Arthur Browder

Wife: Mary Isham Randolph (1717-1772), Married 1732 Child: Isham (c1732-1784).

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Browder-82

An excerpt from William Randolph I of Turkey Island Henrico County, Virginia And His Immediate Descendants by Wassell Randolph, follows: MARY ISHAM RANDOLPH (1718-20 - ) was married twice. Her first marriage was by elopement about 1732 with the overseer on the plantation of one of her uncles, a marriage which greatly scandalized her family. Her first husband died, apparently, without issue. She later married, about 1740, Rev. James Keith. As one writer has remarked: ‘Family and friends little knew that this daughter, so scorned and derided for her misalliance was to be the chief glory of the Tuckahoe Randolphs.’ But this glory came through the emineace (sic) attained by so many of the descendants of this second marriage (Randolph, p. 51).

However, there actually was one child of this union after all.

To continue the story of Arthur Browder, son of John and Elizabeth Browder, one must look at the evidence in support of his marriage to Mary Isham Randolph, and of their naming their child “Isham”. Here we meet William Byrd. His book, "A Progress to the Mines", is the ONLY known primary source for the poignant story of Mary Isham Randolph and her elopement. This work is essentially a journal of Byrd’s travels while surveying the line between Virginia and North Carolina. Therefore, like any journal, it comes complete with dates, and each entry must have been written on or about the date mentioned in the text only, perhaps, to be revised a bit later. Byrd visited the Thomas Randolph (July 10, 1683-1730) family plantation (Thomas Randolph had been Byrd’s chief plantation overseer) on September 20, 1732, at which time he learned of the story surrounding Mary’s elopement. Again, Mary had been born about 1716, so she would have been about sixteen years of age at the time these events occurred, as they were of recent import at the time of Byrd’s original writing. Obviously, Arthur, born in 1715, would have been about the same age. Byrd wrote, (p. 124; entry dated September 20th): I made a running visit to three of my quarters where, besides finding all the people well, I had the pleasure to see better crops than usual both of corn and tobacco. I parted there with my intendant, and pursued my journey to MR. RANDOLPH’S, at Tuckahoe, without meeting with any adventure by the way. Here I found MRS. FLEMING [that was her maiden name], who was packing up her baggage with design to follow her husband the next day, who was gone to a new settlement in Goochland. Both he and she have been about seven years [so, they would have begun thinking about it, and perhaps preparing for it, in about 1725. That would, of course, be an exaggeration, since Thomas had not passed away yet, unless it was a thought of Thomas and Judith prior to his death which she wished to carry on] persuading themselves to remove to that retired part of the country, though they had the two strong arguments of health and interest for so doing. The widow smiled graciously upon me, and entertained me very handsomely. Here I learned all the tragical story of her daughter’s humble marriage with her uncle’s overseer. Besides the meanness of this mortal’s aspect, the man HAS not one visible qualification, except impudence, to recommend him to a female’s inclinations. But there is sometimes such a charm in that Hibernian endowment, that frail woman cannot withstand it, though it stand alone without any other recommendation. Had she run away with a gentleman or a pretty fellow, there might have been some excuse for her, though he were of inferior fortune: but to stoop to a dirty plebeian, without any kind of merit, is the lowest prostitution. I found the family justly enraged at it; and though I had more good nature than to join in her condemnation, yet I could devise no excuse for so senseless a prank as this young gentlewoman had played. Here good drink was more scarce than good victuals, the family being reduced to the last bottle of wine, which was therefore husbanded very carefully. But the water was excellent." This passage is a bit puzzling upon first read, since Byrd states that “Ms. Fleming” was a widow, and at the same time states that she was intent upon following her “husband” to a new settlement in Goochland County. Calling her by her maiden name in and of itself indicates that Thomas Randolph had already died, and it is known that he died in 1730. She did remarry, in December of 1733, to Nicolas Davies, but at the time of this writing, he was not yet her husband, officially, at least. Still, he is obviously the person whom Byrd refers to as her husband, they obviously already having the intent to marry (and it is possible that they had been married in a Quaker ceremony, which is something that was not legally recognized at that time). Thomas Randolph is known to have died there at Tuckahoe, and Judith herself later died in Goochland County, Virginia. That is the sum total of everything that Byrd tells us in the ONLY extant primary source known concerning these events. If it were not for Byrd, we may not know about this story at all. No other primary record is available, and only one other detailed reference is ever made by the Randolph family or any other relative, which would have been rendered unremarkable if it were not for this journal entry. The reader should already be seeing exactly why the “infant heir” of Arthur Browder might deliberately have not been named in the vestry record. But one other reference, as indicated, is to be found in later tradition, which has embellished somewhat upon this tale, rendering the episode a tragedy. That tradition states that Mary’s “brothers” were particularly incensed about the affair and were bent upon murder! As this story goes, the couple were hunted down and eventually located by Mary’s brothers, hiding out on what later became Thomas Jefferson’s plantation (one should note that he was a Randolph relative himself, a grandson of Col. Isham Randolph and Jane Rogers) at a remote place called Elk Island on the James River. This story culminates tragically with the plantation overseer AND CHILD being murdered by Mary’s brothers, and Mary being forcibly returned to her family household. Because of these tragic events, Randolph family tradition also holds that Mary became a “lunatic”. However, Mary did later remarry, on March 2, 1735, at Germantown, Virginia, to the Rev. James Keith, and thereafter had several children by him. So, if this tradition is in any way true in that these events affected Mary’s mind, she did recover to live a relatively normal life for several years afterward. This story is detailed by William M. Paxton in his book, "The Marshall Family, or a Genealogical Chart of the Descendants of John Marshall and Elizabeth Markham". That section is here reproduced verbatim, as follows: "The story is told that when MARY ISHAM RANDOLPH was blooming into womanhood, she was induced by the bailiff upon the estate of Tuckahoe to elope with him. There was great excitement among the family and neighbors, and threats were freely made by the brothers . . . The search for the fugitive for a time was fruitless. At length their retreat was discovered on Elk Island, in James River. The angry brothers came upon them at night, murdered the bailiff and the child, and brought their sister home. The deed of blood and cruelty so affected the wife and mother that she became deranged. But care was taken that no allusion should be made to the harrowing scenes she had witnessed, and her reason was at length restored. Years passed. MARY RANDOLPH married Parson James Keith. A family of children had grown up around them. The tragedy at Elk Island had been forgotten. The bailiff was supposed to be dead. But, one day MRS. KEITH received a letter, and, upon opening it, found that it purported to be from the supposedly deceased bailiff, stating that he had fled to foreign countries; after years of wandering had returned to look upon his lawful wife; had found her married and happy; that he would not afflict her by claiming her as his own, but advised her to be happy and forget him, who had more than died for her love, for she should hear no more from him. This letter was perhaps written by some evil-disposed person, or may have been only a practical joke. However that may be, it unhinged the mind of MRS. KEITH. She vainly sought for him, and throughout the remnant of her days the insanity manifested itself by a quiet melancholy, varied by some sudden freak of folly. Mrs. Colston lived with her for many years, and she, and all who met her in her widowhood, testify that she was a lunatic. Much mystery attends this tale. Mrs. Colston cited as a source was evidently Mrs. Rawleigh Colston, who was Elizabeth Marshall, Mary’s granddaughter, and sister of Chief Justice John Marshall. She would certainly have been a qualified witness to her grandmother’s insanity, and perhaps as to its cause. But Mary Randolph had no 'brothers' who could have murdered the despised husband of their sister. The only brother she had was the Tuckahoe heir, William Randolph (1713-1745), described by Byrd as a 'pretty' boy of nineteen. Still, gossipy as the famous diarist was, it seems impossible to believe that he completely fabricated the tale. [Because the grisly story of Elk Island (later owned by Jefferson) is said to have been full grown before Byrd’s diary was published (Randolph, pp. 50-51). It seems more likely that Arthur Browder apparently was not killed and did not die upon an island after all. He may well have been harmed during some kind of altercation, but we know that he died about 1738 (because that would be the reason that a survey had to be taken of his property and noted in the Vestry Book), too late to have been killed during such an episode with the Randolph family under these circumstances. One must, first, remember that the Randolph family had gone to Goochland County, Virginia. Apparently, Mary and her husband went along with them, for why would they have remained behind? And Elk Island was in Goochland County. But there is a clue to the identity of the person Mary eloped with in later Randolph family tradition. That clue is contained in the statement that the plantation overseer in question was “an Irish nobody”. That statement falls in line exactly with the statement William Byrd made, calling him a Hibernian. Whoever this plantation overseer was, neither Byrd nor the Randolph family had anything good to say about him, according to Byrd’s narrative and later tradition. But, more than that, he was again identified as being an IRISHMAN. So, if the correlating family traditions of the Browders having sailed from Ireland are true, then it becomes obvious that even during this time-period, no less than three generations after immigration, the Browder family was still seen as being Irish (even though they were not actually Irish). And there were not very many families in Virginia during this time period which were Irish, as most Irish emigrated at some later date. It seems most likely that the young couple probably promised that they would wait to consummate their marriage, and that this had been accepted as a compromise, since they had already eloped anyway. However, it was not long before Mary was found to be pregnant. Surely, she was not yet showing by the time of Byrd’s visit in September of 1732, or he would have noted it. The family probably got all the way to Goochland County before this was discovered. Mary’s family would have been, more or less, justifiably angry over this perceived betrayal, so Mary and her husband fled to a place that Mary would have known about; land that was already owned by members of her mother’s family (that is a fact that is in the records). They probably felt relatively safe on an island, isolated from most other people. This is the place where their child would have been born - in Goochland County. But eventually, they were found by someone, of this there can be no doubt. An altercation ensued, and Mary was forced to return home, without her husband and without her child! And she was told that they had been killed! Poor Mary was led to believe that her family had indeed done both of these things, and she was never told otherwise by them as long as she lived. She never knew for sure that she still had a living child by her first love! The Randolph family kept their secret from her and from the rest of society, perhaps with the help of Richard Browder (c1719-c1807) of Dinwiddie County, Virginia, who, according to tradition, took the child of his brother, known to have been named “Isham”, in after Arthur's death. Thus, Richard Browder, brought Isham up as if he were his own. Again, Browder family tradition recalls that Richard took in the child of his brother, Arthur. That child, I submit, could have been none other than our Isham Browder! This, because it becomes obvious, through the process of elimination, that it is Isham Browder who is mentioned in the Vestry Book as the heir of Arthur Browder. Later, other non-primary accounts also mention that Mary was actually about 16 or 17 years of age when she eloped with the overseer in question, which fits the story perfectly. They also restate that the overseer was an “Irishman”, and even give the name of “Enoch Arden” as that of the plantation overseer. However, these later sources can easily be called into question as to their accuracy, or lack thereof. This mainly because there is no actual record of an “Enoch Arden” during that time period. It should be emphasized that, when Mary received the letter from her purported first love, it was evidently known by others from the very start that it had not actually come from him. Why? Because these other persons, I submit, knew that he was already deceased even though he had actually not been killed by the Randolph family. It is true that the sources available do not state exactly when Mary received the letter. However, it does seem perfectly obvious that it was received after the birth of her last child, who was born in 1748, for I doubt that she would have had any more children following such an incident. Since Arthur Browder was deceased by 1739, at about the age of twenty-four, the writer certainly could not possibly have been him and, I again submit, certain family members and others knew this. But Mary did not know this, and they could not have told her because, if they had, it would have exposed to Mary all that had happened and everything that her family had done to cover up the facts. Arthur Browder surely knew that Mary had remarried and, in an effort to avoid causing her any more heartache, he, perhaps, changed his name and went away. He could not simply reside in Virginia, for his presence would have become known. So, I believe, he became a mariner and only returned occasionally and, finally, just prior to his own death for the last time, apparently dying along with his own grandfather, Edmund at what used to be Jamestown. Later, however, some heartless prankster wrote Mary a letter which purported to be from Arthur. After having read this letter, she plunged deeper into insanity, from which she never recovered this time. Deep down, she must somehow have known that she was being lied to by everyone, but no one would ever tell her the truth. In any event, the name Enoch Arden also lends us a clue. When the name actually first surfaced is not quite clear. But that it was immediately attached to whoever wrote the letter to poor Mary is obvious. The story already being fairly well-known even before Byrd’s writings were made publicly known– because scandal is hard to cover up – the name Enoch Arden somehow became attached to it somewhere along the line sometime after 1748. That much we can be certain of. Beyond that, the story evidently evolved over time and became known to a sculptor named Thomas Woolner (1825-1892), who reiterated the story to Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809-1892), who, in turn, wrote a long piece of prose in 1864 entitled “Enoch Arden”. However, one can go even further back to a story entitled “The Parting Hour” by George Crabbe (1754-1832). All of these stories/poems have similarities to stories that go back even into medieval times. However, none of the older stories had the same general similarities as those by Crabbe, Woolner and Tennyson. These three have so many similarities as to suggest some truth to parts of them – to suggest that they were indeed based on a real, true, event. And, in fact, the poem “Enoch Arden” was said to be based on a true story of a mariner who became shipwrecked, but who eventually returned home to find his wife remarried and happy. Not wishing to disturb her happiness, he chose, at least up to near death, not to reveal that he was still alive. I suggest that one thing that Tennyson knew, because this had been passed on to him by Woolner, is that Arthur Browder had changed his name to Enoch Arden and had become a mariner. Thus, he entitled his work “Enoch Arden", probably not even knowing Arthur’s real name at all, for who would have by then? But this essentially proves that the name Enoch Arden became attached to the letter Mary received well before Tennyson wrote his poem. Whoever he was, he was an “Enoch Arden” – someone who loved another person enough to allow them to believe he was deceased so that she could remain happy. Mary eventually died, in December of 1772, and was interred, along with her husband, James Keith, under the chancel of old Elk Run Church, Prince William County (now Fauquier County), Virginia.

The record is clear, Arthur had only one son, who was mentioned in the Bristol Parish Vestry Book, but not actually named. From the Vestry Book of Bristol Parish, the notation in question is presented here, verbatim. Concerning the Returns of Processioning for the Year 1739 (pp. 98-99) the notation reads as follows:
"Miles Whweatt and William Batt[e] the Same (Processioned all the Lands in their Precinct) excepting two lines of Batte & Jordan they disagreeing & another piece belonging to the HEIR of ARTHER BROWDER the HEIR being an Infant."
This short notation shows that (1) Arthur Browder was already deceased and that (2) he had only one heir, who was an infant in 1739. Unlike today, a person was considered an "infant" until the age of 21, at which time one could inherit land and perform other legal deeds. So, the term was used differently back then than it is today. It did not mean he had to still be a baby. Sadly, the notation neither names the child's mother (whom one would also presume to have died unless there were other circumstances), nor the child.
Arthur Browder had eloped with, and married, Mary Isham Randolph in 1732. It seems that, during an altercation with the Randolph family, who were not pleased with the arrangement, Arthur was hurt, but not killed as later tradition would have everyone believe. Mary was led to believe that he and her infant son had been killed, and was focibly taken home. Arthur was advised to go away and never make contact with her again. The child was brought up within the household of Arthur's brother, Richard. I suspect that Arthur became a mariner since no further record of him is found as far as land deeds or other documents are concerned. That way, he could go away and try to forget Mary. There is really no way to know anything further about his life for certain other than it is believed that he died by 1739.

Notes
Note N812He died about 1738 according to vestry records and left an infant heir.

Sources

Browder, Blanche Penland. Notes On the Browder Family of Tidewater Virginia, 1695-1850, Second Edition, Copyright: Blanche Penland Browder, printed in USA by Blanche Penland Browder. Browder, Thomas E. Genealogy of David Browder, of Virginia and His Descendants. Nashville, Tenn.: Folk & Browder, 1902. Chamberlayne, Churchill Gibson, trans. The Vestry Book and Register of Bristol Parish, Virginia, 1720- 1789, Richmond, Virginia: Pub. by: Churchill Gibson Chamberlayne, privately printed, 1898. Lockridge, Kenneth A. The Diary And Life of William Byrd II Of Virginia, 1674-1744. Williamsburg: Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1987. Marambaud, Pierre. William Byrd of Westover, 1674-1744. Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1971. Paxton, W. M. The Marshall Family: Or A Genealogical Chart of the Descendants of John Marshall And Elizabeth Markham, His Wife, Sketches of Individuals And Notices of Families Connected With Them. Cincinnati: R. Clarke & Co., 1885. Randolph, Wassell. William Randolph I of Turkey Island Henrico County, Virginia And His Immediate Descendants. Seebode Mimeo Service, Memphis, 1949. Ruffin, Edmund and Julian C. The Westover Manuscripts: Containing the Secret History of the Dividing Line Betwixt Virginia and North Carolina; A Journey to the Land of Eden, A.D. 1733 (“History of the Dividing Line: Run in The Year 1728”); and A Progress to the Mines; Written from 1728 to 1736 by William Byrd II of Westover. Published and printed by Edmund and Julian C. Ruffin, 1841. Smith, Jean Edward. John Marshall: Definer of a Nation. Holt Paperbacks; Reprint edition, 1998.