We tend to imagine the past as rigid—especially when it comes to marriage. In eighteenth-century New England, marriage was meant to be permanent, governed by law, church, and community. But real lives didn’t always follow those rules.
5th great grandmother Alice Hazen of Norwich, Connecticut left behind a story that shows just how complicated things could become—and, importantly, how people explained those complications in their own words.
Ye Neglect of ye Marriage Covenant
Alice first married John Rouse around 1738 and began raising a family. But by 1749, that marriage had collapsed. What we have is not just later family memory—but preserved in her 1758 divorce petition to the New London Superior Court:
“…they had been married in 1738 and lived together until Sometime in ye year AD 1749 and then ye sd John [Rowse] Willfully Deserted your Petitioner without any Default in her and went away out of this Government to Some place to your petitioner unknown and hath Ever Since willfully Continued absent from your Petitioner in ye total neglect of all ye Dutyes of ye Marriage Covenant.”
This language is striking—not emotional, but precise. Alice carefully frames her case in terms the court would recognize:
“Willfully Deserted”
“without any Default in her”
“Continued absent”
“total neglect of all the duties of the marriage covenant”
These were not just descriptions—they were legal arguments. In colonial Connecticut, desertion was one of the few grounds on which a divorce could be granted. Alice’s petition shows a clear understanding of how to present her situation within that framework: she was not abandoning the marriage—she had been abandoned.
Divorce Law in Colonial Connecticut
In colonial Connecticut, marriage was viewed as a civil contract overseen by courts and magistrates, even though ministers often performed ceremonies. Couples typically had to publicly announce their intent to marry or receive official approval.
Divorce, while rare, was legally allowed by the Connecticut General Court for reasons such as adultery, desertion, or fraud. This system reflects a blend of religious values and civil law, with a focus on maintaining social order.
The Timeline Matters
For nearly a decade, from 1749 to 1758, Alice lived in a kind of legal and social limbo—raising children largely on her own, likely supported by her Hazen family network. Her petition formalized what had long been true in practice.
On April 5, 1758—during that same year—she married my 5th great grandfather Simon Chapman, a recently widowed blacksmith. Together they formed a blended household, combining children from both of their earlier marriages. Far from being pushed to the margins, they remained in Norwich for years afterward—buying land, raising children, and participating fully in community life.
There is no sign of scandal here. Instead, there is something more revealing: a community that appears to have recognized the reality of Alice’s situation. Her remarriage did not disrupt social order—it restored it.
John Rouse, for his part, eventually reappeared in eastern Connecticut in 1763, remarried, and died in 1779. But for fourteen years—from the moment he left in 1749—his whereabouts were unknown. Alice’s phrase “out of this government” captures that absence perfectly: he had not just left his household, but disappeared beyond the reach of the colony itself.
Alice Hazen’s story reminds us that even in a world of strict rules, people found ways to navigate hardship. And sometimes, the clearest window into that process comes from the language they used to make their case.
- New England Historical Geneaology Register. Journal of American Geneaology. vol. 179 no.1, Winter 2025.
- Vital Records of Norwich, Connecticut. Births, baptisms, marriages of Rouse, Hazen, and Chapman families
- Tracy Elliot Hazen. The Hazen Family in America: A Genealogy. Thomaston, CT: R. Hazen publishers. 1947
- Sarah Moran. Divorce in Eighteenth-Century Connecticut. Connecticut State Library.
Leave a Reply