In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

O N E The Boundaries o f Colonial Speec h Governments regulat e expressio n acros s a wid e spectrum , an d t o accomplish varie d ends . Ultimately, the goal is to maintain a wellordered society—t o uphol d prevailin g mora l an d socia l values , to preserve publi c peace , t o maintai n respec t fo r authority . Colonia l governments were no different. I n this chapter I outline the various areas o f expressio n tha t colonia l authoritie s regulate d an d th e rea sons wh y the y di d so . I plac e seditiou s speec h withi n a broade r context, then explain the kinds of words they considered seditious . These task s ar e essential . Th e broade r goal s an d contex t withi n which officials define d an d punished seditiou s speech add perspective . Without that perspective, crucial distinction s between slande r and scandaJum magnatum , to use one of many examples, would be difficult t o understand. Drawing the boundaries of seditious speec h is equally important, for it allows a delineation of the ways in which the limit s o f "political " expressio n change d acros s th e century . Charting an d assessin g tha t chang e i s th e mai n purpos e o f thi s study. A desir e t o maintai n a mora l societ y occupie d a hig h plac e i n the minds o f colonial authorities . New England ha s gaine d specia l notoriety fo r this , i n par t becaus e o f th e publicit y accorde d som e particularly colorfu l cases . A Plymout h Colon y cour t ordere d Thomas Graunger hanged, for example, "for buggery with a mare, a cow, tw o goats , divers e sheep , tw o calves , an d a turkey." 1 Graunger's creativity, it would seem , matched his energy. But suc h 5 6 The Boundaries of Colonial Speech cases an d th e attentio n the y inevitabl y attrac t ten d t o obscur e th e reality tha t al l colonia l government s establishe d control s ove r morality , an d no t jus t earl y i n th e century . Th e 169 1 Virginia statut e outlawing "swearing , cursing, profaning God' s holy name, Sabbat h abusing, drunkenness, fornicatio n an d adultery, " an d Ne w Jersey's 1698 prohibition against "all sorts of lewdness and profane behavior in wor d o r action"2 ar e but tw o o f man y examples . And, a s thos e laws show , controllin g persona l behavio r fo r mora l end s mean t more than regulating overt sexual activity. Alcohol abuse often commanded the attention of colonial leaders, and in every colony regulations agains t vulga r o r obscen e languag e stoo d alongsid e thos e outlawing profane and blasphemous words. Colonial authorities also controlled what might otherwise be considered "aesthetic " expressio n o n these same grounds. The Massachusetts Court of Assistants banished Henry Sherlot because he was "a dancin g maste r an d a perso n ver y insolen t an d o f il l fame. " Colonial regulations on dress were standard fare as well. Authorities commonly prevented colonist s from wearing hubristically ornate or showy clothing. Sometimes, as in Nathaniel Washburn's case, dress could go beyond mere matters of godly humility. In December 1700, he appeared before the Plymouth County court in Massachusetts not just fo r "wearin g woman' s appare l i n th e publi c meetin g house, " but for doing so "in time of exercise on the Lord's Day."3 Officials regulate d dres s o n othe r tha n mora l ground s a s well . They expecte d colonist s t o wear attir e reflecting ran k i n societ y a s much as godly humility. Upholding the social hierarchy in this way was important t o colonial authorities . As early as 1634, Massachusetts officials outlawe d th e wearing of "ne w fashions, o r long hair, or anythin g o f th e like, " bu t throughou t th e centur y enforcemen t presented problems. The Bay Colony's Essex County...

Share