who also took up the theme of parental disobedience in a 1673 sermon. How neatly such impassioned lamentations dovetailed with the sensational scandal across the Rhode Island border was left for each flock to consider.7 l i f e a f t e r d e at h

177

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 178

Although ninety years separated the two Rhode Island executions, this scene depicting criminal, gallows, minister, and crowd is typical of much earlier woodcuts. The Last Words and Dying Speech of John Sherman, Executed At Newport, Rhode-Island, on Friday the Sixteenth Day of November, 1764, for Burglary (Boston, 1764). The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, broadside woodcut of John Sherman (Ab 1764-13).

Urian Oakes had condemned excessive drinking in his sermon, but it was Increase Mather who connected the sin of drunkenness to more deadly (and relevant) criminal behavior in fall 1673. He related the story of a drunken son who murdered his family including “his own mother that bore him.” Such homicides were “monstrous Impieties.” Moreover, Mather mourned, “the most horrid and prodigious wickedness that the Sun ever saw, or the Earth ever heard of, do many times follow upon this woefull cursed Evil of Drunkenness.” No one had accused Thomas Cornell of excessive drinking, yet Rebecca’s death took place on a Saturday evening after her son’s return from who knows where. Perhaps rumor had it that Cornell murdered his mother in a moment of passion brought on by heated argument and alcohol. Many years earlier, his father had been fined for excessive drinking, and many years later another Rhode Island Cornell killed a fellow soldier after receiving an extra allotment of rum on Independence Day.8 Alvin Cornell was said to have a drinking problem. A series of coincidences? Perhaps. 178

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 179

Increase Mather took to the pulpit again in March 1674, this time to excoriate two servants about to be hanged for murdering their master.9 And once again, even though he never invoked Thomas Cornell by name, Mather’s audience was free to make the association. Filial disobedience was the theme, since servants were both family and dependents of the master. “And mark what I say,” declared Mather, “If ever New-England be destroyed, this very sin of disobedience to the fifth Commandment will be the ruine of this Land.” Even more apropos, although Mather’s first reference to Proverbs 30.17 cited both parents, he subsequently focused on disrespect to mothers. Sinners who were guilty of maternal disobedience, warned Mather, “shall come to an untimely death. . . . It is feared that such children will come to the gallows, and be hanged up in gibbets for the ravens and eagles to feed upon them if they will.” As Mather used this occasion to chastise the second generation of Puritans who showed such disregard for their devout “parents,” his words would have brought Thomas Cornell to mind. Cornell’s relevance notwithstanding, Mather never referred to him directly. Instead, he chose to relate a chilling tale about a matricide that had taken place in Britain several years earlier. It was, he said, a “tragical story lately printed, of a profane young man, that Killed his own Mother that bore him, out of hopes that when she was dead, He should enjoy her estate.” The culprit suffered “a most dreadfull death,” and in the margin of the printed version of the sermon someone reminded future readers that Henry Jones was the name of the killer. A further note indicated that Jones was executed at Monmouth in Wales on March 11, 1671. Two points are pertinent here. First, the market for seventeenth-century crime literature in New England and the availability of English narratives (a story “lately printed”) provided Mather with a unique source for his sermons. Second, although Mather described other, equally violent crimes that took place in England and even mentioned an “Adultery or a Rape that took place of late in a Plantation not far off,” he never alluded to the disobedient son closest to home—even though it would have been the most obvious and apt comparison.10 A collective memory is created by what is not written as well as what is, and, if the avenues of published information were controlled l i f e a f t e r d e at h

179

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 180

by a relatively small ministerial elite in the late seventeenth century, then perhaps it would have been presumptuous for ordinary people to write about such an extraordinary event.11 Even the official Portsmouth Town Meeting records are strangely uncommunicative about an issue that undoubtedly consumed the lion’s share of local gossip. Both before and after the Cornell incident, the Town Meeting minutes routinely recorded and described inquests where deathrelated questions were frequently investigated—but not a word about Rebecca Cornell’s demise or double inquest. Thomas Cornell simply disappears from the Portsmouth records once his mother dies. No doubt people talked—in taverns, at markets, after Meeting, over dinner—but the substance of those conversations was not preserved in writing. And yet there was an official record. Sometime after the execution, probably during June or July, the Rhode Island General Assembly voted to “record all the proceedings and testimonies that past, and were produced in Court in the tryall of Thomas Cornell, in the record of the Book of Tryalls.” It is impossible to say whether the legislature had a particular memory in mind or whether they were responding to lingering doubts about Thomas Cornell’s guilt. Clearly, the Assembly hoped to record evidence of a fair trial, but at this distance it is impossible to know how much the participants wanted to forget—or how they tried to forge the collective memory of future generations. John Sanford, inquest juror, executor of Rebecca Cornell’s will, and recorder at the trial, was now commissioned as the official scribe.12 Sanford had one more opportunity to amend the depositions he had composed before committing them to posterity. Moreover, the Portsmouth town meeting journal records an unusual request on June 2, 1673, a little over a week after Cornell’s execution. William Baulston (sometime assistant, coroner, and friend of Rebecca Cornell) had apparently made “severall coppies of Genrl Court and Asemblys acts which the towne doe conceive belonge to them.” As a result, a three-man delegation (Philip Shearman, William Hall, and John Sanford) was chosen to “desere of him that what belongs to the Towne may be delivered.” The seriousness of their errand was reflected in an offer to reimburse Baulston for any expenses he might have incurred while copying the documents.13 180

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 181

The origin, timing, and nature of the request indicate that these papers related to the Cornell trial—even though nothing in the record specifically said so. Notwithstanding such vagueness, the circumstances of the retrieval suggest that the town meeting’s “desire” was really a polite demand. • • • There is no way to measure the grief that must have pervaded the Cornell family in spring 1673. They were still recovering from the aftershock of Rebecca’s death, and the strain of Thomas’s imprisonment and trial could only have compounded their anguish. Some suffered more than others: Thomas’s sister Elizabeth gave birth to a boy in April 1673, only to lose him shortly thereafter. She mourned mother, brother, and son.14 Surely they felt that heaven itself wept during that rainy spring and summer. On the day that the jury convicted Thomas Cornell of murder, the court issued a warrant to seize and inventory his estate. Under Rhode Island law, Cornell’s “Goods, Chattells, and Lands” were theoretically forfeit to the King “for a yeare and a day, and ever after to the Lord of the Fee.”15 Practically speaking, forfeiture reduced the family of a convicted murderer to poverty, which made little sense since such a policy required the town to provide for the widow and children. Thus, Rhode Island modified English law to the extent that it allowed wives and children “the privilege of Rent” on such forfeited property. In the Cornell case, the court’s directive was shortlived, and not long after his execution the General Assembly released Cornell’s property “in consideration of the matter, and for the supply of the wife and children to the said Thomas.” Since the Rhode Island Code of 1647 had translated “Lord of the Fee” into “Towne,” the court empowered the Portsmouth Town Council “to take care and order” to discharge Cornell’s “debts and other charges” and to provide for Sarah and the six children. Ordering the town council to appoint an executor or executors for the estate, the Assembly also charged the council to “make a will, and accordinge to law divide the estate” between Cornell’s widow and children.16 It took the town council part of the summer and fall to complete the inventory, divide the estate, and make provisions for everyone.17 l i f e a f t e r d e at h

181

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 182

For “her true and proper thirds,” the town council awarded Sarah £141 13s. 4d. as well as four-fifths “of the produce of the dary.” Thomas’s eldest son and namesake (now twenty years old) was to receive £50 payable immediately along with “all the produce of the orchard this yeare,” the remaining fifth of the dairy output, and “nine pigs lately raised.” He chose Captain John Albro to be his guardian “dureing his nonnage”—presumably for one additional year. Thomas’s second son, Stephen (age seventeen), was to receive £60 at age twenty-one, half in the form of twelve acres of land near Anthony Shaw’s property (valued at £30) and half “in other Estate.” He, too, selected John Albro as his guardian. In 1691, Stephen divested himself of those twelve acres for £90 and in the process made himself a handsome profit.18 Thomas’s third son, Edward, was also the recipient of £60, partly by “those parcells of Land late belonging to his father” near Anthony Emry (worth £25) and partly out of the remainder of his father’s estate. He was to receive his share at age twenty-one. John, Thomas’s youngest son, was allotted £60 at his majority. He chose George Lawton as his guardian, whose responsibility it was to “take care of the said John and soe place him with some honnest person, that he may be well and carefully brought up.” Lawton was sympathetic to the Quakers, if not a Quaker himself, and John Albro was a wellknown Friend. It is of some interest that Sarah was not the guardian of choice of these four young men. Perhaps they remembered her chasing one of them with an axe. Sarah and Mary, Thomas’s young daughters by his second wife, were to receive £29/9 when they reached sixteen or at their marriage, whichever came first. Innocent, Thomas’s third daughter, born after his death but before October 14, 1673, was to receive a similar share. Sarah, Mary, and Innocent were placed with their mother “for their Education and carefull bringing up.” The town council named George Lawton and John Albro executors of Cornell’s estate and empowered them “to use their utmost Endeavors” to appraise, acquire, and divide Cornell’s Dartmouth holdings in New Plymouth among his widow, sons, and daughters. They assigned Phillip Shearman, Rebecca’s “trusty and beloved friend,” and William Cadman to oversee the disposition of Cornell’s 182

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 183

entire estate. But nowhere in the property allocation is there any mention of the 100-acre homestead—or, for that matter, most of the livestock that property contained.19 While steps were being taken in Portsmouth to catalogue and distribute Thomas Cornell’s estate, authorities in New Plymouth engaged in a parallel undertaking. William Earle, the new widow’s brother and an inhabitant of Dartmouth since 1670, saw to the Cornell interests in that colony. On July 4, 1673, Earle presented the court with “a writing which was by some tearmed . . . the will of Thomas Cornell of Rhode Island,” presumably a document indicating the way in which Cornell sought to dispose of his property. There is no reference to the date of this purported will, and it is more than a little puzzling why Cornell would have bothered to compose such a document to begin with, since he must have known that as a capital offender his property was subject to seizure, at least in Portsmouth. Perhaps the will dated prior to 1673; perhaps it was a wistful—and wishful—gesture; perhaps it was a ruse. In any case, authorities in Dartmouth hinted that their belief in the validity of the will was less than unanimous, and officials in Portsmouth took no formal notice of it at all. Yet that such a will was entrusted to Earle acknowledges a harmonious relationship between the two men. It was, after all, through his brother-in-law that Cornell had solemnly requested burial beside his mother. Born in 1634, Earle was Cornell’s junior by seven years. It may have been coincidental, but one of his sons was named Thomas, a name not seen elsewhere in the Earle lineage.20 The Plymouth court was not at all certain it could or should abide by the provisions of the will; by delaying a hearing for three months it gave interested parties the right to protest its contents. Earle and John Cornell (Thomas’s brother) were entrusted with the care of the estate and ordered to produce an inventory. When the court finally made its determination in October, it applied a different distribution ratio than that agreed to by the Portsmouth Town Council. Whether the division agreed with Thomas Cornell’s own plan is not revealed, but the court, in a Solomon-like ruling, gave half the property to the widow and three daughters she had had by Thomas, and the other half to Thomas’s four sons by his first wife. l i f e a f t e r d e at h

183

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 184

The Dartmouth estate was worth considerably less than Cornell’s Portsmouth property, according to the appraisal by John Russill (whose deposition the prior February had led to the exhumation of Rebecca’s body).21 After considerable discussion, Dartmouth officials reluctantly permitted Sarah Cornell to “have the third parte of the rents and profits” of the real property “during her life”—which appears to have consisted of a house and land valued at £41. The authorities would have much preferred “that the widdow and her children shuld take theire partes in the personall esate, and the sonnes to have the lands,” but Sarah’s objections apparently carried the day when the issue was finally resolved on November 28. Her attitude confirms previous suspicions that Sarah was a strong-willed woman. The governor of Plymouth, Josiah Winslow, an assistant, John Alden, and two other officials, William Bradford and Constant Southworth, signed off on the arrangement. This was no ordinary distribution.22 But not all the puzzle pieces were in place. The Portsmouth Town Council failed to include the 100-acre Cornell homestead when they divided Thomas’s property among his widow and children. If Thomas had really left a will, surely he would have made provision for his most valuable asset. On the other hand, there were conditions attached to Thomas’s possession of the farm—conditions that his mother had spelled out in her 1664 will when she confirmed the 1663 deed of gift that had bestowed the homestead on her eldest son. According to Rebecca Cornell’s will, Thomas was to pay £100 to Rebecca’s executors over time, and they in turn would distribute £10 to each of Thomas’s ten siblings. After his mother’s death, Thomas had neither the time nor inclination to fulfill that part of the bargain, and, in any case, his mother’s will allowed him five years to make full payment. Within four months of her demise Thomas was also dead, and the unusual circumstances surrounding these events raised questions concerning possession of the homestead. Given Thomas’s premature departure from the world, was his estate responsible for payment of the £100? If the conditions of Rebecca’s bequest were not met, could Thomas’s descendants claim the farm? Or since the colony had initially seized Cornell’s entire estate, had Cornell’s obligation as set forth in his mother’s will effectively 184

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 185

been canceled by that move? In these circumstances, was Thomas’s will—if it existed—null and void? Whatever behind the scene machinations took place between 1673 and 1676, his oldest surviving son, Thomas Cornell III, claimed the homestead and recorded his possession of it on January 25, 1676, almost three years after his grandmother’s death. He did so in conformity with a 1662 law that responded to “the manyfold vexations and contests that doe evidently present themselves . . . betwixt almost all the people within this jurisdiction concerninge titles of lands.”23 Not only was the twenty-threeyear-old Thomas in “full possession” of the tract, but he claimed it “By Vertue of his Granfathers and Granmothers wills.” Since his grandfather’s will, now lost, was reputed to have left everything to his grandmother, and his grandmother’s will made no mention of the further devolution of the homestead beyond her eldest son, the young man’s claim was somewhat shaky. He might have been better off citing Rebecca’s original deed of gift, which bequeathed the property to her son “and his heirs,” except that “his heirs” could be interpreted to include Thomas’s widow, siblings, and other children. One month after young Thomas officially asserted his rights, three of his uncles disputed his claim and sued him. William, John, and Samuel Cornell collectively brought “an action of unjust detainure” in the hope of dispossessing their nephew.24 They very nearly did so; the jury twice claimed it was unable to reach a verdict, and only after the court sent them out a third time did the weary jurors decide in favor of the young Thomas Cornell. His father and grandmother would probably have concurred with this resolution, one of the few times they would have agreed about anything. If seventeenth-century ghosts talked to one another, Rebecca would have admitted that she favored her Quaker grandson and that his uncles already had enough property from her estate. Her son Thomas Jr. would have taken satisfaction in pointing out to his mother that his eldest son now possessed the family homestead without strings attached. In the meantime, the object of this theoretical conversation had married Susannah Lawton, daughter of George Lawton, the one-time neighbor of the convicted murderer, who had served on both inquest juries. Their son, Thomas, was fifteen months old.25 Sarah Cornell waited until the end of 1678 before asserting furl i f e a f t e r d e at h

185

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 186

ther claims to her former husband’s property by suing her stepson Thomas for £200 in another detainer action. How she arrived at that figure is uncertain, but the jury’s verdict implicitly confirmed her stepson’s right to the homestead by indicating that his father “was lawfully possessed” of the property when he died. At the same time, the jury ruled that Sarah was entitled to dower rights “in the proper Estate of her deceased Husband.” In the end, the differences between Sarah Cornell and her stepson were resolved by compromise “in a friendly manner.”26 • • • After the dust settled (and dust returned to dust), the major actors in this absorbing drama went their separate ways. In 1677, two years after a jury had acquitted Sarah Cornell of being an accessory to her mother-in-law’s murder, she married David Lake, a respectable inhabitant of Portsmouth who was apparently confident that his new wife posed no threat to his longevity. Sarah and David settled in Tiverton, presumably on his 100-acre “farm,” a turn of events particularly satisfying to Sarah after she had been deprived of her former husband’s homestead, which contained the same amount of land. In the next decade, David and Sarah could be found in Little Compton, where they ambled in their gardens and their youngsters hid behind the trees in the orchard.27 The Lakes had five children, the last born in 1690, the year that Sarah died. She could not have been much under fifty that year and perhaps died in childbirth. All three daughters fathered by Thomas Cornell survived to adulthood and married. Young Sarah’s two husbands were Zaccheus Butts and John Cole. Mary’s married name was Goodspeed, and Innocent wed her cousin Richard Borden, who was the grandson of William Earle (her father’s old friend and her mother’s brother).28 Thomas Cornell’s sons suffered no loss in status, were not marginalized, and were not ostracized in the years following their father’s execution, despite Increase Mather’s dire warning that a father who “was hanged . . . for his wickedness” would bring “everlasting reproach” on his children.29 Perhaps in some cases this was true. But the willingness of the Portsmouth community to reabsorb the children of this convicted murderer hints that the four young men were 186

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 187

not held accountable for the sins of their father—especially since neighbors and friends were aware of the fractious nature of their household. On some level, Thomas Cornell’s sons, who had lost their mother and were suddenly fatherless, must have grieved. Yet their father’s temper may have strained the parent–child relationship; if Thomas had battered his family even just with words, his children as well as his mother would have felt the brunt of the man’s anger. The depositions of Cornell’s sons are surprisingly brief; there is nothing either exculpatory or incriminating in them, although they admitted their father had been the last person to see their grandmother alive. Such brevity fits the psychological profile of children in abusive households—say as little as possible, deny, things could be worse.30 Still, whatever occurred in the Cornell home, whatever scars remained, the evidence suggests that Thomas Cornell’s sons moved on with their lives. A financially successful, self-described “merchant,” the eldest son, Thomas III, became a deputy to the Rhode Island General Assembly in May 1683, a decade after the tragedy. His upward mobility was unhampered by his father’s fall: Portsmouth assessors rated him among their highest taxpayers in 1688, which, given his mercantile pursuits was probably an accurate reflection of his wealth.31 It was ironic, but probably not coincidental, that he was a member in good standing of the Society of Friends, whose far-flung trading networks enhanced the well-being of its participants. And in another twist of fate, Thomas III’s son Thomas later married the granddaughter of Gideon Freeborne, a man whose grand jury vote had helped to indict Thomas Cornell in 1673. Thomas III’s other son, George, forged an even better alliance by marrying the daughter of Governor Walter Clarke in 1696. All was forgiven if not forgotten. Thomas III died in 1714. His will provided generously for his immediate family as well as for his half-sisters, nephews, and nieces. Each of his three grandchildren received a silver spoon, cherished items that had probably belonged to their great grandmother once upon a time. Among his inventory was an “old chest” that may have seen better days in Rebecca’s time as the “great chest.” Rebecca’s grandson appointed his son Thomas sole executor of his estate.32 l i f e a f t e r d e at h

187

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 188

That the name Thomas remained in the family despite its iniquitous association may say something about the lines drawn during this incredible episode. What’s in a name? Thomas (the alleged matricide) would probably have admitted that the name Rebecca conjured up ill feelings; he named neither of his daughters after his mother. Estranged from his siblings as well as from his mother, Thomas named only one son, John, after a brother. There was no William, no Joshua, no Richard, no Samuel among his four sons. But even if Thomas felt kindly toward his brother John, John did not respond in kind. Of John’s several sons, none is named Thomas; John did name a daughter Rebecca. In 1679, their sister, Elizabeth Almy, named her first surviving daughter after her mother, Rebecca; she named no son Thomas. Only one of the convicted murderer’s four sons named a child Thomas, and since it was his own namesake who did so, it might have been in memory of Thomas Sr., his grandfather—or even after himself. We can only speculate about whether the disinclination of Thomas Cornell’s sons to honor their father through his name confirms their alienation from him. Thomas’s sister, Rebecca Woolsey, never carried through on her threat to commit suicide, unless that was the cause of her death at age ninety-one or ninety-three in February 1713, within days of her brother-in-law, Christopher Almy. Elizabeth and Christopher Almy had returned to Rhode Island from New Jersey some years after Rebecca Cornell’s death, and Christopher subsequently served as a deputy and assistant in the Rhode Island government. Within months of the death of her second husband, Charles, in 1682, Thomas’s sister, Sarah Bridges, married John Lawrence. If it is true that he was born in 1644, he would have been slightly more than two decades younger than his fifty-nine-year-old wife. There may be a story here, but if so, it was not about property, since she had conveyed Cornell’s Neck to her eldest son, William Willett, in the mid1660s. After holding a series of appointments in Flushing and an estate in Little Neck, Richard Cornell, one of Thomas’s younger brothers, removed to Rockaway, Long Island, where he died in 1694, the father of a dozen children.33 The Dartmouth branch of the Cornell family suffered during King Philip’s war when all but one of the thirty houses in that town 188

Killed Strangely

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 189

were burnt to the ground. If Rebecca Cornell had lived long enough to take up residence in Dartmouth in spring 1673, when she threatened to move in with her son Samuel, fire would have caught up with her there as well. As it was, the war drove her other son John, his wife Mary, and their children out of Dartmouth. They acquired land at Cow Neck (Hempstead), Long Island, and established a branch of the Cornell family there after settling matters with local men who, in an effort to maintain exclusive property rights, welcomed John “with menacing and abusive language” and destroyed Cornell’s dwelling.34 John’s fatherless nephews, Edward and John, accompanied him and remained on Long Island. Thomas’s fourth son, Stephen, stayed behind in Dartmouth, perhaps with, or near, his uncle Samuel, who was determined to prevent history from repeating itself. Samuel’s will, composed in his sixtieth year, was “for the preventing future truubles Amongst my children.”35 Two of the principal witnesses against Thomas Cornell, Joane and Patience Coggeshall, both died in 1676, although it is unclear whether their deaths were war related. Joshua, Joane’s husband, found a new wife (Rebeckah Russell) far too quickly for the staid Quakers of Aquidneck Island, and they condemned him late in 1676 for “his hasty proceeding about marriage after his wife was dead.” Joshua must have told them to mind their own business, because they refused to hold subsequent meetings at his house until he made satisfaction for his “remissness in words.”36 It is not clear whether the Cornells in England ever learned of this exceptional chapter in their extended (and extensive) family history. Many, with such names as Richard, Thomas, Ann, Joshua, Sarah, and Elizabeth, had become Quakers by the third quarter of the seventeenth century. The Society of Friends established a meeting in Saffron Walden in 1667, despite the persecution to which Quakers—including the Cornells—were subjected. Few meeting records remain for the earliest years, with the exception of “burial notes” that refer to “Thomas Cornells ground” at Sewers End, a reminder that the ancient Cornell family retained a presence in the parish from which the American Cornells had emigrated. In 1674, that same Thomas and his wife, Liddea, members of the Essex Quarterly Meeting as well as the Thaxted Monthly Meeting, named their newborn daughter Rebecca.37 l i f e a f t e r d e at h

189

2672_Part2.qrk 6/25/02 12:56 PM Page 190

If Thomas Cornell had been a little more patient and a lot nicer to his mother, he might have ended up exactly where he had wanted instead of at the wrong end of the hangman’s noose. Just after King Philip’s War, the Rhode Island legislature generously divided a large tract in the Narragansett region among those inhabitants “in need of land” and who were judged “fit to be supplyed” by the General Assembly. Five thousand acres were to be parceled out in 100-acre shares along with house lots in what was envisioned as a 500-acre town, a short commute across the bay from Portsmouth. Forty-five men were to be the beneficiaries of this largesse, and among those given the nod were friends and associates of Thomas Cornell, many from Portsmouth, some from Newport.38 Instead of being inquest jurors, trial jurors, or witnesses in one of Rhode Island’s most extraordinary cases, they might have been Cornell’s neighbors in East Greenwich.

190

Killed Strangely

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 191

notes

Introduction 1. The trial record relating to this case can be found in the Newport County Superior Court Records (General Court of Trials), Book A, Rhode Island Judicial Archives, Pawtucket, R.I. The references throughout this book are to the published transcription of these records. Examination of Thomas Cornell, Feb. 21, 1672/3, in Jane Fletcher Fiske, transcriber, Rhode Island General Court of Trials, 1671–1704 (Boxford, Mass., 1998), 25 (hereafter, RIGCT); examination of James Moills, Feb. 22, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 27; Daniel B. Updike, Richard Smith: First English Settler of the Narragansett Country, Rhode Island (Boston: Merrymount, 1937), 93; coroner’s inquest verdict, in Fiske, RIGCT, 23. In 1672, England and her colonies were still using the Julian calendar, and the legal year began on March 25. Not until 1752 did the Anglo-American world shift to the Gregorian calendar and move the first day of the year back to January 1. To avoid confusion, all dates in the text follow the modern calendar, but the notes indicate both oldand new-style calendar years for dates between January 1 and March 25. Chapter 1. A Death in the Family 1. C. Willett Cunnington and Phillis Cunnington, Handbook of English Costume in the Seventeenth Century (London: Faber and Faber, 1963), 163, 165; Alice Morse Earle, Two Centuries of Costume in America (1903; repr., New York: Benjamin Blom, 1968), 1:209–10. 2. John Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family: Being an Account of the Descendants of Thomas Cornell of Portsmouth, Rhode Island (New York: T. A. Wright, 1902), 17, 25; see also Prentiss Glazier, Thomas Cornell (or Cornwell)

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 192

(1594–1655/56) of Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, His English Origin and His Family in America (Sarasota, Fla.: privately printed, 1975). 3. Peter Laslett, Family Life and Illicit Love in Earlier Generations: Essays in Historical Sociology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 177–81; Peter J. Stearns, “Old Age Family Conflict: The Perspective of the Past,” in Elder Abuse: Conflict in the Family, ed. Karl Pillemer and Rosalie Wolf (Dover, Mass.: Auburn House, 1986), 6, 8; Keith Thomas, “Age and Authority in Early Modern England,” Proceedings of the British Academy 62 (1976): 239; David Hackett Fischer, Growing Old in America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 29, 56. 4. Carl Bridenbaugh, Fat Mutten and Liberty of Conscience: Society in Rhode Island, 1636–1690 (Providence: Brown University Press, 1974), 40–43. 5. Cunnington and Cunnington, Handbook of English Costume, 133–34, 139–40, 142, 156, 167; Phillis Cunnington and Catherine Lucas, Occupational Costume in England: From the Eleventh Century to 1914 (London: A. and C. Black, 1967), 29, 30. 6. See John Cornell, “The Cornell Farm at Newport,” Americana 6 (Feb. 1911): 109–11, and illustrations. 7. Antoinette F. Downing and Vincent J. Scully Jr., The Architectural Heritage of Newport, Rhode Island, 1640–1915, 2nd ed. (New York: Bramhall House, 1967), 23, 27–30; J. Cornell, “Cornell Farm at Newport,” 109–11; J. Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family, 20. 8. Richard L. Bushman, The Refinement of America (New York: Vintage), 124. 9. The floor plan is derived from information in the depositions to this case, which may be found in Jane Fletcher Fiske, transcriber, Rhode Island General Court of Trials, 1671–1704 (Boxford, Mass., 1998) (hereafter, RIGCT), Richard Smith Jr. to John Winthrop Jr., March 8, 1672/3, in Daniel B. Updike, Richard Smith: First English Settler of the Narragansett Country, Rhode Island (Boston: Merrymount, 1937), 93 (quotation). 10. Testimony of Henry Straite, Feb. 22, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 27. 11. Downing and Scully, Architectural Heritage of Newport, Rhode Island, 23; Edgar de N. Mayhew and Minor Meyers Jr., A Documentary History of American Interiors from the Colonial Era to 1915 (New York: Scribner’s, 1980), 10–11, 21, 23; Nancy D. Bogdonoff, Handwoven Textiles of Early New England: The Legacy of a Rural People, 1640–1880 (Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole, 1975), 96, 134, 150–51; Graham Hood, American Silver: A History of Style, 1650–1900 (New York: Praeger, 1971), 23, 39; Jonathan L. Fairbanks and Robert F. Trent, eds., New England Begins: The Seventeenth Century (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1982), 3:515–37; The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth (Providence: E. L. Freeman and Sons, 1901), 403 (hereafter, Portsmouth Records).

192

Notes to Pages 9–13

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 193

12. All these items are mentioned in Rebecca Cornell’s 1664 will, the original of which is located at the Rhode Island State Archives, Providence. 13. John R. Bartlett, ed., Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England (Providence: A. Crawford Greene, 1857), 1:127 (hereafter, RICR). 14. Robert Blair St. George, “ ‘Set Thine House in Order’: The Domestication of the Yeomanry in Seventeenth-Century New England,” in New England Begins, 2:167; Bogdonoff, Handwoven Textiles of Early New England, 70. 15. Examination of Thomas Cornell, Feb. 21, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 25; examination of Sarah Cornell, Apr. 10, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 26; Bogdonoff, Handwoven Textiles of Early New England, 70. 16. Testimony of Henry Straite, 26–27; testimony of Thomas Cornell at coroner’s inquest, Feb. 9, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 22. 17. Examination of James Moills, Feb. 22, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 27. 18. Coroner’s inquest verdict, Feb. 9, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 23. For “accident” see Oxford English Dictionary, compact ed. (1980). 19. In many historical and contemporary societies, pregnant women are barred from attending the dead. See Walburga von Raffler-Engel, The Perception of the Unborn across the Cultures of the World (Seattle: Hogrefe and Huber, 1994), 43–44, 47. 20. According to some genealogies, Briggs was married to Sarah Cornell, sister of Rebecca’s husband Thomas. Chester C. Cornell, A Cornell Family History: From County Essex, England to Winneshiek County, Iowa (Decorah, Iowa: Anundsen, 1984), 1; Lilla Elizabeth Briggs Sampson, “John Briggs of Newport and Portsmouth, Rhode Island, and His Descendants,” 1926, typescript, New York Public Library, 1; Portsmouth Records, 2, 60, 61, 64, 125. 21. Sampson, “John Briggs of Newport,” 1–4; Rhode Island Court Records: Records of the Court of Trials of the Colony of Providence Plantations (Providence: Rhode Island Historical Society, 1920–1922), 1:14 (1655), 53 (1658/59); Portsmouth Record Book, March 2, 1657/8, Rhode Island State Archives. 22. Testimony of John Briggs, Feb. 20, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 23–24. 23. Ghosts were also taken seriously in Essex County, England, where one source describes Essex (the Cornells’ original home) as the most haunted of English counties. The Cross Keys Hotel on High Street in Saffron Walden allegedly hosted a ghost in the late twentieth century. See James W. Day, Essex Ghosts: The Haunted Towns and Villages of Essex (Bourne, U.K.: Spurbrooks, 1973), 37, 58. 24. David Hall, Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment: Popular Religious Belief in Early New England (New York: Knopf, 1989), 74; Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (New York: Scribner’s, 1971), 588, 593, 596–98.

Notes to Pages 14–20

193

25. Increase Mather, An Essay for the Recording of Illustrious Providences (1684; repr., Delmar, N.Y.: Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, 1977), 239, 219–20, 223, 229. See also Richard Godbeer, The Devil’s Dominion: Magic and Religion in Early New England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 55–56. 26. Terry Castle, The Female Thermometer: Eighteenth-Century Culture and the Invention of the Uncanny (New York: Oxford, 1995), 161–63, 171, 168; Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, ed. Lawrence Babb (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1965); Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Richard Tuck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 17. 27. Edgar J. McManus, Law and Liberty in Early New England: Criminal Justice and Due Process, 1620–1692 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1993), 98, 190. 28. Examination of Thomas Cornell, 25; examination of James Moills, 27. 29. Testimony of John Briggs, 23–24. For other examples of ghosts appearing between sleeping and waking, see Godbeer, Devil’s Dominion, 55–56; Elizabeth Reis, Damned Women: Sinners and Witches in Puritan New England (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997), 115. Daniel Defoe, Essay on the History and Reality of Apparitions (London: J. Roberts, 1727), preface, 296 (emphasis in original). 30. Cotton Mather, The Wonders of the Invisible World (Boston: Benjamin Harris, 1693), 79–80. 31. Frances Hill, The Salem Witchcraft Reader (Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo, 2000), 186, 195–96, 201. My thanks to Mary Beth Norton for drawing these accounts to my attention. 32. “Thomas Minor’s Diary,” August [20], 1662 (copy), 115, Rhode Island Historical Society, Providence. 33. See Carla Gerona, “Stairways to Heaven: A Cultural History of Early American Quaker Dreams” (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1997), ii, 4, 54. 34. “Diary of Peter Easton,” American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Mass., n.d. Report of Second Inquest Jury, in Fiske, RIGCT, 24–25. 35. Testimony of John Russill, Feb. 20, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 24. 36. Fiske, RIGCT, 24. No evidence survives to indicate when Rebecca Cornell was permanently reinterred or whether any ceremony accompanied this final consignment to the grave. Friends Records, box 10, Rhode Island Monthly Meeting (1647–1899), Rhode Island Historical Society. 37. Updike, Richard Smith, 93. 38. Sanford J. Fox, Science and Justice: The Massachusetts Witchcraft Trials (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968), 48, 49, 51–53, 56–58; Charles J. Hoadly, “Some Early Post-mortem Examinations in New England,” Pro-

194

Notes to Pages 20–27

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 195

ceedings of the Connecticut Medical Society (New Haven: Connecticut Medical Society, 1892), 216. See also Richard H. Shryock, Medicine and Society in America, 1660–1860 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962), 47. 39. Updike, Richard Smith, 93. 40. Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “occasion,” “occation”; examination of Thomas Cornell, 25. 41. Michael Dalton, The Countrey Justice (1618; London, 1655); John Murrin, “Magistrates, Sinners, and a Precarious Liberty: Trial by Jury in Seventeenth-Century New England,” in Saints and Revolutionaries: Essays in Early American History, ed. David Hall, John Murrin, and Thad Tate (New York: Norton, 1984), 152–206. 42. Dalton, Countrey Justice, 294, 378; Bartlett, RICR, 1:159, 160–61; Bradley Chapin, Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 1606–1660 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1983), 32. 43. Bartlett, RICR, 1:392 (1658), 218–19 (1649); 2:395 (1671). Carl Bridenbaugh, Cities in the Wilderness: The First Century of Urban Life in America, 1625–1742 (1938; paperback ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), 75. 44. G. B. Warden, “The Rhode Island Civil Code of 1647,” in Saints and Revolutionaries, ed. Hall et al., 142. 45. Dalton, Countrey Justice, 56–57; Murrin, “Magistrates Sinners, and a Precarious Liberty,” 154, 167–68; McManus, Law and Liberty, 96, 97; Bartlett, RICR, 2:239. 46. Chapin, Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 33. It was a foregone conclusion that Cornell would be tried, since once a coroner’s jury decided that death was other than accidental or by suicide, the case had to go to trial. In such instances, a grand jury indictment, although required, concluded the initial stage of the proceedings instead of opening the next stage. 47. Examinations of Thomas, Stephen, Edward, and John Cornell (sons of the accused murderer), Feb. 22, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 27–28; Jeremiah Shepard, An Ephemera of Celestial Motions for the Year of the Christian Epocha 1672 (Cambridge, Mass.: Samuel Green, 1672), entry for Feb. 13–14. 48. Fiske, RIGCT, 26. 49. Dalton, Countrey Justice, 365. For an excellent discussion of the witness narrative, see Malcolm Gaskill, “Reporting Murder: Fiction in the Archives in Early Modern England,” Social History 23 ( Jan. 1998): 1–30. 50. Gaskill, “Reporting Murder,” 12, 4. See also Natalie Z. Davis, Fiction in the Archives: Pardon Tales and Their Tellers in Sixteenth-Century France (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987); Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), esp. 18, 33, 126.

Notes to Pages 28–32

195

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 196

51. Testimony of Henry Straite, 26–27; examination of James Moills, 27. 52. Examination of Thomas Cornell III, 27–28. 53. Examination of Thomas Cornell, 25; testimony of Henry Straite, 26–27; examination of James Moills, 27; examination of Thomas Cornell III, 27–28. 54. Deposition of George Soule, March 1, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 28; Robert St. George, “ ‘Heated Speech’ and Literacy in Seventeenth-Century New England,” in Seventeenth-Century New England: A Conference Held by the Colonial Society of Massachusetts June 18 and 19, 1982, ed. David D. Hall and David Grayson Allen (Boston: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1984), 281. 55. Testimony of John Pearce, May 7, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 31; Hall, Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment, 73. 56. Dalton, Countrey Justice, 366. 57. Examination of Sarah Cornell, 25–26. See Howard M. Chapin, “Dogs in Early New England,” Rhode Island Historical Society Collections 13 (Oct. 1920): 105–13. 58. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, 445–46, 524; Katharine M. Briggs, “Black Dogs,” in A Dictionary of British Folk-Tales in the English Language, part B: Folk Legends (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971), 1:3–19. Day, Essex Ghosts, 11. 59. Tituba’s examination, March 1, 1681/2, in Richard B. Trask, “The Devil Hath Been Raised”: A Documentary History of the Salem Village Witchcraft Outbreak of March 1692 (West Kennebunk, Maine: Phoenix, 1992), 10, 14, 26. John Hughs also deposed to seeing “a great white dogg,” who followed him. Trask, “Devil Hath Been Raised,” 26. 60. Examination of Sarah Cornell, 25–26; Updike, Richard Smith, 93. 61. Mather, Essay, 219, 150, 166; Hall, Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment, 97. 62. Deposition of Rebecca Woolsey, Apr. 10, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 31. 63. Deposition of Mary Cornell, Mar. 3, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 28. 64. Deposition of Mary Almy, Apr. 11, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 29. 65. Dalton, Countrey Justice, 366. 66. Deposition of Elizabeth Parsons, Apr. 11, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 29. 67. Hall, Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment, 176; Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, 220, 578; Richard Weisman, Witchcraft, Magic, and Religion in Seventeenth-Century Massachusetts (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1984), 100. 68. Dalton, Countrey Justice, 373; Weisman, Witchcraft, 100. See also Richard Bernard, Guide to Grand Jury Men (London, 1629), esp. 223–24. 69. Rhode Island Court Records, 1:51; Portsmouth Records, 88.

196

Notes to Pages 32–43

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 197

70. Deposition of Hugh Parsons, Apr. 11, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 29; testimony of Lft. Joseph Torrey, May 16, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 32. 71. Ronald Potvin, “The Architectural History of the Wanton-LymanHazard House,” Newport History 62, 2 (spring 1989): 59; Norman Isham, Early American Houses (Boston: Walpole Society, 1928), 42–43. 72. Sabbatarian Baptists consecrated the seventh day (rather than the first) as the Sabbath. “A Brief and Faithfull Relation of the Difference between Those of This Church and Those Who Withdrew Their Communion from It with the Causes and Reasons of the Same,” Baptist Record Book, 145 (box marked “marriages, 1725”), Newport Historical Society, Newport, R.I. 73. Deposition of Nicholas Wilde, Apr. 14, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 30–31. 74. Exactly what Rebecca Cornell had meant by “provoaked” is unclear. She could have been saying that she was vexed, agitated, or exasperated or that she was being incited to action in response to her son’s behavior. It is even possible that she had felt impelled to procure the assistance of a court or judge. Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “provoke.” In any case, she had resisted such impulses. 75. Deposition of Sarah Wilde, Apr. 14, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 31. 76. Testimony of Joane Coggeshall, Apr. 14, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 29–30. 77. “Nominate” in this context could mean that Rebecca Cornell simply mentioned these men or that she actually designated them to act. Oxford English Dictionary. 78. Fiske, RIGCT, 23, 19. 79. Testimony of Patience Coggeshall, Apr. 14, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 30. 80. In this context “desperate spirit” meant a person with a reckless or violent disposition. Oxford English Dictionary. 81. “The wind continued easterly almost all the month of April. Most part of May was cold.” “Diary of John Hull,” American Antiquarian Society Transactions and Collections (Archaeologia Americana) 3 (1857): 235. 82. Fiske, RIGCT, 19–20. 83. McManus, Law and Liberty, 87–88; Chapin, Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 75, 79. 84. Chapin, Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 33–34; Bartlett, RICR, 1:198. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Chicago: Callaghan, 1899), 4:303. 85. See the list of members of the grand jury in Fiske, RIGCT, 19; first inquest jury, in Fiske, RIGCT, 23; second inquest jury, in Fiske, RIGCT, 25;

Notes to Pages 43–48

197

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 198

Thomas A. Green, Verdict according to Conscience: Perspectives on the English Criminal Trial, 1200–1800 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 275. 86. J. M. Beattie, Crime and the Courts in England, 1660–1800 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 376. 87. Chapin, Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 46; Bartlett, RICR, 1:199; McManus, Law and Liberty, 100; Beattie, Crime and the Courts in England, 379; Fiske, RIGCT, 20. 88. Beattie, Crime and the Courts in England, 345. 89. Six capital cases were adjudicated in Rhode Island through 1670. Murrin, “Magistrates, Sinners, and a Precarious Liberty,” 169–70; Rhode Island Court Records, 2:97. For the three cases in 1671–72, see Fiske, RIGCT, 4–7. In 1660/1 an Indian was hanged after confessing to murder. Rhode Island Court Records, 1:71–72. 90. Bartlett, RICR, 1:203–4; Dalton, Countrey Justice, 371–72. 91. Weisman, Witchcraft, 104; Fox, Science and Justice, 49. 92. Testimony of John Briggs, 24. 93. Bartlett, RICR, 1:160; 2:239; McManus, Law and Liberty, 35–36, 92, 93, 97; Chapin, Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 32, 40, 43–44; Dalton, Countrey Justice, 57. 94. “Diary of Thomas Minor,” May 16, 1673, 69; “Diary of John Hull,” May 18, 1673 (Sunday), 236. For an extended description of the effects of the violent weather that weekend, see Mather, Essay, 81–82, 99. “Thunder,” wrote Mather, “is the Voice of God.” 95. Updike, Richard Smith, 93. 96. Examination of Sarah Cornell, 25–26. 97. “An Account Taken from Mr. Harris of New England,” April 29, 1675, in Great Britain, Public Record Office, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and the West Indies (London: Longmans, Green, 1860), 9:222. 98. Green, Verdict according to Conscience, 144–46. See also Cynthia B. Herrup, “Law and Morality in Seventeenth-Century England,” Past and Present 106 (1985): 102–23 nn. 1, 9; Fiske, RIGCT, 6, 19, 20. 99. Fiske, RIGCT, 21, 32; Bartlett, RICR, 1:204 (1647); 2:515 (1673), 578 (1677). For previous escapees see Rhode Island Court Records, 1:35 (1657), 44 (1658); 2:86 (1669), 87 (1669). 100. Bridenbaugh, Cities in the Wilderness, 28; Rhode Island Land Evidences: Abstracts (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1970), 29, 30. Punneane, an Indian convicted of rape and murder, accompanied Cornell to the gallows on May 23. Fiske, RIGCT, 21. 101. Rhode Island Colony Records, 2:4 ( June 7, 1671), Rhode Island State Archives. Most of this record is preserved in Bartlett, RICR, 2:393. 102. Dalton, Countrey Justice, 304–5; see also Bartlett, RICR, 1:160–62,

198

Notes to Pages 48–54

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 199

164. The 1647 Rhode Island code established the death penalty “without Remedies” for murder. Presumably, the murder indictment was predicated on the belief that Cornell’s actions resulted from “a sudden falling out” rather than from any premeditated design, a position that would account for the reduced charge. See Dalton, Countrey Justice, 294. 103. Bartlett, RICR, 2:485. Although grave markers had become popular even among Puritans by 1673, they were more likely to be found among Anglican sympathizers than among Puritans or Quakers. See New England Begins; David Stannard, The Puritan Way of Death (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 116–22. 104. Affidavit of Francis Brinley, Aug. 6, 1705, Judicial Archives (microfilm), 2:126–27, Massachusetts Archives, Boston. 105. For a discussion, analysis, and examples of seventeenth-century execution sermons see Daniel A. Cohen, Pillars of Salt, Monuments of Grace: New England Crime Literature and the Origins of American Popular Culture, 1674–1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Daniel B. Williams, Pillars of Salt: An Anthology of Early American Criminal Narratives (Madison, Wisc.: Madison House, 1993). 106. Portsmouth Records, 131–32 (1665/6). 107. Karen Halttunen, Murder Most Foul: The Killer and the American Gothic Imagination (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), 14; Increase Mather, “Sermon Occasioned by the Execution of a Man Found Guilty of Murder,” March 11, 1685/6 (Boston), in American Sermons: The Pilgrims to Martin Luther King, comp. Michael Warner (New York: Library of America, 1999), 172–94. See also Lawrence W. Towner, “True Confessions and Last Dying Warnings in Colonial New England,” in Sibley’s Heir: A Volume in Memory of Clifford Kenyon Shipton, Collections no. 59 (Boston: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1982), 523–39. 108. Mather, “Sermon,” 172–73. 109. Mather, “Sermon,” 178–79. See also William Turner, Compleat History of the Most Remarkable Providences, Both of Judgment and Mercy, Which Have Hapned in This Present Age (London: John Dunton, 1697), chap. 113. Turner maintained that “there was no other means allowed for the expiating the guilt of Murder, and purging the Land that was defiled therewith, but by the Blood of him that committed the Fact” (28). 110. Mather, “Sermon,” 178; Hall, Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment, 178; T. Laqueur, “Crowds, Carnival, and the State in English Executions, 1604–1868,” in The First Modern Society: Essays in English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone, ed. A. Beier, D. Cannadine, and J. Rosenheim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 305–55. For an excellent discussion of confessions, see Reis, Damned Women, chap. 4.

Notes to Pages 54–56

199

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 200

111. J. A. Sharpe, “ ‘Last Dying Speeches’: Religion, Ideology, and Public Execution in Seventeenth-Century England,” Past and Present 107 (1985): 155–56, 160. 112. On this point see Peter Brooks, Troubling Confessions: Speaking Guilt in Law and Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). 113. Peter Lake, “Agency, Appropriation, and Rhetoric under the Gallows: Puritans, Romanists, and the State in Early Modern England,” Past and Present 153 (1996): 75, 97. 114. John Osborne Austin, ed., The Journal of William Jefferay Gentleman . . . A Diary That Might Have Been (Providence: E. L. Freeman, 1899), 20; Hall, Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment, 175. 115. For a discussion of the role of God and the Devil in English crime literature, see Peter Lake, “Deeds against Nature: Cheap Print, Protestantism, and Murder in Early Seventeenth-Century England,” in Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England, ed. Peter Lake and Kevin Sharpe (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 257–83. 116. William R. Maples and Michael Browning, Dead Men Do Tell Tales (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 129; Bartlett, RICR, 2:485; J. Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family, 25. Chapter 2. The Background of a Tragedy 1. Anna Brooker and Mary Whiteman, Saffron Walden: Portrait of a Market Town (Saffron Walden: C. W. Daniel, 1982), available at Friends Library, London. St. Mary’s was built between 1475 and 1525. 2. J. A. Sharpe, Crime in Seventeenth-Century England: A County Study (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 35. See also Keith Wrightson and David Levine, Poverty and Piety in an English Village: Terling, 1525–1700 (New York: Academic Press, 1979), 104–5, 148. In nearby Terling, between 1610 and 1639, 39 percent of the men could not sign their names. Most of the women were illiterate. 3. Essex County, Calendar of Assizes 35/68/H: 12 March 1627 (no. 67); 35/77/T: 13 July 1635 (no. 41); 35/80/T: 26 June 1638; 35/76: 9 July 1634 (no. 57); 35/78/T: 25 July 1636 (nos. 44, 63); 35/73/H: 17 March and 25 July 1631; 35/74/H (b) 11 March 1633 (no. 82); 35/69/H: 10 March 1628, (no. 124). Essex County, England, Public Record Office (microfilm). 4. In Terling, another Essex County village, the average number of living children born to women who married at the same age as Rebecca was 5.1. Wrightson and Levine, Poverty and Piety, 49. 5. Ezra Cornell, “To the Cornells,” Aug. 12, 1867, #1/1/1, box 90, Ezra Cornell Papers, Olin Library, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 6. Petition of John Cornell to General Court, May 3, 1646, Massachu-

200

Notes to Pages 57–61

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 201

setts Historical Society, Boston (photostat); Feb. 16, 1662/3, Massachusetts Historical Society (Misc. Bound); George M. Bodge, Soldiers in King Philip’s War with a Concise History of the Indian Wars of New England from 1620–1677 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1967), 466. 7. J. Hammond Trumbull and Charles J. Hoadly, eds., The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 1636–1776 (Hartford: Brown and Parsons, 1850–1890), 1:192 (1649); 2:49, 50 (1666), 58, 60 (1667), 267 (1675). 8. See petition of Thomas Cobbet to General Court, Oct. 10, 1667, Massachusetts Historical Society (photostat). 9. Petition of Elizabeth Cornell to General Court, Oct. 1670, Massachusetts Historical Society (photostat). 10. Hutchinson was expelled on March 22, 1638; Thomas Cornell was first mentioned in the Boston records in August of that year. 11. Trumbull and Hoadley, Public Records of Connecticut, 1:29. 12. Albert H. Wright, “Studies in History,” no. 27 (Ithaca: privately printed, 1965), 8. 13. Richard D. Pierce, ed., The Records of the First Church in Boston, 1630–1868 (Boston: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1961); Lucius R. Paige, ed., List of Freemen of Massachusetts, 1630–1691 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1980); John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal, “History of New England,” 1630–1649, ed. James Kendall Hosmer (New York: Scribner’s, 1908), 2:138. 14. John R. Bartlett, ed., Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England (Providence: A. Crawford Greene, 1857), 1:104, 111, 112 (hereafter, RICR); The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth (Providence: E. L. Freeman and Sons, 1901), 276 (hereafter, Portsmouth Records). 15. William Hubbard, History of New England from the Discovery to 1680, Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 2nd ser., 5 (1815), 1:284; J. Franklin Jameson, ed., Johnson’s Wonder-Working Providence, 1628–1651 (New York: Scribner’s, 1910), 185–86; William Dunlea, Ann Hutchinson and the Puritans: An Early American Tragedy (Pittsburgh: Dorrance, 1993), 258; Otto Hufeland, Anne Hutchinson’s Refuge in the Wilderness (Binghamton, N.Y.: Vail-Ballou, 1929), 4; Winifred King Rugg, Unafraid: A Life of Ann Hutchinson (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1930), 244–48. Whatever charges of Antinomianism were made against Hutchinson and her followers, in fact the central point of disagreement between her group and more orthodox Puritans concerned the covenant of works and whether preparation for grace constituted excessive self-help. Since the Antinomians preached absolute human helplessness, in their eyes any reliance on preparation for salvation was akin to good works and thus impermissible. Furthermore, when Hutchinson spoke of receiving an immediate revelation from God, she came

Notes to Pages 61–63

201

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 202

dangerously close to heresy, since standard Puritan belief denied direct communication from God. 16. Alonzo B. Cornell, “Some of the Beginnings of Westchester County History” (printed for the Westchester Historical Society, 1890), 9. 17. Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal, 2:138. 18. Rugg, Unafraid, 244–48; Dunlea, Ann Hutchinson and the Puritans, 270; Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal, 2:138. 19. “Records of the Dutch Reformed Church of New York,” New York Genealogical and Biographical Record 6 (1875): 34. 20. J. Thomas Scharf, History of Westchester County, New York (Philadelphia: L. E. Preston, 1886), 1:19. 21. N. E. B. O’Callaghan, ed., Calendar of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Secretary of State, Albany, New York, pt. 1: Dutch Manuscripts, vol. 1: 1630–1664 (Albany: Weed, Parsons, 1865), 1:89, 92. 22. Portsmouth Records, 33, 36. “The layers out shall lay out the hundred acres granted to Mr Thomas Cornell begininge at the Wadinge River and going on to Nuporte Warde” (36). 23. John Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family; Being an Account of the Descendants of Thomas Cornell of Portsmouth, Rhode Island (New York: T. A. Wright, 1902), 30. 24. Berthold Fernow, ed., Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1976), 2:11–12. 25. New York Genealogical and Biographical Record 4 (1873): 128–29. 26. Blanche M. T. Horton, “Woolsey Family Records,” binder 3, 4–5, Westchester County Historical Society, Elmsford, N.Y. 27. “Records of the Dutch reformed Church in New York,” New York Genealogical and Biographical Record 5 (1874): 180, 6 (1875): 149. 28. John Ross Delafield, “The Cornell Family of Essex and New England,” in The Family History (New York: privately printed, 1945), 487. 29. Fernow, Records of New Amsterdam, 4:232–34. 30. Plymouth Court Orders 3:39–40 (document set 90), County Commissioners’ Office, Plymouth, Mass. 31. Bartlett, RICR, 1:233–34; 2:484, 485, 465; Sydney V. James, Colonial Rhode Island: A History (New York: Scribner’s, 1975), 63–64. 32. Portsmouth Records, 65; Rhode Island Land Evidences: Abstracts (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1970), 89; Bartlett, RICR, 1:277, 281, 299–300. 33. J. Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family, 22; Will of Rebecca Cornell, Sept. 2, 1664, Portsmouth Town Records (Misc.) (microfilm), Newport Historical Society, Newport, R.I. (incomplete copy), and box 1 (234B), Early Records [of Portsmouth], 1660–1890, Rhode Island State Archives, Providence (complete copy).

202

Notes to Pages 64–69

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 203

34. For example, in the will of Ralph Earle, one of the original settlers of Portsmouth, Earle made his wife executrix, and gave her the use of all his property during her life, after which he bequeathed the larger portion of his real property to his eldest son. He also provided for his other children. Pliny Earle, comp., The Earle Family: Ralph Earle and His Descendants (Worcester, Mass.: Charles Hamilton, 1888), 20. See also Adam Mott to Adam Mott (son) (1652), Giles Slocum to Giles Slocum (son) (1672), Samuel Wilbor to William Wilbor (son) (1654), Matthew Grenell to Daniel Grenell (1658), William Havens to John Havens (1662), Land Evidence Records, book 1, 58, 116, 47, 324, Portsmouth Town Hall, Portsmouth, R.I. 35. Philip Greven, The Protestant Temperament: Patterns of Child-Rearing, Religious Experience, and the Self in Early America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), pt. 2. 36. Portsmouth Records, 322 (1655), 75 (1656). 37. John Demos, “Old Age in Early New England,” in Turning Points: Historical and Sociological Essays on the Family, ed. John Demos and Sarane Boocock (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 255–57. 38. Demos, “Old Age in Early New England,” 268; Alexander Keyssar, “Widowhood in Eighteenth-Century Massachusetts: A Problem in the History of the Family,” Perspectives in American History 8 (1974): 110, 117. 39. David Hackett Fischer, Growing Old in America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 37; Demos, “Old Age in Early New England,” 252, 263, 264, 281–82. Increase Mather, Solemn Advice to Young Men (Boston: Green, 1695), 20; William Bridge, Word to the Aged (Boston, 1679), 4, 5. The latter is a posthumous publication; Bridge died in 1670. 40. Richard Wall, “Elderly Persons and Members of Their Households in England and Wales, from Preindustrial Times to the Present,” in Aging in the Past: Demography, Society, and Old Age, ed. David Kertzer and Peter Laslett (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 81–106; Fischer, Growing Old in America, 86. 41. John Callender, An Historical Discourse, on the Civil and Religious Affairs of the Colony of Rhode Island (1739; Providence: Knowles, Vose, 1838), 118–19. For John Cornell see MSS 64, box 64, series S, subseries 7, folder 1, p. 313 (1673), Old Dartmouth Historical Society Library, New Bedford, Mass. See also James M. Arnold, comp., Vital Records of Rhode Island, 1636–1850, 1st ser. (Providence: Narragansett Historical Publishing, 1891–1912), vol. 4. 42. Portsmouth Land Evidence, 2nd book, no. 1, 532, 33, Portsmouth Town Hall; J. Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family, 23. 43. Portsmouth Records, 100, 101, 103 (1660). 44. Portsmouth Records, 64 (1654), 65 (1654), 72 (1656), 75 (1656), 85 (1658), 90, 93 (1659, 1660).

Notes to Pages 69–75

203

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 204

45. Portsmouth Records, 85–92 (1658–1660). 46. Kenneth A. Lockridge, Literacy in Colonial New England: An Enquiry into the Social Context of Literacy in the Early Modern West (New York: Norton, 1974), 21–22; Richard L. Bushman, The Refinement of America (New York: Vintage, 1993), 92–95; Rhode Island Land Evidences, 233–34. 47. Portsmouth Records, 372 (1659), 319–20 (1655). In Windsor, Connecticut, of the 99 sons born between 1650 and 1669, one-third received their portions before the death of their fathers. Sixty-two sons received portions after the death of their fathers. See Linda A. Bissell, “From One Generation to Another: Mobility in Seventeenth-Century Windsor, Connecticut,” William and Mary Quarterly 31 (1974): 93. See also Vivian Bruce Conger, “ ‘If Widow, Both Housewife and Husband May Be’: Widows’ Testamentary Freedom in Colonial Massachusetts and Maryland,” in Women and Freedom in Early America, ed. Larry D. Eldridge (New York: New York University Press, 1997), 244–66, for ways in which widows supported their upwardly mobile offspring. John Demos, A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), 103. 48. Fischer, Growing Old in America, 52; Demos, “Old Age in Early New England,” 264, 268, 282; Keyssar, “Widowhood in Eighteenth-Century Massachusetts,” 110, 117. 49. Among the Misquamakuck purchasers in 1660/1 were John Albro, Christopher Almy, John Anthony, James Barker, Francis Brayton, John Briggs, Caleb Carr, John Coggeshall, John Crandal, John Cranston, Richard Dunn, William Dyre, Gideon Freeborn, Edward Greenman, Sr., Hugh Parsons, Philip Shearman, and Joseph Torrey. Elisha R. Potter, The Early History of Narragansett (Providence: Marshall Brown, 1835), 250. 50. Portsmouth Records, 106–7 (1661), 126 (1664). This was not necessarily unusual. In Windsor, Connecticut, some sons migrated to towns where their fathers had additional property. The moves were frequently temporary and did not cut these men off from Windsor. Bissell, “From One Generation to Another,” 93. The difference in the Cornell case is that Thomas Cornell’s father had not left him property in Plymouth (although he himself owned property there). 51. Rebecca Cornell to Richard Hart, Apr. 30, 1661, Portsmouth Records, 1638–1700, 320, Rhode Island State Archives; Land Evidence Records, 2nd book, no. 1, 50, Portsmouth Town Hall; Rebecca Cornell to Thomas Cornell Jr., July 27, 1663, Land Evidence Records, 2nd book, no. 1, 51, Portsmouth Town Hall. 52. Thomas Cornell’s consent to Rebecca Cornell/Richard Hart deed of Apr. 30, 1661, in Portsmouth Records, 1638–1700, 320, Rhode Island State Archives; Rebecca Cornell also deeded property in Dartmouth to William

204

Notes to Pages 75–78

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 205

Earle in August 1664. A few years later, Earle’s sister became Rebecca Cornell’s daughter-in-law. G. Andrews Moriarty, “Portsmouth, Rhode Island Genealogical Gleanings,” Rhode Island Historical Society Collections 21 (1928): 127. 53. Will of Rebecca Cornell, Rhode Island State Archives. 54. Thomas Waite’s inventory in 1665 listed a house and thirty acres in Portsmouth at £100, and Nathanaell Browning’s 1672/3 inventory appraises a house and house lot at the same amount. Inventory of Thomas Waite, Sept. 13, 1665; inventory of Nathanaell Browning, March 11, 1672/3, Portsmouth Town Records (Misc.), (microfilm), Newport Historical Society. 55. Wrightson and Levine, Poverty and Piety, 98–99; will of Rebecca Cornell, Rhode Island State Archives. 56. Will of Alice Cowland, ninth month 1664, Portsmouth Records, 403–4; Arnold, Vital Records of Rhode Island, vol. 4, “Rhode Island Friends Deaths.” 57. Ezra Cornell, “To the Cornells.” 58. Robert Bolton, Jr., A History of the County of Westchester from Its First Settlement to the Present Time (New York: Alexander S. Gould, 1848), 2:153–57, quotations on 154, 155. 59. Testimony of Patience Coggeshall, Apr. 14, 1673, in Jane Fiske, transcriber, Rhode Island General Court of Trials, 1671–1704 (Boxford, Mass., 1998), 30 (hereafter, RIGCT). 60. Portsmouth Records, 126, 131, 134, 138, 141, 143, 145, 146, 150, 151, 154, 155, 158, 161, 162, 167; Nathaniel B. Shurtleff and David Pulsifer, eds., Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in New England (Boston: W. White, 1855–1861), 5 (1668–78): 55–56. 61. See Keith Wrightson, “Two Concepts of Order: Justices, Constables, and Jurymen in Seventeenth-Century England,” in An Ungovernable People: The English and Their Law, in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. John Brewer and John Styles (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1980), 29, 31, 36–37; Joan R. Kent, “The Centre and the Localities: State Formation and Parish Government in England, circa 1670–1740,” The Historical Journal 38 (1995): 363–404; Fiske, RIGCT, 18; Sharpe, Crime in Seventeenth-Century England, 34–36, 175. 62. Portsmouth Records, 131–32 (1665/6), 141, 145 (1668/9), 154 (1670), 162, 167 (1671). 63. Fiske, RIGCT, 7. See William Ingraham to John Anthony, June 20, 1667, in which Ingraham presses Anthony (a Portsmouth inhabitant) for payment of a long-standing debt. Ingraham offers to accept “wooll at money” (i.e., at the going rate of exchange) or payment from a third party who “will pay me in money//wooll.” Document 111.071, Portsmouth His-

Notes to Pages 78–82

205

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 206

torical Society, Portsmouth, R.I. Daniel Richter, The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The People of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), 84; Richter suggests that Native Americans preferred these particular colors. 64. Document set 308, Plymouth Colony Probate Transcriptions, County Commissioners’ Office, Plymouth, Mass.; Howard Preston, transcriber, The Letter Book of Peleg Sanford of Newport, Merchant, 1666–1668 (Providence: Rhode Island Historical Society, 1928), 5:7–8. 65. Admittedly, this interpretation of the document should be accepted cautiously. Neither of the two lists is labeled, so it is impossible to determine with absolute certainty which list is “receipts” and which is “disbursements.” The document is undated, and since Thomas Cornell’s sons appear on later lists in the 1680s, it is not impossible that the Thomas Cornell on this document is actually Rebecca’s grandson, not her son. At the same time, on the later lists the names of two or three male Cornells frequently appear at the same time, suggesting the simultaneous upward mobility of Thomas’s sons. Thus, the absence of Stephen, John, or Edward hints that the “Thomas” on this list is their father, not their brother. Furthermore, most of the other names on the undated receipts and disbursement lists are people who were most prominent in the 1660s and 1670s when Thomas Cornell’s sons would have been too young to appear on such lists. In addition, Christopher Almy, one of those mentioned (and brother-in-law to Thomas Cornell), left Portsmouth in 1665 for Monmouth, New Jersey. “List of Money received and disbursed by town” (of Portsmouth), 111.024, Portsmouth Historical Society. 66. Carl Bridenbaugh, Fat Mutton and Liberty of Conscience: Society in Rhode Island, 1636–1690 (Providence: Brown University Press, 1974), 69–72. 67. Rhode Island Land Evidences, 217. 68. Arnold, Vital Records of Rhode Island, vol. 7. 69. Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family, 33. Elizabeth Cornell married the merchant Christopher Almy in 1661. See Franklin Ellis, History of Monmouth County, New Jersey (Shrewsbury Historical Society, 1964), 71; Edwin Salter and George C. Beekman, Old Times in Old Monmouth: Historical Reminiscences of Old Monmouth County, New Jersey (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1980), 186–87, 189. Almy eventually returned to Rhode Island. 70. Some of the Rhode Island investors were Job Almy, Richard Borden, Francis Brinley, Henry Bull, Walter Clarke, William Coddington, John Coggeshall, Joshua Coggeshall, John Cook, Thomas Dungan, Benjamin Deuell, Peter Easton, Gideon Freeborn, Daniel Gould, and Robert Taylor. Ellis, History of Monmouth County, New Jersey, 63–64. Almy, as well as several others, had participated in the earlier Narragansett venture. A substantial proportion of these men were Quakers.

206

Notes to Pages 82–84

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 207

71. Bartlett, RICR, 2:61, 70–71, 399, 408; James, Colonial Rhode Island, 82–87. 72. Bartlett, RICR, 2:442; Bridenbaugh, Fat Mutton and Liberty of Conscience, 57–59, 115, 123–24. Chapter 3. The Contentious World of Thomas Cornell 1. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth (Providence: E. L. Freeman and Sons, 1901), 1 (1639), 64 (1654), 75 (1656), 77 (1657), 178 (1673), 88 (1658), 99–100 (1660), 119 (1663), 96 (1660), 135 (1666), 160 (1671) (hereafter, Portsmouth Records). 2. “Benjamin Allen, son of Ralph, Sandwich, died at the house of Thomas Cornell, Portsmouth.” He was buried at Clifton graveyard Feb. 27, 1669. James M. Arnold, comp., Vital Records of Rhode Island 1636–1850, 1st ser. (Providence: Narragansett Historical Publishing, 1891–1912), 7:85. 3. Baptist Record Book, 141, 145 (box marked “marriages, 1725”), Newport Historical Society, Newport, R.I. 4. Ray Green Huling, “Samuel Hubbard of Newport, 1610–1689,” Narragansett Historical Register 5 (1887): 316–17; Don A. Sanford, “Entering into Covenant: The History of the Seventh Day Baptists in Newport,” Newport History 66 (1994): 4. 5. Sydney V. James, John Clarke and His Legacies: Religion and Law in Colonial Rhode Island, 1638–1750, ed. Theodore D. Bozeman (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999), 93–95. 6. Craig Horle, The Quakers and the English Legal System, 1660–1688 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), 80–84, 172. 7. William Coddington’s “letter” was published as A Demonstration of True Love (London, 1674). 8. See Glenn W. LaFantasie, ed., The Correspondence of Roger Williams, 1629–1682 (Providence: Brown University Press, University Press of New England, 1988), 2:638–43, 684–91. 9. John L. Nickalls, ed., The Journal of George Fox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952), 620–25 (quotations); Edward W. West, History of Portsmouth, 1638–1936 (Providence: J. Green, 1936), Sydney V. James, The Colonial Metamorphoses in Rhode Island: A Study of Institutions in Change, ed. Sheila L. Skemp and Bruce C. Daniels (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 2000), 105, 106. 10. For a discussion of Roger Williams’s attitude toward women see Lyle Koehler, A Search for Power: The “Weaker Sex” in Seventeenth-Century New England (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980), 306–8. See also Margaret Hope Bacon, Mothers of Feminism: The Story of Quaker Women in America (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986).

Notes to Pages 85–91

207

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 208

11. John Osborne Austin, ed., The Journal of William Jefferay . . . A Diary That Might Have Been (Providence: E. L. Freeman, 1899); Robert V. Wells, The Population of the British Colonies in America before 1776: A Survey of Census Data (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), 98; West, History of Portsmouth; Portsmouth Records, 98–99 (1660). 12. Document 111.22, May 3, 1666, Portsmouth Historical Society, Portsmouth, R.I. 13. John R. Bartlett, ed., Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England (Providence: A. Crawford Greene, 1857), 2:438, 439, 456 (hereafter, RICR). 14. Jane Fletcher Fiske, transcriber, Rhode Island General Court of Trials, 1671–1704 (Boxford, Mass., 1998), 17 (hereafter, RIGCT); Roderick Terry, “The Early Relations between the Colonies of New Plymouth and Rhode Island,” Bulletin of the Newport Historical Society (Oct. 1920): 14–15. 15. Portsmouth Records, 70, 71 (1656). 16. Portsmouth Records, 168 (1672); July 17, 1760 (Misc. MS, SA.-49), Rhode Island Historical Society, Providence. 17. For earlier cases involving theft by Indians in which the defendants received milder punishments, see Rhode Island Court Records: Records of the Court of Trials of the Colony of Providence Plantations (Providence: Rhode Island Historical Society, 1920–1922), 1:52 (1658/9); 2:45 (1666), 88 (1669). 18. Fiske, RIGCT, 7 (1671), 22 (1673); Bartlett, RICR, 2:486–87. 19. John Lawson, A New Voyage to Carolina, ed. Hugh Talmage Lefler (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1967), 210, quoted in James H. Merrell, “The Indians’ New World: The Catawba Experience,” William and Mary Quarterly 41 (Oct. 1984): 550. See also Peter Mancall, Deadly Medicine: Indians and Alcohol in Early America (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995), 79–82. 20. Fiske, RIGCT, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14. 21. Bartlett, RICR, 2:400, 408, 410; the whistle is mentioned in Rebecca Cornell’s will. 22. Bartlett, RICR, 2:462–63, 489, 491; “Diary of John Hull,” American Antiquarian Society Transactions and Collections 3(1857): 161. 23. Sydney V. James, Colonial Rhode Island: A History (New York: Scribner’s, 1975), 84–93. See also Austin, Journal of William Jefferay, 132; LaFantasie, Correspondence of Roger Williams, 2:640. 24. Bartlett, RICR, 2:429. 25. Bartlett, RICR, 2:301 (1670), 373 (1671), 429 (1671/2), 431 (1671/2), 434 (1672). See LaFantasie, Correspondence of Roger Williams, 2:639–40, for a detailed explanation of the Harris controversy. It is no doubt coincidental, but interesting nonetheless, that in March 1656/7 Thomas Cornell sat on

208

Notes to Pages 91–96

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 209

the grand jury assembled to consider William Harris’s defiance against the charter at that time. This earlier case also involved a land scheme that would have enhanced the holdings of the original proprietors (and not so coincidentally would have benefited Harris). Thomas Cornell’s father had not been one of the original proprietors, and thus Thomas Cornell stood to gain only if the contested land was more widely distributed. To put it bluntly, Harris’s acquittal would not have been in Thomas Cornell’s interest. Once in court, Roger Williams brought the presentment against Harris. Harris pleaded not guilty and a jury was empanelled. No prosecutor came forward and apparently the proceedings were halted. Rhode Island Court Records, 1:25; James, Colonial Rhode Island, 88–89. 26. James, Colonial Rhode Island, 77–80, quotation on 77; Roger Williams to Major Mason (undated), reprinted in Elisha R. Potter, The Early History of Narragansett (Providence: Marshall Brown, 1835), 159; deposition of Nicholas Wilde, Apr. 14, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 30–31. 27. “Diary of John Hull,” 235. In a journal entry for February 1673, the Reverend Simon Bradstreet noted the credible report from New York that it had “rained blood” there on the third of the month. The rumor was eventually “contradicted,” but whether this was a weather report or a remarkable providence remains unclear. Simon Bradstreet, “Private Diary,” New England Historical and Genealogical Register 8 (1854): 328, 9 (1855): 46. 28. Rhode Island Land Evidences: Abstracts (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1970), 25; Fiske, RIGCT, 14–17, 21–22. 29. John Murrin, “Magistrates, Sinners, and a Precarious Liberty: Trial by Jury in Seventeenth-Century New England,” in Saints and Revolutionaries: Essays in Early American History, ed. David Hall, John Murrin, and Thad Tate (New York: Norton, 1984), 169–70; Rhode Island Court Records, 1: 71–72 (1660–61); 2:97 (1670). While most historians would agree that the early New England homicide rate was quite low, Randolph Roth has recently challenged this assumption. See Roth, “Guns, Gun Culture, and Homicide: The Relationship between Firearms, the Uses of Firearms, and Interpersonal Violence,” William and Mary Quarterly 59 (2002): 235. 30. Fiske, RIGCT, 4–7. 31. For an analysis of early modern English domestic violence see J. A. Sharpe, “Domestic Homicide in Early Modern England,” The Historical Journal 24 (1981): 24–48; Susan Dwyer Amussen, “ ‘Being Stirred to Much Unquietness’: Violence and Domestic Violence in Early Modern England,” Journal of Women’s History 6 (1994): 70–89; Margaret Hunt, “Wife Beating, Domesticity, and Women’s Independence in Eighteenth-Century London,” Gender and History 4 (1992): 10–33. 32. Sharpe, “Domestic Homicide in Early Modern England,” 37; J. A.

Notes to Pages 96–99

209

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 210

Sharpe, Crime in Early Modern England, 1550–1750 (Longman: London, 1984), 60, 63–64; J. A. Sharpe, Crime in Seventeenth-Century England: A County Study (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 126, 127. Executions followed the two patricide convictions. The matricide case is reported in J. M. Beattie, Crime and the Courts in England, 1660–1800 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 102; see also 74, for confirmation that physical conflict and abuse among family members was common in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century English society. 33. Hunt, “Wife Beating,” 22, 23; Amussen, “ ‘Being Stirred to Much Unquietness,’ ” 79–81; Sharpe, Crime in Seventeenth-Century England, 123; Beattie, Crime and the Courts in England, 75. 34. Amussen, “ ‘Being Stirred to Much Unquietness,’ ” 71; Hunt, “Wife Beating,” 18; Alan MacFarlane, The Family Life of Ralph Josselin, a Seventeenth-Century Clergyman (New York: Norton, 1970), 117, 121. 35. Massachusetts Colony Law Statutes, The Body of Liberties of 1641 (repr., Boston: Rockwell and Churchill, 1890), 51; E. Wayne Carp, “Family History, Family Violence: A Review Essay,” Journal of Policy History 3 (1991): 210–13. 36. Elizabeth Pleck, Domestic Tyranny: The Making of Social Policy against Family Violence from Colonial Times to the Present (New York: Oxford, 1987), 17–19, 21, 28; Elizabeth Pleck, “Criminal Approaches to Family Violence, 1640–1980,” in Family Violence, vol. 11 of Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, ed. Lloyd Ohlin and Michael Tonry (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 25 (Plymouth Colony figures); Helena M. Wall, Fierce Communion: Family and Community in Early America (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990), 54–57, 73–78, 81, 94, 116–18. It is difficult to determine at what point physical correction by Puritans transcended the line between permissible and excessive force, but as long as their actions did not result in heavy bleeding, broken bones, or permanent injury, Puritan parents were apparently left to punish children at their own discretion. On the seventeenth-century infant and child homicide rate in New England colonies other than Rhode Island, see Randolph Roth, “Child Murder in New England,” Social Science History 25 (2001): 104–14. 37. On this point see Christine Daniels and Michael V. Kennedy, eds., Over the Threshold: Intimate Violence in Early America (New York: Routledge, 1999), 4. It is also possible that colonists varied in their responses to abusers depending on where they lived. According to the most recent study, Virginia courts were sympathetic to abused spouses and servants if the victims could substantiate their claims. See Terri L. Snyder, “ ‘As If There Was Not Master or Woman in the Land’: Gender, Dependency, and Household Violence in Virginia, 1646–1720,” in Over the Threshold, ed. Daniels and Kennedy, 232.

210

Notes to Pages 99–101

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 211

38. Edwin Powers, Crime and Punishment in Early Massachusetts, 1620–1692: A Documentary History (Boston: Beacon, 1966), 282–86. 39. Pleck, Domestic Tyranny, 26; Brenda D. McDonald, “Domestic Violence in Colonial Massachusetts,” Historical Journal of Massachusetts 14 (1986): 60. For other examples of parental abuse see Nathaniel B. Shurtleff and David Pulsifer, eds., Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in New England, (Boston: W. White, 1855–61), 3:201 (1660); 4:47 (1663); Joseph H. Smith, ed., Colonial Justice in Western Massachusetts, 1630–1702: The Pynchon Court Record (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961), 234 (1655); Province and Court Records of Maine (Portland: Maine Historical Society, 1928–75, 1991 [repr. vol. 1]), 1:335–36 (1667); 2:13 (1653), 83 (1659). 40. George F. Dow, ed., Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts, 1638–1683 (Salem: Essex Institute, 1911–1921), 4:175 (1669); deposition of Sarah Wilde, Apr. 14, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 31; testimony of Joane Coggeshall, Apr. 14, 1673 in Fiske, RIGCT, 29–30. 41. Dow, Records and Files, 2:443–46 (1662). For another seventeenthcentury example of a mother’s refusal to testify against her son, see Pleck, Domestic Tyranny, 26. 42. Pleck, Domestic Tyranny, 30, 29. 43. The deposition of John James can be found among the file papers relating to the murder case against William Dyre (1719), although it appears to have little, if anything, to do with that case. Rhode Island Judicial Archives, Pawtucket, R.I. 44. Evidence of Nathaniell Coddington and Weston Clarke, March 30, 1719 (sworn in court, April 6, 1719), William Dyre murder case (1719), Rhode Island Judicial Archives. Chapter Four. Doubting Thomas: Or, Considering the Alternatives 1. Depositions of George Soule, Mar. 1, 1673, and Nicholas Wilde, Apr. 14, 1673, in Jane Fletcher Fiske, transcriber, Rhode Island General Court of Trials, 1671–1704 (Boxford, Mass., 1998), 28, 30–31 (hereafter, RIGCT); will of Rebecca Cornell, Sept. 2, 1664, box 1 (234B), Early Records [of Portsmouth], 1660–1890, Rhode Island State Archives, Providence; deed of gift, July 27, 1663, Portsmouth Land Evidence, books 1 and 2, 51, Portsmouth Town Hall, Portsmouth, R.I. 2. Will of Rebecca Cornell; indictment of Thomas Cornell, May 12, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 32; Friends Records, Births, Deaths, 1638–1812, book 882, p. 3, Newport Historical Society, Newport, R.I.; testimony of John Russill, Feb. 20, 1672/73, in Fiske, RIGCT, 24; testimony of Joane Coggeshall, Apr. 14, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 29–30.

Notes to Pages 101–9

211

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 212

3. Fiske, RIGCT, 24; Daniel B. Updike, Richard Smith: First English Settler of the Narragansett Country, Rhode Island (Boston: Merrymount, 1937), 93. 4. In seventeenth-century England, serious assaults or murders were frequently committed with knives, rapiers, or sticks. 5. Frances Hill, The Salem Witch Trials Reader (Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo, 2000), 199. 6. Testimony of John Russill, 24; deposition of George Soule, 28; Updike, Richard Smith, 93. Those familiar with domestic violence have found that women are at greatest risk when they threaten to leave an abusive relationship. See New York Times, Jan. 15, 1995, p. A22; Jan. 31, 1997, p. B1; Feb. 15, 2000, p. F6; Apr. 25, 2001, p. B2. 7. Updike, Richard Smith, 93; Chester C. Cornell, A Cornell Family History: From County Essex, England to Winneshiek County, Iowa (Decorah, Iowa: Anundsen, 1984), 12. 8. Phillis Cunnington and Catherine Lucas, Occupational Costume in England: From the Eleventh Century to 1914 (London: A. and C. Black, 1967), 116, 328. 9. Deposition of Rebecca Woolsey, Apr. 10, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 31; Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (New York: Scribner’s, 1971), 464. See also Angela Bourke, The Burning of Bridget Cleary (New York: Viking, 1999), 91, 95. 10. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, 552–54; James Sharpe, The Bewitching of Anne Gunter: A Horrible and True Story of Deception, Witchcraft, Murder, and the King of England (New York: Routledge, 2000), 145–46; Alan Macfarlane, Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England: A Regional and Comparative Study (London: Routledge, 1970), 61, 174–75, 265. 11. Michael Dalton, The Countrey Justice (1618; London, 1655), 371–72. 12. Ibid., 372; Edgar J. McManus, Law and Liberty in Early New England: Criminal Justice and Due Process, 1620–1692 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1993), 98, 190; Bradley Chapin, Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 1606–1660 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1983), 13–14; John R. Bartlett, ed., Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England (Providence: A. Crawford Greene, 1857), 1:182, 227–28 (hereafter, RICR). 13. Fiske, RIGCT, 20, 5 (1671). 14. Examination of James Moills, Feb. 22, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 27. 15. Deposition of Hugh Parsons, Apr. 11, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 29. 16. Testimony and examination of Thomas Cornell, Feb. 9 and 21, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 22, 25; Jon J. Nordby, Dead Reckoning: The Art of Forensic Detection (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2000), 104.

212

Notes to Pages 109–17

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 213

17. Testimony of Henry Straite, Feb. 9 and 22, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 23, 26–27; testimony and examination of Thomas Cornell, 22, 25. 18. Updike, Richard Smith, 93. 19. Jay Dix, Handbook for Death Scene Investigators (New York: CRC Press, 1999), 14, 40. 20. Increase Mather, Wo to Drunkards (Cambridge, Mass.: Marmaduke Johnson, 1673), 23; “Diary of John Hull,” American Antiquarian Society Transactions and Collections 3 (1857): 235. 21. Fiske, RIGCT, 37, 7; Rhode Island Court Records: Records of the Court of Trials of the Colony of Providence Plantations (Providence: Rhode Island Historical Society, 1920–1922), 1:52; 2:45, 88. 22. Testimony of Henry Straite, 23. 23. Helen Capwell, transcriber, Records of the Court of Trials of the Town of Warwick, 1659–1674 (Providence, 1922), 141 (May 1662). 24. Theda Perdue, Cherokee Women: Gender and Cultural Change, 1700–1835 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press), 87–88. 25. Jeremiah Shepard, An Ephemera of Celestial Motions for the Year of the Christian Epocha 1672 (Cambridge, Mass.: Samuel Green, 1672). 26. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth (Providence: E. L. Freeman and Sons, 1901), 414–15 (1667–68), 280 (1671/2) (hereafter, Portsmouth Records). 27. Fiske, RIGCT, 37–38. See also Quashcome’s case in Fiske, RIGCT, 6–8 (1671), and that of Grace Lawton in Fiske, RIGCT, 10 (1671). 28. Fiske, RIGCT, 44, 45. 29. Edward Powell, “Jury Trial at Gaol Delivery in the Late Middle Ages: The Midland Circuit, 1400–1429,” in Twelve Good Men and True, ed. J. S. Cockburn and Thomas A. Green (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 104–5; Thomas A. Green, “A Retrospective on the Criminal Trial Jury, 1200–1800,” in Twelve Good Men and True, ed. Cockburn and Green, 359. 30. Dalton, Countrey Justice, 367. 31. Fiske, RIGCT, 236. 32. Rhode Island Court Records, 2:11–12 (1662), 15 (1663). William Harris presented another personal indictment in 1667, this time against Benjamin Herndon for assault against the constable. Rhode Island Court Records, 2:56. See William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Chicago: Callaghan and Co., 1899), 4:303. 33. Testimony of Thomas Cornell, Feb. 9, 1672/3, 22. 34. Walburga von Raffler-Engel, The Perception of the Unborn across the Cultures of the World (Seattle: Hogrefe and Huber, 1994), 48. 35. Portsmouth Records, 186 (1675).

Notes to Pages 117–25

213

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 214

36. Examination of James Moills, 27; examinations of Stephen, Edward, and John Cornell, Feb. 22, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 28. 37. Recall that Thomas Jr. was eighteen to nineteen in 1673, Sarah was thirty-one to thirty-three, and Thomas Sr. was forty-six. 38. William R. Maples and Michael Browning, Dead Men Do Tell Tales (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 81, 38; Raymond I. Harris, Outline of Death Investigation (Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1962), 107; Dix, Handbook for Death Scene Investigators, 37. 39. Carla Gerona, “Stairways to Heaven: A Cultural History of Early American Quaker Dreams” (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1997), 53; “Memoir of the Reverend William Adams of Dedham, Massachusetts,” Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 4th ser., 1 (1852): 17–18; Howard I. Kushner, “Suicide and the Law in Puritan America” (paper presented at the New-York Historical Society Conference on “The Law in America 1607–1861,” New York, N.Y., May 1985), 14. 40. Testimony of Joane Coggeshall, 29–30; Panel on Domestic Violence, American Bar Association Conference, San Francisco, Aug. 4, 1997 (panelists: Carol Baker, Anita Bolanas, Joy M. Feinberg, Edward Gross). 41. These conclusions draw on the work of Barry Levy, Quakers and the American Family: British Settlement in the Delaware Valley (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 74–79. 42. Deposition of Rebecca Woolsey, 31; declaration of Mary Cornell, Mar. 3, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 28. 43. Bartlett, RICR, 1:163. 44. Deposition of Mary Almy, Apr. 11, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 29; deposition of Rebecca Woolsey, 31. 45. Deposition of Rebecca Woolsey, 31; Elizabeth Reis, Damned Women: Sinners and Witches in Puritan New England (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997), 53–54. 46. John Campion et al., “A Study of Fifteen Matricidal Men,” American Journal of Psychiatry 142 (1985): 314; S. Singhaland and A. Dutta, “Who Commits Patricide?” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 82 (1990): 41. 47. Frederic Wertham, Dark Legend: A Study in Murder (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1941); Frederic Wertham, “The Matricide Impulse: Critique of Freud’s Interpretation of Hamlet,” Journal of Criminal Psychopathology 2 (1941): 455–64. 48. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, Homicide (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1988), 95–103. See also Robert Trivers, “Parent-Offspring Conflict,” American Zoologist 14 (1974): 249–64. 49. Gregory Carey, “Genetics and Violence,” in Understanding and Preventing Violence, vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1994),

214

Notes to Pages 126–33

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 215

21, 30, 34, 38; Remi Cadoret, Leslie Leve, and Eric Devor, “Genetics of Aggressive and Violent Behavior,” Psychiatric Clinics of North America 20 ( June 1997): 306. 50. “Today, there is a general acceptance of the likelihood that genetic factors pre-disposing to aggressive and violent behavior do exist.” Cadoret et al., “Genetics of Aggressive and Violent Behavior,” 307, 317 (preceding quotation); Carey, “Genetics and Violence,” 40–45; David Stoff and Robert Cairns, eds., Aggression and Violence: Genetic, Neurobiological, and Biosocial Perspectives (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996), xiii–xiv; Gregory Carey, “Family and Genetic Epidemiology of Aggressive and Antisocial Behavior,” Aggression and Violence, ed. Stoff and Cairns, 4 (quotation in text). 51. For biographical details as well as a narrative of the case involving Sarah Maria Cornell, see David Richard Kasserman, Fall River Outrage: Life, Murder, and Justice in Early Industrial New England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986). See also William McLoughlin, “Untangling the Tiverton Tragedy: The Social Meaning of the Terrible Haystack Murder of 1833,” Journal of American Culture 7, no. 4 (1984): 75–84. 52. John Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family: Being an Account of the Descendants of Thomas Cornell of Portsmouth, Rhode Island (New York: T. A. Wright, 1902); Prentiss Glazier, Thomas Cornell (or Cornwell) (1594–1655/56 of Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, His English Origin and His Family in America (Sarasota, Fla.: privately published, 1975); New England Historical and Genealogical Register; Cornell family papers, Olin Library, Cornell University Ithaca, N.Y.; Cornell papers, Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Conn. 53. The Correct, Full and Impartial Report of the Trial of Rev. Ephraim K. Avery before the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Rhode-Island at Newport, May 6, 1833 for the Murder of Sarah M. Cornell (Providence: Marshall and Brown, 1833), 36, 48, 72, 77, 73, 74. See also Brief Narrative of the Life of Sarah Maria Cornell . . . Found Dead (Suspended by Neck and Suspected to Have Been Murdered) Near Fall River December 22, 1832 (New York: G. Williams, 1833); Ephraim Avery, A Correct Report of the Examination of Rev. Ephraim K. Avery . . . Charged with the Murder of Sarah Cornell (Providence: Marshall and Brown, 1833). 54. Correct, Full and Impartial Report, 74, 80, 84–85, 92–93, 82. 55. Testimony of Joane Coggeshall, Apr. 14, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 29–30. 56. J. Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family, 72, 97. Information about Alvin Cornell’s life and trial has been taken from Theodoric R. Beck, Analyis of the Testimony on the Trial of Alvin Cornell for Murder and of the Subsequent Proof Which Led to the Commutation of His Punishment, communicated by Drs.

Notes to Pages 133–38

215

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 216

T. R. Beck and A. Brigham for the Transactions of the New York State Medical Society (Albany, 1845). This twenty-two-page pamphlet can be found in the collection of Munsell imprints, vol. 4, no. 18, at the New-York Historical Society. Details of Cornell’s life and trial have also been extracted from The Fredonia Censor, [ Jan. 31?], 1844; The People’s Advocate and Lodi Banner, Gowanda (Lodi), [Feb. 13?], 1844. See also Gilbert W. Hazeltine, The Early History of the Town of Ellicott ( Jamestown, N.Y.: Journal Printing, 1887), 368–70; Centennial History of Chautauqua County ( Jamestown, N.Y.: Chautauqua History Co., 1904), 145. 57. The People’s Advocate and Lodi Banner, Gowanda (Lodi), [Feb. 13?], 1844. 58. J. Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family, 25; Hattie Borden Weld, comp., Historical and Genealogical Record of the Descendants as Far as Known of Richard and Joan Borden: Who Settled in Portsmouth, Rhode Island, May 1638 (Bethany, Okla.: Richardson Reprints), 1985. 59. Among the most recent efforts at unraveling the case is Frank Spiering’s Lizzie (New York: Random House, 1984), a book asserting that Emma was the real culprit and that the two sisters conspired to murder the Bordens because of an inheritance dispute (3, 30–31). By killing Abby first, the sisters’ stepmother was deprived by law of her widow’s dower, thus maximizing the estate left to Lizzie and Emma after Andrew’s death (179–80). Arnold Brown, Lizzie Borden: The Legend, the Truth, the Final Chapter (Nashville: Rutledge Hill, 1991), presents a new thesis and maintains that the killer was William S. Borden, the thirty-six-year-old illegitimate son of Andrew Borden, who had been raised by Charles and Phebe Hathaway Borden (the woman with whom Andrew had an affair) (311, 302, 315–16). A farmer, Bill Borden was rarely seen without his hatchet, to which he often spoke of various matters. He drank a lot (290). People remembered him as “touched,” and he may have spent time in the State Hospital at Taunton, an insane asylum (310). Bill Borden eventually committed suicide. On the day of the murder in 1892, a witness claimed to have seen him in Abigail and Andrew’s yard, but insisted that the police did not follow this lead. For various reasons, Brown’s thesis is not compelling, although Bill Borden’s family history and life story do reinforce the possibility of genetic predisposition to violence. Finally, a centennial publication by David Kent, Forty Whacks: New Evidence in the Life and Legend of Lizzie Borden (Emmaus, Pa.: Yankee, 1992), makes no attempt to persuade the reader of Lizzie’s guilt or innocence. 60. It should also be noted that Thomas Cornell was not the only member of the family to be tried for murder on Aquidneck Island. In 1819, seventeen-year-old William G. Cornell (born the same year as Sarah Maria Cornell, but whose exact lineage is uncertain), killed a fellow soldier at Fort

216

Notes to Pages 140–43

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 217

Adams during a drunken brawl. The incident followed a July 4 celebration for which the soldiers had received an extra gill of rum. William Cornell was “in a great passion” that day, as the record indicates, but even under ordinary circumstances he was “illiterate, and badly educated,” as well as a youth possessed “of an irascible temper.” United States v. Cornell, 25 F. Cas. 646, 2 Mason 60, no. 14, 867. Nov. Term 1819 (Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island), 4. Originally sentenced to be executed, William Cornell was pardoned by President James Monroe and released from prison in 1820. Other mental disorders, visible enough to be recognized by contemporaries, also weave in and out of the Cornell family history. In the nineteenth century, Job Cornell, a direct descendant of Thomas, was “at times in a weak State of Mind,” and in 1802 deeded property to unrelated people in a generous but rash and ill-advised act. His family attempted to retrieve the property and reached a settlement with the grantees only after a prolonged controversy. See J. Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family, 43; undated and unsigned documents, Cornell family papers, folder 4, Newport Historical Society. Mary Cornell, fifty-four, and David Cornell, fifty-five, died within six months of one another in 1850–51, “at the Asylum,” according to Bristol County, Rhode Island, records. James M. Arnold, comp., Vital Records of Rhode Island, 1636–1850, 1st ser. (Providence: Narragansett Historical Publishing, 1891–1912), 6:125. And Edward Cornell wrote to Elijah (Ezra Cornell’s father) from a Michigan asylum in June 1861, explaining that his doctors refused to release him until some of his friends supported his request in writing. According to Edward, approximately 130 inmates shared his confinement and “many of the males were shut up on account of jelousy with their wives.” Edward’s particular disorder was not revealed. Edward S. Cornell to Elijah Cornell, June 4, 1861, box 36, folder 11, Ezra Cornell Papers, Olin Library, Cornell University. Chapter 5. A Community Renders a Verdict 1. Jane Fletcher Fiske, transcriber, Rhode Island General Court of Trials, 1671–1704 (Boxford, Mass., 1998), 18 (1672) (hereafter, RIGCT); Rhode Island Court Records: Records of the Court of Trials of the Colony of Providence Plantations (Providence: Rhode Island Historical Society, 1920–1922), 1:26 (1656–57). 2. Rhode Island Court Records, 2:56 (1667). 3. Rhode Island Court Records, 2:79–80 (1669). 4. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth (Providence: E. L. Freeman and Sons, 1901), 161 (1671) (hereafter, Portsmouth Records). 5. Jury nullification is said to take place in criminal cases when the jury acquits the defendant despite the strength of the evidence against him or her.

Notes to Pages 146–48

217

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 218

On this issue see Thomas A. Green, Verdict according to Conscience: Perspectives on the English Criminal Trial, 1200–1800 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 26–27, 105, 140, 150; J. S. Cockburn, “Twelve Silly Men? The Trial Jury at Assizes, 1560–1670,” in Twelve Good Men and True, ed. J. S. Cockburn and Thomas A. Green (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 177. 6. An attaint jury considered whether the original twelve-man jury had given a false verdict. John Marshall Mitnick, “From Neighbor-Witness to Judge of Proofs: The Transformation of the English Civil Juror,” American Journal of Legal History 32 ( July 1988): 201–4; Green, Verdict according to Conscience, 159, 28, 105, 185. 7. Fiske, RIGCT, 10, 12 (Oct. 1671). On the power of trial juries see Green, Verdict according to Conscience, 19. 8. Mitnick, “From Neighbor-Witness to Judge of Proofs,” 205, 220–21. 9. Ibid., 206, 207; Green, Verdict according to Conscience, 200, 243, 245. 10. Few seventeenth-century guidelines exist for juror qualifications, although those set forth for Block Island in 1672 probably applied to the entire colony. Actions were to be tried by twelve honest “impartiall” men who were “no kindred” to the parties “nor interested in that case.” John R. Bartlett, ed., Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England (Providence: A. Crawford Greene, 1857), 2:470 (hereafter, RICR). 11. John Sanford was an executor of Rebecca Cornell’s will, and Thomas Wood was distantly related. John Albro and Hugh Parsons viewed the body along with George Lawton. Francis Brayton served on the town council with Cornell in 1671. 12. The names of the council members can be found in Bartlett, RICR, 2:465. The five others were Richard Smith, Francis Brinley, John Easton, Thomas Harris, and Joshua Coggeshall. 13. Fiske, RIGCT, 23–24. John Cranston, a physician, had been the subject of criticism by Phillip Reads in 1664. Reads, who also professed to be a “phisistion and Chyrargeon,” offended Cranston by disparaging his medical skills. Roger Williams came to Cranston’s defense, declaring Cranston to be a “very happie Instrument of much blissing and mercy to many in this Towne.” See Rhode Island Court Records, 2:34–35. Recall that John Russill was the father of Mary Russill Cornell, who was married to Thomas’s brother John, and John Briggs was Rebecca Cornell’s brother. 14. William Dyre, John Anthony Sr., and Peter Talman were absent from the second inquest jury. Dyre and Anthony were Quakers. 15. Dr. Greenland had a criminal record for attempted adultery in Essex County, Massachusetts. John Murrin, “Magistrates, Sinners, and a Precarious Liberty: Trial by Jury in Seventeenth-Century New England,” in Saints

218

Notes to Pages 148–53

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 219

and Revolutionaries: Essays in Early American History, ed. David Hall, John Murrin, and Thad Tate (New York: Norton, 1984), 206; Fiske, RIGCT, 24. 16. Fiske, RIGCT, 30, 24, 23. 17. Peter Easton was the son of Governor Nicholas Easton and a brother of John Easton, the attorney general. His wife was Ann Coggeshall, sister of Joshua and Wait and sister-in-law of Joane, confidant of Rebecca. Weston Clarke was the husband of Easton’s daughter, Mary. 18. Diary of Peter Easton, American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Mass. n.d. 19. Fiske, RIGCT, 6; Rhode Island Court Records, 2:67 (1668). 20. Fiske, RIGCT, 1; Portsmouth Records, 154. Cornell had told a group of people “that his Mother in her life time had A desire to have A good fire . . . that he thought God had answered her ends, for now shee had it.” Testimony of John Pearce, May 7, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 31. 21. Daniel B. Updike, Richard Smith: First English Settler of the Narragansett Country, Rhode Island (Boston: Merrymount, 1937), 93. 22. For a discussion of the events leading to the formation of the Seventh Day Baptist Church in Newport, see Don A. Sanford, “Entering into Covenant: The History of the Seventh Day Baptists in Newport,” Newport History 66 (1994): 1–13. 23. Rhode Island Monthly Meeting Records, box 10 (microfilm), Rhode Island Historical Society, Providence. 24. Newport sent six, and Providence, Portsmouth, and Warwick four each; Bartlett, RICR, 2:482–83. The deputies from Portsmouth were William Hall, William Wodell, William Cadman, and Robert Dennis. Dennis, a planter, was the only Quaker. 25. Those with ties to the case were Peter Easton, Walter Clarke, Daniel and John Gould, and Henry Bull. John Wood was the sixth deputy from Newport. Walter Clarke and Daniel Gould were elected assistants and thus members of the bench. 26. Green, Verdict according to Conscience, 138–40. 27. Bartlett, RICR, 2:484, 485, 465. John Coggeshall was the brother of Joshua and husband of Patience Throckmorton Coggeshall, who was sisterin-law to Wait Gould and Joane Coggeshall, all three of whom had testified against Thomas Cornell in April. 28. Portsmouth Records, 175. 29. “All traitors, Felons . . . shall be indicted by twelve or sixteen honest and lawful men.” Bartlett, RICR, 1:198. 30. The four members of the inquest were Joseph Torrey, Thomas Burge, Francis Brayton, and Philip Eades. Those who also acted as witnesses were Joseph Torrey and Philip Eades.

Notes to Pages 153–57

219

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 220

31. Such were foreman Joseph Torrey and Philip Eades, a merchant who had been an officer in Cromwell’s army and enjoyed an unblemished reputation among his Newport colleagues. 32. Glenn W. LaFantasie, ed., The Correspondence of Roger Williams, 1629–1682 (Providence: Brown University Press, University Press of New England, 1988), 2:690; Baptist Record Book, 137 (box labeled “marriages, 1725”), Newport Historical Society, Newport, R.I.; Bartlett, RICR, 2: 125–26. 33. John Read was accepted as a freeman in Portsmouth in 1658; Carl Bridenbaugh lists him as a Newport cordwainer in 1676. Portsmouth Records, 84; Carl Bridenbaugh, Fat Mutton and Liberty of Conscience: Society in Rhode Island, 1636–1690 (Providence: Brown University Press, 1974), 142. 34. Bartlett, RICR, 1:199. 35. Bartlett, RICR, 2:39, 45, 97, 125, 147, 204, 302, 399–400. 36. Bartlett, RICR, 1:199; Bradley Chapin, Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 1606–1660 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1983), 40; Edgar J. McManus, Law and Liberty in Early New England: Criminal Justice and Due Process, 1620–1692 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1993), 100. 37. William Allin (one of Portsmouth’s constables) and John Bliss were Friends, and Clement Weaver’s wife was a member of the Society. 38. Fiske, RIGCT, 26. 39. In addition to Strainge, Grenell, and Allin, Henry Palmer had also been a constable. 40. Fiske, RIGCT, 24. 41. As a result of her study of criminals in East Sussex, England, between 1592 and 1640, Cynthia B. Herrup concluded that “executions . . . were not determined simply by assessing guilt, but rather were ordered after careful assessments of the characters of both individuals and their actions. . . . No category of offences invariably brought execution or leniency; mitigation varied with the nature and circumstance of specific crimes.” “Law and Morality in Seventeenth-Century England,” Past and Present 106 (1985): 113. 42. Thomas Thacher, preface to Eye Salve or a Watch-word from our Lord Jesus Christ unto His Churches in New England, by Thomas Shepard (Cambridge, Mass.: Samuel Green, 1673); Increase Mather, The Day of Trouble Is Near (Cambridge, Mass.: Marmaduke Johnson, 1674). 43. Rebellious speech against political fathers was particularly widespread in Massachusetts, where between 1630 and 1692 there were more than two hundred cases in which the colony’s “parents” were verbally assaulted. See Jane Kamensky, Governing the Tongue: The Politics of Speech in Early New England (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 113.

220

Notes to Pages 158–62

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 221

44. Robert St. George, “ ‘Heated Speech,’ and Literacy in SeventeenthCentury New England,” in Seventeenth-Century New England: A Conference Held by the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, June 18 and 19, 1982, ed. David D. Hall and David Grayson Allen (Boston: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1984), 284–86. 45. Testimony of Joane Coggeshall, Apr. 14, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 29–30; deposition of Nicholas Wilde, Apr. 14, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 30; St. George, “ ‘Heated Speech,’” app. 1. 46. St. George, “ ‘Heated Speech,’” 285, 287; deposition of Sarah Wilde, Apr. 14, 1673, in Fiske, RIGCT, 31. 47. McManus, Law and Liberty, app. A, 187; Kamensky, Governing the Tongue, 99, 111, 128. 48. William Bridge, Word to the Aged (Boston, 1679), 4. 49. David Hackett Fischer, Growing Old in America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 52. 50. Linda Cox Curry and Joy Graham Stone, “Understanding Elder Abuse: The Social Problem of the 1990s,” Journal of Clinical Geropsychology 2 (1995): 151–52. 51. Session on elder abuse, New York State Unified Court System (Summer Judicial Seminar, Rye, N.Y., July 1998). 52. Dawn Bradley Berry, The Domestic Violence Sourcebook (Los Angeles: Lowell House, 1995), 58. 53. Peter Stearns, “Old Age Family Conflict: The Perspective of the Past,” in Elder Abuse: Conflict in the Family, ed. Karl Pillemer and Rosalie Wolf (Dover, Mass.: Auburn House, 1986), 5–6. 54. Bartlett, RICR, 2:485. 55. In the early republic, failed patriarchs had a greater tendency toward murder than those who managed their households successfully. Randolph Roth, “ ‘The Indulgence of Passion’: Murder of Husbands and Wives in Northern New England” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic, July 1997). 56. Increase Mather, An Essay for Recording Illustrious Providences (1684; repr., Delmar, N.Y.: Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, 1977), 345, 150. 57. Examination of Thomas Cornell, Feb. 21, 1672/3, in Fiske, RIGCT, 25. 58. See Adam Fox, “Custom, Memory, and the Authority of Writing,” in The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England, ed. Paul Griffiths, Adam Fox, and Steve Hindle (New York: St. Martin’s, 1996), 110–11. 59. Surgeons gave evidence in one-half of the twenty murder trials in late-eighteenth-century Newfoundland. In the trials at which they presented their findings, fourteen out of nineteen defendants were convicted,

Notes to Pages 162–69

221

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 222

“whereas only 3 of the 11 men and women indicted in other cases were similarly judged.” In sum, “only once did a trial verdict not correspond to the post-mortem report given in court.” Jerry Bannister, “Surgeons and Criminal Justice in Eighteenth-Century Newfoundland,” in Criminal Justice in the Old World and the New: Essays in Honour of J. M. Beattie, ed. Greg T. Smith, Allyson N. May, and Simon Devereaux (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1998), 116. 60. Testimony of Joane Coggeshall, 30. 61. Joy M. Feinberg (panelist, American Bar Association panel discussion on domestic violence, San Francisco, Aug. 1997). 62. Mary Beth Norton, Founding Mothers and Fathers: Gendered Power and the Forming of American Society (New York: Knopf, 1996), 19–20, 248. 63. For reputation-related accusations based on gender, see Mary Beth Norton, “Gender and Defamation in Seventeenth-Century Maryland,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 44 ( Jan. 1987): 3–39; deposition of Sarah Wilde, 31. See also testimony of Joane Coggeshall, 29–30. 64. See Carol F. Karlsen, The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England (New York: Vintage, 1989), 81–84, 104–7, for the ways in which inheritance patterns gave rise to witchcraft allegations. 65. Lyndal Roper, Oedipus and the Devil: Witchcraft, Sexuality, and Religion in Early Modern Europe (London: Routledge, 1994), 192. 66. Bartlett, RICR, 2:442. 67. Boyer and Nissenbaum argue that a progressive and economically thriving Salem town bred resentments among more traditional Salem villagers, which in turn set the scene for the 1691–92 witchcraft outbreak. Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974), especially chaps. 4, 5. Chapter 6. Life after Death 1. Elisha R. Potter, The Early History of Narragansett (Providence: Marshall Brown, 1835), 73, 77; Edward Field, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at the End of the Century: A History (Boston, 1902), 3:148–51; Sydney V. James, Colonial Rhode Island: A History (New York: Scribner’s, 1975); Carl Bridenbaugh, Fat Mutton and Liberty of Conscience: Society in Rhode Island, 1636–1690 (Providence: Brown University Press, 1974); Ezra Cornell, “To the Cornells,” #1/1/1, Cornell Papers, box 90, Olin Library Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; James Savage, A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England (Boston, 1860–62; repr., Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1965), 1:458; Thomas Durfee, “Gleanings from the Judicial History of Rhode Island,” Rhode Island Historical Tracts, no. 18 (Providence: Sidney S.

222

Notes to Pages 170–75

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 223

Rider, 1883), 150; Irving B. Richman, Rhode Island: Its Making and Its Meaning, A Survey of the Annals of the Commonwealth from Its Settlement to the Death of Roger Williams, 1636–1683 (New York: Putnam’s, 1902, 1908), 2:396–97. 2. Friends Records, box 10, Rhode Island Monthly Meeting (1647–1875, “deaths”), Rhode Island Historical Society, Providence (microfilm); Simon Bradstreet, “Private Diary, 1664–1683,” in New England Historical and Genealogical Register 9 (1855): 46; Daniel B. Updike, Richard Smith: First English Settler of the Narragansett Country, Rhode Island (Boston: Merrymount, 1937), 93–94. William Jefferay mentions the Cornell case in his journal, 135. Carl Bridenbaugh accepts the authenticity of this diary, edited by John Osborne Austin and published in 1899, but the fact that the subtitle reads “A Diary That Might Have Been” makes me hesitate to treat it as a bona fide source. An attempt to corroborate entries with actual people, events, and dates indicates that Austin did his homework very carefully, but I remain doubtful that the real William Jefferay actually left such a manuscript. Nevertheless, Austin’s inclusion of the incident in Jefferay’s alleged “diary” confirms the importance of the case, at least in Austin’s mind in 1899. See Austin, ed., The Journal of William Jefferay Gentleman . . . A Diary That Might Have Been (Providence: E. L. Freeman, 1899). 3. Steward Holbrook, The Old Post Road (New York: McGraw Hill, 1962). 4. Samuel Danforth, The Cry of Sodom Enquired Into (Cambridge, Mass.: Marmaduke Johnson, 1674); Increase Mather, The Wicked Man’s Portion (Boston: John Foster, 1675). 5. John Reynolds, The Triumphs of God’s Revenge against the Crying and Execrable Sin of Murther, Expressed in Thirty Several Tragical Histories, 6th ed. (London, 1679); Wonderful Prodigies of Judgment and Mercy, Discovered in Above Three Hundred Memorable Histories (London: Nathan, Crouch, 1682). See Worthington C. Ford, The Boston Book Market, 1679–1700 (Boston: Merrymount, 1917). 6. Urian Oakes, New England Pleaded With (Cambridge, Mass.: Samuel Green, 1673), 16 (preached May 7, 1673). 7. Thomas Shepard, Eye Salve or a Watch-word from our Lord Jesus Christ unto His Churches in New England (Cambridge, Mass.: Samuel Green, 1673), 44 (preached May 15, 1672); Samuel Willard, Useful Instructions for a Professing People (Cambridge, Mass.: Samuel Green, 1673), 31–33. 8. Increase Mather, Wo to Drunkards (Cambridge, Mass.: Marmaduke Johnson, 1673), [Oct. 1673], 13, 25. See United States v. William Cornell (1819), 2 Mason 60, No. 14,867 (25F. Cas. 646). 9. Mather, Wicked Man’s Portion, 16, 17, 18–19, 20. 10. That plantation was probably Rhode Island. In October 1673, Grace Lawton had been tried for committing adultery with James Murfie. She was

Notes to Pages 175–79

223

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 224

acquitted, even though two years earlier she had been accused of the same crime with a different partner. In 1671, as the wife of William Baily, she had been tried for committing adultery with her future husband, Thomas Lawton. The jury found her not guilty, but the court was “wholy dissatisfyed with that Verdict” and temporarily refused to release her. Mather may have taken a prurient interest in Grace Lawton’s legal difficulties. Jane Fletcher Fiske, transcriber, Rhode Island General Court of Trials, 1671–1704 (Boxford, Mass., 1998), 34, 10 (hereafter, RIGCT). 11. Jill Lepore, The Name of War: King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity (New York: Knopf, 1998), 54. 12. John R. Bartlett, ed., Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England (Providence: A. Crawford Greene, 1857), 2:487, 488 (hereafter, RICR). 13. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth (Providence: E. L. Freeman and Sons, 1901), 176. 14. John Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family: Being an Account of the Descendants of Thomas Cornell of Portsmouth, Rhode Island (New York: T. A. Wright, 1902), 33. 15. Bartlett, RICR, 1:162. 16. Fiske, RIGCT, 21; Bartlett, RICR, 2:486. 17. Disposition of estate of Thomas Cornell, Oct. 14, 1673, Town Council of Portsmouth, box 9, folder 4, Cornell Family Papers, Newport Historical Society, Newport, R.I. 18. Rhode Island Land Evidences: Abstracts (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1970), 233–34. 19. According to J. Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family, 27, John Albro and John Sanford inventoried Thomas Cornell’s Portsmouth estate and valued it at £452/18/5. Included in the inventory were 22 acres of land, 100 sheep, cattle, horses, and so on. 20. Pliny Earle, comp., The Earle Family: Ralph Earle and His Descendants (Worcester, Mass.: Charles Hamilton, 1888), 23. 21. Recall that John Cornell’s wife was Mary Russill, who was John Russill’s daughter. 22. See “Thomas Cornwell of Portsmouth, Rhode Island,” document set 308, consisting of court orders dated July 4, 1673, Oct. 1673, and Nov. 28, 1673, and an inventory of Cornell’s Plymouth estate exhibited on Oct. 29, 1673, Plymouth Colony Probate Transcriptions, County Commissioners’ Office, Plymouth, Mass. 23. “Thomas Cornell’s Land Recorded,” Jan. 25, 1675, Rhode Island Land Records, vol. 1 (1648–96), Rhode Island State Archives, Providence; Bartlett, RICR, 1:475–77.

224

Notes to Pages 180–85

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 225

24. Fiske, RIGCT, 47. 25. J. Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family, 35; Prentiss Glazier, Thomas Cornell (or Cornwell) (1594–1655/56) of Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, His English Origin and His Family in America (Sarasota, Fla.: privately printed, 1975), 6. 26. Fiske, RIGCT, 72 (1678/9); J. Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family, 27. 27. Rhode Island Land Evidences, 216–17. 28. New England Historical and Genealogical Register 104:227; Pliny, Earle Family, 26; Glazier, Thomas Cornell, 3; Ray G. Huling, “A Genealogical ‘Find,’ ” Rhode Island Historical Society Publications 2 (1894–95): 244–45; James M. Arnold, comp., Vital Records of Rhode Island 1636–1850, 1st ser. (Providence: Narragansett Historical Publishing, 1891–1912), vol. 7. 29. Increase Mather, “Sermon Occasioned by the Execution of a Man Found Guilty of Murder,” in American Sermons: The Pilgrims to Martin Luther King, comp. Michael Warner (New York: Library of America, 1999), 191, preached March 11, 1685/6 (Boston). 30. Session on domestic violence, New York State Summer Judicial Seminar, Rye, N.Y., July 2000. 31. Cornell indenture, March 5, 1704/5, box 36B, Newport Historical Society; Bartlett, RICR, 3:121; rate list, Portsmouth (1688), 111.022, Portsmouth Historical Society, Portsmouth, R.I. 32. Will of Thomas Cornell, Town Council Records 1714–19, 3:3, Newport Historical Society. 33. J. Cornell, Genealogy of the Cornell Family, 31, 33, 28–30. 34. N. E. B. O’Callaghan, ed., Calendar of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Secretary of State, Albany, New York, pt.1: Dutch Manuscripts, vol. 2: 1664–1676 (Albany: Weed, Parsons, 1865), 2:50 (Oct. 3 and 26, 1676). 35. Lepore, Name of War, 78; Glazier, Thomas Cornell, 4, 6; Last Will and Testament of Samuel Cornell, May 15, 1699, Probate Records no. 3 pt. 1, 2141/2, Registry of Deeds and Probate, Taunton, Mass. As the shocking news of Rebecca Cornell’s tragic death swiftly spread from house to house on February 9, 1673, William Brenton chose that Sunday to compose his will. His estate, he declared, was “to be equally divided by his overseers among all his children.” Brenton was an elderly man in 1673 and had known the Cornell family since the late 1630s when he took up residence in Portsmouth. Whether his action on that particular day was a response to his old friend’s death or merely coincidental is hard to say. In any case, the equitable distribution of his property stands in striking contrast to the way in which Rebecca Cornell played favorites. Brenton kept his motives to himself. Jane Fletcher Fiske, ed., Gleanings from Newport Court Files, 1659–1783 (Boxford, Mass., 1998), no. 538.

Notes to Pages 185–89

225

2672_notes.qrk 6/25/02 12:58 PM Page 226

36. Friends Meeting Records, no. 830, Newport Historical Society. 37. Cornwell family record, Quaker Meeting Records, Friends Library, London; Essex Quarterly Meeting Book of Sufferings, 1655–1786, p. 1007. Albert Sloman Library, University of Essex, Colchester. 38. Bartlett, RICR, 2:587–90 (1677).

226

Notes to Pages 189–90

2672_index.qrk 6/25/02 1:00 PM Page 227

index Individuals are identified according to their relationship either to Rebecca Cornell or to her son Thomas. Accusations, 113 Ahogshake, 119, 123 Albro, John, 16, 38-39, 91–92, 182, 218 Alcoholism. See Drunkenness Allin, William, 158, 160 Almy, Christopher (son-in-law of Rebecca), 84, 188 Almy, Elizabeth Cornell (daughter of Rebecca), 64, 84, 108, 181, 188 Almy, John, 76, 172 Almy, Mary, 41, 50, 106, 113, 116, 171 Almy, William, 76 Anthony, John, 125, 218 Antinomians, 61, 62–63, 73, 88, 200 Apparitions, 172. See also Briggs, John; Ghosts Appeals, 52 Aquidneck Island, 10, 11, 64, 68, 89, 91, 93, 121, 147 Arnold, Benedict, 92, 159 Arson, 29, 49, 93, 101, 110, 119, 120 Assistants to the governor, 27, 30, 31, 33, 39, 40, 47, 152, 170. See also General Assembly Attorney, right to, 30, 146 Autopsy, 27–28, 109 Avery, Ephraim K., 134–38, 143

Baptists, 73, 88, 167; controversy among, 89, 154–55, 158; on jury, 158; in Newport, 87; in Portsmouth, 7, 21. See also Clarke, John Barker, James, 153–54 Baulston, William (coroner), 16, 46, 62, 68, 151, 180; trustee of Rebecca’s, 80, 151 Belief systems, 160, 165 Bellingham, Richard, 90 Bench, the. See Judges Benefit of clergy, 49 Blackstone, Sir William, 150 Blood: of corpse, 41, 42, 49, 111, 118, 125, 154, 158, 165, 172; raining, 209 Borden, Abbie, 141 Borden, Andrew, 141–42 Borden, Lizzie, 133–34, 141–42 Borden, Matthew, 158 Borden, Richard, 186 Borden, William S., 216 Bown, Assaneth, 137 Bradford, William, 184 Bradstreet, Simon, 90, 175, 209 Brayton, Francis, 157, 218, 219 Brenton, William, 225 Bridenbaugh, Carl, 175

2672_index.qrk 6/25/02 1:00 PM Page 228

Bridge(s), Charles (Carel van Brugge or Brugh) (son-in-law of Rebecca), 66, 68, 80, 188 Bridge(s), Sarah Cornell (daughter of Rebecca), 66, 79, 80, 108, 188 Briggs, John (brother of Rebecca), 17–19, 26, 68, 77, 152, 165, 218; dreams of Rebecca’s ghost, 5, 17, 19, 21–23, 26, 39, 50, 51, 153, 154, 169, 170 Brinley, Francis, 55, 95, 153, 156, 218 Brooke, Thomas, 154 Browne, James (constable), 52 Brownell, Sarah, 79 Bulgar, Lettice, 53, 94, 119 Burge, Thomas, 219 Burial practices, 18; of Thomas Cornell, 54; in suicides, 130 Burns, 19, 22, 117 Burroughs, George, 24 Burton, Robert, 20–21 Bushell’s case (1670), 149–50 Butterworth, Robert (executioner), 57–58 Butts, Zaccheus, 186 Cadman, William, 182–83 Calendars, 191 Callender, John, 73 Capital crimes, 29, 49, 51–54, 65–66, 94, 97–98, 103–4, 198. See also Executions Carr, Caleb, 47, 125 Catholicism, 19–20, 90 Cattle, 9, 74, 82, 88, 97, 119–20 Challenges of jurors, 48, 125, 146, 156, 159 Character witnesses, 50–51 Charles II, 88, 89–90, 160 Child abuse, 100–101, 187 Civil cases, 30, 47 Clark, Albert, 140 Clarke, James (constable), 52 Clarke, John, 55, 68–69, 87, 89, 156, 158 Clarke, Walter, 46, 156, 170

228

Index

Clarke, Weston, 103–4, 153 Class rivalry, 5, 169. See also Deference Clawson, John, 97 Clothing, 10, 13, 32–33, 38, 51, 80–81, 114, 115, 117 Cockrum, John John (alias Cockerill), 98 Coddington, Nathaniell, 103–4 Coddington, William, 8, 68–69, 90, 156; portrait of, 70 Coe, Robert, 39 Coggeshall, Joane West, 45, 46, 109, 116, 152, 162, 169, 171, 172, 189 Coggeshall, John, 172 Coggeshall, Joshua, 16, 31, 43, 90–91, 115–16, 152, 172, 189, 218 Coggeshall, Patience, 46, 116, 171, 172, 189 Cole, John, 186 Collective memory, 179–80 Common law, 4, 5, 29, 30, 49, 54, 74, 181; and perjury, 113 Confessions, 146 Conflict of interest, 115–16 Congregationalists, 167 Connecticut, 61, 95–96 Conscience, guilty, 23, 112, 121 Constables, 52, 60, 81, 151, 160 Convictions, 51, 145 Cooke, John, 157 Cooper, Dr. Simon (surgeon), 27–28, 153 Cornell, Alvin, 133–34, 138–41, 178 Cornell, Ann (daughter of Rebecca). See Kent, Ann Cornell Cornell, David (19th century), 217 Cornell, Edward (son of Thomas), 15, 30, 83, 124, 126–27, 182, 189 Cornell, Edward (19th century), 217 Cornell, Elizabeth (first wife of Thomas), 46–47, 80–81, 126; death of, 47, 83, 84, 126 Cornell, Elizabeth (daughter of Rebecca). See Almy, Elizabeth Cornell Cornell, Ezra, 175

2672_index.qrk 6/25/02 1:00 PM Page 229

Cornell, Hannah Haskell, 138–41 Cornell, Innocent (daughter of Thomas), 58, 182, 186 Cornell, Job, 217 Cornell, John (son of Rebecca), 69, 74, 79, 108, 122, 123, 183, 185, 188, 189 Cornell, John (son of Thomas), 30, 83, 126–27, 182, 189 Cornell, Reverend John, 175 Cornell, John (identity uncertain), 112 Cornell, Joshua (son of Rebecca), 64, 69, 78, 79, 108 Cornell, Mary (daughter of Rebecca), 80, 108 Cornell, Mary (daughter-in-law of Rebecca), 40, 116, 129, 169, 171 Cornell, Mary (daughter of Thomas), 84, 182, 186 Cornell, Rebecca (mother of Thomas): abused by son, 3, 152; autopsy of, 27–28, 109; burial of, 17, 18; burns of, described, 22; death of, 1–2, 4–5, 6–7, 15–16; death of, as an accident, 126–28; death of, as possible suicide, 6, 40, 106, 128–31; disbursal of estate of, 106, 130; executrix of husband’s will, 69, 71; exhumed, 27, 109, 152; family of, 60; fears for her life, 27; ghost of, 17, 19, 21–23, 26, 154; gives sons property, 79; hostile relationship with son, 14–15, 44, 45–46, 51, 112, 171; house of, ii, 10–13; meaning of death of, 167; moves to New England, 60–61; moves to New Netherland, 63; moves to Portsmouth, 62–63; possessed by spirit, 40; as Quaker convert, 73, 129; records of case of, 5–6; reinterred, 194; and relationship with God, 39; rent problem of, with Thomas, 36, 45; respected status of, 72, 167; sells land, 77; storytelling of, 31–32; widowed, 71; will of, 78–79, 80, 151, 184; as a

witch, 38, 111, 171. See also Coroner’s inquests Cornell, Rebecca (daughter of Rebecca). See Woolsey, Rebecca Cornell Cornell, Richard (Ritzert Cornewel or Ritsgert Carnel) (son of Rebecca), 66, 67, 69, 79, 108, 188 Cornell, Samuel (son of Rebecca), 63, 64, 69, 79, 108, 110, 122, 123, 185 Cornell, Sarah (daughter of Rebecca). See Bridge(s), Sarah Cornell Cornell, Sarah (daughter of Thomas), 84, 182, 186 Cornell, Sarah Earle (second wife of Thomas), 8–10, 15, 83–84, 116; and burial of Rebecca, 17; and burial of Thomas, 54; and disbursal of Thomas’s estate, 181–86; disliked by stepchildren, 127; harshness of, toward mother-in-law, 46, 112; as possible conspirator in death of Rebecca, 6, 41, 106, 116–17, 122–26, 165, 176–77, 186; pregnancy of, 17, 58; as possible sole murderer, 124; testimony of, in Thomas Cornell’s trial, 30, 36–38, 51 Cornell, Sarah Maria (descendant of Thomas), 133–38, 143 Cornell, Stephen (son of Thomas), 30, 83, 126–27, 182, 189 Cornell, Thomas, (son of Rebecca) 42, 69; abuses mother, 3, 152; arrested for murder, 2, 28, 155; bail denied, 29; birth of, 61; burial of, 54, 165; character of, contributed to conviction, 74, 147, 160, 161; charges against, in New Netherland, 65–66, 71; deeded family homestead, 77–78; demanding of sons, 70–71; denies murder, 36; dependent on mother, 9, 106–7, 164; describes mother’s corpse, 22; description of, 8–10, 166, 173; estate of, 52, 181–86; evidence against, 28–29; execution of, 57–58; father demanding of, 70–71; found guilty,

Index

229

2672_index.qrk 6/25/02 1:00 PM Page 230

Cornell, Thomas (continued) 51; hostile relationship with mother, 14–15, 44, 45–46, 51; household of, 8–10; house of, ii, 10–13; indicted for murder, 47–48, 155, 195; inherits land, 74; jury duty of, 49; and mother’s will, 78–79, 80; motive for murdering mother, 145; moves from Portsmouth, 77; no lawyer for, 30; offices held by, 81–82; Portsmouth revokes grass and land rights of, 74; as possible murderer of mother, 5, 6–7; and profile of matricides, 131–33; and Quakers, 74, 91; realizes mother’s death, 16; rent problem with mother, 36, 45; respect for, in community, 75, 81–82; testimony of, 28, 30, 33, 51; trial of, 2, 158–61, 168; undutifulness of, as son, 41, 45, 51, 72, 112, 113, 129, 161–63, 172; will of, 183; writing ability of, 75–76 Cornell, Thomas, Sr. (father of Thomas), 14, 59; burial site of, 18; and Cornell’s Neck, 80; death of, 71; family of, 60; land grants to, 66; prospers, 66, 68; will of, 69, 71; writing ability of, 60 Cornell, Thomas, III (son of Thomas), 30, 83, 122, 187–88; claims Cornell homestead, 185, 186 Cornell, Walter, 139 Cornell, William (son of Rebecca), 69, 79, 108, 122–23, 185 Cornell, William Fenton, 139 Cornell, William G., 216–17 Cornell family, 85–86; comes to New England, 60–61; in England, 60 Cornell grant, 10, 66 Cornell homestead, 8–9, 10–15, 17, 66, 77–78, 109, 116, 183, 184–85, 186 Cornell’s Neck, 79–80, 188 Coroner’s inquests, 27, 43; declares Rebecca Cornell’s death an accident, 1–2, 5, 16–17, 125, 151; indicts Thomas Cornell, 27–28, 28, 43, 114, 125, 152

230

Index

Cottage industry, 82 Council, governor’s. See Assistants to the governor Court of Trials, 30, 47, 156, 157 Cowland, Alice, 79 Cowland, Ralph, 79 Cranston, Dr. John (deputy governor), 27, 28, 31, 33, 39, 53, 152, 155, 156, 170, 218 Crime literature, 55–57, 179 Crime rate, 86, 97–98 Dalton, Michael, The Countrey Justice, 29, 37, 41, 49, 123 Dartmouth, Plymouth Colony, 18, 29, 68, 74, 81; attacked by Indians, 121, 188–89; estate of Thomas Cornell in, 182–84; Rebecca gives sons land in, 78–79 Davol, Lucy, 137 Death penalty, 199. See also Capital crimes Declaration of Indulgence, 89–90 Deeds, 76, 77–80 Deeds of gift, 46–47, 77–80, 108, 113, 184, 185 Deference, 6, 31, 72, 124, 169; to elderly, 163; at Thomas Cornell’s trial, 160 Defoe, Daniel, 23 Dementia, 127, 129 Dependence, 2, 9, 77, 106–7, 164 Depositions, 5, 30, 37–47, 50, 169 Devil, 4, 20–21, 23, 38, 39, 40, 50, 130, 153, 167 Discovery process, 29, 30, 42, 50 Dispute resolution, 88, 93, 99 Dog, great, 37–38 Domestic abuse, 2, 3, 6, 98–103, 210, 212. See also Elderly parents; Families; Filial disrespect; Generational conflict Domestic disharmony, 2, 44–45, 106, 116, 139. See also Elderly parents; Families; Filial disrespect; Generational conflict Doorby, Francis, 119, 123

2672_index.qrk 6/25/02 1:00 PM Page 231

Dreams, 24, 26 Drunkenness, 177, 178; of Indians, 93–94, 119, 174 Due process of law, 146, 150, 157 Dumplin, Tom (Indian), 93 Durfee, John, 136 Durfee, Thomas, 175 Dyer, Mary, 74, 79, 151 Dyer, William, 151 Dyre, Hannah, 103–4 Dyre, William, 91–92, 103–4, 218 Eades, Philip, 219, 220 Earle, Goodwife, 17, 41, 165 Earle, Joan Savage (mother-in-law of Thomas), 83, 165 Earle, Ralph, Sr. (father-in-law of Thomas), 75, 76, 83, 126, 165, 203 Earle, William (brother-in-law of Thomas), 53, 54, 76, 165, 183 East Greenwich, R.I., 190 Easton, John (attorney general), 46, 170, 218 Easton, Nicholas (governor), 27, 30, 31, 33, 46, 47, 90, 156; presides over Thomas Cornell’s trial, 92 Easton, Peter, 26, 153, 154, 176, 219 Elderly parents: abuse of, 3, 6, 101–2, 164; duty to, 71; resentment of, 2, 72. See also Domestic disharmony; Families; Filial disrespect Enlightenment, 20, 173 Essex County, England, 37, 59–60, 98–99, 112, 193, 200, 220 Estate distribution, 2, 52, 106, 130, 181–86; in suicides, 130. See also Inheritance patterns Evidence, 2; circumstantial, 36, 44, 50, 52, 106, 112, 113, 143, 163; hearsay, 29–30, 41, 50, 126; judge’s control over, 48–49; lack of, 112; rules of, 49–50 Executioners, 57–58 Executions: and character assesment, 220; rarity of, 145; rituals of,

54–55, 97–98, 106. See also Capital crimes Executors, 31, 69, 78, 80, 108, 151, 152–53, 158, 180, 181, 182, 203 Families: abusive, 2, 3, 6, 98–99; disorder in, 69, 100, 102–3, 106, 116, 166; hierachy in, 9; multigenerational, 8–9. See also Domestic abuse; Domestic disharmony; Elderly parents; Filial disrespect; Generational conflict Field, Edward, 174 Filial disrespect, 2, 44–45, 72–73, 101, 109, 112, 162–63, 168, 177, 179. See also Elderly parents; Generational conflict Flounders, Thomas, 97, 174 Folklore, 4, 39, 42, 43, 44, 49 Food, 15, 32–33, 41, 82, 111, 126, 170 Fornication, 47, 97, 137 Fox, George, 89, 90 Freeborn, Sarah, 79 Freeborne, Gideon, 157 Gallows, 51–52, 54–57 General Assembly: and burial site of Thomas Cornell, 165; on Thomas Cornell’s trial, 5, 155, 180; deputies to, 81, 84–85, 151; pardons of, 52, 53–54; and taxation, 92. See also Assistants to the governor Generational conflict, 2, 72–73, 76–77, 85–86, 133, 161–62, 163. See also Domestic abuse; Domestic disharmony; Elderly parents; Families; Filial disrespect Genetics and violence, 132–33, 215 George (African American servant), 97 Ghosts, 29–30, 32, 38, 50, 193; purpose of, 19–21, 22–24 Gideon v. Wainwright, 30 Gould, Daniel, 153, 156 Gould, John, 16, 38 Gould, Wait, 46, 116, 153 Grave markers, 199

Index

231

2672_index.qrk 6/25/02 1:00 PM Page 232

Greenland, Dr. Henry (surgeon), 27–28, 153 Grenell, Daniell, 158 Greven, Philip, 70 Guilt, signs of, 49. See also Blood; Dog, great

lack of, 23, 45–46, 101, 102, 103; by neighbors, 99, 100–101, 102, 138. See also Domestic abuse; Elderly parents; Families; Filial disrespect Invisible world, 111, 172–73. See also Ghosts

Half-Way Covenant, 73 Hall, William, Jr., 158 Hall, William, Sr., 42, 155, 158, 180 Hammett (domestic abuser), 103 Harris, Thomas, 218 Harris, William, 95–96, 123, 208–9 Hart, Richard, 77, 78 Hawkins, Job, 16, 38 Hawthorn, William, 90 Hiscox, William, 89, 158 History: choices made by historians, 7; distortions by, 105 Hobbes, Thomas: and ghosts, 21 Hollingsworth, William, 102 Homicides, 98–99, 100, 101, 103, 134, 178, 209. See also Capital crimes; Matricides; Murderers; Parricides; Patricides Hope (African American servant), 97 Horses, 82, 85, 97, 119–20 House, Walter, 97, 174 Households, composition of, 11–12 Houses in Rhode Island: architecture, 10; furniture in, 12–15, 35, 80; linens, 12; silver, 13–14, 80 Howard, Nathan, 137 Hubbard, Samuel, 89, 125, 155 Hubbard, William, 63 Hutchinson, Ann, 61, 63, 87, 201 Hutchinson, Benjamin, 110

Jail, 29 James, John, 103 James, Sydney, 96, 174 Jobba (African American servant), 47, 97 Jones, Henry, 179 Judges: authority of, 48–49; composition of, 96; conflicts of interest, 115–16, 147; conflicts with jury, 4, 148, 149–50, 169 Judicial activism, 156 Juries, 5; charges to, 156; composition of, 157–59, 169, 218; conflicts with judges, 4, 148, 149–50; coroner’s inquest, 150; duties of, 49–50; in England, 148, 149; evidence for, 112; grand, 47–48, 118, 123, 125, 157–58, 195; and knowledge of case and parties by, 4, 47–48, 147, 148–49, 150; penalty for not serving, 158; and trial of Sarah Cornell, 125–26; and trial of Thomas Cornell, 30, 48, 158–59, 168; and trial of Wickhopash, 118, 121, 165 Jury nullification, 148, 217–18 Jury trial, right to, 30 Justice, 6, 147–48, 150; retributive, 157

Indians. See Native Americans Indictments, 99, 100; of Sarah Cornell, 122–23, 125; of Thomas Cornell, 109, 114; private, 123–24; of Wickhopash, 118. See also Capital crimes Inheritance patterns, 76–77, 106, 164, 204. See also Estate distribution Intervention, 6; by authorities, 103–4;

232

Index

Kent, Ann Cornell (daughter of Rebecca), 71, 74, 79 Kent, Thomas, 74 Kieft, William (governor of New Netherland), 65, 66, 80 Lake, David, 186 Land lust, 95–96 Language, 66–67, 72, 120, 121. See also Literacy; Speech; Verbal abuse Lary, Mary Ann, 137

2672_index.qrk 6/25/02 1:00 PM Page 233

Lawrence, John, 188 Lawson, John, 94 Lawton, George, 16, 38, 151, 182 Lawton, Grace, 223–24 Lawton, Susannah, 185 Lawton, Thomas, 224 Lay, Edward, 154 Lay, Martha, 98 Legal culture, 4, 29, 32, 146, 168 Legal reform, 4 Liberty of conscience, 3–4, 88 Life expectancy in New England, 71 Literacy, 62, 72, 75–76, 162, 168, 169, 200 Little Compton, R.I., 186 Lividity, 128 Male dominance. See Patriarchal power Maria (African American servant), 97 Marital obligations, 83–84 Massachusetts Bay Colony, 95, 100, 101; and Quakers, 73 Mather, Cotton, 4; “A Narrative of an Apparition,” 23, 25 Mather, Increase, 4, 55–56, 72, 161, 167, 178, 179, 186, 224; Illustrious Providences, 20, 176 Matricides, 3, 4, 29, 98, 168, 179; profile of, 131–32; studies of, 132–33. See also Murderers; Parricides Medical practices, 27 Meeting houses, 87–88 Metacom, 122 Matteson, David, 140 Methodists, 135 Misquamakuck (Narragansett) purchasers, 77 Mitigating factors, 29, 93–94, 148 Moills, James (Thomas’s servant), 16, 30, 32–33, 51, 114, 115, 126 Morgan, James, 56 Motives, 111, 113, 132, 145; financial, 113 Mumford, Stephen, 13, 89, 155 Murderers, 20, 51–52, 53, 55–57; as failed patriarchs, 221; Massachusetts Puritans described as, 90. See

also Capital crimes; Matricides; Parricides; Patricides Murfie, James, 223–24 Narragansett, 85, 167 Narragansett Proprietors, 95–96 Native Americans, 16, 18–19, 43, 53, 60, 85, 86; attack Dartmouth and Plymouth, 121, 188–89; and attacks in New Netherland, 64, 65, 80; and drunkenness, 93–94, 119, 174; indicted for various crimes, 93–94, 119; and King Philip’s War, 119–20; and revenge, 165; in Rhode Island, 93–95, 118, 121–22, 123, 167 New Netherland: Indian attacks in, 64, 65, 80; Rebecca’s bequests in, 79–80; war with British, 95 Newport, R.I.: jail in, 29; outgrows Portsmouth, 91–92. See also Court of Trials Nicholson, Goody, 102 Norton, Mary Beth, 170 Nothingarians, 88 Oakes, Urian, 177, 178 Old age: honor of, 71–72; scorn for, 72–73, 76–77. See also Domestic abuse; Elderly parents; Filial disrespect; Generational conflict Ordeal by touch, 49–50, 172 Osborne, Mary Cornell (sister of Alvin Cornell), 139 Palmer, Henry, 97 Pardons, 51–52, 160 Parricides, 29, 132, 143, 178. See also Matricides; Patricides Parsons, Elizabeth, 17, 41–42, 118, 154, 169, 172 Parsons, Goodwife, 165 Parsons, Hugh, 16, 41, 42–43, 114–15, 151, 154, 218 Pathology, 27, 127–28 Patriarchal power, 2, 6, 9, 14–15, 73, 91, 99–100, 107, 109, 166–67

Index

233

2672_index.qrk 6/25/02 1:00 PM Page 234

Patricides, 29, 98. See also Capital crimes; Homicides; Matricides; Murderers; Parricides Payne, John, 92–93 Pearce, John, 36, 47, 154 Pease, John, 101 Peckham, James, 103 Pell, Thomas, 80 Perjury, 21, 113, 146 Pigs, 126, 171 Plymouth Colony, 5, 7, 68, 74–75, 77, 81, 87; attacked by Indians, 121. See also Dartmouth Porter, John, Jr., 101, 162–63 Porter, John, Sr., 101 Portsmouth, R.I., 68; clerk, 75–76; council, 147, 151, 181, 184; disbursal of Thomas Cornell’s estate in, 182–84; establishment of, 61; and Newport, 91–92; sergeant, 157, 158–59, 159; town meeting, 88, 93, 180 Potter, Elisha, 174 Pregnancy, 17, 58, 125, 136, 193 Property bequests, 2; to children, 69–71 Protestantism, 19–20 Protestant Reformation, 19 Providences, illustrious, 39, 43, 107. See also Mather, Increase Prudence Island, 92–93 Punishments, 51–52, 55–56, 88, 92, 93–94, 101–3; for witches, 111 Punneane ( John), 53, 94, 119 Puritans, 20–21, 70, 72, 85, 103; and ghosts, 20; and marriage, 100; punishment of children, 210; settle Rhode Island, 5; and suicide, 130 Putnam, Ann, 24 Quakers, 6, 39, 45, 88–90, 167, 189; beliefs of, 73; Rebecca Cornell as, 73, 129; and Thomas Cornell’s jury, 159–60, 168; on coroner’s inquest panel, 151, 152–53; death of Rebecca Cornell as punishment for,

234

Index

167; deeded property, 79; and defendant’s rights, 29; and dreams, 24, 26; economic influence of, 82–83; emigrate to Boston, 73; hegemony, 57, 69, 89, 168; influence of, on juries, 149, 155, 156, 157, 159; network of influence of, 160; and record of Rebecca Cornell’s death, vii; and suicide, 130; teachings of, 129; and witchcraft, 111; and women’s rights, 73, 91; Yearly Meeting, 73, 90–91 Quashcome ( John), 98 Quills, 15, 37, 110–11, 125 Rapes, 53, 93, 94, 98, 119 Rashomon, 7, 106 Rates, 81, 82 Rayment, John, 102 Read, John, 158 Reads, Phillip, 218 Religion, 6 Religious bickering, 88–90, 154–55, 158 Religious toleration, 88 Rent, 36, 44, 45 Reputations, 9, 171 Rhode Island, 95; evolution of law in, 150; settled by Puritans, 5. See also Assistants to the governor; Cranston, John; Easton, Nicholas; General Assembly; specific towns Rhode Island Civil Code, 29, 52, 54, 157, 158–59, 181, 199; perjury in, 113 Richman, Irving, 175 Rogers, James, 159 Rowland, Richard, 102–3 Russill, John, 26–27, 35, 109, 152, 184, 218 Saffron Walden, England, 59–60, 62, 193 Salem, Mass., 222 Samuel (Native American sachem), 93 Sanford, John (secretary), 23, 31, 32,

2672_index.qrk 6/25/02 1:00 PM Page 235

155, 158, 180; trustee of Rebecca’s will, 80, 158, 180 Sanford, Samuel, 158 Sanford, Sarah, 79 Satan. See Devil Satire, 36 Savage, James, 175 Sebeere, Stephen, 97 Self-incrimination, 51, 146 Sentences, death, 51–53 Sermons, execution, 55–56, 176, 177 Servants, 101 Seventh Day Baptist Church, 89. See also Baptists Shaw, Mrs. Anthony, 41, 50 Shearman, Philip, 180, 182–83 Sheep, 10, 97, 111 Sheldon, Susannah, 24 Shepard, Thomas, Jr., 177 Sherman, John, 178 Shunway, Elizabeth, 137 Slocum, Joan, 79 Smith, James, 102 Smith, Mary, 102–3 Smith, Richard (an assistant to the governor), 35, 39, 51, 56, 117, 154, 156, 175, 218 Smith, Richard (of Wickford), 95 Sons, rebellious, 101–2, 113, 129 Soule, George (constable), 27, 35–36, 108, 152 Southworth, Constant, 184 Speech, 171; crimes, 162–63, 164; gossip, 24, 28, 69, 111, 141, 153, 154, 159, 160, 172, 180; name calling, 89; rebellious, 220; rumors, 27, 41, 153, 158, 160, 172, 176. See also Language; Verbal abuse Spencer, John, 16, 38, 160 Spinning wheels, 82, 109 Spirits. See Apparitions; Dog, great; Ghosts Spousal assault, 102–4 Stab wounds, 28, 109, 113, 169 Stanton, Margery, 112 Strainge, John, 158

Straite, Henry (apprentice), 12, 15–16; testimony of, 30, 32, 33, 115, 117, 119, 120, 126 Suicides, 6, 40, 128–31, 134, 139, 143 Sullivan, Bridget, 141, 142 Supernatural events, 3–4, 21–22, 42. See also Blood; Dog, great; Ghosts Superstitions, 4, 49 Surgeons, 27–28, 109, 152, 169, 221–22 Talman, Peter, 154, 218 Taxation, 92 Taylor, Robert, 52 Test Act (England, 1673), 90 Testimony, 32–33, 37–47; biased, 114; gendered nature of, 170–71, 172; hearsay, 29–30, 41, 50; incriminating, 113, 116; by wife, 30, 116 Thacher, Thomas, 161 Theft, 118–19 Thomas, William, 53, 97 Tituba, 38 Tiverton, R.I., 186 Torrey, Joseph, 43, 47, 89, 150, 155, 158, 219, 220 Treason, petty, 54 Usleton, Francis, 97–98, 114 Vaughan, Chief Justice John, 149–50 Verbal abuse, 72, 101, 162–63, 164. See also Language; Speech Violence, 125, 132–33 Visions, 4 Walcott, Mary, 24 Warwick, R.I., 157 Waumaion, 97 Wawisum, 119, 123 Weapons, 14, 112, 117; rapier, 14, 93, 109–10, 119; iron, 56, 111, 119, 167; spindle, 109, 110–11, 119, 126, 167. See also Quills Weather, 86, 96–97, 118, 209

Index

235

2672_index.qrk 6/25/02 1:00 PM Page 236

Wheelwright, John, 60 Wickhopash (Harry): and death of Rebecca Cornell, 6, 106, 118–21, 165, 167, 176; and theft of rapier, 93–94, 110 Widowhood, 72, 73 Wilde, Nicholas, 44, 45, 108, 162 Wilde, Sarah, 44, 45, 162 Willard, Samuel, 177 Willett, Thomas, 65 Willett, William, 188 Williams, Abigail, 110 Williams, Roger, 64, 68, 90, 93, 96, 167, 209, 218 Willis, John, 146 Wills, 69, 76, 78–81, 108, 113, 126. See also Estate distribution; Executors; Inheritance patterns Windsor, Conn., 204 Winslow, Josiah, 184 Winthrop, John, 62–63, 64, 66, 175

236

Index

Witchcraft, 24, 38, 42, 43, 97, 110, 111–12 Witnesses, 30–33, 114, 148–49, 157, 219; character, 50–51 Wives: beating, 100–101; testimony for or against husbands, 36–37, 41 Woddell, Gershom, 120 Women: abused, 212; and male dominance, 73; and Quaker egalitarianism, 73, 91; Roger Williams’s view of, 91. See also Domestic abuse; Families; Patriarchal power; Verbal abuse; Wives Woodle, Mary, 79 Woolsey, George ( Joris Wolzen), 66, 67 Woolsey, Rebecca Cornell (daughter of Rebecca), 39, 39–41, 66, 79, 106, 108, 113, 129, 130, 188 Worldviews, 160, 165