Those Disorderly Senior Citizens!
How dare they play shuffle-board! The Puritans wouldn’t approve! My big issue: Who knew shuffle-board could be so rowdy!
I just came across this passage from the Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts, 1648.
Gaming.
UPON complaint of great disorder by the use of the game called Shuffle-board, in houses of common entertainment, wherby much pretious time is spent unfruitfully and much wast of wine and beer occasioned, it is therfore ordered and enacted by the Authoritie of this Court;
That no person shall henceforth use the said game of Shuffle-board in any such house, nor in any other house used as common for such purpose, upon payn for every Keeper of such house to forfeit for every such offence twenty shillings: and for every person playing at the said game in any such house, to forfeit for everie such offence five shillings: Nor shall any person at any time play or game for any monie, or mony-worth upon penalty of forfeiting treble the value therof: one half to the partie informing, the other half to the Treasurie. And any Magistrate may hear and determin any offence against this Law.
Oh, but look what that code said about our friends over at America! Jim Martin, I’m looking at you!
This court taking into consideration the great wars, combustions and divisions which are this day in Europe: and that the same are observed to be raysed and fomented chiefly by the secret underminings, and solicitations of those of the Jesuiticall Order, men brought up and devoted to the religion and court of Rome; which hath occasioned divers States to expell them their territories; for prevention wherof among our selves, It is ordered and enacted by Authoritie of this Court,
That no Jesuit, or spiritual or ecclesiastical person [as they are termed] ordained by the authoritie of the Pope, or Sea of Rome shall henceforth at any time repair to, or come within this Jurisdiction: And if any person shal give just cause of suspicion that he is one of such Societie or Order he shall be brought before some of the Magistrates, and if he cannot free himselfe of such suspicion he shall be committed to prison, or bound over to the next Court of Assistants, to be tryed and proceeded with by Banishment or otherwise as the Court shall see cause: and if any person so banished shall be taken the second time within this Jurisdiction upon lawfull tryall and conviction he shall be put to death. Provided this Law shall not extend to any such Jesuit, spiritual or ecclesiasticall person as shall be cast upon our shoars, by ship-wrack or other accident, so as he continue no longer then till he may have opportunitie of passage for his departure; nor to any such as shall come in company with any Messenger hither upon publick occasions, or any Merchant or Master of any ship, belonging to any place not in emnitie with the State of England, or our selves, so as they depart again with the same Messenger, Master or Merchant, and behave themselves inoffensively during their abode heer. [1647]
Yes. The things the Puritans were purifying themselves from were the remnants of “popery” in the Church of England.
The Sea of Rome? Mare nostrum? Well, at least ship-wracked Jesuits will be given a chance to get out of town before they can cause any real damage.
Hello All,
On a slightly more serious note, has anyone here besides me viewed the PBS “reality” series Colonial House (which I believe was filmed in 2003)? I regularly teach Aristotle’s Politics and a number of times I have had students view portions of Colonial House to get some idea of what an ideal Aristotelian community would be like – the premise of this show is that a several dozen 2003 Americans move to an isolated New England spot for several months and try to live according to 17th century Puritan customs and laws.
Alasdair MacIntyre, for my money the most important living Roman Catholic philosopher, has spearheaded a sort of “back to Aristotle and Aquinas” movement in academia as a palliative to the perceived excesses of Western liberal political societies. This ne-Aristotelian idea of creating communities that foster friendship and mutual support among its members is obviously attractive, but even on a small scale can lead to serious problems. The Puritan rule against shuffleboard is amusing, but in the Colonial House experiment one could be tied to a wooden stake for half a day for saying any word the governor thought offensive – profanity is a crime according to Puritan law At first the group members thought it was funny when some of them were punished for saying words like “S—t” after striking their thumbs with hammers, but rapidly this law generated anger and suspicion among them. They had much more trouble with the laws requiring all to attend church for three hours on Sunday. Some of the colonists who were atheists (no doubt “planted” in the colony by the creators of the experiment) simply refused to attend church and willingly suffered the “half the day in the stocks” punishment. Their dissent spread throughout the colony and the governor ultimately rescinded the law requiring church attendance. This instantly created new problems in both directions – some colonists thought it was pointless to continue the experiment given that they were no longer following an important Puritan law, while others immediately rebelled against the law requiring women to wear head coverings.
As I’ve noted on previous threads, I think the Ave Maria community in Florida that includes the town and university is a somewhat larger scale attempt at creating a 21st century Aristotelian community within the United States. The Amish communities in the USA are much longer established such communities. Time will tell how the Ave Maria community develops. In my opinion, the Amish maintain their integrity by giving their younger members an opportunity to leave and by rigorously shunning older members who violate certain of their norms. But that’s enough out of me for now
Peter, yes, I saw that series (and agree the unbelievers were planted in the community to get things stirred up).
What I did find interesting was the fact that the community’s minister, a Baptist preacher in real life, decided to lift some of the rules about going to Church because he felt that it was coercive and unChristian. I found myself liking him and his family in spite of my deep mistrust of Our Fundamentalist Brethren.
What I found interesting was the fact that the CEO, who showed up to kick butt and take names because the settlement wasn’t making money, was the really hard-nosed one. He didn’t give a rip what people believed or not, but wanted strict conformity to social norms because dissent was distracting people from the bottom line. The settlers hated his guts, but stuff got done.