Anne Hutchinson. Puritan dissident.
In 1676, Hannah Lyman was in trouble. She was among three dozen or so young women who had been summoned to court: They had flouted the laws of the colony of Connecticut by wearing silken hoods. Among these “overdressed” women, Lyman was, apparently, the most rebellious and strong-willed. She appeared in court wearing the very silk hood that she had been indicted for donning.
The judge was, predictably, not very happy. He accused her of “wearing silk in a flaunting manner, in an offensive way, not only before but when she stood presented” at court. She and the other young women were fined for their offensive sartorial choices.
It’s quite interesting, visualizing just how one would wear a silk hood in an offensive manner. This is obviously projection writ large, but many of the puritan sentiments are still with us, to a very deep degree. Consider how many people refer to something like silk sheets as terribly decadent, something only people of a very weak nature would indulge in, and so forth. We won’t even get into silk underwear. (Pardon, pardon, couldn’t help it.) To the puritans, silk spoke of degeneracy, a terrible flaw in one’s moral framework. All these centuries later, I can feel for Ms. Lyman, who probably just wanted to enjoy her silken hood.
The Massachusetts Bay Colony passed its first law limiting the excesses of dress in 1634, when it prohibited citizens from wearing “new fashions, or long hair, or anything of the like nature.” That meant no silver or gold hatbands, girdles, or belts, and no cloth woven with gold thread or lace. It was also forbidden to create clothes with more than two slashes in the sleeves (a style meant to reveal one’s rich and fancy undergarments). Anyone who wore such items would have to forfeit them if caught.
I can’t help but wonder just who got those “forfeited” clothes. Not that some higher up puritan would be able to wear them outside their own house, but I can imagine some scenes going on behind closed doors. Puritans were very serious about ornamentation of all kinds though, and that extended to things like christmas:
You’ll note in the above: “dressing in Fine Clothing”, with the stress of capital letters.
For decades the colony continued to refine these laws. In 1639, the colony instituted a stricter law against lace and forbade clothes with short sleeves. In the 1650s, the law became more class-conscious. Only those who had more than 200 pounds to their estates were allowed to wear gold and silver buttons and knee points, or great boots, silk hoods, or silk scarves. Exempt from the rule were magistrates and public officers, their wives and children, as well as militia officers or soldiers, and anyone else whose with advanced education or employment, or “whose estate have been considerable, though now decayed.” In 1679, the colony also started worrying about hair, since “there is manifest pride openly appearing among us by some women wearing borders of hair, and their cutting, curling, and immodest laying out of their hair.”
Oh my, how things never, ever change. The rich are different, because money allows them to be. It’s interesting to see the nod to decayed estates, there’s a bit of classism at its very finest. Naturally, those wealthy puritans had to have some way to distinguish themselves, one might say a way to flaunt their wealth. No point in having position and money if you can’t separate yourself from the puritan rabble. The hypocrisy of those who always make a claim to the highest of moral grounds is breathtakingly blatant.
Massachusetts and Connecticut were not the only colonies to pass such laws. In New Jersey, by 1670, it was illegal for a woman to “betray into matrimony any of His Majesty’s male subjects, by scents, paints, cosmetics, washes, artificial teeth, false hair, Spanish wool, iron stays, hoops, high-heeled shoes, or bolstered hips.” And if they did? The marriage would be “null and void.” Oh, and they would be punished exactly as if they had been convicted of witchcraft or sorcery.
Oh my, my, my. Betray into marriage. That’s pretty strong language, and it would be very nice if that sentiment was one that was long lost to the mists of time. Unfortunately, it isn’t at all lost, and it’s a frequent cry of complaint among MRAs. When it comes to personal ornamentation, women can never win. If we have the nerve to wander about sans cosmetics, there are complaints. If we use cosmetics, there are complaints. And there are never ending complaints about dress, of course. “Too sexy!” “Too distracting!” “Slutty!” “Drab.” “Uninteresting.” “Slovenly.” And so on and on and on it goes. Anyroad, looking at the above list, all I can say is I’m beyond grateful I didn’t live in an age where iron stays were obligatory.
Atlas Obscura has the full run down on puritanical clothing codes.
When I was in Saudi Arabia, I was told that women who didn’t wear their outfits properly could get in “a lot of trouble” -- which, I didn’t ask about, because in Saudi Arabia they’ll have a professional martial artist cut your hand off with a sword for stealing. I don’t want to even think what they do if you wear white shoes after labor day.
In one conference I attended in Qatar, there was a group of very clearly upper-class women, with bodyguards, sauntering by in their burqas. (Burqa is not required in Qatar) It was surreal to see Runway Walk being done in a burqa, with all these pairs of Choos and Louboutins sticking out the bottom, perfectly manicured feet, and gold ankle jewelry with huge diamonds. Qatar is considered decadent, of course; they were probably Saudi women having a night out. One subtext about the current “issues” over there is Qatar is the gulf’s equivalent of Las Vegas. I have to admit the display had its desired effect: it was quite erotic.
It’s interesting how being ornamented is reserved as a status signal for the rich. Of course it is. Because, other than its value as a conductor, gold isn’t much good as a metal -- it’s too soft and too heavy.
And it’s good to see that the war on christmas is nothing new!!
I don’t care for gold much, have exactly one pair of gold earrings I’d much prefer to have in silver. I love silver.
Marcus:
That’s a prime example of not ever being able to win. It doesn’t matter how much men anywhere insist that women cover up everything, there’s always a way to make something sexy, or for any garment to be perceived as sexy. I often think that if you’re horny, anything and everything is sexy, because your imagination is in overdrive. The more someone is covered up, the more active your imagination.
Throughout the ages, men have been attempting to control just what and how women can wear anything, from hairstyles to jewelry to clothing, and no matter how restrictive, it’s always been too sexy for some. Of course, there are always ways around every silly restriction imposed. We’d all be happier, I think, if men focused on their own sartorial designs and left everyone else alone.
There’s a long and fascinating history of sumptuary laws -- it seems to be something that comes up every time the rich feel that the proles are getting above themselves. For example, there were a particularly baroque set implemented in England during the medieval period, especially as many of the lower orders became more prosperous in the aftermath of the Black Death.
Interestingly, we currently seem to be in something of a retrograde phase in that respect -- the majority of genuinely rich people nowadays (in “the West”, anyway) go to quite some lengths to avoid excessive displays in dress, even if their clothes are exquisitely made and extortionately expensive, whilst it’s mostly those with mere aspirations to wealth who make a show of it.
We’d all be happier, I think, if men focused on their own sartorial designs and left everyone else alone.
Yes!
As far as I can tell the Wodaabe are the only people who’ve gotten that right (though Napoleonic officers did OK…)
Dunc:
Now that reminds me of how the whole “diamonds are a must for engagement” business got started. When the plague got going in earnest, of course, the very wealthy weren’t as susceptible because they had resources to cut themselves off, and make sure they tossed any sick people well away from their fine selves. It was thought at the time that certain gemstones had medical properties, and of course, diamonds were the king of these. Diamonds were thought to have great protective qualities against disease, the plague in particular, so the wealthy were advised to wear a diamond on their person somewhere. It became quite the thing for men to proffer a diamond to a woman they cared for, in order to protect her from contracting the plague.* As time went on, the whole plague prevention business was forgotten, but the diamond for engagement/marriage stayed.
*This was also a blatant display of protecting future property.
My skin reacts to silver, so I’ve never been able to wear it. Copper causes a lesser reaction, it seems. So gold it is for me, if I want to wear jewelry. Mostly these days I just don’t wear jewelry at all.
CD:
A lot of people with silver allergies wear titanium or stainless steel. There’s a wealth of jewelry made from those these days. I have several stainless rings myself. It’s darker than silver, but still very pretty.
This is the bit that really stuck out to me. Someone had clearly the foresight to plan ahead for a time when they, for whatever reason, where no longer rich and / or in a position of some import. They just had to make sure they wouldn’t have to go back to the peasants after their own personal golden age had ended. Ex-somebody is still better than always-nobody…
(I can’t help wondering about the technicalities now: How far back does this go? Could I claim to be the great-to-the-nth-relative of the Count of Germano-Frelgium, which drifted out to sea in 1087 AD, and still qualify for nobby clothing? No looking that place up, by the way, it’s sacrilege and a grave insult to my noble family.)
Komarov:
Yes, and that sort of nonsense is still in effect in places that had bonafide aristocracy. In places without, it still applies, in things like celebrity.
Far as I know, I come from long lines of always nobodies.
So much for the Puritans having come here for FREEDOM.
Busterggi:
Oh, they did. They came for the freedom to oppress and persecute others. That’s true American freedom, ennit?
I always want to know which exact parts of my body I must cover up to be “decent” and which I must display for the male gaze to be “liberated”.
Giliell:
Those answers would vary greatly from one dude to the next. Which simply highlights the absurdity of it all.
Wow. I love Hannah Lyman’s temerity here -- that’s one courageous and bold person!
Remarkable thought-provoking historical true story. Something -- and body new learnt for today. Thanks. Shared.
Incidentally, searching the web for more info turned up this :
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=R16hSpCuzLQC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=Hannah+Lyman&source=bl&ots=OMjACF3VDG&sig=Zq8NFeOEovPGHbpAf7SFhlyEdjg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpx-v6nYXVAhUDUbwKHUAYB38Q6AEIXjAN#v=onepage&q=Hannah%20Lyman&f=false
Cultivating a Past: Essays on the History of Hadley, Massachusetts which tells us Hannah Lyman was 16 at the time & the fine was ten shillings with her family background being the rung below the elite -- this seemingly being a class protest.
This second source then talks about another or perhaps the same person being Hannah Barnard Westcarr but confusingly names her father as Frances Barnard whilst earlier it’s said Lyman’s father is Richard Lyman so not the same person? It sems to get a bit confusing form there.
I’d like to know what happened to her (Hannah Lyman) later in life and be great if others with perhaps better Google-fu or relevant knowledge could help out here,please?
@Caine #5 -- The diamond engagement ring was purely the invention of the De Beers diamond company in the 1930s.
… Probably not quite how I’m imagining the Flaunting of the Silk… The imagination of these people only goes the one way, I guess, and that is to the gutter. As if that’s always a bad thing.
Gregory in Seattle @ 15 -- that does not erase the Medieval practice or the origins of it.
rq:
I know! I had the worst time trying to figure out how one flaunts a hood. Provocative head tilting? I’d bet it wasn’t anything outside of simply having the nerve to wear silk where it was visible.
Caine
Probably the visibility part. I think you can only flaunt a hood like this, and I doubt she had the silk for it. (Incidentally, this came up during search, I love it. I bet it has a nice flauntable hood on it -- not silk, but you can’t have everything.)
Oh look it does.
rq:
Ooooooooooh. I like. Like it more if it was full length.