Wednesday’s Child: Harvey BURNELL- “Make no dependence on smiling infants”

Headstone of Harvey Burnell, Center Cemetery, Chesterfield, Hampshire, Massachusetts. Posted with kind permission of FAG photographer.
Headstone of Harvey Burnell, Center Cemetery, Chesterfield, Hampshire, Massachusetts. Posted with kind permission of FAG photographer.

McMurray Family, Burnell Family (Click for Family Tree)

Little Harvey Burnell was the second child of Joseph Burnell, Jr.(1756-1841) and Martha Gilbert (1761-1837). Harvey Burnell is a first cousin, at least 6 times removed depending on the generation of you, dear reader, but this inscription on the headstone is so poignant that it needs to be shared.

The first child born to Joseph and Martha Burnell was a girl, Elizabeth Burnell, born 24 February 1783 in Massachusetts, likely Chesterfield. They had been married for just over a year, and the anticipation of a large family was probably on their minds quite a lot. Of course, in those days a son was always the most desired, especially for a first child. They likely loved little Elizabeth dearly, but were anxious for a son to carry on the family name and inherit.

Little Harvey Burnell’s birth would have been eagerly awaited, and he appeared in this world on 18 June 1785 in Chesterfield, Hampshire, Massachusetts. Martha was 23, and Joseph 28, when they added to their family. Oh, the excitement there must have been, and how proud the parents! Joseph was a first-born son himself, so would have known what to expect for this new little one. Harvey was likely quite doted upon, and would be groomed for the future of the family to be placed in his hands as he got older. Like all parents, Joseph and Martha probably were filled with big hopes and dreams for this first-born son.

Those tiny little hands, though, were sadly not to become big hands that could guide the family and fulfill its dreams. Little Harvey only lived to be 13 months old. We don’t know if he was a sickly child or if an accident or sudden illness took him from his loving family. Whichever of these events, little Harvey left this world the next summer, on 21 July 1786 in Chesterfield. He was buried in Center Cemetery in Chesterfield, where over 20 of his ancestors and relatives are buried. The hopes, the dreams, and his future with the family were buried along with the little boy.

Headstone of Harvey Burnell, Center Cemetery, Chesterfield, Hampshire, Massachusetts. Posted with kind permission of FAG photographer.
Headstone of Harvey Burnell, Center Cemetery, Chesterfield, Hampshire, Massachusetts. Posted with kind permission of FAG photographer.

The inscription on the headstone reads:

Harvey

Son of Joseph

& Martha

Burnell

DIED

July 21 1786

Æ 13 Mon.

Make no depen-

dence on smiling

infants.

 

For anyone, but especially a parent who has lost a child, the last line of the inscription is likely to bring tears, and renewed heartache.

Martha and Joseph were probably more subdued with the next pregnancy, making no dependence on their dreams for this next child. This new Burnell was born on 23 March 1787, also in Chesterfield, and the babe was male; they named him Harvey Burnell. He thankfully was able to weather the perils of childhood in that century, and lived to be 47. Martha and Joseph were then blessed with their (probably) hoped-for household of children: Chester Burnell, born 1788; Asenath Burnell, b. 1791; Eli Burnell b. 1792, Newton Burnell b. 1794, Baxter Burnell b. 1797; Nancy B. Burnell b. 1798; Francis Burnell b. 1801; and Levi Burnell, b. 1803. They had a total of 9 sons, 8 surviving into adulthood, plus 2 daughters.

Martha and Joseph were, after all,  able to depend on the faces of those smiling infants, long into their later years.

 

 

Notes, Sources, and References: 

  1. Massachusetts, Town and Vital Records 1620-1988. These Ancestry.com records are typed (so transcribed from the original) and call the family “Burnal.” Harvey’s death is listed as found in Book 2, Page 2.

 

Please contact us if you would like higher resolution images. Click to enlarge images.

We would love to read your thoughts and comments about this post (see form below), and thank you for your time! All comments are moderated, however, due to the high intelligence and persistence of spammers/hackers who really should be putting their smarts to use for the public good instead of spamming our little blog.
 

Original content copyright 2013-2015 by Heritage Ramblings Blog and pmm.

Family history is meant to be shared, but the original content of this site may NOT be used for any commercial purposes unless explicit written permission is received from both the blog owner and author. Blogs or websites with ads and/or any income-generating components are included under “commercial purposes,” as are the large genealogy database websites. Sites that republish original HeritageRamblings.net content as their own are in violation of copyright as well, and use of full content is not permitted.
 
Descendants and researchers MAY download images and posts to share with their families, and use the information on their family trees or in family history books with a small number of reprints. Please make sure to credit and cite the information properly.
 
Please contact us if you have any questions about copyright of our blog material.



Wedding Wednesday: Mary Parsons and Ebenezer Bridgman

Title page of the first edition of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, 1597. Wikimedia, public domain in USA.(Click to enlarge.)
Title page of the first edition of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, 1597. Wikimedia, public domain in USA.(Click to enlarge.)

McMurray Family, Burnell Family (Click for Family Tree)

The Romeo & Juliet story has been passed down through the centuries in various forms, and has been lived in real life by many. Think back, if you will, to four previous posts detailing the bitter feud between the families of Mary (Bliss) Parsons and Sarah (Lyman) Bridgman. Sarah accused Mary of being a witch as far back as the 1650s. The feud had gone on even before that time, but could there be two people in the future who would mend those fences, as Romeo and Juliet did for the Montagues and Capulets??

One of the children of Mary (Bliss) Parsons- the accused witch- and her husband Cornet Joseph Parsons was John Parsons (1650-1728). He married Sarah Clarke (1659-1728) and a daughter was born in Northampton, Massachusetts on 5 July 1681 that they named after her paternal grandmother. Although she probably did not remember her grandfather Joseph, who died in 1683, young Mary probably would have known her grandmother well as she was 31 years old in 1712 when Mary (Bliss) Parsons passed away while living in Springfield.

Family Tree of Mary Parsons. (Click to enlarge.)
Family Tree of Mary Parsons. (Click to enlarge.)

Meanwhile, Sarah (Lyman) Bridgman- the witch accuser- and her husband, James Bridgman, had only one son (and three daughters), out of eight children born to them who survived into adulthood. (This was part of the jealousy between Sarah and Mary (Bliss) Parsons- Mary had 9 children survive out of the 13 she had, 5 of them sons.) Their son John Bridgman chose Mary Sheldon (1654-1728) as his wife, and they had at least 11 children, possibly 14 per some sources; of these, Ebenezer Bridgman (1685-1760) is of interest to our story today.

Family Tree of Ebenezer Bridgman. (Click to enlarge.)
Family Tree of Ebenezer Bridgman. (Click to enlarge.)

Ebenezer Bridgman was born in Northampton too, still a very small hamlet on the frontier in February 1685. He likely saw young Mary Parsons on the street, in the fields, and in the meeting house. All the witch stories would probably have been heard by every family member, young or old. It would be so interesting to have a glimpse of their thoughts, and how they reconciled their business within the town, with neighbors, and possibly with members of the feuding family!

What parts did young Mary Parsons and Ebenezer Bridgman play in the local gossip that swirled through Northampton in 1702, when Mary (Bliss) Parsons was again called a witch? Young Peletiah Glover, another of Mary’s grandchildren, was told that his mother was half a witch and his grandmother a full witch who had killed several people. Did young Mary rush to protect her cousin? Did Ebenezer stay out of it, or try to shield Peletiah and the Parsons family from the mean words of some of the townspeople? There is no way to know the details of what happened 213 years ago, unfortunately.

One day in 1709, however, the feud came to an end as the walls between families tumbled down:

14 June 1709- Ebenezer Bridgman and Mary Parson, Marriages, Massachusetts Town & Vital Records, Northampton, page 110.
14 June 1709- Ebenezer Bridgman and Mary Parson, Marriages, Massachusetts Town & Vital Records, Northampton, page 110. (Note second line; click to enlarge.)

Had the families known there was flirting going on instead of feuding?

Was there a big row when the young people stated their intentions?

(Although Puritans generally married at a slightly higher average age than the rest of the population, Mary was 27 and Ebenezer 24 at their nuptials- she was a bit older than usual, and was older than Ebenezer, too.)

Did everyone show up at the civil service for the marriage? Even Mary (Bliss) Parsons?

(Puritans did not believe in the church sanctifying a marriage- they felt it was a civil contract.)

Did the families pitch in together to help the newlyweds begin their new home?

All great questions to ponder, but sadly that is all we can do, as there has been nothing found to tell us more- no letters, diaries, etc. When telling the Mary (Bliss) Parsons witchcraft story, many historians do not even include the fact of a later unifying marriage between grandchildren of the feuding families.

Our ‘witch’ Mary would have bounced her grand-daughter Mary’s little babe Elizabeth Bridgman on her knee, and sung to the child the old lullabies Mary had heard as a child herself in England. Mary was in her mid-eighties by this time, and somewhat reduced in function and confused; her sons had needed to take over her financial affairs. Still, what thoughts might have gone through her mind, knowing that this precious great-granddaughter on her knee had the blood of the late Sarah (Lyman) Bridgman flowing through her rosy red cheeks? Were her thoughts of how the blood of the two families was now forever mixed, the family branches forever intertwined, after all the anguish of her own life? Did Mary think it was a sweet reconciliation, or did she gloat in the victory of her long life and so many children, grandchildren, and another great-grandchild to carry on her blood, while Sarah was already long gone, and had so few?

Elizabeth Bridgman was the first of four children to be born to Mary and Ebenezer Bridgman, but the only one who could have been held by her great-grandmother- Mary (Bliss) Parsons died in January of 1712. She would have been able to see her granddaughter big with a second child, however, as Joseph Bridgman was born two months later, in March. Mary (Parsons) Bridgman then carried on her own grandmother’s tradition of twins- Mary (Bliss) Parsons had at least one set of twins, likely two.  The Bridgman twins Ebenezer and Mary were born 10 July 1714. Little Ebenezer would only live four months; we have no further information as to whether or not his sister Mary survived to adulthood.

Maybe the feud had been mellowing for quite some time, and the Bridgman family had softened. After all was said and done (in court and out), the new Bridgman family named two of their children after Mary (Parsons) Bridgman’s grandparents, the founders of the Parsons line in America: Joseph and Mary.

 

Notes, Sources, and References: 

  1. See our four previous posts about the Mary (Bliss) Parsons slander and witchcraft trials in Northampton, Springfield, and Boston, Massachusetts by starting with, “No Ghoulies, No Ghosties, But a Witch? Yep.”
    http://heritageramblings.net/2015/10/31/no-ghoulies-no-ghosties-but-a-witch-yep-part-1/
  2. Please see Part 3 of the above for the largest list of references for these posts.
  3. Mary (Bliss) Parsons- “The Witchcraft Trial-” http://ccbit.cs.umass.edu/parsons/hnmockup/witchcrafttrial.html
  4. Genealogy of the Bridgman family, descendants of James Bridgman,1636-1894, by Burt Nichols Bridgman and Joseph Clark Bridgman, 1894-  https://archive.org/stream/genealogyofbridg00brid#page/n0/mode/2up
  5. I doubt that Puritans frequently went to plays- not an industrious activity, although as time went on in the Americas, the younger generations of the faith were not as devout as their parents. Even if they had not seen the play Romeo & Juliet, they may have read or heard of it. Wonder if Mary Parsons and Ebenezer Bridgman felt the connection or parallels, but with hopefully better results in mind than in the play?

 

Please contact us if you would like higher resolution images. Click to enlarge images.

We would love to read your thoughts and comments about this post (see form below), and thank you for your time! All comments are moderated, however, due to the high intelligence and persistence of spammers/hackers who really should be putting their smarts to use for the public good instead of spamming our little blog.
 

Original content copyright 2013-2015 by Heritage Ramblings Blog and pmm.

Family history is meant to be shared, but the original content of this site may NOT be used for any commercial purposes unless explicit written permission is received from both the blog owner and author. Blogs or websites with ads and/or any income-generating components are included under “commercial purposes,” as are the large genealogy database websites. Sites that republish original HeritageRamblings.net content as their own are in violation of copyright as well, and use of full content is not permitted.
 
Descendants and researchers MAY download images and posts to share with their families, and use the information on their family trees or in family history books with a small number of reprints. Please make sure to credit and cite the information properly.
 
Please contact us if you have any questions about copyright of our blog material.



Thankful Thursday: Thanksgiving Day has New Meaning This Year

Jennie Augusta Brownscombe, The First Thanksgiving at Plymouth, 1914, Pilgrim Hall Museum, Plymouth, Massachusetts. via Wikipedia, public domain.
Jennie Augusta Brownscombe, The First Thanksgiving at Plymouth, 1914, Pilgrim Hall Museum, Plymouth, Massachusetts. via Wikipedia, public domain.

McMurray Family, Burnell Family (Click for Family Tree)

Pilgrims and Puritans always seemed so far removed from everything in life except Thanksgiving dinner- that was my thought in years past. The last few months, however, have revealed a much closer relationship than ever imagined. Some of our Burnell ancestors actually travelled on The Mayflower, though it was her third voyage to the colonies, not that first fateful voyage that gave us the holiday we celebrate today and the famous ‘Plymouth Rock.’ Also, we have quite a lot of Puritans in our Burnell ancestors of New England, and it is fascinating to be learning their stories.

Of course, finding this family heritage meant research into the daily lives of the Puritans. They were not the dour people we often envision. They did allow laughter and play, but everything they did was for the glory of God.

The Puritans wished to purify the English church, and rid it of any facets of Catholicism, such as priests, sacraments, ceremonies, etc. They did have much political power in England after the First English Civil War in 1642-6, but then were unhappy with the limited changes of the Reformation, and many left England. While the Mayflower pilgrims could be classified as being “Separatists” who wanted to start their own churches, likely our ancestors were “non-separating Puritans” since they followed John Winthrop and like-minded others. They did not want to leave the Church of England, but wanted to practice their religion in a more pure way. Thus, although we learned in grade school that the Pilgrims and Puritans came to the colonies for freedom of religion, technically it was so that THEY could practice THEIR religion freely; they would not tolerate others to question nor practice in any way other than that proscribed by the bible as interpreted by their ministers. (They persecuted and even executed heretics and Quakers like Anne Hutchinson.)

The Puritans believed in strict interpretation of the bible, and made their laws, which became the plantation/colony laws, accordingly. Their ultimate goal in this life was to glorify God, in the hope of being with God and an everlasting glory in heaven. They did not believe, like the Catholics, that good works would help one get closer to heaven- the chosen were pre-ordained by God, but they must also live their life orderly and properly in order to fulfill that destiny. Man was made to glorify God while on this earth, in thought, deed, worship, raising children, and even in his business pursuits, they affirmed.

The Puritans believed very strongly in the Fifth Commandment: “Honor thy father and thy mother.” This law produced the strict hierarchy ordering their lives: God was the father of man, who must honor him; man was the ‘father’ to his wife, children, and any servants, thus they would honor him by being subservient and obedient to him. He, as their ‘father,’ was required to see to their education in both religion and practical matters, and it was his duty to see that his family followed the many rules of their society. Because all persons existing at that time were “descendants of Abraham’s seed,” the bible indicated that every person was thus responsible for every other person’s behavior, because all were related. This led to townspeople going to the courts to turn another in for infractions, neighbor against neighbor, but in the spirit of tending to that neighbor’s soul. (Theoretically, of course- some was done as spite as well.) It also led to the guilt and fear of a society such that when something bad happened, like a drought or massacre by the natives- they believed that if they all had done a better job of following the proscribed laws, the bad would not have happened.

Because of their strict interpretation of the bible, the Puritans (as well as members of other religions of the time) felt that Satan was always nearby, ready to take possession of any who were weak or not cautious, not pious. This fear of demons led to a constant fear of anything unexplained. These events were thus considered as Satan’s doing, or his work through possession, or witchcraft.

The Puritans did not call themselves by that name, but felt they were “Congregationalists.” Their congregational church was made up of individuals who had come together voluntarily to worship. Only those who were “visible saints” could join- they had to experience a “conversion” in which the Holy Spirit would come to them. A person desiring admission to the church would have to explain in detail the visit of the Holy Spirit, and church members would be free to accept or reject the applicant. Children were automatically included while they lived in a parent’s household, and sometimes servants as well.  Young children were not brought to church, however- they had to be old enough, “so, as to be benefitted themselves and the Congregation not disturbed by ’em,” per Joseph Belcher. A child would have to experience their own conversion once an adult and out of the household, and apply for membership. Some references stated that our Joseph Parsons and his children had been admitted as church members, but Mary (Bliss) Parsons never did; others stated that she was a church member though regularly accused as a witch. A Puritan church was really made up of families, not individuals.

Education was very important to the Puritans, so that their children could read the bible for themselves. They were not taught to think for themselves, however- only to have the knowledge and understanding of the bible needed to follow the laws to be pious. New England laws proscribed the education of a child- all children, even if it was only a weekly catechism taught by a parent. The town selectmen would go to each home in the plantation (what they called their towns, rather than ‘colonies’ as we call them), and quiz the children on their catechism plus their understanding of it; a parent would be admonished if his children were not properly learning.

Generally both boys and girls attended schools, with some boys moving on to an apprenticeship after learning to read and write, and girls moving to service in various homes in order to learn the skills of housekeeping. Most children were farmed out to other homes in order that they did not become too close to parents, and so that they would learn respect, which might decrease in the teen years if they had stayed with doting parents. Some boys went on to higher education, including Harvard University, which was originally a Puritan institution that mostly produced new ministers for the faith.

While the Puritans did not allow the arts such as drama, they did allow music for the Psalms, but no musical instruments in the church service. They did love their children, although discipline, even very harsh discipline (which was to be a last resort, though that was not always followed), was the duty of a parent or master in order to help ‘save’ the pious life of a child. They loved each other too, within marriage, and were not prudish about sex in the married state; sex outside marriage, however, was severely punished and could be a capital crime. There still exists a very sweet set of correspondence between John Winthrop and his wife, as he was often away. They did take pains, however, to keep their love for each other within bounds, and couch it in terms of their actions glorifying God.

Love was actually desirable in a Puritan marriage. Puritans often married at a slightly older age than many of the time, often mid-20s. All were required to live in a ‘family’ situation by law- no wild singles living on their own without others to see to their soul. Thus children lived with their parents until married, or until a young male was able to afford a household with servants. Sometimes a couple would ‘fall in love,’ but often a person would determine it was time to marry, and then look around at the pool of eligible spouses. Meetings would occur, and if a person thought they could love a person, negotiations were begun. The father of each would negotiate how much they would contribute o the new household, with the groom’s family providing twice as much as the bride’s, in general. Puritans seldom married across class lines, and if all were in agreement at the settlement, the marriage would proceed. Marriage was not a religious ceremony in Puritan society but more a contract, thus the ceremony was performed by a civil magistrate. Unfortunately the words of wedding ceremonies do not exist today- it would be very interesting to know what each spouse promised. Second marriages were left more to the adults to negotiate. It was common to have large blended families since so many spouses died young- often one spouse was marrying for the second, third, or even fourth time, and the other had been married once or more. Women bore children into their forties sometimes, and may have been having children for over a quarter of a century- Mary (Bliss) Parsons, our family’s accused witch, was one of those.

Surprisingly, one can find divorce in Puritan families. Generally divorce was reserved for egregious wrongs- the lack of performing marital ‘duties’ of any kind, whether for physical or willful reasons; abandonment/disappearance (they travelled more than I realized, and may have not made it back from a trip, or just moved on); and sometimes even for verbal or physical abuse .

Understanding Puritan society helps us to understand their lives in a richer deeper, way.

This Thanksgiving Day, thinking of these ancestors and how hard their lives were in the frontier of the New World, yet how they worked to gain glory in each act, will be a part of my reflection of gratitude. Understanding their lives helps us to understand more of our own society and personalities, as well as religions.

There is much more to come about our Puritan and early New England ancestors!

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

 

Notes, Sources, and References: 

  1. The Puritan Family. Religion & Domestic Relations in Seventeenth Century New England by Edmund S. Morgan, the premier Puritan historian. Harper-Perennial, 1966 edition.
  2. Wikipedia- Puritans – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans

 

Please contact us if you would like higher resolution images. Click to enlarge images.

We would love to read your thoughts and comments about this post (see form below), and thank you for your time! All comments are moderated, however, due to the high intelligence and persistence of spammers/hackers who really should be putting their smarts to use for the public good instead of spamming our little blog.
 

Original content copyright 2013-2015 by Heritage Ramblings Blog and pmm.

Family history is meant to be shared, but the original content of this site may NOT be used for any commercial purposes unless explicit written permission is received from both the blog owner and author. Blogs or websites with ads and/or any income-generating components are included under “commercial purposes,” as are the large genealogy database websites. Sites that republish original HeritageRamblings.net content as their own are in violation of copyright as well, and use of full content is not permitted.
 
Descendants and researchers MAY download images and posts to share with their families, and use the information on their family trees or in family history books with a small number of reprints. Please make sure to credit and cite the information properly.
 
Please contact us if you have any questions about copyright of our blog material.



No Ghoulies, No Ghosties, But a Witch? Yep. Part 4

"View from Long Hill looking up the river" by George H. Ireland, stereoscope card, via Wikimedia, public domain. (Click to enlarge.)
“View from Long Hill looking up the river,” Springfield, Massachusetts, by George H. Ireland, stereoscope card, via Wikimedia, public domain. (Click to enlarge.)

McMurray Family, Burnell Family (Click for Family Tree)

Mary (Bliss) Parsons and her husband Joseph Parsons remained in Boston for some time after her witchcraft trial in 1675, as Joseph owned warehouses there and had business in town. It would surely have been a good break from those who had accused Mary but lived so close by in Northampton. Although the jury that acquitted Mary was made up of ‘regular’ men from the Boston area, many in Northampton and elsewhere felt that having so many well-to-do members of society and friends of the Parsons family involved in the trial had ‘bought’ Mary her favorable results.

The son of Joseph and Mary, Ebenezer Parsons, had been the first white child born in Northampton on 1 May 1655. This was just before the son of  Sarah (Lyman) Bridgman, one of Mary’s primary accusers, was born- yet another reason for Sarah to be envious of Mary. Ebenezer was only 20 years old when he marched off to Northfield after Indians had attacked a number of English settlements during King Philip’s War. (See note below.)

Indians Attacking a Garrison House from an old wood Engraving. This is likely a depiction of the attack on the Haynes Garrison, Sudbury, April 21,1676. via Wikimedia, public domain.
Indians Attacking a Garrison House from an old wood Engraving. This is likely a depiction of the attack on the Haynes Garrison, Sudbury, April 21,1676.(Unrelated to this family, but similar.) via Wikimedia, public domain.

Ebenezer was killed on 8 September 1675 during the fight with the Indians per some recent sources; older historical sources state the date of his death as Thursday, Sept. 2, 1675. This being just after his mother Mary’s acquittal in her witchcraft trial, those who had worked to bring her to trial said,

“Behold, though human judges may be bought off, God’s vengeance neither turns aside nor slumbers.”

The neighbors assumed that the loss of her beloved son was punishment for Mary’s ‘pact with the devil.’

Despite the continued rumors, Mary and Joseph Parsons did return to their home and family in Northampton, likely before 1678/9.

Their story continues…

On 7 March 1679, another of our Burnell ancestors (not related to the Bliss or Parsons families), John Stebbins of Northampton, died suddenly and mysteriously. An examination of the body showed, “warmth and heate in his body that dead persons are not usual to have” and that his neck had the same flexibility of that of a living person, so rigor mortis had not completely set in. His body had “several hundred of spots” that seemed as if “they had been shott with small shott.” When these spots were scraped, there were holes under them. A second examination was reported to a court of inquest: he had bruises that had not been there during the previous examination, and “the body somewhat more cold yn before, his joints were more limber.”

John Stebbins owned a sawmill, and although some (now) think his death was caused by runaway logs hitting him, some of the townspeople back then thought his death was due to witchcraft.

How does this pertain to Mary (Bliss) Parsons?  Well, we know that she had been accused of witchcraft more than once. Also, she was back in Northampton, thus near where John Stebbins died. But even more damning was the fact that the wife of the late John Stebbins was Abigail (Bartlett) Stebbins. Does that Bartlett maiden name sound familiar? Yep- Abigail was the sister of Samuel Bartlett, the husband/widower of Mary (Bridgman) Bartlett, that Mary had been accused of killing through witchcraft in the 1675 Boston trial. It was the death of Mary (Bridgman) Bartlett’s young sibling that caused the first case of slander, against her mother, Mary (Lyman) Bridgman, to be brought by Joseph Parsons in defense of his wife Mary. (Yes, we almost need a detailed roadmap- so many Marys, and same last names to untangle. Maybe we just need infographics rather than narrative posts??)

Samuel Bartlett seemed to be the community’s ‘witch finder’ and he brought in testimony to the inquest concerning the death of John Stebbins. There is no record existing today that Mary (Bliss) Parsons was accused of the death through witchcraft, but some historians believe she was the target of such rumors, especially with the bad feelings between her family and the Bartletts/Bridgmans continuing through the years.

The court of inquest rendered a verdict that did not directly charge anyone with witchcraft, but at least half of the twelve male jurors believed that witchcraft had been involved. Evidence was then sent to the Boston Court of Assistants, but unfortunately that information has not survived either. There was no further action taken, however.

They had had enough- Mary and Joseph moved their household back downriver to Springfield, Massachusetts in 1679 or 1680. Springfield had been attacked and burned during King Philip’s War, so maybe it was a sort of fresh start for them. Their son Samuel Parsons remained in the family home in Northampton.

Joseph Parsons, Sr., died in 1683 and Mary, like her mother, Margaret (Hullins) Bliss, began a long widowhood.

But it was not completely over.

Twenty-two years after Mary moved back to Springfield, Peletiah Glover, a prominent Springfield merchant who possessed much wealth, went to court in 1702 to indict the slave woman Betty Negro for “bad language striking his son Peletiah.” The 14-year old Peletiah testified to the court that the slave had claimed that his grandmother “had killed two persons over the river, and had killed Mrs. Pynchon and half-killed the Colonel, and that his mother was half a witch.”

Can you guess how this relates to our study of witchcraft in Springfield and Northampton, Massachusetts? Yep, it ‘relates’ because these people were relatives- Peletiah Jr.’s mother was Hannah (Parsons) Glover, the daughter of our Mary (Bliss) Parsons. So young Peletiah’s grandmother was Mary, a full-blooded witch per the assumptions of townspeople, and thus his mother was “half a witch.”

Mary was not taken to court for this- her friends and relatives likely helped her out in this respect. A man of great prominence in Northampton and one of the Justices of the Peace who presided over the case was one Joseph Parsons; he was also the son of Mary and Joseph (Sr.), thus also the elder Peletiah’s brother-in-law and uncle of the younger Peletiah. The other Justice was John Pynchon, a frequent business partner to Cornet Joseph Parsons (Sr.). John Pynchon had also testified for Mary years before in the slander trial and was involved in her witchcraft trial.

The slave Betty “owned it she had so said.” (Interestingly, one ‘Tom Negro’ testified against Betty Negro.)

The court record for 9 January 1702 states:

“We find her very culpable for her base tongue and words as aforesaid…We sentence said Betty to be well whipped on the naked body by the constable with ten lashes well laid on: which was performed accordingly by constable Thomas Bliss…”

The last name of Thomas Bliss who carried out the sentence is, of course, familiar too: the constable was the son of the brother of Mary’ (Bliss) Parsons, thus her nephew.

Mary died at about age 85 in 1712. She was unwell and confused enough that her sons Joseph and John Parsons took over her estate the year before she died.

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

Mary was lucky- six women were executed for witchcraft in Massachusetts even before the Salem witch trials of 1692, when 20 persons were executed (19 hanged, 1 pressed to death) and four died in prison while awaiting trial.

Witches could be a good community scapegoat for ills which could not yet be explained by science or disease, and claiming someone was a witch was sometimes the next step in an argument or long-standing feud. There are theories about ergot (a fungus) in the rye that was a dietary staple and could cause hallucinations and the ‘fits’ so often seen in victims of witchcraft. (The ergot would affect a smaller body, like that of a young girl, faster than that of an adult, possibly explaining why young women/girls were those primarily with ‘fits.’)

Sociologists have also postulated that witchcraft accusations take up the time of the people when they are in a lull with fighting enemies or the weather for survival, and act as a safety valve for human dissension.

Whatever our 21st century take is on witchcraft, it was a real fear for our ancestors- no matter if they were accused or accuser. The story of Mary (Bliss) Parsons illustrates that well.

 

Notes, Sources, and References: 

  1. Also known as Metacom’s War, ‘King Philip’ was the English name of the warrior Metacom/Metacomet. King Philip’s War was between the English colonists who had some Native American allies, vs. the other natives of New England, mostly Wampanoags and Narragansetts. Within less than a year, the population of the colonies were decimated, including a loss of at least 10% of the men of fighting age. More than half of the towns were attacked  with twelve burned to the ground, and the economy of the colonies was almost ruined with the loss of livestock, crops, and goods. Many English residents had been carried off by the natives and carried into Canada, sometimes sold as slaves. The war lasted from 1675-1678. England provided very little support for the colonists during the war, thus they banded together, resulting in a colonial identity separate from English subjects. This was just the first alienation of colonists that would result in a much bigger separation 100 years later. For more of this history see the very excellent book, Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766 by Fred Anderson, Vintage, 2001, or his shorter version (293 pages vs. 912), The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War, Penguin, 2006. (A companion to the PBS documentary The War That Made America: The Story of the French and Indian War, 2006, available on DVD.)
  2. See resources in Part 3.

 

Please contact us if you would like higher resolution images. Click to enlarge images.

We would love to read your thoughts and comments about this post (see form below), and thank you for your time! All comments are moderated, however, due to the high intelligence and persistence of spammers/hackers who really should be putting their smarts to use for the public good instead of spamming our little blog.
 

Original content copyright 2013-2015 by Heritage Ramblings Blog and pmm.

Family history is meant to be shared, but the original content of this site may NOT be used for any commercial purposes unless explicit written permission is received from both the blog owner and author. Blogs or websites with ads and/or any income-generating components are included under “commercial purposes,” as are the large genealogy database websites. Sites that republish original HeritageRamblings.net content as their own are in violation of copyright as well, and use of full content is not permitted.
 
Descendants and researchers MAY download images and posts to share with their families, and use the information on their family trees or in family history books with a small number of reprints. Please make sure to credit and cite the information properly.
 
Please contact us if you have any questions about copyright of our blog material.



No Ghoulies, No Ghosties, But a Witch? Yep. Part 3

"View from Long Hill looking towards Agawam" by E. H. T. Anthony, stereoscopic card via Wikimedia Commons, public domain. While taken a couple of centuries after the story below, the Connecticut River in Springfield, Massachusetts, likely looked similar in the late 1600s.
“View from Long Hill looking towards Agawam” [Springfield MA] by E. H. T. Anthony, stereoscopic card via Wikimedia Commons, public domain. While taken a couple of centuries after Mary (Bliss) Parson’s life, the Connecticut River Valley in Springfield, Massachusetts, likely looked similar in the late 1600s.
McMurray Family, Burnell Family (Click for Family Tree)

Since this is Friday the 13th, we will continue exploring our ‘ supernatural’ ancestor Mary (Bliss) Parsons of our McMurray line through the Burnells.

Accusations of witchcraft endured by Mary (Bliss) Parsons were described in parts 1 & 2 of this series, both in Springfield and Northampton, Massachusetts. Her ultimate imprisonment, trial, and acquittal in Boston in 1674-5 was also discussed. Incidents of Mary’s ‘bewitching,’ however, had started long before these cases, and led her neighbors to the always-lingering thoughts that she had a ‘pact with the devil,’ despite being cleared of witchcraft legally.

(There were a number of cases in which an accused witch was acquitted of the crime, but the court actually stated that the person was likely a witch despite lack of admissible evidence. There is no record of that for Mary, but it demonstrates that legality and ‘reality’ were not always the same in cases of witchcraft.)

Sometime back in the 1640s while living in Springfield, Massachusetts, Goody Parsons (Mary) had an argument with the blind man in town. Shortly thereafter, the man’s daughter began to have fits. Rumors may have circulated then about Mary practicing witchcraft and causing the fits in retaliation for the argument, but specific records do not exist today. This incident was entered as evidence, however, years later in the previously- discussed 1656 slander trial of Sarah (Lyman) Bridgman, brought by Mary’s husband Joseph Parsons. Sarah was found guilty at that trial, but rumors of Mary’s witchcraft persisted.

Interestingly, in Springfield at that same time, there was another Mary Parsons living just 10 houses away. (There were only 42 homes in Springfield about 1651.) This was Mary (Lewis) Parsons, wife of Hugh Parsons. (No relation that we know of.) Abandoned by her first husband, Mary had married Hugh, a brick-maker and wood sawyer. Like many of the colonists, Hugh Parsons was a fairly argumentative and contentious person, but probably moreso than the norm- he was in court on a regular basis both as plaintiff and defendant. This Mary bore 3 children, but two of them died very young. Despondent, grief-stricken, and possibly dealing with postpartum blues or likely some type of mental illness (or all of these), Mary (Lewis) gossiped that a Springfield newcomer, the widow Marshfield, was a witch. Goody Marshfield countered with a suit for legal slander on 30 May 1649- reputation was incredibly important to our Puritan ancestors. Mary was found guilty, and her sentence was “to be well whipped on the morrow after lecture with 20 lashes…” or pay 3 pounds to Mrs. Marshfield “for and towards the reparation of her good name.” Mary’s husband paid “the heavy Amount with twenty-four Bushels of Indian Corn, and twenty Shillings in Money.”

Not long after this incident, not-our-ancestor Mary’s husband Hugh Parsons decided to not complete the bricks for the Rev. George Moxon’s chimney despite their previous agreement, as the price of materials had increased over his original bid. He ‘had words’ with the reverend, who insisted he complete the bargain as originally agreed, although accounts differ as to what was said; “I’ll be even with him” was what one witness heard from Hugh. That very same week, two Moxon daughters were taken ill with fits (some sources say they died, some just say “succumbed to fits”- the word ‘succumbed’ can be used to mean failed to resist OR actually died from something), and Hugh’s wife Mary (Lewis) was accused of causing the fits through her witchcraft. Interestingly, Mary (Bliss) Parsons, our ancestor, as well as some additional children, also began having fits at that time. One witness claimed “as Mr. Moxon’s children acted, so did Mary [Bliss] Parsons- just all one.” Their fits were such that they all had to be “carried out of the [church] meeting, it being the Sabbath day.” Generally, few adults had these fits, and as Mary was 29 years old (if born in 1620 per some references; others state she was b. 1628, so she would have been just 21), married, and a mother, the townspeople thought her fits suspicious.

The records and scholarship are confusing for this time. John Demos, in  Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England, page 270, states that Mary (Bliss) Parsons had given birth to twins that summer of 1649, but they died shortly after birth. Other references list twins as being born later, and some do not include twins at all. A majority of sources (but not Demos) state that Mary and Joseph Parsons had a son named Benjamin who was born in January, 1649 and died in April or June, 1649; that timeline most likely would not have allowed for twins in the summer, unless she had become pregnant right after the birth of Benjamin- this was unlikely as she would have been nursing him- or the twins were born premature. (Double-dating was also used at this time due to calendar changes, so that adds another bit of confusion- which year was it??)

Whichever scenario is true, poor Mary would have likely had raging hormones from pregnancy, possibly mind-altering postpartum blues from a January and/or summer birthing, plus the grief of losing a 4-6 month old son- and twins, if she did indeed birth them that summer. Her father died that next February (1650), so he may have been ill that previous year, and Mary would have been worried about losing him. In addition to her “fits,” our Mary roamed about the countryside, even at night, alone and in a disturbed, sometimes distressed, and usually distracted manner. It was claimed that she could walk through water without getting wet, after some men saw her and followed, themselves getting wet at least to the knees, whereas her clothes were dry. Joseph Parsons locked his wife in the house, and sometimes in the cellar, but she was always able to ‘magically’ find the hidden key and get out. She said she had to fight evil spirits when in the cellar, and her husband claimed she “would go out in the night…a woman went with her and came in with her.” Of course, there was no such other woman in the house, so it was assumed to be a supernatural being.

Mary (Bliss) Parsons and her family moved to Northampton in 1654, but the shadows of the devil and witchcraft accusations followed her, as we have seen. Next, our installment of Mary (Bliss) Parsons and her ‘supernatural’ life. It didn’t end after her witchcraft trial.

NOTE: Listed below are the majority of sources used in researching Mary (Bliss) Parsons for ALL of the posts in this series.

 

Notes, Sources, and References: 

  1. “Goody” was a title of the time and a shortened version of “Goodwife,” with “Goodman” used for males. These terms were given to those in the middle and lower classes. A person of higher status would be given the title, “Mr.” or “Mrs.”
  2. Mary (Lewis) Parsons killed her child and was indicted for murder and witchcraft. She was found not guilty of witchcraft, but guilty of murder, and was sentenced to execution. She most probably died in jail prior to being hung. She had also accused her husband, Hugh Parsons, of witchcraft over the years, and he too was tried and acquitted.
  3.  There are two novels written by descendants of Mary Bliss Parsons that may be of interest. Silencing the Women: The Witch Trials of Mary Bliss Parsons by Kathy-Ann Becker was excellent, and maintained the historical facts while adding a good narrative flow. My Enemy’s Tears: The Witch of Northampton by Karen Vorbeck Williams is another that looks good, although I have not yet read it.
  4. The Strong Witch Society: The Diary of Mary Bliss Parsons by DH Parsons is another book written by a descendant, and part of a trilogy. It would be wise to read the description of this book and his other two carefully if you are planning to order, as there is more than history going on in this series.
  5. Mary Parsons of Springfield, part of Women in the Valley at https://pvhn2.wordpress.com/1600-2/mary-parsons-of-springfield/
  6. “The Goody Parsons Witchcraft Case” at http://ccbit.cs.umass.edu/parsons/hnmockup/has an excellent overview of Mary’s life including a good timeline that integrates a lot of the players and incidents in Mary’s life.
  7. An interesting poem by Margaret Atwood details her supposed-ancestor’s hanging as a witch and her survival. “Half-hanged Mary” is about Mary Webster who was accused of witchcraft in Hadley, Massachusetts in 1684. She was acquitted, but later attacked and lynched by a gang of her neighbors. She hung from the tree all night, and when they returned to cut down her corpse, they found that she was still alive. Of course, for any who had doubted before, her survival proved that she was a witch. She lived a number of years after the incident, but likely was an outcast in her community. There is no evidence that Mary Webster had children, so she would not have descendants today, but the poem has much of interest for those trying to understand the witchcraft hysteria. http://www.emerycsd.org/webpages/dcarter/salem.cfm?subpage=1143672
  8. Witch Hunting in Seventeenth Century New England. A Documentary History 1638–1693, edited by David D. Hall, 2nd Edition, Duke University Press Books, 2005. Includes (partial) trial transcriptions, etc.
  9. “The Early Parsons Families of the Connecticut River Valley” by Gerald James Parsons. Part 1: Vol. 148, pp. 215- 238; Part 2: p335-360; Vol. 149: Part 3- pp53-72. The New England Historical and Genealogical Register. Boston, MA: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1847-. (Online database: AmericanAncestors.org, New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2001-2013.)
  10. A Place Called Paradise. Culture and Community in Northampton, Massachusetts 1654-2004. Edited by Kerry W. Buckley, Historic Northampton Museum & Education Center/ University of Massachusetts Press. Chapter 3 is “Hard Thoughts and Jealousies” by John Putnam Demos, from his excellent, very comprehensive book Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England, New York, 1982.
  11. The History of Northampton, Massachusetts from its settlement in 1654, by James Russell Trumbell and Seth Pomeroy, 1898. (Seth Pomeroy is a very distant cousin too.) Available on Internet Archive- https://archive.org/stream/historyofnortham00trum#page/n11/mode/2up
  12. Cornet Joseph Parsons one of the founders of Springfield and Northampton, Massachusetts, by Henry M. Burt, Garden City, 1898.     https://archive.org/stream/cornetjosephpar00parsgoog#page/n10/mode/2up
  13. Parsons Family. Descendants of Cornet Joseph Parsons Springfield 1636- Northampton 1655, by Henry Parsons, New Haven, 1912.
  14. Genealogy of the Bliss family in America, from about the year 1550-1880, by Bliss, John Homer, b. 1832, 1881. https://archive.org/stream/genealogyofbliss00blis#page/n3/mode/2up
  15. Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England by John Demos, 2nd ed., 2004. Updated volume- an excellent book on all facets of witchcraft by one of the premier scholars in the field.
  16. Annals of Witchcraft in New England, and Elsewhere in the United States, from Their First Settlement: Drawn Up from Unpublished and Other Well Authenticated Records of the Alleged Operations of Witches and Their Instigator, the Devil, by Samuel Gardner Drake. W.E. Woodward, 1869. GoogleBooks, p. 72.
  17. An excellent family history website has a wonderful and well-researched history of Springfield: http://josfamilyhistory.com/locations/springfield-ma.htm (Main website is http://josfamilyhistory.com; the Sheldon page link at the bottom no longer works.)

 

Please contact us if you would like higher resolution images. Click to enlarge images.

We would love to read your thoughts and comments about this post (see form below), and thank you for your time! All comments are moderated, however, due to the high intelligence and persistence of spammers/hackers who really should be putting their smarts to use for the public good instead of spamming our little blog.
 

Original content copyright 2013-2015 by Heritage Ramblings Blog and pmm.

Family history is meant to be shared, but the original content of this site may NOT be used for any commercial purposes unless explicit written permission is received from both the blog owner and author. Blogs or websites with ads and/or any income-generating components are included under “commercial purposes,” as are the large genealogy database websites. Sites that republish original HeritageRamblings.net content as their own are in violation of copyright as well, and use of full content is not permitted.
 
Descendants and researchers MAY download images and posts to share with their families, and use the information on their family trees or in family history books with a small number of reprints. Please make sure to credit and cite the information properly.
 
Please contact us if you have any questions about copyright of our blog material.