Produced by Steven desJardins and Distributed Proofreaders.




BUNDLING;
Its Origin, Progress and Decline In America.

BY HENRY REED STILES, M.D.,
AUTHOR OF HISTORY OF BROOKLYN, HISTORY OF WINDSOR, CT., ETC.


     "I find by all historians, whether ancient or modern, whom I
     consulted in searching for this work, the fact well recorded, and
     established beyond all controversy, that the Yankee nation are a
     set of talking, guessing, swapping and _bundling_ sons of women."


     _Grant Thorburn's Notes on Virginia_.


ALBANY:
KNICKERBOCKER PUBLISHING COMPANY.
1871.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871,
BY HENRY R. STILES,
In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.



     TO MY ESTEEMED FRIEND,
     DEACON JABEZ H. HAYDEN,
     OF WINDSOR LOCKS, CONNECTICUT,

     Whose jealous love of his native state, led him, in defense of her
     good fame, to make some strictures upon a statement relative to
     _bundling_, in my _History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor,
     Conn._, which strictures (made and taken in the kindest spirit of
     personal friendship) set me upon the further investigation of this
     interesting subject.

     This Essay,

     The result of that investigation, and the justification
           (as I claim) of my original statement, is
                 MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
                       BY THE AUTHOR




PREFATORY.


In the _History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor, Conn._, published in
1859, speaking of the influence of the old French wars upon the
religious, moral and social life of New England, I used this language:

"Then came war, and young New England brought from the long Canadian
campaigns, stores of loose camp vices and recklessness, which soon
flooded the land with immorality and infidelity. The church was
neglected, drunkenness fearfully increased, and social life was sadly
corrupted. _Bundling_--that ridiculous and pernicious custom which
prevailed among the young to a degree which we can scarcely
credit--sapped the fountain of morality and tarnished the escutcheons of
thousands of families."

Hereupon there came a buzzing around my ears. Divers good sons of
Connecticut winced under the soft impeachment of having a bundling
ancestry, and intimated that my sketch of society in the olden times was
somewhat overdrawn. In 1861, an esteemed antiquarian friend in
Connecticut wrote me as follows: "Some of your friends feel that, in
your _History of Windsor_, you showed too much inclination to malign, or
at least ridicule, Connecticut institutions, though I think none of them
accuse you of malice in the matter, and they fear that this subject of
bundling cannot be ventilated without endangering the fair fame of old
Connecticut."

Upon that hint I speak. Although born in the city of New York, I am the
son of Connecticut parents, and proud to trace my descent through six
generations of honest, hard-working, God-fearing Connecticut yeomanry.
By the mere accident of birth I cannot feel myself absolved from that
allegiance to the Wooden Nutmeg State, which is imposed upon me by the
ties of ancestry, of relationship, of youthful associations, and last,
not least, by the deep interest which I have taken in the history of one
of its eldest-born towns. I am, indeed, at this day, to all intents and
purposes, as wholly and truly a Connecticut man as if born within her
borders; and as proud of her past, as hopeful of her future, and as
jealous of her reputation as any one could desire. I trust, therefore,
that I may be allowed to disclaim any "inclination to malign, or at
least ridicule Connecticut institutions," a task which, in my case,
would savor of ingratitude, and which I should consider unworthy of my
humble pen.

I cannot but think, also, that those who have found, or think that they
have found, an inimical design in any pleasantries in which I may have
indulged while describing the customs and manners of by-gone days--have
betrayed a _thin-skinnedness_, and an ignorance of the true glory of
Connecticut history, when they imagine that her fair fame can be
seriously tarnished by the fly-specks of certain customs--at no time
without their vigorous opponents--and long since rendered obsolete by
the march of improvement.

The fun of the thing, however, is, that the sentence which has thus
called forth the animadversions of the critics, will be found, with its
context, on closer examination, to have applied to the _New England
Colonies_, and not to Connecticut alone! In their haste to vindicate the
land of steady habits, they seem to have assumed more than their share
of the reproach involved in my simple historical statement.

As for myself, I am no believer in the theory that the objectionable
portions of history should be kept in the background, and that only the
bright side should be turned towards the world. If, as one has happily
said, "history is experience teaching by example," we most surely need
to have both sides fairly presented to us before we can properly extract
therefrom the lesson of good or of evil which is therein taught. It is
unnecessary to pursue the argument further. Suffice it to say, that
perfection is as little to be expected in the history of a state or a
community, as in the life of an individual. As to our ancestors, we must
take them as history shows them to us--"men of like passions with
ourselves," and "in all respects tempted as we are," yet neither worse,
nor, again, very much purer or better than ourselves.

In this spirit I have undertaken to trace, in the following pages, the
origin, progress and decline of the custom of bundling in America,
together with such facts as clearly prove that it was not confined to
this continent, but prevalent in various countries of the world.

"HONI SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE."

H. R. S.




BUNDLING.


     BUNDLING. "A man and a woman lying on the same bed with their
     clothes on; an expedient practiced in America on a scarcity of
     beds, where, on such occasions, husbands and parents frequently
     permitted travellers to _bundle_ with their wives and
     daughters."--_Grose, Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue_.

     BUNDLE, _v.i._ "To sleep on the same bed without undressing;
     applied to the custom of a man and woman, especially lovers, thus
     sleeping."--_Webster, 1864_.

     BUNDLE, _v.n._ "To sleep together with the clothes
     on."--_Worcester, 1864_.


Bundling, as may be seen from the above quoted definitions, was
practiced in two forms: first, between _strangers_, as a simple domestic
make-shift arrangement, often arising from the necessities of a new
country, and by no means peculiar to America; and, secondly, between
_lovers_, who shared the same couch, with the mutual understanding that
innocent endearments should not be exceeded. It was, however, in either
case, a custom of convenience.

We may notice, in this connection, that it is very common, even at the
present day, in New England, to speak of one as having "bundled in with
his clothes on," if he goes to bed without undressing; as, for instance,
if he came home drunk, or feeling slightly ill, lay down in the daytime,
or in a cold night found the blankets too scanty.

The point which first claims our attention in the discussion of this
custom, is its probable _origin_, and its _antiquity_ in


THE BRITISH ISLES.


For, though British travelers have uniformly endeavored to fix the odium
of this custom upon us their transatlantic cousins, as being peculiarly
"An American institution," it is, nevertheless, an indisputable fact
that bundling has for centuries flourished within their own kingdom. For
what else, in fact, was that universal custom of promiscuous sleeping
together which prevailed among the ancient Britons at the time of the
Roman conquest, and which led Cæsar to consider them as polyandrous
polygamists, and other ancient writers to give them an unenviable
character for morality?[1] Bundling, of course! in its rudest aboriginal
form.

As to its moral aspects, being more charitably inclined towards our
British friends than they oftentimes are to us, we are willing to accept
Logan's defense of their ancestors. "The custom," he says, "which
continued until lately in some parts, and yet exists among a few of the
rudest, who sleep altogether on straw or rushes, according to the
general ancient practice, there is reason to believe, led to the
aspersion cast on the British and Irish tribes. How natural it must have
been for a casual observer to suppose, from seeing men and women
reposing in the same place, that the marriage rites were not in force.
To judge of the ancient inhabitants by the rudest of the present
Highlanders and Irish, who often sleep in the same apartment, and are
sometimes exposed to each other in a state of semi-nudity, we should not
come to a conclusion unfavorable to their morality,[2] for this mode of
life is not productive of that conjugal infidelity which St. Jerome and
others insinuate as prevalent among the old Scots. * * * Nations that
are even in a savage state are sometimes found more sensitive on that
point of honor than nations more advanced in civilization; and all,
perhaps, that can be admitted is, that certain formalities may have been
practiced by the Britons, from which the _bundling_ of the Welsh, and
the _hand-fasting_ in some parts of Scotland, are derived. The
conversation which took place between the Empress Julia and the wife of
a Caledonian chief, as related by Xiphilin, certainly evinces a
grossness and indelicacy in the amours of the British ladies, if true;
but it appears to be a reply where wit and reproof were more aimed at
than truth. The case of the Empress Cartismandua shows the nice feeling
of the Britons as to the propriety of female conduct. The respect of the
Germans for their females, and the severity with which they visited a
deviation from virtue, have been described; and the further testimony of
Tacitus may be adduced, who says that but very few of the greatest
dignity chose to have more than one wife, and when they did it was
merely for the honor of alliance. It may be here stated that the Gaëls
have no word to express cuckold, and that prostitutes were, by Scots'
law, like that of the ancient Germans, thrown into deep wells; and a
woman was not permitted to complain of an assault if she allowed more
than one night to elapse before the accusation."--_Logan's Scottish
Gaël_, 5th Am. edition, p. 472.[5]

Indeed, whatever may have been the real state of morality among the
ancient Scotch and Irish--and it is quite probable that it has been
unfairly depicted by casual and prejudiced observers--the ancient custom
of bundling, which has been handed down from earliest times, has not
greatly contaminated their descendants of the present day. For, whatever
their national vices, the Scotch and Irish of our day maintain a
character for chastity superior to that of many of their more fortunate
and more civilized neighbors. Bundling, as now practiced in these
kingdoms, is merely a matter arising from the ignorance, or the poverty
of the inhabitants; and, while not salutary in its moral or physical
influence, is, at all events, less abused than we might reasonably
expect.

In regard to


WALES.


We learn from Woodward's admirable history of that kingdom, the
following facts concerning the domestic habits of its people in the
twelfth century:

"At night a bed of rushes was laid down along one side of the room,
covered with a coarse kind of cloth, made in the country, called
_brychan_; and all the household lay down on this bed in common, without
changing their dresses. The fire was kept burning through the night, and
the sleepers maintained their warmth by lying closely; and when, by the
hardness of their couch, one side was wearied, they would get up and sit
by the fire awhile, and then lie down again on the other side. It is to
this custom of promiscuous sleeping, that some of the worst habits of
the Welsh at the present day may be ascribed; and from the same custom
which their forefathers, the ancient Britons, practiced, arose Cæsar's
supposition that they were polyandrous polygamists."

These habits, which were a matter of necessity with the ancient Welsh,
have become converted, by the lapse of time, among their descendants of
the present day, into an amatory custom precisely similar to that
practiced formerly in New England.[6]

A tourist through Wales, in the year 1797,[7] thus speaks of the Welsh
_bundling_: "And here, amongst the usages and customs, I must not omit
to inform you that what you have, perhaps, often heard, without
believing, respecting the _mode of courtship_ amongst the Welsh
peasants, is true. The lower order of people do actually carry on their
love affairs in bed, and what would extremely astonish more polished
lovers, they are carried on honorably, it being, at least, as usual for
the Pastoras of the mountains to go from the bed of courtship to the bed
of marriage as unpolluted and maidenly as the Chloes of fashion; and yet
you are not to conclude that this proceeds from their being less
susceptible of the _belle-passion_ than their betters; or that the cold
air which they breathe has 'froze the genial current of their souls.' By
no means; if they cannot boast the voluptuous languor of an Italian sky,
they glow with the bracing spirit of a more invigorating atmosphere. I
really took some pains to investigate this curious custom, and after
being assured, by many, of its veracity, had an opportunity of attesting
its existence with my own eyes. The servant maid of the family I visited
in Caernarvonshire, happened to be the object of a young peasant, who
walked eleven long miles every Sunday morning to favor his suit, and
regularly returned the same night through all weathers, to be ready for
Monday's employment in the fields, being simply a day laborer. He
usually arrived in time for morning service, which he constantly
attended, after which he escorted his Dulcinea home to the house of her
master, by whose permission they as constantly passed the succeeding
hour in bed, according to the custom of the country. These tender
sabbatical preliminaries continued without interruption near two years,
when the treaty of alliance was solemnized, and, so far from any breach
of articles happening in the meantime, it is most likely that it was
considered by both parties as a matter of course, without exciting any
other idea. On speaking to my friend on the subject, he observed that,
though it certainly appeared a dangerous mode of making love, he had
seen so few _living_ abuses of it, during six and thirty years'
residence in that country, where it nevertheless had always, more or
less, prevailed, he must conclude it was as innocent as any other. One
proof of its being _thought_ so by the parties, is the perfect ease and
freedom with which it is done; no awkwardness or confusion appearing on
either side; the most well-behaved and decent young woman going into it
without a blush, and they are by no means deficient in modesty. What is
pure in idea is always so in conduct, since bad actions are the common
consequence of bad thoughts; and though the better sort of people treat
this ceremony as a barbarism, it is very much to be doubted whether more
_faux pas_ have been committed by the Cambrian boors in this _free
access_ to the bed chambers of their mistresses, than by more
fashionable Strephons and their nymphs in groves and shady bowers. The
power of habit is perhaps stronger than the power of passion, or even of
the charms which inspire it; and it is sufficient, almost, to say a
thing is the _custom of a country_, to clear it from any reproach that
would attach to an innovation. Were it the practice of a few only, and
to be gratified by stealth, there would, from the strange construction
of human nature, be more cause of suspicion; but being ancient, general,
and carried on without difficulty, it is probably as little dangerous as
a _tête a tête_ in a drawing-room, or in any other full dress place
where young people meet to say soft things to each other."

In an antiquarian tour by the Rev. W. Bingley, in 1804,[8] we also find
the following description of this custom: "The peasantry of part of
Caernarvonshire, Anglesea, and Merionethshire, adopt a mode of
_courtship_ which, till within the last few years, was scarcely even
heard of in England. It is the same that is common in many parts of
America, and termed by the inhabitants of that country, _bundling_. The
lover steals, under the shadow of the night, to the bed of the fair one,
into which (retaining an essential part of his dress) he is admitted
without any shyness or reserve. Saturday or Sunday nights are the
principal times when this courtship takes place, and on these nights the
men sometimes walk from a distance of ten miles or more to visit their
favorite damsels. This strange custom seems to have originated in the
scarcity of fuel, and in the unpleasantness of sitting together in the
colder part of the year without a fire. Much has been said of the
innocence with which these meetings are conducted, but it is a very
common thing for the consequence of the interview to make its appearance
in the world within two or three months after the marriage ceremony has
taken place. The subject excites no particular attention among the
neighbors, provided the marriage be made good before the living witness
is brought to light. Since this custom is entirely confined to the
laboring classes of the community, it is not so pregnant with danger as,
on a first supposition, it might seem. Both parties are so poor that
they are necessarily constrained to render their issue legitimate, in
order to secure their reputation, and with a mode of obtaining a
livelihood."

Another traveller[9] also mentions "a singular custom that is said to
prevail in Wales, relating to their mode of courtship, which is declared
to be carried on in bed; and, what is more extraordinary, it is averred
that the moving tale of love is agitated in that situation without
endangering a breach in the preliminaries." Referring to Mr. Pratt's
account of the custom, before quoted, he proceeds to remark: "Our
companion, like every one else that we spoke with in Wales on the
subject, at once denied the existence of this custom: that maids in many
instances admitted male bed-fellows, he did not doubt; but that the
procedure was sanctioned by _tolerated custom_ he considered a gross
misrepresentation. Yet in Anglesea and some parts of North Wales, where
the original simplicity of manners and high sense of chastity of the
natives is retained, he admitted _something of the kind_ might appear.
In those thinly inhabited districts a peasant often has several miles to
walk after the hours of labor, to visit his mistress; those who have
reciprocally entertained the _belle passion_ will easily imagine that
before the lovers grow tired of each other's company the night will be
far enough advanced; nor is it surprising that a tender-hearted damsel
should be disinclined to turn her lover out over bogs and mountains
until the dawn of day. The fact is, that under such circumstances she
admits a _consors lecti_, but not in _nudatum corpus_. In a lonely Welsh
hut this bedding has not the alarm of ceremony; from sitting, or perhaps
lying, on the hearth, they have only to shift their quarters to a heap
of straw or fern covered with two or three blankets in a neighboring
corner. The practice only takes place with _this view of
accommodation_."

Still another glimpse of this favorite Welsh custom is presented by a
tourist in 1807.[10] He says:

"One evening, at an inn where we halted, we heard a considerable bustle
in the kitchen, and, upon enquiry, I was let into a secret worth
knowing. The landlord had been scolding one of his maids, a very pretty,
plump little girl, for not having done her work; and the reason which
she alleged for her idleness was, that her master having locked the
street door at night, had prevented her lover enjoying the rights and
delights of _bundling_, an amatory indulgence which, considering that it
is sanctioned by custom, may be regarded as somewhat singular, although
it is not exclusively of Welsh growth. The process is very simple; the
gay Lothario, when all is silent, steals to the chamber of his mistress,
who receives him in bed, but with the modest precaution of wearing her
under petticoat, which is always fastened at the bottom--not
unfrequently, I am told, by a sliding knot. It may astonish a London
gallant to be told that this extraordinary experiment often ends in
downright wedlock--the knot which cannot slide. A gentleman of
respectability also assured me that he was obliged to indulge his female
servants in these nocturnal interviews, and that too at all hours of the
night, otherwise his whole family would be thrown into disorder by their
neglect; the carpet would not be dusted, nor would the kettle boil. I
think this custom should share the fate of the northern Welsh goats.
* * * * Habit has so reconciled the mind to the comforts of _bundling_,
that a young lady who entered the coach soon after we left Shrewsbury,
about eighteen years of age, with a serene and modest countenance,
displayed considerable historical knowledge of the custom, without one
touch of bashfulness."[11]

Thus much for Wales, where the custom seems to have been entirely
confined to the lower classes of society, and where we have reason to
think it still prevails to some extent to this day.[12]

The same author whom we last quoted also speaks of a "courtship similar
to _bundling_, carried on in the islands of Vlie and Wieringen,


IN HOLLAND,


Under the name of _queesting_.[15] At night the lover has access to his
mistress after she is in bed; and, upon an application to be admitted
upon the bed, which of course is granted, he raises the quilt, or rug,
and in this state _queests_, or enjoys a harmless chit-chat with her,
and then retires. This custom meets with the perfect sanction of the
most circumspect parents, and the freedom is seldom abused. The author
traces its origin to the parsimony of the people, whose economy
considers fire and candles as superfluous luxuries in the long winter
evenings."

The Hon. Henry C. Murphy of Brooklyn, N. Y., late United States minister
at the Hague, has furnished us with the following note in relation to
this Nederduitsche custom: "As to its being a Dutch custom, it was so to
a limited extent in Holland in former times, and may yet be, though I
did not hear of it when I was there. Sewell gives the word _queesten_,
or _kweesten_, in his dictionary, printed over a century ago. The word
is defined in the dictionary of Wieland, the principal lexicographer in
that country, as follows: '_Kweesten_. Upon the islands of Texel and
Vlieland[16] they use this word for a singular custom of wooing, by
which the doors and windows are left open, and the lover, lying or
sitting outside the covering, woos the girl who is underneath.' Sewell
confines the custom to certain islands or lands near the sea."


LOVE AND COURTSHIP IN THE 14TH CENTURY.


In feudal times, in the last part of the fourteenth century, it became
the practice for the vassals, or feudatories, to send their sons to be
educated in the family of the suzerain, while the daughters were
similarly placed with the lady of the castle. These formed a very
important part of the household, and were of gentle blood, claiming the
honorary title of _chambriéres_ or chamber-maidens. The demoiselles of
this period were very susceptible to the passion of love, which was the
ruling spirit of the inmates of the castle. Feudal society was, in
comparison to the previous times, polished and even brilliant, but it
was not, under the surface, pure. Many good maxims were taught, but they
were not all practiced. "There was an extreme intimacy between the two
sexes, who commonly visited each other in their chambers or bedrooms.
Thus in the poem of Guatier d'Aupias, the hero is represented as
visiting in her chamber the demoiselle of whom he is enamored. Numerous
similar examples might be quoted. At times, one of the parties is
described as being actually in bed, as is the case in the romance of
_Blonde of Oxford_, where Blonde visits Jehan in his chamber when he is
in bed, and stays all night with him, in perfect innocence as we are
told in the romance. We must remember that it was the custom in those
times for both sexes to go to bed perfectly naked."[17]


IN SWITZERLAND,


According to an English observer,[18] analogous modes of courtship still
exist. In speaking of the canton _Unterwald_ he says: "In the story of
the destruction of the castles, we read that the surprise was effected
by a young girl admitting her lover to her room by a ladder, and an
English guide-book remarks, that this is still the fashion of receiving
lovers in Switzerland. Reference is had to the manner of wooing, which
in some cantons is called _lichtgetren_, in others _dorfen_ and
_stubetegetren_, and answers to the old-fashioned _going-a-courting_ in
England. The customs connected with it vary in different cantons, but
exist in some form in all except two or three.

In the canon _Lucerne_, the _kiltgang_ is the universal mode of wooing;
the lover visiting his betrothed in the evening, to be pelted on the way
by all mischievous urchins; or if he is seated quietly with her by the
winter fire, they are sure to be serenaded by all manner of _cat voices_
under the window, which are continued till he issues forth, perhaps at
dawn in the morning; and however long may be a courtship, these
_cater-waulings_ are the invariable attendants, and not the most
lamentable consequences of these nightly visits, recognized, however, as
entirely respectable and conventional in every canton."

And again in the canton _Vaud_, he says, "the _kiltgang_, or nightly
wooings, are the universal custom with the universal consequences, but
in general the wife is treated with marked respect, is made keeper of
the treasury, and consulted as the oracle of the family."

Among the amatory customs of various


SAVAGE NATIONS


and tribes, there are certain which somewhat resemble _bundling_, except
in the greater degree of freedom allowed--a freedom which, in the eyes
of civilized nations, is absolute immorality. Of this description is the
manner of wooing described by La Hontan as prevalent among the Indians
of North America.[19]

Yet, in many of these instances, if we were to carefully examine the
social system and customs of our savage friends, and were willing to
judge them rather by the results of our own observation, than by our
preconceived opinions, we should probably find that the absolute
_practical morality_ of these _untutored natives_, was quite equal, if
not superior, to that of the educated and civilized whites.[20]

Among these _customs de amour_, however, to which we have alluded as
existing among different savage tribes, there are none which bear so
perfect a resemblance to _bundling_, as that described by Masson in his
_Journeys in Central Asia, Belochistan, Afghanistan,_ etc. (III, 287.)
He says:

"Many of the Afghan tribes have a custom of wooing similar to what in
Wales is known as _bundling-up_, and which they term _namzat bezé_. The
lover presents himself at the house of his betrothed with a suitable
gift, and in return is allowed to pass the night with her, on the
understanding that innocent endearments are not to be exceeded."

Spencer St. John tells us, in speaking of the piratical and ferocious
Sea Dayaks of Borneo, that "besides the ordinary attention which a young
man is able to pay to the girl he desires to make his wife--as helping
her in her farm work, and in carrying home her load of vegetables or
wood, as well as in making her little presents, as a ring or some brass
chain-work with which the women adorn their waists, or even a
petticoat--there is a very peculiar testimony of regard which is worthy
of note. About nine or ten at night, when the family is supposed to be
fast asleep within the musquito curtains in the private apartments, the
young man quietly slips back the bolt by which the door is fastened on
the inside, and enters the room on tiptoe. On hearing who it is, she
rises at once, and they sit conversing together and making arrangements
for the future, in the dark, over a plentiful supply of _sirih-leaf_ and
_batle-nut_, which it is the gentleman's duty to provide, for his suit
is in a fair way to prosper; but if, on the other hand, she rises and
says, 'be good enough to blow up the fire,' or 'light the lamp' (a
bamboo filled with resin), then his hopes are at an end, as that is the
usual form of dismissal. Of course, if this kind of nocturnal visit is
frequently repeated, the parents do not fail to discover it, although it
is a point of honor among them to take no notice of their visitor; and,
if they approve of him, matters then take their course, but if not, they
use their influence with their daughter to ensure the utterance of the
fatal 'please blow up the fire.'"

And now, having discussed the custom of bundling as it formerly existed
in Great Britain, and having proved its identity with the _queesting_ of
Holland, and the _namzat bezé_ of Central Asia, we propose to follow our
investigations to the continent of America, and to trace, if we can, its
origin and progress in the


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


in doing which, it is quite likely that, we follow the identical line of
travel and colonization--viz: from Old to New England, and from
Netherlands (the father-land) to New Netherlands--by which the custom of
bundling was really transplanted to these western shores. For, although
the grave and (sometimes) veracious historian of New York, Diedrich
Knickerbocker, hath endeavored to fasten upon the Connecticut settlers
the odium of having introduced the custom into New Netherland,[21] to
the great offense of all properly disposed people; yet we may reasonably
doubt whether the young mynheers and frauliens of New Amsterdam, in that
day, were any more innocent of this lover's pastime, than their
vivacious Connecticut neighbors. Indeed, can it be for one moment
supposed that the good Hollanders--a most unchanging and conservative
race--should have been so far false to the traditions of their fathers,
and the honor of the fatherland, as to leave behind them, when they
crossed the seas, the good old custom of _queesting_, with its
time-honored associations and delights? Or can it be imagined that those
astute lawgivers and political economists, the early governors and
burgomasters, were so blind to the necessities and interests of a new
and sparsely populated country, as to forbid bundling within their
borders? Indeed, it would be but a sorry compliment to the wisdom of
that sagacious and far-sighted body of merchants comprised in the High
and Mighty West India Company, to believe that they were unwilling to
introduce under their benign auspices, a custom so intimately connected
with their own national social habits, and so promising to the
prospective interests and enlargement of their _new plantations_, as
this. And, truly, Diedrich himself, doth, in another part of his book,
inadvertently betray the fact that bundling was by no means a purely
Yankee trick, for he speaks of the redoubtable Anthony Van
Corlaer--purest of Dutchmen--as "passing through Hartford, and Pyquag,
and Middletown, and all the other border towns, twanging his trumpet
like a very devil, so that the sweet valleys and banks of the
Connecticut resounded with the warlike melody, and stopping occasionally
to eat pumpkin pies, dance at country frolics, and _bundle_ with the
beauteous lasses of those parts, whom he rejoiced exceedingly with his
soul-stirring instrument." Which passage, while it proves that the
practice of bundling prevailed in Connecticut, proves equally well that
Anthony the trumpeter was by no means inexperienced in its delights, nor
unwilling to enjoy its comforts, whether under the name of _bundling_ or
_queesting_.

Indeed, we do most truly believe that the cunning Knickerbocker, in his
desire to vindicate, as he thought, the character of his race against
the accusation of immorality, hath by his denial not only committed a
grievous sin against "the truth of history," but hath greatly added
thereto, by attempting to foist off the opprobrium of the same on to the
shoulders of the Connecticut folks. But history will not remain forever
falsified, and the day has at length arrived when every historical tub
must "stand on its own bottom," and the world will henceforth know that
the New Netherlanders did not take bundling by inoculation from the
Yankees, but that they brought it with them to the New World, as an
ancestral heirloom.

This point being thus satisfactorily settled, to the honor of the
Dutchman, and the extreme satisfaction of all future historians, we next
proceed to investigate the bundling prevalent in


THE NEW ENGLAND STATES,


Where, as we have already shown, it was, as with the Dutchmen, an
_inherited_ custom. Its comparatively innocent and harmless character
has, however, been fearfully distorted and maligned by irresponsible
satirists, and prejudiced historians. Take, for example, the following
passage from Knickerbocker's _History of New York_,[22] wherein he
pretends to describe "the curious device among these sturdy barbarians
[the Connecticut colonists], to keep up a harmony of interests, and
promote population. * * * * They multiplied to a degree which would be
incredible to any man unacquainted with the marvellous fecundity of this
growing country. This amazing increase may, indeed, be partly ascribed
to a singular custom prevalent among them, commonly known by the name of
_bundling_--a superstitious rite observed by the young people of both
sexes, with which they usually terminated their festivities, and which
was kept up with religious strictness by the more bigoted and vulgar
part of the community. This ceremony was likewise, in those primitive
times, considered as an indispensable preliminary to matrimony; their
courtships commencing where ours usually finish, by which means they
acquired, that intimate acquaintance with each other's good qualities
before marriage, which has been pronounced by philosophers the sure
basis of a happy union. Thus early did this cunning and ingenious people
display a shrewdness at making a bargain, which has ever since
distinguished them, and a strict adherence to the good old vulgar maxim
about 'buying a pig in a poke.'

"To this sagacious custom, therefore, do I chiefly attribute the
unparalleled increase of the Yanokie or Yankee tribe; for it is a
certain fact, well authenticated by court records and parish registers,
that wherever the practice of bundling prevailed, there was an amazing
number of sturdy brats annually born unto the state, without the license
of the law, or the benefit of clergy. Neither did the irregularity of
their birth operate in the least to their disparagement. On the
contrary, they grew up a long-sided, raw-boned, hardy race of whoreson
whalers, wood cutters, fishermen, and peddlers; and strapping corn-fed
wenches, who by their united efforts tended marvellously towards
populating those notable tracts of country called Nantucket, Piscataway,
and Cape Cod."

Hear, also, that learned, but audacious and unscrupulous divine, the
Rev. Samuel Peters, who thus discourseth at length upon the custom of
bundling in Connecticut, and other parts of New England. After admitting
that "the women of Connecticut are strictly virtuous, and to be compared
to the prude rather than the European polite lady," he says:

"Notwithstanding the modesty of the females is such that it would be
accounted the greatest rudeness for a gentleman to speak before a lady
of a garter, knee, or leg, yet it is thought but a piece of civility to
ask her to _bundle_; a custom as old as the first settlement in 1634. It
is certainly innocent, virtuous and prudent, or the puritans would not
have permitted it to prevail among their offspring, for whom in general
they would suffer crucifixion. Children brought up with the chastest
ideas, with so much religion as to believe that the omniscient God sees
them in the dark, and that angels guard them when absent from their
parents, will not, nay, cannot, act a wicked thing. People who are
influenced more by lust, than a serious faith in God, who is too pure to
behold iniquity with approbation, ought never to _bundle_. If any man,
thus a stranger to the love of virtue, of God, and the Christian
religion, should _bundle_ with a young lady in New England, and behave
himself unseemly towards her, he must first melt her into passion, and
expel heaven, death, and hell, from her mind, or he will undergo the
chastisement of negroes turned mad--if he escape with life, it will be
owing to the parents flying from their bed to protect him. The Indians,
who had this method of courtship when the English arrived among them in
1634, are the most chaste set of people in the world. Concubinage and
fornication are vices none of them are addicted to, except such as
forsake the laws of Hobbamockow and turn Christians. The savages have
taken many female prisoners, carried them back three hundred miles into
their country, and kept them several years, and yet not a single
instance of their violating the laws of chastity has ever been known.
This cannot be said of the French, or of the English, whenever Indian or
other women have fallen into their hands. I am no advocate for
temptation; yet must say, that _bundling_ has prevailed 160 years in New
England, and, I verily believe, with ten times more chastity than the
sitting on a sofa. I had daughters, and speak from near forty years'
experience. _Bundling_ takes place only in cold seasons of the year--the
sofa in summer is more dangerous than the bed in winter. About the year
1756, Boston, Salem, Newport, and New York, resolving to be more polite
than their ancestors, forbade their daughters _bundling_ on the bed with
any young man whatever, and introduced a sofa to render courtship more
palatable and Turkish, whatever it was owing to, whether to the sofa, or
any uncommon excess of the _feu d'esprit_, there went abroad a report
that this _raffinage_ produced more _natural consequences_ then all the
_bundling_ among the boors with their _rurales pedantes_, through every
village in New England besides.

"In 1776, a clergyman from one of the polite towns, went into the
country, and preached against the unchristian custom of young men and
maidens lying together on a bed. He was no sooner out of the church,
then attacked by a shoal of good old women, with, 'Sir, do you think we
and our daughters are naughty, because we allow _bundling_?' 'You lead
yourselves into temptation by it.' They all replied at once, 'Sir, have
you been told thus, or has experience taught it you?' The Levite began
to lift up his eyes, and to consider of his situation, and bowing, said,
'I have been told so.' The ladies, _una voce_, bawled out, 'Your
informants, sir, we conclude, are those city ladies who prefer a sofa to
a bed: we advise you to alter your sermon, by substituting the word
_sofa_ for _bundling_, and on your return home preach it to them, for
experience has told us that city folks send more children into the
country without fathers or mothers to own them, than are born among us;
therefore, you see, a sofa is more dangerous than a bed.' The poor
priest, seemingly convinced of his blunder, exclaimed, '_Nec vitia
nostra, neo remedia pati possumus_,' hoping thereby to get rid of his
guests; but an old matron pulled off her spectacles, and, looking the
priest in the face like a Roman heroine, said, '_Noli putare me hæc
auribus tuis dare_.' Others cried out to the priest to explain his
Latin. 'The English,' said he, 'is this: Wo is me that I sojourn in
Meseck, and dwell in the tents of Kedar!' One pertly retorted, '_Gladii
decussati sunt gemina presbyteri clavis_.' The priest confessed his
error, begged pardon, and promised never more to preach against
bundling, or to think amiss of the custom; the ladies generously forgave
him, and went away.

"It may seem very strange to find this custom of bundling in bed
attended with so much innocence in New England, while in Europe it is
thought not safe or scarcely decent to permit a young man and maid to be
together in private anywhere. But in this quarter of the old world the
viciousness of the one, and the simplicity of the other, are the result
merely of education and habit. It seems to be a part of heroism, among
the polished nations of it, to sacrifice the virtuous fair one, whenever
an opportunity offers, and thence it is concluded that the same
principles actuate those of the new world. It is egregiously absurd to
judge all of all countries by one. In Spain, Portugal and Italy,
jealousy reigns; in France, England, and Holland, suspicion; in the West
and East Indies, lust; in New England, superstition. These four blind
deities govern Jews, Turks, Christians, infidels, and heathen.
Superstition is the most amiable. She sees no vice with approbation but
persecution, and self-preservation is the cause of her seeing that. My
insular readers will, I hope, believe me, when I tell them that I have
seen, in the West Indies, naked boys and girls, some fifteen or sixteen
years of age, waiting at table and at tea, even when twenty or thirty
virtuous English ladies were in the room; who were under no more
embarrassment at such an awful sight in the eyes of English people that
have not traveled abroad, than they would have been at the sight of so
many servants in livery. Shall we censure the ladies of the West Indies
as vicious above all their sex, on account of this local custom? By no
means; for long experience has taught the world that the West Indian
white ladies are virtuous prudes. Where superstition reigns, fanaticism
will be minister of state; and the people, under the taxation of zeal,
will shun what is commonly called vice, with ten times more care than
the polite and civilized Christians, who know what is right and what is
wrong from reason and revelation. Happy would it be for the world, if
reason and revelation were suffered to control the mind and passions of
the great and wise men of the earth, as superstition does that of the
simple and less polished! When America shall erect societies for the
promotion of chastity in Europe, in return for the establishment of
European arts in the American capitals, then Europe will discover that
there is more Christian philosophy in American bundling than can be
found in the customs of nations more polite.

"I should not have said so much about bundling, had not a learned
divine[23] of the English church published his travels through some
parts of America, wherein this remarkable custom is represented in an
unfavorable light, and as prevailing among the _lower class_ of people.
The truth is, the custom prevails among all classes, to the great honor
of the country, its religion, and ladies. The virtuous may be tempted;
but the tempter is despised. Why it should be thought incredible for a
young man and young woman innocently and virtuously to lie down together
in a bed with a great part of their clothes on, I cannot conceive. Human
passions may be alike in every region; but religion, diversified as it
is, operates differently in different countries. Upon the whole, had I
daughters now, I would venture to let them _bundle_ on the bed, or even
on the sofa, after a proper education, sooner than adopt the Spanish
mode of forcing young people to prattle only before the lady's mother
the chitchat of artless lovers. Could the four quarters of the world
produce a more chaste, exemplary and beautiful company of wives and
daughters than are in Connecticut, I should not have remaining one
favorable sentiment for the province. But the soil, the rivers, the
ponds, the ten thousand landscapes, together with the virtuous and
lovely women which now adorn the ancient kingdoms of Connecticote,
Sassacus, and Quinnipiog, would tempt me into the highest wonder and
admiration of them, could they once be freed ofthe skunk, the
moping-owl, rattlesnake and fanatic Christian."

Or, to take another example of the abuse heaped by our English cousins
upon this so-called "American custom of bundling." We extract the
following from an article entitled _British Abuse of American Manners_,
published in 1815.[24] It seems that it had long been a custom in the
Westminster school, in the city of London, for the senior students, who
were about to leave that seminary for the university, at the age of
sixteen to eighteen, to have an annual dramatic performance, which was
generally a play of Terence.[25] To this, as annually performed, there
was usually a Latin prologue, and also an epilogue composed for the
occasion and this epilogue turned, for the most part, on the manners of
the day that would bear the gentle correction of good humored satire, in
elegant Latinity. In the epilogue presented at one of these exhibitions,
about 1815, in connection with the performance of Terence's _Phormio_,
the following balderdash (with much else, as applied to American life
and manners) was introduced and spoken by these ingenuous and virtuous
British youth, before a large and enlightened audience:

  "Nec morum dicere promtum est,
  Sit ratio simplex, sitne venusta magis.
  Æthiopissa palam mensæ formulatur herili
  In puris naturalibus, ut loquimur.
  Vir braccis se bellus amat nudare décentér,
  Strenuus ut choreas ex-que-peditus agat.
  Quid quod ibi; quod congere ipsis conque moveri
  Dicitur, incolumi nempe pudicitiâ,
  Sponte suâ, sine fraude, torum sese audet in unum.
  Condere cum casto casta puelle viro?
  Quid noctes coenaque Deûm? quid amœna piorum.
  Concilia?"

Which being translated is as follows:

"Nor is it easy to say whether the tenor of their manners is more to be
admired for simplicity or elegance; a negro wench, as we are told, will
wait on her master at table in native nudity; and a beau will strip
himself to the waist, that he may dance unincumbered, and with more
agility. There, too, we hear of the practice of _bundling_ without any
infraction of female modesty; and the chaste maiden, without any
deception, but with right good will, ventures to share the bed with her
chaste swain! Oh, what nights and banquets, worthy of the gods! What
delightful customs among these pious people?"

But this spirit of misrepresentation and ridicule, so glaringly apparent
in the foregoing extracts, and which has so universally characterized
all those British travelers and authors who have attempted to describe
our social habits and manners, is fitly rebuked, even as long ago as
1815, by an anonymous writer, whose trenchant pen reminds our British
cousins of the old adage concerning "those who live in glass houses,"
etc.

"From the time of Jack Cade," says he, "to Lord George Gordon, and down
to the present day, neither your _grave_ or _gay_ authorities on the
subject of _bundling_ and _tarrying_ are worthy of criticism. There is a
littleness in noticing, in the _London Quarterly Review_, a work which
heretofore has been distinguished for its taste, chasteness and
celebrity, the observation of travelers who, if men of truth, could only
mean to mention customs (if they were customs) of the most vulgar and
ignorant, which at any rate are now as little known as are the operation
of the blue laws of Connecticut, or part of the penal code enacted to
keep in slavery and subjection the sister kingdom.[26]

"Englishmen, examine your own cottages, particularly in the north, and
on the borders, and extend your view to the western extremity of your
island. Pray, what term will you give to that promiscuous bundling of
the father, mother, children, sons and daughters-in-law, cousins, and
inmates who call to _tarry_, and not unfrequently stretch themselves in
one common bed of straw on the hovel's floor?[27]

"Nay, even, in some parts of your empire, the hogs and the cows join the
group, and form a most audible respiration from their noses, getting
vent through the hole in the roof intended for a chimney, or spreading
throughout the clay built edifice with odorific sweetness, though
perhaps not so fragrant and refreshing as was the precious oil poured on
the venerable head of Aaron, which Sternhold and Hopkins tell us filled
the room with pleasure. In the early settlement of this country there
might have been houses in the route of the inquisitive and insidious
European travelers, unprovided with a spare bed on which he might
stretch his limbs; but, now, should Mr. Canning[28] himself visit us, he
need not fear being _bundled_--he need not travel far in any part of the
United States without enjoying the luxury of a soft couch and clean
sheets, where he can ruminate on the injustice he attempts on our
national character."

Badinage, ridicule and misrepresentation aside, however, there can be no
reasonable doubt that _bundling_ did prevail to a very great extent in
the New England colonies from a very early date. It is equally evident
that it was originally confined almost entirely to the lower classes of
the community, or to those whose limited means compelled them to
economize strictly in their expenditure of firewood and candlelight.
Many, perhaps the majority, of the dwellings of the early settlers,
consisted of but one room, in which the whole family lived and slept.
Yet their innocent and generous hospitality forbade that the stranger,
or the friend whom night overtook on their threshold, should be turned
shelterless and couchless away, so long as they could offer him even
half of a bed. As an example of this we may cite the case of Lieut.
Anbury, a British officer, who served in America during the
Revolutionary War, and whose letters preserve many sprightly and
interesting pictures of the manners and customs of that period. In a
letter dated at Cambridge, New England, November 20, 1777, he thus
speaks:

"The night before we came to this town [Williamstown, Mass.], being
quartered at a small log hut, I was convinced in how innocent a view the
Americans look upon that indelicate custom they call _bundling_. Though
they have remarkable good feather beds, and are extremely neat and
clean, still I preferred my hard mattress, as being accustomed to it;
this evening, however, owing to the badness of the roads, and the
weakness of my mare, my servant had not arrived with my baggage at the
time for retiring to rest. There being only two beds in the house, I
inquired which I was to sleep in, when the old woman replied, 'Mr.
Ensign,' here I should observe to you, that the New England people are
very inquisitive as to the rank you have in the army; 'Mr. Ensign,' says
she, 'our Jonathan and I will sleep in this, and our Jemima and you
shall sleep in that.' I was much astonished at such a proposal, and
offered to sit up all night, when Jonathan immediately replied, 'Oh, la!
Mr. Ensign, you wont be the first man our Jemima has bundled with, will
it Jemima?' when little Jemima, who, by the bye, was a very pretty,
black-eyed girl, of about sixteen or seventeen, archly replied, 'No,
father, not by many, but it will be with the first Britainer' (the name
they give to Englishmen). In this dilemma what could I do? The smiling
invitation of pretty Jemima--the eye, the lip, the--Lord ha' mercy,
where am I going to? But wherever I may be going now, I did not go to
bundle with her--in the same room with her father and mother, my kind
_host_ and _hostess_ too! I thought of that--I thought of more
besides--to struggle with the passions of nature; to clasp Jemima in my
arms--to--do what? you'll ask--why, to do--nothing! for if amid all
these temptations, the lovely Jemima had melted into kindness, she had
been an outcast from the world--treated with contempt, abused by
violence, and left perhaps to perish! No, Jemima; I could have endured
all this to have been blest with you, but it was too vast a sacrifice,
when you was to be the victim! Suppose how great the test of virtue must
be, or how cold the American constitution, when this unaccountable
custom is in hospitable repute, and perpetual practice."[29]

Again, in a subsequent letter, the Lieutenant, after describing a New
England sleighing frolic, says: "In England this would be esteemed
extremely imprudent, and attended with dangerous consequences; but,
after what I have related respecting _bundling_, I need not say, in how
innocent a view this is looked upon. Apropos, as to that custom, along
the sea coast, by a continual intercourse among Europeans, it is in some
measure abolished; but they still retain one something similar, which is
termed _tarrying_. When a young man is enamored of a woman, and wishes
to marry her, he proposes the affair to her parents (without whose
consent no marriage, in this colony, can take place); if they have no
objections, he is allowed to tarry with her one night, in order to make
his court. At the usual time the old couple retire to bed, leaving the
young ones to settle matters as they can, who having sat up as long as
they think proper, get into bed together also, but without putting off
their under garments; to prevent scandal. If the parties agree, it is
all very well, the banns are published, and they married without delay;
if not, they part, and possibly never see each other again, unless,
which is an accident that seldom happens, the forsaken fair proves
pregnant, in which case the man, unless he absconds, is obliged to marry
her, on pain of excommunication."[30]

The word _tarry_, in the sense of _to stop_ or _to stay_, was more used
by our ancestors than by the present generation; yet we think that
Lieut. Anbury was mistaken in his idea that the _tarrying_ was but for a
single night. It is true that marriages were early, and probably the
courtships were short, but we all know enough of New England _sparking_
to know that a single night was cutting it rather short; and yet it is
easy to see how Anbury should get his erroneous idea. True, if the lover
was so unlucky as to get his final dismissal the first night, there was
an end of the matter, and well might they fail to meet again; but, in
that case, it is not likely that the favors of which he could boast
would be such as to seriously affect the reputation of the girl with
whom he tarried. The fact that in the custom of _tarrying_, the parties
also _bundled_, does not authorize the synonymous use of the two words,
which have nothing in common. For, doubtless many young men _tarried_
with their sweethearts, who did not _bundle_ with them.

Again, when, on a sabbath night, the faithful swain arrived, having,
perhaps, walked ten or more weary miles, to enjoy the company of his
favorite lass, in the few brief hours which would elapse before the
morning light should call him again to his homeward walk and his week of
toil, was it not the dictate of humanity as well as of economy, which
prompted the _old folks_ to allow the approved and accepted suitor of
their daughter to pursue his wooing under the downy coverlid of a good
feather bed (oftentimes, too, in the very same room in which they
themselves slept), rather than to have them _sit up_ and _burn out
uselessly_ firewood and _candles_, to say nothing of the risk of
catching their _death a' cold_? Indeed, was not the sanction of bundling
in such cases a tacit admission, on the part of the parents, of their
perfect confidence in the young folks, which necessarily acted upon the
latter as, at once, a strong restraint from wrong, and a strong
incentive to right doing? The influence of early religious training, the
powerful control which the church had obtained upon the social and
domestic life of the people, and the superstitious aspect which, in
those days, the gospel was made to wear, must also be taken into the
account. And, moreover, is it not probable that the universality of the
custom, which certainly cleared it from anything like odium or reproach,
would naturally tend to preclude, in a degree, any improper ideas in the
minds of those who practiced it? Such, then, we consider the _status_ of
the custom in the earlier history of the colonies, and among the _first
generation_ of settlers.

"But," if the reader will allow us to quote from a previous work, "the
emigration from a civilized to a new country,[31] is necessarily a step
backward into barbarism. The _second generation_ did not fill the place
of the fathers. Reared amid the trials and dangers of a new settlement,
they were in a great measure deprived of the advantages, both social and
educational, which their parents had enjoyed. Nearly all of the former
could write, which cannot be said of their children. Neither did the
latter possess that depth of religious feeling, or earnest practical
piety which distinguished the first comers. Religion was to them less a
matter of the heart than of social privilege, and in the _half way
covenant_ controversy we behold the gradual _letting down of bars_
between a pure church and a grasping world.

"The _third_ generation followed in the footsteps of their predecessors.
Then came war; and young New England brought from the long Canadian
campaigns, stores of loose camp vices, and recklessness, which soon
flooded the land with immorality and infidelity. The church was
neglected, drunkenness fearfully increased, and social life was sadly
corrupted."[32]

It is not, therefore, a matter of surprise that bundling should, in the
increased laxity of public morals, become more frequently abused. Its
pernicious effects became constantly more apparent, and more decidedly
challenged the attention of the comparatively few godly men who
endeavored to stem and to control the rapidly widening current of
immorality which threatened to overwhelm the land.[33] The powerful
intellect of Jonathan Edwards thundered its anathemas upon it; pious
divines prayed against it in their closets, and wrestled with it in
their pulpits; while many attempted by a revision of their church
polity, by greater carefulness in the admission of members; by rules
more stringently framed and enforced, to preserve, as best they might,
the purity of the churches committed to their charge, and to make them,
if it were possible, beacon lights amid the surrounding darkness of the
times.[34] The task, however, was well nigh hopeless. The French wars
were succeeded by that of the American Revolution, and not before the
close of that struggle, may the custom of bundling be said to have
received its deathblow, and even then it _died hard_.

Its final disuse was brought about by a variety of causes, among which
may be named the improved condition of the people after the Revolution,
enabling many to live in larger and better warmed houses, and in the
very few places where the ministers dared to touch the subject in the
pulpit, as in Dedham, already referred to, a decided effect was
produced, but it was confined to the neighborhood, having very little
effect on the general custom. Probably no single thing tended so much to
break up the practice as the publication of a song, or ballad, in an
almanac, about 1785.

This ballad described in a free and easy style the various plans adopted
by those who bundled, and rather more than hinted at the results in
certain cases. Being published in an almanac, it had a much larger
circulation than could have been obtained for it in any other way (tract
societies not being then in vogue), and the descriptions were so _pat_,
that each one who saw them was disposed to apply them in a joking way to
any other who was known to practice bundling; and the result was, such a
general storm of banter and ridicule that no girl had the courage to
stand against it, and continue to admit her lovers to her bed.

We have found many persons who distinctly remember the publication of
this song, and the effect which it had on the public mind, but all our
efforts to find the almanac containing it, have proved of no avail.

We have, however, been favored with the use of a broadside copy of a
ballad, preserved among the treasures of the American Antiquarian
Society, at Worcester, Massachusetts, which several of our ancient
friends have recognized as identical with that in the almanac, one of
them proving it by repeating from memory several lines from the Almanac
version, which were precisely like that of the broadside, a copy of
which we give herewith.


A NEW BUNDLING SONG;

_Or a reproof to those Young Country Women, who follow that reproachful
Practice, and to their Mothers for upholding them therein_.

Since bundling very much abounds,
In many parts in country towns,
No doubt but some will spurn my song,
And say I'd better hold my tongue;
But none I'm sure will take offence,
Or deem my song impertinence,
But only those who guilty be,
And plainly here their pictures see.
Some maidens say, if through the nation,
Bundling should quite go out of fashion,
Courtship would lose its sweets; and they
Could have no fun till wedding day.
It shant be so, they rage and storm,
And country girls in clusters swarm,
And fly and buz, like angry bees,
And vow they'll bundle when they please.
Some mothers too, will plead their cause,
And give their daughters great applause,
And tell them, 'tis no sin nor shame,
For we, your mothers, did the same;
We hope the custom ne'er will alter,
But wish its enemies a halter.
Dissatisfaction great appear'd,
In several places where they've heard
Their preacher's bold, aloud disclaim
That bundling is a burning shame;
This too was cause of direful rout
And talk'd and told of, all about,
That ministers should disapprove
Sparks courting in a bed of love,
So justified the custom more,
Than e'er was heard or known before.
The pulpit then it seems must yield,
And female valor take the field,
In places where their custom long
Increasing strength has grown so strong;
When mothers herein bear a sway,
And daughters joyfully obey.
And young men highly pleased too,
Good Lord! what can't the devil do.
Can this vile practice ne'er be broke?
Is there no way to give a stroke,
To wound it or to strike it dead.
And girls with sparks not go to bed
'Twill strike them more than preacher's tongue,
To let the world know what they've done
And let it be in common fame,
Held up to view a noted shame.
Young miss if this your practice be,
I'll teach you now yourself to see:
You plead you're honest, modest too,
But such a plea will never do;
For how can modesty consist,
With shameful practice such as this?
I'll give your answer to the life:
"You don't undress, like man wife,"
That is your plea, I'll freely own,
But whose your bondsmen when alone,
That further rules you will not break,
And marriage liberties partake?
Some really do, as I suppose,
Upon design keep on some clothes,
And yet in truth I'm not afraid
For to describe a bundling maid;
She'll sometimes say when she lies down,
She can't be cumber'd with a gown,
And that the weather is so warm,
To take it off can be no harm:
The girl it seems had been at strift;
For widest bosom to her shift,
She gownless, when the bed they're in,
The spark, nought feels but naked skin.
But she is modest, also chaste,
While only bare from neck to waist,
And he of boasted freedom sings,
Of all above her apron strings.
And where such freedoms great are shar'd
And further freedoms feebly bar'd,
I leave for others to relate,
How long she'll keep her virgin state.
Another pretty lass we'll scan,
That loves to bundle with a man,
For many different ways they take,
Through modest rules they all will break.
Some clothes I'll keep on, she will say,
For that has always been my way,
Nor would I be quite naked found,
With spark in bed, for thousand pound.
But petticoats, I've always said,
Were never made to wear in bed,
I'll take them off, keep on my gown,
And then I dare defy the town,
To charge me with immodesty,
While I so ever cautious be.
The spark was pleased with his maid,
Of apprehension quick he said,
Her witty scheme was keen he swore,
Lying in gown open before.
Another maid when in the dark,
Going to bed with her dear spark,
She'll tell him that 'tis rather shocking,
To bundle in with shoes and stockings.
Nor scrupling but she's quite discreet,
Lying with naked legs and feet,
With petticoat so thin and short,
That she is scarce the better for't;
But you will say that I'm unfair,
That some who bundle take more care,
For some we may with truth suppose,
Bundle in bed with all their clothes.
But bundler's clothes are no defence,
Unly[35] horses push the fence;
A certain fact I'll now relate,
That's true indeed without debate.
A bundling couple went to bed.
With all their clothes from foot to head,
That the defence might seem complete,
Each one was wrapped in a sheet.
But O! this bundling's such a witch
The man of her did catch the itch,
And so provoked was the wretch,
That she of him a bastard catch'd.
Ye bundle misses don't you blush,
You hang your heads and bid me hush.
If you wont tell me how you feel,
I'll ask your sparks, they best can tell.
But it is custom you will say,
And custom always bears the sway,
If I wont take my sparks to bed,
A laughing stock I shall be made;
A vulgar custom 'tis, I own,
Admir'd by many a slut and clown,
But 'tis a method of proceeding,
As much abhorr'd by those of breeding.
You're welcome to the lines I've penn'd,
For they were written by a friend,
Who'll think himself quite well rewarded,
If this vile practice is discarded.


The party in favor of bundling were able, too, to _keep a poet_, as is
shown by the following ballad, which we transcribe from a printed copy
preserved by the American Antiquarian Society.


A NEW SONG IN FAVOUR OF COURTING.

Adam at first was form'd of dust,
As scripture doth record;
And did receive a wife call'd Eve,
From his Creator Lord.

From Adam's side a crooked bride,
The Lord was pleas'd to form;
Ordain'd that they in bed might lay
to keep each other warm.

To court indeed they had no need,
She was his wife at first,
And she was made to be his aid,
Whose origin was dust.

This new made pair full happy were,
And happy might remain'd,
If his help mate had never ate,
The fruit that was restrain'd.

Tho' Adam's wife destroy'd his life,
In manner that was awful;
Yet marriage now we all allow
To be both just and lawful.

But women must be courted first,
Because it is the fashion,
And so at times commit great crimes,
Caus'd by a lustful passion.

And now a days there are two ways,
Which of the two is right,
To lie between sheets sweet and clean,
Or sit up all the night;

But some suppose bundling in clothes
Do heaven sorely vex;
Then let me know which way to go,
To court the female sex.

Whether they must be hugg'd or kiss'd
When sitting by the fire
Or whether they in bed may lay,
Which doth the Lord require?

But some pretend to recommend
The sitting up all night;
Courting in chairs as doth appear
To them to be most right.

Nature's request is, grant me rest,
Our bodies seek repose;
Night is the time, and 'tis no crime
To bundle in your clothes,

Since in a bed a man and maid,
May bundle and be chaste,
It does no good to burn out wood,
It is a needless waste.

Let coats and gowns be laid aside,
And breeches take their flight,
An honest man and woman can
Lay quiet all the night.

In Genesis no knowledge is
Of this thing to be got,
Whether young men did bundle then,
Or whether they did not.

The sacred book says wives they took,
It don't say how they courted,
Whether that they in bed did lay,
Or by the fire sported.

But some do hold in times of old,
That those about to wed,
Spent not the night, nor yet the light
By fire, or in the bed.

They only meant to say they sent
A man to chuse a bride,
Isaac did so, but let me know
Of any one beside.

Man don't pretend to trust a friend,
To choose him sheep and cows,
Much less a wife which all his life
He doth expect to house.

Since it doth stand each man in hand,
To happify his life,
I would advise each to be wise,
And chuse a prudent wife.

Since bundling is not the thing,
That judgments will procure,
Go on young men and bundle then,
But keep your bodies pure.

(Printed and sold by Nathaniel Coverly, Jun. Boston.)


The foregoing version is evidently not complete, several verses having
been left out on account of their containing _more truth than poetry_,
but these may be supplied from a manuscript copy, evidently made from
memory, with considerable variations from the printed copy, which by no
means improve it, though the schoolmaster did his best, and probably
saved for us a very complete version of the ballad as it passed from
mouth to mouth before the printed copy was made.

It was transcribed from a volume of manuscript ballads in the
handwriting of Israel Perkins, of Connecticut, written in 1786, when he
was eighteen years old, and teaching school.


THE WHORE ON THE SNOW CRUST.

1.  Adam at first was formed of dust,
    As we find on record;
    And did receive a wife cal'd Eve,
    By a creative word.

2.  From Adam's side a crooked bride,
    We find complete in form;
    Ordained that they in bed might lay
    And keep each other warm.

3.  To court indeed they had no need,
    She was his wife at first,
    And she was made to be his aid,
    Whose origin was dust.

4.  This new made pair full happy were,
    And happy might remained,
    If his help meet had never eat
    The fruit that was restrained.

5.  Tho' Adam's wife destroyed his life
    In manner that is awfull;
    Yet marriage now we all allow
    [To] Be both just and lawfull.

6.  And now a days there is two ways,
    Which of the two is write
    To lie between sheets sweet and clean
    Or sit up all the night.

7.  But some suppose bundling in clothes
    The good and wise doth vex;
    Then let me know which way to go
    To court the fairer sex.

8.  Whether they must be hug'd and buss'd
    When setting up all night;
    Or whether [they] in bed may lay,
    Which doth reason invite?

9.  Nature's request is, give me rest,
    Our bodies seek repose;
    Night is the time, and 'tis no crime
    To bundle in our cloaths.

10. Since in a bed, a man and maid
    May bundle and be chaste:
    It doth no good to burn up wood
    It is a needless waste.

11. Let coat and shift be turned adrift,
    And breeches take their flight,
    An honest man and virgin can
    Lie quiet all the night.

12. But if there be dishonesty
    Implanted in the mind,
    Breeches nor smocks, nor scarce padlocks
    The rage of lust can bind.

13. Cate, Nance and Sue proved just and true,
    Tho' bundling did practise;
    But Ruth beguil'd and proved with child,
    Who bundling did despise.

14. Whores will be whores, and on the floor
    Where many has been laid,
    To set and smoke and ashes poke,
    Wont keep awake a maid.

15. Bastards are not at all times got
    In feather beds we know;
    The strumpet's oath convinces both
    Oft times it is not so.

16. One whorish dame, I fear to name
    Lest I should give offence,
    But in this town she was took down
    Not more than eight months sence.

17. She was the first, that on snow crust,
    I ever knew to gender
    I'll hint no more about this whore
    For fear I should offend her.

18. 'Twas on the snow when Sol was low,
    And was in Capricorn,
    A child was got, and it will not
    Be long ere it is born.

19. Now unto those that do oppose
    The bundling traid, I say
    Perhaps there's more got on the floor,
    Than any other way.

20. In ancient books no knowledge is
    Of these things to be got;
    Whether young men did bundle then,
    Or whether they did not.

21. Sence ancient book says wife they took,
    It dont say how they courted;
    Whether young men did bundle then,
    Or by the fire sported.

    [But some do hold in times of old,
    That those about to wed,
    Spent not the night, nor yet the light,
    By fire, or in the bed.]

22. They only meant to say they sent
    A man to choose a bride;
    Isaac was so, but let me know,
    If any one beside.

23. Men don't pretend to trust a friend
    To choose him sheep or cows;
    Much more a wife whom all his life
    He does expect to house.

24. Sence it doth stand each one in hand
    To happyfy his life;
    I would advise each to be wise,
    And choose a prudent wife.

25. Sence bundling is not a thing
    That judgment will procure;
    Go on young men and bundle then,
    But keep your bodies pure.


Since this work went to press we have been favored, by one of our
antiquarian friends in Massachusetts, with a copy of another poetical
blast against the practice of bundling. It was written in the latter
part of the last, or the first decade of the present century, by a
learned and distinguished clergyman settled in Bristol county,
Massachusetts, who was a graduate of Harvard University, and a doctor of
divinity. The original manuscript from which our copy is made, is very
carefully written out, with corrections apparently of a later date, and
now undoubtedly appears for the first time in printed form.


A POEM AGAINST BUNDLING._Dedicated to ye Youth of both Sexes_.

1.  Hail giddy youth, inclined to mirth,
    To guilty amours prone,
    Come blush with me, to think and see
    How shameless you are grown.

2.  'Tis not amiss to court and kiss,
    Nor friendship do we blame,
    But bundling in, women with men,
    Upon the bed of shame;

3.  And there to lay till break of day,
    And think it is no sin,
    Because a smock and petticoat
    Have chance to lie between.

4.  Such rank disgrace and scandal base,
    All modest youth will shun,
    For 'twill infest, like plague or pest,
    And you will be undone.

5.  Let boars and swine lie down and twine,
    And grunt, and sleep, and snore,
    But modest girls should not wear tails
    Nor bristles any more.

6.  Let rams the sheep mount up and leap,
    Without restraint or blame,
    But will young men act just like them;
    Oh, 'tis a burning shame!

7.  It is not strange that horses range
    Unfettered to the last,
    But youthful lusts in fetters must
    Be chained to virtue fast.

8.  Dogs and bitches wear no breeches,
    Clothing for man was made,
    Yet men and women strip to their linen,
    And tumble into bed.

9.  Yes, brutal youth, it is the truth,
    Your modesty is gone,
    And could you blush, you'd think as much,
    And curse what you have done.

10. To have done so some years ago,
    Was counted more disgrace
    Than 'tis of late to propagate
    A spurious bastard race.

11. Quit human kind and herd with swine,
    Confess yourself an whore;
    Go fill the stye, there live and die,
    Or never bundle more.

12. Shall gentlemen with ladies join
    To practice like the brutes,
    Then let them keep with cattle and sheep,
    And fodder on their fruits.

13. This cursed course is one great source
    Of matches undesigned,
    Quarrels and strife twixt man and wife,
    And bastards of their kind.

14. But in excuse of this abuse
    It oftentimes is said,
    Father and mother did no other
    Than strip and go to bed.

15. But grant some did as you have said,
    Yet do they not repent,
    And wish that you may never do
    What they so much lament?

16. A stupid ass can't be more base
    Than are those guilty youth
    Who fill with smart a parent's heart,
    And turn it into mirth.

17. Others do plead hard for the bed,
    Their health and weariness,
    So drunkards will drink down their swill,
    And call it no excess.

18. Under pretense of self defense,
    Others will scold and say,
    An honest maid is chaste abed
    As any other way.

19. But where's the man that fire can
    Into his bosom take,
    Or go through coals on his foot soles
    And not a blister make?

20. Temptation's way has led astray
    The likeliest of you all,
    And yet you'r found on slippery ground,
    And think you cannot fall.

21. A female meek, with blushing cheek,
    Seized in some lover's arms,
    Has oft grown weak with Cupid's heat
    And lost her virgin charms.

22. But last of all, up speaks romp Moll
    And pleads to be excused,
    For how can she e'er married be,
    If bundling be refused?

23. What strange mistake young women,
    To hope for sparks this way!
    Your fond bold acts can't lay a tax
    That men will ever pay.

24. So cheap and free some women be,
    That men are cloyed with sweet,
    As horse or cow starve at the mow
    With fodder under feet.

25. 'Tis therefore vain yourselves to screen,
    The practice is accurst,
    It is condemned by God and man,
    The pious and the just.

26. Should you go on, the day will come,
    When Christ your Judge will say,
    In _bundles_ bind each of this kind,
    And cast them all away.

27. Down deep in hell there let them dwell,
    And bundle on that bed;
    There burn and roll without control,
    'Till all their lusts are fed.


The evidence presented in the preceding pages, establishes, as we think,
the following facts:

1st. That the custom, so far as it pertained to the American States, had
its origin as a matter of convenience and necessity.

2d. That in all stages of its history it was chiefly confined to the
humbler classes of society.

3d. That its prevalence may be said to have closed with the eighteenth
century.

It is our opinion that it came nearest to being a universal custom from
1750 to 1780, and that it was, at all times, regarded by the better
classes as a serious evil, and was no more countenanced by them then the
frequenting of grog shops is by the better class of the present day.

This opinion is corroborated by the remarks of several old persons whom
we have consulted as to their recollections of the custom. Among these,
Mr. B., of East Haddam, Ct., now in his 95th year, says that he well
remembers it; that it could not be called general, though frequent. It
was not practiced among the more intelligent, educated classes, nor
among those who lived in large, well warmed houses. He says it was not
the fashion to bundle with any chap who might call on a girl, but that
it was a special favor, granted only to a favorite lover, who might
consider it a proof of the high regard which the damsel had for him; in
short, it was _only accepted lovers_ who were thus admitted to the bed
of the fair one, and, as he expresses it, only after long continued
urging in most cases.[36] He thinks the fashion ceased about 1790 to
1800, and in consequence of education and refinement; and that _no more
mischief was done then than there is now-a-days_.

In the same strain, also, spoke the genial Colonel H., a native of
Berlin, Ct., born in 1775. He was perfectly conversant with the custom,
had known the old ladies, in some cases, to go up stairs before
retiring, to see that the bundling couple were comfortable, _tuck 'em
up_, and put on more bedclothes! And stoutly asseverated his belief
"that there wasn't any more mischief done in those days than there is
now."

Indeed, all the old people with whom we have conversed on the matter,
although in some cases a little unwilling to own that they had ever
practiced it themselves, were unanimous in their belief that the abuse
of chastity under the bundling regime was no more frequent than it is
now. One old gentleman of whom we have heard, in reply to the half
reproachful, half joking question of his grandson, whether he wasn't
ashamed, replied: "Why, no! What is the use of sitting up all night and
burning out fire and lights, when you could just as well get under kiver
and keep warm; and, when you get tired, take a nap and wake up fresh,
and go at it again? Why, d--n it, there wasn't half as many bastards
then as there are now!"[37]

Even within the present century we have found traces of the continuance
of the practice of bundling, though the instances are perhaps few, and
in some measure exceptional. Until a very late day the custom (as a
matter of convenience) was prevalent among the Dutch settlers of
Pennsylvania, and it is not improbable that traces may still continue to
exist in some of the more remote counties of that state. An old
schoolmaster who flourished in Glastenbury, Ct., some twenty years ago,
when relating his experiences in teaching in southern Pennsylvania, and
speaking of _boarding around_, informed us that when for any reason he
did not choose to go to his boarding place for the time being, he was
accustomed to stop at a tavern kept by an honest old Dutchman. On one
occasion, having asked the landlord if he could stay over night, he was
told that he could; and after chatting with his host through the
evening, was shown to bed. The landlord set down the candle and had gone
out of the room, when our friend noticed the only bed in the room was
already occupied, and calling to the host, notified him of the fact;
when he cried back: "Oh! dat ish only mine taughter; she won't hurt
nopoty," and coolly went his way. And our friend affirmed that he found
the daughter not only harmless, but also quite competent to take care of
herself.

In New England, we believe that Cape Cod has the dubious honor of
holding out the longest against the advance of civilization, bundling,
as we have it on good authority, having been practiced there as late as
1827.[38] In Greenwich, New Jersey, it was in vogue in 1816. In the
state of New York this custom came under judicial cognizance in the year
1804, when the supreme court held, that although bundling was admitted
to be the custom in some parts of the state, it being proven that the
parents of the girl, for whose seduction the suit was brought,
countenanced her practicing it, they had no right to complain, or ask
satisfaction for the consequences, which, the court say, "_naturally
followed it_!"[39]




APPENDIX I.


BUNDLING.

[From _The Yankee_ of August 13, 1828, published at Portland, Maine, and
edited by John Neal.]


By Rochefoucault, in accounting for the populousness of Massachusetts,
the New Englanders are charged with bundling.

By Chastelleux, whose book I am not able to refer to now, the charge is
repeated, and by half a score of other honest, good natured people, who
have made books about the New World.

But, if you enquire into the business, you are pretty sure to be told,
inquire where you may, that bundling is not known _there_, but somewhere
further back in the woods, or further _down east_. Nay, while in every
part of the United States the multitude speak of bundling as the habit
of their neighbors, either east, west, north, or south, where the
witches of the country were _located_ about a century ago by the
grandfathers of this generation, I, myself, though I have taken trouble
enough to learn the truth, have never yet been able to meet with a case
of bundling--of bundling proper, I should say--in the United States, nor
with but one trustworthy individual who had ever met with so much as one
case, and he had met with _but_ one, for which he would give his word.
These things are trifles; but when they are told in books that are read
and trusted to throughout Europe; such books, too, as that of the
Marquis de Chastelleux, or that of De Rouchefoucault, it becomes a
matter of serious inquiry. The truth must be told, whatever it is, for
the truth cannot be so bad, whatever it may be, as the untruth which is
now repeated of us.

The travels of Chastelleux are translated by an Englishman who had been
a long while in this country. The book was undoubtedly written with
great care, by a very honest, able man, who had very good opportunities
of knowing the truth; and is now set off by another very honest, able
man, who was, if anything, rather partial to America--enough to make one
wary of trusting the report of any traveler who does not say in so many
words, after establishing a character for himself--I saw this; I heard
this; I take nobody's word for what I now say, etc., etc. It would be
easy to enumerate a multitude of other stories which are now believed
in, about the people of the United States, not only by the people of
Europe, and of Great Britain particularly, but by the people of the
United States themselves. But a dry catalogue of such things would be of
little use.

[Here he refers to the charge reported of New Englanders, that that they
_eat pork and molasses--pork and molasses_ TOGETHER, which is here
denied as a ridiculous story. H. R. S.]

They bundle in Wales; bundling there is a serious matter. A lady--a
Welsh woman whose word is truth itself--assured me not long ago, that in
her country they do not think a bit the worse, of a girl for
anticipating her duties, in other words, for being a mother before she
has been a wife; they have discovered, perhaps, that cause and effect
may be convertible terms; that in such a serious matter, none but a fool
would buy a pig in the poke, and that, after all, maternity may lead to
marriage there, as marriage leads to maternity here. And why not? for
after the establishment of the lying-in hospitals of Russia, the
unmarried who bore _children to the state_ were proud of the duty, and
were looked upon, we are told, with great favor by the public. She
added, also, that she was once at a party made up of sixteen or eighteen
females, and females of good characters, all but one or two of whom were
mothers, or had been so, before they were married. By Chastelleux and
his English translator it would appear to have been very much the same
in America about the years 1780-1-2. It is not so now. To have had a
child before marriage would now be fatal to a woman here, whatever might
be her condition or beauty; fatal in every shape. No man would have
courage to marry her; no woman of character would associate with her.
Ask the first individual you meet, above the age of twelve or thirteen
here, and you may have the name and history of every poor girl in the
neighborhood who has been so unlucky as to have a child of her own
without leave, perhaps, within a period of six or eight years in a
populous neighborhood of twenty or thirty miles about. A widow with half
a score of children, forty years ago, if we may believe Dr. Franklin,
was an object for the fortune hunters of America. It is not so now. The
demand for widows, and for every sort of ready made family is beginning
to be over.

That which is called bundling here, though bad enough, is not a
twentieth part so bad. Here it is only a mode of courtship. The parties
instead of sitting up together, go to bed together; but go to bed with
their clothes on. This would appear to be a perilous fashion; but I have
been assured by the individual above, that he had proof to the contrary;
for in the particular case alluded to, the only case I ever heard of on
good authority, although he was invited by the parents of a pretty girl
who stood near him, to bundle with her, and although he _did_ bundle
with her, he had every reason to believe, that if he had been very free,
or more free than he might have been at a country frolick after they had
invited him to escort her, to sit up with her, to dance with her, he
would have been treated as a traitor by all parties. He had a fair
opportunity of knowing the truth, and he spoke of the matter as if he
would prefer the etiquette of sitting up to the etiquette of going to
bed with a girl who had been so brought up. He complained of her as a
prude. The following communication appears, however, to be one that may
be depended on:[40]

    "MR. NEAL--If you wish to know the truth about bundling, I think
    your correspondent V. could tell you all about it--it seems by his
    confession that he has practiced it on a large scale. I never heard
    of the thing till about three years ago; an acquaintance of mine had
    gone to spend the summer with an aunt, who lived somewhere near
    Sandy river.[41] The following is a copy of one of her letters while
    there:

    "'I should have written sooner, so don't think me unkind, for I have
    been waiting for something to write about. You requested me to give
    you a faithful description of the country, the manners and customs
    of the inhabitants, etc. I have not been here quite three months,
    but I have been everywhere, seen everything, and got acquainted with
    everybody. I shall certainly inform you of everything I have seen or
    heard that is worth relating.

    "'You remember how you told me, before I left home, that I was so
    well looking that if I went so far back in the country I should be
    very much admired and flattered, and have as many lovers as I could
    wish for. I find it all true. The people here are remarkably kind
    and attentive to me; they seem to think that I must be something
    more than common because I have always lived so near Portland.

    "'But I must tell you that since I have been here I have had a beau.
    You must know that the young men, _in particular_, are very
    attentive to me. Well, among these is _one_ who is considered the
    finest young man in the place, and well he may be--he owns a good
    farm, which has a large barn upon it, and a neat two story house,
    all finished. These are the fruits of his own industry; besides he
    is remarkably good looking, is very large but well-proportioned, and
    has a good share of what I call real manly beauty. Soon after my
    arrival here I was introduced to this man--no, not _introduced_
    neither, for they never think of such a thing here. They all know me
    of course, because I am a _stranger_. Some days, three, four, or
    half a dozen, call to see me, whom I never before saw or heard of;
    they come and speak to me as if I were an old acquaintance, and I
    converse with them as freely as if I had always known them from
    childhood. In this kind of a way I got acquainted with my beau, that
    _was_; he was very attentive to me from our first meeting. If we
    happened to be going anywhere in company he was sure to offer me his
    arm--no, I am wrong again, he never offered me his arm in his life.
    If you go to walk with a young man here, instead of offering you his
    arm as the young men do up our way, he either takes your hand in
    his, or passes one arm around your waist; and this he does with such
    a provoking, careless honesty, that you cannot for your life be
    offended with him. Well, I had walked with my Jonathan several times
    in this kind of style. I confess there was something in him I could
    not but like--he does not lack for wit, and has a good share of
    common sense; his language is never studied--he always seems to
    speak from the heart. So when he asked what sort of a companion he
    would make, I very candidly answered, that I thought he would make a
    very agreeable one. "I think just so of you," said he, "and it shall
    not be my fault," he continued, "if we are not companions for life."
    "We shall surely make a bargain," said he, after sitting silent a
    few moments, "so we'll _bundle_ to-night." "_Bundle_ what?" I asked.
    "_We_ will bundle together," said he; "you surely know what I mean."
    I know that our farmers bundle _wheat_, _cornstalks_ and _hay_; do
    you mean that you want me to help you bundle any of these?" inquired
    I. "I mean that I want you to stay with me to-night! It is the
    custom in this place, when a man stays with a girl, if it is warm
    weather, for them to throw themselves on the bed, outside the bed
    clothes; if the weather is cold, they crawl under the clothes, then
    if they have anything to _say_, they say it--when they get tired of
    talking they go to sleep; this is what we call bundling--now what do
    you call it in your part of the world?" "We have no such works,"
    answered I; "not amongst respectable people, nor do I think that any
    people would, that either thought themselves respectable, or wished
    to be thought so."

    "'Don't be too severe upon us, Miss ----, I have always observed
    that those who _make believe_ so much modesty, have in reality but
    little. I always act as I feel, and speak as I think. I wish you to
    do the same, but have none of your make-believes with me--you
    smile--you begin to think you have been a little too scrupulous--you
    have no objection to bundling _now_, have you?" "Indeed I have." "I
    am not to be trifled with; so, if you refuse, I have done with you
    forever." "Then be done as quick as you please, for I'll not bundle
    with you nor with any other man." "Then farewell, proud girl," said
    he. "Farewell, honest man," said I, and off he went sure enough.

    "'I have since made inquiries about _bundling_, and find that it is
    _really_ the custom here, and that they think no more harm of it,
    than we do our way of a young couple sitting up together. I have
    known an instance, since I have been here, of a girl's taking her
    sweetheart to a neighbor's house and asking for a bed or two to
    lodge in, or rather to _bundle_ in. They had company at her
    father's, so that their beds were occupied; she thought no harm of
    it. She and her family are respectable.

    "'Grandmother says bundling was a very common thing in our part of
    the country, in old times; that most of the first settlers lived in
    log houses, which seldom had more than one room with a fire place;
    in this room the old people slept, so if one of their girls had a
    sweetheart in the winter she must either sit with him in the room
    where her father and mother slept, or take him into her sleeping
    room. She would choose the latter for the sake of being alone with
    him; but sometimes when the cold was very severe, rather than freeze
    to death, they would crawl under the bed-clothes; and this, after a
    while, became a habit, a custom, or a fashion. The man that I am
    going to send this by, is just ready to start, so I cannot stop to
    write more now. In my next I'll give you a more particular account
    of the people here. Adieu.'

    "_Mr. Editor_, you may be sure that what is related in the foregoing
    letter is the truth. I know that there is considerable _other_
    information in it, mixed up with _that_ about which you wished to be
    informed, but I could not very well separate it."

So after all that has been said of the practice of bundling in our
country, by foreign writers, travelers, and reviewers--after all the
reproach that has been heaped upon us, now that we are able to get at
the plain truth, it appears to be, though certainly a bad practice, not
half so bad as the junketing and sitting up courtships that are known
elsewhere. Nay, more. Though in the present state of society it is a
practice that should be utterly discountenanced everywhere, still it
would seem to have grown up out of the peculiar circumstances of our
first settlers; to be confined _now_ to remote and small districts (for
I have heard of only three instances, after all my inquiry); and to be
rapidly going out of practice. Yet more; there can be no bad intentions,
there can be no evil consequences, where respectable and modest women
are not ashamed to acknowledge that they bundle. I am anxious to know
the truth for the purpose of correcting both the _misrepresentations_
that are abroad, and the _practices_ that prevail here. Bundling,
however, is known in other countries, where they have less excuse, and
in Wales where they do _not_ bundle, as I have said before, it is no
reproach for a woman to have had a child before marriage. It was so in
Russia after Catharine established her lying-in hospitals.

In the next number of _The Yankee_ (August 20th) there is the following
editorial paragraph:


    BUNDLING.

    There is a great outcry just now about the paper on bundling which
    was in the last _Yankee_. Now this very outcry proves the want of
    the very paper alluded to. The article is about bundling; and people
    who imagine bundling to be what it is not, a highly improper and
    unchaste familiarity, are offended with it; but the very purpose of
    that paper is to show that bundling is not what it is believed to
    be, that it is neither so common nor so bad, not a fiftieth part so
    bad as people have imagined.




APPENDIX II.


That the customs of courtship in many parts of the United Kingdom at the
present day, are precisely what they were in some parts of New England,
New Jersey and Pennsylvania, fifty years ago, is evident from the
revelations of the _Royal Commission on the Marriage Laws_, in the year
1868. Dr. Strahan, a physician and surgeon, who for nearly forty years
has practiced in the Scottish county of Stirling, testifies before the
commission, that his attention was first drawn to the subject in
consequence of observing the very great extent of immorality among the
working classes, not only as evidenced by the large number of
illegitimate children, but also by the still larger number of marriages
after the woman was with child; and the number of children born within
eight months of wedlock. He found, to his astonishment, that among the
working classes (i.e., the agricultural laborers), nine out of ten
women, when married, either had had illegitimate children, or were
pregnant at the time of marriage. "I have," he says, "a large midwifery
practice, and I very rarely attend a woman with her first child, where
the child is not born within a few months of wedlock, or else she has
had an illegitimate child before." He believes it is very common for
women to allow themselves to be seduced in the hope of being married.
They go on until they are _enceinte_, and then, if the young man is at
all a decent fellow, the friends interfere and the marriage is hurried
on. The sketch which Dr. Strahan supplies of Scotch courtships, explains
all this part of his observation. Young men and women meet together at
night, and the ordinary time is the middle of the night, when every one
else is in bed. "It is universal," says Dr. Strahan to the commission,
"among the working classes, to have this manner of courtship of which I
speak; there is no other courtship, in any other form; the fathers and
mothers will not allow their daughters to meet a young man in the
day-time; the young man never visits the family, but the parents quite
allow this; they have done it themselves before, and there is no
objection to it. The young man comes, makes a noise at the window; the
young woman goes out, they go to some outhouse; or perhaps the young man
is admitted to the young woman's bedroom after all are in bed, and there
is an hour or two of what is called courtship, but which would more
properly be called flirtation, because it is not necessary that there
should be any engagement to marry in these cases."

Lord Lyveden inquired: "Do these meetings take place at particular
periods, such as harvest time, or is it over the whole of the year?"

_Answer_: "The whole of the year; very commonly the young man visits the
young woman once a week."

Lord Chelmsford said: "In England that would be called _keeping
company_. It is a very extraordinary way of keeping company when the
parents allow their daughter to go out with the young man at midnight,
or the young man to come into her bedroom."

_Answer_: "Yes; the parents know no other way of doing it. I have
reasoned with the parents often when attending a case of illegitimate
birth, pointing out to the parents how it is they have been led on, but
they cannot imagine any other way of doing it; their daughters must have
husbands, and there is no other way of courting."

Mr. Justice O'Hagan asking--"Does it prevail generally in Scotland?" was
answered--"Universally among the agricultural laborers."

In reply to an inquiry by Mr. Dunlop, whether these young men lived
under any kind of supervision and knowledge of their masters, or whether
they could go out and in as they pleased, Dr. Strahan stated that
"plowmen, for instance, very often live in _bothies_, or in the farm
house; they get out after all are in bed, out of the window; or, if they
live in a bothie, without any trouble. They go to the neighboring
farm-house, they knock at the window, the girl comes to the window, and,
if she know the young man--or, after a little parley, if she does not
know him--she either comes out and goes with him to an outhouse, or he
comes into her bedroom. You must remember that they have no other means
of intercourse."

"That is the point you press so much?"

"Yes; a young woman cannot see either a sweetheart or an acquaintance in
any other way. I believe if it was not for fear of being out at night,
the girls would visit one another in the same way; they have no other
means of visiting; the customs of the country are such that a young man
could not be seen going in day-light to visit his sweetheart."

Mr. Justice O'Hagan: "If the father knew that the young man was coming
into the house, and knew that he was with his daughter, would he not
interfere?"

"He would lie comfortably in his bed, knowing that his daughter was in
an out-house or barn with a young man, for perhaps two hours; shutting
his eyes to it in the same way that a person in the higher ranks would
shut his eyes to his daughter going out for a walk with a young man."

Dr. Strahan said also: "When you come to the middle class a young man
would not marry a girl that had had a child to another man; and very
probably he would not marry a girl that had had a child to himself; but
in the lower classes it is not so; it is almost universal to marry a
woman that has had a child, or that is with child to himself; but it is
very frequent to marry a woman that has had a child to another man; the
only objection is the burden of the child; the burden of the child might
be an obstacle, but the disgrace would be none."

"Is it supposed," asked a commissioner, "that the woman, by marrying
this other man, wipes off her disgrace with the former?"

"Yes; but it is so common that the disgrace is not so much as to prevent
the young man marrying her."

The attorney-general: "It is hardly within our inquiry, but still it is
interesting to know; can you tell me whether, in these cases, where the
woman marries a man who is not the father of her child, any confusion,
as to the parent of the previously born child, arises? Are they apt in
law, to pass as the children of the subsequent husband?"

"No, I do not think so."

"The distinction is always kept up?"

"The distinction is always kept up; very often the illegitimate child
goes by his own father's name, even among the other children; and I do
not think there is apt to be any confusion of that kind."

Still, it seems that, in severely Calvinistic Scotia, the church does
not wholly wink at this state of things. The sinning couple, after
marriage, have to go through a certain whitewashing at church before
they are admitted to what are called church privileges. They have to go
before a kirk session, consisting of the minister and perhaps half a
dozen elders, when they are _admonished_. If the parties are married,
they appear but once; if not married, generally three times. They tender
themselves for rebuke without invitation, as without it the child cannot
be baptized, or admission given to the sacrament. They apply to the
minister in private, and confess their fault, and he causes them to be
summoned before the church session.




INDEX.
African tribes, courtship among, 42
America, English misrepresentation of, 62.
America, bundling in, 44
  inherits bundling from Holland, 45.
  bundling not peculiar to, 13.
  bundling universal in 1750, 106.

Ballads against bundling, 81, 100.
  in favor of bundling, 88, 93.
Brychan, a cloth, 23.
Bundling, antiquity of, 14.
Bundling, abuse of, in New England, 75.
  ballads on, 81, 88, 93, 100.
  ceased with eighteenth century, 106,
  confined to the lower classes, 107.
Bundling, described by Lt. Anbury in 1777, 66.
  definition of, 13.
  decision of N. Y. Supreme Court on, 111.
  effect of, 75.
  in America, 44.
  in British isles, 14, 22.
  in Cape Cod, 110.
  in Holland, 35.
Bundling in Maine about 1828, 117.
  in New England States, 48.
  in Wales, 23, 115.
  introduced in America from Holland, 45.
  mentioned by Rev. Sam'l Peters, 51.
  mentioned by Washington Irving, 49.
  mentioned by Dr. A. Burnaby, 1759, 58.
  mentioned by Sir Walter Scott, 20.
  not peculiar to America, 13.
Bundling originating in poverty in Scotland and Ireland, 23.
  origin of, 14.
  originally confined to the lower classes in America, 65.
  practiced in Pennsylvania till late years, 109.
  preached against, 54.
  recollections of by old persons, 106.
Bundling regarded as a serious evil, 106.
  sanctioned by parents, 69.
  sermon against, 77.
  two forms of, 13.
  universal now in lower classes of Scotland, 130.
  universal in America in 1750, 106.
  -up, in Wales, 42.

Cape Cod, bundling practiced there in 1827, 110.
Central Asia, courtship in, 42.
Confession in public necessary for baptism of children, 76.
Courtship, customs of, in Great Britain, 127.
Courtship among Welsh peasantry, 29.
  in Central Asia, 42.
  in the 14th century, 37.
  among N. A. Indians, 40.
  in Switzerland, 38.
Cuckold, no word in Gaelic for, 21.
Customs of courtship, different in the cantons of Switzerland, 39.

Dayaks of Borneo, courtship of, 42.
Dorfen, in Switzerland, 39.

Empress Cartismandua, 21.
  Julia, 20.
Epilogue on bundling at Westminster school, 1815, 61.

Free-bench, 22.
French war, demoralizing influence of, 74.


Germans, respect of, for women, 21.
Gordon, Sir Robert, 19.
  Sir Adam, 19.
Great Britain, bundling common at the present day in, 126.
Great Britain, immorality of lower classes in, 127.
Gwent, a district in Wales, 34.
Gwentian Code of Wales, 34.

Hand-fasting, a Scotch custom, 17, 19.
  common among all classes, 20.
Highland law of marriage, 16.
Highlanders, curious custom of the, 17.
Holland, bundling in, 35, 36.

Illegitimacy not considered a disgrace in Scotland, 131.

Kiltgang in canton of Lucerne. 39.
Kweesten, a Dutch custom, 36.

La Hontan, Indian custom described by, 41.
Lichtgetren, in Switzerland, 39.
Love and courtship in the 14th century, 37.

Maine, bundling in, 1828, 118.
Marriage laws of Great Britain, royal commission on, 127.
Marriage, Welsh laws relating to, 24.

Namzat bezé, an African custom, 42.
Natural children legitimatized in Scotland, 18.
New bundling song, a, 81.
New England, bundling in, 48.
New song in favor of courting, a, 88.
New York Supreme Court on bundling, 111.
N. Am. Indians, chastity of, 41-52.
  courtship among, 41.

Pennsylvania, bundling in, 109.
Poem against bundling, a, 100.
Polygamy among ancient nations, 15.
  in Great Britain, 15.
Prostitutes, punishment of in Scotland and Germany, 21.
Public confession of unlawful cohabitation made in New England, 75.
  records of, 75.

Quest, definition of and origin, 35.
Queesting, 35.

Royal commission on marriage laws of Great Britain, 127.

Savage nations, amatory customs of, 40.
Scotland, courtship of, 128.
  conjugal infidelity in, 17.
  admonition by church of, 133.
Scotch and Irish moral character, 22.
Scott, Walter, mention of bundling by, 20.
Stubetegetren in Switzerland, 39.
Sutherland, son of a hand-fast marriage claims earldom of, 19.
Switzerland, courtship in, 38.

Tarrying, common in England, 64.
  in New England, 70.
Texel, bundling in the island of, 36.

United States, bundling in the, 44.

Vlie and Wieringen, bundling practiced in islands of, 35.

Wales, bundling in, 23.
  described by Bingley, 28;
  by Barbor, 30;
  by Carr, 32;
  by Pratt, 25.
  chastity in, 115.
Welsh laws relating to marriage, 24.
Whore on the snow crust, the, 93.
Wieringen, see Vlie.
Wynet-werth, a Welsh term, 35.




FOOTNOTES.


[1] _Cæsar_ says, that several brothers, or a father and his sons, would
have but one wife among them. _Solinus_, indeed, says that the women in
Thule were common, the king having a free choice; and _Dio_ says the
Caledonians had wives in common; yet these assertions may well be
disputed. _Strabo_ describes the Irish as extremely gross in this
matter; _O'Conner_ says polygamy was permitted; and _Derrick_ tells us
they exchanged wives once or twice a year; while _Campion_ says they
only married for a year and a day, sending their wives home again for
any slight offense.--_Logan's Scottish Gael_, 5th Am. ed., p. 472.

[2] _A History of the Highlands, and of the Highland Clans_, etc. (Jas.
Browne, LL.D., Advocate, 4 vols. London, 1853), IV, 398.

"The law of marriage observed in the Highlands has frequently been as
little understood as that of succession, and similar misconceptions have
prevailed regarding it. This was, perhaps, to be expected. In a country
where a bastard son was often found in undisturbed possession of the
chiefship or property of a clan, and where such bastard generally
received the support of the clansmen against the claims of the feudal
heir, it was natural to suppose that very loose notions of succession
were entertained by the people; that legitimacy conferred no exclusive
rights; and that the title founded on birth alone might be set aside in
favor of one having no other claim than that of election. But this,
although a plausible, would nevertheless be an erroneous supposition.
The person here considered as a bastard, and described as such, was by
no means viewed in the same light by the Highlanders, because, according
to their law of marriage, which was originally very different from the
feudal system in this matter, his claim to legitimacy was as undoubted
as that of the feudal heir afterward became. It is well known that the
notions of the Highlanders were peculiarly strict in regard to matters
of hereditary succession, and that no people on earth was less likely to
sanction any flagrant deviation from what they believed to be the right
and true line of descent. All their peculiar habits, feelings and
prejudices were in direct opposition to a practice which, had it been
really acted upon, must have introduced endless disorder and confusion,
and hence the natural explanation of this apparent anomaly seems to be,
what Mr. Skene has stated, namely, that a person who was feudally a
bastard might in their view be considered as legitimate, and therefore
entitled to be supported in accordance with their strict ideas of
hereditary right, and their habitual tenacity of whatever belonged to
their ancient usages. Nor is this mere conjecture or hypothesis. A
singular custom regarding marriage, retained till a late period amongst
the Highlanders, and clearly indicating that their law of marriage
originally differed in some essential points from that established under
the feudal system, seems to afford a simple and natural explanation of
the difficulty by which genealogists have been so much puzzled.

"This custom was termed _hand-fasting_, and consisted in a species of
contract between two chiefs, by which it was agreed that the heir of one
should live with the daughter of the other as her husband for twelve
months and a day. If, in that time, the lady became a mother, or proved
to be with child the marriage became good in law, even although no
priest had performed the marriage ceremony in due form; but should there
not have occurred any appearance of issue, the contract was considered
at an end, and each party was at liberty to marry or hand-fast with any
other. It is manifest that the practice of so peculiar a species of
marriage must have been in terms of original law among the Highlanders,
otherwise it would be difficult to conceive how such a custom could have
originated, and it is in fact one which seems naturally to have arisen
from the form of their society, which rendered it a matter of such vital
importance to secure the lineal succession of their chiefs. It is
perhaps not improbable that it was this peculiar custom which gave rise
to the report handed down by the Roman and other historians, that the
ancient inhabitants of Great Britain had their wives in common, or that
it was the foundation of that law of Scotland by which natural children
became legitimatized by subsequent marriage.[3] And as this custom
remained in the Highlands until a very late period, the sanction of
ancient custom was sufficient to induce them to persist in regarding the
offspring of such marriages as legitimate."[4]

It appears, indeed, that as late as the sixteenth century, the issue of
a hand-fast marriage claimed the earldom of Sutherland. The claimant,
according to Sir Robert Gordon, described himself as one lawfully
descended from his father, John, the third earl, because, as he alleged,
"his mother was _hand-fasted_ and fianced to his father;" and his claim
was bought off (which shows that it was not considered as altogether
incapable of being maintained) by Sir Adam Gordon, who had married the
heiress of Earl John. Such, then, was the nature of the peculiar and
temporary connection which gave rise to the apparent anomalies which we
have been considering. It was a custom which had for its object, not to
interrupt but to preserve the lineal succession of the chiefs, and to
obviate the very evil of which it is conceived to afford a glaring
example. But after the introduction of the feudal law, which, in this
respect, was directly opposed to the ancient Highland law, the lineal
and legitimate heir, according to Highland principles, came to be
regarded as a bastard by the government, which accordingly considered
him as thereby incapacitated for succeeding to the honors and property
of his race; and hence originated many of those disputes concerning
succession and chiefship, which embroiled families with one another, as
well as with the government, and were productive of incredible disorder,
mischief and bloodshed. No allowance was made for the ancient usages of
the people, which were probably but ill understood; and the rights of
rival claimants were decided according to the principles of a foreign
system of law, which was long resisted, and never admitted except from
necessity. It is to be observed, however, that the Highlanders
themselves drew a broad distinction between bastard sons and the issue
of the hand-fast unions above described. The former were rigorously
excluded from every sort of succession, but the latter were considered
as legitimate as the offspring of the most regularly solemnized
marriage.

This practice obtained not only among chiefs, but common people.

Walter Scott, in the XXV chapter of the _Monastery_, in a note, says:
"This custom of hand-fasting actually prevailed in the upland days. It
arose partly from the want of priests. While the convents subsisted,
monks were detached on regular circuits through the wilder districts, to
marry those who had lived in this species of connexion. A practice of
the same kind existed in the Isle of Portland."

[3] This is a mistake in point of law. The principle of legitimation by
subsequent marriage, was first explicitly announced in an imperial
constitution of Constantine, and being wisely recognized by the church,
it was adopted by the canonists, through whom it passed into our law.
The attempt to introduce it into England failed, in consequence of the
attachment of the people to their ancient Saxon constitutions; and
hence, although it was recognized in the statutes of Merton, it was
subsequently discarded, and never afterwards found admission into the
municipal system of the neighboring kingdom. There can be no doubt
whatever that the principle is one which reason, morality and religion
must equally approve.

[4] Skene's _Highlanders of Scotland_, vol. I, chap. vii, 166, 167.

[5] In _Scottish Ballads and Songs_, by James Maidment, Edinburgh,
MDCCCLIX, under the title of _Luckidad's Garland_, p. 134, is a
remarkable picture of the old and new times in Scotland, eighty or
ninety years ago, three of the twenty-four verses of which the ballad is
composed, being descriptive of something akin to _bundling_. In a London
edition of _Hudibras_, also, published in 1811, is a note to line 913,
of Part I, Canto I. As both of these extracts, however, are somewhat too
_broad_ for our pages, we content ourselves with simply referring
thereto. In the same category, also, is the definition, in _Bailey's Old
English Dictionary_, of the term _free bench_, as prevailing in the
manors of East and West Embourn, Chaddleworth in the county of Berks,
Tor in Devonshire, and other places of the west.

[6] _History of Wales_ (by B. B. Woodward, B.A., London, 1853), p. 320;
who adds, also, p. 186, the following:

"The laws which treat of the violation of the marriage bond and those
which relate to chastity generally, recognize a degree of laxity
respecting female honor, and, yet more remarkably, an absence of
feminine delicacy, such as could scarcely be paralleled amongst the most
uncivilized people now. They are of such a nature, that though most
characteristic, they must be passed by with this general mention. The
distinction between the Celtic and Teutonic races is perhaps in no case
more plainly marked than in this: The Anglo-Saxon laws on this subject
(always excepting those of the _ecclesiastical_ authorities) are modesty
itself, notwithstanding their plain speaking, compared with those of the
Welsh legislators."

[7] _Gleanings through Wales, Holland, and Westphalia_, etc. (3d
edition, by Mr. Pratt, London, 1797), I, pp. 105-107.

[8] _North Wales, including its Scenery, Antiquities, Customs_, etc. (by
Rev. W. W. Bingley, A.M., 2 vols., 8vo, London, 1804), II, p. 282.

[9] _A Tour throughout North Wales and Monmouthshire_, etc., etc. (by
J. T. Barbor, F.S.A., London, 1803), pp. 103-9.

[10] _The Stranger in Ireland_, by John Carr.

[11] "On his way to Ireland he passed through Wales, and gives us a
slight sketch of the character of that people and country. _It must
afford no small gratification to a New England man to learn that the
practice of_ BUNDLING _is not peculiar to us, but that this pleasing
though dangerous art was probably imported from abroad_."--A review of
_The Stranger in Ireland_, in _Connecticut Courant_ for November 19th,
1806.

[12] In this connection we may give the following extract from _Ancient
Laws and Institutes of Wales_, etc., etc., printed by command of his
late Majesty King William IV, under the direction of the commissioners
on the Public Records of the Kingdom. MDCCCXLI. Folio. From page
369.--The Gwentian[13] Code.

"A woman of full age who goes with a man clandestinely, and taken by him
to bush, or brake, or house, and after connection deserted; upon
complaint made by her to her kindred, and to the courts, is to receive,
for her chastity, a bull of three winters, having its tail well shaven
and greased and then thrust through the door-clate; and then let the
woman go into the house, the bull being outside, and let her plant her
foot on the threshold, and let her take his tail in her hand, and let a
man come on each side of the bull; and if she can hold the bull, let her
take it for her _wynet-werth_[14] and her chastity; and, if not, let her
take what grease may adhere to her hands."

[13] _Gwent_, the appellation of the district in Wales inhabited by the
Silures, comprised the diocese of Landav.

[14] This word means _face shame_ or _face worth_.

[15] A good honest word, which although not exactly English, is at least
first cousin to our _quest_, and _quiz_, etc.

Worcester gives the following: "†Quēse, _v. a._, to search after.
_Milton_." [obsolete ē long, s like z.] Quĕst, _v. n._, to join search.
_B. Jonson_. †Quĕster, _n._, a seeker. _Rowe_.

Is it not allowable to derive from one of these words Quēsing, or
Quĕsting, pronounced Qweesting, and from the other Quĕsting [è short]?
So that he who went _queesting_ was simply _searching after_ a wife,
understood.

[16] These are two very small islands at the opening of the Zuider zee.

[17] From _The Student and Intellectual Observer_, London, November
number, 1868, p. 310, in article by Thomas Wright, F.S.A. Chapter
vii--_Womankind in all Ages of Western Europe_, etc.

[18] _Cottages of the Alps_ (London, 1860), pages 77, 91, 132.

[19] _New Voyage to North America, giving a full Account of the Customs,
Commerce, Religion and Strange Opinions of the Savages of that Country_,
etc., etc. Written by Baron Lahontan, Lord Lieutenant of the French
Colony at _Placentia_, in Newfoundland, now in England. London, 1703.

In describing the amatory customs of the Indians of this country, the
author says (Vol. II, p. 37):

"You must know further, that Two Hours after Sunset the Old
Supperannuated Persons, or Slaves (who never lie in their Masters' Huts)
take care to cover up the Fire before they go. 'Tis then that the Young
Savage comes well wrapt up to his Mistress's Hut, and lights a sort of a
Match at the Fire; after which he opens the Door of his Mistress's
Apartment and makes up to her bed: If she blows out the light, he lies
down by her; but if she pulls her Covering over her Face, he retires;
that being a Sign that she will not receive him."

[20] Verily, Peters's sarcasm savors as much of truth as humor when,
speaking of bundling, he says: "The Indians who had this method of
courtship among them in 1634, are the most chaste set of people in the
world. Concubinage and fornication are vices none of them are addicted
to, except such as forsake the laws of Hobbamockon and turn Christians.
The savages have taken many female prisoners, carried them back three
hundred miles into their country, and kept them several years, and yet
not a single instance of their violating the laws of chastity has ever
been known. This cannot be said of the French, or of the English,
whenever Indian or other women have fallen into their hands."

[21] "Great jealousy did they likewise stir up by their intermeddling
and successes among the divine sex; for being a race of brisk, likely,
pleasant tongued varlets, they soon seduced the light affections of the
simple lasses from their ponderous Dutch gallants. Among other hideous
customs, they attempted to introduce among them that of _bundling_,
which the Dutch lasses of the Nederlandts, with that eager passion for
novelty and foreign fashions natural to their sex, seemed very well
inclined to follow, but that their mothers, being more experienced in
the world, and better acquainted with men and things, strenuously
discountenanced all such outlandish innovations."

[22] By Washington Irving, p. 211. 4th Am. edition.

[23] Dr. Andrew Burnaby. _Travels through the Middle Settlements in
North America, in the years 1759 and '60_. London, 1775.

[24] _The Portfolio_ (Philadelphia, May 1816), p. 397.

[25] _Terences Plays_ were preferred to those of Plautus, for this
purpose, inasmuch as the latter were more obscure, and abounded in
obsoletisms, and therefore Terence was preferred in England as the
text-book for schools.

[26] Ireland.

[27] _The Reviewers Reviewed, or British Falsehoods detected by American
Truths_ (New York, published by R. McDermot and D. D. Arden, No. 1, City
Hotel, Broadway, 1815, 12mo, 72), pp. 34, 35.

[28] The Right Honorable Sir George Canning, the editor of the _London
Quarterly Review_.

[29] _Travels through the Interior Parts of America; in a Series of
Letters_ (by an officer; a new edition, London, 1781, 8vo), vol. II, pp.
37-40.

[30] _Anbury's Travels_, pp. 87, 88.

[31] _History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor, Conn.,_ p. 495.

[32] The Rev. Alonzo B. Chapin, in his _History of Ancient Glastenbury,
Conn._ (p. 80), says that the church records, during the pastorate of
the Rev. John Eels [1759-1791], "compel us to believe that the influence
of the French war had been as unfavorable to morals as destructive to
life; and that the absurd practice of _bundling_ prevalent in those
days, was not infrequently attended with the consequences that might
have been expected, and that both together, aided by a previous growing
laxity of morals, and accelerated by many concurrent causes, had rolled
a tide of immorality over the land, which not even the bulwark of the
church had been able to withstand. The church records of the first
society, from 1760 to 1790, raise presumptions of the strongest kind,
that then, as since, _incontinence_ and _intemperance_ were among the
sins of the people. What the condition of things in Eastbury [an
ecclesiastical society in the east part of Glastenbury] was, we have no
means of knowing, _as that portion of the church records which treats of
this point, was long ago_ carefully _removed_. [N.B. Italics are our
own.] There is no reason, however, to suppose that this state of thing's
was peculiar to Glastenbury, for there is too much evidence that it
prevailed throughout the country."

Mr. Chapin's deductions from the revelations of the Glastenbury records,
will be fully justified by the experience and observation of every
antiquarian who has had occasion to _dig deep_ among the civil and
ecclesiastical records of almost any one of the older towns of New
England. We have before us, while writing, a copy, made some years
since, by ourselves, of the records of the first church of Woodstock,
Conn., covering the period from 1727 to 1777, in which are a large
number of entries, mostly the names of parties who made _confessions_ of
this sort before that church. These cases occur most frequently between
the years 1737 and 1770. Our own observation among the records of the
old churches in Windsor and East Windsor, is, in effect, the same, and
we have occasionally happened upon the original manuscript confessions
of individuals read to the church before they were formally admitted to
its communion.

[33] _History of Dedham, Mass_, (by Erastus Worthington, 1827), page
108. Under ministry of Rev. Jason Haven, ordained February 6, 1756.

"Revolutionary times having produced a disposition to investigate all
the former principles and opinions of men, in politics and church
government, Mr. Haven caused the mode of admission into the church to be
altered. This was done in 1793. The new method required the candidate to
be propounded to the congregation by the minister. If no objections
within fourteen days were made, he was then of course admitted. At the
same time the church covenant and creed was altered, and made very
general in its expressions. This creed had so few articles, that all
persons professing and calling themselves Christians, would assent to it
without any objections. The church had ever in this place required of
its members guilty of unlawful cohabitation before marriage, a public
confession of that crime before the whole congregation. The offending
female stood in the broad aisle beside the partner of her guilt. If they
had been married, the declaration of the man was silently assented to by
the woman. This had always been a delicate and difficult subject for
church discipline. The public confession, if it operated as a
corrective, likewise produced merriment with the profane. I have seen no
instance of a public confession for this fault, until the ministry of
Mr. Dexter [1724-1755], and then they were extremely rare. In 1781 the
church gave the confessing parties the privilege of making a private
confession to the church, in the room of a public confession. In Mr.
Havens ministry, the number of cases of unlawful cohabitation increased
to an alarming degree. For twenty-five years before 1781, twenty-five
cases had been publicly acknowledged before the congregation, and
fourteen cases within the last ten years. This brought out the minister
to preach on the subject from the pulpit. Mr. Haven, in a long and
memorable discourse, sought out the cause of the growing sin, and
suggested the proper remedy. He attributed the frequent recurrence of
the fault to the custom then prevalent, of females admitting young men
to their beds, who sought their company with intentions of marriage. And
he exhorted all to abandon that custom, and no longer expose themselves
to temptations which so many were found unable to resist.

"The immediate effect of this discourse on the congregation has been
described to me, and was such as we must naturally suppose it would be.
A grave man, the beloved and revered pastor of the congregation, comes
out suddenly on his audience, and discusses a subject on which mirth and
merriment only had been heard, and denounces a favorite custom. The
females blushed and hung down their heads. The men, too, hung down their
heads, and now and then looked out from under their fallen eyebrows, to
observe how others supported the attack. If the outward appearance of
the assembly was somewhat composed, there was a violent internal
agitation in many minds. And now, when forty-five years have expired,
the persons who were present at the delivery of that sermon, express its
effects by saying: 'How queerly I felt!' 'What a time it was!' 'This was
close preaching indeed!' The custom was abandoned. The sexes learned to
cultivate the proper degree of delicacy in their intercourse, and
instances of unlawful cohabitation in this town since that time have
been extremely rare."

[34] _Butler's History of Groton_ (Pepperell & Shirley), page 174. At a
church meeting, Feb. 29, 1739-40, the subject of compelling persons to
confess themselves guilty of an offense, of which they said, "if not
absolutely, yet next to impossible to convict them," was acted upon, and
some relaxation made in the rule before adopted; but a part of the
record is so worn as to be illegible.

Page 177. June 1, 1761. "The church also at this meeting, voted in
relation to the confession necessary to be made by parents, to entitle
their children to the rite of baptism, who might be supposed to have
committed the offence of which, in Mr. Trowbridge's time, they supposed
that, 'if not absolutely, yet next to impossible to convict them,' not
materially varying from a _seven-months_ rule heretofore adopted. These
regulations were signed by the moderator, and assented to by the pastor
elect."

Page 181. "During Mr. Dana's ministry [1761-1775] 124 persons (38 males,
86 females) were admitted to the church in full communion; 200 (77
males, 123 females) owned the baptismal covenant. Of the first class, 14
confessed having committed the offence aforementioned, and of the last
class, 66, a proportion not indicative of good customs and morals."

[35] A typographical mistake for _unruly_.

[36] But this was as late as 1785 to 1790, when the custom was very near
its end.

[37] Another, when in his 96th year, in speaking of his knowledge of the
custom, after answering all inquiries, voluntarily mentioned his own
personal experience. "In my younger days," said he, and his voice
trembled, more from emotion then age, "I was on the bed with as many as
five or six young women, but I thank God, that in all my long life I
have never had carnal knowledge of any but my lawfully wedded wives."

[38] A physician who kept school _on the Cape_ many years ago, says
(June, 1869): "It is forty years since I was engaged on the Cape in
teaching school, and a friend of mine then related to me some of his
experience in a long career of courtship which included _bundling_. The
family left the happy couple alone. After sitting up till nine or ten
o'clock, the lady secures the fire, takes a light and retires, saying,
you know the way up stairs, turn to the right, etc. At a proper time he
follows, finding her nicely snuggled under the bed clothes, having
previously put on a very appropriate and secure night dress, made
neither like a bloomer or mantilla, but something like a common dress,
excepting the lower part, which is furnished with legs, like drawers,
properly attached. The dress is drawn at the neck and waist with strings
tied with a very strong knot, and over this is put the ordinary
apparel."

[39] _Caines' Cases_, II, 219; Seger _vs_. Slingerland.

[40] In reply to a query addressed to Mr. Neal, who is still living at
Portland, Maine, as to whether this letter was a _bona fide_
communication, that gentleman says: "It was an actual communication from
a correspondent. Who that correspondent was, I never knew, but I never
entertained a doubt, and, in fact, find such internal evidence of good
faith, that I should never question the facts set forth."

[41] Sandy River is near Farmington, Franklin county, Maine.