[217a], [217b] Humphreys: _Catherine Schuyler_, p. 77. [218] Page 83. [219] Humphreys: _Catherine Schuyler_, p. 214. [220] Humphreys: _Catherine Schuyler_, p. 213. [221] Humphreys: _Catherine Schuyler_, p. 215. [222] Humphreys: _Catherine Schuyler_, p. 209. [223] Page 195. [224] Page 24. [225] Wharton: _Martha Washington_, p. 230. [226] Page 45. [227] Robertson: _Louisiana under Spain, France, and U.S._, Vol. I, p. 70. [228] Robertson: Vol. I, p. 85. [229] Robertson, Vol. I, p. 216. CHAPTER VI COLONIAL WOMAN AND MARRIAGE _I. New England Weddings_ Of course, practically every American novel dealing with the colonial period--or any other period, for that matter--closes with a marriage and a hint that they lived happily ever afterwards. Did they indeed? To satisfy our curiosity about this point let us examine those early customs that dealt with courtship, marriage, punishment for offenses against the marriage law, and the general status of woman after marriage. For many years a wedding among the Puritans was a very quiet affair totally unlike the ceremony in the South, where feasting, dancing, and merry-making were almost always accompaniments. For information about the occasion in Massachusetts we may, of course, turn to the inevitable Judge Sewall. As a guest he saw innumerable weddings; as a magistrate he performed many; as one of the two principal participants he took part in several. He has left us a record of his own frequent courtships, of how he was rejected or accepted, and of his life after the acceptances; and from it all one may make a rather fair analysis not only of the conventional methods and domestic manners of New England but also of the character and spirit of the other sex during such trying occasions. The evidence shows that while a young woman was generally given her choice of accepting or declining, the suitor, before offering his attentions, first asked permission to do so from her parents or guardians. Thus a marriage seldom occurred in which the parents or other interested parties were left in ignorance as to the design, or ignored in the deciding of the choice. Sewall offers us sufficient proof on this point: "Decr. 7, 1719. Mr. Cooper asks my Consent for Judith's Company; which I freely grant him." "Feria Secunda, Octobr. 13, 1729. Judge Davenport comes to me between 10 and 11 a-clock in the morning and speaks to me on behalf of Mr. Addington Davenport, his eldest Son, that he might have Liberty to Wait upon Jane Hirst [his kinswoman] now at my House in way of Courtship."[230] And it should be noted that the parents of the young man took a keen interest in the matter, and showed genuine appreciation that their son was permitted to court with the full sanction of the lady's parents. Thus Sewall records: "Decr. 11. I and my Wife visit Mr. Stoddard. Madam Stoddard Thank'd me for the Liberty I granted her Son [Mr. Cooper] to wait on my daughter Judith. I returned the Compliment and Kindness."[231]