When I first became aware of the term “mashup,” I automatically thought of the music industry with its remixes and creative imaginings of oldies and the classics. By definition, a “mashup” is creating a new entity from two or more unrelated sources. Although some believe this subgenre has hit its peak, mashups still garner a substantial chunk of the market. Take for example, the film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. The premise is that a reader of paranormal would find mixing a Jane Austen classic with vampires intriguing. Many authors are finding a new market, whether they write science fiction, fantasy, paranormal, mystery, or humor. Recently, we have seen mixes of William Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Leo Tolstoy, and Louisa May Alcott. It is not just Jane Austen. There is a crossover appeal, very much like the steampunk genre. Think about Hemingway or Flaubert or F. Scott Fitzgerald; there are endless possibilities because the past is always in the process of being reinvented. That is, as long as copyrights are honored.
When I was first writing for Ulysses Press, they sent me to the Smithsonian for a presentation on Austen and mashups. I shared the stage that evening with Seth Grahame-Smith [Pride and Prejudice and Zombies] and Ben H. Winters [Sense and Sensibilities and Sea Monsters]. By the way, if you have ever watched the TV show “Tracker,” Ben Winters wrote the original
screenplay. Writing a mashup made me a Smithsonian presented.
Some wonder if Jane Austen is spinning in her grave because of all the sequels, variations, and mashups? Maybe, because I sometimes write the genre, I do not believe so. Austen wrote in an era when women could not openly express their imaginations without censure. We must not forget that Austen loved stories of all kinds, as well as a bit of gossip and scandal, and she possessed a “twisted” sense of humor. In the movie Becoming Jane, Anne Hathaway, as Austen, refers to it as “ironical.”
How does one mix together Jane Austen and Vampires?
Vampires first appeared in literature in 18th Century poetry before becoming one of the stock figures of Gothic fiction when Polidori published The Vampyre (1819), which was reportedly influenced by the life of Lord Byron.
Dracula did not appear until 1897.
One finds the roots of vampire fiction in the early 1700s when the Serbian monarchy exhumed the remains of suspected vampires. In 1748, August Ossenfelder released the short German poem “Der Vampir,” which had strong erotic overtones. Goethë’s “Die Braut von Korinth” and Bürger’s “Lenore” followed, each with vampiric elements. In English literature, Robert Southey’s “Thalaba the Destroyer” (1797) was one of the first examples. Lord Byron’s “The Giaour” (1813) and Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “Christabel” (1816) followed. Even in Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff’s housekeeper accuses him of being a vampire.
Dracula remains the definitive description of the vampire in popular fiction. In it, Dracula’s “disease” is a contagious demonic possession, with undertones of sex, blood, and death. All of these elements probably struck a cord with Victorian England, where tuberculosis and syphilis were common fears. A decade before, in 1888, the British press had sensationalized Jack the Ripper’s reign in East London. Stoker’s Abraham Van Helsing became the model for all other vampire hunters. Some believe Stoker wrote Dracula to subtly criticize Victorian stuffiness, and others agree it was a social commentary on Stoker’s friend Oscar Wilde and his legal situation. Images, themes, and even actual phrases from Wilde’s trial for sexual inversion appear in the book. Count Dracula symbolizes an aristocrat, who socializes with middle and lower class people to survive – creating an image of the British aristocracy having to interact with the changes occurring in the wealthy middle class. Note how the middle class vampire hunters are the powerful characters in the book. Also, notice how all the vampires in the book, except Count Dracula, are female. Vampirism allows Lucy and the others female vampires to dominant, and Dracula’s reign represents the British fear of being “contaminated” by an outside force.
Modern vampires have evolved from those repulsive figures: They are romantic and sexy bad boys, a stark contrast to Eastern European folklore. Christian symbols no longer repel them. Anne Rice’s Lestat De Lioncourt makes both a fanatically religious girl and a nun his victims. The moon does not influence them, nor are they only sustained by drinking blood. Modern vampires can fly, can feed off energy, and can “sparkle” in the sunshine. Modern vampires may possess unusual talents and may be very passionate about things other than blood. Bonnie Anderson says in “Vampire Showdown: Bram Stoker’s Count Dracula Verses Anne Rice’s Lestat,” that “The true fans of horror no longer want to be frightened by the mere fantasy of the fearsome. We want what scares us to our very core: Ourselves. We want to see ourselves dressed up and romanticized, satirized, and suffering and sinning. And then we want to see it again.”
There have been vampires in every film genre, even children’s works: the Count on Sesame Street. Exhibiting self-control is a recent trait of vampires. Modern vampires are more sympathetic to humans. Our current vampires are less monstrous – downright sexy, in fact, and infinitely more human. Contemporary vampirism is about desire. Romance with the undead is intense and forever and perfect. These are female centered story lines featuring a powerful love, which surpasses the limits of mortality.
So, why is vampire literature so popular and in what way does Jane Austen fit? Beyond the broody, often lonely, male as a main character, vampire stories welcome anachronism. They are striking examples of the juxtaposition of past and present. Vampire stories of old were sources of terror, but contemporary vampirism is seen as desire. They are female-centered narratives, containing a powerful love that transcends the limits placed upon it.In a time after the World Trade Center disaster, we are less likely to make heroes out of those who hide their thoughts and feelings; so recent vampires must become infinitely more human. I mean, let’s face it, unless one is a vampire, there are no longer impediments to marriage. Today, Las Vegas is our Gretna Greene. Vampires who are sympathetic to humans, but whose goal is a relationship and respect are all the rage. As the majority of the readers of vampire literature are women, some believe it is a post-feminist way of taking on power: Women standing up and demanding respect. There is an allure of the forbidden, and the virtue of the individual prevails as a major theme. Now, look back at each of the underlined phrases. Are they not part of Austen’s Pride and Prejudice?
Teens embrace the concept of vampirism as an alluring idea – to be young and beautiful forever. Were women in Austen’s time not on the shelf by their early twenties? Remember that Anne Elliot had lost “her bloom” by age 27? Plus, teens think of themselves as immortal. They exist in a time of surging hormones, and they love the idea of power over another. And as a post-menopausal woman myself, the concept of being “hot blooded” appeals to me. Paranormal romance is about power. The females are tough chicks, who kill demons and hunt vampires.
And let us remember that the Twilight series has its roots in classic literature. If you have not noticed the similarities before, let me point out that Twilight is Pride and Prejudice. New Moon finds its basis in Romeo and Juliet. Wuthering Heights becomes Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn mixes The Merchant of Venice and A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Vamplit has the allure of the forbidden. It is quite simply a love story. The current audience for vamplit is a mix of those who grew up on Dark Shadows, Anne Rice’s series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, X-Files, and Harry Potter.
So, why is Austen so easy to adapt to these subgenres? I would say because her works allow modern authors to insert their ideas into Austen’s point of view. Jane Austen was a forward-looking writer, who wrote thematic masterpieces. Although she writes intriguing characters, Austen’s strength lies in how the theme permeates every word. And is it fair to parody Austen? We must remember that the Lady wrote her own parody of Ann Radcliffe’s The Mysteries of Udolpho.
Regina Jeffers speaks of Midnight at Pemberley. In this book, I tried to keep certain elements of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. Wickham, the book’s vampire, still tries to seduce Georgiana, and he still takes Lydia to Northumberland (where Newcastle is located). Darcy, a dhampir, desires Elizabeth as a man, and he knows he must break the “curse” upon his family in order to make her his wife. When Darcy first meets Elizabeth, he is withdrawn from society, is generous and protective of his sister, and dutifully oversees his estate. Yet, to this mix, I have added the folk elements of the Baobhan Sith (Scottish female vampires), a traditional Scottish folk song entitled “Lord Thomas and Fair Ellender,” references to Celtic gods, vampiric legends, apotropaics, and bits of Stoker’s Van Helsing.
Vampire Darcy’s Desirepresents Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice as a heart-pounding vampire romance filled with passion and danger. Tormented by a 200-year-old curse and his fate as a half-human/half-vampire dhampir, Fitzwilliam Darcy vows to live forever alone rather than to inflict the horrors of his life on an innocent wife. But when he comes to Netherfield Park, Elizabeth Bennet captivates him as no other ever has. Uncontrollably drawn to each other, they are forced to confront the seductive power of forbidden love, while dark forces are at work all around them. Most ominous is the threat from George Wickham, the purveyor of the curse, a demon who vows to destroy each generation of Darcys.
Heyward was a 30 years old plantation owner from South Carolina when he called upon to sign the Declaration of Independence. Married twice and the father of 8 children, Heyward lived until the age of 62, dying in 1809.
Thomas Heyward was born in St. Luke’s parish, on July 28, 1746, in the province of Old House, Beaufort Count, South Carolina. His father, Colonel Daniel Heyward, was a planter of great wealth, which he had chiefly acquired by his industry. He became the husband of Elizabeth Matthews, by whom he sired Daniel Heyward. Later, he married Elizabeth Savage, by whom he sired James, Thomas, and Elizabeth Heyward.
Unlike many gentlemen of fortune, Mr. Heyward did not appear to idolize his possessions; at least, convinced of the importance of intellectual cultivation, he determined to bestow upon his son all the advantages which a thorough education might impart. Accordingly, the best school in the province was selected for young Heyward, who, by his diligence, became well acquainted with the Latin language, and with such other branches as were at that time taught in the most respectable provincial seminaries.
Having finished his scholastic studies, be entered the law office of a Mr. Parsons, a gentleman who at that time was distinguished for his professional learning and practical skill. On accomplishing the usual term of study, young Mr. Heyward, according to the fashion adopted by families of fortune, was sent to England to complete his legal preparation. He was entered as a student in one of the Inns of Court. Although he had in expectancy a large fortune, he devoted himself with great ardor to the study of law, emulating the diligence of those who expected to derive their subsistence from the practice of the profession.
On completing his studies in England, he commenced the tour of Europe, which occupied him several years. This was an advantage which be enjoyed beyond most of the youth of the colonies. He enjoyed a rare opportunity of contrasting the industry and simplicity of his countrymen, with the indolence, and luxury, and licentiousness, the pride and haughtiness, so prevalent on the old continent.
At length, satisfied with the observations which be had made of men and manners abroad, he returned to his native country to practice law.
In 1775, Heyward was elected to fill a vacancy in congress, occasioned by the recall of the distinguished John Rutledge, whose presence was required at home to assist in defending the state against a threatened invasion. At first, Heyward declined. He was, at length, induced to accept, and arrived in Philadelphia in time for the argument for American independence.
In the year 1778, Heyward was appointed a judge of the criminal courts of the new government. Soon after his elevation to the bench, he presided over a treasonable act, one where several people corresponded with the British army, which, at that time, was in the vicinity of Charleston. The treason resulted in the execution of all involved.
In the spring of 1780, General Clinton seized the city of Charleston. Judge Heyward, who commanded a battalion was taken a prisoner of war. As he had been one of the leaders of the revolution, he and several others were transported to St. Augustine, while the other prisoners were confined on board some prison ships in the harbour of Charleston. During his absence, he suffered greatly in respect to his property; marauders robbed him and destroyed his home. His slaves were seized and carried away. Some of his slaves were afterwards reclaimed; but one hundred and thirty were lost, being transported to the sugar plantations on the island of Jamaica.
According to Denise Kiernan and Joseph D’Agnest in Signing Their Lives Away: The Fame and Misfortune of the Men Who Signed the Declaration of Independence (Quirk Books, 2009, page 217), “While imprisoned, Heyward occupied his mind by writing songs. Imagine, then, that the sun begins to rise off the coast of Florida on the morning of 4 July 1781. Unshaven and dressed in rags, Heyward and his fellow signers stand to face the new day on the fifth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. As the British guards try to silence them, they stand on crude bunks and belt out a tune Heyward has crafted in prison. The melody is taken from “God Save the King,” the British National Anthem. But the words have been changed to something far more American. One version of the song, entitled “God Save the Thirteen States,” begins:
God save the Thirteen States!
Long rule the United States!
God save our States!
Make us victorious,
Happy and glorious;
No tyrants over us;
God save our States! “
Judge Heyward, and his fellow prisoners at St. Augustine, were eventually returned to Philadelphia. On his passage, he fell overboard and had to save himself or drown.
On returning to Carolina, he resumed his judicial duties until 1798. During this interval, he acted as a member of a convention for forming the state constitution, in 1790. In the following year, he retired from all public labors and cares, except those which were attached to his commission as judge.
Judge Heyward died in March 1809, in the sixty-fourth year of his age.
On July 22, I will celebrate the rerelease of my vampiric version of Pride and Prejudice, Vampire Darcy’s Desire under a new title, Midnight at Pemberley. I wrote the original book in 2010. Ulysses Press has repurchased the rights to this novel and are rereleasing it. I know some of you do not like the idea of mixing Austen with paranormal elements. In truth, I was one of you at the time. When Ulysses Press originally “suggested” I write a vampiric adaptation, I freaked out and denied the possibility. My friends were the ones who persuaded me. They convinced me the publisher would find another author to do the book, and that person may not treat Pride and Prejudice kindly. So I reluctantly accepted the assignment. I should preface this with the knowledge that we were in the midst of the “Twilight” phenomenon and many publishers were jumping on the vampire bandwagon.
In case you did not know, the Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer draws significant inspiration from classic literature, with each main book echoing a different work: Twilight mirrors Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, New Moon parallels Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Eclipse reflects Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights, and Breaking Dawn takes cues from Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice and A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Author Stephenie Meyer has cited these classics, along with authors like Charlotte Brontë and Orson Scott Card, as major influences for her story of Bella Swan and Edward Cullen.
Unlike many books associated with “vampire” craze, my book is set in Regency England (1800-1820). Even the legend of Dracula could not serve as a basis because Bram Stoker’s classic was not released until 1897. Therefore, it took me some time to sort out how I wanted to handle the “vampirism” in the book. I admit to being influenced by several other vampire stories over the years.
As a teacher of English for many years, I know that in Dracula, Stoker really is using Count Dracula as a combined symbol of Old World superstitions and modern economic improvements. It was near to the end of the Victorian era, and the people had many fears, among them the fear of sexuality and the British fear of being conquered by an “outsider.” Both are evident in the Stoker classic.
Dracula is a member of the noble class who must mingle with those of a lower class to survive. As far as feminism is concerned, please recall that in Dracula, all vampires are female (except Count Dracula). Vampirism gives them the male trait of being the perpetrator. However, Stoker’s vampires bear little resemblance to humans. Dracula, for example, has an insatiable thirst for blood. When he kills, he does so purely to sustain his own existence. He has no guilt or moral qualms about killing. Dracula’s immortality imprisons him; he has no companions except those he captures and entraps in his home. A stake or a crucifix or clove garlic are the weapons of choice to be rid of the Count, whereas, fire does not affect him.
At one time, I read Anne Rice regularly. Many of us remember Lestat De Lioncourt, Rice’s main character in her Vampire Chronicles. With Lestat, the reader had a different type of vampire. Lestat possessed the human qualities of having a mind and a spirit. We found in him a vampire who did not kill just to kill. The “hunt” was part of the experience. One might find Lestat discussing philosophy or politics. In fact, he has an unusual collection of talents, and we discovered him to be very passionate. He makes his “lovers” people we might never associate with vampirism (a nun, for example). He seeks friendship from the mortals he turns. Lestat has an eternal soul. Unlike Count Dracula, Lestat cannot be killed by a stake or a crucifix. Lestat even slept in a church in one of the books. Rice has her vampires killed by fire or by being placed in sunlight, where they ignite into flames.
Vampire legends say the vampire must be an animated corpse, who claws out of his grave to feed upon human blood. He is dirty and foul-smelling. Yet, the modern vampire is an immortal creature, who retains his youth and lives forever, something very appealing to our youth and sex obsessed modern culture. He is the eternal bad boy, forever able to indulge in dark desires and sexual urges.
The vampire who exhibits self-control is a new phenomenon. Add a bit of compassion, and one has Twilight (which we must remember, by the author’s own words, is a vampiric Pride and Prejudice). The post 9/11 world does not look favorably on people or beings who hide in plain sight, yet, have the ability to kill us. Therefore, our recent vampires are less likely to be portrayed as monsters. I, seriously, believe the paranormal literature we are currently experiencing is an aftermath of our youth growing up reading the Harry Potter series. Paranormal books are a more sophisticated fantasy.
My novel employs the original tales of vampires from the British Isles. Of the Baobhan Sith, or Scotland’s Legendary Vampires.
The Baobhan Sith, pronounced Baa’-van shee, are one of the oldest tales of vampirism in Scotland. Mostly found within the Highland regions, the Baobhan Sith invariably take the form of a beautiful woman. The vampire is customarily dressed in green, the colour of magic and the fairies.
This ghost-vampire was always deemed to be very dangerous to humans.
They also have a number of things in common with the classic vampire:
They are creatures of the night. They drink human blood. They sometimes have fangs like the classic vampire. They are seductive. They cannot tolerate daylight. At will, they can shape-shift into another animal form. They are telepathic and can read thoughts.
However, there are some interesting differences:
The baobhan sith rise only once a year from their graves. Other names include ‘The White Woman.’ These vampires are all female. They stalk their prey in forests and other natural locations. They shun society, keeping to rural areas. They stalk and hunt in groups. They invite men to dance with them, before attacking. Their sharp fingernails draw blood from the victim rather than fangs. These nails turn into talons when they attack. They reportedly have cloven hooves for feet that their long dresses hide. A man bitten by a baobhan sith will not turn into a vampire. Any woman who is attacked and killed by a baobhan sith will return as one of them. Building a stone cairn over their grave was thought to stop them from rising. Iron is one of the main weapons used against these vampires. They are afraid of horses, particularly if the horses are shod with iron shoes. So anyone who remained sitting on his horse while confronting the baobhan sith would be safe.
Blurb for Vampire Darcy’s Desire
Vampire Darcy’s Desire: A Pride and Prejudice Paranormal Adventure
Vampire Darcy’s Desire presents Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice as a heart-pounding vampire romance filled with passion and danger.
Tormented by a 200-year-old curse and his fate as a half human/half vampire dhampir, Fitzwilliam Darcy vows to live a solitary life rather than inflict the horrors of his life upon an innocent wife and his first born son. However, when he encounters the captivating Elizabeth Bennet, his will is sorely tested.
As a man, Darcy yearns for Elizabeth, but as a vampire, he is also driven to possess her. Uncontrollably drawn to each other, they are forced to confront a different kind of “pride” and his enemy’s “prejudice,” while wrestling with the seductive power of forbidden love. Evil forces, led by George Wickham, the purveyor of the curse, attack from all sides, and Darcy learns his only hope to survive is to align himself with Elizabeth, who is uncannily astute in how to defeat Wickham, a demon determined to destroy each generation of Darcys.
Vampire Darcy’s Desire retells Austen’s greatest love story in a hauntingly compelling tale. Can love be the only thing that can change him?
“An engaging and romantic paranormal surprise” ~ JustJane1813
“Jeffers ups the ante even more by basing the core of the plot line on the traditional Scottish ballad.” ~ The Royal Reviews
Belle Gunness could lay claim to being the first female serial killer of modern times. Her story has fascinated me for many years. She was known to attract a large number of husbands and suitors, and she would quickly dispatch with them. Born 11 November 1859 in the Norwegian fishing village of Selbu. Sometimes tightrope walker for her father’s sideshow, though I do not know how, for she eventually was 280 pounds, Belle eventually moved to the United States, after her older sister Anna had invited Belle to follow. She met another immigrant, Mads Sorenson, and they married. Though they had no children of their own, they foster three daughters. The Sorensons were shopkeepers, but their shops were “prone” to fires, which luckily they were well insured.
As “luck” would have it, Mr. Sorenson died from “heart failure,” though there was some evidence that his death was caused by strychnine poisoning. Ironically, on the day of his death, one life insurance policy elapsed and another one started. Belle collected from both.
With her $8500, Belle moved her family to La Porte, Indiana, where, at that time, many people from Scandinavia had settled. Mrs. Sorenson them married Peter Gunness, a Norwegian. Unfortunately, for Peter, in 1903, a sausage grinder fell on his head and killed him, though some thought is wounds looked as if someone had struck him with a hammer. This time, Belle received an insurance payment of $4000.
Belle began to place advertisements in Norwegian language newspapers as a woman “seeking a husband.” She asked for a man who was ready to support their future together with a cash investment. The men who dared to come to La Porte where only seen around town for a few days. They all thought they were marrying a rich widow, but . . . After a short period, those men would disappear.
The foster children Belle and Mads had taken in all those years prior did not do much better. Her “daughter” Jennie supposedly left for a finishing school in California. In addition to Jennie, many of Belle’s farm hands disappeared, but those in La Porte simply viewed Belle as a woman with a string of bad luck.
On 28 April 1908, Belle’s house caught fire, the bodies of the three “adopted” girls were found in the aftermath, along with a female body, thought to be Belle, but that body had been beheaded. A local handyman was arrested, for he had had an on-again, off-again relationship with Belle. Ray Lamphere had threatened to burn down Belle’s house. When investigators were looking for the missing head [which they did not find], they found fourteen bodies, mostly in the hog pen. They were able to identify 2 handymen, Belle’s daughter Jennie, and the bodies of 5 of the “hopeful” suitors who had come to La Porte and supposedly left when not satisfied with Belle. Some of the bodies in the fire also had cyanide in their stomachs.
Immediately, people suspected the body in the fire was not Belle, but two weeks later, Belle’s dental bridge, which had little damage to it after being in a fire, was found in the rubble. The town was divided on whether Belle had been killed in the fire; therefore, when Ray Lamphere was tried, the jurors held their doubts as to whether Belle was even dead. They only found him guilty of arson. Not murder.
Reports persisted for many years following this event, saying Belle Gunness had been seen elsewhere. Some attribute 40 murders to her.
Other Sources:
PBS Journey Indiana ~ Death on the Farm: How Belle Gunness Amassed a Fortune by Luring Men to Her Farm and Chopping Them to Pieces
There are multiple books that tell this tale from many points of view. Search of “Belle Gunness” on Amazon brings you a half dozen on the first line of the search.
In book 5, Lyon on the Inside, of my romantic suspense series from Dragonblade Publishing, we have learned of the reasons why Lord Macedonald Duncan and his sons thought they were chasing a man, but . . .
Do you recall this scene from book 4, Lost in the Lyon’s Garden? It will make much more sense than it probably did when you first read it, now that I have brought up the idea of multiple personalities.
******
She picked up her belongings and nodded for him to lead the way.
“I will lock the door behind you, Miss Whitchurch,” Sustar said as she passed through the recessed hallway. She nodded her farewell and stepped into the close’s dark shadows. The lock on the door shot into the slot behind her, and she heard Mr. Sustar turn back along the short passage to climb the stairs to the level above. The shop would not open for sales for a few more hours. The men who worked in the drapery shop would arrive a bit after seven.
Before she could prevent it, an odd feeling crept down her spine. “All I must do is reach the opening,” her mind announced, but her feet did not wish to cooperate.
“Who are you?” she called, noting an unusual shadow on the other side of the close. “Is someone there?” She thought there was a movement in the opening, but she continued to study the dark spot against the lighter wood shingles.
Her heart hitched higher when a raspy voice declared, “You have something that belongs to me.”
Before Victoria could respond, there was a loud crash, sounding as if someone had thrown a stack of metal plates against the wall of the empty shop on the other side of the close, which was followed by what could only be a female voice crying out the word “Help.”
“Cassandra?” Victoria pleaded.
“Had the voice been that of her sister?”
“Cassandra?” Victoria plunged forward into the surrounding darkness in an attempt to reach the shadow and the sound of her sister’s voice.
“Where had that bit of dawn gone?”
“Victoria!” a gravelly voice called out, and this time she was confident it was her sister. Without considering the consequences, Victoria stumbled forward, as one shadowy figure jerked another back towards a now open door in the empty shop. She lifted her skirt to give chase.
Running steps could be heard, but Victoria’s attention was on the two shadows disappearing into the gaping darkness of the former jewelry shop. She slid in the slime covering the bricked opening and nearly lost her footing.
What sounded of a bullet being fired whizzed past her head seconds before someone lifted her from harm’ s way. Carrying her towards the street and setting her down solidly beside the first of the shop walls, a tall, solid body pinned her against the frame of the building.
Though she could not see over her rescuer’s shoulder, she could hear shouts of alarm among those out on London’s streets—those just beginning their day.
Strong thighs and a muscular chest held her against the side of the shop. “You may release me, my lord,” she said as she pushed against his shoulders.
Instead of setting her free, he glared down at her. “Do you have the least sense God gave all his creatures?” he accused.
She attempted to push him away a second time, but to no avail. “You thought me quite bright with my suggestion of a monogram,” she declared in her own defense.
“He meant to shoot you! Did you not see his gun?” he demanded. “I could . . . could not . . .” He broke off what he wished to say, but she understood immediately, for she, too, felt something was happening between them, though it had not yet found its footing.
Victoria sucked in a steadying breath. “You are still supposed to be abed,” she stated the obvious. Ironically, Lord Thompson still pinned her against the wall, but not so aggressively as he did previously.
As she had become accustomed to his nature to analyze and hash out all the facts, he continued to speak to her of what had transpired. “Did you recognize the figure?”
“Figures,” she corrected.
“I only saw one shadow,” he stated with a frown she could not see, but she recognized the tension in his body, which spoke of the uncertainty found in his voice. His lordship was definitely frowning.
“But I distinctly heard two voices,” she assured. “One a male and one I believed to be Cassandra.”
*******
Dr. Benjamin Rush (1745–1813) was a Founding Father and pioneer of American psychiatry. He was among the first to document cases of dual personality and dissociation in the early 19th century. He described patients with alternating personalities, including a notable case involving a woman whose “madness” persona held different memories, behaviors, and beliefs than her “normal” state.
Case Description: He observed a young woman (daughter of an officer) who exhibited a “madness” persona that was entirely different from her, which was characterized by speaking French, adopting different religious views, and acting differently than her normal, Methodist persona.
Theoretical Understanding: While he did not use the term “multiple personality,” Rush recognized these as profound mental “derangements” or “disorders of the mind”.
Documentation: His work on these “double consciousness” cases was foundational in the history of dissociation in the United States.
Treatment Approach: Rush approached these conditions with his characteristic, though controversial, methods, which included bloodletting and the use of his “tranquilizer chair”.
Despite the limited understanding of the time, Rush’s detailed descriptions of split, alternating personalities were groundbreaking, predating more famous studies of the subject. In fact, he was the doctor who recorded Mary Reynolds’ [see Friday’s post, July 3, for information on Mary Reynolds] alternating personalities.
It is the duty of every man, though he may have but one day to live, to devote that day to the good of his country. —Elbridge Gerry
Elbridge Gerry was born on July 17, 1744 in Marblehead, Massachusetts, the third of 12 children of Thomas Gerry and Elizabeth Greenleaf. His mother was the daughter of a Boston merchant; his father, a wealthy and politically active merchant-shipper who had once been a sea captain. Captain Thomas Gerry, was born in 1702 and came to America in 1730 from Newton Abbott, Devonshire, England. Gerry’s great-great-grandfather, Edmond Greenleaf, was born in Malden, England, came to America in 1635 and settled in Newbury. He and his family removed to Boston in 1650. One of his descendants was the famous New England poet, John Greenleaf Whittier.
Little is known of the childhood of Elbridge Gerry. He entered Harvard College at the age of 14 and graduated in 1762, ranking 29th in a class of 52. Elbridge went on to receive a Master’s degree in 1765 at the age of 20. His Master’s dissertation argued that America should resist the recently passed Stamp Act.
Gerry joined his father and two brothers in the family business, exporting dried codfish to Barbados and Spain. He eventually became one of the wealthiest and most enterprising merchants in Marblehead. The Encyclopedia of American Wealth ranks Gerry 11th in wealth among the 56 signers of the Declaration. Gerry’s first venture into politics occurred in 1770 when he served on a local committee to enforce the ban on the sale and consumption of tea.
In December 1771 his father Thomas Gerry moderated a meeting in Marblehead of the new Committee of Correspondence to discuss the resolves put forward by Samuel Adams. Elbridge joined his father there and helped craft the fiery resolves that were adopted. In May 1772 Elbridge was elected representative to the General Court and met Sam Adams, with whom he immediately bonded. When Parliament closed the port of Boston in June 1774, Marblehead became a major port of entry for goods and supplies, which Gerry then transported to Boston. Mercy Otis Warren stated that Gerry coordinated the procurement and distribution of arms and provisions with “punctuality and indefatigable industry.”
Between 1774 and 1776 Gerry attended the first and second provincial congresses. He served with Samuel Adams and John Hancock on the council of safety and, as chairman of the committee of supply (a job for which his merchant background ideally suited him) wherein he raised troops and dealt with military logistics. On the night of April 18, 1775, Gerry attended a meeting of the council of safety at an inn in Menotomy (Arlington), between Cambridge and Lexington, and barely escaped the British troops marching on Lexington and Concord.
In 1776 Gerry entered the Continental Congress, where his congressional specialities were military and financial matters. In Congress and throughout his career his actions often appeared contradictory. He earned the nickname “soldiers’ friend” for his advocacy of better pay and equipment, yet he vacillated on the issue of pensions. Despite his disapproval of standing armies, he recommended long-term enlistments.
Until 1779 Gerry sat on and sometimes presided over the congressional board that regulated Continental finances. After a quarrel over the price schedule for suppliers, Gerry, himself a supplier, walked out of Congress. Although nominally a member, he did not reappear for 3 years. During the interim, he engaged in trade and privateering and served in the lower house of the Massachusetts legislature.
As a representative in Congress in the years 1783-85, Gerry numbered among those who had possessed talent as Revolutionary agitators and wartime leaders but who could not effectually cope with the painstaking task of stabilizing the national government. He was experienced and conscientious but created many enemies with his lack of humor, suspicion of the motives of others, and obsessive fear of political and military tyranny. In 1786, the year after leaving Congress, he retired from business, married Ann Thompson, and took a seat in the state legislature.
Gerry was one of the most vocal delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He presided as chairman of the committee that produced the Great Compromise but disliked the compromise itself. He antagonized nearly everyone by his inconsistency and, according to a colleague, “objected to everything he did not propose.” At first an advocate of a strong central government, Gerry ultimately rejected and refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a bill of rights and because he deemed it a threat to republicanism. He led the drive against ratification in Massachusetts and denounced the document as “full of vices.” Among the vices, he listed inadequate representation of the people, dangerously ambiguous legislative powers, the blending of the executive and the legislative, and the danger of an oppressive judiciary. Gerry did see some merit in the Constitution, though, and believed that its flaws could be remedied through amendments. In 1789, after he announced his intention to support the Constitution, he was elected to the First Congress where, to the chagrin of the Antifederalists, he championed Federalist policies.
Gerry left Congress for the last time in 1793 and retired for 4 years. During this period he came to mistrust the aims of the Federalists, particularly their attempts to nurture an alliance with Britain, and sided with the pro-French Democratic-Republicans. In 1797 President John Adams appointed him as the only non-Federalist member of a three-man commission charged with negotiating a reconciliation with France, which was on the brink of war with the United States. During the ensuing XYZ affair (1797-98), Gerry tarnished his reputation. Talleyrand, the French foreign minister, led him to believe that his presence in France would prevent war, and Gerry lingered on long after the departure of John Marshall and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, the two other commissioners. Finally, the embarrassed Adams recalled him, and Gerry met severe censure from the Federalists upon his return. An anti-French mob pelted his home with rocks and shouted obscenities at his wife and children. The United States ended up entering a two-years, undeclared war with France.
In 1800-1803 Gerry, never very popular among the Massachusetts electorate because of his aristocratic haughtiness, met defeat in four bids for the Massachusetts governorship, but finally triumphed in 1810. Near the end of his two terms, scarred by partisan controversy, the Democratic-Republicans passed a redistricting measure to ensure their domination of the state senate. In response, the Federalists heaped ridicule on Gerry and coined the pun “gerrymander” to describe the salamander-like shape of one of the redistricted areas.
Despite his advanced age, frail health, and the threat of poverty brought on by neglect of personal affairs, Gerry served as James Madison’s Vice President in 1813.
Imacon Color Scanner
The vice-presidency had been vacant for nearly a year by the time Elbridge Gerry took office as the nation’s fifth vice president on March 4, 1813. His predecessor, George Clinton, an uncompromising “Old Republican” with frustrated presidential ambitions, had died in office on April 20, 1812. Clinton’s constant carping about President James Madison’s foreign policy had put him at odds with the administration. Gerry, who replaced Clinton as the Republican vice-presidential nominee in the 1812 election, was a vice president more to Madison’s liking. An enthusiastic supporter of Jefferson’s embargo and Madison’s foreign policy, he offered a welcome contrast to the independent-minded and cantankerous New Yorker who had proved so troublesome during the president’s first term. But, like Clinton, Gerry would die in office before the end of his term, leaving Madison—and the nation—once again without a vice president. In the autumn of 1814, the 70-years-old politician collapsed on his way to the Senate and died.
He left his wife, was to live until 1849, the last surviving widow of a signer of the Declaration of Independence, as well as three sons and four daughters. Gerry is buried in Congressional Cemetery at Washington, DC.
QUESTION: I am writing about a widow whose husband was reckless with money and left her with nothing when he died. She lives in a small village. If she has incurred debts to tradesmen, etc., and cannot pay, what danger/threat does she face? I figured it would be debtor’s prison in London, but did they have such things in the countryside? I am trying to figure out the stakes in a new story so am free to go where the research takes me.
Response: Not all debts were chargeable to a widow or heir. What was her husband’s rank or status? What did he own ? Who inherited what?
Yes, there were debtor’s prisons in the many towns. If you have access to the British Newspaper Archive (it’s worth the fees!) you will see that almost every newspaper has lists of bankruptcies,and also sales of goods.
What was the difference between debtors and those declaring bankruptcy? Debtors owed personal debts for services to tradesmen and commercial enterprises. The tradesmen who were not paid, could not pay their wholesalers and suppliers and they went bankrupt. Claiming bankruptcy meant was one who was doing business of some kind and who did not pay for the supplies. That person seldom ended in debtors’ prison for his actions. However, both could have their land and property seized and sold for debts. The number of trades men who went bankrupt because the upper classes didn’t pay their bills was quite high.
Heirs and widows were not automatically responsible for all debts. I am not saying that a tradesman or anyone might not come threatening a widow about money her husband had owed, but not all situations were legally enforceable.
The legal debts from the tradesman had to be in legal form, and it was the executor of the man’s will who had the duty to deal with them. If the widow was the executor, she would have to deal with the creditors, otherwise, the executor did. Her house could be sold and all her furniture and clothes if the court said the debts were valid and there was enough in the estate to pay them.
I have not read of any widows being sent to debtors’ prison because of her husband’s debts. If someone has, please let me know, as I am interested. Also, the courts usually thought the widow should have something to live on.
I also found similar laws for 1800’s gaming and up to the Victorian era for a high ranking peer to owe another high ranking peer that the obligation could go beyond one’s death for the settlement. Tradesmen came AFTER honor-bound debts.
“Chits” are debts of honor because they were not enforceable by law. Some would say that the son was obliged to pay his father’s debts, but most believe he should tell the other man he will pay if he ever has money left over from essentials. The son did not incur the debt so he was not bound to pay it.
People looked down on a man who demanded payment for gaming debts when a family depended on on the inheritance to survive. The earl who has his chits is not considered honorable if he demands payment when a family needed to pay more bills.
I found a fantastic resource re prisons – State of the Prisons in England, Scotland and Wales, By James Neild in Google Books (link below). It lists *every* prison, gaol, Bridewell, etc. in the country, including the accommodation available and often other very interesting information about particular prisons.
Amazon ~ This book offers a detailed examination of prison conditions in England, Scotland, and Wales. The author provides valuable insights into the realities faced by prisoners during a specific historical period, shedding light on the challenges and inadequacies of the penal system. This work offers a rare glimpse into a crucial aspect of social history, revealing the state of prisons and the conditions endured by inmates. The book’s focus is primarily on the practical realities of prison life, providing a factual account of what was observed, with the apparent aim of suggesting improvements to the system. By presenting a firsthand account of the prisons and their conditions, this book serves as a significant historical document that informs our understanding of the evolution of penal reform and the treatment of prisoners. It offers a unique perspective for readers interested in history, social reform, and the evolution of correctional systems.
Nobles could not be tossed into prison for debts. Courtesy peers could be. Sometimes a father would let his heir–or other son–be tossed into prison for debt as a way to try to bring him to his senses about those debts. Informal gambling debts (IOUs) did not someone to be tossed into prison, but debts to a money lender when one has signed a regular loan receipt did. Quite often a wastrel would find his tailor in debtors’ prison with him. Many small businesses failed because the aristocrats did not pay their bills.
I am confident many of you have read several stories where the peer has to marry an heiress to avoid debtors’ prison. It is far more likely that he marries her to avoid having property sold out from under him, despite entails and settlements.
Debtors had their goods and property taken and sold for debts. That was unusual for a peer. Usually, he arranged the sale himself.
On another thought, unless a peer had an Irish peerage and was seated in the House of Commons, he could not be sent to jail for debts. Even if he were an Irish peer who sat in Commons, he could not be sent to jail for debt while Parliament was sitting nor for 45 days before or after the session. So basically, though a peer could be in debt, he would not be in debtors’ prison.
Mary Reynolds (1785–1854) was a 19th-century Pennsylvania woman considered the first, and perhaps most famous, American case of multiple personality disorder (now Dissociative Identity Disorder). Beginning in 1811, she experienced profound, alternating shifts between a melancholy, quiet personality and a lively, intelligent, but child-like one for 18 years.
In my latest mystery/suspense tale, I permit my villain to possess this disorder. In that manner, she may sometimes sound like a woman and sometimes like a man.
Key aspects of Mary Reynolds’ case include:
The Transformation: After waking from a long, deep sleep, Reynolds appeared to have lost all her memory, including how to speak, read, and write, yet she possessed no knowledge of her former life.
Personality Shift: She switched between two distinct personalities (or “double consciousness”):
Personality 1: A reserved, somber, quiet spinster.
Personality 2: A cheerful,, curious, socially active, but naive, “child-like” person.
Medical Documentation: Her case was documented by Dr. Samuel Latham Mitchell in 1816 and later analyzed by other experts, shaping early understanding of dissociative disorders.
Context: While early accounts focused on her “fits” and loss of memory, later interpretations suggest her condition may have been a response to traumatic childhood events, including religious persecution.
Significance: Her case was crucial in the history of psychology and psychiatry, as it provided a concrete, documented example of “dual personality” before the formalization of the term.
Mary Reynolds’ case is often cited as a pivotal moment in understanding the development of the human mind and its capacity for fracturing under immense emotional or psychological stress.
This transcript comes from Mary Reynolds: A Case of Double Consciousness by S. Weir Mitchell, M.D., Philadelphia, Wm. J. Doran, Printer, 1889. “Mary Reynolds was born in England in 1793, and, when four years old, with her father and mother and their family, they left their home in Birmingham to settle in Pennsylvania. Leaving in New York the remainder of the family, the father and son started out into the wilderness and chose a spot on the banks of Oil Creek in Venango County. The whole surrounding country was an unbroken forest. Twelve miles southward were the few inhabitants of Franklin, while six miles to the north lived Jonathan Titus, the proprietor of the land on which Titusville now stands. In this remote spot, William Reynolds and his young son built a log-cabin, in which the father left the lad while he returned to New York to bring the remainder of the family to their new home.
“For four months the boy remained alone in the cabin, rarely seeing the face of a white man, but being frequently visited by Indians. In due time, the Reynolds family arrived, and with them the daughter Mary. Her childhood and youth appear to have been marked by no extraordinary incidents. She is said to have “possessed an excellent capacity, and to have enjoyed fair opportunities to acquire knowledge. Besides the domestic arts and social attainments, she had improved her mind by reading and conversation. Her memory was capacious and well stocked with ideas.” Though in no respect brilliant, she was thoughtful, and seems to have been endowed with an uncommonly good physical organization. Her natural disposition tended to melancholy.
“Her spirits were low. She never gave herself to mirth, but was sedate and reserved ; she had no relish for company, but avoided it was very fond of reading what few books were to be had. She loved to retire to some secluded place where, free from interruption, she read and meditated upon her Bible, and where she was apt to give herself up to prayer and devotional exercises.
“When about eighteen years of age she is said to have become subject to occasional attacks of “fits;” these were certainly hysterical, but of their precise characteristics no account is given. However, on a Sunday in the spring of 1811, she had an attack of unusual severity. It occurred while she was in a secluded place reading and engaged in her devotions. Owing to her protracted absence, her friends became alarmed, and after a long search found her in a state of insensibility and in convulsions. The restoratives applied were not very successful. When she recovered consciousness (probably on this same day) she was found to be both blind and deaf, and continued in this state for five or six weeks. “
From “Historical Conceptions of Dissociative and Psychotic Disorders” Wiley Online Library: “The most influential early case of dual personality or multiple personality disorder (MPD) was that of Mary Reynolds, first published by Samuel Latham Mitchell in 1816. The growth of interest in hypnosis, which eventually followed Mesmer’s animal magnetism, marked a systematic secularization of interest in phenomena previously ascribed to the Devil and his minions. The first use of the term ‘dissociation’ in the medical literature was by Benjamin Rush (1818), who used the term to capture the alterations in mood states and their seemingly disconnected appearance in what is now called bipolar disorder.”
I have set the latter part of my latest Dragonblade novel in and around Rochester, England. One of the characters introduced in the novel “Lyon on the Inside” is a Scottish “gentleman,” who is familiar to both Lord Macdonald Duncan and Lord Aaran Graham. His name is Mr. Donegal MacAlasdair, who was at one time a friend of Lord Duncan. He is reportedly a renown religious scholar and is presenting a series of lectures at Rochester Cathedral. He also happens to be the long-time lover of Lord Aaran Graham’s stepmother, Lady Eímear Rayland, née Eímear Boyde, as well as formerly known as Lady Graham and Lady Roland. Ironically, Mr. MacAlasdair is staying at Rayland Hall while he lecturing at Rochester. If you smell something rotten in Kent . . .
For those of you who know me more as a Jane Austen fan fiction writer than as a Regency era writer, though they overlap, I set Lady Catherine de Bourgh’s estate, Rosings Park, outside of Rochester in all the novels in which she appears.
Rochester, England, is a historic town in the Medway unitary authority of Kent, England, situated on the River Medway, approximately 30 miles southeast of London. Renowned for its rich Roman, Saxon, and Norman history, it features the impressive 12th-century Rochester Castle (with one of England’s tallest keeps) and the historic Rochester Cathedral. Known for its strong connections to author Charles Dickens, the town retains a charming, historic atmosphere with a High Street filled with independent shops and medieval to Victorian architecture.
Key Aspects of Rochester, England:
History & Heritage: Founded by the Romans as Durobrivae in 43 AD, the city was a strategic crossing point over the River Medway. It served as a major bishopric starting in the 7th century. The History of Rochester site tells us, “It wasn’t until 1088 after the Norman invasion that Rochester had its first stone castle built on the remains of the old Roman Fort. The then King, Rufus asked his Bishop Gundulf, an architect, to build him a stone castle and later a magnificent Cathedral, which is the second oldest in the country. Bishop Gundolf also built a leper hospital namely St. Bartholomew’s which was the oldest hospital in the country, albeit the original hospital has since disappeared.
Rochester Cathedral: The second oldest cathedral in England, founded in 604 AD.
High Street: Known for its cobbled streets, Tudor, Georgian, and Victorian buildings.
Charles Dickens Connection: The famous author lived nearby at Gad’s Hill Place and frequently featured Rochester in his novels, including The Pickwick Papers and Great Expectations.
City Status Misconception: While often referred to as a city due to its cathedral, Rochester technically lost its official city status in 1998 during local government reorganization, making it a “lost city” in terms of administrative definition.
Location: Part of the “Medway Towns” (along with Chatham and Gillingham), it is easily accessible from London.
William Williams was 45 years of age when he signed the Declaration of Independence. He was the father of three children and a merchant by trade. He died at the age of 80 in the year 1811.
William Williams was born in Lebanon, Connecticut, on April 18, 1731, the son of Pastor Solomon Williams, D.D., and Mary Porter Williams. William enrolled at Harvard College at age 16, graduated at 20 with honorable distinction, and commenced theological studies with his father. “The family of William Williams is said to have been originally from Wales. A branch of it came to America in the year 1630, and settled in Roxbury, Massachusetts. His grandfather, who bore the same name, was the minister of Hatfield, Massachusetts; and his father, Solomon Williams, D. D. was the minister of a parish in Lebanon, where he was settled fifty-four years. Solomon Williams, the father, married a daughter of Colonel Porter, of Hadley, by whom he had five sons and three daughters. The sons were all liberally educated. Of these, Eliphalet was settled, as a minister of the gospel, in East-Hartford, where be continued to officiate for about half a century. Ezekiel was sheriff of the county of Hartford for more than thirty years; he died a few years since at Wethersfield, leaving behind him a character distinguished for energy and enterprise, liberality and benevolence.” (Colonial Hall)
“William was a man of medium build, erect and well proportioned. He had dark brown eyes and black hair. Normally he was a man self-controlled and discrete; but it is said, upon occasion, his strong feelings led him to ‘violence of language.’ His plan for life was to follow his father in Christian ministry. The French and Indian Wars (1754-1763) interrupted this when he enlisted in the Continental Army. He joined his uncle, Colonel Ephraim Williams, and accompanied a British military expedition to Lake George in northeastern New York. On September 8, 1755, at Rocky Brook, four miles from Lake George, British Major General William Johnson, leading 1,200 provincial troops, engaged Monsieur le Baron de Dieskau in a fierce battle. Colonel Ephraim Williams commanded a regiment of provincial troops, and at the first volley was shot through the head.” (The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence)
(Mary Williams’ brother, John Trumbull, became famous as a painter of the Revolution. His works include the portrait above of William Williams, and the four large paintings of the Revolution now hanging in the Rotunda of the U. S. Capitol. http://www.dsdi1776.com/signers-by-state/william-williams/) Williams married Mary Trumbull, the daughter of the Royal Governor Jonathan Trumbull. Mary’s family included connections to John Adams, Oliver Wolcott, and William Ellery. Williams was forty at the time, and Mary was 25. They married on 14 February 1771. The couple had three children: Solomon, Faith, and William.
“William became an ardent supporter of the proposition for Independence, and gave his support financially through his own purse as well as through many effective writings. Williams presented the claims of the colonists in the press, and helped compose many of the Revolutionary state papers of the Royal Governor Jonathon Trumbull. During the 1760s he served on committees that considered the Stamp Act, the Connecticut claims to the Susquehanna lands, the case of the Mohegan Indians, and settlement of the boundary disputes between Connecticut and Massachusetts.
“Williams served as a Colonel in the Connecticut Militia (1773-75), but he was also the son-in-law of the Royal Governor! Governor Trumbull was the only royal governor to support the revolution. In 1775 William went from house to house soliciting private donations to defray the cost of sending Connecticut troops to aid in the capture of Ticonderoga.
“The Connecticut Assembly appointed Williams a delegate to the 2d Continental Congress in June, 1776, to take the place of Oliver Wolcott, who had become ill and had to return to Connecticut. Williams’ letter to Wolcott dated August 12, 1776, said that he did not arrive in Philadelphia until near the last of July, after the most Sultry & fatiqueing journey I ever performed, by much. The City has been since I came & yet is the most uncomfortable Place that I ever saw …, his language confirming the extreme heat and humidity attributed to Philadelphia at the time of the Declaration deliberations. Williams did not arrive in time to take part in the debates for Independence in Congress, nor was he present to cast a vote for the Declaration. His timing did permit him to sign that parchment in August when most of the other delegates did so.” (The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence)
“In 1779 Williams accepted worthless paper money in exchange for $2,000 in coin for military supplies. He was said to have remarked that if independence were established he would get his money back; if not, the loss would be of no account to him.
“Some had criticized Williams for resigning his colonelcy of the 12th Militia Regiment at the outbreak of the Revolution in order to accept the election to the Continental Congress. His courage, however, was evidenced in 1781, when word arrived in Lebanon of the traitor Benedict Arnold’s raid upon New London. He immediately mounted his horse and rode twenty-three miles in three hours to offer his services as a volunteer. On arrival the town was already in flames.
“In the winter of 1781, while a French regiment was stationed in Lebanon, Williams moved out of his home and turned it over to French officers.
“Williams was a delegate to the convention which adopted the Articles of Confederation, and then again in 1788 he was a delegate to the ratifying convention at Hartford to consider the adoption by Connecticut of the Constitution of the United States. He voted for it, but objected to the clause forbidding religious tests.
“His later years were spent as a county judge. In 1810 his eldest son, Solomon, died, and he never seemed to be able to get over the loss. With rapidly declining health, the old patriarch died at 81 on August 2, 1811. Interment was in the Trumbull Cemetery, about a mile east of the town of Lebanon.
“In Washington, D.C, on the north side of the mall near the George Washington monument, there is a small park and lagoon celebrating the signers of the Declaration of Independence. One of the 56 granite blocks there is engraved with the name of William Williams. In the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol hangs the famous Trumbull painting “The Declaration of Independence. William Williams is shown standing on the right at the back of the room in a group of two, with a brown coat. Next to him, on the right in a red coat, is Oliver Wolcott.” (The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence)