This is a modern-English version of The Witchcraft Delusion in Colonial Connecticut (1647-1697), originally written by Taylor, John M. (John Metcalf).
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

[Illustration: A Grand Jury Presentment for Witchcraft Reproduced from the original in the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford
[Illustration: A Grand Jury Presentment for Witchcraft Reproduced from the original in the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford]
May it please yr Honble Court, we the Grand inquest now setting for the County of Fairefeild, being made sensable, not only by Common fame (but by testamonies duly billed to us) that the widow Mary Staple, Mary Harvey ye wife of Josiah Harvey & Hannah Harvey the daughter of the saide Josiah, all of Fairefeild, remain under the susspition of useing witchecraft, which is abomanable both in ye sight of God & man and ought to be witnessed against. we doe therefore (in complyance to our duty, the discharge of our oathes and that trust reposed in us) presente the above mentioned pssons to the Honble Court of Assistants now setting in Fairefeild, that they may be taken in to Custody & proceeded against according to their demerits.
Your Honorable Court, we, the Grand Jury currently convened for Fairfield County, have learned, not only through general knowledge but also through testimonies presented to us, that the widow Mary Staple, Mary Harvey, the wife of Josiah Harvey, and Hannah Harvey, the daughter of Josiah, all from Fairfield, are suspected of practicing witchcraft. This is considered wrong both in the eyes of God and society and must be addressed. Therefore, in fulfilling our duty, our oaths, and the trust placed in us, we present the individuals mentioned above to the Honorable Court of Assistants currently meeting in Fairfield, so that they may be taken into custody and dealt with according to their actions.
Fairefeild, Fby, 1692 in behalfe of the Grnd Jury JOSEPH BASTARD, foreman]
Fairfield, February 1692, on behalf of the Grand Jury, JOSEPH BASTARD, foreman.
THE WITCHCRAFT
DELUSION IN COLONIAL
CONNECTICUT
1647-1697
BY JOHN M. TAYLOR
Author of "Maximilian and Carlotta, a Story of Imperialism," and "Roger Ludlow, the Colonial Lawmaker"
Copyright, 1908
BY THE GRAFTON PRESS
REPRINTED 1974
BY
CORNER HOUSE PUBLISHERS
ISBN 0-87923-053-0
FOREWORD
The true story of witchcraft in old Connecticut has never been told. It has been hidden in the ancient records and in manuscripts in private collections, and those most conversant with the facts have not made them known, for one reason or another. It is herein written from authoritative sources, and should prove of interest and value as a present-day interpretation of that strange delusion, which for a half century darkened the lives of the forefathers and foremothers of the colonial days.
J.M.T.
Hartford, Connecticut.
INTRODUCTION
The real story of witchcraft in old Connecticut has never been told. It has been hidden in ancient records and manuscripts in private collections, and those who know the facts haven't shared them for various reasons. This account is drawn from reliable sources and should be interesting and valuable as a modern interpretation of that strange delusion that clouded the lives of our ancestors during colonial times.
J.M.T.
Hartford, Connecticut.
TWO INDICTMENTS FOR WITCHCRAFT
TWO WITCHCRAFT INDICTMENTS
"John Carrington thou art indited by the name of John Carrington of Wethersfield—carpenter—, that not hauing the feare of God before thine eyes thou hast interteined ffamilliarity with Sattan the great enemye of God and mankinde and by his helpe hast done workes aboue the course of nature for wch both according to the lawe of God and the established lawe of this Commonwealth thou deseruest to dye."
"John Carrington, you are charged as John Carrington of Wethersfield—carpenter—that, having no fear of God before your eyes, you have engaged in familiarity with Satan, the great enemy of God and mankind, and with his help, you have performed acts beyond the natural course of things, for which both according to the law of God and the established law of this Commonwealth, you deserve to die."
Record Particular Court, 2: 17, 1650-51.
Record Particular Court, 2: 17, 1650-51.
"Hugh Crotia, Thou Standest here presented by the name of Hugh Crotia of Stratford in the Colony of Connecticut in New England; for that not haueing the fear of God before thine Eyes, through the Instigation of the Devill, thou hast forsaken thy God & covenanted with the Devill, and by his help hast in a preternaturall way afflicted the bodys of Sundry of his Majesties good Subjects, for which according to the Law of God, and the Law of this Colony, thou deseruest to dye."
"Hugh Crotia, you are here identified as Hugh Crotia of Stratford in the Colony of Connecticut in New England; because you do not have the fear of God before your eyes, and under the influence of the Devil, you have abandoned your God and made a pact with the Devil. With his help, you have supernaturally harmed the bodies of several of His Majesty's loyal subjects, for which, according to the Law of God and the Law of this Colony, you deserve to die."
Record Court of Assistants, 2: 16, 1693.
Record Court of Assistants, 2: 16, 1693.
A WARRANT FOR THE EXECUTION OF A WITCH[A]
AND THE SHERIFF'S RETURN THEREON
A WARRANT FOR THE EXECUTION OF A WITCH[A]
AND THE SHERIFF'S RETURN THEREON
To George Corwin Gentlm high Sheriff of the County of Essex Greeting
To George Corwin, Gentlemen, High Sheriff of Essex County, Greetings
Whereas Bridgett Bishop als Olliver the wife of Edward Bishop of Salem in the County of Essex Sawyer at a special Court of Oyer and Terminer ---- (held at?)[B] Salem this second Day of this instant month of June for the Countyes of Essex Middlesex and Suffolk before William Stoughton Esqe. and his Associates Justices of the said Court was Indicted and arraigned upon five several Indictments for useing practising & exercising on the ----[B] last past and divers others days ---- witchcraft in and upon the bodyes of Abigail Williams Ann puttnam Jr Mercy Lewis Mary Walcott and Elizabeth Hubbard of Salem Village single women; whereby their bodyes were hurt afflicted pined consumed wasted & tormented contrary to the forme of the statute in that case made and provided To which Indictmts the said Bridgett Bishop pleaded not guilty and for Tryall thereof put herselfe upon God and her Country ---- she was found guilty of the ffelonyes and Witchcrafts whereof she stood Indicted and sentence of death accordingly passed agt her as the Law directs execution whereof yet remaines to be done These are therefore in the name of their Majties William & Mary now King & Queen over England & to will and command you that upon Fryday next being the fourth day of this instant month of June between the hours of Eight and twelve in the aforenoon of the same day you safely conduct the sd Bridgett Bishop als Olliver from their Majties Goale in Salem aforesd to the place of execution and there cause her to be hanged by the neck until she be dead and of your doings herein make returne to the Clerk of the sd Court and precept And hereof you are not to faile at your peril And this shall be sufficient warrant Given under my hand & seal at Boston the Eighth of June in the ffourth year of the reigne of our Sovereigne Lords William & Mary now King & Queen over England Annoque Dm 1692 Wm. Stoughton
Whereas Bridgett Bishop, also known as Olliver, the wife of Edward Bishop of Salem in Essex County, was indicted at a special Court of Oyer and Terminer in Salem on June 2nd of this year for the counties of Essex, Middlesex, and Suffolk, before William Stoughton, Esq. and his associates, justices of the court. She faced five separate charges for practicing and exercising witchcraft on the bodies of Abigail Williams, Ann Putnam Jr., Mercy Lewis, Mary Walcott, and Elizabeth Hubbard, who are all single women from Salem Village. As a result, their bodies were hurt, afflicted, pined, consumed, wasted, and tormented, contrary to the statute made for such cases. To these charges, Bridgett Bishop pleaded not guilty and put herself on trial by God and her country. She was found guilty of the felonies and witchcraft she was charged with, and the sentence of death was accordingly passed against her as the law directs, with the execution pending. Therefore, in the name of Their Majesties William and Mary, now King and Queen over England, I command you that on Friday, June 4th, between the hours of eight and twelve in the morning, you safely escort Bridgett Bishop, also known as Olliver, from Their Majesties' jail in Salem to the place of execution and hang her by the neck until she is dead. You must return a report of your actions to the Clerk of the said Court and precept. You must not fail in this duty at your peril. This shall serve as your sufficient warrant. Given under my hand and seal at Boston, on June 8th in the fourth year of the reign of Our Sovereign Lords William and Mary, now King and Queen over England, Anno Domini 1692. Wm. Stoughton
[A] Original in office of Clerk of the Courts at Salem, Massachusetts. Said to be the only one extant in American archives.
[A] Original in the office of the Clerk of the Courts in Salem, Massachusetts. Reportedly the only one still in existence in American archives.
[B] Some of the words in the warrant are illegible.
[B] Some of the words in the warrant are unreadable.
June 16 1692
June 16, 1692
According to the within written precept I have taken the Bodye of the within named Bridgett Bishop out of their Majties Goale in Salem & Safely Conueighd her to the place provided for her Execution & Caused ye sd Bridgett to be hanged by the neck till Shee was dead all which was according to the time within Required & So I make returne by me George Corwin Sheriff
According to the written instruction, I have taken the body of Bridget Bishop out of their Majesties' jail in Salem and safely transported her to the location designated for her execution, where I had Bridget hanged by the neck until she was dead. All of this was done within the required time, and I make this report, by me, George Corwin, Sheriff.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I Perkins' definition—Burr's "Servants of Satan"—The monkish idea—The ancientness of witchcraft—Its universality—Its regulation—What it was—Its oldest record—The Babylonian Stele—Its discovery—King Hammurabi's Code, 2250 B.C.—Its character and importance—Hebraic resemblances—Its witchcraft law—The test of guilt—The water test. . . . 1-5
CHAPTER I Perkins' definition—Burr's "Servants of Satan"—The monkish idea—The ancient origins of witchcraft—Its presence across cultures—How it was regulated—What it involved—Its earliest documentation—The Babylonian Stele—The discovery of it—King Hammurabi's Code, 2250 B.C.—Its nature and significance—Hebrew similarities—Its laws regarding witchcraft—The method for determining guilt—The water trial. . . . 1-5
CHAPTER II Opinions of Blackstone and Lecky—Witchcraft nomenclature—Its earlier and later phases—Common superstitions—Monna Sidonia's invocation—Leland's Sea Song—Witchcraft's diverse literature—Its untold history— The modern Satanic idea—Exploitation by the Inquisitors—The chief authorities—The witch belief—Its recognition in drama and romance—The Weird Sisters—Other characters. . . . 6-14
CHAPTER II Opinions of Blackstone and Lecky—Witchcraft terminology—Its earlier and later stages—Common superstitions—Monna Sidonia's ritual—Leland's Sea Song—Witchcraft's varied literature—Its untold story— The modern concept of Satan—Exploitation by the Inquisitors—The main authorities—The belief in witches—Its acknowledgment in drama and fiction—The Weird Sisters—Other characters. . . . 6-14
CHAPTER III Fundamentals—The scriptural citations—Old and New Testament—Josephus—Ancient and modern witchcraft—The distinction—The arch enemy Satan—Action of the Church—The later definition—The New England indictments—Satan's recognition—Persecutions in Italy, Germany and France—Slow spread to England—Statute of Henry VIII—Cranmer's injunction—Jewell's sermon—Statute James I—His Demonologie—Executions in Eastern England—Witch finder Hopkins—Howell's statement—John Lowes—Witchcraft in Scotland—Commissions—Instruments of torture—Forbes' definition—Colonial beliefs. . . . 15-22
CHAPTER III Fundamentals—The scriptural citations—Old and New Testament—Josephus—Ancient and modern witchcraft—The distinction—The arch enemy Satan—Action of the Church—The later definition—The New England indictments—Satan's recognition—Persecutions in Italy, Germany, and France—Slow spread to England—Statute of Henry VIII—Cranmer's injunction—Jewell's sermon—Statute James I—His Demonologie—Executions in Eastern England—Witch finder Hopkins—Howell's statement—John Lowes—Witchcraft in Scotland—Commissions—Instruments of torture—Forbes' definition—Colonial beliefs. . . . 15-22
CHAPTER IV Fiske's view—The forefathers' belief—Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Haven laws—Sporadic cases—The Salem tragedy—Statements of Hawthorne, Fiske, Lowell, Latimer—The victims—Upham's picture—The trial court—Sewall's confession—Cotton Mather—Calef and Upham—Poole—Mather's rules—Ministerial counsel—Longfellow's opinion—Mather's responsibility—His own evidence—Conspectus. . . . 23-34
CHAPTER IV Fiske's view—The founding fathers' belief—Laws of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Haven—Isolated incidents—The Salem tragedy—Comments from Hawthorne, Fiske, Lowell, Latimer—The victims—Upham's depiction—The trial court—Sewall's confession—Cotton Mather—Calef and Upham—Poole—Mather's guidelines—Ministerial advice—Longfellow's thoughts—Mather's accountability—His own evidence—Overview. . . . 23-34
CHAPTER V The Epidemic in Connecticut—Palfrey—Trumbulls—Winthrop's Journal—Treatment of witchcraft—Silence and evasion—The true story—How told—Witnesses—Testimony—All classes affected—The courts—Judges and jurors—The best evidence—The record—Grounds for examination of a witch—Jones' summary—Witch marks—What they were—How discovered—Dalton's Country Justice—The searchers—Searchers' report in Disborough and Clawson cases. . . . 35-44
CHAPTER V The Outbreak in Connecticut—Palfrey—Trumbull—Winthrop's Journal—Handling of witchcraft—Silence and avoidance—The real story—How it was shared—Witnesses—Testimony—All groups impacted—The courts—Judges and jurors—The strongest evidence—The records—Reasons for investigating a witch—Jones' summary—Witch marks—What they were—How they were found—Dalton's Country Justice—The searchers—Searchers' reports in Disborough and Clawson cases. . . . 35-44
CHAPTER VI Hamersley's and Morgan's comment—John Allyn's letter—The accusation—Its origin—Its victims—Many witnesses—Record evidence—The witnesses themselves—Memorials of their delusion—Notable depositions—Selected testimonies, and cases—Katherine Harrison—The court—The judge—The indictment—Grand jury's oath—Credulity of the court—Testimony—Its unique character—Bracy—Dickinson—Montague— Graves—Francis—Johnson—Hale—Smith—Verdict and sentence—Court's appeal to the ministers—Their answer—A remarkable document—Katherine's petition—"A Complaint of severall grieuances"—Katherine's reprieve— Dismissal from imprisonment—Removal. . . . 45-61
CHAPTER VI Hamersley’s and Morgan’s comments—John Allyn's letter—The accusation—Its source—Its victims—Numerous witnesses—Documentary evidence—The witnesses themselves—Records of their misunderstanding—Notable testimonies—Selected statements and cases—Katherine Harrison—The court—The judge—The indictment—Grand jury's oath—The court's gullibility—Testimony—Its distinct nature—Bracy—Dickinson—Montague—Graves—Francis—Johnson—Hale—Smith—Verdict and sentence—The court's appeal to the ministers—Their response—An extraordinary document—Katherine's petition—"A Complaint of several grievances"—Katherine's reprieve—Release from imprisonment—Removal. . . . 45-61
CHAPTER VII Mercy Disborough—Cases at Fairfield, 1692—The special court—The indictment—Testimonies—Jesop—Barlow—Dunning—Halliberch—Benit— Grey—Godfree—Search for witch marks—Ordeal by water—Cateran Branch's accusation—Jury disagree—Later verdict of guilty—The governor's sentence—Reference to General Court—Afterthought—John Hale's conclusion—Courts call on the ministers—Their answer—General advice—Reasons for reprieve—Notable papers—Eliot and Woodbridge—Willis—Pitkin—Stanly—The pardon. . . . 62-78
CHAPTER VII Mercy Disborough—Cases at Fairfield, 1692—The special court—The indictment—Testimonies—Jesop—Barlow—Dunning—Halliberch—Benit—Grey—Godfree—Search for witch marks—Trial by water—Cateran Branch's accusation—Jury disagrees—Later verdict of guilty—The governor's sentence—Reference to General Court—Afterthought—John Hale's conclusion—Courts call on the ministers—Their response—General advice—Reasons for reprieve—Notable documents—Eliot and Woodbridge—Willis—Pitkin—Stanly—The pardon. . . . 62-78
CHAPTER VIII Hawthorne—Latimer—Additional cases—Curious and vulgar testimony—All illustrative of opinion—Make it understandable—Elizabeth Seager—Witnesses—What they swore to—Garretts—Sterne—Hart—Willard— Pratt—Migat—"Staggerings" of the jury—Contradictions—Verdict— Elizabeth Godman—Governor Goodyear's dilemma—Strange doings—Ball's information—Imprisonment—Discharge—Nathaniel and Rebecca Greensmith— Character, Accusation—Rebecca's confession—Conviction—Double execution at Hartford. . . . 79-100
CHAPTER VIII Hawthorne—Latimer—More cases—Interesting and ordinary testimonies—All showing different opinions—Make it clear—Elizabeth Seager—Witnesses—What they testified—Garretts—Sterne—Hart—Willard—Pratt—Migat—"Staggerings" of the jury—Inconsistencies—Verdict— Elizabeth Godman—Governor Goodyear's tough situation—Strange happenings—Ball's information—Imprisonment—Release—Nathaniel and Rebecca Greensmith—Character, Accusation—Rebecca's confession—Conviction—Double execution in Hartford. . . . 79-100
CHAPTER IX Elizabeth Clawson—The indictment—Witnesses—"Kateran" Branch—Garney— Kecham—Abigail and Nathaniel Cross—Bates—Sargent Wescot and Abigail— Finch—Bishop—Holly—Penoir—Slawson—Kateran's Antics—Acquittal. Hugh Crotia—The court—Grand jury—Indictment—Testimony—Confession— Acquittal—Gaol delivery—Elizabeth Garlick—A sick woman's fancies—"A black thing at the bed's featte"—Burning herbs—The sick child—The ox' broken leg—The dead ram and sow—The Tale burning. . . . 101-121
CHAPTER IX Elizabeth Clawson—The charges—Witnesses—"Kateran" Branch—Garney—Kecham—Abigail and Nathaniel Cross—Bates—Sargent Wescot and Abigail— Finch—Bishop—Holly—Penoir—Slawson—Kateran's antics—Not guilty. Hugh Crotia—The court—Grand jury—Charges—Testimony—Confession— Not guilty—Jail discharge—Elizabeth Garlick—A sick woman's fantasies—"A dark figure at the foot of the bed"—Burning herbs—The sick child—The ox's broken leg—The dead ram and sow—The Tale burning. . . . 101-121
CHAPTER X Goodwife Knapp—Her character—A notable case—Imprisonment—Harsh treatment—The inquisitors—Their urgency—Knapp's appeal—The postmortem desecration—Prominent people involved—Davenport and Ludlow—Staplies vs. Ludlow—The court—Confidential gossip—Cause of the suit—Testimony— Davenport—Sherwood—Tomson—Gould—Ward—Pell—Brewster—Lockwood—Hull— Brundish—Whitlock—Barlow—Lyon—Mistress Staplies—Her doings aforetime— Tashs' night ride—"A light woman"—Her character—Reparation suit—Her later indictment—Power of the delusion—Pertinent inquiry. . . . 122-141
CHAPTER X Goodwife Knapp—Her character—A notable case—Imprisonment—Harsh treatment—The inquisitors—Their urgency—Knapp's appeal—The postmortem desecration—Prominent people involved—Davenport and Ludlow—Staplies vs. Ludlow—The court—Confidential gossip—Cause of the suit—Testimony—Davenport—Sherwood—Tomson—Gould—Ward—Pell—Brewster—Lockwood—Hull—Brundish—Whitlock—Barlow—Lyon—Mistress Staplies—Her past actions—Tash's night ride—"A promiscuous woman"—Her character—Reparation suit—Her later indictment—Power of the delusion—Relevant inquiry. . . . 122-141
CHAPTER XI Present opinions—J. Hammond Trumbull—Annie Eliot Trumbull—Review—Authenticity—Record evidence—Controversialists—Actual cases—Suspicions—Accusations—Acquittals—Flights—Executions—First complete roll—Changes in belief—Contrast—Edwards—Carter—"The Rogerenes"—Conclusion—Hathorne—Mather. . . . 142-160
CHAPTER XI Current views—J. Hammond Trumbull—Annie Eliot Trumbull—Analysis—Genuineness—Documented proof—Debaters—Real instances—Doubts—Claims—Clearances—Escapes—Executions—First complete list—Shifts in belief—Comparison—Edwards—Carter—"The Rogerenes"—Final thoughts—Hathorne—Mather. . . . 142-160
THE WITCHCRAFT
DELUSION IN COLONIAL
CONNECTICUT
CHAPTER I
"First, because Witchcraft is a rife and common sinne in these our daies, and very many are intangled with it, beeing either practitioners thereof in their owne persons, or at the least, yielding to seeke for helpe and counsell of such as practise it." A Discovrse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, PERKINS, 1610.
"First, because witchcraft is widespread and common these days, and many people are involved in it, either by practicing it themselves or at least seeking help and advice from those who do." A Discovrse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, PERKINS, 1610.
"And just as God has his human servants, his church on earth, so also the Devil has his—men and women sworn to his service and true to his bidding. To win such followers he can appear to men in any form he pleases, can deceive them, enter into compact with them, initiate them into his worship, make them his allies for the ruin of their fellows. Now it is these human allies and servants of Satan, thus postulated into existence by the brain of a monkish logician, whom history knows as witches." The Literature of Witchcraft, BURR.
"Just like God has His human servants, His church on earth, the Devil has His too—people who are dedicated to Him and follow His orders. To attract these followers, He can appear in any shape He likes, trick them, make deals with them, recruit them into His worship, and convert them into His allies to undermine others. These human supporters and servants of Satan, conceived by a scholarly logician, are what history knows as witches." The Literature of Witchcraft, BURR.
Witchcraft in its generic sense is as old as human history. It has written its name in the oldest of human records. In all ages and among all peoples it has taken firm hold on the fears, convictions and consciences of men. Anchored in credulity and superstition, in the dread and love of mystery, in the hard and fast theologic doctrines and teachings of diabolism, and under the ban of the law from its beginning, it has borne a baleful fruitage in the lives of the learned and the unlearned, the wise and the simple.
Witchcraft, in its broadest sense, is as ancient as human history. It has made its mark in the earliest human records. Throughout all ages and among all cultures, it has strongly affected the fears, beliefs, and consciences of people. Rooted in gullibility and superstition, in the fear and fascination with the unknown, in rigid theological doctrines and teachings about evil, and under legal restrictions since its inception, it has produced harmful consequences in the lives of both the educated and uneducated, the wise and the naive.
King and prophet, prelate and priest, jurist and lawmaker, prince and peasant, scholars and men of affairs have felt and dreaded its subtle power, and sought relief in code and commandment, bull and anathema, decree and statute—entailing even the penalty of death—and all in vain until in the march of the races to a higher civilization, the centuries enthroned faith in the place of fear, wisdom in the place of ignorance, and sanity in the seat of delusion.
King and prophet, bishop and priest, judge and lawmaker, prince and peasant, scholars and businesspeople have experienced and feared its subtle power, seeking relief through rules and commandments, edicts and exclusions, decrees and laws—with penalties even leading to death—and all in vain until, in humanity's progression toward a higher civilization, the centuries have established faith instead of fear, wisdom instead of ignorance, and sanity instead of delusion.
In its earlier historic conception witchcraft and its demonstrations centered in the claim of power to produce certain effects, "things beyond the course of nature," from supernatural causes, and under this general term all its occult manifestations were classified with magic and sorcery, until the time came when the Devil was identified and acknowledged both in church and state as the originator and sponsor of the mystery, sin and crime—the sole father of the Satanic compacts with men and women, and the law both canonical and civil took cognizance of his malevolent activities.
In its earlier historical understanding, witchcraft and its practices focused on the claim that it could create certain effects—"things beyond the natural order"—from supernatural sources. Under this broad category, all its mysterious manifestations were grouped with magic and sorcery, until the time came when the Devil was recognized by both church and state as the source and supporter of mystery, sin, and crime—the sole originator of Satanic agreements with people. Both canon and civil law took note of his harmful activities.
In the Acropolis mound at Susa in ancient Elam, in the winter of 1901-2, there was brought to light by the French expedition in charge of the eminent savant, M. de Morgan, one of the most remarkable memorials of early civilization ever recovered from the buried cities of the Orient.
In the Acropolis mound at Susa in ancient Elam, during the winter of 1901-2, the French expedition led by the renowned scholar, M. de Morgan, uncovered one of the most remarkable artifacts of early civilization found in the buried cities of the East.
It is a monolith—a stele of black diorite—bearing in bas-relief a likeness of Hammurabi (the Amrephel of the Old Testament; Genesis xiv, 1), and the sixth king of the first Babylonian dynasty, who reigned about 2250 B.C.; and there is also carved upon it, in archaic script in black letter cuneiform—used long after the cursive writing was invented—the longest Babylonian record discovered to this day,—the oldest body of laws in existence and the basis of historical jurisprudence.
It’s a monolith—a black diorite stele—featuring a bas-relief likeness of Hammurabi (the Amraphel in the Old Testament; Genesis xiv, 1), who was the sixth king of the first Babylonian dynasty, reigning around 2250 B.C.; and it also has carved on it, in an ancient script using black letter cuneiform—used long after cursive writing was developed—the longest Babylonian record found to this day,—the oldest set of laws in existence and the foundation of historical jurisprudence.
It is a remarkable code, quickly made available through translation and transliteration by the Assyrian scholars, and justly named, from its royal compiler, Hammurabi's code. He was an imperialist in purpose and action, and in the last of his reign of fifty-five years he annexed or assimilated the suzerainty of Elam, or Southern Persia, with Assyria to the north, and also Syria and Palestine, to the Mediterranean Sea.
It’s an impressive code, made accessible through translation and transliteration by Assyrian scholars, rightfully named after its royal creator, Hammurabi's code. He was driven by imperial ambitions and throughout his fifty-five-year reign, he annexed or integrated Elam, or Southern Persia, with Assyria to the north, along with Syria and Palestine, reaching all the way to the Mediterranean Sea.
This record in stone originally contained nineteen columns of inscriptions of four thousand three hundred and fourteen lines, arranged in two hundred and eighty sections, covering about two hundred separate decisions or edicts. There is substantial evidence that many of the laws were of greater antiquity than the code itself, which is a thousand years older than the Mosaic code, and there are many striking resemblances and parallels between its provisions, and the law of the covenant, and the deuteronomy laws of the Hebrews.
This stone tablet initially had nineteen columns featuring four thousand three hundred fourteen lines of text, divided into two hundred eighty sections, which detail about two hundred different decisions or laws. There’s strong evidence that many of these laws are actually older than the code itself, which is a thousand years older than the Mosaic code. Additionally, there are many notable similarities and parallels between its provisions, the covenant law, and the Deuteronomy laws of the Hebrews.
The code was based on personal responsibility. It protects the sanctity of an oath before God, provides among many other things for written evidence in legal matters, and is wonderfully comprehensive and rich in rules for the conduct of commercial, civic, financial, social, economic, and domestic affairs.
The code focused on individual accountability. It safeguards the importance of a promise made before God, offers written proof in legal situations, and is incredibly thorough and detailed in its guidelines for handling business, community, financial, social, economic, and household matters.
These sections are notably illustrative:
These sections are very informative:
"If a man, in a case (pending judgment), utters threats against the witnesses (or), does not establish the testimony that he has given, if that case be a case involving life, that man shall be put to death.
"If a person, in a case (waiting for judgment), makes threats against the witnesses (or), fails to confirm the testimony they provided, if that case involves life, that person shall be sentenced to death."
"If a judge pronounces a judgment, renders a decision, delivers a verdict duly signed and sealed and afterwards alters his judgment, they shall call that judge to account for the alteration of the judgment which he had pronounced, and he shall pay twelvefold the penalty which was in the said judgment, and, in the assembly, they shall expel him from his seat of judgment, and he shall not return, and with the judges in a case he shall not take his seat.
"If a judge issues a ruling, makes a decision, delivers a verdict that is properly signed and sealed, and then changes that ruling, they will hold that judge accountable for the change he made. He will have to pay twelve times the penalty stated in that ruling, and during the assembly, he will be removed from his position as a judge and will not be allowed to return. He will not be permitted to sit with the other judges in any case."
"If a man practices brigandage and is captured, that man shall be put to death.
"If a person engages in robbery and gets caught, that person will be executed."
"If a woman hates her husband, and says: 'thou shalt not have me,' they shall inquire into her antecedents for her defects; and if she has been a careful mistress and is without reproach and her husband has been going about and greatly belittling her, that woman has no blame. She shall receive her presents and shall go to her father's house.
"If a woman hates her husband and says, 'You can't have me,' they should look into her background for any faults. If she's been a good partner and has no issues, and her husband has been disrespectful and belittling her, then she is blameless. She should receive her gifts and go to her father's house."
"If she has not been a careful mistress, has gadded about, has neglected her house and has belittled her husband, they shall throw that woman into the water.
"If she hasn't been a responsible wife, has spent her time socializing, has ignored her home, and has disrespected her husband, they will throw her into the water."
"If a physician operates on a man for a severe wound with a bronze lancet and causes the man's death, or opens an abscess (in the eye) of a man with a bronze lancet and destroys the man's eye, they shall cut off his fingers.
"If a doctor performs surgery on a man for a serious wound with a bronze lancet and causes the man's death, or opens an abscess in a man's eye with a bronze lancet and damages the man's eye, they will cut off his fingers."
"If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make its construction firm and the house, which he has built, collapses and causes the death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be put to death."
"If a builder constructs a house for someone and fails to make it sturdy, and the house he built collapses, resulting in the owner's death, that builder will be sentenced to death."
It is, however, with only one of King Hammurabi's wise laws that this inquiry has to do, and it is this:
It is, however, with only one of King Hammurabi's wise laws that this investigation is concerned, and it is as follows:
"If a man has placed an enchantment upon a man, and has not justified himself, he upon whom the enchantment is placed to the Holy River (Euphrates) shall go; into the Holy River he shall plunge. If the Holy River holds (drowns) him he who enchanted him shall take his house. If on the contrary, the man is safe and thus is innocent, the wizard loses his life, and his house."
"If a man has cast a spell on another man without proving himself, the one who is bewitched must go to the Holy River (Euphrates); he must jump into the Holy River. If the Holy River drowns him, the one who cast the spell will take his house. However, if the man is safe and innocent, the wizard will lose his life and his house."
Or, as another translation has it:
Or, as another translation puts it:
"If a man ban a man and cast a spell on him—if he cannot justify it he who has banned shall be killed."
"If a person bans another person and puts a curse on him—if he can't justify it, the one who banned shall be killed."
"If a man has cast a spell on a man and has not justified it, he on whom the spell has been thrown shall go to the River God, and plunge into the river. If the River God takes him he who has banned him shall be saved. If the River God show him to be innocent, and he be saved, he who banned him shall be killed, and he who plunged into the river shall take the house of him who banned him."
"If a man has put a curse on another man without any justification, the one cursed must go to the River God and jump into the river. If the River God accepts him, the one who cast the curse will be safe. If the River God proves him innocent and he survives, the person who cast the curse will be killed, and the one who jumped into the river will inherit the home of the person who cursed him."
There can be no more convincing evidence of the presence and power of the great witchcraft superstition among the primitive races than this earliest law; and it is to be especially noted that it prescribes one of the very tests of guilt—the proof by water—which was used in another form centuries later, on the continent, in England and New England, at Wurzburg and Bonn, at Rouen, in Suffolk, Essex and Devon, and at Salem and Hartford and Fairfield, when "the Devil starteth himself up in the pulpit, like a meikle black man, and calling the row (roll) everyone answered, Here!"
There’s no more convincing evidence of the belief in witchcraft among early cultures than this oldest law; it’s especially important to note that it outlines one of the main tests of guilt—the proof by water—which was applied in different forms centuries later in places like England and New England, as well as Wurzburg and Bonn, Rouen, Suffolk, Essex, Devon, and at Salem and Hartford and Fairfield, when “the Devil stands up in the pulpit like a big black man, calling the roll, and everyone responds, Here!”
CHAPTER II
"To deny the possibility, nay actual evidence of witchcraft and sorcery, is at once to flatly contradict the revealed word of God in various passages both of the Old and New Testaments." Blackstone's Commentaries (Vol. 4, ch. 4, p. 60).
"Denying the possibility or even the clear evidence of witchcraft and sorcery goes against the revealed word of God in several passages from both the Old and New Testaments." Blackstone's Commentaries (Vol. 4, ch. 4, p. 60).
"It was simply the natural result of Puritanical teaching acting on the mind, predisposing men to see Satanic influence in life, and consequently eliciting the phenomena of witchcraft." LECKY's Rationalism in Europe (Vol. I, p. 123).
"It was simply the result of strict Puritan teachings affecting people's thoughts, causing them to see the presence of evil in life, which ultimately led to the events related to witchcraft." LECKY's Rationalism in Europe (Vol. I, p. 123).
Witchcraft's reign in many lands and among many peoples is also attested in its remarkable nomenclature. Consider its range in ancient, medieval and modern thought as shown in some of its definitions: Magic, sorcery, soothsaying, necromancy, astrology, wizardry, mysticism, occultism, and conjuring, of the early and middle ages; compacts with Satan, consorting with evil spirits, and familiarity with the Devil, of later times; all at last ripening into an epidemic demonopathy with its countless victims of fanaticism and error, malevolence and terror, of persecution and ruthless sacrifices.
Witchcraft has had a strong presence in many places and among various groups, which is clear from its diverse terminology. Look at how it's perceived through ancient, medieval, and modern perspectives, as reflected in some of its definitions: Magic, sorcery, fortune-telling, necromancy, astrology, wizardry, mysticism, occultism, and conjuring from the early and middle ages; agreements with Satan, interacting with evil spirits, and being on familiar terms with the Devil in later times; all ultimately culminating in a widespread demonopathy with countless victims of fanaticism and misconceptions, malice and fear, persecution and merciless sacrifices.
It is still most potent in its evil, grotesque, and barbaric forms, in Fetichism, Voodooism, Bundooism, Obeahism, and Kahunaism, in the devil and animal ghost worship of the black races, completely exemplified in the arts of the Fetich wizard on the Congo; in the "Uchawi" of the Wasequhha mentioned by Stanley; in the marriage customs of the Soudan devil worshipers; in the practices of the Obeah men and women in the Caribbees—notably their power in matters of love and business, religion and war—in Jamaica; in the incantations of the kahuna in Hawaii; and in the devices of the voodoo or conjure doctor in the southern states; in the fiendish rites and ceremonies of the red men,—the Hoch-e-ayum of the Plains Indians, the medicine dances of the Cheyennes and Arapahoes, the fire dance of the Navajos, the snake dance of the Moquis, the sun dance of the Sioux, in the myths and tales of the Cherokees; and it rings in many tribal chants and songs of the East and West.
It remains most powerful in its evil, grotesque, and barbaric forms, in Fetishism, Voodooism, Bundooism, Obeahism, and Kahunaism, in the worship of devils and animal spirits amongst black communities, clearly illustrated in the practices of the Fetish wizard in the Congo; in the "Uchawi" of the Wasequhha mentioned by Stanley; in the marriage traditions of the Sudanese devil worshipers; in the practices of the Obeah men and women in the Caribbean—especially their influence in matters of love and business, religion and war—in Jamaica; in the incantations of the kahuna in Hawaii; and in the methods of the voodoo or conjure doctor in the southern states; in the sinister rituals and ceremonies of Native Americans—the Hoch-e-ayum of the Plains Indians, the medicine dances of the Cheyennes and Arapahoes, the fire dance of the Navajos, the snake dance of the Moquis, the sun dance of the Sioux, woven into the myths and stories of the Cherokees; and it resonates in many tribal chants and songs of both the East and West.
It lives as well, and thrives luxuriantly, ripe for the full vintage, in the minds of many people to whom this or that trivial incident or accident of life is an omen of good or evil fortune with a mysterious parentage. Its roots strike deep in that strange element in human nature which dreads whatsoever is weird and uncanny in common experiences, and sees strange portents and dire chimeras in all that is unexplainable to the senses. It is made most virile in the desire for knowledge of the invisible and intangible, that must ever elude the keenest inquiry, a phase of thought always to be reckoned with when imagination runs riot, and potent in its effect, though evanescent as a vision the brain sometimes retains of a dream, and as senseless in the cold light of reason as Monna Sidonia's invocation at the Witches' Sabbath: (Romance of Leonardo da Vinci, p. 97, MEREJKOWSKI.)
It lives on and thrives abundantly, ready for the full harvest, in the minds of many people, to whom any small event or accident in life is seen as a sign of good or bad luck with a mysterious origin. Its roots dig deep into that strange part of human nature which fears anything odd or eerie in everyday experiences and perceives strange omens and terrifying illusions in everything that can't be explained by the senses. It becomes most powerful in the quest for understanding the invisible and intangible, which always slips away from the most intense scrutiny; this way of thinking is always a factor when imagination runs wild, and it has a powerful impact, though fleeting like a vision the mind sometimes remembers from a dream, and as illogical in the cold light of reason as Monna Sidonia's summoning at the Witches' Sabbath: (Romance of Leonardo da Vinci, p. 97, MEREJKOWSKI.)
And who may count himself altogether free from the subtle power of the old mystery with its fantastic imageries, when the spirit of unrest is abroad? Who is not moved by it in the awesome stillness of night on the plains, or in the silence of the mountains or of the somber forest aisles; in wild winter nights when old tales are told; in fireside visions as tender memories come and go? And who, when listening to the echoes of the chambers of the restless sea when deep calleth unto deep, does not hear amid them some weird and haunting refrain like Leland's sea song?
And who can say they're completely free from the subtle influence of the old mystery with its incredible imagery when there's a spirit of restlessness in the air? Who isn't touched by it in the eerie quiet of the night on the plains, or in the stillness of the mountains or the dark forest paths; during wild winter nights when old stories are shared; or in the cozy visions by the fire as sweet memories come and go? And who, while listening to the echoes from the restless sea where the deep calls to the deep, doesn't hear some strange and haunting refrain like Leland's sea song?
"I saw three witches as the wind blew cold
In a red light to the lee;
Bold they were and overbold
As they sailed over the sea;
Calling for One Two Three;
Calling for One Two Three;
And I think I can hear
It a ringing in my ear,
A-calling for the One, Two, Three."
"I saw three witches as the chilly wind blew."
At a red light by the shore;
They were bold and cocky.
As they traveled across the sea;
Calling for One Two Three;
Calling for 1 2 3;
And I think I can hear
It's ringing in my ear,
"Calling for the One, Two, Three."
Above all, in its literature does witchcraft exhibit the conclusive proof of its age, its hydra-headed forms, and its influence in the intellectual and spiritual development of the races of men.
Above all, witchcraft reveals its age, its many different forms, and its impact on the intellectual and spiritual growth of humanity through its literature.
What of this literature? Count in it all the works that treat of the subject in its many phases, and its correlatives, and it is limitless, a literature of all times and all lands.
What about this literature? If you include all the works that explore the subject in its various aspects and related topics, it’s endless—a literature from all times and all places.
Christian and pagan gave it place in their religions, dogmas, and articles of faith and discipline, and in their codes of law; and for four hundred years, from the appeal of Pope John XXII, in 1320, to extirpate the Devil-worshipers, to the repeal of the statute of James I in 1715, the delusion gave point and force to treatises, sermons, romances, and folk-lore, and invited, nay, compelled, recognition at the hands of the scientist and legist, the historian, the poet and the dramatist, the theologian and philosopher.
Christian and pagan beliefs incorporated it into their religions, doctrines, and core principles of faith and practice, as well as in their legal codes. For four hundred years, from Pope John XXII's appeal in 1320 to eliminate Devil-worshipers to the repeal of James I's statute in 1715, the delusion fueled and shaped essays, sermons, stories, and folklore, and demanded acknowledgment from scientists, lawmakers, historians, poets, playwrights, theologians, and philosophers.
But the monographic literature of witchcraft, as it is here considered, is limited, in the opinion of a scholar versed in its lore, to fifteen hundred titles. There is a mass of unpublished materials in libraries and archives at home and abroad, and of information as to witchcraft and the witch trials, accessible in court records, depositions, and current accounts in public and private collections, all awaiting the coming of some master hand to transform them into an exhaustive history of the most grievous of human superstitions.
But the specialized literature on witchcraft, as discussed here, is, according to an expert knowledgeable about its history, limited to fifteen hundred titles. There’s a wealth of unpublished materials in libraries and archives both domestically and internationally, as well as information on witchcraft and the witch trials found in court records, testimonies, and ongoing accounts in public and private collections, all waiting for a skilled researcher to turn them into a comprehensive history of this tragic human superstition.
To this day, there has been no thorough investigation or complete analysis of the history of the witch persecutions. The true story has been distorted by partisanship and ignorance, and left to exploitation by the romancer, the empiric, and the sciolist.
To this day, there hasn’t been a comprehensive investigation or full analysis of the history of witch hunts. The real story has been twisted by bias and ignorance, allowing for exploitation by storytellers, self-proclaimed experts, and superficial thinkers.
"Of the origin and nature of the delusion we know perhaps enough; but of the causes and paths of its spread, of the extent of its ravages, of its exact bearing upon the intellectual and religious freedom of its times, of the soul-stirring details of the costly struggle by which it was overborne we are lamentably ill informed." (The Literature of Witchcraft, p. 66, BURR.)
"While we might have a decent understanding of the origin and nature of the delusion, we lack sufficient knowledge about how it spread, the extent of the damage it caused, its impact on the intellectual and religious freedoms of the time, and the gripping details of the expensive struggle that ultimately defeated it." (The Literature of Witchcraft, p. 66, BURR.)
Modern scholarship holds that witchcraft, with the Devil as the arch enemy of mankind for its cornerstone, was first exploited by the Dominicans of the Inquisition. They blazed the tortuous way for the scholastic theology which in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries gave new recognition to Satan and his satellites as the sworn enemies of God and his church, and the Holy Inquisition with its massive enginery, open and secret, turned its attention to the exposure and extirpation of the heretics and sinners who were enlisted in the Devil's service.
Modern scholarship suggests that witchcraft, centered around the Devil as humanity's main adversary, was first used by the Dominicans of the Inquisition. They paved the complicated path for scholastic theology, which in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, redefined Satan and his followers as the declared enemies of God and His church. The Holy Inquisition, with its extensive resources, both overt and covert, focused on uncovering and eliminating the heretics and sinners aligned with the Devil’s cause.
Take for adequate illustration these standard authorities in the early periods of the widespread and virulent epidemic:
Take, for a clear example, these recognized sources from the early days of the widespread and aggressive epidemic:
Those of the Inquisitor General, Eymeric, in 1359, entitled Tractatus contra dæmonum; the Formicarius or Ant Hill of the German Dominican Nider, 1337; the De calcatione dæmonum, 1452; the Flagellum hæreticorum fascinariorum of the French Inquisitor Jaquier in 1458; and the Fortalitium fidei of the Spanish Franciscan Alonso de Spina, in 1459; the famous and infamous manual of arguments and rules of procedure for the detection and punishment of witches, compiled by the German Inquisitors Krämer and Sprenger (Institor) in 1489, buttressed on the bull of Pope Innocent VIII; (this was the celebrated Witch Hammer, bearing on its title page the significant legend, "Not to believe in witchcraft is the greatest of heresies"); the Canon Episcopi; the bulls of Popes John XXII, 1330, Innocent VIII, 1484, Alexander VI, 1494, Leo X, 1521, and Adrian VI, 1522; the Decretals of the canon law; the exorcisms of the Roman and Greek churches, all hinged on scriptural precedents; the Roman law, the Twelve Tables, and the Justinian Code, the last three imposing upon the crimes of conjuring, exorcising, magical arts, offering sacrifices to the injury of one's neighbors, sorcery, and witchcraft, the penalties of death by torture, fire, or crucifixion.
Those of the Inquisitor General, Eymeric, in 1359, titled Tractatus contra dæmonum; the Formicarius or Ant Hill of the German Dominican Nider, 1337; the De calcatione dæmonum, 1452; the Flagellum hæreticorum fascinariorum by the French Inquisitor Jaquier in 1458; and the Fortalitium fidei by the Spanish Franciscan Alonso de Spina, in 1459; the well-known and controversial manual of arguments and procedures for identifying and punishing witches, compiled by the German Inquisitors Krämer and Sprenger (Institor) in 1489, supported by the bull of Pope Innocent VIII; (this was the famous Witch Hammer, which featured the notable phrase, "Not to believe in witchcraft is the greatest of heresies"); the Canon Episcopi; the bulls of Popes John XXII, 1330, Innocent VIII, 1484, Alexander VI, 1494, Leo X, 1521, and Adrian VI, 1522; the Decretals of canon law; the exorcisms of the Roman and Greek churches, all based on scriptural precedents; the Roman law, the Twelve Tables, and the Justinian Code, all three imposing penalties of death by torture, fire, or crucifixion for crimes of conjuring, exorcising, magical practices, offering sacrifices that harm others, sorcery, and witchcraft.
Add to these classics some of the later authorities: the Dæmonologie of the royal inquisitor James I of England and Scotland, 1597; Mores' Antidote to Atheism; Fuller's Holy and Profane State; Granvil's Sadducismus Triumphatus, 1681; Tryal of Witches at the Assizes for the County of Suffolk before Sir Matthew Hale, March, 1664 (London, 1682); Baxter's Certainty of the World of Spirits, 1691; Cotton Mather's A Discourse on Witchcraft, 1689, his Late Memorable Providences Relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions, 1684, and his Wonders of the Invisible World, 1692; and enough references have been made to this literature of delusion, to the precedents that seared the consciences of courts and juries in their sentences of men, women, and children to death by the rack, the wheel, the stake, and the gallows.
Add to these classics some of the later authorities: the Dæmonologie of the royal inquisitor James I of England and Scotland, 1597; Mores' Antidote to Atheism; Fuller's Holy and Profane State; Granvil's Sadducismus Triumphatus, 1681; Tryal of Witches at the Assizes for the County of Suffolk before Sir Matthew Hale, March, 1664 (London, 1682); Baxter's Certainty of the World of Spirits, 1691; Cotton Mather's A Discourse on Witchcraft, 1689, his Late Memorable Providences Relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions, 1684, and his Wonders of the Invisible World, 1692; and enough references have been made to this literature of delusion, to the precedents that scarred the consciences of courts and juries in their decisions sentencing men, women, and children to death by torture, execution, and hanging.
Where in history are the horrors of the curse more graphically told than in the words of Canon Linden, an eye witness of the demonic deeds at Trier (Treves) in 1589?
Where in history are the horrors of the curse more vividly described than in the words of Canon Linden, a witness to the demonic acts in Trier (Treves) in 1589?
"And so, from court to court throughout the towns and villages of all the diocese, scurried special accusers, inquisitors, notaries, jurors, judges, constables, dragging to trial and torture human beings of both sexes and burning them in great numbers. Scarcely any of those who were accused escaped punishment. Nor were there spared even the leading men in the city of Trier. For the Judge, with two Burgomasters, several Councilors and Associate Judges, canons of sundry collegiate churches, parish-priests, rural deans, were swept away in this ruin. So far, at length, did the madness of the furious populace and of the courts go in this thirst for blood and booty that there was scarcely anybody who was not smirched by some suspicion of this crime.
"And so, from court to court across all the towns and villages of the diocese, special accusers, inquisitors, notaries, jurors, judges, and constables hurried to drag both men and women to trial and torture, burning them in large numbers. Almost none of those accused escaped punishment. Even the prominent figures in the city of Trier were not spared. The Judge, along with two Burgomasters, several Councilors and Associate Judges, canons from various collegiate churches, parish priests, and rural deans were all caught up in this destruction. The madness of the enraged populace and the courts in their bloodlust and greed reached such a height that hardly anyone was free from some suspicion of this crime."
"Meanwhile notaries, copyists, and innkeepers grew rich. The executioner rode a blooded horse, like a noble of the court, and went clad in gold and silver; his wife vied with noble dames in the richness of her array. The children of those convicted and punished were sent into exile; their goods were confiscated; plowman and vintner failed." (The Witch Persecutions, pp. 13-14, BURR.)
"Meanwhile, notaries, copyists, and innkeepers got rich. The executioner rode a fine horse, like a noble from the court, and dressed in gold and silver; his wife competed with noble ladies in the luxury of her clothing. The children of those who were convicted and punished were exiled; their possessions were seized; farmers and winemakers struggled." (The Witch Persecutions, pp. 13-14, BURR.)
Fanaticism did not rule and ruin without hindrance and remonstrance. Men of great learning and exalted position struck mighty blows at the root of the evil. They could not turn the tide but they stemmed it, and their attacks upon the whole theory of Satanic power and the methods of persecution were potent in the reaction to humanity and a reign of reason.
Fanaticism didn't dominate and destroy without opposition. Influential scholars and high-ranking individuals made strong efforts to challenge it. They couldn’t completely change the situation, but they slowed it down, and their criticisms of the entire idea of Satanic power and the tactics of persecution played a significant role in the push for human rights and rational thought.
Always to be remembered among these men of power are Johann Wier, Friedrich Spee, and notably Reginald Scot, who in his Discovery of Witchcraft, in 1584, undertook to prove that "the contracts and compacts of witches with devils and all infernal spirits and familiars, are but erroneous novelties and erroneous conceptions."
Always to be remembered among these powerful individuals are Johann Wier, Friedrich Spee, and especially Reginald Scot, who in his Discovery of Witchcraft, published in 1584, aimed to demonstrate that "the agreements and deals of witches with devils and all infernal spirits and familiars, are simply misguided trends and false ideas."
"After all it is setting a high value on our conjectures to roast a man alive on account of them." (MONTAIGNE.)
"After all, it's quite extreme to value our guesses so much that we would roast a man alive because of them." (MONTAIGNE.)
Who may measure in romance and the drama the presence, the cogent and undeniable power of those same abiding elements of mysticism and mystery, which underlie all human experience, and repeated in myriad forms find their classic expression in the queries of the "Weird Sisters," "those elemental avengers without sex or kin"?
Who can gauge in love and drama the presence, the clear and undeniable strength of those lasting elements of mysticism and mystery that underpin all human experience, and which, repeated in countless forms, find their classic expression in the questions of the "Weird Sisters," "those elemental avengers without sex or kin"?
Are not the mummeries of the witches about the cauldron in Macbeth, and Talbot's threat pour la Pucelle,
Are not the antics of the witches around the cauldron in Macbeth, and Talbot's threat to the Maid,
"Blood will I draw on thee, thou art a witch,"
"I’m going to take your blood; you’re a witch."
uttered so long ago, echoed in the wailing cry of La Meffraye in the forests of Machecoul, in the maledictions of Grio, and of the Saga of the Burning Fields?
uttered so long ago, echoed in the wailing cry of La Meffraye in the forests of Machecoul, in the curses of Grio, and of the Saga of the Burning Fields?
Their vitality is also clearly shown in their constant use and exemplification by the romance and novel writers who appeal with certainty and success to the popular taste in the tales of spectral terrors. Witness: Farjeon's The Turn of the Screw; Bierce's The Damned Thing; Bulwer's A Strange Story; Cranford's Witch of Prague; Howells' The Shadow of a Dream; Winthrop's Cecil Dreeme; Grusot's Night Side of Nature; Crockett's Black Douglas; and The Red Axe, Francis' Lychgate Hall; Caine's The Shadow of a Crime; and countless other stories, traditions, tales, and legends, written and unwritten, that invite and receive a gracious hospitality on every hand.
Their vitality is also clearly demonstrated in the constant use and examples provided by romance and novel writers who successfully appeal to popular tastes with tales of ghostly horrors. For instance: Farjeon's The Turn of the Screw; Bierce's The Damned Thing; Bulwer's A Strange Story; Cranford's Witch of Prague; Howells' The Shadow of a Dream; Winthrop's Cecil Dreeme; Grusot's Night Side of Nature; Crockett's Black Douglas; and The Red Axe; Francis' Lychgate Hall; Caine's The Shadow of a Crime; and numerous other stories, traditions, tales, and legends, both written and unwritten, that are welcomed and embraced everywhere.
CHAPTER III
"A belief in witchcraft had always existed; it was entertained by Coke, Bacon, Hale and even Blackstone. It was a misdemeanor at English common law and made a felony without benefit of clergy by 33 Henry VIII, c. 8, and 5 Eliz., c. 16, and the more severe statute of I Jas. 1, ch. 12." Connecticut—Origin of her Courts and Laws (N.E. States, Vol I, p. 487-488), HAMERSLEY.
Belief in witchcraft has always been present; it was backed by figures like Coke, Bacon, Hale, and even Blackstone. It was classified as a misdemeanor under English common law and became a felony without clergy's benefit by 33 Henry VIII, c. 8, and 5 Eliz., c. 16, along with the stricter law of I Jas. 1, ch. 12. Connecticut—Origin of her Courts and Laws (N.E. States, Vol I, p. 487-488), HAMERSLEY.
"Selden took up a somewhat peculiar and characteristic position. He maintained that the law condemning women to death for witchcraft was perfectly just, but that it was quite unnecessary to ascertain whether witchcraft was a possibility. A woman might not be able to destroy the life of her neighbor by her incantations; but if she intended to do so, it was right that she should be hung." Rationalism in Europe (Vol. 1, p. 123) LECKY.
Selden took a somewhat unique and distinctive position. He claimed that the laws sentencing women to death for witchcraft were completely justified, but it was entirely unnecessary to figure out if witchcraft was actually real. A woman might not be able to kill her neighbor with her spells; however, if she intended to do so, it was fair for her to face execution. Rationalism in Europe (Vol. 1, p. 123) LECKY.
The fundamental authority for legislation, for the decrees of courts and councils as to witchcraft, from the days of the Witch of Endor to those of Mercy Disborough of Fairfield, and Giles Corey of Salem Farms, was the code of the Hebrews and its recognition in the Gospel dispensations. Thereon rest most of the historic precedents, legislative, ecclesiastical, and judicial.
The main basis for laws, court rulings, and council decisions regarding witchcraft, from the time of the Witch of Endor to Mercy Disborough of Fairfield and Giles Corey of Salem Farms, was the Hebrew code and its acknowledgment in the Gospel teachings. Most of the historical precedents—legislative, ecclesiastical, and judicial—are built on this foundation.
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus xxii, 18.
"Do not allow a witch to live." Exodus xxii, 18.
What law embalmed in ancientry and honored as of divine origin has been more fruitful of sacrifice and suffering? Through the Scriptures, gathering potency as it goes, runs the same grim decree, with widening definitions.
What law, preserved in ancient times and regarded as having divine origins, has resulted in more sacrifice and suffering? Throughout the Scriptures, the same harsh command runs, gaining intensity as it unfolds, with broader definitions.
"There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer." Deuteronomy xviii, 10-11.
"There should not be anyone among you who makes his son or daughter pass through the fire, practices divination, observes times, enchants, consults familiar spirits, is a wizard, or a necromancer." Deuteronomy xviii, 10-11.
"Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards out of the land." Samuel i, 3.
"Saul had banished those who practiced witchcraft and the mediums from the land." Samuel i, 3.
"Now Saul the king of the Hebrews, had cast out of the country the fortune tellers, and the necromancers, and all such as exercised the like arts, excepting the prophets.... Yet did he bid his servants to inquire out for him some woman that was a necromancer, and called up the souls of the dead, that so he might know whether his affairs would succeed to his mind; for this sort of necromantic women that bring up the souls of the dead, do by them foretell future events." Josephus, Book 6, ch. 14.
"Now Saul, the king of the Hebrews, had banished all the fortune tellers, necromancers, and others who practiced similar arts, except for the prophets.... Yet he instructed his servants to find a woman who was a necromancer and could summon the souls of the dead, so he could know if his plans would work out; because these kinds of necromancers, who bring up the souls of the dead, predict future events by doing so." Josephus, Book 6, ch. 14.
"For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft." Samuel i, 15-23.
"For rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft." Samuel i, 15-23.
"And I will cut off witchcraft out of the land." Micah v. 12.
"And I will eliminate witchcraft from the land." Micah v. 12.
"Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together and burned them." Acts xix, 19.
"Many of those who practiced magic gathered their books and burned them." Acts xix, 19.
"But there was a certain man called Simon which beforetime in the same city used sorcery and bewitched the people of Samaria." Acts viii, 9.
"But there was a man named Simon who had previously practiced sorcery in that city and amazed the people of Samaria." Acts viii, 9.
"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."[C] John xv, 6.
"If a man does not remain in me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up; people gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."[C] John xv, 6.
[C] In the opinion of the eminent Italian jurist Bartolo, witches were burned alive in early times on this authority.
[C] According to the respected Italian legal scholar Bartolo, witches were set on fire in the past based on this belief.
These citations make clear the scriptural recognition of witchcraft as a heinous sin and crime. It is, however, necessary to draw a broad line of demarcation between the ancient forms and manifestations which have been brought into view for an illustrative purpose, and that delusion or mania which centered in the theologic belief and teaching that Satan was the arch enemy of mankind, and clothed with such power over the souls of men as to make compacts with them, and to hold supremacy over them in the warfare between good and evil.
These citations clearly show that scripture recognizes witchcraft as a serious sin and crime. However, it's important to differentiate between the ancient forms and examples that have been highlighted for illustration and the delusion or obsession that arose from the theological belief and teaching that Satan was humanity's ultimate enemy, possessing enough power over people's souls to make deals with them and to have control over them in the struggle between good and evil.
The church from its earliest history looked upon witchcraft as a deadly sin, and disbelief in it as a heresy, and set its machinery in motion for its extirpation. Its authority was the word of God and the civil law, and it claimed jurisdiction through the ecclesiastical courts, the secular courts, however, acting as the executive of their decrees and sentences.
The church, from its earliest days, viewed witchcraft as a serious sin and any disbelief in it as heresy, mobilizing its resources to eliminate it. Its authority was based on the word of God and civil law, and it claimed jurisdiction through ecclesiastical courts, with secular courts serving as the enforcers of their decisions and sentences.
Such was the cardinal principle which governed in the merciless attempts to suppress the epidemic in spreading from the continent to England and Scotland, and at last to the Puritan colonies in America, where the last chapter of its history was written.
Such was the essential principle that guided the ruthless efforts to stop the epidemic from spreading from the continent to England and Scotland, and finally to the Puritan colonies in America, where the final chapter of its history was written.
There can be no better, no more comprehensive modern definition of the crime once a heresy, or of the popular conception of it, than the one set forth in the New England indictments, to wit: "interteining familiarity with Satan the enemy of mankind, and by his help doing works above the course of nature."
There can be no better, no more comprehensive modern definition of the crime that was once considered heresy, or of the way people think about it, than the one presented in the New England indictments, which states: "maintaining close relations with Satan, the enemy of humanity, and with his help performing acts beyond the ordinary course of nature."
In few words Henry Charles Lea, in his History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages, analyzes the development of the Satanic doctrine from a superstition into its acceptance as a dogma of Christian belief.
In a few words, Henry Charles Lea, in his History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages, examines how the belief in Satan evolved from a superstition into a core part of Christian doctrine.
"As Satan's principal object in his warfare with God was to seduce human souls from their divine allegiance, he was ever ready with whatever temptation seemed most likely to effect his purpose. Some were to be won by physical indulgence; others by conferring on them powers enabling them apparently to forecast the future, to discover hidden things, to gratify enmity, and to acquire wealth, whether through forbidden arts or by the services of a familiar demon subject to their orders. As the neophyte in receiving baptism renounced the devil, his pomps and his angels, it was necessary for the Christian who desired the aid of Satan to renounce God. Moreover, as Satan when he tempted Christ offered him the kingdoms of the earth in return for adoration—'If thou therefore wilt worship me all shall be thine' (Luke iv, 7)—there naturally arose the idea that to obtain this aid it was necessary to render allegiance to the prince of hell. Thence came the idea, so fruitful in the development of sorcery, of compacts with Satan by which sorcerers became his slaves, binding themselves to do all the evil they could to follow their example. Thus the sorcerer or witch was an enemy of all the human race as well as of God, the most efficient agent of hell in its sempiternal conflict with heaven. His destruction, by any method, was therefore the plainest duty of man.
As Satan's main goal in his battle with God was to lure human souls away from their divine loyalty, he was always ready with whatever temptation seemed most likely to achieve his aim. Some people were tempted by physical pleasures; others were drawn in by promises of powers that allowed them to predict the future, uncover secrets, settle grudges, and gain wealth, whether through forbidden means or with the help of a familiar demon under their control. When a new Christian was baptized, they renounced the devil, his allure, and his angels, so anyone who wanted Satan's help had to renounce God. Additionally, when Satan tempted Christ by offering him the kingdoms of the earth in exchange for worship—“If you will worship me, all will be yours” (Luke iv, 7)—it naturally led to the belief that to receive his assistance, one needed to pledge loyalty to the prince of darkness. This led to the concept, which greatly influenced the rise of sorcery, of forming pacts with Satan in which sorcerers became his followers, committing themselves to do as much evil as possible to mimic him. Consequently, the sorcerer or witch became an enemy of all humankind as well as of God, serving as one of hell's most effective agents in its eternal struggle against heaven. Therefore, their destruction by any means was seen as a clear obligation for humanity.
Once the widespread superstition became adapted to the forms of religious faith and discipline, and "the prince of the power of the air" was clothed with new energies, the Devil was taken broader account of by Christianity itself; the sorcery of the ancients was embodied in the Christian conception of witchcraft; and the church undertook to deal with it as a heresy; the door was opened wide to the sweep of the epidemic in some of the continental lands.
Once widespread superstitions blended into religious beliefs and practices, and "the prince of the power of the air" was given new strengths, Christianity began to take a closer look at the Devil. The magic of ancient times was incorporated into the Christian idea of witchcraft, and the church sought to address it as a heresy; this allowed for the rapid spread of the phenomenon in some European countries.
In Bamburg and Wurzburg, Geneva and Como, Toulouse and Lorraine, and in many other places in Italy, Germany, and France, thousands were sacrificed in the names of religion, justice, and law, with bigotry for their advocate, ignorance for their judge, and fanaticism for their executioner. The storm of demonism raged through three centuries, and was stayed only by the mighty barriers of protest, of inquiry, of remonstrance, and the forces that crystallize and mold public opinion, which guides the destinies of men in their march to a higher civilization.
In Bamberg and Würzburg, Geneva and Como, Toulouse and Lorraine, and many other places in Italy, Germany, and France, thousands were sacrificed in the names of religion, justice, and law, with bigotry as their advocate, ignorance as their judge, and fanaticism as their executioner. The storm of demonism raged for three centuries and was only halted by the powerful barriers of protest, inquiry, remonstrance, and the forces that shape and influence public opinion, which directs the destinies of people in their journey to a higher civilization.
The flames burning so long and so fiercely on the continent at first spread slowly in England and Scotland. Sorcery in some of its guises had obtained therein ever since the Conquest, and victims had been burned under the king's writ after sentence in the ecclesiastical courts; but witchcraft as a compact with Satan was not made a felony until 1541, by a statute of Henry VIII. Cranmer, in his Articles of Visitation in 1549, enjoined the clergy to inquire as to any craft invented by the Devil; and Bishop Jewell, preaching before the queen in 1558, said:
The flames that burned so long and so fiercely on the continent initially spread slowly in England and Scotland. Sorcery in its various forms had existed there since the Conquest, and victims had been burned under the king's authority following sentences from the ecclesiastical courts; however, witchcraft as a pact with Satan wasn't considered a felony until 1541, when a statute was passed by Henry VIII. Cranmer, in his Articles of Visitation in 1549, instructed the clergy to investigate any craft created by the Devil; and Bishop Jewell, preaching before the queen in 1558, said:
"It may please your Grace to understand that witches and sorcerers within these last few years are marvelously increased within your Grace's realm, Your Grace's subjects pine away even unto the death, their colour fadeth, their flesh rotteth, their speech is benumbed, their senses are bereft."
"It may please Your Grace to know that witches and sorcerers have remarkably increased in Your Grace's realm over the last few years. Your Grace's subjects are suffering greatly, even to the point of death; their color fades, their flesh decays, their speech is stilled, and their senses are lost."
The act of 1541 was amended in Queen Elizabeth's reign, in 1562, but at the accession of James I—himself a fanatic and bigot in religious matters, and the author of the famous Dæmonologie—a new law was enacted with exact definition of the crime, which remained in force more than a hundred years. Its chief provision was this:
The act of 1541 was updated during Queen Elizabeth's rule in 1562, but when James I came to the throne—who was himself quite fanatical and bigoted about religion and the author of the well-known Dæmonologie—a new law was put in place that clearly defined the crime, and it stayed in effect for over a hundred years. Its main provision was this:
"If any person or persons use, practice or exercise any invocation or conjuration of any evil and wicked spirit, or shall consult, covenant with, entertain, employ, feed or reward any evil and wicked spirit to or for any intent or purpose, or take up any dead man, woman, or child out of his, her or their grave, or any other place where the dead body resteth or the skin, bone, or any part of any dead person, to be employed or used in any manner of witchcraft, sorcery, charm, or enchantment, or shall use, practise, or exercise any witchcraft, enchantment, charm, or sorcery, whereby any person shall be killed, destroyed, wasted, consumed, pined or lamed in his or her body or any part thereof: every such offender is a felon without benefit of clergy."
"If anyone uses, practices, or performs any invocation or summoning of an evil spirit, or consults, makes a deal with, entertains, employs, feeds, or rewards any evil spirit for any purpose, or takes any dead person—man, woman, or child—out of their grave or any place where their body rests, or any part of a dead person, to be used in any form of witchcraft, sorcery, charm, or enchantment, or uses, practices, or exercises any witchcraft, enchantment, charm, or sorcery that harms or kills another person: every such offender is guilty of a felony without the possibility of clergy."
Under this law, and the methods of its administration, witchcraft so called increased; persecutions multiplied, especially under the Commonwealth, and notably in the eastern counties of England, whence so many of all estates, all sorts and conditions of men, had fled over seas to set up the standard of independence in the Puritan colonies.
Under this law and its enforcement methods, witchcraft as it was called increased; persecutions grew, especially during the Commonwealth, and particularly in the eastern counties of England, from which many people of all classes and backgrounds had fled overseas to establish the banner of independence in the Puritan colonies.
Many executions occurred in Lancashire, in Suffolk, Essex, and Huntingdonshire, where the infamous scoundrel "Witch-finder-General" Matthew Hopkins, under the sanction of the courts, was "pricking," "waking," "watching," and "testing" persons suspected or accused of witchcraft, with fiendish ingenuity of indignity and torture. Says James Howell in his Familiar Letters, in 1646:
Many executions took place in Lancashire, Suffolk, Essex, and Huntingdonshire, where the notorious "Witch-finder General" Matthew Hopkins, with the courts' approval, was "pricking," "waking," "watching," and "testing" people suspected or accused of witchcraft, using cruel and inventive methods of humiliation and torture. James Howell mentions in his Familiar Letters, in 1646:
"We have multitudes of witches among us; for in Essex and Suffolk there were above two hundred indicted within these two years, and above the half of them executed."
"We have many witches among us; in Essex and Suffolk, more than two hundred were indicted in the past two years, and over half of them were executed."
"Within the compass of two years (1645-7), near upon three hundred witches were arraigned, and the major part of them executed in Essex and Suffolk only. Scotland swarms with them more and more, and persons of good quality are executed daily."
"Within a span of two years (1645-7), nearly three hundred witches were brought to trial, and most of them were executed in Essex and Suffolk alone. Scotland is increasingly overrun with them, and people of good standing are being executed every day."
Scotland set its seal on witchcraft as a crime by an act of its parliament so early as 1563, amended in 1649. The ministers were the inquisitors and persecutors. They heard the confessions, and inflicted the tortures, and their cruelties were commensurate with the hard and fast theology that froze the blood of mercy in their veins.
Scotland officially labeled witchcraft as a crime with a parliamentary act as early as 1563, which was updated in 1649. The ministers acted as the inquisitors and persecutors. They listened to the confessions and carried out the tortures, and their cruelty matched the rigid theology that had drained compassion from their hearts.
The trials were often held by special commissions issued by the privy council, on the petition of a presbytery or general assembly. It was here that those terrible instruments of torture, the caschielawis, the lang irnis, the boot and the pilliewinkis, were used to wring confessions from the wretched victims. It is all a strange and gruesome story of horrors told in detail in the state trial records, and elsewhere, from the execution of Janet Douglas—Lady Glammis—to that of the poor old woman at Dornoch who warmed herself at the fire set for her burning. So firmly seated in the Scotch mind was the belief in witchcraft as a sin and crime, that when the laws against it were repealed in 1736, Scotchmen in the highest stations of church and state remonstrated against the repeal as contrary to the law of God; and William Forbes, in his "Institutes of the Law of Scotland," calls witchcraft "that black art whereby strange and wonderful things are wrought by a power derived from the devil."
The trials were often conducted by special commissions set up by the privy council, following a request from a presbytery or general assembly. It was here that horrifying torture devices, like the caschielawis, the lang irnis, the boot, and the pilliewinkis, were used to extract confessions from the unfortunate victims. It's a strange and gruesome story of horrors detailed in the state trial records and elsewhere, from the execution of Janet Douglas—Lady Glammis—to that of the poor old woman in Dornoch who stood by the fire that was lit for her burning. The belief in witchcraft as both a sin and a crime was so deeply rooted in the Scottish mindset that when the laws against it were repealed in 1736, prominent Scottish figures in church and state protested against the repeal, arguing it went against the law of God; and William Forbes, in his "Institutes of the Law of Scotland," describes witchcraft as "that black art whereby strange and wonderful things are wrought by a power derived from the devil."
This glance at what transpired on the continent and in England and Scotland is of value, in the light it throws on the beliefs and convictions of both Pilgrim and Puritan—Englishmen all—in their new domain, their implicit reliance on established precedents, their credulity in witchcraft matters, and their absolute trust in scriptural and secular authority for their judicial procedure, and the execution of the grim sentences of the courts, until the revolting work of the accuser and the searcher, and the delusion of the ministers and magistrates aflame with mistaken zeal vanished in the sober afterthought, the reaction of the public mind and conscience, which at last crushed the machinations of the Devil and his votaries in high places.
This look at what happened on the continent and in England and Scotland is important because it sheds light on the beliefs and convictions of both Pilgrims and Puritans—who were all Englishmen—in their new territory. It highlights their reliance on established precedents, their gullibility regarding witchcraft, and their total faith in both scriptural and secular authority when it came to judicial practices and carrying out the harsh sentences of the courts. This continued until the horrifying actions of the accusers and the seekers, along with the misguided zeal of the ministers and magistrates, were finally challenged by a more rational public opinion and conscience, which ultimately put an end to the schemes of the Devil and his followers in high positions.
CHAPTER IV
"Hence among all the superstitions that have 'stood over' from primeval ages, the belief in witchcraft has been the most deeply rooted and the most tenacious of life. In all times and places until quite lately, among the most advanced communities, the reality of witchcraft has been accepted without question, and scarcely any human belief is supported by so vast a quantity of recorded testimony."
"Among all the superstitions that have lasted since ancient times, the belief in witchcraft has been the most deeply rooted and the hardest to get rid of. Throughout history and in many regions, even in the most advanced societies until very recently, people have accepted the reality of witchcraft without question, and few beliefs are supported by as much documented evidence."
"Considering the fact that the exodus of Puritans to New England occurred during the reign of Charles I, while the persecutions for witchcraft were increasing toward a maximum in the mother country, it is rather strange that so few cases occurred in the New World." New France and New England (pp. 136-144), FISKE.
"Since the Puritans relocated to New England during King Charles I's reign, when witchcraft persecutions were at their height in England, it’s surprising that there were so few cases in the New World." New France and New England (pp. 136-144), FISKE.
The forefathers believed in witchcraft—entering into compacts with the Devil—and in all its diabolical subtleties. They had cogent reasons for their belief in example and experience. They set it down in their codes as a capital offense. They found, as has been shown abundant authority in the Bible and in the English precedents. They anchored their criminal codes as they did their theology in the wide and deep haven of the Old Testament decrees and prophecies and maledictions, and doubted not that "the Scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they are to perform to God and men."
The ancestors believed in witchcraft—making deals with the Devil—and all its sinister tricks. They had strong reasons for their beliefs based on examples and experiences. They wrote it into their laws as a serious crime. They found support in the Bible and in English legal precedents. They grounded their criminal laws, just as they did their religious beliefs, in the extensive teachings and prophecies of the Old Testament and didn’t doubt that "the Scriptures provide a complete guide for how everyone should act toward God and other people."
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Haven, early in their history enacted these capital laws:
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Haven, early in their history, established these capital laws:
In Massachusetts (1641):
In Massachusetts (1641):
"Witchcraft which is fellowship by covenant with a familiar spirit to be punished with death."
"Witchcraft, which involves a partnership through a pact with a familiar spirit, shall be punished by death."
"Consulters with witches not to be tolerated, but either to be cut off by death or banishment or other suitable punishment." (Abstract New England Laws, 1655.)
"Consulting with witches will not be tolerated and should either result in death, banishment, or another appropriate punishment." (Abstract New England Laws, 1655.)
In Connecticut (1642):
In Connecticut (1642):
"If any man or woman be a witch—that is, hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit—they shall be put to death." Exodus xxii, 18; Leviticus xx, 27; Deuteronomy xviii, 10, 11. (Colonial Records of Connecticut, Vol. I, p. 77).
"If any man or woman is a witch—that is, has or consults with a familiar spirit—they shall be put to death." Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10, 11. (Colonial Records of Connecticut, Vol. I, p. 77).
In New Haven (1655):
In New Haven (1655):
"If any person be a witch, he or she shall be put to death according to" Exodus xxii, 18; Leviticus xx, 27; Deuteronomy xviii, 10, 11. (New Haven Colonial Records, Vol. II, p. 576, Cod. 1655).
"If someone is a witch, they will be put to death according to" Exodus xxii, 18; Leviticus xx, 27; Deuteronomy xviii, 10, 11. (New Haven Colonial Records, Vol. II, p. 576, Cod. 1655).
These laws were authoritative until the epidemic had ceased.
These laws were in effect until the epidemic ended.
Witches were tried, condemned, and executed with no question as to due legal power, in the minds of juries, counsel, and courts, until the hour of reaction came, hastened by doubts and criticisms of the sources and character of evidence, and the magistrates and clergy halted in their prosecutions and denunciations of an alleged crime born of delusion, and nurtured by a theology run rampant.
Witches were tried, condemned, and executed without any real regard for legal procedures, in the minds of juries, lawyers, and judges, until a backlash occurred, fueled by doubts and criticisms about the quality and nature of the evidence. Eventually, the judges and clergy paused in their prosecutions and condemnations of a supposed crime created by hysteria and supported by an unchecked theology.
"They had not been taught to question the wisdom or the humanity of English criminal law." (Blue Laws—True and False, p. 15, TRUMBULL.)
"They hadn’t been taught to question the wisdom or the humanity of English criminal law." (Blue Laws—True and False, p. 15, TRUMBULL.)
Here and there in New England, following the great immigration from Old England, from 1630-40, during the Commonwealth, and to the Restoration, several cases of witchcraft occurred, but the mania did not set its seal on the minds of men, and inspire them to run amuck in their frenzy, until the days of the swift onset in Massachusetts and Connecticut in 1692, when the zenith of Satan's reign was reached in the Puritan colonies.
Here and there in New England, following the massive immigration from England between 1630-40, during the Commonwealth and up to the Restoration, several cases of witchcraft occurred, but the hysteria didn’t truly take hold of people's minds or drive them to act out in their frenzy until the rapid outbreak in Massachusetts and Connecticut in 1692, when the peak of Satan's influence was reached in the Puritan colonies.
A few words about the tragedy at Salem are relevant and essential. They are written because it was the last outbreak of epidemic demonopathy among the civilized peoples; it has been exploited by writers abroad, who have left the dreadful record of the treatment of the delusion in their own countries in the background; it was accompanied in some degree by like manifestations and methods of suppression in sister colonies; it was fanned into flames by men in high station who reveled in its merciless extirpation as a religious duty, and eased their consciences afterwards by contrition, confession and remorse, for their valiant service in the army of the theological devil; and especially for the contrasts it presents to the more cautious and saner methods of procedure that obtained in the governments of Connecticut and New Haven at the apogee of the delusion.
A few words about the tragedy in Salem are important and necessary. They are noted because it was the last major outbreak of mass hysteria due to witchcraft among civilized societies; it has been used by writers abroad, who have overshadowed their own countries' brutal treatment of similar delusions; it was also accompanied by similar events and methods of repression in nearby colonies; it was fueled by influential people who took pleasure in its ruthless elimination as a religious duty and later eased their consciences through regret, confession, and guilt for their brave service against what they saw as a theological evil; and especially for the contrasts it shows to the more cautious and sensible approaches taken by the governments of Connecticut and New Haven at the height of the delusion.
What say the historians and scholars, some of whose ancestors witnessed or participated in the tragedies, and whose acquaintance with the facts defies all challenge?
What do historians and scholars say, some of whose ancestors saw or took part in the tragedies, and whose knowledge of the facts is beyond question?
"It is on the whole the most gruesome episode in American history, and it sheds back a lurid light upon the long tale of witchcraft in the past." (Fiske's New France and New England, 195.)
"It is overall the most horrific episode in American history, and it casts a chilling light on the long story of witchcraft in the past." (Fiske's New France and New England, 195.)
"We are made partners in parish and village feuds. We share in the chimney corner gossip, and learn for the first time how many mean and merely human motives, whether consciously or unconsciously, gave impulse and intensity to the passions of the actors in that memorable tragedy which dealt the death blow in this country to the belief in Satanic compacts." (Among my Books—Witchcraft, p. 142, LOWELL.)
"We become involved in neighborhood and village conflicts. We participate in the gossip around the fireplace and discover for the first time how many petty and simply human reasons, whether intentional or unintentional, fueled the emotions of the people involved in that unforgettable tragedy that dealt a firm blow to the belief in Satanic agreements in this country." (Among my Books—Witchcraft, p. 142, LOWELL.)
"The tragedy was at an end. It lasted about six months, from the first accusations in March until the last executions in September.... It was an epidemic of mad superstitious fear, bitterly to be regretted, and a stain upon the high civilization of the Bay Colony." (Historic Towns of New England, Salem, p. 148, LATIMER.)
"The tragedy was over. It lasted about six months, from the first accusations in March until the last executions in September.... It was an outbreak of crazy superstitious fear, sadly regrettable, and a blemish on the advanced civilization of the Bay Colony." (Historic Towns of New England, Salem, p. 148, LATIMER.)
What was done at Salem, when the tempest of unreason broke loose? Who were the chief actors in it? This was done. From the first accusation in March, 1692, to the last execution in September, 1692, nineteen persons were hanged and one man was pressed to death[D] (no witch was ever burned in New England), hundreds of innocent men and women were imprisoned, or fled into exile or hiding places, their homes were broken up, their estates were ruined, and their families and friends were left in sorrow, anxiety, and desolation; and all this terrorism was wrought at the instance of the chief men in the communities, the magistrates, and the ministers.
What happened in Salem when the storm of irrationality unleashed? Who were the key figures involved? Here’s what occurred. From the first accusation in March 1692 to the last execution in September 1692, nineteen people were hanged and one man was pressed to death[D] (no witch was ever burned in New England). Hundreds of innocent men and women were imprisoned, while others fled into exile or hiding, their homes were shattered, their properties destroyed, and their families and friends left in grief, worry, and despair; all this terror was instigated by the leading figures in the communities, the magistrates, and the ministers.
[D] Fifty-five persons suffered torture, and twenty were executed before the delusion ended. Ency. Americana (Vol. 16, "Witchcraft").
[D] Fifty-five people were tortured, and twenty were executed before the frenzy came to an end. Ency. Americana (Vol. 16, "Witchcraft").
"The prisons in Salem, Ipswich, Boston, and Cambridge, were crowded. All the securities of society were dissolved. Every man's life was at the mercy of every man. Fear sat on every countenance, terror and distress were in all hearts, silence pervaded the streets; all who could, quit the country; business was at a stand; a conviction sunk into the minds of men, that a dark and infernal confederacy had got foot-hold in the land, threatening to overthrow and extirpate religion and morality, and establish the kingdom of the Prince of darkness in a country which had been dedicated, by the prayers and tears and sufferings of its pious fathers, to the Church of Christ and the service and worship of the true God. The feeling, dismal and horrible indeed, became general, that the providence of God was removed from them; that Satan was let loose, and he and his confederates had free and unrestrained power to go to and fro, torturing and destroying whomever he willed."
"The jails in Salem, Ipswich, Boston, and Cambridge were overcrowded. All the protections of society had shattered. Every person’s life was at the mercy of others. Fear was visible on every face, terror and distress filled every heart, and silence dominated the streets; everyone who could left the country; business ground to a halt; people were convinced that a dark and evil alliance had taken hold in the land, threatening to destroy religion and morality, and to establish the rule of the Prince of Darkness in a nation that had been dedicated, through the prayers, tears, and sacrifices of its devout ancestors, to the Church of Christ and the true worship of God. The overwhelming and dreadful feeling spread that God’s protection had vanished; that Satan was unleashed, and he and his followers had the freedom to roam, tormenting and destroying whomever they chose."
The trials were held by a Special Court, consisting of William Stoughton, Peter Sergeant, Nath. Saltonstall, Wait Winthrop, Bartho' Gedney, John Richards, Saml. Sewall, John Hathorne, Tho. Newton, and Jonathan Corwin,—not one of them a lawyer.
The trials were conducted by a Special Court made up of William Stoughton, Peter Sergeant, Nath. Saltonstall, Wait Winthrop, Bartho' Gedney, John Richards, Saml. Sewall, John Hathorne, Tho. Newton, and Jonathan Corwin—none of them were lawyers.
Whatever his associates may have thought of their ways of doing God's service, after the tragedy was over, Sewall, one of the most zealous of the justices, made a public confession of his errors before the congregation of the Old South Church, January 14, 1697. Were the agonizing groans of poor old Giles Corey, pressed to death under planks weighted with stones, or the prayers of the saintly Burroughs ringing in his ears?
Whatever his associates may have thought about their methods of serving God, after the tragedy was over, Sewall, one of the most passionate of the justices, publicly confessed his mistakes to the congregation of the Old South Church on January 14, 1697. Were the agonizing groans of poor old Giles Corey, pressed to death under planks weighted with stones, or the prayers of the saintly Burroughs echoing in his ears?
"The conduct of Judge Sewall claims our particular admiration. He observed annually in private a day of humiliation and prayer, during the remainder of his life, to keep fresh in his mind a sense of repentance and sorrow for the part he bore in the trials. On the day of the general fast, he arose in the place where he was accustomed to worship, the old South, in Boston, and in the presence of the great assembly, handed up to the pulpit a written confession, acknowledging the error into which he had been led, praying for the forgiveness of God and his people, and concluding with a request, to all the congregation to unite with him in devout supplication, that it might not bring down the displeasure of the Most High upon his country, his family, or himself. He remained standing during the public reading of the paper. This was an act of true manliness and dignity of soul." (Upham's Salem Witchcraft, Vol. II, p. 441).
"The actions of Judge Sewall deserve our special admiration. He observed a day of humiliation and prayer in private every year for the rest of his life to keep a sense of repentance and sorrow alive for the role he played in the trials. On the day of the general fast, he stood in his usual place of worship, the Old South in Boston, and in front of a large crowd, handed a written confession up to the pulpit, admitting the mistake he had made, asking for forgiveness from God and his community, and concluding with a plea for everyone in the congregation to join him in sincere prayer that it wouldn’t provoke the displeasure of the Most High upon his country, his family, or himself. He stayed standing during the public reading of the document. This was an act of true courage and dignity." (Upham's Salem Witchcraft, Vol. II, p. 441).
Grim, stern, narrow as he was, this man in his self-judgment commands the respect of all true men.
Grim, stern, and narrow-minded as he was, this man in his self-assessment commands the respect of all genuine men.
The ministers stood with the magistrates in their delusion and intemperate zeal. Two hundred and sixteen years after the last witch was hung in Massachusetts a clearer light falls on one of the striking personalities of the time—Cotton Mather—who to a recent date has been credited with the chief responsibility for the Salem prosecutions.
The ministers stood alongside the magistrates in their misguided beliefs and excessive enthusiasm. Two hundred and sixteen years after the last witch was executed in Massachusetts, we can see more clearly one of the notable figures of that time—Cotton Mather—who until recently was largely blamed for the Salem prosecutions.
Did he deserve it?
Did he earn it?
Robert Calef, in his More Wonders of the Invisible World, Bancroft in his History of the United States, and Charles W. Upham in his Salem Witchcraft, are the chief writers who have placed Mather in the foreground of those dreadful scenes, as the leading minister of the time, an active personal participant in the trials and executions, and a zealot in the maintenance of the ministerial dignity and domination.
Robert Calef, in his More Wonders of the Invisible World, Bancroft in his History of the United States, and Charles W. Upham in his Salem Witchcraft, are the main authors who have highlighted Mather in the center of those horrifying events, as the leading minister of the time, an active participant in the trials and executions, and a fervent supporter of ministerial authority and dominance.
On the other hand, the learned scholar, the late William Frederick Poole, first in the North American Review, in 1869, and again in his paper Witchcraft in Boston, in 1882, in the Memorial History of Boston, calls Calef an immature youth, and says that his obvious intent, and that of the several unknown contributors who aided him, was to malign the Boston ministers and to make a sensation.
On the other hand, the respected scholar, the late William Frederick Poole, first in the North American Review in 1869, and again in his paper Witchcraft in Boston in 1882, in the Memorial History of Boston, describes Calef as an inexperienced young man and states that his clear intent, along with the several unknown contributors who helped him, was to defame the Boston ministers and to create a stir.
And the late John Fiske, in his New France and New England (p. 155), holds that:
And the late John Fiske, in his New France and New England (p. 155), argues that:
"Mather's rules (of evidence) would not have allowed a verdict of guilty simply upon the drivelling testimony of the afflicted persons, and if this wholesome caution had been observed, not a witch would ever have been hung in Salem."
"Mather's rules (of evidence) wouldn’t have let a guilty verdict be passed just based on the rambling testimony of the afflicted individuals, and if this sensible caution had been followed, no witch would have ever been hanged in Salem."
What were those rules of evidence and of procedure attributed to Mather? Through the Special Court appointed to hold the witch trials, and early in its sittings, the opinions of twelve ministers of Boston and vicinity were asked as to witchcraft. Cotton Mather wrote and his associates signed an answer June 15, 1692, entitled, The Return of Several Ministers Consulted by his Excellency and the Honorable Council upon the Present Witchcrafts in Salem Village. This was the opinion of the ministers, and it is most important to note what is said in it of spectral evidence,[E] as it was upon such evidence that many convictions were had:
What were those rules of evidence and procedure associated with Mather? Through the Special Court set up to conduct the witch trials, early in its sessions, the opinions of twelve ministers from Boston and the surrounding areas were sought regarding witchcraft. Cotton Mather wrote down their response, which his associates signed on June 15, 1692, titled, The Return of Several Ministers Consulted by his Excellency and the Honorable Council upon the Present Witchcrafts in Salem Village. This was the viewpoint of the ministers, and it's crucial to highlight what is mentioned about spectral evidence,[E] since many convictions relied on such evidence:
"1. The afflicted state of our poor neighbors that are now suffering by molestations from the Invisible World we apprehend so deplorable, that we think their condition calls for the utmost help of all persons in their several capacities.
"1. The troubled situation of our poor neighbors, who are currently suffering from disturbances caused by the Invisible World, seems so terrible that we believe their condition demands the highest assistance from everyone in their various roles."
"2. We cannot but with all thankfulness acknowledge the success which the merciful God has given unto the sedulous and assiduous endeavors of our honorable rulers to detect the abominable witchcrafts which have been committed in the country; humbly praying that the discovery of these mysterious and mischievous wickednesses may be perfected.
"2. We can’t help but express our deep gratitude for the success that the merciful God has granted to the diligent efforts of our respected leaders in uncovering the terrible witchcraft that has occurred in the country; we humbly pray that the uncovering of these mysterious and harmful evils may be completed."
"3. We judge that, in the prosecution of these and all such witchcrafts there is need of a very critical and exquisite caution, lest by too much credulity for things received only upon the devil's authority, there be a door opened for a long train of miserable consequences, and Satan get an advantage over us; for we should not be ignorant of his devices.
"3. We believe that in pursuing these and all other forms of witchcraft, we need to exercise a lot of careful and precise caution. If we become too trusting of things that are based only on the devil's authority, it could lead to a series of unfortunate consequences, giving Satan an upper hand; we should not be unaware of his tricks."
"4. As in complaints upon witchcraft there may be matters of inquiry which do not amount unto matters of presumption, and there may be matters of presumption which yet may not be matters of conviction, so it is necessary that all proceedings thereabout be managed with an exceeding tenderness toward those that may be complained of, especially if they have been persons formerly of an unblemished reputation.
"4. In cases of witchcraft complaints, there may be issues that require investigation that don't necessarily suggest guilt, and there may be suggestive issues that still don't lead to a conviction. Therefore, it's essential that all proceedings related to this be handled with great care toward those being accused, especially if they have previously had a spotless reputation."
"5. When the first inquiry is made into the circumstances of such as may lie under the just suspicion of witchcrafts, we could wish that there may be admitted as little as possible of such noise, company and openness as may too hastily expose them that are examined, and that there may be nothing used as a test for the trial of the suspected, the lawfulness whereof may be doubted by the people of God, but that the directions given by such judicious writers as Perkins and Barnard may be observed.
"5. When the initial investigation is conducted into the circumstances of those who may justifiably be suspected of witchcraft, we hope to allow as little noise, company, and openness as possible to avoid hastily exposing those being examined. We also want to ensure that nothing is used as a test for the accused that may be questioned by the people of God, but rather that the guidance provided by knowledgeable authors like Perkins and Barnard is followed."
"6. Presumptions whereupon persons may be committed, and much more, convictions whereupon persons may be condemned as guilty of witchcrafts, ought certainly to be more considerable than barely the accused persons being represented by a spectre unto the afflicted, inasmuch as it is an undoubted and notorious thing that a demon may by God's permission appear even to ill purposes, in the shape of an innocent, yea, and a virtuous man. Nor can we esteem alterations made in the sufferers, by a look or touch of the accused, to be an infallible evidence of guilt, but frequently liable to be abused by the devil's legerdemains.
"6. The assumptions that lead to people being committed, and even more so, the convictions that label individuals as guilty of witchcraft, should definitely hold more weight than just the accused being seen as a specter by those who are suffering. It is a well-known fact that a demon may, with God's permission, appear for evil purposes in the guise of an innocent or even a virtuous person. We also can't consider changes in the victims, triggered by a look or touch from the accused, as foolproof evidence of guilt, as these occurrences are often subject to manipulation by the devil's tricks."
"7. We know not whether some remarkable affronts given the devils, by our disbelieving these testimonies whose whole force and strength is from them alone, may not put a period unto the progress of the dreadful calamity begun upon us, in the accusation of so many persons whereof some, we hope, are yet clear from the great transgression laid to their charge.
"7. We don’t know if some significant insults to the devils, caused by our disbelief in these testimonies that rely solely on them, might end the terrible calamity that has begun against us, in which so many people are accused, some of whom we hope are still free from the serious wrongdoing attributed to them."
"8. Nevertheless, we cannot but humbly recommend unto the government, the speedy and vigorous prosecutions of such as have rendered themselves obnoxious, according to the directions given in the laws of God and the wholesome statutes of the English nation for the detection of witchcrafts."
"8. However, we must humbly suggest to the government the swift and strong prosecution of those who have made themselves vulnerable, in accordance with the guidelines set forth in God's laws and the beneficial statutes of the English nation for identifying witchcraft."
[E] An illustration: The child Ann Putnam, in her testimony against the Rev. Mr. Burroughs, said that one evening the apparition of a minister came to her and asked her to write her name in the devil's book. Then came the forms of two women in winding sheets, and looked angrily upon the minister and scolded him until he was fain to vanish away. Then the women told Ann that they were the ghosts of Mr. Burroughs' first and second wives whom he had murdered.
[E] Here's an example: The child Ann Putnam, in her testimony against Rev. Mr. Burroughs, said that one evening the ghost of a minister appeared to her and asked her to write her name in the devil's book. Then, the figures of two women in white burial shrouds appeared, looked angrily at the minister, and scolded him until he had no choice but to disappear. Then the women told Ann that they were the ghosts of Mr. Burroughs' first and second wives whom he had killed.
Did Longfellow, after a critical study of the original evidence and records, truly interpret Mather's views, in his dialogue with Hathorne?
Did Longfellow, after closely examining the original evidence and records, really capture Mather's views in his conversation with Hathorne?
Whatever Mather's caution to the court may have been, or his leadership in learning, or his ambition and his clerical zeal, there is thus far no evidence, in all his personal participation in the tragedies, that he lifted his hand to stay the storm of terrorism once begun, or cried halt to the magistrates in their relentless work. On the contrary, after six victims had been executed, August 4, 1692, in A Discourse on the Wonders of the Invisible World, Mather wrote this in deliberate, cool afterthought:
Whatever Mather's warnings to the court may have been, or his role as a scholar, or his ambition and dedication to the church, there’s no evidence in all his personal involvement in the tragedies that he made any effort to stop the wave of terror once it started, or told the magistrates to pause their unyielding actions. On the contrary, after six people had been executed, on August 4, 1692, in A Discourse on the Wonders of the Invisible World, Mather wrote this with a deliberate, calm reflection:
"They—the judges—have used as judges have heretofore done, the spectral evidences, to introduce their farther inquiries into the lives of the persons accused; and they have thereupon, by the wonderful Providence of God, been so strengthened with other evidences that some of the witch-gang have been fairly executed."
"They—the judges—have relied on the same spectral evidence that judges have used in the past to further investigate the lives of the accused individuals; and by the amazing Providence of God, they have been so supported by other evidence that some members of the witch group have been executed."
And a year later, in the light of all his personal experience and investigation, Mather solemnly declared:
And a year later, based on all his personal experiences and research, Mather seriously stated:
Wherever the responsibility at Salem may have rested, the truth is that in the general fear and panic there was potent in the minds, both of the clergy and the laity, the spirit of fanaticism and malevolence in some instances, such as misled the pastor of the First Church to point to the corpses of Giles Corey's devoted and saintly wife and others swinging to and fro, and say "What a sad thing it is to see eight firebrands of hell hanging there."
Wherever the responsibility at Salem may have fallen, the truth is that in the widespread fear and panic, there was a powerful mix of fanaticism and malice in the minds of both the clergy and the laypeople. This led some, like the pastor of the First Church, to point at the bodies of Giles Corey’s devoted and saintly wife and others swinging back and forth and say, "What a sad thing it is to see eight firebrands of hell hanging there."
This conspectus of witchcraft, old and new, of its development from the sorcery and magic of the ancients into the mediæval theological dogma of the power of Satan, of its gradual ripening into an epidemic demonopathy, of its slow growth in the American colonies, of its volcanic outburst in the close of the seventeenth century, is relevant and appropriate to this account of the delusion in Connecticut, its rise and suppression, its firm hold on the minds and consciences of the colonial leaders for threescore years after the settlement of the towns, a chapter in Connecticut history written in the presence of the actual facts now made known and available, and with a purpose of historic accuracy.
This overview of witchcraft, both past and present, traces its evolution from the ancient practices of sorcery and magic to the medieval religious beliefs around the power of Satan. It shows how it gradually developed into a widespread fear of demonic possession, its slow emergence in the American colonies, and its explosive rise at the end of the seventeenth century. This context is important and relevant to the story of the witch hunts in Connecticut: how they began and were eventually suppressed, and how they affected the thoughts and morals of colonial leaders for sixty years after the towns were settled. This chapter in Connecticut's history is based on the actual facts that are now known and accessible, aiming for historic accuracy.
CHAPTER V
"It was not to be expected of the colonists of New England that they should be the first to see through a delusion which befooled the whole civilized world, and the gravest and most knowing persons in it. The colonists in Connecticut and New Haven, as well as in Massachusetts, like all other Christian people at that time—at least with extremely rare individual exceptions—believed in the reality of a hideous crime called witchcraft." PALFREY'S New England (Vol. IV, pp. 96-127).
It wasn't shocking that the New England colonists were the last to realize the truth about a misconception that deceived the entire civilized world, including its most esteemed and educated people. The colonists in Connecticut and New Haven, as well as those in Massachusetts, just like other Christians of that time—except for a few rare individuals—believed in the existence of a dreadful crime known as witchcraft. PALFREY'S New England (Vol. IV, pp. 96-127).
"The truth is that it [witchcraft] pervaded the whole Christian Church. The law makers and the ministers of New England were under its influences as—and no more than—were the law makers and ministers of Old England." Blue Laws—True and False (p. 23), TRUMBULL.
"Witchcraft was prevalent in the Christian Church. The lawmakers and ministers in New England were just as influenced by it as those in Old England." Blue Laws—True and False (p. 23), TRUMBULL.
"One ---- of Windsor Arraigned and Executed at Hartford for a Witch." WINTHROP'S Journal (2: 374, Savage Ed., 1853).
"One ---- of Windsor was tried and executed at Hartford for witchcraft." WINTHROP'S Journal (2: 374, Savage Ed., 1853).
Here beginneth the first chapter of the story of the delusion in Connecticut. It is an entry made by John Winthrop, Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in his famous journal, without specific date, but probably in the spring of 1647.
Here begins the first chapter of the story of the delusion in Connecticut. This is an entry by John Winthrop, Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in his well-known journal. There's no specific date, but it was probably in the spring of 1647.
It is of little consequence save as much has been made of it by some writers as fixing the relative date of the earliest execution for witchcraft in New England, and locating it in one of the three original Connecticut towns.
It doesn’t matter much except for how some writers have focused on it to determine the relative date of the earliest execution for witchcraft in New England and to pinpoint it in one of the three original Connecticut towns.
What matters it at this day whether Mary Johnson as tradition runs, or Alse Youngs as truth has it, was put to death for witchcraft in Windsor, Connecticut, in 1647, or Martha Jones of Charlestown, Massachusetts, was hung for the same crime at Boston in 1648, as also set down in Winthrop's Journal?
What does it matter today whether Mary Johnson, as the tradition goes, or Alse Youngs, according to the facts, was executed for witchcraft in Windsor, Connecticut, in 1647, or if Martha Jones from Charlestown, Massachusetts, was hanged for the same crime in Boston in 1648, as noted in Winthrop's Journal?
"It may possibly be thought a great neglect, or matter of partiality, that no account is given of witchcraft in Connecticut. The only reason is, that after the most careful researches, no indictment of any person for that crime, nor any process relative to that affair can be found." (History of Connecticut, 1799, Preface, BENJAMIN TRUMBULL, D.D.)
"It might be considered a significant oversight or a sign of bias that there's no record of witchcraft in Connecticut. The only reason is that after thorough investigations, there are no charges against anyone for that crime, nor any related legal actions to be found." (History of Connecticut, 1799, Preface, BENJAMIN TRUMBULL, D.D.)
"A few words should be said regarding the author's mention of the subject of witchcraft in Connecticut.... It is, I believe, strictly true, as he says 'that no indictment of any person for that crime nor any process relative to that affair can be found.'
"A few words should be mentioned about the author's reference to witchcraft in Connecticut.... I believe it is absolutely true, as he states, 'that no indictment of any person for that crime nor any process related to that matter can be found.'
"It must be confessed, however, that a careful study of the official colonial records of Connecticut and New Haven leaves no doubt that Goodwife Bassett was convicted and hung at Stratford for witchcraft in 1651, and Goodwife Knapp at Fairfield in 1653. It is also recorded in Winthrop's Journal that 'One ---- of Windsor was arraigned and executed at Hartford for a witch' in March, 1646-47, which if it actually occurred, forms the first instance of an execution for witchcraft in New England. The quotation here given is the only known authority for the statement, and opens the question whether something probably recorded as hearsay in a journal, may be taken as authoritative evidence of an occurrence.... The fact however remains, that the official records are as our author says, silent regarding the actual proceedings, and it is only by inference that it may be found from these records that the executions took place." (Introduction to Reprint of Trumbull's History of Connecticut, 1898, JONATHAN TRUMBULL.)
"It must be admitted, however, that a detailed look at the official colonial records of Connecticut and New Haven makes it clear that Goodwife Bassett was convicted and hanged at Stratford for witchcraft in 1651, and Goodwife Knapp at Fairfield in 1653. It’s also noted in Winthrop's Journal that 'One ---- of Windsor was put on trial and executed in Hartford for witchcraft' in March 1646-47; if this actually happened, it would be the first documented execution for witchcraft in New England. This quotation is the only known source for the claim, raising the question of whether what was likely recorded as hearsay in a journal can be deemed reliable evidence of an event.... Nevertheless, the official records, as our author points out, are silent regarding the actual proceedings, and it’s only through inference that one can determine from these records that the executions took place." (Introduction to Reprint of Trumbull's History of Connecticut, 1898, JONATHAN TRUMBULL.)
The searcher for inerrant information about witchcraft in Connecticut may easily be led into a maze of contradictions, and the statement last above quoted is an apt illustration, with record evidence to the contrary on every hand. Tradition, hearsay, rumor, misstatements, errors, all colored by ignorance or half knowledge, or a local jealousy or pride, have been woven into a woof of precedent and acceptance, and called history.
The quest for accurate information about witchcraft in Connecticut can quickly become a confusing tangle of contradictions, and the statement mentioned above is a perfect example, with evidence to the contrary everywhere you look. Tradition, hearsay, rumors, errors, and misstatements—often influenced by ignorance or partial understanding, as well as local jealousy or pride—have been stitched together into a fabric of precedents and commonly accepted beliefs, and labeled as history.
As has been already stated, the general writers from Trumbull to Johnston have nothing of value to say on the subject; the open official records and the latest history—Connecticut as a Colony and a State—cover only certain cases, and nowhere from the beginning to this day has the story of witchcraft been fully told.
As mentioned before, the general writers from Trumbull to Johnston don’t provide anything valuable on this topic; the public official records and the most recent history—Connecticut as a Colony and a State—only address certain instances, and from the very beginning until now, the complete story of witchcraft hasn’t been fully told.
Connecticut can lose nothing in name or fame or honor, if, more than two centuries after the last witch was executed within her borders, the facts as to her share in the strange superstition be certified from the current records of the events.
Connecticut has nothing to lose in name, reputation, or honor if, more than two centuries after the last witch was executed within its borders, the facts about its involvement in the strange superstition are confirmed by current records of the events.
How may this story best be told? Clearly, so far as may be, in the very words of the actors in those tragic scenes, in the words of the minister and magistrate, the justice and the juryman, the accuser and the accused, and the searcher. Into this court of inquiry come all these personalities to witness the sorrowful march of the victims to the scaffold or to exile, or to acquittal and deliverance with the after life of suspicion and social ostracism.
How can this story be told best? Clearly, as much as possible, in the exact words of those involved in those tragic scenes—the minister and magistrate, the judge and the juror, the accuser and the accused, and the investigator. Into this courtroom come all these individuals to witness the tragic journey of the victims to the gallows or to exile, or to acquittal and freedom with the lingering effects of suspicion and social exclusion.
The spectres of terror did not sit alone at the firesides of the poor and lowly: they stalked in high places, and were known of men and women of the first rank in education and the social virtues, and of greatest influence in church and state.
The ghosts of fear weren’t just found at the homes of the poor and humble; they also roamed in high places, recognized by the well-educated and socially virtuous men and women who held significant influence in both the church and the government.
Of this fact there is complete demonstration in a glance at the dignitaries who presided at one of the earliest witchcraft trials—men of notable ancestry, of learning, of achievements, leaders in colonial affairs, whose memories are honored to this day.
Of this fact, there is clear evidence in looking at the dignitaries who presided over one of the earliest witchcraft trials—men of remarkable ancestry, knowledge, and accomplishments, leaders in colonial matters, whose legacies are still respected today.
These were the magistrates at a session entitled "A particular courte in Hartford upon the tryall of John Carrington and his wife 20th Feb., 1662" (See Rec. P.C., 2: 17): Edw. Hopkins Esqr., Gournor John Haynes Esqr. Deputy, Mr. Wells, Mr. Woolcott, Mr. Webster, Mr. Cullick, Mr. Clarke.
These were the judges at a session called "A Specific Court in Hartford for the Trial of John Carrington and His Wife on February 20, 1662" (See Rec. P.C., 2: 17): Edward Hopkins, Esq., Governor; John Haynes, Esq., Deputy; Mr. Wells, Mr. Woolcott, Mr. Webster, Mr. Cullick, Mr. Clarke.
This court had jurisdiction over misdemeanors, and was "aided by a jury," as a close student of colonial history, the late Sherman W. Adams, quaintly says in one of his historical papers. These were the jurymen:
This court had authority over misdemeanors and was "aided by a jury," as a keen observer of colonial history, the late Sherman W. Adams, humorously noted in one of his historical papers. These were the jurymen:
Mr. Phelps Mr. Phelps |
John White John White |
John More John Moore |
Mr. Tailecoat Mr. Tailcoat |
Will Leawis Will Lewis |
Edw. Griswold Ed Griswold |
Mr. Hollister Mr. Hollister |
Sam. Smith Sam Smith |
Steph. Harte Steph Harte |
Daniel Milton Daniel Milton |
John Pratt John Pratt |
Theo. Judd Theo Judd |
Before this tribunal—representative of the others doing like service later—made up of the foremost citizens, and of men in the ordinary walks of life, endowed with hard common sense and presumably inspired with a spirit of justice and fair play, came John Carrington and his wife Joan of Wethersfield, against whom the jury brought in a verdict of guilty.
Before this court—representative of others serving similarly later—composed of prominent citizens and everyday people, who were practically filled with common sense and hopefully driven by a sense of justice and fairness, came John Carrington and his wife Joan from Wethersfield, against whom the jury delivered a guilty verdict.
It must be clearly borne in mind that all these men, in this as in all the other witchcraft trials in Connecticut, illustrious or commonplace—as are many of their descendants whose names are written on the rolls of the patriotic societies in these days of ancestral discovery and exploitation—were absolute believers in the powers of Satan and his machinations through witchcraft and the evidence then adduced to prove them, and trained to such credulity by their education and experience, by their theological doctrines, and by the law of the land in Old England, but still clothed upon with that righteousness which as it proved in the end made them skeptical as to certain alleged evidences of guilt, and swift to respond to the calls of reason and of mercy when the appeals were made to their calm judgment and second thought as to the sins of their fellowmen.
It's important to remember that all these men, just like in all the other witchcraft trials in Connecticut—whether they were famous or ordinary, as are many of their descendants whose names are now listed in the patriotic societies during this time of discovering and celebrating ancestry—were firm believers in the power of Satan and his tricks through witchcraft and the evidence presented at the time to support this belief. They were conditioned to such gullibility by their education, experiences, religious beliefs, and the laws of Old England. Yet, they still held onto a sense of righteousness that, in the end, made them question certain supposed evidences of guilt and quick to respond to calls for reason and mercy when faced with appeals to their calm judgment and reconsideration of the sins of others.
In no way can the truth be so clearly set forth, the real character of the evidence be so justly appreciated upon which the convictions were had, as from the depositions and the oral testimony of the witnesses themselves. They are lasting memorials to the credulity and superstition, and the religious insanity which clouded the senses of the wisest men for a time, and to the malevolence and satanic ingenuity of the people who, possessed of the devil accused their friends and neighbors of a crime punishable by death.
In no way can the truth be so clearly presented, nor can the true nature of the evidence that led to the convictions be so fairly evaluated, as through the statements and spoken testimonies of the witnesses themselves. They serve as enduring reminders of the gullibility and superstition, as well as the religious madness that briefly blinded even the wisest individuals, along with the malicious and wicked cleverness of those who, possessed by evil, accused their friends and neighbors of a crime punishable by death.
Nor is this dark chapter in colonial history without its flashes of humor and ridiculousness, as one follows the absurd and unbridled testimonies which have been chosen as completely illustrative of the whole series in the years of the witchcraft nightmare. They are in part cited here, for the sake of authenticity and exactness, as written out in the various court records and depositions, published and unpublished, in the ancient style of spelling, and are worthy the closest study for many reasons.
Nor is this dark chapter in colonial history without its moments of humor and absurdity, as one follows the ridiculous and unrestrained testimonies that have been selected to represent the entire series during the witchcraft nightmare. They are partly included here, for the sake of authenticity and accuracy, as recorded in various court documents and depositions, both published and unpublished, in the old spelling style, and are deserving of careful study for many reasons.
It will, however, clear the way to a better understanding of the unique testimonies of the witch witnesses, if there be first presented the authoritative reasons for the examination of a witch, coupled with a summary of the lawful tests of innocence or guilt. They are in the handwriting of William Jones, a Deputy Governor of Connecticut and a member of the court at some of the trials.
It will, however, help to better understand the unique testimonies of the witch witnesses if we first present the official reasons for examining a witch, along with a summary of the legal tests for innocence or guilt. These are written by William Jones, a Deputy Governor of Connecticut and a member of the court during some of the trials.
GROUNDS FOR EXAMINATION OF A WITCH
GROUNDS FOR EXAMINATION OF A WITCH
"1. Notorious defamacon by ye common report of the people a ground of suspicion.
"1. A notorious defamation, according to common public opinion, is a basis for suspicion."
"2. Second ground for strict examinacon is if a fellow witch gave testimony on his examinacon or death yt such a pson is a witch, but this is not sufficient for conviccon or condemnacon.
"2. The second reason for a strict examination is if another witch testified during their examination or death that the person is a witch, but this is not enough for conviction or condemnation."
"3. If after cursing, there follow death or at least mischiefe to ye party.
"3. If after cursing, death or at least harm follows to the person."
"4. If after quarrelling or threatening a prsent mischiefe doth follow for ptye's devilishly disposed after cursing doe use threatnings, & yt alsoe is a grt prsumcon agt y.
"4. If after arguing or making threats, a current harm follows because someone with a wicked nature uses threats after cursing, that is also a great presumption against you."
"5. If ye pty suspected be ye son or daughter, the serv't or familiar friend, neer neighbors or old companion of a knowne or convicted witch this alsoe is a prsumcon, for witchcraft is an art yt may be larned & covayd from man to man & oft it falleth out yt a witch dying leaveth som of ye aforesd heires of her witchcraft.
"5. If you suspect that your son or daughter, servant, close friend, nearby neighbor, or old companion is related to a known or convicted witch, this is also a presumption, because witchcraft is an art that can be learned and passed down from person to person, and often it happens that a witch, upon dying, leaves some of her witchcraft to her heirs."
"7. Lastly if ye pty examined be unconstant & contrary to himselfe in his answers.
"7. Lastly, if the party being examined is inconsistent and contradicts himself in his answers."
"Thus much for examinacon wch usually is by Q. & some tymes by torture upon strong & grt presumcon.
Thus much for examination which usually is by questioning & sometimes by torture upon strong & great presumption.
"For conviccon it must be grounded on just and sufficient proofes. The proofes for conviccon of 2 sorts, 1, Some be less sufficient, some more sufficient.
"For conviction, it must be based on just and sufficient evidence. The evidence for conviction comes in 2 types: some are less sufficient, while others are more sufficient."
"Less sufficient used in formr ages by red hot iron and scalding water. ye pty to put in his hand in one or take up ye othr, if not hurt ye pty cleered, if hurt convicted for a witch, but this was utterly condemned. In som countryes anothr proofe justified by some of ye learned by casting ye pty bound into water, if she sanck counted inocent, if she sunk not yn guilty, but all those tryalls the author counts supstitious and unwarrantable and worse. Although casting into ye water is by some justified for ye witch having made a ct wth ye devill she hath renounced her baptm & hence ye antipathy between her & water, but this he makes nothing off. Anothr insufficient testimoy of a witch is ye testimony of a wizard, who prtends to show ye face of ye witch to ye party afflicted in a glass, but this he counts diabolicall & dangerous, ye devill may reprsent a pson inocent. Nay if after curses & threats mischiefe follow or if a sick pson like to dy take it on his death such a one has bewitched him, there are strong grounds of suspicon for strict examinacon but not sufficient for conviccon.
"Less sufficient was used in former ages by red-hot iron and scalding water. The person could put their hand in one or take up the other; if they were not hurt, the person was cleared. If they were hurt, they were convicted of being a witch, but this was completely condemned. In some countries, another proof justified by some learned people involved casting the person bound into water. If she sank, she was considered innocent; if she did not sink, then she was guilty. However, the author considers all these trials superstitious, unwarranted, and worse. Although some justify casting into water by arguing that the witch, having made a pact with the devil, has renounced her baptism and hence has an antipathy towards water, the author dismisses this entirely. Another insufficient testimony of a witch is the testimony of a wizard, who claims to show the face of the witch to the afflicted person in a glass, but the author regards this as diabolical and dangerous, as the devil could represent an innocent person. Furthermore, if after curses and threats mischief follows, or if a sick person is near death and attributes their condition to being bewitched, there are strong grounds for suspicion for a strict examination, but this is not sufficient for conviction."
"But ye truer proofes sufficient for conviccon are ye voluntary confession of ye pty suspected adjudged sufficient proofe by both divines & lawyers. Or 2 the testimony of 2 witnesses of good and honest report avouching things in theire knowledge before ye magistrat 1 wither yt ye party accused hath made a league wth ye devill or 2d or hath ben some knowne practices of witchcraft. Argumts to prove either must be as 1 if they can pve ye pty hath invocated ye devill for his help this pt of yt ye devill binds withes to.
"But the true evidence that’s sufficient for conviction is the voluntary confession of the suspected party, which is considered enough proof by both theologians and lawyers. Or, the testimony of two witnesses of good reputation who can attest to facts they know before the magistrate, either that the accused has made a pact with the devil or has been involved in known practices of witchcraft. Arguments to prove either must be like this: if they can prove the party has called upon the devil for help, then this part of the devil binds witches to.”
"Or 2 if ye pty hath entertained a familiar spt in any forme mouse cat or othr visible creature.
"Or 2 if your party has entertained a familiar spirit in any form, mouse, cat, or other visible creature."
"Or 3 if they affirm upon oath ye pty hath done any accon or work wch inferreth a ct wth ye devill, as to shew ye face of a man in a glass, or used inchantmts or such feates, divineing of things to come, raising tempests, or causing ye forme of a dead man to appeare or ye like it sufficiently pves a witch.
"Or 3 if they swear that the party has done any action or work that implies a contract with the devil, such as showing the face of a man in a mirror, using enchantments or similar tricks, predicting the future, raising storms, or causing the appearance of a dead person or similar acts, that is enough to prove someone is a witch."
"But altho those are difficult things to prove yet yr are wayes to come to ye knowledg of y, for tis usuall wth Satan to pmise anything till ye league be ratified, & then he nothing ye discovery of y, for wtever witches intend the devill intends nothing but theire utter confusion, therefore in ye just judgmt of God it soe oft falls out yt some witches shall by confession discour ys, or by true testimonies be convicted.
"But although those are difficult things to prove, there are ways to come to the knowledge of them, for it is usual with Satan to promise anything until the deal is sealed, and then he does nothing towards the discovery of them. Whatever witches intend, the devil intends nothing but their complete ruin; therefore, in the just judgment of God, it often happens that some witches will either confess to discourage us or be convicted by true testimonies."
"And ye reasons why ye devill would discover y is 1 his malice towards all men 2 his insatiable desire to have ye witches not sure enough of y till yn.
"And the reasons why the devil would reveal this are 1 his hatred towards all people 2 his unquenchable desire to make the witches uncertain enough about it until then."
"And ye authors warne jurors, &c not to condemne suspected psons on bare prsumtions wthout good & sufficient proofes.
"And you authors warn jurors, etc., not to condemn suspected persons on bare presumptions without good and sufficient proof."
"But if convicted of yt horrid crime to be put to death, for God hath said thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
"But if found guilty of that horrible crime, you will be put to death, for God has said you shall not allow a witch to live."
The accuser and the prosecutor were aided in their work in a peculiar way. It was the theory and belief that every witch was marked—very privately marked—by the Devil, and the marks could only be discovered by a personal examination. And thus there came into the service of the courts a servant known as a "searcher," usually a woman, as most of the unfortunates who were accused were women.
The accuser and the prosecutor had some unique help in their work. It was believed that every witch had a secret mark from the Devil, and the marks could only be found through a personal examination. This led to the creation of a role in the courts known as a "searcher," typically a woman, since most of the accused were women.
The location and identification of the witch marks involved revolting details, some of the reports being unprintable. It is, however, indispensable to a right understanding of the delusion and the popular opinions which made it possible, that these incidents, abhorrent and nauseating as they are, be given within proper limitations to meet inquiry—not curiosity—and because they may be noted in various records.
The location and identification of the witch marks included disturbing details, with some reports being too graphic to print. However, to truly understand the delusion and the widespread beliefs that made it possible, it's essential to provide these incidents—though repulsive and sickening—with appropriate context to satisfy inquiry—not curiosity—and because they may be referenced in various records.
A standard authority in legal procedure in England, recognized in witchcraft prosecutions in the New England colonies, was Dalton's Country Justice, first published in 1619 in England, and in its last edition in 1746.
A key reference for legal procedures in England, acknowledged in witchcraft trials in the New England colonies, was Dalton's Country Justice, first published in 1619 in England, with its final edition released in 1746.
In its chapter on Witchcraft are these directions as to the witch marks:
In its chapter on Witchcraft, there are these instructions regarding witch marks:
"These witches have ordinarily a familiar, or spirit which appeareth to them, sometimes in one shape and sometimes in another; as in the shape of a man, woman, boy, dog, cat, foal, hare, rat, toad, etc. And to these their spirits, they give names, and they meet together to christen them (as they speak).... And besides their sucking the Devil leaveth other marks upon their body, sometimes like a blue or red spot, like a flea-biting, sometimes the flesh sunk in and hollow. And these Devil's marks be insensible, and being pricked will not bleed, and be often in their secretest parts, and therefore require diligent and careful search. These first two are main points to discover and convict those witches."
"These witches usually have a familiar spirit that appears to them, sometimes in one form and sometimes in another; like as a man, woman, boy, dog, cat, foal, hare, rat, toad, etc. They give names to their spirits and get together to 'baptize' them, as they say... Besides the Devil sucking their blood, he leaves other marks on their bodies, sometimes like a blue or red spot, similar to a flea bite, and sometimes the flesh is sunken in and hollow. These Devil's marks are numb, and if pricked, they won’t bleed, and they are often in their most private areas, requiring careful and thorough examination. These first two points are crucial to identify and convict those witches."
These methods were adopted in the proceedings against witches in Connecticut, and it will suffice to cite one of the reports of a committee—Sarah Burr, Abigail Burr, Abigail Howard, Sarah Wakeman, and Hannah Wilson,—"apointed (by the court) to make sarch upon ye bodis of Marcy Disbrough and Goodwif Clauson," at Fairfield, in September and October 1692, sworn to before Jonathan Bell, Commissioner, and John Allyn, Secretary.
These methods were used in the witch trials in Connecticut, and it’s enough to mention one of the reports from a committee—Sarah Burr, Abigail Burr, Abigail Howard, Sarah Wakeman, and Hannah Wilson,—"appointed (by the court) to search the bodies of Marcy Disbrough and Goodwif Clauson," in Fairfield, in September and October 1692, sworn to before Jonathan Bell, Commissioner, and John Allyn, Secretary.
"Wee Sarah bur and abigall bur and Abigail howard and Sarah wakman all of fayrfeild with hanna wilson being by order of authority apointed to make sarch upon ye bodis of marcy disbrough and goodwif Clauson to see what they Could find on ye bodies of ether & both of them; and wee retor as followeth and doe testify as to goodwif Clauson forementioned wee found on her secret parts Just within ye lips of ye same growing within sid sumewhat as broad and reach without ye lips of ye same about on Inch and half long lik in shape to a dogs eare which wee apprehend to be vnvsuall to women.
We, Sarah Bur, Abigail Bur, Abigail Howard, and Sarah Wakman of Fairfield, along with Hanna Wilson, were appointed by the authorities to search the bodies of Marcy Disbrough and Goodwife Clauson to see what we could find on either of them. We report as follows and testify concerning Goodwife Clauson. We found on her private parts just within the lips some growth that was somewhat broad inside and extended outside the lips about an inch and a half long, resembling a dog's ear, which we believe to be unusual for women.
"and as to marcy wee find on marcy foresayd on her secret parts growing within ye lep of ye same a los pees of skin and when puld it is near an Inch long somewhat in form of ye fingar of a glove flatted
"and regarding Marcy, we find on Marcy as previously mentioned, on her private areas, a loose piece of skin growing within the fold of the same, and when pulled, it is nearly an inch long, somewhat resembling the shape of a flattened finger of a glove."
"that lose skin wee Judge more than common to women."
"that lose skin we judge more than is common for women."
"Octob. 29 1692 The above sworn by the above-named as attests
"Octob. 29 1692 The above sworn by the above-named as attests
"JOHN ALLYN Secry"
"JOHN ALLYN Secretary"
CHAPTER VI
"Remembering all this, it is not surprising that witches were tried, convicted and put to death in New England; and the manner in which the waning superstition was dealt with by Connecticut lawyers and ministers is the more significant of that robust common sense, rejection of superstition, political and religious, and fearless acceptance of the ethical mandates of the great Law-giver, which influenced the growth of their jurisprudence and stamped it with an unmistakable individuality." Connecticut; Origin of her Courts and Laws (N.E. States, 1: 487-488), HAMERSLEY.
Given all this, it's not surprising that witches were tried, convicted, and executed in New England. The way Connecticut lawyers and ministers dealt with the declining superstition demonstrates a strong common sense, a rejection of both political and religious superstitions, and a bold acceptance of the ethical principles from the great Law-giver. These principles shaped the development of their legal system and gave it a unique character. Connecticut; Origin of her Courts and Laws (N.E. States, 1: 487-488), HAMERSLEY.
"They made witch-hunting a branch of their social police, and desire for social solidarity. That this was wrong and mischievous is granted; but it is ordinary human conduct now as then. It was a most illogical, capricious, and dangerous form of enforcing punishment, abating nuisances, and shutting out disagreeable truths; fertile in injustice, oppression, the shedding of innocent blood, and the extinguishing of light. No one can justify it, or plead beneficial results from it which could not have been secured with far less evil in other ways. But it was natural that, believing the crime to exist, they should use the belief to strike down offenders or annoyances out of reach of any other legal means. They did not invent the crime for the purpose, nor did they invent the death penalty for this crime." Connecticut as a Colony (1: 206), MORGAN.
"They turned witch-hunting into a form of social control and a means to foster social unity. Everyone agrees this was wrong and harmful; however, it's just a typical human behavior that happens from time to time. It was an illogical, random, and dangerous method of enforcing punishment, reducing disturbances, and ignoring uncomfortable truths; it resulted in injustice, oppression, the loss of innocent lives, and a decline in understanding. No one can justify it, or claim that it brought any benefits that couldn't have been achieved with far less harm in other ways. But it makes sense that, believing the crime was real, they would use that belief to handle wrongdoers or nuisances when other legal options were unavailable. They didn’t create the crime for this purpose, nor did they establish the death penalty specifically for this crime." Connecticut as a Colony (1: 206), MORGAN.
"As to what you mention, concerning that poor creature in your town that is afflicted and mentioned my name to yourself and son, I return you hearty thanks for your intimation about it, and for your charity therein mentioned; and I have great cause to bless God, who, of his mercy hitherto, hath not left me to fall into such an horrid evil." Extract of a Letter from Sec. Allyn to Increase Mather, Hartford, Mar. 18, 1692-93.
"About what you said regarding that unfortunate person in your town who is struggling and mentioned my name to you and your son, I truly appreciate your note and your kindness; I have a lot to be thankful for to God, who, in His mercy, has so far prevented me from ending up in such a terrible situation." Extract from a letter from Sec. Allyn to Increase Mather, Hartford, Mar. 18, 1692-93.
An accusation of witchcraft was a serious matter, one of life or death, and often it was safer to become an accuser than one of the accused. Made in terror, malice, mischief, revenge, or religious dementia, or of some other ingredients in the Devil's brew, it passed through the stages of suspicion, espionage, watchings, and searchings, to the formal complaints and indictments which followed the testimony of the witnesses, in their madness and delusion hot-foot to tell the story of their undoing, their grotesque imaginings, their spectral visions, their sufferings at the hands of Satan and his tools, and all aimed at people, their neighbors and acquaintances, often wholly innocent, but having marked personal peculiarities, or of irregular lives by the Puritan standard, or unpopular in their communities, who were made the victim of one base passion or another and brought to trial for a capital offense against person and property.
An accusation of witchcraft was a serious issue, a matter of life or death, and often it was safer to be the accuser than the accused. Driven by fear, malice, mischief, revenge, or religious insanity, or some other ingredients in the Devil's concoction, it went through the stages of suspicion, spying, watching, and searching, leading to formal complaints and charges that followed the testimonies of witnesses, who, in their madness and delusion, rushed to share their stories of ruin, bizarre imaginings, spectral visions, and sufferings at the hands of Satan and his minions. All of this targeted people—neighbors and acquaintances—who were often completely innocent but had some marked personal quirks, lived irregular lives by Puritan standards, or were simply unpopular in their communities, and became victims of one sordid passion or another, facing trial for serious crimes against individuals and property.
Taking into account the actual number of accusations, trials, and convictions or acquittals, the number of witnesses called and depositions given was very great. And the later generations owe their opportunity to judge aright in the matter, to the foresight of the men of chief note in the communities who saw the vital necessity of record evidence, and so early as 1666, in the General Court of Connecticut, it was ordered that
Taking into account the actual number of accusations, trials, and convictions or acquittals, the number of witnesses called and depositions given was very great. And later generations owe their chance to judge correctly on this matter to the foresight of the prominent individuals in the communities who recognized the essential need for recorded evidence, so much so that as early as 1666, in the General Court of Connecticut, it was ordered that
"Whatever testimonies are improved in any court of justice in this corporation in any action or case to be tried, shall be presented in writing, and so kept by the secretary or clerk of the said court on file."
"Any testimonies that are enhanced in any court of justice within this corporation for any action or case being tried must be submitted in writing and will be maintained on file by the secretary or clerk of that court."
This preliminary analysis brings the searcher for the truth face to face with the very witnesses who have left behind them, in the attested records, the ludicrous or solemn, the pitiable or laughable memorials of their own folly, delusion, or deviltry, which marked them then and now as Satan's chosen servitors.
This initial analysis confronts the truth-seeker with the very witnesses who have left behind, in the verified records, the ridiculous or serious, the pitiable or amusing reminders of their own foolishness, delusions, or wickedness, which branded them as Satan's chosen servants then and now.
Among the many witnesses and their statements on oath now made available, the chief difficulty is one of selection and elimination; and there will be presented here with the context some of the chief depositions[F] and statements in the most notable witchcraft trials in some of the Connecticut towns, that are typical of all of them, and show upon what travesties of evidence the juries found their verdicts and the courts imposed their sentences.
Among the many witnesses and their sworn statements that are now available, the main challenge is deciding which ones to include and which to leave out. Here, we will present some of the key testimonies[F] and statements from the most notable witchcraft trials in various Connecticut towns, which are representative of all of them, and illustrate the ridiculousness of the evidence on which the juries based their verdicts and the courts handed down their sentences.
[F] The selected testimonies herein given are from the Connecticut and New Haven colonial records; from the original depositions in some of the witchcraft cases, in manuscript, a part of the Wyllys Papers, so called, now in the Connecticut State Library; and from the notes and papers on witchcraft of the late Charles J. Hoadley, LL.D., compiler of the colonial and state records, and for nearly a half century the state librarian.
[F] The selected testimonies provided here come from the Connecticut and New Haven colonial records, as well as the original depositions in some witchcraft cases, which are in manuscript form and part of the Wyllys Papers, currently held at the Connecticut State Library. They also include notes and documents on witchcraft compiled by the late Charles J. Hoadley, LL.D., who was the compiler of the colonial and state records and served as the state librarian for nearly fifty years.
KATHERINE (KATERAN) HARRISON
Katherine (Kateran) Harrison
At a Court of Assistants held at Hartford May 11, 1669, presided over by Maj. John Mason—the conqueror of the Pequots—then Deputy Governor, Katherine Harrison, after an examination by the court on a charge of suspicion of witchcraft, was committed to the common jail, to be kept in durance until she came to trial and deliverance by the law.
At a Court of Assistants held in Hartford on May 11, 1669, presided over by Maj. John Mason—the conqueror of the Pequots—and then Deputy Governor, Katherine Harrison, after being examined by the court on a charge of suspected witchcraft, was sent to the local jail to be held there until her trial and resolution by the law.
At an adjourned session of the court at Hartford, May 25, 1669, presided over by John Winthrop, Governor, with William Leete, Deputy Governor, Major Mason and others as assistants, an indictment was found against the prisoner in these words:
At a postponed court session in Hartford on May 25, 1669, led by Governor John Winthrop, with Deputy Governor William Leete, Major Mason, and several others as assistants, an indictment was issued against the defendant in these words:
"Kateran Harrison thou standest here indicted by ye name of Kateran Harrison (of Wethersfield) as being guilty of witchcraft for that thou not haueing the fear of God before thine eyes hast had familiaritie with Sathan the grand enemie of god and mankind and by his help hast acted things beyond and beside the ordinary course of nature and hast thereby hurt the bodyes of divers of the subjects of or souraigne Lord the King of which by the law of god and of this corporation thou oughtest to dye."
"Kateran Harrison, you stand here accused by the name of Kateran Harrison (of Wethersfield) of being guilty of witchcraft because you have had no fear of God before your eyes and have engaged with Satan, the great enemy of God and humanity. With his help, you have done things beyond and outside the ordinary course of nature, causing harm to the bodies of several subjects of our sovereign Lord the King, for which, by the law of God and of this corporation, you deserve to die."
Katherine plead not guilty and "refered herself to a tryall by the jury present," to whom this solemn oath was administered:
Katherine pleaded not guilty and "requested to be tried by the jury present," to whom this solemn oath was administered:
"You doe sware by the great and dreadful name of the everliuing god that you will well and truely try just verdict give and true deliverance make between or Souraigne Lord the King and such prisoner or prisoners at the barr as shall be given you in charge according to the Evidence given in Court and the lawes so help you god in or lord Jesus."
"You swear by the great and terrible name of the living God that you will honestly and truthfully deliver a just verdict and true judgment between our Sovereign Lord the King and any prisoner or prisoners at the bar that are assigned to you based on the evidence presented in court and the laws. So help you God in our Lord Jesus."
A partial trial was had at the May session of the court, but the jury could not agree upon a verdict, and adjournment was had until the October session, when a verdict was to be given in, and the prisoner was remanded to remain in prison in the meantime.
A partial trial took place during the May session of the court, but the jury couldn’t reach a verdict, so it was postponed until the October session, when a verdict was set to be delivered, and the prisoner was ordered to stay in jail until then.
It seems incredible that men like Winthrop and Mason, Treat and Leete, and others of the foremost rank in those days, could have served as judges in such trials, and in all earnestness and sincerity listened to and given credence to the drivel, the travesties of common sense, the mockeries of truth, which fell from the lips of the witnesses in their testimonies. Some of the absurd charges against Katherine Harrison invite particular attention and need no comment. They speak for themselves.
It’s hard to believe that influential men like Winthrop, Mason, Treat, and Leete, among others, could have acted as judges in such trials, and sincerely listened to and believed the nonsense, the distortions of common sense, and the misrepresentations of truth that came from the witnesses during their testimonies. Some of the ridiculous accusations against Katherine Harrison deserve special attention and speak for themselves without needing further comments.
THOMAS BRACY (probably Tracy)—Misfit jacket and breeches—Vision of the red calf's head—Murderous counsel—"Afflictinge"
THOMAS BRACY (probably Tracy)—Ill-fitting jacket and pants—Vision of the red calf's head—Murderous advice—"Afflictinge"
"Thomas Bracy aged about 31 years testifieth as follows that formerly James Wakeley would haue borrowed a saddle of the saide Thomas Bracy, which Thomas Bracy denyed to lend to him, he threatened Thomas and saide, it had bene better he had lent it to him. Allsoe Thomas Bracy beinge at worke the same day making a jacket & a paire of breeches, he labored to his best understanding to set on the sleeues aright on the jacket and seauen tymes he placed the sleues wronge, setting the elbow on the wronge side and was faine to rip them of and new set them on againe, and allsoe the breeches goeing to cut out the breeches, haueing two peices of cloth of different collors, he was soe bemoydered in the matter, that he cut the breeches one of one collor the other off another collor, in such a manner he was bemoydered in his understandinge or actinge yet neuertheless the same daie and tyme he was well in his understandinge and health in other matters and soe was forced to leaue workinge that daie.
"Thomas Bracy, about 31 years old, testifies as follows: previously, James Wakeley wanted to borrow a saddle from Thomas Bracy, which Thomas refused to lend him. James then threatened Thomas and said it would have been better if he had lent it to him. Also, on that same day, while Thomas was working on a jacket and a pair of breeches, he tried his best to attach the sleeves correctly to the jacket but placed them incorrectly seven times, putting the elbows on the wrong side. He had to rip them out and reattach them. Additionally, when cutting out the breeches, having two pieces of cloth in different colors, he became so confused that he cut one leg in one color and the other leg in a different color. He was so muddled in his work that, despite being clear-minded and healthy in other matters that same day, he was forced to stop working."
"The said Thomas beinge at Sargant Hugh Wells his house ouer against John Harrison's house, in Weathersfield, he saw a cart cominge towards John Harrisons house loaden wth hay, on the top of the hay he saw perfectly a red calfes head, the eares standing peart up, and keeping his sight on the cart tell the cart came to the barne, the calfe vanised, and Harrison stoode on the carte wch appared not to Thomas before, nor could Thomas find or see any calfe theire at all though he sought to see the calfe.
Thomas was at Sergeant Hugh Wells' house across from John Harrison's house in Weatherfield. He saw a cart approaching John Harrison's house loaded with hay, and on top of the hay, he clearly saw a red calf's head with its ears perked up. He kept his eyes on the cart until it reached the barn, but the calf disappeared, and Harrison was standing on the cart, which Thomas hadn't noticed before. Despite looking for the calf, Thomas couldn't find or see it at all.
"After this Thomas Bracy giuing out some words, that he suspected Katherin Gooddy Harrison of witchcraft, Katherin Harrison mett Thomas Bracy and threatned Thomas telling him that shee would be euen with him. After that Thomas Bracy aforesaide, being well in his sences & health and perfectly awake, his brothers in bed with him, Thomas aforesaid saw the saide James Wakely and the saide Katherin Harrison stand by his bed side, consultinge to kill him the said Thomas, James Wakely said he would cut his throate, but Katherin counselled to strangle him, presently the said Katherin seised on Thomas striuinge to strangle him, and pulled or pinched him so as if his flesh had been pulled from his bones, theirefore Thomas groaned. At length his father Marten heard and spake, then Thomas left groninge and lay quiet a little, and then Katherin fell againe to afflictinge and pinching, Thomas againe groninge Mr. Marten heard and arose and came to Thomas whoe could not speake till Mr. Marten laid his hands on Thomas, then James and Katherin aforesaid went to the beds feete, his father Marten and his mother stayed watchinge by Thomas all that night after, and the next day Mr. Marten and his wife saw the mark of the saide afflictinge and pinchinge."
"After this, Thomas Bracy said some words implying that he suspected Katherin Gooddy Harrison of witchcraft. Katherin Harrison confronted Thomas Bracy and threatened him, saying she would get back at him. Later, Thomas Bracy, being fully aware and in good health, with his brothers sleeping beside him, saw James Wakely and Katherin Harrison standing by his bedside, plotting to kill him. James Wakely said he would cut his throat, but Katherin suggested strangling him. Then Katherin grabbed Thomas, trying to strangle him, and pinched him as if she was pulling his flesh from his bones, causing Thomas to groan. Eventually, his father Marten heard and spoke, prompting Thomas to stop groaning and lie still for a moment. Then Katherin started to afflict and pinch him again, and Thomas groaned once more. Mr. Marten heard and got up to check on Thomas, who couldn't speak until Mr. Marten laid his hands on him. At that point, James and Katherin moved to the foot of the bed. His father Marten and mother stayed by Thomas, watching over him all night, and the next day, Mr. Marten and his wife noticed the marks from the affliction and pinching."
"Dated 13th of August one thousand six hundred sixtie and eight.
Dated August 13, 1668.
"Hadley. Taken upon oath before us.
"Hadley. Sworn in front of us."
"HENRY CLARKE. "SAMUELL SMITH."
"HENRY CLARKE. "SAMUEL SMITH."
JOSEPH DICKINSON—Voice calling Hoccanum! Hoccanum! Hoccanum!--A far cry—Cows running "taile on end"
JOSEPH DICKINSON—Voice calling Hoccanum! Hoccanum! Hoccanum!--A distant shout—Cows running away in a panic
"The deposition of Joseph Dickenson of Northampton, aged about 32 years, testifieth that he and Philip Smith of Hadley went down early in the morninge to the greate dry swampe, and theire we heard a voice call Hoccanum, Hoccanum, Come Hoccanum, and coming further into the swampe wee see that it was Katherin Harrison that caled as before. We saw Katherin goe from thence homewards. The said Philip parted from Joseph, and a small tyme after Joseph met Philip againe, and then the said Philip affirmed that he had seene Katherin's cows neare a mile from the place where Katherin called them. The saide Joseph went homewards, and goeing homeward met Samuell Bellden ridinge into or downe the meadow. Samuel Belden asked Joseph wheather he had seene the saide Katherin Harrison & the saide Samuel told Joseph aforesaide that he saw her neare the meadow gate, going homeward, and allso more told him that he saw Katherin Harrison her cows runninge with greate violence, taile on end, homewards, and said he thought the cattell would be at home soe soon as Katherin aforesaid if they could get out at the meadow gate, and further this deponent saieth not" Northampton, 13, 6, 1668, taken upon oth before us, William Clarke David Wilton. Exhibited in court Oct. 29, 1668. Attests John Allyn, Secry.
"The deposition of Joseph Dickenson of Northampton, aged about 32 years, testifies that he and Philip Smith of Hadley went down early in the morning to the great dry swamp, and there we heard a voice calling, 'Hoccanum, Hoccanum, Come Hoccanum.' As we moved further into the swamp, we saw that it was Katherin Harrison who had called out before. We watched Katherin head home from there. Philip then parted ways with Joseph, and shortly after, Joseph ran into Philip again. Philip said that he had seen Katherin's cows nearly a mile from where Katherin had called them. Joseph started to head home, and on his way, he met Samuell Bellden riding into or down the meadow. Samuel Belden asked Joseph if he had seen Katherin Harrison and told Joseph that he had seen her near the meadow gate, walking home. He also mentioned that he saw Katherin Harrison's cows running home with great energy, tails up, and he thought the cattle would get home as soon as Katherin did if they could get out at the meadow gate. And further, this deponent says nothing more." Northampton, 13, 6, 1668, taken upon oath before us, William Clarke, David Wilton. Exhibited in court Oct. 29, 1668. Attests John Allyn, Secry.
RICHARD MOUNTAGUE—Over the great river to Nabuck—The mystery of the swarming bees
RICHARD MOUNTAGUE—Across the big river to Nabuck—The enigma of the buzzing bees
"Richard Mountague, aged 52 years, testifieth as followeth, that meeting with Goodwife Harrison in Weathersfield the saide Katherin Harrison saide that a swarm of her beese flew away over her neighbour Boreman's lott and into the great meadow, and thence over the greate river to Nabuck side, but the said Katherin saide that shee had fetched them againe; this seemed very strange to the saide Richard, because this was acted in a little tyme and he did believe the said Katherin neither went nor used any lawful meanes to fetch the said beese as aforesaid." Dated the 13 of August, 1668. Hadley, taken upon oath before us, Henry Clarke, Samuel Smith. Exhibited in Court, October 29: 68, as attests John Allyn Secretry.
"Richard Mountague, 52 years old, testifies as follows: while meeting Goodwife Harrison in Weathersfield, Katherine Harrison stated that a swarm of her bees flew away over her neighbor Boreman's lot and into the great meadow, and then over the large river to Nabuck side. However, Katherine claimed she retrieved them. This seemed very strange to Richard, as this happened in a short time, and he believed Katherine neither went nor used any lawful means to bring the bees back. Dated August 13, 1668. Hadley, taken under oath before us, Henry Clarke, Samuel Smith. Presented in Court, October 29, 1668, as attested by John Allyn, Secretary."
JOHN GRAVES—Bucolic reflections—The trespass on his neighbor's "rowing"—The cartrope adventure—The runaway oxen
JOHN GRAVES—Bucolic reflections—The trespass on his neighbor's "rowing"—The cartrope adventure—The runaway oxen
"John Graves aged about 39 years testifieth that formerly going to reap in the meadow at Wethersfield, his land he was to work on lay near to John Harrison's land. It came into the thoughts of the said John Graves that the said John Harrison and Katherine his wife being rumored to be suspicious of witchcraft, therefore he would graze his cattle on the rowing of the land of goodman Harrison, thinking that if the said Harrisons were witches then something would disturb the quiet feeding of the cattle. He thereupon adventured and tied his oxen to his cart rope, one to one end and the other to the other end, making the oxen surely fast as he could, tieing 3 or 4 fast knots at each end, and tying his yoke to the cartrope about the middle of the rope between the oxen; and himself went about 10 or 12 pole distant, to see if the cattle would quietly feed as in other places. The cattle stood staring and fed not, and looking stedfastly on them he saw the cartrope of its own accord untie and fall to the ground; thereupon he went and tied the rope more fast and more knots in it and stood apart as before to see the issue. In a little time the oxen as affrighted fell to running, and ran with such violence that he judgeth that the force and speed of their running made the yoke so tied fly above six foot high to his best discerning. The cattle were used ordinarily before to be so tied and fed—in other places, & presently after being so tied on other men's ground they fed—peaceably as at other times." Dated August, 1668. Hadley; taken upon oath before us Henry Clarke, Samuel Smith. Exhibited in court Oct. 29th, 1668, attests John Allyn, Sec.
"John Graves, about 39 years old, testifies that while going to harvest in the meadow at Wethersfield, the land he was going to work on was close to John Harrison's land. It occurred to John Graves that John Harrison and his wife Katherine were rumored to be involved in witchcraft. Therefore, he decided to let his cattle graze on the edge of Harrison's land, thinking that if the Harrisons were witches, something would disrupt the peaceful feeding of the cattle. He then tied his oxen to his cart rope, securing one at each end, making sure they were fastened tightly with three or four knots at each end, and attaching his yoke to the middle of the rope between the oxen. He then walked about 10 to 12 rods away to see if the cattle would graze quietly like they did in other places. The cattle stood staring and wouldn’t eat, and while watching them, he saw the cart rope untie itself and fall to the ground. He went over, tied the rope more securely with more knots, and stood apart again to observe what would happen. Soon, the oxen, apparently frightened, started running, and they ran with such force and speed that he estimates the yoke flew over six feet high, based on what he could see. The cattle were usually tied like that and had grazed peacefully on other people’s land afterward." Dated August, 1668. Hadley; taken upon oath before us Henry Clarke, Samuel Smith. Exhibited in court Oct. 29th, 1668, attests John Allyn, Sec.
JOANE FRANCIS—The sick child—The spectre
JOANE FRANCIS—The ill child—The ghost
Joane Francis her testimony. "About 4 years ago, about the beginning of November, in the night just before my child was struck ill, goodwife Harrison or her shape appeared, and I said, the Lord bless me and my child, here is goody Harrison. And the child lying on the outside I took it and laid it between me and my husband. The child continued strangely ill about three weeks, wanting a day, and then died, had fits. We felt a thing run along the sides or side like a whetstone. Robert Francis saith he remembers his wife said that night the child was taken ill, the Lord bless me and my child, here is goody Harrison."
Joane Francis gave her testimony. "About four years ago, at the beginning of November, on the night before my child fell ill, goodwife Harrison or her spirit appeared, and I said, 'The Lord bless me and my child, here is goody Harrison.' The child, lying outside, I took and laid it between me and my husband. The child remained very ill for nearly three weeks, just shy of a day, and then died, having fits. We felt something run along the side like a whetstone. Robert Francis says he remembers his wife saying that night when the child fell ill, 'The Lord bless me and my child, here is goody Harrison.'"
JACOB JOHNSON'S WIFE—The box on the head—Diet, drink, and plasters—Epistaxis
JACOB JOHNSON'S WIFE—The box on the head—Diet, drink, and plasters—Nosebleeds
"The relation of the wife of Jacob Johnson. She saith that her former husband was employed by goodman Harrison to go to Windsor with a canoe for meal, and he told me as he lay in his bed at Windsor in the night he had a great box on the head, and after when he came home he was ill, and goodwife Harrison did help him with diet drink and plasters, but after a while we sent to Capt. Atwood to help my husband in his distress, but the same day that he came at night I came in at the door, & to the best of my apprehension I saw the likeness of goodwife Harrison with her face towards my husband, and I turned about to lock the door & she vanist away. Then my husband's nose fell a bleeding in an extraordinary manner, & so continued (if it were meddled with) to his dying day. Sworn in court Oct. 29, 1668, attests John Allyn, Secy."
"The account of Jacob Johnson's wife. She says that her late husband was hired by Goodman Harrison to go to Windsor with a canoe to get meal, and he told me that as he lay in his bed in Windsor at night, he had a great box on his head. After he came home, he became ill, and Goodwife Harrison helped him with diet drinks and plasters, but after a while, we sent for Capt. Atwood to assist my husband in his distress. On the same day that he arrived at night, I came in through the door, and as best as I can remember, I saw someone who looked like Goodwife Harrison facing my husband. When I turned to lock the door, she vanished. Then my husband's nose started bleeding in an unusual way, and it continued to bleed (if it was touched) until the day he died. Sworn in court Oct. 29, 1668, attests John Allyn, Secy."
MARY HALE—Noises and blows—The canine apparition—The voice in the night—The Devil a liar
MARY HALE—Sounds and strikes—The dog ghost—The voice in the night—The Devil is a liar
"That about the latter end of November, being the 29th day, 1668, the said Mary Hale lying in her bed, a good fire giving such light that one might see all over that room where the said Mary then was, the said Mary heard a noise, & presently something fell on her legs with such violence that she feared it would have broken her legs, and then it came upon her stomach and oppressed her so as if it would have pressed the breath out of her body. Then appeared an ugly shaped thing like a dog, having a head such that I clearly and distinctly knew to be the head of Katherine Harrison, who was lately imprisoned upon suspicion of witchcraft. Mary saw it walk to & fro in the chamber and went to her father's bedside then came back and disappeared. That day seven night next after, lying in her bed something came upon her in like manner as is formerly related, first on her legs & feet & then on her stomach, crushing & oppressing her very sore. She put forth her hand to feel (because there was no light in the room so as clearly to discern). Mary aforesaid felt a face, which she judged to be a woman's face, presently then she had a great blow on her fingers which pained her 2 days after, which she complained of to her father & mother, & made her fingers black and blue. During the former passages Mary called to her father & mother but could not wake them till it was gone. After this, the day of December in the night, (the night being very windy) something came again and spoke thus to her, saying to Mary aforesaid, You said that I would not come again, but are you not afraid of me. Mary said, No. The voice replied I will make you afraid before I have done with you; and then presently Mary was crushed & oppressed very much. Then Mary called often to her father and mother, they lying very near. Then the voice said, Though you do call they shall not hear till I am gone. Then the voice said, You said that I preserved my cart to carry me to the gallows, but I will make it a dear cart to you (which said words Mary remembered she had only spoke in private to her sister a little before & to no other.) Mary replied she feared her not, because God had kept her & would keep her still. The voice said she had a commission to kill her. Mary asked, Who gave you the commission? The voice replied God gave me the commission. Mary replied, The Devil is a liar from the beginning for God will not give commission to murder, therefore it must be from the devil. Then Mary was again pressed very much. Then the voice said, You will make known these things abroad when I am gone, but if you will promise me to keep these aforesaid matters secret I will come no more to afflict you. Mary replied I will tell it abroad. Whereas the said Mary mentions divers times in this former writing that she heard a voice, this said Mary affirmeth that she did & doth know that it was the voice of Katherine Harrison aforesaid; and Mary aforesaid affirmeth that the substance of the whole relation is truth." Sworn in Court May 25, 1669. Attest John Allyn, Sec'y.
"On the evening of November 29, 1668, Mary Hale was in her bed with a bright fire that lit up the entire room. She heard a noise, and suddenly something hit her legs with such force that she feared her legs might break. It then pressed down on her stomach, almost taking the breath out of her. Next, she saw a grotesque creature that resembled a dog, with a head she recognized as Katherine Harrison, who had recently been imprisoned on suspicion of witchcraft. Mary watched it move back and forth in her room, then approach her father's bedside before disappearing. A week later, while lying in bed, Mary felt something come upon her in a similar way, first on her legs and feet, then on her stomach, causing her great pain. She reached out her hand to feel, since there was no light to see clearly. Mary felt a face she believed to be a woman's, and then she received a painful blow to her fingers that hurt for two days afterward, which she told her parents about, leaving her fingers bruised. During these previous events, Mary called out to her parents but couldn't wake them until the presence left. Later, on a windy December night, something returned and spoke to her, saying, 'You said I wouldn't come back, but aren't you afraid of me?' Mary replied, 'No.' The voice responded, 'I will make you afraid before I’m finished with you,' and immediately Mary felt very crushed and oppressed. She again called out to her parents, who were nearby, but the voice taunted, 'Even if you call for them, they won't hear you until I’m gone.' Then it said, 'You claimed I saved my cart to take me to the gallows, but I will make that cart a costly one for you,' something Mary realized she had only said in private to her sister shortly before. Mary answered that she wasn’t afraid because God had protected her and would continue to do so. The voice claimed it was sent to kill her. Mary asked, 'Who gave you that order?' The voice replied, 'God gave me the order.' Mary declared, 'The Devil is a liar from the beginning; God would not command murder, so this must be from the devil.' She then felt the pressure again. The voice warned her that she would spread these truths once it had left, but if she promised to keep it a secret, it wouldn't come back to torment her. Mary said she would share what happened. In her previous statements, Mary insisted that she knew the voice was Katherine Harrison's, and she affirmed that the entire account was true." Sworn in Court May 25, 1669. Attest John Allyn, Sec'y.
Elizabeth Smith—Neighborly criticism—Fortune telling—Spinning yarn
Elizabeth Smith—Neighborly critique—Fortune telling—Storytelling
"Elizabeth the wife of Simon Smith of Thirty Mile Island testified that Catherine was noted by her and the rest of the family to be a great or notorious liar, a sabbath breaker, and one that told fortunes, and told the said Elizabeth her fortune, that her husband's name should be Simon; & also told the said Elizabeth some other matters that did come to pass; and also would oft speak and boast of her great familiarity with Mr. Lilley, one that told fortunes and foretold many matters that in furture times were to be accomplished. And also the said Katherine did often spin so great a quantity of fine linen yarn as the said Elizabeth did never know nor hear of any other woman that could spin so much. And further, the said Elizabeth said that Capt. Cullick observing the evil conversation in word and deed of the said Katherine turned her out of his service, one reason was because the said Katherine told fortunes." Taken upon oath Sept. 23, 1668 before John Allyn, Assistant.
"Elizabeth, the wife of Simon Smith from Thirty Mile Island, testified that Catherine was recognized by her and the rest of the family as a notorious liar, someone who broke the Sabbath, and a fortune teller. She even told Elizabeth her fortune, stating that her husband's name would be Simon, and also shared some other things that later happened. Additionally, Catherine frequently boasted about her close relationship with Mr. Lilley, who also told fortunes and predicted many future events. Furthermore, Katherine often spun a remarkable amount of fine linen yarn, more than Elizabeth ever knew or heard of any other woman managing to spin. Also, Elizabeth mentioned that Captain Cullick, noticing Katherine's bad behavior and conversation, dismissed her from his service, partly because she was telling fortunes." Taken upon oath Sept. 23, 1668 before John Allyn, Assistant.
But meanwhile important things in the history of the case had come to pass. Serious doubts arose in the minds of the magistrates as to accepting the verdict, and in their dilemma they took counsel not only of the law but of the gospel, and presented a series of questions to certain ministers—the same expedient adopted by the court at Salem twenty-three years later.
But meanwhile, significant developments in the case's history had taken place. The magistrates began to have serious doubts about accepting the verdict, and in their uncertainty, they sought advice not only from the law but also from the gospel. They presented a series of questions to some ministers—this same tactic was used by the court in Salem twenty-three years later.
The answer of the ministers is in the handwriting of Rev. Gershom Bulkeley of Wethersfield, the author of the unique treatise Will and Doom. It was a remarkable paper as to preternatural apparitions, the character of evidence for conviction, and its cautions as to its acceptance. It was this:
The response from the ministers is written by Rev. Gershom Bulkeley of Wethersfield, who also wrote the unique treatise Will and Doom. It was an important document regarding supernatural appearances, the quality of evidence needed for conviction, and its warnings about acceptance. It was this:
"The answer of some ministers to the questions pr-pounded to them by the Honored Magistrates, Octobr 20, 1669. To ye 1st Quest whether a plurality of witnesses be necessary, legally to evidence one and ye same individual fact? Wee answer."
"The response of some ministers to the questions posed to them by the Honored Magistrates, October 20, 1669. To the 1st question, whether a plurality of witnesses is necessary, legally, to prove one and the same individual fact? We answer."
"That if the proofe of the fact do depend wholly upon testimony, there is then a necessity of a plurality of witnesses, to testify to one & ye same individual fact; & without such a plurality, there can be no legall evidence of it. Jno 8, 17. The testimony of two men is true; that is legally true, or the truth of order. & this Cht alledges to vindicate ye sufficiency of the testimony given to prove that individual facte, that he himselfe was ye Messias or Light of the World. Mat. 26, 59, 60."
"That if the proof of the fact relies entirely on testimony, there is a need for multiple witnesses to testify to the same individual fact; without such multiple witnesses, there can be no legal evidence of it. John 8:17. The testimony of two men is true; that is legally true, or the truth of order. And this chapter claims to support the sufficiency of the testimony given to prove that he himself was the Messiah or Light of the World. Matthew 26:59, 60."
"To the 2nd quest. Whether the preternatural apparitions of a person legally proved, be a demonstration of familiarity with ye devill? Wee anser, that it is not the pleasure of ye Most High, to suffer the wicked one to make an undistinguishable representation of any innocent person in a way of doing mischiefe, before a plurality of witnesses. The reason is because, this would utterly evacuate all human testimony; no man could testify, that he saw this pson do this or that thing, for it might be said, that it was ye devill in his shape."
"To the 2nd question. Whether the supernatural appearances of a legally proven person are a sign of familiarity with the devil? We answer that it is not the will of the Most High to allow the wicked one to create an indistinguishable representation of any innocent person in order to do harm, in front of multiple witnesses. The reason is that this would completely undermine all human testimony; no one could testify that they saw this person do this or that, because it could be claimed that it was the devil in their form."
"To the 3d & 4th quests together: Whether a vitious pson foretelling some future event, or revealing of a secret, be a demonstration of familiarity with the devill? Wee say thus much."
"To the 3rd & 4th questions together: Does a wicked person predicting some future event, or revealing a secret, show a connection with the devil? We say this much."
"That those things, whither past, present or to come, which are indeed secret, that is, cannot be knowne by human skill in arts, or strength of reason arguing from ye corse of nature, nor are made knowne by divine revelation either mediate or immediate, nor by information from man, must needes be knowne (if at all) by information from ye devill: & hence the comunication of such things, in way of divination (the pson prtending the certaine knowledge of them) seemes to us, to argue familiarity with ye devill, in as much as such a pson doth thereby declare his receiving the devills testimony, & yeeld up himselfe as ye devills instrument to comunicate the same to others."
"Certain things, whether they are in the past, present, or future, that are truly secret—meaning they can't be known through human knowledge in the arts or by logical reasoning based on the course of nature—nor revealed by divine insight, whether directly or indirectly, or through human information, must necessarily be known (if at all) through information from the devil. Thus, the communication of such things through divination (where a person claims to have certain knowledge of them) suggests to us a familiarity with the devil, as that person essentially declares they have received the devil's testimony and submits themselves as the devil's instrument to share that information with others."
And meanwhile Katherine herself had not been idle even in durance. With a dignity becoming such a communication, and in a desperate hope that justice and mercy might be meted out to her, she addressed a petition to the court setting forth with unconscious pathos some of the wrongs and sufferings she had endured in person and estate; and one may well understand why under such great provocation she told Michael Griswold that he would hang her though he damned a thousand souls, and as for his own soul it was damned long ago. Vigorous and emphatic words, for which perhaps Katherine was punished enough, as she was adjudged to pay Michael in two actions for slander, £25 and costs in one and £15 and costs in the other.
And in the meantime, Katherine hadn’t been sitting around doing nothing even while she was locked up. With a dignity that suited the situation, and in a desperate hope that she might receive justice and mercy, she submitted a petition to the court, expressing with natural emotion some of the wrongs and suffering she had faced personally and with her estate. It's easy to see why, under such intense provocation, she told Michael Griswold that he would hang her even if he condemned a thousand souls, and as for his own soul, it was damned long ago. Strong and forceful words, for which Katherine was probably punished enough, as she was ordered to pay Michael £25 plus costs in one case for slander, and £15 plus costs in another.
This was Katherine's appeal:
This was Katherine's request:
Filed: Wid. Harrisons greuances presented to the court 6th of Octobr 1669.
Filed: Wid. Harrison's grievances presented to the court on October 6, 1669.
"A complaint of severall greiuances of the widow Harrisons which she desires the honored court to take cognizance of and as far as maybe to give her reliefe in."
"A complaint of several grievances from widow Harrison, which she requests the honorable court to consider and provide relief as much as possible."
"May it please this honored court, to have patience with mee a little: having none to complain to but the Fathers of the Commonweale; and yet meetting with many injurys, which necessitate mee to look out for some releeife. I am told to present you with these few lines, as a relation of the wrongs that I suffer, humbly crauing your serious consideration of my state a widdow; of my wrongs, (wch I conceive are great) and that as far as the rules of justice and equitie will allow, I may have right and a due recompence."
"May it please this honored court to be patient with me for a moment: I have no one to complain to but the leaders of the community; yet I encounter many injustices that force me to seek some relief. I have been asked to share these few lines as a description of the wrongs I endure, humbly requesting your serious consideration of my situation as a widow, of my grievances (which I believe are significant), and that, as much as the principles of justice and equity permit, I may receive what is right and a just compensation."
"That that I would present to you in the first place is we had a yoke of oxen one of wch spoyled at our stile before our doore, with blows upon the backe and side, so bruised that he was altogether unserviceable; about a fortnight or three weeks after the former, we had a cow spoyled, her back broke and two of her ribs, nextly I had a heifer in my barne yard, my ear mark of wch was cutt out and other ear marks set on; nextly I had a sow that had young pigs ear marked (in the stie) after the same manner; nextly I had a cow at the side of my yard, her jaw bone broke and one of her hoofs and a hole bored in her side, nextly I had a three yeare old heifer in the meadow stuck with knife or some weapon and wounded to death; nextly I had a cow in the street wounded in the bag as she stood before my door, in the street, nextly I had a sow went out into the woods, came home with ears luged and one of her hind legs cutt offe, lastly my corne in Mile Meadow much damnified with horses, they being staked upon it; it was wheat; All wch injurys, as they do sauor of enemy so I hope they will be looked upon by this honored court according to their natuer and judged according to there demerit, that so your poor suppliant may find some redrese; who is bold to subscribe."
"First of all, I want to present to you that we had a pair of oxen, one of which was spoiled at our gate in front of our door, beaten on the back and side, so badly bruised that he was completely useless. About two weeks or three weeks later, we had a cow that was spoiled, her back broken and two of her ribs; next, I had a heifer in my barnyard, my ear mark cut out and other ear marks put on; next, I had a sow that had young pigs ear marked (in the sty) in the same way; next, I had a cow at the side of my yard, her jaw bone broken, one of her hooves damaged, and a hole drilled in her side; next, I had a three-year-old heifer in the meadow stabbed with a knife or some weapon and left to die; next, I had a cow in the street injured in the bag while she stood in front of my door; next, I had a sow that went into the woods and came back with torn ears and one of her hind legs cut off; finally, my corn in Mile Meadow was greatly damaged by horses, which had been tied to it; it was wheat. All these injuries, as they seem to indicate malice, I hope will be viewed by this honored court according to their nature and judged based on their severity, so that your humble petitioner may find some relief; who is bold enough to sign."
"Your servant and supplyant, "KATHERINE HARRISON.
"Your servant and supporter, "KATHERINE HARRISON.
"Postscript. I had my horse wounded in the night, as he was in my pasture no creature save thre calves with him: More I had one two yeare old steer the back of it broke, in the barne yard, more I had a matter of 30 poles of hops cutt and spoyled; all wch things have hapened since my husband death, wch was last August was two yeare. There is wittnes to the oxen Jonathan & Josiah Gillert; to the cows being spoyled, Enoch Buck, Josiah Gilbert; to the cow that had her jaw bone broke, Dan, Rose, John, Bronson: to the heifer, one of widdow Stodder sons, and Willia Taylor; to the corne John Beckly; to the wound of the horse Anthony Wright, Goodman Higby; to the hops cutting, Goodwife Standish and Mary Wright; wch things being added, and left to your serious consideration, I make bold again to subscribe.
"Postscript. My horse got injured during the night while he was in my pasture, with only three calves there with him. Additionally, I had a two-year-old steer that broke its back in the barnyard, and around 30 poles of hops were cut and ruined. All these things have happened since my husband passed away, which was two years ago last August. The witnesses for the oxen are Jonathan & Josiah Gillert; for the damaged cows, Enoch Buck and Josiah Gilbert; for the cow that had her jaw broken, Dan, Rose, John, Bronson; for the heifer, one of Widow Stodder's sons, and William Taylor; for the corn, John Beckly; for the horse's injury, Anthony Wright and Goodman Higby; and for the hops cutting, Goodwife Standish and Mary Wright. With these matters presented for your serious consideration, I feel compelled to sign again."
"Yours, "KATHERINE HARRISON."
"Best, Katherine Harrison."
At a special court of assistants held May 20, 1670, to which the General Assembly had referred the matter with power, the court having considered the verdict of the jury could not concur with them so as to sentence her to death, but dismissed her from her imprisonment, she paying her just fees; willing her to mind the fulfilment of removing from Wethersfield, "which is that will tend most to her own safety & the contentment of the people who are her neighbors."
At a special court of assistants held on May 20, 1670, to which the General Assembly had referred the matter with authority, the court, after considering the jury's verdict, could not agree with them enough to sentence her to death but instead released her from imprisonment, as long as she paid her fees. They advised her to focus on moving away from Wethersfield, which would be best for her safety and the peace of mind of her neighbors.
In the same year, having paid the expenses of her trials and imprisonment, she removed to Westchester, New York. Being under suspicion of witchcraft, her presence was unwelcome to the inhabitants there and complaint was made to Governor Lovelace. She gave security for her civil carriage and good behavior, and at the General Court of Assizes held in New York in October, 1670, in the case of Katherine Harrison, widow, who was bound to the good behavior upon complaint of some of the inhabitants of Westchester, it was ordered, "that in regard there is nothing appears against her deserving the continuance of that obligation she is to be released from it, & hath liberty to remain in the town of Westchester where she now resides, or anywhere else in the government during her pleasure."
In the same year, after paying the costs of her trials and imprisonment, she moved to Westchester, New York. Because she was suspected of witchcraft, the locals did not welcome her, and a complaint was filed with Governor Lovelace. She provided assurance for her good behavior, and at the General Court of Assizes held in New York in October 1670, in the case of Katherine Harrison, a widow who had been ordered to maintain good behavior due to complaints from some Westchester residents, it was decided, "that since nothing has been shown against her that would justify continuing that obligation, she is to be released from it, and has the freedom to stay in Westchester where she currently lives, or anywhere else in the government as she wishes."
CHAPTER VII
"Although our fathers cannot be charged with having regarded the Devil in his respectful and deferential light, it must be acknowledged, that they gave him a conspicuous and distinguished—we might almost say a dignified—agency in the affairs of life and the government of the world: they were prone to confess, if not to revere, his presence, in all scenes and at all times. He occupied a wide space, not merely in their theology and philosophy, but in their daily and familiar thoughts." UPHAM'S Salem Witchcraft.
Even though our fathers didn’t see the Devil with respect or admiration, it's important to understand that they recognized him as having a major and significant—almost dignified—role in life and the governance of the world: they were likely to acknowledge, if not to worship, his presence in every situation and at all times. He occupied a substantial place, not only in their theology and philosophy but also in their daily thoughts. UPHAM'S Salem Witchcraft.
"There are in every community those who for one cause or another unfortunately incur the dislike and suspicion of the neighbors, and when belief in witchcraft prevailed such persons were easily believed to have familiarity with the evil one." A Case of Witchcraft in Hartford (Connecticut Magazine, November, 1899), HOADLEY.
"In every community, there are people who, for different reasons, end up being disliked and mistrusted by their neighbors. When belief in witchcraft was widespread, it was easy for others to assume these individuals had ties to the devil." A Case of Witchcraft in Hartford (Connecticut Magazine, November, 1899), HOADLEY.
Witchcraft in the Connecticut towns reached its climax in 1692—the fateful year at Salem, Massachusetts—and the chief center of its activity was in the border settlements at Fairfield. There, several women early in the year were accused of the crime, and among them Mercy Disborough. The testimonies against her were unique, and yet so typical that they are given in part as the second illustration.
Witchcraft in the Connecticut towns peaked in 1692—the notorious year of the Salem witch trials in Massachusetts—and the main focus of this activity was in the border towns at Fairfield. Several women were accused of witchcraft early in the year, including Mercy Disborough. The testimonies against her were distinctive, yet so common that they are partially provided as the second example.
MERCY (DISBRO) DISBOROUGH
MERCY (DISBRO) DISBOROUGH
"Mercy Disborough is complayned of & accused as guilty of witchcraft for that on the 25t of Aprill 1692 & in the 4th year of their Maties reigne & at sundry other times she hath by the instigation & help of the diuill in a preternaturall way afflicted & don harme to the bodyes & estates of sundry of their Maties subjects or to some of them contrary to the law of God, the peace of our soueraigne lord & lady the King & Queen their crowne & dignity."
"Mercy Disborough is accused of witchcraft for the events that took place on April 25, 1692, during the fourth year of their Majesties' reign, and at various other times she has, with the instigation and help of the devil, harmed the bodies and properties of some of their Majesties' subjects in a supernatural way, contrary to the law of God and the peace of our sovereign lord and lady, the King and Queen, and their crown and dignity."
"BILLA VERA."
"BILLA VERA."
Others were indicted and tried, at this session of the court and its adjournments, notably Elizabeth Clawson. Many depositions were taken in Fairfield and elsewhere, some of the defendants were discharged and others convicted, but Mercy Disborough's case was the most noted one in the tests applied, and in the conclusions to which it led. The whole case with its singular incidents is worthy of careful study. Some of the testimony is given here.
Others were charged and tried during this court session and its breaks, especially Elizabeth Clawson. Many statements were collected in Fairfield and other places; some of the defendants were released while others were found guilty. However, Mercy Disborough's case attracted the most attention due to the tests conducted and the conclusions that followed. The entire case, with its unique events, deserves thorough examination. Some of the testimonies are presented here.
EDWARD JESOP—The roast pig—"The place of Scripture"—The bewitched "cannoe"—The old cart horse—Optical illusions
EDWARD JESOP—The roast pig—"The place of Scripture"—The bewitched "canoe"—The old cart horse—Optical illusions
"Edward Jesop aged about 29 years testifieth that being at The: Disburrows house at Compoh sometime in ye beginning of last winter in ye evening he asked me to tarry & sup with him, & their I saw a pigg roasting that looked verry well, but when it came to ye table (where we had a very good lite) it seemed to me to have no skin upon it & looked very strangly, but when ye sd Disburrow began to cut it ye skin (to my apprehension) came againe upon it, & it seemed to be as it was when upon ye spit, at which strange alteration of ye pig I was much concerned however fearing to displease his wife by refusing to eat, I did eat some of ye pig, & at ye same time Isaac Sherwood being there & Disburrows wife & hee discoursing concerning a certain place of scripture, & I being of ye same mind that Sherwood was concerning yt place of scripture & Sherwood telling her where ye place was she brought a bible (that was of very large print) to me to read ye particular scripture, but tho I had a good light & looked ernestly upon ye book I could not see one letter but looking upon it againe when in her hand after she had turned over a few leaves I could see to read it above a yard of. Ye same night going home & coming to Compoh it seemed to be high water whereupon I went to a cannoe that was about ten rods of (which lay upon such a bank as ordinarily I could have shoved it into ye creek with ease) & though I lifted with all my might & lifted one end very high from ye ground I could by no means push it into ye creek & then ye water seemed to be so loe yt I might ride over, whereupon I went againe to ye water side but then it appeared as at first very high & then going to ye cannoe againe & finding that I could not get it into ye creek I thought to ride round where I had often been & knew ye way as well as before my own dore & had my old cart hors yet I could not keep him in ye road do what I could but he often turned aside into ye bushes and then went backwards so that tho I keep upon my hors & did my best indeauour to get home I was ye greatest part of ye night wandering before I got home altho I was not much more than two miles."
"Edward Jesop, about 29 years old, testifies that while at The Disburrow's house in Compoh sometime at the beginning of last winter in the evening, he asked me to stay and have dinner with him. There, I saw a pig roasting that looked really good, but when it came to the table (where we had a great light), it appeared to be skinless and looked very strange. However, when the said Disburrow began to cut it, the skin (at least to me) seemed to come back on it, and it looked the same as it did on the spit, which really concerned me. Still, fearing to upset his wife by refusing to eat, I had some of the pig. At the same time, Isaac Sherwood was there, along with Disburrow's wife, and they were discussing a certain scripture. Since I agreed with Sherwood about that passage, when he told her where it was, she brought me a Bible (which had very large print) to read the specific verse. But though I had a good light and looked intently at the book, I couldn't see a single letter. When I looked again while it was in her hand after she turned a few pages, I could read it from more than a yard away. That same night, on my way home and arriving at Compoh, it seemed to be high tide, so I went to a canoe that was about ten rods away (which was on a bank where I usually could have easily pushed it into the creek). Even though I lifted with all my strength and got one end quite high off the ground, I couldn’t push it into the creek, and then the water seemed so low that I could walk across. So I went back to the water's edge only to find it appeared very high again. Then, going to the canoe once more, and realizing I couldn’t get it into the creek, I thought I would ride around a route that I had taken often and knew as well as the way to my own door, with my old cart horse. Yet, I couldn’t keep him on the path no matter what I did; he frequently strayed into the bushes and even went backward. So, despite staying on my horse and trying my best to get home, I spent most of the night wandering before I finally got back, even though it was only a little over two miles."
"Fairfield Septembr 15th 1692.
"Fairfield, September 15, 1692."
"Sworn in Court Septr 15 1692. Attests John Allyn, Secry."
"Sworn in Court September 15, 1692. Attests John Allyn, Secretary."
JOHN BARLOW—Mesmeric influence—Light and darkness—The falling out
JOHN BARLOW—Hypnotic influence—Light and shadow—The disagreement
"John Barlow eaged 24 years or thairabout saieth and sd testifieth that soumtime this last year that as I was in bedd in the hous that Mead Jesuop then liuied in that Marsey Desbory came to me and layed hold on my fett and pinshed them (and) looked wishley in my feass and I strouff to rise and cold not and too speek and cold not. All the time that she was with me it was light as day as it semed to me—but when shee uanicht it was darck and I arose and hade a paine in my feet and leags some time after an our or too it remained. Sometime before this aforesd Marcey and I had a falling out and shee sayed that if shee had but strength shee would teer me in peses."
"John Barlow, aged around 24, says and testifies that sometime last year, while I was in bed in the house where Mead Jesuop lived, Marsey Desbory came to me and grabbed my feet and pinched them. She looked at me intensely, and I tried to get up but couldn’t, and I tried to speak but couldn’t. The whole time she was with me, it felt as bright as day, but when she vanished, it became dark. I got up and had pain in my feet and legs, which lasted for an hour or two afterward. Before this incident, Marsey and I had a disagreement, and she said that if she had the strength, she would tear me to pieces."
"Sworn in court Septr 19, 92. Attests John Allyn."
"Sworn in court September 19, 1692. Attests John Allyn."
BENJAMIN DUNING—"Cast into ye watter"—Vindication of innocence—Mercy not to be hanged alone
BENJAMIN DUNING—"Thrown into the water"—Proving innocence—Mercy not to be executed alone
"A Speciall Cort held in Fairfield this 2d of June 1692.
A special court was held in Fairfield on June 2, 1692.
"Marcy Disbrow ye wife of Thomas Disbrow of Fairfield was sometimes lately accused by Catren Branch servant to Daniell Wescoat off tormenting her whereupon sd Mercy being sent for to Stanford and ther examined upon suspecion of witchcraft before athaurity and fro thnce conueyed to ye county jaile and sd Mercy ernestly desireing to be tryed by being cast into ye watter yesterday wch was done this day being examind what speciall reason she had to be so desiring of such a triall her answer was yt it was to vindicate her innocency allso she sd Mercy being asked if she did not say since she was duckt yt if she was hanged shee would not be hanged alone her answer was yt she did say to Benje Duning do you think yt I would be such a fooll as to be hanged allone. Sd Benj. Duning aged aboue sixteen years testifies yt he heard sd Mercy say yesterday that if she was hanged she would not be hanged allone wch was sd upon her being urged to bring out others that wear suspected for wiches."
"Marcy Disbrow, the wife of Thomas Disbrow of Fairfield, was recently accused by Catren Branch, a servant of Daniell Wescoat, of tormenting her. As a result, Mercy was summoned to Stanford and examined on suspicion of witchcraft before the authorities. She was then taken to the county jail. Mercy earnestly requested to be tried by being cast into the water, which happened yesterday. When questioned about why she wanted such a trial, she explained that it was to prove her innocence. Additionally, when asked if she had not said after being ducked that if she were hanged, she wouldn’t be hanged alone, her response was that she did say to Benje Duning, 'Do you think I would be such a fool as to be hanged alone?' Benj. Duning, who is over sixteen years old, testified that he heard Mercy say yesterday that if she were hanged, she would not be hanged alone, which she said while being pressed to name others who were suspected of witchcraft."
"Sept 15 1692 Sworn in Court by Benj. Duning attest John Allyn Secy
"Sept 15, 1692 Sworn in Court by Benj. Duning attest John Allyn Secy
"Joseph Stirg aged about 38 declares that he wth Benj. Duning being at prison discoursing with the prisoner now at the bar he heard her say if she were hanged she would not be hanged alone. He tould her she implicitly owned herself a witch."
"Joseph Stirg, around 38 years old, states that he, along with Benj. Duning, was at the prison talking to the prisoner currently at the bar. He heard her say that if she were hanged, she wouldn't be the only one. He told her that she basically admitted she was a witch."
"Sworn in Court Sept. 15, atests John Allyn, Secry."
"Sworn in Court on September 15, certifies John Allyn, Secretary."
THOMAS HALLIBERCH—A poor creature "damd"—Torment—A lost soul—Divination
THOMAS HALLIBERCH—A pitiful being "cursed"—Suffering—A doomed spirit—Fortune-telling
"Thomas Halliberch ye jayle keeper aged 41 testifieth and saith yt this morning ye date aboue Samull Smith junr. came to his house and sad somthing to his wife somthing concerning Mercy and his wifes answer was Oh poor creature upon yt Mercy mad answer & sd poor creature indeed & sd shee had been tormented all night. Sd Halliberch answered her yt it was ye devill her answer was she did beleue it was and allso yt she sed to it in ye name of ye Father Son and Holy Gost also sd Halliberch saith yt sd Mercy sd that her soul was damd for yesterdays worke. Mercy owned before this court yt she did say to sd Halliberch that it was reuealled to her yt shee wisht she had not damd her soule for yesterdays work and also sad before this cort she belieued that there was a deuination in all her trouble."
"Thomas Halliberch, the jailkeeper, aged 41, testifies that this morning, the date mentioned above, Samuel Smith Jr. came to his house and said something to his wife regarding Mercy. His wife's response was, 'Oh poor creature.' Upon hearing this, Mercy replied, 'Poor creature indeed,' and mentioned that she had been tormented all night. Halliberch responded that it was the devil. She replied that she believed it was and also that she spoke to it in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, Halliberch states that Mercy claimed her soul was damned for the work done yesterday. Mercy admitted before this court that she told Halliberch it was revealed to her that she wished she had not damned her soul for yesterday's actions and also stated before this court that she believed there was a divination in all her troubles."
"Owned by the prisoner in court Sept. 15, 1692. attest John Allyn, Secy"
"Owned by the prisoner in court on September 15, 1692. Attest John Allyn, Secretary."
THOMAS BENIT, ELIZABETH BENIT—"A birds taile"—A family difference—"Ye Scripture words"—The lost "calues and lams"
THOMAS BENIT, ELIZABETH BENIT—"A bird's tail"—A family disagreement—"The biblical words"—The missing "calves and lambs"
"Thos. Benit aged aboute 50 yrs testifieth yt Mercy Disbrow tould him yt shee would make him as bare as a birds taile, which he saith was about two or three yrs sine wch was before he lost any of his creatures."
"Thomas Benit, around 50 years old, testifies that Mercy Disbrow told him that she would leave him as bare as a bird's tail, which he says was about two or three years ago, before he lost any of his animals."
"Elizabeth Benit aged about 20 yrs testifieth yt Mercy Disbrow did say that it should be prest heeped and running ouer to her sd Elizabth; wch was somtime last winter after som difference yt was aboute a sow of Benje. Rumseyes."
"Elizabeth Benit, around 20 years old, testifies that Mercy Disbrow said it should be pressed, heaped, and overflowing to her, said Elizabeth; which was sometime last winter after some disagreement about a sow of Benje. Rumseyes."
"Mercy Disbrow owns yt she did say those words to sd Elizabeth & yt she did tell her yt it was ye scripture words & named ye place of scripture which was about a day after."
"Mercy Disbrow admits she said those words to said Elizabeth and that she told her it was the scripture words and named the place in scripture, which was about a day after."
"The abousd Thos. Benit saith yt after ye sd Mercy had expressed herself as above, he lost a couple of two yr old calues in a creek running by Halls Islande, which catle he followed by ye track & founde them one against a coue of ice & ye other about high water marke, & yt they went into ye creek som distance from ye road where ye other catle went not, & also yt he lost 30 lams wthin about a fortnights time after ye sd two catle died som of sd lams about a week old & som a fortnight & in good liueing case & allso saith yt som time after ye sd lams died he lost two calues yt he fectht up ouer night & seemed to be well & wear dead before ye next morning one of them about a fortnight old ye one a sucker & ye other not."
"The abousd Thos. Benit says that after the aforementioned Mercy expressed herself as stated, he lost a couple of two-year-old calves in a creek near Halls Island. He followed their tracks and found one against a patch of ice and the other at high water mark. They had gone into the creek some distance from the road where the other cattle did not go. He also mentioned that he lost 30 lambs within about two weeks after the two calves died, some of those lambs being about a week old and some about two weeks old, all in good condition. Additionally, he stated that sometime after the lambs died, he lost two calves that he had brought in overnight. They seemed to be well but were dead by the next morning; one was about two weeks old and was nursing, while the other was not."
HENRY GREY—The roaring calfe—The mired cow—The heifer and cart whip—Hard words—"Creeses in ye cetle"
HENRY GREY—The roaring calf—The stuck cow—The heifer and cart whip—Harsh words—"Creeses in ye kettle"
"The said Henry saith yt aboute a year agou or somthing more yt he had a calfe very strangly taken and acted things yt are very unwonted, it roared very strangly for ye space of near six or seven howers & allso scowered extraordinarily all which after an unwonted maner; & also saith he had a lame after a very strange maner it being well and ded in about an houre and when it was skined it lookt as if it had been bruised or pinched on ye shoulders and allso saith yt about two or three months agou he and Thos Disbrow & sd Disbroughs wife was makeing a bargaine about a cetle yt sd Henry was to haue & had of sd Disbrough so in time they not agreeing sd Henry carried ye cetle to them againe & then sd Dibroughs wife was very angry and many hard words pased & yt som time since about two months he lost a cow which was mired in a swampe and was hanged by one leg in mire op to ye gambrill and her nose in the water and sd cow was in good case & saith he had as he judged about 8 pound of tallow out of sd cow & allso yt he had a thre yr old heifer came home about three weeks since & seemed to ale somthing she lay downe & would haue cast herself but he pruented her & he cut a piece of her eare & still shee seemed to be allmost dead & then he sent for his cart whip & gave ye cow a stroak wth it & she arose suddenly and ran from him & he followed her & struck her sundry times and yt wthin about one hour he judges she was well & chewed her cud allso sd Henry saith yt ye ketle he had of sd Disbrow loockt like a new ketle the hamer stroakes and creeses was plaine to be seen in ye cetle, from ye time he had it untill a short time before he carried it home & then in about a quarter of an hour, the cetle changed its looks & seemed to be an old cetle yt had been used about 20 years and yt sundry nailes appeared which he could not see before and allso saith yt somtime lately he being at his brother Jacob Grays house & Mercy Disbrough being there she begane to descorse about ye kitle yt because he would not haue ye cetle shee had said that it should cost him two cows which he tould her he could prove she had sed & her answer was Aye: & then was silent, & he went home & when he com home he heard Thomas Benit say he had a cow strangly taken yt day & he sent for his cart whip & whipye cow & shee was soon well againe & as near as he could com at it was about ye same time yt he tould Mercy he could prove what shee sad about ye two cows and allso saith yt as soon as he came home ye same time his wife tould him yt while Thos Benit had ye cart whip one of sd Henrys calues was taken strangly & yt she sent for ye whip & before ye whip came ye calf was well."
"Henry says that about a year ago, or maybe a little longer, he had a calf that got very strangely sick and acted in unusual ways. It roared in a weird manner for nearly six or seven hours and also had extraordinary diarrhea, all of which was very unusual. He also mentioned that he had a lame animal in a very strange way; it was fine one moment and dead in about an hour. When it was skinned, it looked like it had been bruised or pinched on the shoulders. Furthermore, he says that about two or three months ago, he, Thomas Disbrow, and Disbrow's wife were making a deal about a kettle that Henry was supposed to have from Disbrow. When they couldn’t agree, Henry returned the kettle to them, which made Disbrow's wife very angry, and they exchanged many harsh words. Also, a while back, he lost a cow that got stuck in a swamp and was hanging by one leg up to its gambrill, with its nose in the water. That cow was in good condition, and he estimated he got about 8 pounds of tallow out of it. He also mentioned that a three-year-old heifer came home about three weeks ago, seemed unwell, lay down, and tried to give birth, but he prevented that. He cut a piece of her ear, and she still seemed almost dead. Then he called for his cart whip and gave the cow a slap with it, and she suddenly stood up and ran away. He followed her, struck her several times, and he believed that within about an hour she was back to normal and was chewing her cud. Henry also said that the kettle he got from Disbrow looked like new; you could clearly see the hammer strokes and creases on it from the time he had it until shortly before he took it home. Then, in about fifteen minutes, the kettle's appearance changed and looked old, like it had been used for about 20 years, and several nails appeared that he hadn’t noticed before. He also said that recently, while he was at his brother Jacob Gray's house, Mercy Disbrow was there and started talking about the kettle. Because he didn’t want the kettle, she claimed it would cost him two cows. He told her he could prove she said that, and her only response was, 'Yes,' before going silent. After he got home, he overheard Thomas Benit saying he had a cow that was acting strangely that day. Thomas sent for his cart whip, whipped his cow, and she was well again shortly. As far as he could tell, this was around the same time he told Mercy he could prove what she said about the two cows. He also mentioned that as soon as he got home, his wife told him that while Thomas Benit had the cart whip, one of Henry's calves was acting strangely, and she sent for the whip, and before it arrived, the calf was fine."
"John Grummon senr saith yt about six year agou he being at Compo with his wife & child & ye child being very well as to ye outward vew and it being suddenly taken very ill & so remained a little while upon wch he being much troubled went out & heard young Thomas Benit threaten Mercy Disbrow & bad her unbewitch his uncles child whereupon she came ouer to ye child & ye child was well.
"John Grummon senior says that about six years ago he was at Compo with his wife and child, and the child looked perfectly healthy but suddenly became very ill and stayed that way for a little while. He was quite upset about this, so he went out and heard young Thomas Benit threaten Mercy Disbrow and told her to unbewitch his uncle's child. After that, she came over to the child, and the child got better."
"Thomas Benit junr aged 27 years testifieth yt at ye same time of ye above sd childs illness he came into ye house wher it was & he spoke to sd John Gruman to go & scould at Mercy & tould him if he sd Gruman would not he would wherupon he sd Benit went out and called to Mercy & bad her come and unbewitch his unkle Grumans child or else he would beat her hart out then sd mercy imediatly came ouer and stroaked ye child & sd God forbad she should hurt ye child and imediately after ye child was well."
"Thomas Benit Jr., 27 years old, testifies that at the same time of the aforementioned child's illness, he entered the house where it was and spoke to John Gruman, telling him to go and confront Mercy. He said that if Gruman didn’t do it, he would. Benit then went outside and called for Mercy, commanding her to come and unbewitch Gruman's child, or else he would beat her senseless. Mercy immediately came over, stroked the child, and declared that God forbade her from hurting the child, and right after that, the child was well."
ANN GODFREE—The frisky oxen—Neighborly interest—The "beer out of ye barrill"—Mixed theology—The onbewitched sow
ANN GODFREE—The lively oxen—Community interest—The "beer from your barrel"—Blended beliefs—The uncharmed pig
"Ann Godfree aged 27 years testifieth yt she came to Thos Disbrows house ye next morning after it was sd yt Henry Grey whipt his cow and sd Disbrows wife lay on ye bed & stretcht out her arme & sd to her oh! Ann I am allmost kild; & further saith yt about a year & eleven months agou she went to sd Disbrows house wth young Thos Benits wife & told Mercy Disbrow yt Henry Greys wife sed she had bewitcht his her husbands oxen & made y jump ouer ye fence & made ye beer jump out of ye barrill & Mercy answered yt there was a woman came to her & reuiled her & asked what shee was doing she told her she was praying to her God, then she asked her who was her god allso tould her yt her god was ye deuill; & Mercy said she bad ye woman go home & pray to her god & she went home but shee knew not whether she did pray or not; but she sed God had met wth her for she had died a hard death for reuileing on her & yt when ye sd Thos Benits wife & she came away sd Benits wife tould her yt woman yt was spoaken of was her sister and allso sed yt shee had heard those words which Mercy had related to her pas between Mercy and her sister. Upon yt sd An saith she would haue gon back & haue talked againe to Mercy & Thomas Benit senr bad her she should not for she would do her som mischief and yt night following shee sd Ann saith she could not sleep & shee heard a noyse about ye house & allso heard a noyse like as tho a beast wear knoct with an axe & in ye morning their was a heifer of theirs lay ded near ye door. Allso sd An saith yt last summer she had a sow very sick and sd Mercy cam bye & she called to her & bad her on-bewitch her sow & tould her yt folks talked of ducking her but if she would not onbewitch her sow she should need no ducking & soon after yt her sow was well and eat her meat." That both what is on this side & the other is sworne in court.
"Ann Godfree, 27 years old, testifies that she went to Thomas Disbrow's house the next morning after hearing that Henry Grey whipped his cow. Disbrow's wife was lying on the bed, stretched out her arm, and said to her, 'Oh, Ann, I am almost killed.' She further states that about a year and eleven months ago, she went to Disbrow's house with young Thomas Benit’s wife and told Mercy Disbrow that Henry Grey's wife said she had bewitched his oxen, making them jump over the fence and making the beer jump out of the barrel. Mercy replied that a woman came to her and insulted her, asking what she was doing. Mercy told her she was praying to her God, and then the woman asked who her god was and claimed that her god was the devil. Mercy said she told the woman to go home and pray to her god. The woman went home, but Mercy did not know if she prayed or not; however, she said God had dealt with her because she died a hard death for insulting Mercy. When Benit's wife and she left, Benit's wife told her that the woman spoken of was her sister and also said that she heard the words that Mercy reported passing between Mercy and her sister. Ann said she would have gone back to talk again to Mercy, but Thomas Benit senior told her not to, as she would do her some harm. That following night, Ann says she could not sleep and heard noises around the house, as well as sounds like an animal being knocked with an axe. In the morning, they found one of their heifers lying dead near the door. Ann also states that last summer she had a very sick sow, and Mercy came by; she called to her and told her to unbewitch her sow. She mentioned that people talked about dunking her, but if she did not unbewitch her sow, she would not need any dunking. Soon after that, her sow recovered and ate her food." Both what is on this side and the other is sworn in court.
"Sept 15, 92. Attests, John Allyn Secy"
"Sept 15, 92. Certifies, John Allyn Secretary"
"It has been heretofore noted that during her trial—from the records of which the foregoing testimony has been taken—the prisoner Mercy Disborough was subjected to a search for witch marks by a committee of women, faithfully sworn narrowly and truly to inspect and search. This indignity was repeated, and the women agreed "that there is found on her boddy as before they found, and nothing else." But the accused in order to her further detection was subjected to another test of English parentage, recommended by the authorities and embodied in the criminal codes. It was the notorious water test, or ordeal by water. September 15, 1692, this test was made, chiefly on the testimony of a young girl subject to epileptic fits and hysterics, who was carried into the meetinghouse where the examination was being held. Thus runs the record:
"It has been previously noted that during her trial—from which the earlier testimony has been taken—the defendant Mercy Disborough was searched for witch marks by a committee of women, who were sworn to carefully inspect and examine her. This humiliation was repeated, and the women concluded "that there is found on her body as before they found, and nothing else." However, the accused was subjected to another test to further confirm her English heritage, as recommended by the authorities and included in the criminal codes. It was the infamous water test, or ordeal by water. On September 15, 1692, this test was conducted, primarily based on the testimony of a young girl prone to epileptic fits and hysterics, who was brought into the meetinghouse where the examination was taking place. Thus runs the record:"
Daniel Westcott's "gerle"—Scenes in the meeting house—"Ye girl"—Mercy's voice—Usual paroxisme
Daniel Westcott's "gerle"—Scenes in the meeting house—"The girl"—Mercy's voice—Typical meltdown
"The afflicted person being carried into ye meeting house & Mercy Disbrow being under examination by ye honable court & whilst she was speaking ye girl came to her sences, & sd she heard Mercy Disbrow saying withall where is she, endeavoring to raise herself, with her masters help got almost up, in ye open view of present, & Mercy Disbrow looking about on her, she immediately fel down into a fit again. A 2d time she came to herself whilst in ye meeting house, & askd whers Mercy, I hear her voice, & with that turned about her head (she lying with her face from her) & lookd on her, then laying herself down in like posture as before sd tis she, Ime sure tis she, & presently fell into a like paroxisme or fit as she usually is troubled with."
"The afflicted person was being carried into the meeting house, and Mercy Disbrow was being questioned by the honorable court. While she was speaking, the girl regained her senses and said she heard Mercy Disbrow asking where she was. With her master’s help, she almost got up in full view of everyone present. As Mercy Disbrow looked at her, the girl immediately fell down into a fit again. A second time, she came to while in the meeting house and asked where Mercy was, saying she could hear her voice. Then she turned her head (she was lying with her face away) and looked at her. After that, she laid herself down in the same position as before and said, 'It’s her, I’m sure it’s her,' and quickly fell into another paroxysm or fit, just like she usually experienced."
Mercy Disborough, and another woman on trial at the same time (Elizabeth Clauson), were put to the test together, and two eyewitnesses of the sorry exhibition of cruelty and delusion made oath that they saw Mercy and Elizabeth bound hand and foot and put into the water, and that they swam upon the water like a cork, and when one labored to press them into the water they buoyed up like cork.[G]
Mercy Disborough and another woman on trial at the same time (Elizabeth Clauson) were tested together, and two eyewitnesses of the shocking display of cruelty and delusion testified that they saw Mercy and Elizabeth tied up and thrown into the water, where they floated like corks. When someone tried to push them under, they popped back up like corks. [G]
[G] Depositions of Abram Adams and Jonathan Squire, September 15, 1692.
[G] Statements from Abram Adams and Jonathan Squire, September 15, 1692.
At the close of the trial the jury disagreed and the prisoner was committed "to the common goale there to be kept in safe custody till a return may be made to the General Court for further direction what shall be don in this matter;" and the gentlemen of the jury were also to be ready, when further called by direction of the General Court, to perfect their verdict. The General Court ordered the Special Court to meet again "to put an issue to those former matters."
At the end of the trial, the jury couldn't reach a decision, and the prisoner was sent "to the common jail to be kept in safe custody until the General Court provides further instructions on what should be done about this matter;" and the jury members were expected to be available when called upon by the General Court to finalize their verdict. The General Court directed the Special Court to reconvene "to address those previous issues."
October 28, 1692, this entry appears of record:
October 28, 1692, this entry is recorded:
"The jury being called to make a return of their indictment that had been committed to them concerning Mercy Disborough, they return that they find the prisoner guilty according to the indictment of familiarity with Satan. The jury being sent forth upon a second consideration of their verdict returned that they saw no reason to alter their verdict, but to find her guilty as before. The court approved of their verdict and the Governor passed sentence of death upon her."
"The jury was called to deliver their verdict regarding Mercy Disborough, and they found the defendant guilty of being in league with Satan. After further deliberation, the jury confirmed that they had no reason to change their verdict and still deemed her guilty. The court accepted their verdict, and the Governor sentenced her to death."
In the search for facts which the old records certify to at this late day, one is deeply impressed by the wisdom and potency of the sober afterthought and conclusions of some of the clergy, lawyers, and men of affairs, who sat as judges and jurors in the witch trials, which led them to weigh and analyze the evidence, spectral and otherwise, and so call a halt in the prosecutions and convictions.
In the search for facts confirmed by old records even today, one is struck by the insight and strength of the thoughtful reflections and decisions made by some clergy, lawyers, and businesspeople who served as judges and jurors in the witch trials. They took the time to evaluate and scrutinize the evidence, both spectral and otherwise, ultimately choosing to put a stop to the prosecutions and convictions.
What some of the Massachusetts men did and said in the contemporaneous outbreak at Salem has been shown, but nowhere is the reaction there more clearly illustrated than in the statement of Reverend John Hale—great-grandsire of Nathan Hale, the revolutionary hero—the long time pastor at Beverly Farms, who from personal experience became convinced of the grave errors at the Salem trials, and in his Modest Inquiry in 1697 said:
What some of the men from Massachusetts did and said during the outbreak in Salem has been shown, but nowhere is the reaction clearer than in the statement of Reverend John Hale—great-grandfather of Nathan Hale, the revolutionary hero—the long-time pastor at Beverly Farms, who, based on personal experience, became convinced of the serious mistakes made during the Salem trials. In his Modest Inquiry in 1697, he said:
"Such was the darkness of that day, the tortures and lamentations of the afflicted, and the power of former precedents, that we walked in the clouds and could not see our way.... observing the events of that sad catastrophe,—Anno 1692,—I was brought to a more strict scanning of the principles I had imbibed, and by scanning to question, and by questioning at length to reject many of them." Nathan Hale (p. 10), Johnston.
"On that dark day, filled with the suffering and cries of the hurt, and influenced by past events, we felt lost and couldn't find our path. Reflecting on the events of that tragic disaster—Anno 1692—I began to closely examine the ideas I had accepted, and through this examination, I started to question them, ultimately deciding to reject many of them." Nathan Hale (p. 10), Johnston.
But no utterance takes higher rank, or deserves more consideration in its appeal to sanity, justice, and humanity, than the declaration of certain ministers and laymen of Connecticut, in giving their advice and "reasons" for a cessation of the prosecutions for witchcraft in the colonial courts, and for reprieving Mercy Disborough under sentence of death. This is the remarkable document:
But no statement holds a higher status or deserves more attention in its appeal to reason, fairness, and compassion than the declaration made by some ministers and ordinary citizens of Connecticut, as they offered their advice and "reasons" for stopping the witchcraft prosecutions in the colonial courts and for sparing Mercy Disborough from a death sentence. This is the noteworthy document:
"Filed: The ministers aduice about the witches in Fayrfield, 1692.
"Filed: The ministers' advice about the witches in Fairfield, 1692."
"As to ye evidences left to our consideration respecting ye two women suspected of witchcraft at Fairfield we offer
"As for the evidence we have regarding the two women suspected of witchcraft in Fairfield, we present"
"1. That we cannot but give our concurrance with ye generallity of divines that ye endeavour of conviction of witchcraft by swimming is unlawful and sinfull & therefore it cannot afford any evidence.
"1. We must agree with the majority of religious scholars that attempting to prove witchcraft by having someone swim is unlawful and sinful, and therefore it cannot provide any evidence."
"2. That ye unusuall excresencies found upon their bodies ought not to be allowed as evidence against them without ye approbation of some able physitians.
"2. That the unusual growths found on their bodies should not be accepted as evidence against them without the approval of qualified physicians."
"3. Respecting ye evidence of ye afflicted maid we find some things testifyed carrying a suspition of her counterfeiting; Others that plainly intimate her trouble from ye mother which improved by craft may produce ye most of those strange & unusuall effects affirmed of her; & of those things that by some may be thought to be diabolical or effects of witchcraft. We apprehend her applying of them to these persons merely from ye appearance of their spectres to her to be very uncertain and failable from ye easy deception of her senses & subtile devices of ye devill, wherefore cannot think her a sufficient witnesse; yet we think that her affliction being something strange it well deserves a farther inquiry.
"3. Considering the evidence from the afflicted girl, we find some testimonies that raise suspicion of her faking; others clearly suggest that her troubles stem from her mother, which, when manipulated cleverly, could cause most of the strange and unusual effects claimed about her, and what some might view as diabolical or witchcraft-related. We believe her claims about these individuals, based solely on their apparitions to her, are highly uncertain and vulnerable to the easy deception of her senses and the cunning tricks of the devil. Therefore, we cannot regard her as a reliable witness; however, we feel that her strange affliction warrants further investigation."
"Hartford JOSEPH ELIOT "Octobr 1692 TIMOTHY WOODBRIDGE."
"Hartford JOSEPH ELIOT "October 1692 TIMOTHY WOODBRIDGE."
"The rest of ye ministers gave their approbation to ye sum of what is ... above written tho this could not be drawen up before their departure."
"The other ministers approved the summary of what is ... above written, though this couldn't be put together before their departure."
(Above in handwriting of Rev. Timothy Woodbridge.) "Filed: Reasons of Repreuing Mercy Desbrough.
(Above in handwriting of Rev. Timothy Woodbridge.) "Filed: Reasons for Reproving Mercy Desbrough.
"To the Honrd Gen: Assembly of Connecticut Colony sitting in Hartford. Reasons of repreuing Mercy Disbrough from being put to death until this Court had cognizance of her case.
"To the Honorable General Assembly of the Connecticut Colony meeting in Hartford. Reasons for delaying the execution of Mercy Disbrough until this Court has reviewed her case."
"First, because wee that repreued her had power by the law so to do. Secondly, because we had and haue sattisfying reasons that the sentence of death passed against her ought not to be executed which reasons we give to this Court to be judge of
"First, because we who reprieved her had the authority by law to do so. Secondly, because we have valid reasons that the death sentence given to her should not be carried out, and we present these reasons to this Court for judgment."
"1st. The jury that brought her in guilty (which uerdict was the ground of her condemnation) was not the same jury who were first charged with this prisoners deliuerance and who had it in charg many weeks. Mr. Knowles was on the jury first sworn to try this woman and he was at or about York when the Court sate the second time and when the uerdict was given, the jury was altered and another man sworn.
"1st. The jury that found her guilty (which verdict was the basis for her conviction) was not the same jury that was originally assigned to this defendant’s case and who had it for many weeks. Mr. Knowles was on the jury that was first sworn in to try this woman, and he was in or around York when the court met the second time and when the verdict was delivered; the jury was changed and another man was sworn in."
"It is so inuiolable a practice in law that the indiudual jurors and jury that is charged with the deliuerance of a prisoner in a capital case and on whom the prisoner puts himself or herself to be tryed must try it and they only that al the presidents in Old England and New confirm 9it and not euer heard of til this time to be inouated. And yet not only president but the nature of the thing inforces it for to these juors the law gaue this power vested it in them they had it in right of law and it is incompatible and impossible that it should be uested in these and in others too for then two juries may haue the same power in the same case one man altered the jury is altered.
"It is such an established practice in law that the individual jurors and the jury responsible for delivering a verdict in a capital case, on whom the defendant relies to be tried, must be the ones to do so; and only they, as all the precedents in Old England and New confirm, have this authority, which has not been challenged until now. Moreover, not only does precedent support this, but the very nature of the situation requires it. The law grants this power to the jurors, and they hold it by right. It is incompatible and impossible for this power to be granted to both them and others; otherwise, two juries might have the same authority in the same case, meaning that one change in the jury alters the verdict."
"Tis the birthright of the Kings' subjects so and no otherwise to be tryed and they must not be despoyled of it.
"It is the birthright of the King's subjects to be tried in this way and no other, and they must not be deprived of it."
"Due form of law is that alone wherein the ualidity of verdicts and judgments in such cases stands and if a real and apparent murtherer be condemned and executed out of due form of law it is inditable against them that do it for in such case the law is superseded by arbitrary doings.
"Due process of law is the only basis on which the validity of verdicts and judgments in such cases rests. If a clearly guilty murderer is condemned and executed without following proper legal procedures, it is undeniable that those responsible for this are at fault, as the law is overridden by arbitrary actions."
"What the Court accepts and the prisoner accepts differing from the law is nothing what the law admitts is al in the case.
"What the Court accepts and what the prisoner accepts, differing from the law, is not what the law admits; it's all in the case."
"If one jury may be changed two, ten, the whole may be so, and solemn oathe made uain.
"If one jury can be changed, then two, ten, or even the whole thing could be, making any solemn oath pointless."
"Wee durst not but dissent from and declare against such alterations by our repreueing therefore the said prisoner when ye were informed of this business about her jury, and we pray this honored Court to take heed what they do in it now it is roled to their doore and that at least they be well sattisfied from able lawyers that such a chang is in law alowable ere this prisoner be executed least they bring themselues into inextricable troubles and the whole country. Blood is a great thing and we cannot but open our mouths for the dumb in the cause of one appointed to die by such a uerdict.
"We cannot help but disagree with and declare against such changes by reproving the said prisoner when you were informed about this situation concerning her jury. We urge this honored Court to pay attention to what they do now that it has come to their attention, and that they ensure they are well satisfied by capable lawyers that such a change is legally permissible before this prisoner is executed, lest they land themselves and the entire country in serious trouble. Blood is a serious matter, and we cannot remain silent for the voiceless in the case of someone condemned to die by such a verdict."
"2dly. We had a good accompt of the euidences giuen against her that none of them amounted to what Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bernard and Mr. Mather with others state as sufficiently conuictiue of witchcraft, namely 1st Confession (this there was none of) 2dly two good wittnesses proueing som act or acts done by the person which could not be but by help of the deuill, this is the summe of what they center in as thair books show as for the common things of spectral euidence il euents after quarels or threates, teates, water tryalls and the like with suspitious words they are al discarded and som of them abominated by the most judicious as to be conuictiue of witchcraft and the miserable toyl they are in the Bay for adhereing to these last mentioned litigious things is warning enof, those that will make witchcraft of such things will make hanging work apace and we are informed of no other but such as these brought against this woman.
"2dly. We had a good account of the evidence presented against her, and none of it amounted to what Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bernard, Mr. Mather, and others stated as sufficient proof of witchcraft. This includes, first, a confession (of which there was none), and second, two credible witnesses proving some act or acts done by the person that could only be with the help of the devil. This sums up what they focus on, as their books show. As for the common aspects of spectral evidence, events following quarrels or threats, tests, water trials, and the like with suspicious words, all of these are dismissed, and some of them are condemned by the most discerning as insufficient to prove witchcraft. The unfortunate trouble they are in the Bay for adhering to these last-mentioned contentious issues is warning enough; those who will make witchcraft out of such things will quickly lead to hangings, and we have been informed of nothing else but such items brought against this woman."
"These in brief are our reasons for repreueing this prisoner. May 12th, 1693. SAMUELL WILLIS. WM PITKIN NATH STANLY.
"These are our reasons for reprieving this prisoner. May 12th, 1693. SAMUELL WILLIS. WM PITKIN NATH STANLY.
"The Court may please to consider also how farr these proceedings do put a difficulty on any further tryal of this woman."
"The Court may also consider how much these proceedings create a challenge for any further trial of this woman."
All honor to Joseph Elliot, Timothy Woodbridge and their ministerial associates; to Samuel Willis, Pitkin and Nath. Stanly, level-headed men of affairs, all friends of the court called upon for advice and counsel—who gave it in full scriptural measure.[H]
All respect to Joseph Elliot, Timothy Woodbridge, and their ministerial colleagues; to Samuel Willis, Pitkin, and Nath. Stanly, practical men of business, all friends of the court who were asked for advice and counsel—and they provided it in complete biblical measure.[H]
[H] Mercy Disborough was pardoned, as the records show that she was living in 1707.
[H] Mercy Disborough was granted a pardon, as the records indicate that she was alive in 1707.
CHAPTER VIII
"Old Matthew Maule was executed for the crime of witchcraft. He was one of the martyrs to that terrible delusion, which should teach us, among its other morals, that the influential classes, and those who take upon themselves to be leaders of the people, are fully liable to all the passionate error that has ever characterized the maddest mob."
Old Matthew Maule was executed for witchcraft. He was one of the victims of that horrific delusion, which should remind us, among other lessons, that those in power, and anyone who claims to lead the people, are just as susceptible to the wild mistakes that have always come from the craziest crowds.
"Clergymen, judges, statesmen—the wisest, calmest, holiest persons of their day—stood in the inner circle round about the gallows, loudest to applaud the work of blood, latest to confess themselves miserably deceived."
"Clergy, judges, and politicians—the wisest, most composed, and most respected people of their time—gathered in the inner circle around the gallows, cheering the execution the loudest, and were the last to admit they had been completely deceived."
"This old reprobate was one of the sufferers when Cotton Mather, and his brother ministers, and the learned judges, and other wise men, and Sir William Phipps, the sagacious governor, made such laudable efforts to weaken the great enemy of souls by sending a multitude of his adherents up the rocky pathway of Gallows Hill." The House of the Seven Gables (20: 225), HAWTHORNE.
"This old rascal was one of those who faced consequences when Cotton Mather, together with his fellow ministers, learned judges, and other knowledgeable people, including the perceptive Governor Sir William Phipps, made notable attempts to diminish the great enemy of souls by sending many of his followers up the steep road to Gallows Hill." The House of the Seven Gables (20: 225), HAWTHORNE.
"Then, too, the belief in witchcraft was general. Striking coincidences, personal eccentricities, unusual events and mysterious diseases seemed to find an easy explanation in an unholy compact with the devil. A witticism attributed to Judge Sewall, one of the judges in these trials, may help us to understand the common panic: 'We know who's who but not which is witch.' That was the difficulty. At a time when every one believed in witchcraft it was easy to suspect one's neighbor. It was a characteristic superstition of the century and should be classed with the barbarous punishments and religious intolerance of the age." N.E. Hist. Towns.—LATIMER'S—Salem (150).
Additionally, the belief in witchcraft was common. Strange coincidences, personal quirks, unusual events, and mysterious illnesses were often explained by a pact with the devil. A clever remark attributed to Judge Sewall, one of the judges in these trials, highlights the widespread fear: 'We know who's who but not which is witch.' That was the issue. During a time when everyone believed in witchcraft, it was easy to suspect your neighbor. This was a typical superstition of the era and should be viewed alongside the severe punishments and religious intolerance of the time. N.E. Hist. Towns.—LATIMER'S—Salem (150).
Multiplication of these witchcraft testimonies, quaint and curious, vulgar and commonplace, evil and pathetic, voices all of a strange superstition, understandable only as through them alone can one gain a clear perspective of the spirit of the time and place, would prove wearisome. They may well remain in the ancient records until they find publicity in detail in some accurate and complete history of the beginnings of the commonwealth—including this strange chapter in its unique history.
Multiplying these witchcraft testimonies, which are odd and intriguing, ordinary and familiar, malicious and pitiful, all echoing a strange superstition, can only be understood because they offer a clear view of the spirit of the time and place, would become tiresome. They might stay in old records until they get detailed attention in some thorough and accurate history of the beginnings of the commonwealth—including this unusual chapter in its unique story.
It will, however, serve a present necessary purpose, and lead to a more exact conception of the reign of unreason, if glimpses be taken here and there of a few of the statements made on oath in some of the other cases.
It will, however, serve a current necessary purpose and lead to a clearer understanding of the era of madness if we take a few glimpses here and there at some of the statements made under oath in other cases.
ELIZABETH SEAGER
ELIZABETH SEAGER
Daniell Gabbett and Margaret Garrett—The mess of parsnips—Hains' "hodg podg"—Satan's interference
Daniell Gabbett and Margaret Garrett—The mess of parsnips—Hains' "hodg podg"—Satan's interference
"The testimony of Daniell Garrett senior and the testimony of Margarett Garrett. Goodwife Gaarrett saith that goodwife Seager said there was a day kept at Mr. Willis in reference to An Coale; and she further said she was in great trouble euen in agony of spirit, the ground as follows that she sent her owne daughtr Eliza Seager to goodwife Hosmer to carry her a mess a parsnips. Goodwife Hosmer was not home. She was at Mr. Willis at the fast. Goodm Hosmer and his son was at home. Goodm Hosmer bid the child carry the parsnips home againe he would not receiue them and if her mother desired a reason, bid her send her father and he would tell him the reason. Goodwife Seager upon the return of the parsnips was much troubled and sent for her husband and sent him up to Goodm Hosmer to know the reason why he would not reciue the parsnips, and he told goodman Seager it was because An Coale at the fast at Mr. Willis cryed out against his wife as being a witch and he would not receiue the parsnips least he should be brought in hereaftr as a testimony against his wife. Then goodwif Seager sd that Mr. Hains had writt a great deal of hodg podg that An Coale had sd that she was under suspicion for a witch, and then she went to prayer, and did adventure to bid Satan go and tell them she was no witch. This deponent after she had a little paused said, who did you say, then goodw Seger sd againe she had sent Satan to tell them she was no witch. This deponent asked her why she made use of Satan to tell them, why she did not besech God to tell them she was no witch. She answered because Satan knew she was no witch. Goodman Garrett testifies that before him and his wife, Goodwife Seager said that she sent Satan to tell them she was no witch."
"The testimony of Daniell Garrett Sr. and the testimony of Margarett Garrett. Goodwife Garrett says that Goodwife Seager mentioned there was a day set aside at Mr. Willis's regarding An Coale; and she further stated that she was in great distress, almost in agony, because she sent her own daughter Eliza Seager to Goodwife Hosmer to deliver a mess of parsnips. Goodwife Hosmer wasn't home. She was at Mr. Willis's for the fast. Goodman Hosmer and his son were at home. Goodman Hosmer told the child to take the parsnips back because he wouldn't accept them, and if her mother wanted an explanation, she should send her father, and he would explain. Goodwife Seager, upon the return of the parsnips, was very distressed and sent for her husband, asking him to go up to Goodman Hosmer to find out why he wouldn't accept the parsnips. He told Goodman Seager it was because An Coale, during the fast at Mr. Willis's, accused his wife of being a witch, and he wouldn't accept the parsnips for fear it might be used against his wife later. Then Goodwife Seager stated that Mr. Hains had written a lot of nonsense about An Coale saying she was under suspicion of being a witch, and then she went to pray and even invoked Satan to tell them she was no witch. After a brief pause, this deponent asked who she said, and then Goodwife Seager reiterated that she had sent Satan to tell them she was no witch. This deponent asked her why she used Satan to convey this message instead of asking God to say she was no witch. She replied that Satan knew she was not a witch. Goodman Garrett testifies that in front of him and his wife, Goodwife Seager said she sent Satan to tell them she was not a witch."
ROBERT STERNE, STEPHEN HART, JOSIAH WILLARD AND DANIEL PRATT—Four women—Two black creatures—A kettle and a dance—"That place in the Acts about the 7 sons"
ROBERT STERNE, STEPHEN HART, JOSIAH WILLARD AND DANIEL PRATT—Four women—Two black beings—A kettle and a dance—"That part in the Acts about the 7 sons"
"Robert Sterne testifieth as followeth.
"Robert Sterne testifies as follows."
"I saw this woman goodwife Seager in ye woods wth three more women and with them I saw two black creaures like two Indians but taller. I saw likewise a kettle there over a fire. I saw the women dance round these black creatures and whiles I looked upon them one of the women G: Greensmith said looke who is yonder and then they ran away up the hill. I stood still and ye black things came towards mee and then I turned to come away. He further saith I knew the psons by their habits or clothes haueing observed such clothes on them not long before."
"I saw this woman, Goodwife Seager, in the woods with three other women, and with them were two black creatures that looked like taller versions of Indians. I also saw a kettle over a fire. The women were dancing around these black creatures, and while I was watching, one of the women, G. Greensmith, said, 'Look who's over there,' and then they ran away up the hill. I stood still as the black figures came towards me, and then I decided to leave. He also said that he recognized the people by their clothing, having seen those outfits on them not long before."
"Wee underwritten do testifie, that goodwife Seager said, (upon the relateing of goodwife Garrett testimony, in reference to Seager sending Satan,) that the reason why she sent Satan, was because he knew she was no witch, we say Seager said Dame you can remember part of what I said, but you do not speak of the whole you say nothing of what I brought to prove that Satan knew that I was no witch. I brought that place in the Acts, about the 7 sons that spake to the euill spirits in the name of Jesus whom Paul preacheth I have forgot there names.
"We, the undersigned, testify that Goodwife Seager stated (upon hearing Goodwife Garrett's testimony regarding Seager sending Satan) that the reason she sent Satan was because he knew she wasn’t a witch. We say Seager said, 'Dame, you can remember part of what I said, but you aren’t mentioning everything. You say nothing about what I brought to show that Satan knew I wasn’t a witch. I referenced that passage in the Acts about the seven sons who spoke to the evil spirits in the name of Jesus whom Paul preached. I’ve forgotten their names.'"
"STEPHEN HART "JOSIAH WlLLARD "DANIEL PRATT."
"STEPHEN HART
"JOSIAH WILLARD
"DANIEL PRATT."
MRS. MIGAT—A warm greeting, "how doe yow"—"god was naught"—"Hell need not be feared, for she should not burn in ye fire"—The ghost "stracke"
MRS. MIGAT—A warm greeting, "how are you?"—"God was nothing"—"Hell need not be feared, for she should not burn in the fire"—The ghost "struck"
"Mrs. Migat sayth she went out to give her calues meat, about fiue weekes since, & goodwif Segr came to her and shaked her by ye arme, & sd she how doe yow, how doe yow, Mrs. Migatt.
"Mrs. Migat says she went out to feed her cows about five weeks ago, and goodwife Segr came to her, shook her by the arm, and said, 'How are you, how are you, Mrs. Migat?'"
"2d Mrs. Migatt alsoe saith: a second time goodwife Segr came her towerds ye little riuer, a litle below ye house wch she now dweleth in, and told her, that god was naught, god was naught, it was uery good to be a witch and desired her to be one, she should not ned fare going to hell, for she should not burne in ye fire Mrs. Migat said to her at this time that she did not loue her; she was very naught, and goodwif Segr shaked her by ye hands and bid her farwell, and desired her, not to tell any body what shee had said unto her.
"2d Mrs. Migatt also said: a second time, Goodwife Segr came toward the little river, just below the house she now lives in, and told her that God was nothing, God was nothing. It was really good to be a witch and encouraged her to become one; she wouldn't need to worry about going to hell because she wouldn't burn in the fire. Mrs. Migat told her at that moment that she didn't love her; she was very wicked. Goodwife Segr shook her hand, said goodbye, and asked her not to tell anyone what she had said to her."
"Mrs. Migat sayth a little before ye floud this spring, goodwife Segr came into thaire house, on a mone shining night, and took her by ye hand and stracke her on ye face as she was in beed wth her husband, whome she could wake, and then goodwife Segr went away, and Mrs. Migat went to ye dore but darst not looke out after her.
"Mrs. Migat says that a little before the flood this spring, Goodwife Segr came into their house on a moonlit night, took her by the hand, and slapped her in the face while she was in bed with her husband, whom she could wake. Then Goodwife Segr went away, and Mrs. Migat went to the door but didn't dare to look out after her."
"These pticulers Mrs. Migat charged goodwife Segr wth being face to face, at Mr. Migats now dwelling house."
"These particulars Mrs. Migat accused goodwife Segr of being face to face with at Mr. Migat's current residence."
"John Talcott."
"John Talcott."
Staggerings of the jury—"Shuffing"—"Grinding teeth"—Seager's denials—Contradictions—Acquittal
Reactions of the jury—"Shuffling"—"Grinding teeth"—Seager's denials—Contradictions—Not guilty
"Janur 16 1662
Janur 16, 1662
"The causes why half the jury ore more did in their vote cast gooddy Seger (and the rest of the jury were deeply suspitious, and were at a great loss and staggeringe whereby they were sometimes likely to com up in their judgments to the rest, whereby she was allmost gone and cast as the foreman expressed to her at giuing in of the verdict) are these
"The reasons why half the jury or more voted against Seger (and the rest of the jury were deeply suspicious and were at a complete loss, which often made them lean towards the opinions of the others in their judgments, causing her to be nearly dismissed, as the foreman mentioned when delivering the verdict) are these:"
"First it did apeare by legall euidence that she had intimat familliarity with such as had been wiches, viz goody Sanford and goody Ayrs. 2ly this she did in open court stoutly denie saing the witnesses were preiudiced persons, and that she had now more intimacy then they themselves, and when the witneses questioned with her about frequent being there she said she went to lerne to knitt; this also she stoutly denied, and said of the witneses they belie me, then when Mr. John Allen sd did she not teach you to knitt, she answered sturdily and sayd, I do not know that I am bound to tell you & at another time being pressed to answ she sayd, nay I will hould what I have if I must die, yet after this she confessed that she had so much intimacy with one of ym as that they did change woorke one with another. 3ly she having sd that she did hate goody Aiers it did appear that she bore her great yea more than ordinarily good will as apeared by releeuing her in her truble, and was couert way, and was trubled that is was discouered; likewise when goody Aiers said in court, this will take away my liffe, goody Seger shuffed her with her hand & sd hould your tongue wt grinding teeth Mr. John Allen being one wittnes hearto when he had spoken, she sd they seek my innocent blood; the magistrats replied, who she sd euery body. 4ly being spoken to about triall by swiming, she sagd the diuill that caused me to com heare can keep me up.
"First, it became clear through legal evidence that she had a close association with known witches, specifically Goody Sanford and Goody Ayrs. Second, she stoutly denied this in open court, claiming the witnesses were biased against her, and that she had more familiarity with them than they did with each other. When the witnesses asked her about frequently being there, she said she went to learn to knit; she denied this firmly, saying that the witnesses were lying about her. When Mr. John Allen asked if she had been taught to knit, she responded defiantly, stating that she didn't know if she was obligated to tell him. Another time, when pressed to answer, she said, 'No, I will hold what I have even if I must die.' Yet later, she admitted to having enough of a relationship with one of them that they exchanged work with each other. Third, after saying she hated Goody Aiers, it turned out that she actually had significant goodwill towards her, shown by how she helped her in her troubles, albeit secretly, and was upset that it had been discovered. Also, when Goody Aiers said in court that this would cost her life, Goody Seger shushed her with her hand and told her to hold her tongue while grinding her teeth. Mr. John Allen, as one of the witnesses, had spoken, and she said, 'They seek my innocent blood;' the magistrates replied, 'Who?' to which she said, 'Everybody.' Fourth, when asked about trial by swimming, she said, 'The devil that brought me here can keep me afloat.'"
"About the buisnes of fliing the most part thought it was not legally proued.
"About the business of flying, most people believed it was not legally proven."
"Lastly the woman and Robert Stern being boath upon oath their wittnes was judged legall testimony ore evidence only som in the jury because Sternes first words upon his oath were, I saw these women and as I take it goody Seger was there though after that he sayd, I saw her there, I knew her well I know God will require her blood at my hands if I should testifie falsly. Allso bec he sd he saw her kittle, there being at so great a distance, they doubted that these things did not only weaken & blemish his testimony, but also in a great measure disable it for standing to take away liffe."
"Finally, both the woman and Robert Stern, being under oath, were considered valid witnesses. However, some in the jury had doubts about Stern's credibility because his initial statement on the stand was, 'I saw these women, and I believe Goody Seger was there.' After that, he said, 'I saw her there; I knew her well. I know God will hold me accountable for her blood if I testify falsely.' They also questioned his claim of seeing her from such a great distance, which not only weakened and damaged his testimony but also significantly undermined its reliability for a case involving a potential death penalty."
"WALT. FYLER."
"Walt. Flyler."
Elizabeth Seager was acquitted.
Elizabeth Seager was found not guilty.
ELIZABETH GODMAN
ELIZABETH GODMAN
Of all the women who set the communities ablaze with their witcheries, none in fertility of invention and performance surpassed Elizabeth Godman of New Haven—a member of the household of Stephen Goodyear, the Deputy Governor. Reverend John Davenport said, in a sermon of the time, "that a froward discontented frame of spirit was a subject fitt for ye Devill," and Elizabeth was accused by Goodwife Larremore and others of being in "such a frame of spirit," and of practicing the black arts.
Of all the women who stirred up the communities with their magic, none showed more creativity and skill than Elizabeth Godman of New Haven—a member of Stephen Goodyear's household, the Deputy Governor. Reverend John Davenport mentioned in a sermon at the time that a rebellious and unhappy mindset was something the Devil could use, and Elizabeth was accused by Goodwife Larremore and others of having "such a mindset" and of practicing dark magic.
She promptly haled her accusers before a court of magistrates, August 4, 1653, with Governor Theophilus Eaton and Deputy Governor Stephen Goodyear present; and when asked what she charged them with, she desired that "a wrighting might be read—wch was taken in way of examination before ye magistrate," in May, 1653. The "wrighting" did not prove helpful to Elizabeth's case. The statements of witnesses and of the accused are in some respects unique, and of a decided personal quality.
She quickly brought her accusers before a court of magistrates on August 4, 1653, with Governor Theophilus Eaton and Deputy Governor Stephen Goodyear present. When asked what she was accusing them of, she requested that "a writing be read—which was taken during the examination before the magistrate" in May, 1653. The "writing" did not help Elizabeth's case. The statements from witnesses and the accused are unique in some ways and have a strong personal tone.
"Hobbamocke"—The "swonding fitt"—Lying—Evil communications—The Indian's statement—"Ye boyes sickness"—"Verey strang fitts"—"Figgs"— "Pease porridge"—"A sweate"—Mrs. Goodyeare's opinion—Absorption— Contradictions—Goodwife Thorp's chickens—"Water and wormes"
"Hobbamocke"—The "fainting spell"—Lying—Bad influences—The Indian's account—"The boys' illness"—"Very strange fits"—"Figs"—"Pea porridge"—"A sweat"—Mrs. Goodyeare's view—Absorption—Contradictions—Goodwife Thorp's chickens—"Water and worms"
"Mris. Godman was told she hath warned to the court diuers psons, vizd: Mr. Goodyeare, Mris. Goodyeare, Mr. Hooke, Mris. Hooke, Mris. Atwater, Hanah & Elizabeth Lamberton, goodwife Larremore, goodwife Thorpe, &c., and was asked what she had to charge them wth, she said they had given out speeches that made folkes thinke she was a witch, and first she charged Mris. Atwater to be ye cause of all, and to cleere things desired a wrighting might be read wch was taken in way of examination before ye magistrate, (and in here after entred,) wherein sundrie things concerning Mris. Atwater is specifyed wch we now more fully spoken to, and she further said that Mris. Atwater had said that she thought she was a witch and that Hobbamocke was her husband, but could proue nothing, though she was told that she was beforehand warned to prepare her witnesses ready, wch she hath not done, if she haue any. After sundrie of the passages in ye wrighting were read, she was asked if these things did not giue just ground of suspition to all that heard them that she was a witch. She confessed they did, but said if she spake such things as is in Mr. Hookes relation she was not herselfe.... Beside what is in the papr, Mris. Godman was remembred of a passage spoken of at the gouernors aboute Mr. Goodyeare's falling into a swonding fitt after hee had spoken something one night in the exposition of a chapter, wch she (being present) liked not but said it was against her, and as soone as Mr. Goodyeare had done duties she flung out of the roome in a discontented way and cast a fierce looke vpon Mr. Goodyeare as she went out, and imediately Mr. Goodyeare (though well before) fell into a swond, and beside her notorious lying in this buisnes, for being asked how she came to know this, she said she was present, yet Mr. Goodyeare, Mris. Goodyeare, Hanah and Elizabeth Lamberton all affirme she was not in ye roome but gone vp into the chamber."
"Mrs. Godman was told she had warned the court about several people, namely: Mr. Goodyeare, Mrs. Goodyeare, Mr. Hooke, Mrs. Hooke, Mrs. Atwater, Hannah & Elizabeth Lamberton, goodwife Larremore, goodwife Thorpe, etc., and when asked what she had against them, she said they had spread rumors that made people think she was a witch. She first accused Mrs. Atwater of being the source of it all and requested that a writing be read that was taken during an examination before the magistrate (which is entered hereafter) where several things concerning Mrs. Atwater are specified, which we will discuss in more detail. She also mentioned that Mrs. Atwater had claimed she thought she was a witch and that Hobbamocke was her husband, but could not prove anything, even though she was told to be prepared with her witnesses, which she had not done, if she had any. After several passages in the writing were read, she was asked if these things did not give reasonable grounds for suspicion to all who heard them that she was a witch. She admitted they did, but said if she spoke the things mentioned in Mr. Hooke's account, she was not herself. Besides what is in the paper, Mrs. Godman was reminded of something mentioned at the governor's about Mr. Goodyeare collapsing after he had said something one night while explaining a chapter, which she (being present) did not like and said was against her. As soon as Mr. Goodyeare finished his duties, she stormed out of the room in a huff and shot a fierce look at Mr. Goodyeare as she left, and immediately Mr. Goodyeare (who had been fine before) collapsed. Moreover, in regards to her blatant lying in this matter, when asked how she came to know this, she claimed she was present, yet Mr. Goodyeare, Mrs. Goodyeare, Hannah, and Elizabeth Lamberton all affirmed she was not in the room but had gone upstairs."
THE "WRIGHTING"
THE "WRITING"
"The examination of Elizabeth Godman, May 12th, 1653.
"The examination of Elizabeth Godman, May 12, 1653."
"Elizabeth Godman made complainte of Mr. Goodyeare, Mris. Goodyeare, Mr. Hooke, Mris. Hooke, Mris. Bishop, Mris. Atwater, Hanah & Elizabeth Lamberton, and Mary Miles, Mris. Atwaters maide, that they haue suspected her for a witch; she was now asked what she had against Mr. Hooke and Mris. Hooke; she said she heard they had something against her aboute their soone. Mr. Hooke said hee was not wthout feares, and hee had reasons for it; first he said it wrought suspition in his minde because shee was shut out at Mr. Atwaters vpon suspition, and hee was troubled in his sleepe aboute witches when his boye, was sicke, wch was in a verey strang manner, and hee looked vpon her as a mallitious one, and prepared to that mischiefe, and she would be often speaking aboute witches and rather justifye them then condemne them; she said why doe they provoake them, why doe they not let them come into the church. Another time she was speaking of witches wthout any occasion giuen her, and said if they accused her for a witch she would haue them to the gouernor, she would trounce them. Another time she was saying she had some thoughts, what if the Devill should come to sucke her, and she resolued he should not sucke her.... Time, Mr. Hookes Indian, said in church meeting time she would goe out and come in againe and tell them what was done at meeting. Time asking her who told, she answered plainly she would not tell, then Time said did not ye Devill tell you.... Time said she heard her one time talking to herselfe, and she said to her, who talke you too, she said, to you; Time said you talke to ye Devill, but she made nothing of it. Mr. Hooke further said, that he hath heard that they that are adicted that way would hardly be kept away from ye houses where they doe mischiefe, and so it was wth her when his boy was sicke, she would not be kept away from him, nor gott away when she was there, and one time Mris. Hooke bid her goe away, and thrust her from ye boye, but she turned againe and said she would looke on him. Mris. Goodyeare said that one time she questioned wth Elizabeth Godmand aboute ye boyes sickness, and said what thinke you of him, is he not strangly handled, she replyed, what, doe you thinke hee is bewitched; Mris. Goodyeare said nay I will keepe my thoughts to myselfe, but in time God will discouer ...
"Elizabeth Godman complained about Mr. Goodyeare, Mrs. Goodyeare, Mr. Hooke, Mrs. Hooke, Mrs. Bishop, Mrs. Atwater, Hannah & Elizabeth Lamberton, and Mary Miles, Mrs. Atwater's maid, saying they suspected her of being a witch. She was asked what she had against Mr. Hooke and Mrs. Hooke; she replied that she heard they had something against her regarding their son. Mr. Hooke said he was not without fears and had his reasons; first, he mentioned that it raised suspicion in his mind because she was removed from Mr. Atwater's house under suspicion, and he had troubling dreams about witches when his boy was sick in a very strange way. He viewed her as malicious and likely prepared for wrongdoing, noting that she often talked about witches and seemed more inclined to justify them than to condemn them. She questioned why they provoked them and why they didn't let them into the church. Another time, she spoke about witches without any provocation and stated that if they accused her of witchcraft, she would take them to the governor and would confront them. She also expressed a thought about what it would be like if the devil came to suck her, declaring she wouldn’t let him. Time, Mr. Hook's servant, mentioned that during church meetings, she would go in and out, telling others what had happened at the meeting. When asked who told her, she plainly refused to say, prompting Time to ask if the devil had told her. Time recalled hearing her talk to herself and asked whom she was speaking to; she replied it was to her. Time suggested she was talking to the devil, but she dismissed it. Mr. Hook also mentioned that he heard people who are inclined that way are difficult to keep away from places where they do harm, and it was the same with her when his boy was sick. She wouldn’t stay away from him nor leave when she was there. One time, Mrs. Hooke told her to go away and pushed her from the boy, but she turned back and said she wanted to look at him. Mrs. Goodyeare said that once she questioned Elizabeth Godman about the boy's illness, asking if she thought something was wrong with him; Elizabeth replied, "What, do you think he’s bewitched?" Mrs. Goodyeare said no, she would keep her thoughts to herself, but in time God would reveal the truth..."
"Mr. Hooke further said, that when Mr. Bishop was married, Mris. Godman came to his house much troubled, so as he thought it might be from some affection to him, and he asked her, she said yes; now it is suspitious that so soone as they were contracted Mris. Byshop fell into verey strang fitts wch hath continewed at times euer since, and much suspition there is that she hath bine the cause of the loss of Mris. Byshops chilldren, for she could tell when Mris. Bishop was to be brought to bedd, and hath giuen out that she kills her chilldren wth longing, because she longs for every thing she sees, wch Mris. Bishop denies.... Another thing suspitious is, that she could tell Mris. Atwater had figgs in her pocket when she saw none of them; to that she answered she smelt them, and could smell figgs if she came in the roome, nere them that had them; yet at this time Mris. Atwater had figgs in her pocket and came neere her, yet she smelt them not; also Mris. Atwater said that Mris. Godman could tell that they one time had pease porridge, when they could none of them tell how she came to know, and beeing asked she saith she see ym on the table, and another time she saith she was there in ye morning when the maide set them on. Further Mris. Atwater saith, that that night the figgs was spoken of they had strangers to supper, and Mris. Godman was at their house, she cutt a sopp and put in pann; Betty Brewster called the maide to tell her & said she was aboute her workes of darkness, and was suspitious of Mris. Godman, and spake to her of it, and that night Betty Brewster was in a most misserable case, heareing a most dreadfull noise wch put her in great feare and trembling, wch put her into such a sweate as she was all on a water when Mary Miles came to goe to bed, who had fallen into a sleepe by the fire wch vsed not to doe, and in ye morning she looked as one yt had bine allmost dead....
"Mr. Hooke went on to say that when Mr. Bishop got married, Mrs. Godman came to his house looking very upset, which made him think it might be because of her feelings for him. When he asked her, she said yes. It's suspicious that as soon as they were engaged, Mrs. Bishop fell into very strange fits that have continued at times ever since. There is a lot of suspicion that she has been the cause of the deaths of Mrs. Bishop's children because she seemed to know when Mrs. Bishop was going to give birth and claimed that she causes her children to die from longing, as she longs for everything she sees, which Mrs. Bishop denies.... Another suspicious thing is that she could tell Mrs. Atwater had figs in her pocket when no one else saw them. When asked, she said she could smell them and could detect figs if she walked into a room near someone who had them. Yet at that time, Mrs. Atwater actually had figs in her pocket and came near her, but she didn’t smell them. Also, Mrs. Atwater mentioned that Mrs. Godman knew they had pea porridge one time when nobody could figure out how she knew. When asked, she claimed she saw them on the table, and another time she said she was there in the morning when the maid put them out. Furthermore, Mrs. Atwater said that on the night the figs were mentioned, they had guests for dinner, and Mrs. Godman was at their house. She cut a scone and put it in the pan; Betty Brewster called the maid to tell her and said she was up to her dark deeds and was suspicious of Mrs. Godman. That night, Betty Brewster was in a terrible state, hearing a dreadful noise that frightened her and made her tremble, causing her to sweat so much that she was drenched when Mary Miles came to go to bed, having fallen asleep by the fire, which she usually didn’t do. In the morning, she looked like someone who had been almost dead...."
"Mris. Godman accused Mr. Goodyeare for calling her downe when Mris. Bishop was in a sore fitt, to looke vpon her, and said he doubted all was not well wth her, and that hee feared she was a witch, but Mr. Goodyeare denyed that; vpon this Mris. Godman was exceeding angrie and would haue the servants called to witnes, and bid George the Scochman goe aske his master who bewitched her for she was not well, and vpon this presently Hanah Lamberton (being in ye roome) fell into a verey sore fitt in a verey strang maner....
"Mrs. Godman accused Mr. Goodyeare of looking down on her when Mrs. Bishop was having a severe fit. She said he suspected something was wrong with her and that he feared she was a witch, but Mr. Goodyeare denied it. This made Mrs. Godman very angry, and she wanted the servants to be called as witnesses. She told George the Scotsman to go ask his master who bewitched her because she wasn't feeling well, and right after that, Hannah Lamberton (who was in the room) suddenly fell into a very severe fit in a very strange way....
"Another time Mris. Goodyeare said to her, Mris. Elzebeth what thinke you of my daughters case; she replyed what, doe you thinke I haue bewitched her; Mris. Goodyeare said if you be the ptie looke to it, for they intend to haue such as is suspected before the magistrate.
"Another time Mrs. Goodyeare said to her, Mrs. Elzabeth, what do you think about my daughter's situation? She replied, what, do you think I have bewitched her? Mrs. Goodyeare said, if you are the one, be careful, because they plan to bring anyone suspected in front of the magistrate."
"Mris. Godman charged Hanah Lamberton that she said she lay for somewhat to sucke her, when she came in hott one day and put of some cloathes and lay vpon the bed in her chamber. Hanah said she and her sister Elizabeth went vp into the garet aboue her roome, and looked downe & said, looke how she lies, she lyes as if som bodey was sucking her, & vpon that she arose and said, yes, yes, so there is; after said Hanah, she hath something there, for so there seemed as if something was vnder the cloathes; Elizabeth said what haue you there, she said nothing but the cloathes, and both Hanah & Eliza. say that Mris. Godman threatened Hanah, and said let her looke to it for God will bring it vpon her owne head, and about two dayes after, Hanahs fitts began, and one night especially had a dreadfull fitt, and was pinched, and heard a hedious noise, and was in a strang manner sweating and burning, and some time cold and full of paine yt she shriked out.
"Mris. Godman accused Hanah Lamberton of saying she was lying down to be sucked when she came in hot one day, took off some clothes, and lay on the bed in her room. Hanah stated that she and her sister Elizabeth went up into the attic above her room, looked down, and remarked, 'Look how she lies; she looks like someone is sucking her.' Upon hearing this, she got up and said, 'Yes, yes, there is.' Then Hanah added that she must have something there because it seemed like something was under the clothes. Elizabeth asked, 'What do you have there?' She replied, 'Nothing but the clothes,' and both Hanah and Eliza claim that Mris. Godman threatened Hanah, saying, 'Let her be careful, for God will bring it upon her own head.' About two days later, Hanah's fits began, and one night especially, she had a dreadful fit, was pinched, heard a horrible noise, and was sweating in a strange manner, sometimes cold and in so much pain that she shrieked out."
"Elizabeth Lamberton saith that one time ye chilldren came downe & said Mris. Godman was talking to herselfe and they were afraide, then she went vp softly and heard her talke, what, will you fetch me some beare, will you goe, will you goe, and ye like, and one morning aboute breake of day Henry Boutele said he heard her talke to herselfe, as if some body had laine wth her....
"Elizabeth Lamberton says that one time the children came down and said Mrs. Godman was talking to herself and they were scared. Then she went up quietly and heard her talking, asking, 'Will you fetch me some beer? Will you go? Will you go?' and things like that. One morning around break of day, Henry Boutele said he heard her talking to herself, as if someone had lain with her...."
"Mris. Goodyeare said when Mr. Atwaters kinswoman was married Mris. Bishop was there, and the roome being hott she was something fainte, vpon that Mris. Godman said she would haue many of these fainting fitts after she was married, but she saith she remembers it not....
"Mrs. Goodyear said that when Mr. Atwater's relative got married, Mrs. Bishop was there, and because the room was hot, she felt a bit faint. Because of that, Mrs. Godman said she would have many of these fainting spells after she got married, but she says she doesn’t remember it..."
"Goodwife Thorp complained that Mris. Godman came to her house and asked to buy some chickens, she said she had none to sell, Mris. Godman said will you giue them all, so she went away, and she thought then that if this woman was naught as folkes suspect, may be she will smite my chickens, and quickly after one chicken dyed, and she remembred she had heard if they were bewitched they would consume wthin, and she opened it and it was consumed in ye gisard to water & wormes, and divers others of them droped, and now they are missing and it is likely dead, and she neuer saw either hen or chicken that was so consumed wthin wth wormes. Mris. Godman said goodwife Tichenor had a whole brood so, and Mris. Hooke had some so, but for Mris. Hookes it was contradicted presently. This goodwife Thorp thought good to declare that it may be considered wth other things."
"Goodwife Thorp complained that Mrs. Godman came to her house and asked to buy some chickens. She said she had none to sell. Mrs. Godman then asked, 'Will you give them all?' After this, she left, and Goodwife Thorp thought that if this woman was truly as people suspected, she might harm her chickens. Soon after, one chicken died, and she remembered hearing that if they were bewitched, they would waste away from within. She opened it up, and it was turned to water and worms inside. Several others of her chickens also dropped dead, and now they are missing, likely dead, and she had never seen either a hen or chick that decayed so badly inside with worms. Mrs. Godman said Goodwife Tichenor had a whole brood that died similarly, and Mrs. Hooke had some too, but it was quickly disputed regarding Mrs. Hooke's case. Goodwife Thorp thought it was important to point out that this should be considered along with other matters."
The court decided that Elizabeth's carriage and confession rendered her "suspitious" of witchcraft, and admonished her that "if further proofe come these passages will not be forgotten."
The court decided that Elizabeth's carriage and confession made her "suspicious" of witchcraft and warned her that "if additional proof comes, these incidents will not be overlooked."
The further proof came forth promptly, since in August, 1655, Elizabeth was again called before the court for witchcraft, and the witnesses certified to "the doing of strange things."
The additional evidence emerged quickly, as in August 1655, Elizabeth was summoned back to court for witchcraft, and the witnesses testified to "doing strange things."
"At a court held at Newhaven the 7th of August 1655.
At a court held in Newhaven on August 7, 1655.
"Elizabeth Godman was again called before the Court, and told that she lies under suspition for witchcraft, as she knowes, the grounds of which were examined in a former court, and by herselfe confessed to be just grounds of suspition, wch passages were now read, and to these some more are since added, wch are now to be declared.
"Elizabeth Godman was called before the Court again and told that she is suspected of witchcraft, which she knows. The reasons for this suspicion were reviewed in a previous court, and she admitted that they were valid grounds for suspicion. These past statements were read aloud, and some additional ones have been added, which will now be presented."
"Mr. Goodyeare said that the last winter, upon occasion of Gods afflicting hand upon the plantation by sickness, the private meeting whereof he is had appointed to set a day apart to seeke God: Elizabeth Godman desired she might be there; he told her she was under suspition, and it would be offensive; she said she had great need of it, for she was exercised wth many temptations, and saw strange appearitions, and lights aboute her bed, and strange sights wch affrighted her; some of his family said if she was affraide they would worke wth her in the day and lye with her in the night, but she refused and was angry and said she would haue none to be wth her for she had her spirituall armour aboute her. She was asked the reason of this; she answered, she said so to Mr. Goodyeare, but it was her fancy troubled her, and she would haue none lye wth her because her bed was weake; she was told that might haue been mended; then she said she was not willing to haue any of them wth her, for if any thing had fallen ill wth them they would haue said that she had bine the cause."
"Mr. Goodyeare said that last winter, during a time when God was testing the plantation with sickness, he had arranged a private meeting to dedicate a day to seek God. Elizabeth Godman requested to be included; he told her she was under suspicion and it would be inappropriate. She replied that she really needed to be there because she was struggling with many temptations, seeing strange apparitions and lights around her bed, and frightening sights. Some of his family suggested that if she was scared, they would spend time with her during the day and sleep with her at night, but she refused and got angry, saying she didn’t want anyone with her because she had her spiritual armor around her. When asked why, she explained that she had said this to Mr. Goodyeare, but it was her imagination that troubled her, and she didn’t want anyone to sleep with her because her bed was weak. She was told that it could have been fixed; then she said she wasn't willing to have anyone with her because if anything went wrong with them, they would blame her."
Mr. Goodyeare further declared that aboute three weekes agoe he had a verey great disturbance in his family in the night (Eliza: Godman hauing bine the day before much discontented because Mr. Goodyeare warned her to provide another place to live in) his daughter Sellevant, Hanah Goodyeare, and Desire Lamberton lying together in the chamber under Eliza: Godman; after they were in bed they heard her walke up and downe and talk aloude; but could not tell what she said; then they heard her go downe the staires and come up againe; they fell asleep, but were after awakened wth a great jumbling at the chamber dore, and something came into the chamber wch jumbled at the other end of the roome and aboute the trunke and amonge the shooes and at the beds head; it came nearer the bed and Hanah was affraid and called father, but he heard not, wch made her more affraide; then cloathes were pulled of their bed by something, two or three times; they held and something pulled, wch frighted them so that Hanah Goodyeare called her father so loude as was thought might be heard to the meetinghouse, but the noise was heard to Mr. Samuell Eatons by them that watched wth her; so after a while Mr. Goodyeare came and found them in a great fright; they lighted a candell and he went to Eliza: Godmans chamber and asked her why she disturbed the family; she said no, she was scared also and thought the house had bine on fire, yet the next day she said in the family that she knew nothing till Mr. Goodyeare came up, wch she said is true she heard the noise but knew not the cause till Mr. Goodyeare came; and being asked why she went downe staires after she was gon up to bed, she said to light a candell to looke for two grapes she had lost in the flore and feared the mice would play wth them in the night and disturbe ye family, wch reason in the Courts apprehension renders her more suspitious.
Mr. Goodyeare also stated that about three weeks ago, he had a serious disturbance in his family during the night (Eliza: Godman had been quite upset the day before because Mr. Goodyeare told her to find another place to live). His daughter Sellevant, Hannah Goodyeare, and Desire Lamberton were lying together in the room underneath Eliza: Godman. After they got into bed, they heard her walking back and forth and talking loudly, but they couldn’t make out what she was saying. Then they heard her go downstairs and come back up again. They eventually fell asleep, but were awakened by a loud noise at the chamber door, and something came into the room that moved around the other end, among the trunk, shoes, and near the head of the bed. It got closer to the bed, and Hannah was scared and called for her father, but he didn’t hear her, which made her even more frightened. Then clothes were pulled off their bed by something two or three times; they held on while something tugged at them, which scared them so much that Hannah Goodyeare yelled for her father as loudly as she could, thinking she might be heard at the meetinghouse. The noise was heard by Mr. Samuell Eatons by those who were keeping watch with her. Eventually, Mr. Goodyeare came and found them in a state of great fear. They lit a candle, and he went to Eliza: Godman’s room and asked her why she was disturbing the family. She said she wasn't, that she was frightened too and thought the house might be on fire. However, the next day she claimed in the family that she didn’t know anything until Mr. Goodyeare came up; she acknowledged hearing the noise but didn’t know the cause until he arrived. When asked why she went downstairs after she had gone up to bed, she said she went to light a candle to look for two grapes she had lost on the floor because she was worried the mice would play with them during the night and disturb the family, which makes her seem more suspicious in the eyes of the court.
Allen Ball informed the Court. Another time she came into his yard; his wife asked what she came for; she said to see her calfe; now they had a sucking calfe, wch they tyed in the lott to a great post that lay on ye ground, and the calfe ran away wth that post as if it had bine a fether and ran amonge Indian corne and pulled up two hills and stood still; after he tyed the calfe to a long heauy raile, as much as he could well lift, and one time she came into ye yard and looked on ye calfe and it set a running and drew the raile after it till it came to a fence and gaue a great cry in a lowing way and stood still; and in ye winter the calfe dyed, doe what he could, yet eate its meale well enough.
Allen Ball informed the Court. Another time she came into his yard; his wife asked what she was there for; she said to see her calf. They had a sucking calf, which they tied in the lot to a big post lying on the ground, and the calf ran away with that post as if it were a feather, running among the Indian corn and pulling up two hills, then came to a stop. After that, he tied the calf to a long, heavy rail, as much as he could lift. One time she came into the yard and looked at the calf, and it took off running, dragging the rail behind it until it hit a fence and let out a loud cry in a lowing way, then stood still. In the winter, the calf died, despite his efforts, although it did eat its meal well enough.
Some other passages were spoken of aboute Mris. Yale, that one time there being some words betwixt them, wth wch Eliza: Godman was unsatisfyed, the night following Mris. Yales things were throwne aboute the house in a strange manner; and one time being at Goodman Thorpes, aboute weauing some cloth, in wch something discontented her, and that night they had a great noise in the house, wch much affrighted them, but they know not what it was.
Some other stories were shared about Mrs. Yale, where there was some disagreement between her and Eliza Godman, who was left feeling unsettled. The night after, Mrs. Yale's belongings were scattered around the house in an odd way. Once, while at Goodman Thorpe's house working on some cloth, something upset her, and that night there was a loud disturbance in the house that scared them, but they didn't know what it was.
These things being declared the Court told Elizabeth Godman that they haue considered them, wth her former miscarriages, and see cause to order that she be comitted to prison, ther to abide the Courts pleasure, but because the matter is of weight, and the crime whereof she is suspected capitall, therefore she is to answer it at the Court of Magistrates in October next."
These matters being stated, the Court informed Elizabeth Godman that they have taken them into account along with her previous wrongdoings, and see reason to order her imprisonment, where she will remain at the Court's discretion. However, because the situation is serious and the crime she is suspected of is severe, she will need to respond to it at the Court of Magistrates next October.
In October, 1655, Elizabeth "was again called before the court and told that upon grounds formerly declared wch stand upon record, she by her owne confession remains under suspition for witchcraft, and one more is now added, and that is, that one time this last summer, comeing to Mr. Hookes to beg some beare, was at first denyed, but after, she was offered some by his daughter which stood ready drawne, wch she had, yet went away in a muttering discontented manner, and after this, that night, though the beare was good and fresh, yet the next morning was hott, soure and ill tasted, yea so hott as the barrell was warme wthout side, and when they opened the bung it steemed forth; they brewed againe and it was so also, and so continewed foure or fiue times, one after another.
In October 1655, Elizabeth was summoned back to court and informed that based on previous records, she remained under suspicion of witchcraft due to her own confession. Added to this, there was a new accusation: one time last summer, she went to Mr. Hookes to ask for some beer and was initially denied. However, his daughter eventually offered her some that was already drawn. Even though she took it, she left in a huff. That night, although the beer was good and fresh, the next morning it was hot, sour, and tasted bad—so hot that the barrel felt warm from the outside, and when they opened the bung, steam came out. They brewed again, and it turned out the same way, continuing like this four or five times in a row.
"She brought diuers psons to the court that they might say something to cleere her, and much time was spent in hearing ym, but to little purpose, the grounds of suspition remaining full as strong as before and she found full of lying, wherfore the court declared vnto her that though the euidenc is not sufficient as yet to take away her life, yet the suspitions are cleere and many, wch she cannot by all the meanes she hath vsed, free herselfe from, therfore she must forbeare from goeing from house to house to give offenc, and cary it orderly in the family where she is, wch if she doe not, she will cause the court to comitt her to prison againe, & that she doe now presently vpon her freedom giue securitie for her good behauiour; and she did now before the court ingage fifty pound of her estate that is in Mr. Goodyeers hand, for her good behauior, wch is further to be cleered next court, when Mr. Goodyeare is at home."
"She brought several people to the court to speak on her behalf, and a lot of time was spent listening to them, but it was of little use, as the reasons for suspicion remained as strong as ever and she was found to be full of lies. Therefore, the court informed her that although the evidence is not yet strong enough to take her life, the suspicions are clear and numerous, which she cannot escape through all the means she has tried. Thus, she must refrain from going from house to house to avoid causing offense and must conduct herself properly in the household where she is staying. If she does not do this, she will give the court reason to send her back to prison. She is now required to provide security for her good behavior upon her release, and she has committed fifty pounds from her estate that is in Mr. Goodyear's hands for her good behavior, which will be further addressed in the next court, when Mr. Goodyear is present."
"She was suffered to dwell in the family of Thomas Johnson, where she continued till her death, October 9th, 1660." (New Haven Town Records, Vol. ii, pp. 174,179.)
"She was allowed to stay with the family of Thomas Johnson, where she remained until her death on October 9th, 1660." (New Haven Town Records, Vol. ii, pp. 174,179.)
NATHANIEL AND REBECCA GREENSMITH
Nate and Becca Greensmith
Nathaniel Greensmith lived in Hartford, south of the little river, in 1661-62, on a lot of about twenty acres, with a house and barn. He also had other holdings "neer Podunk," and "on ye highway leading to Farmington."
Nathaniel Greensmith lived in Hartford, south of the small river, in 1661-62, on a piece of land that was about twenty acres, which included a house and a barn. He also owned other properties "near Podunk," and "on the road leading to Farmington."
He was thrifty by divergent and economical methods, since he is credited in the records of the time with stealing a bushel and a half of wheat, of stealing a hoe, and of lying to the court, and of battery.
He was frugal through various economical methods, as he is noted in contemporary records for stealing a bushel and a half of wheat, for stealing a hoe, for lying to the court, and for assault.
In one way or another he accumulated quite a property for those days, since the inventory of it filed in the Hartford Probate Office, January 25, 1662, after his execution, carried an appraisal of £137. l4s. 1d.—including "2 bibles," "a sword," "a resthead," and a "drachm cup"—all indicating that Nathaniel judiciously mingled his theology and patriotism, his recreation and refreshment, with his everyday practical affairs and opportunities.
In one way or another, he built up quite a property for those times, as the inventory filed in the Hartford Probate Office on January 25, 1662, after his execution, showed it was valued at £137. 14s. 1d.—including "2 bibles," "a sword," "a resthead," and a "drachm cup"—all showing that Nathaniel wisely balanced his beliefs and patriotism, his leisure and refreshment, with his everyday practical matters and chances.
But he made one adventure that was most unprofitable. In an evil hour he took to wife Rebecca, relict of Abraham Elson, and also relict of Jarvis Mudge, and of whom so good a man as the Rev. John Whiting, minister of the First Church in Hartford—afterward first pastor of the Second Church—said that she was "a lewd, ignorant and considerably aged woman."
But he had one experience that turned out to be very unwise. At a bad time, he married Rebecca, the widow of Abraham Elson and also of Jarvis Mudge, and of whom a good man like the Rev. John Whiting, minister of the First Church in Hartford—later the first pastor of the Second Church—said that she was "a promiscuous, uneducated, and quite elderly woman."
Gossip and rumor about these unpopular neighbors culminated in a formal complaint, and December 30, 1662, at a court held at Hartford, both the Greensmiths were separately indicted in the same formal charge.
Gossip and rumors about these unpopular neighbors led to an official complaint, and on December 30, 1662, at a court held in Hartford, both the Greensmiths were separately charged with the same offense.
"Nathaniel Greensmith thou art here indicted by the name of Nathaniel Greensmith for not having the fear of God before thine eyes, thou hast entertained familiarity with Satan, the grand enemy of God and mankind—and by his help hast acted things in a preternatural way beyond human abilities in a natural course for which according to the law of God and the established law of this commonwealth thou deservest to die."
"Nathaniel Greensmith, you are here accused by the name of Nathaniel Greensmith for not having the fear of God before your eyes. You have associated with Satan, the great enemy of God and humanity—and with his help, you have done things in a supernatural way, beyond what is possible for humans in a natural course, for which, according to the law of God and the established law of this commonwealth, you deserve to die."
While Rebecca was in prison under suspicion, she was interviewed by two ministers, Revs. Haynes and Whiting, as to the charges of Ann Cole—a next door neighbor—which were written down by them, all of which, and more, she confessed to be true before the court.
While Rebecca was in jail under suspicion, she was interviewed by two ministers, Revs. Haynes and Whiting, about the accusations made by her next-door neighbor, Ann Cole. They wrote down everything, and Rebecca admitted that all of it, and more, was true in front of the court.
(Note. Increase Mather regarded this confession as convictive a proof of real witchcraft as most single cases he had known.)
(Note. Increase Mather saw this confession as convincing proof of actual witchcraft, just like most single cases he had encountered.)
THE MINISTERS' ACCOUNT—Promise to Satan—A merry Christmas meeting—Stone's lecture—Haynes' plea—The dear Devil—The corvine guest—Sexual delusions
THE MINISTERS' ACCOUNT—Promise to Satan—A fun Christmas meeting—Stone's lecture—Haynes' appeal—The dear Devil—The crow visitor—Sexual delusions
"She forthwith and freely confessed those things to be true, that she (and other persons named in the discourse) had familiarity with the devil. Being asked whether she had made an express covenant with him, she answered she had not, only as she promised to go with him when he called (which she had accordingly done several times). But that the devil told her that at Christmas they would have a merry meeting, and then the covenant should be drawn and subscribed. Thereupon the fore-mentioned Mr. Stone (being then in court) with much weight and earnestness laid forth the exceeding heinousness and hazard of that dreadful sin; and therewith solemnly took notice (upon the occasion given) of the devil's loving Christmas.
"She immediately and openly admitted that she (and others mentioned in the discussion) had been in contact with the devil. When asked whether she had made a clear agreement with him, she replied that she had not, only that she promised to go with him when he called (which she had indeed done several times). However, the devil told her that at Christmas they would have a joyful meeting, and then the agreement would be formalized and signed. Thereupon, the aforementioned Mr. Stone (who was present in court) solemnly expressed the extreme seriousness and danger of that terrible sin; and he also noted (given the context) the devil's fondness for Christmas."
"A person at the same time present being desired the next day more particularly to enquire of her about her guilt, it was accordingly done, to whom she acknowledged that though when Mr. Haynes began to read she could have torn him in pieces, and was so much resolved as might be to deny her guilt (as she had done before) yet after he had read awhile, she was as if her flesh had been pulled from her bones, (such was her expression,) and so could not deny any longer. She also declared that the devil first appeared to her in the form of a deer or fawn, skipping about her, wherewith she was not much affrighted but by degrees he contrived talk with her; and that their meetings were frequently at such a place, (near her own house;) that some of the company came in one shape and some in another, and one in particular in the shape of a crow came flying to them. Amongst other things she owned that the devil had frequent use of her body."
"A person who was present at the time wanted to ask her the next day specifically about her guilt, and it was done. She admitted that even though when Mr. Haynes started reading, she felt like she could tear him apart and was determined to deny her guilt (just as she had done before), after he had read for a while, it felt like her flesh was being pulled from her bones (that was her expression), and she could no longer deny it. She also said that the devil first appeared to her as a deer or fawn, jumping around her, which didn’t scare her much initially, but gradually, he managed to talk with her. Their meetings often took place at a spot near her house; some of the people showed up in one form and some in another, and one in particular appeared as a crow that flew to them. Among other things, she confessed that the devil often used her body."
Had Rebecca been content with purging her own conscience, she alone would have met the fate she had invoked, and probably deserved; but out of "love to her husband's soul" she made an accusation against him, which of itself secured his conviction of the same offense, with the same dire penalty.
Had Rebecca been satisfied with clearing her own conscience, she alone would have faced the outcome she had called for, and likely deserved; but out of "love for her husband's soul," she made an accusation against him, which in itself guaranteed his conviction for the same crime, with the same severe punishment.
THE ACCUSATION—Nathaniel's plea—"Travaile and labour"—"A red creature"--- Prenuptial doubts—The weighty logs—Wifely tenderness and anxiety—Under the greenwood tree—A cat call—Terpsichore and Bacchus
THE ACCUSATION—Nathaniel's plea—"Work and effort"—"A red creature"--- Prenuptial uncertainties—The heavy logs—Wifely care and worry—Under the trees—A catcall—Terpsichore and Bacchus
"Rebecca Greenswith testifieth in Court Janry 8. 62.
"Rebecca Greenswith testifies in court January 8, 1662."
"1. That my husband on Friday night last when I came to prison told me that now thou hast confest against thyself let me alone and say nothing of me and I wilbe good unto thy children.
"1. My husband told me last Friday night, when I arrived at the prison, that now you have confessed against yourself, just leave me out of it and say nothing about me, and I will take care of your children."
"I doe now testifie that formerly when my husband hathe told me of his great travaile and labour I wondered at it how he did it this he did before I was married and when I was married I asked him how he did it and he answered me he had help yt I knew not of.
"I now testify that before, when my husband told me about his great struggles and efforts, I was amazed at how he accomplished it. He did this before we were married, and when we got married, I asked him how he managed it. He told me he had help that I didn't know about."
"3. About three years agoe as I think it; my husband and I were in ye wood several miles from home and were looking for a sow yt we lost and I saw a creature a red creature following my husband and when I came to him I asked him what it was that was with him and he told me it was a fox.
"3. About three years ago, I think; my husband and I were in the woods several miles from home searching for a sow we had lost. I noticed a red creature following my husband, and when I reached him, I asked what it was. He told me it was a fox."
"4. Another time when he and I drove or hogs into ye woods beyond ye pound yt was to keep yong cattle severall miles of I went before ye hogs to call them and looking back I saw two creatures like dogs one a little blacker then ye other, they came after my husband pretty close to him and one did seem to me to touch him I asked him wt they were he told me he thought foxes I was stil afraid when I saw anything because I heard soe much of him before I married him.
"4. Another time when he and I drove the pigs into the woods beyond the pound to keep young cattle several miles away, I went ahead of the pigs to call them. Looking back, I saw two creatures that looked like dogs, one a bit darker than the other. They came pretty close to my husband, and one seemed to touch him. I asked him what they were, and he told me he thought they were foxes. I was still scared whenever I saw anything because I had heard so much about him before we got married."
"5. I have seen logs that my husband hath brought home in his cart that I wondered at it that he could get them into ye cart being a man of little body and weake to my apprhension and ye logs were such that I thought two men such as he could not have done it.
"5. I've seen logs that my husband has brought home in his cart, and I've wondered how he managed to get them in there since he's a small and weak man, in my opinion. The logs were so big that I thought two men like him couldn't have handled it."
"I speak all this out of love to my husbands soule and it is much against my will that I am now necessitate to speake agaynst my husband, I desire that ye Lord would open his heart to owne and speak ye trueth.
"I say all this out of love for my husband's soul, and it goes against my will that I now have to speak against him. I pray that the Lord would open his heart to accept and speak the truth."
"I also testify that I being in ye wood at a meeting there was wth me Goody Seager Goodwife Sanford & Goodwife Ayres; and at another time there was a meeting under a tree in ye green by or house & there was there James Walkely, Peter Grants wife Goodwife Aires & Henry Palmers wife of Wethersfield, & Goody Seager, & there we danced, & had a bottle of sack: it was in ye night & something like a catt cald me out to ye meeting & I was in Mr. Varlets orcherd wth Mrs. Judeth Varlett & shee tould me that shee was much troubled wth ye Marshall Jonath: Gilbert & cried, & she sayd if it lay in her power she would doe him a mischief, or what hurt shee could."
"I also testify that I was in the woods at a meeting with Goody Seager, Goodwife Sanford, and Goodwife Ayres; and at another time, there was a meeting under a tree in the green near our house. There were James Walkely, Peter Grant's wife, Goodwife Ayres, Henry Palmer's wife from Wethersfield, and Goody Seager. We danced and had a bottle of sack. It was nighttime, and something like a cat called me out to the meeting. I was in Mr. Varlet's orchard with Mrs. Judith Varlett, and she told me that she was very troubled by Marshal Jonathan Gilbert and cried. She said that if it were within her power, she would do him harm or whatever damage she could."
The Greensmiths were convicted and sentenced to suffer death. In January, 1662, they were hung on "Gallows Hill," on the bluff a little north of where Trinity College now stands—"a logical location" one most learned in the traditions and history of Hartford calls it—as it afforded an excellent view of the execution to a large crowd on the meadows to the west, a hanging being then a popular spectacle and entertainment.
The Greensmiths were found guilty and sentenced to death. In January 1662, they were hanged on "Gallows Hill," on the bluff just north of where Trinity College is today—"a logical location," as someone well-versed in Hartford's traditions and history described it—since it provided a great view of the execution for a large crowd in the meadows to the west, as hangings were a popular form of entertainment back then.
CHAPTER IX
"They shall no more be considered guilty than this woman, whom I now pronounce to be innocent, and command that she be set at liberty." LORD CHIEF JUSTICE MANSFIELD.
"They won't be considered guilty any more than this woman, whom I now declare to be innocent, and I order her release." LORD CHIEF JUSTICE MANSFIELD.
ELIZABETH (CLAUSON) CLAWSON
ELIZABETH CLAWSON
THE INDICTMENT
THE INDICTMENT
"Elizabeth Clawson wife of Stephen Clawson of Standford in the country of Fayrefeild in the Colony of Connecticutt thou art here indicted by the name of Elizabeth Clawson that not haueing the fear of God before thine eyes thou hast had familiarity with Satan the grand enemie of God & man & that by his instigation & help thou hast in a pretematurall way afflicted & done harm to the bodyes & estates of sundry of his Maties subjects or to some of them contrary to the peace of or Soueraigne Lord the King & Queen their crowne & dignity & that on the 25t of Aprill in the 4th yeare of theire Maties reigne & at sundry other times for which by the law of God & the law of the Colony thou deseruest to dye."
"Elizabeth Clawson, wife of Stephen Clawson of Stanford in the county of Fairfield in the Colony of Connecticut, you are here charged by the name of Elizabeth Clawson for not having the fear of God before your eyes. You have been in close association with Satan, the great enemy of God and man, and that with his encouragement and assistance, you have, in an unnatural way, harmed the bodies and properties of several of His Majesty's subjects, or some of them, contrary to the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King and Queen, their crown and dignity. This occurred on April 25th in the 4th year of their Majesties' reign and at various other times, for which, by the law of God and the law of the Colony, you deserve to die."
THE TESTIMONIES
THE TESTIMONIES
JOSEPH GARNEY—The maid in fits—Joseph's subterfuge—""The black catt"—"The white dogg"—Witches three
JOSEPH GARNEY—The maid in fits—Joseph's trick—"The black cat"—"The white dog"—Three witches
"Joseph Garney saith yt being at Danil Wescots uppon occation sine he went to Hartford while he was gone from home Nathanill Wiat being with me his maid being at work in the yard in her right mind soon after fell into a fit. I took her up and caried her in & laid her upon the bed it was intimated by sum that she desembled. Nathanel Wiat said with leaue he would make triall of that leaue was granted and as soon as she was laid upon ye bed then Wiat asked me for a sharp knife wch I presently took into my hand then she imediately came to herself and then went out of ye room into ye other room & so out into ye hen house then I hard her presently shreek out I ran presently to her and asked her what is ye matter, she was in such pain she could not Hue & presently fell into a fit stiff. We carried her in and laid her upon ye bed and then I got my kniffe ready and fitting under pretence of doing sum great matter then presently she came to herselfe & said to me Joseph what are you about to doe I said I would cutt her & seemed to threten great matters, then she laid her down upon the bed & said she would confess to us how it was with her and then said I am possessed with ye deuill and he apeared to me in ye hen house in ye shape of a black catt & was ernist with her to be a witch & if she would not he would tear her in pieces, then she again shreekt out now saith shee I see him & lookt wistly & said there he is just at this time to my apearance there seemed to dart in at ye west window a sudden light across ye room wch did startle and amase me at yt present, then she tould me yt she see ye deuill in ye shape of a white dogg, she tould me that ye deuill apeared in ye shape of these three women namly goody Clawson, goody Miller, & ye woman at Compo. [Disborough] I asked her how she knew yt it was ye deuill that appeared in ye shape of these three women she answered he tould me so. I asked her if she knew that these three women were witches or no she said she could not tell they might be honest women for ought she knew or they might be witches."
"Joseph Garney says that while he was at Daniel Wescott's, Nathaniel Wiat was with me because he had gone to Hartford. While he was away from home, his maid, who was working in the yard and in her right mind, soon afterward fell into a fit. I picked her up and took her inside, laying her on the bed. Some suggested that she was pretending. Nathaniel Wiat asked for permission to test that idea, and once she was on the bed, he asked me for a sharp knife, which I quickly handed to him. Immediately, she came back to herself, then went out of the room and into another room, heading out to the hen house. I heard her scream, so I rushed to her and asked what was wrong; she was in such pain that she couldn't breathe and soon fell into a stiff fit. We brought her back inside and laid her on the bed. I got my knife ready, claiming I was going to do something significant, and then she came to her senses and asked me, 'Joseph, what are you about to do?' I said I would cut her and threatened her with the knife. Then she lay back on the bed and said she would confess to us what was going on. She said, 'I am possessed by the devil, and he appeared to me in the hen house in the shape of a black cat, urging me to be a witch. If I wouldn’t, he would tear me to pieces.' Then she screamed again, saying, 'Now I see him!' and looked intently, saying, 'There he is!' At that moment, it seemed like a sudden light darted in from the west window across the room, startling and amazing me. She told me she saw the devil in the shape of a white dog and that he appeared in the form of these three women: Goody Clawson, Goody Miller, and the woman at Compo. [Disborough] I asked her how she knew it was the devil that appeared as these three women, and she replied that he told her so. I asked her if she knew if these three women were witches, and she said she couldn't tell; they might be honest women for all she knew, or they might be witches."
Sarah Kecham—Cateron's seizures—Riding and singing—English and French—The naked sword
Sarah Kecham—Cateron's seizures—Riding and singing—English and French—The naked sword
The testimony of Sarah Kecham. "She saith yt being at Danel Wescots house Thomas Asten being there Cateron Branch being there in a fit as they said I asked then how she was they sayth she hath had noe fits she had bine a riding then I asked her to ride and then she got to riding. I asked her if her hors had any name & she called out & said Jack; I then asked her to sing & then she sunge; I asked her yt if she had sung wt Inglish she could then sing French and then she sung that wch they called French. Thomas Astin said he knew that she was bewitched I tould him I did not beleue it, for I said I did not beleue there was any witch in the town, he said he knew she was for said he I haue hard say that if a person were bewitched take a naked sword and hould ouer them & they will laugh themselues to death & with yt he took a sword and held ouer her and she laughed extremely. Then I spoke sumthing whereby I gaue them to understand that she did so becase she knew of ye sword, whereupon Danil made a sine to Thomas Austen to hould ye sword again yt she might not know of it, wch he did & then she did not laugh at all nor chang her countenance. Further in discourse I hard Daniel Wescot say yt when he pleased he could take her out of her fits. John Bates junr being present at ye same time witnesseth to all ye aboue written.
The testimony of Sarah Kecham: "She said that while at Danel Wescott’s house, Thomas Asten and Cateron Branch were there and she was having a fit, as they described it. I then asked how she was, and they said she hadn’t had any fits; she had been riding. I asked her to ride, and she started riding. I asked her if her horse had a name, and she called out, saying Jack. I then asked her to sing, and she sang. I also asked her if she could sing in French after singing in English, and then she sang what they called French. Thomas Astin said he knew she was bewitched. I told him I didn’t believe it because I said I didn’t think there was any witch in the town. He insisted that he knew she was, and said he had heard that if a person were bewitched, if you hold a naked sword over them, they would laugh themselves to death. With that, he took a sword and held it over her, and she laughed a lot. Then I said something to suggest that she laughed because she knew about the sword, on which Danil signaled to Thomas Austin to hold the sword up again so she wouldn’t know about it, which he did, and then she didn’t laugh at all or change her expression. Further in our conversation, I heard Daniel Wescot say that whenever he wanted, he could bring her out of her fits. John Bates Jr., who was present at the same time, witnessed all of the above."
"Ye testers are redy to giue oath to ye aboue written testimony when called therunto. "Staford ye 7th Septembr 1692."
"Those who are testifying are ready to give their oath to the above-written testimony when called upon. "Staford, September 7, 1692."
ABIGAIL CROSS AND NATHANIEL CROSS—The "garles desembling"—Daniel Wescot's wager—The trick that nobody else could do
ABIGAIL CROSS AND NATHANIEL CROSS—The "garles desembling"—Daniel Wescot's wager—The trick that nobody else could do
(Kateran Branch, the accuser of the Fairfield women, was a young servant in Daniel Wescot's household.)
(Kateran Branch, who accused the women of Fairfield, was a young servant in Daniel Wescot's household.)
"The testimony of Abigail Cross as followith that upon sum discourse with Danil Wescot about his garles desembling sd Daniel sd that he would venture both his cows against a calfe yt she should doe a trick tomorrow morning that no body else could doe. sd Abigail sd to morrow morning, can you make her do it when you will; & he said yess when I will I can make her do it.
"The testimony of Abigail Cross follows that after some discussion with Daniel Wescot about his tricks, he said he would bet both his cows against a calf that she would perform a trick tomorrow morning that nobody else could do. Abigail asked, 'Tomorrow morning, can you make her do it whenever you want?' and he replied, 'Yes, I can make her do it whenever I want.'"
"Nathaneel Cross being present at ye same time testifieth ye same with his wife.
"Nathaneel Cross, who was there at the same time, confirms the same thing as his wife."
"The above testers say they are redy to giue oath to ye aboue written testimony when called to it."
"The testers above say they are ready to give an oath to the testimony written above when called upon."
SARAH BATES—An effective remedy for fits—Burnt feathers—Blood letting—The result
SARAH BATES—An effective treatment for seizures—Burnt feathers—Bloodletting—The outcome
"The testimony of Mrs. Sarah Bates she saith yt when first ye garl was taken with strang fits she was sent for to Danil Wescots house & she found ye garle lieing upon ye bed. She then did apprehend yt the garls illness might be from sum naturall cause; she therefore aduised them to burn feathers under her nose & other menes yt had dun good in fainting fits and then she seemed to be better with it; and so she left her that night in hops to here she wold be better ye next morning; but in ye morning Danil Wescot came for her againe and when she came she found ye garl in bed seemingly senceless & spechless; her eyes half shet but her pulse seemed to beat after ye ordinary maner her mistres desired she might be let blud on ye foot in hops it might do her good. Then I said I thought it could not be dun in ye capassity she was in but she desired a triall to be made and when euerything was redy & we were agoing to let her blud ye garl cried; the reson was asked her why she cried; her answer was she would not be bluded; we asked her why; she said again because it would hurt her it was said ye hurt would be but small like a prick of a pin then she put her foot ouer ye bed and was redy to help about it; this cariag of her seemed to me strang who before seemed to ly like a dead creature; after she was bluded and had laid a short time she clapt her hand upon ye couerlid & cried out; and on of ye garls yt stood by said mother she cried out; and her mistres was so afected with it yt she cried and said she is bewitched. Upon this ye garl turned her head from ye folk as if she wold hide it in ye pillar & laughed." The above written Sarah Bates appeared before me in Stamford this 13th Septembr 1692 & made oath to the above written testimony. Before me Jonat, Bell Comissr."
"The testimony of Mrs. Sarah Bates states that when the girl first had severe fits, she was called to Daniel Wescot's house and found the girl lying on the bed. She thought the girl's illness might be caused by something natural, so she advised them to burn feathers under her nose and other methods that had worked in fainting episodes, and after that, the girl seemed to improve. That night, she left, hoping the girl would be better the next morning. However, the next morning, Daniel Wescot came for her again, and when she arrived, she found the girl in bed, seemingly senseless and speechless; her eyes half-closed, but her pulse seemed normal. Her mistress requested to have her blood let in hopes it might help her. I said I thought it couldn't be done in the state she was in, but she insisted on trying. Once everything was ready and we were about to draw her blood, the girl cried out. When asked why she cried, she said she didn't want to be bled. We asked her why, and she repeated it was because it would hurt. We explained the pain would be minimal, like a pin prick, and then she put her foot over the bed, ready to assist. This behavior struck me as strange since she had previously appeared almost lifeless. After she was bled and had rested for a short while, she slapped her hand on the coverlet and cried out. One of the girls standing by said, 'Mother, she cried out,' and her mistress was so affected that she cried and said, 'She is bewitched.' At this, the girl turned her head away from the crowd as if trying to hide it in the pillow and laughed." The above written Sarah Bates appeared before me in Stamford this 13th September 1692 and made oath to the above testimony. Before me, Jonat Bell, Commissioner.
Daniel Wescot—Exchanging yarn—"A quarrill"—The child's nightmare
Daniel Wescot—Exchanging stories—"A dispute"—The child's nightmare
"The testimony of Daniel Wescote saith that some years since my wife & Goodwife Clauson agreed to change their spinning, & instead of half a pound Goodwife Clawson sent three quarters of a pound I haueing waide it, carried it to her house & cnvinced her of it yt it was so, & thence forward she till now took occation upon any frivolous matter to be angry & pick a quarrill with booth myself & wife, & some short time after this earning ye flex, my eldest daughter Johannah was taken suddenly in ye night shrecking& crying out, There is a thing will catch me, uppon which I got up & lit a candle, & tould her there was nothing, she answerd, yees there was, there tis, pointing with her finger sometimes to one place & sometimes to another, & then sd tis run under the pillow. I askd her wr it was, she sd a sow, & in a like manner continued disturbd a nights abought ye space of three weeks, insomuch yt we ware forcd to carry her abroad sometimes into my yard or lot, but for ye most part to my next neighbours house, to undress her & get her to sleep, & continually wn she was disturbd shed cry out theres my thing come for me, whereuppon some neighbours advisd to a removal of her, & having removd her to Fairfeild it left her, & since yt hath not been disturbd in like manner."
"The testimony of Daniel Wescote says that a few years ago, my wife and Goodwife Clauson agreed to swap their spinning, and instead of half a pound, Goodwife Clauson sent three-quarters of a pound. After weighing it, I took it to her house and proved to her that it was true. From then on, she found excuses to be angry and pick fights with both my wife and me. A short time after this, my oldest daughter Johannah suddenly woke up at night, screaming and crying out, 'There is something that will catch me!' I got up, lit a candle, and told her there was nothing there. She replied, 'Yes, there is! There it is!' pointing to various places, then said it ran under the pillow. I asked her what it was; she said it was a sow. She continued to be disturbed at night for about three weeks, to the point that we had to take her outside sometimes into our yard or lot, but mostly to our neighbor's house, to undress her and help her fall asleep. Whenever she was disturbed, she'd cry out, 'There's my thing come for me!' Some neighbors suggested removing her, and after we moved her to Fairfield, the disturbances stopped, and she hasn’t been troubled like that since."
"The aboue testimony of Daniell Wesocott now read to the wife of sayd Daniell Shee testifys to the whole verbatum & hath now giuen oath to the same before us in Standford, Septembr 12th 1692.
"The above testimony of Daniel Wesocott, now read to the wife of said Daniel, confirms everything verbatim and he has now sworn to the same before us in Stanford, September 12th, 1692."
"JONATN SELLECK Comissr
"JONATHAN SELLECK Commissioner"
"JONOTHAN BELL Commissionr.
"JONOTHAN BELL Commissioner."
"Sworn in Court Septr 15 1692
"Sworn in Court September 15, 1692"
"As attests John Allyn Secry."
"As John Allyn Secry confirms."
ABIGAIL WESCOT—Throwing stones—Railing—Twitting of "fine cloths"
ABIGAIL WESCOT—Throwing stones—Complaining—Mocking about "fancy clothes"
"Abigal Wescot further saith that as she was going along the street Goody Clauson came out to her and they had some words together and Goody Clauson took up stone and threw at her; and at another time as she went along the street before said Clausons dore Goody Clauson caled to me and asked me what I did in my chamber last Sabbath day night, and I doe affirme that I was not their that night; and at another time as I was in her sone Stephens house being neer her one house shee followed me in and contended with me becase I did not com into her house caling of me proud slut what ear you proud on your fine cloths and you look to be mistres but you never shal by me and seuerall other prouoking speeches at that time and at another time as I was by her house she contended and quareled with me; and we had many words together and shee twited me of my fine cloths and of my mufe and also contended with me several other times.
"Abigal Wescot further says that as she was walking down the street, Goody Clauson came out to her and they exchanged some words. Goody Clauson picked up a stone and threw it at her. Another time, as she was passing in front of Clauson's door, Goody Clauson called out to me and asked what I had been doing in my room last Sabbath night. I affirm that I wasn’t there that night. On another occasion, when I was at her son Stephen's house, being near her house, she followed me in and argued with me because I didn’t go into her house, calling me a proud slut and sneering that I looked like a mistress because of my fine clothes, saying I’d never be one in her eyes, along with several other provoking remarks. And another time, when I was by her house, she argued and quarreled with me; we exchanged many words, and she mocked me about my fine clothes and my muff, and she also confronted me several other times."
"Taken upon oath before us Standford Septemr 12th "JONATN SELLECK Comissionr "JONOTHAN BELL Comissr."
"Taken under oath before us Standford September 12th "JONATN SELLECK Commissioner "JONOTHAN BELL Commissioner."
ABRAHAM FINCH—The strange light—"Two pry eies"—Cause of the "pricking"
ABRAHAM FINCH—The strange light—"Two curious eyes"—Cause of the "tingling"
"Abraham Finch jun aged about 26 years.
Abraham Finch Jr. is about 26 years old.
"The deponant saith that hee being a waching at with ye French girle at Daniell Wescoat house in the night I being laid on the bed the girle fell into a fite and fell crose my feet and then I looking up I sawe a light abut the bignes of my too hands glance along the sommer of the house to the harth ward, and afterwards I sawe it noe mor; and when Dauid Selleck brought a light into the room a littell space after the French garle cam to hirselfe againe. Wee ascked hir whie shee skreemed out when shee fell into her fit. Shee answered goodie Clawson cam in with two firy eies.
"The deponent says that while he was watching the French girl at Daniel Wescoat's house one night, as I was lying on the bed, the girl fell into a fit and rolled across my feet. Then, looking up, I saw a light about the size of my two hands moving along the summer of the house toward the hearth, and afterwards I saw it no more. When David Selleck brought a light into the room a little while after, the French girl came to her senses again. We asked her why she screamed out when she fell into her fit. She replied that Goodie Clawson came in with two fiery eyes."
"Furdermore the deponant saith that Dauid Selleck was that same night with him and being laid downe on the bed me nie the garle and I laye by the bed sid on the chest and Dauid Selleck starte up suddenly and I asked wt was ye matter with him and hee answered shee pricked mee and the French garle answered noe shee did not it was goodie Crump and then shee put her hand ouer the bed sid and said give mee that thing that you pricked Mr. Selleck with and I cached hold of her hand and found a pin in it and I took it away from her. The deponant saith that when the garl put her hand ouer the bed it was open and he looked very well in her hand and cold see nothing and before shee puled in her hand again shee had goten yt pin yt hee took from her.
"Furthermore, the witness says that David Selleck was with him that same night, and while lying down on the bed near the girl, he sat by the bedside on the chest. David Selleck suddenly sat up, and I asked him what was wrong. He replied that she pricked him, and the French girl said no, she didn’t; it was Goodie Crump. Then she reached her hand over the bedside and said, 'Give me that thing you pricked Mr. Selleck with.' I grabbed her hand and found a pin in it, which I took away from her. The witness says that when the girl put her hand over the bed, it was open, and he looked closely at her hand but couldn’t see anything. Before she pulled her hand back, she had gotten the pin that he took from her."
"This aboue written testor is redy when called to giue oath to the aboue written testimony."
"This above-written witness is ready to give an oath to the above-written testimony when called."
EBENEZER BISHOP—Kateran calls for somersaults—Fits and spots
EBENEZER BISHOP—Kateran calls for flips—Fits and spots
"Ebenezer Bishop aged about 26 years saith on night being at Danill Wescots house Catern Branch being in on of her fits I sate doen by ye bed side next to her she then calling ernestly upon goody Clason goody Clason seueral times now goody Clason turn heels ouer head after this she had a violent fit and calling again said now they are agoing to kill me & crieing out very loud that they pincht her on ye neck and calling out yt they pincht her again I setting by her I took ye light and look upon her neck & I see a spot look red seeming to me as big as a pece of eight afterwards it turned blue & blacker then any other part of her skin and after ye second time of her calling I took ye light & looked again and she pointed with her hand lower upon her shoulder and I se another place upon her shoulder look red & blue as I saw upon the other place before and then after yt she had another fit.
"Ebenezer Bishop, around 26 years old, says that one night while at Danill Wescot's house, Catern Branch was having one of her fits. I sat down by the bedside next to her as she urgently called for Goody Clason several times. Then Goody Clason turned heels over head. After this, she had a violent fit and cried out again, saying, 'Now they're going to kill me,' and shouting very loudly that someone pinched her on the neck, crying out that they pinched her again. As I sat by her, I took the light and looked at her neck, and I saw a spot that looked red, seeming to me as large as a piece of eight. Afterwards, it turned blue and darker than any other part of her skin. After she called again for the second time, I took the light and looked once more. She pointed with her hand lower on her shoulder, and I saw another red and blue mark on her shoulder like the one I saw before, and then after that, she had another fit."
"Stamford 29th August 1692 this aboue written testor is redy when called to giue oath to ye aboue written testimony.
"Stamford, August 29, 1692. The person mentioned above is ready to give an oath for the testimony written above when called."
"Hannah Knapp testifieth the same to the above written and further adeth that shee saw scraches upon her; and is redy to give oth to it if called to it.
"Hannah Knapp testifies the same to what’s written above and adds that she saw scratches on her; and is ready to take an oath to it if called to do so."
"Both the above sworn in Court Septr 15 1692. Attests John Allyn, Secry."
"Both the above sworn in Court September 15, 1692. Attests John Allyn, Secretary."
SAMUEL HOLLY—Singular physiological transformations
SAMUEL HOLLY—Unique bodily changes
"The testimony of Samuel Holly senour aged aboute fifty years saith that hee being at ye house of Danell Wescot in ye euning I did see his maid Cattern Branch in her fit that shee did swell in her brests (as shee lay on her bed) and they rise as lik bladers and suddenly pased in to her bely, and in a short time returned to her brest and in a short time her breasts fell and a great ratling in her throat as if shee would haue been choked; All this I judge beyond nature.
"The testimony of Samuel Holly Sr., who is about fifty years old, states that while he was at the house of Danell Wescot in the evening, he saw his maid, Cattern Branch, having a fit. Her breasts swelled (while she lay on her bed) and they rose like bladders, then suddenly moved into her belly. Shortly after, they returned to her breasts and soon her breasts deflated, accompanied by a loud rattling in her throat as if she were about to choke. I believe all this is beyond the natural."
"Danil Wescot testifieth to ye same aboue written and further addith yt when she was in those fits ratling in her throat she would put out her tong to a great extent I consieue beyond nature & I put her tong into her mouth again & then I looked in her mouth & could se no tong but as if it were a lump of flesh down her throat and this ofen times.
"Danil Wescot testified to the same as written above and further added that when she was having those fits, rattling in her throat, she would stick out her tongue to an extreme degree that I believe is unnatural. I put her tongue back into her mouth again, and when I looked inside, I could see no tongue, just what looked like a lump of flesh down her throat, and this happened many times."
"The testors, as concerned are ready to giue oath to the above written testimony if called thereunto.
"The witnesses are ready to swear an oath to the above testimony if called upon."
"Staford 29 April 1692
Staford, April 29, 1692
"Sworn in Court Septr 15 1692.
"Sworn in Court September 15, 1692."
"Attests JOHN ALLYN, Seer."
"Confirms JOHN ALLYN, Seer."
"The testimony of Daniell Westcot aged about forty nine years saith that som time this spring since his maid Catton Branch had fits and with many other strange actions in her, I see her as shee lay on the bed at her length in her fit, and at once sprang up to the chamber flore withouts the helpe of her hands or feete; thats neere six feet and I judge it beyond nator for any person so to doe.
"The testimony of Daniell Westcot, who is about forty-nine years old, states that sometime this spring, his maid Catton Branch had seizures along with many other strange behaviors. I saw her while she was lying on the bed during one of her fits, and suddenly she sprang up to the chamber floor without using her hands or feet; that’s nearly six feet, and I believe it’s beyond natural for anyone to do that."
"Sworn in Court Sept 15 1692.
"Sworn in Court September 15, 1692."
"Attests JOHN ALLYN Secry."
"Attests JOHN ALLYN, Secretary."
Inquiry and search—Visions of the young accuser—The talking cat—The spread table—The strange woman—"Silk hood and blew apron"—"2 firebrands in her forehead"—"A turn at heels ouer head"
Questioning and searching—Imaginations of the young accuser—The talking cat—The laid-out feast—The mysterious woman—"Silk hood and blue apron"—"Two firebrands in her forehead"—"A turn at heels over head"
"Stamford May ye 27th, 1692.
Stamford, May 27, 1692.
"Uppon ye information & sorrowfull complainte of Sergeant Daniel Wescot in regard of his maide servant Katherine Branch whome he suspects to be afflicted of witchcraft, under wch sore affliction she hath now labourd upwards of five weeks, & in that lamentable state yeat remains. In order to inquiry & search into (the) matter were then psent Major Nathan Golde, Capt. John Burr, Capt. Jonothan Selleck, Lieutenant Jonothan Bell.
"Upon the information and sorrowful complaint of Sergeant Daniel Wescot regarding his maid servant Katherine Branch, whom he suspects to be afflicted by witchcraft, she has now suffered under this severe affliction for over five weeks and remains in that lamentable state. To investigate and look into the matter, Major Nathan Golde, Capt. John Burr, Capt. Jonothan Selleck, and Lieutenant Jonothan Bell were present."
"The manner of her being taken & handled.
"The way she was taken and handled."
"Being in ye feilds gathering of herbs, she was seizd with a pinching & pricking at her breast; she being come home fell a crying, was askd ye reason, gave no answer but wept & immediately fell down on ye flooer wth her hands claspt, & with like actions continued wth some respite at times ye space of two days, then sd she saw a cat, was asked what ye cat sd she answerd ye cat askd her to [go] with her, with a promise of fine things & yt if she should goe where there ware fine folks; & still was followed wth like fits, seeming to be much tormented, being askd again what she saw sd cats, & yt they toulde her they woulde kill her, & wth this menaceing disquieted her severall dayes; after yt she saw in ye roome where she lay a table spread wth variety of meats, & they askd her to eat & at ye table she saw tenn eating, this she positively affirmd when in her right minde, after this was exceeding much tormentted, her master askd her what was ye matter, because she as she sd in her fit run to sundry places to abscoude herselfe, she toulde him twas because she saw a cat coming to her wth a rat, to fling in her face, after yt she sd they toulde her they woulde kill her because she tould of it. These sort of actions continued about 13 days, & then was extremely afflicted with fits in ye night, to ye number of about 40ty crying out a witch, a witch, her master runing to her askd her what was ye matter she sd she felt a hand. Ye next week she saw as she sd a woman stand in ye house having on a silk hood & a blew apron, after that in ye evening being well composd going out of dooers run in again & caught her master abought ye middle, he askd her ye reason, she sd yt she meet an olde woman at ye dooer, with 2 firebrands in her forehead, he askd her what kinde of clooths she had on, answered she had two homespun coats, one tuct up rounde her ye other down. The next day she namd a person calling her goody Clauson, & sd there she is sitting on a reel, & again sd she saw her sit on ye pommel of a chair, saying Ime sure you are a witch, elce you coulde not sit so & sd she saw this person before namd at times for a week together. One time she sd she saw her and describd her whole attire, her [master]? went immediately & saw ye woman namd exactly atird as she was describd of ye person afflicted. Again she sd in her fits Goody Clauson lets haue a turn at heels ouer head, withall saying shall you goe first, or shall I. Weel sd she if I do first you shall after, & wth yt she turnd ouer two or three times heels ouer head, & so lay down, saying come if you will not Ile beat your head & ye wall together & haueing ended these words she goot up looking aboute ye house, & sd look shes gone, & so fell into a fit."
"While in the fields gathering herbs, she suddenly felt a sharp pain in her chest. When she got home, she started crying. When asked what was wrong, she didn’t respond but continued to weep and then collapsed on the floor with her hands clasped. This went on, with some breaks, for about two days. Then she said she saw a cat and was asked what the cat said. She replied that the cat invited her to come along with the promise of wonderful things and that she would meet some fine people. She continued to have similar fits, appearing to be greatly troubled. When asked again what she saw, she mentioned the cats told her they would kill her, and this threat disturbed her for several days. After that, she saw a table in the room where she was lying, set with a variety of foods, and they asked her to eat. At the table, she claimed to see ten people eating, which she firmly stated when she was in her right mind. Following this, she was extremely tormented. Her master asked her what was wrong, as she claimed during her episodes that she would run to various places to hide. She told him it was because she saw a cat coming towards her with a rat to throw in her face. After that, she said they threatened to kill her because she mentioned it. This behavior lasted about 13 days, and then she was severely afflicted with fits at night, about 40 times, screaming “a witch, a witch.” Her master ran to her and asked what was wrong; she said she felt a hand. The next week, she claimed to see a woman standing in the house wearing a silk hood and a blue apron. Later that evening, feeling composed, she ran back inside and grabbed her master around the middle. When he asked her why, she said she encountered an old woman at the door with two firebrands on her forehead. He asked what kind of clothes she had on, and she answered that she had two homespun coats, one tucked up around her and the other hanging down. The next day, she named a person as Goody Clauson, saying, “There she is sitting on a reel,” and then said she saw her sitting on the pommel of a chair, adding, “I’m sure you’re a witch; otherwise, you couldn’t sit like that,” stating she saw this person repeatedly for a week. One time, she said she saw her and described her entire outfit. Her master immediately went to check and saw the woman dressed exactly as described by the afflicted person. Again, she said during her fits, “Goody Clauson, let’s take a turn, heels over head,” adding, “Will you go first, or shall I?” She responded, “Well, if I go first, you’ll go after,” and with that, she turned over two or three times, heels over head, and then lay down, saying, “Come if you will; if not, I’ll beat your head and the wall together.” After finishing those words, she got up, looked around the house, and said, “Look, she’s gone,” and then fell into a fit."
LIDIA PENOIR—"A lying gairl"
LIDIA PENOIR—"A lying girl"
"The testimony of Lidia Penoir. Shee saith that shee heard her ant Abigal Wescot say that her seruant gairl Catern Branch was such a lying gairl that not any boddy could belieue one word what shee said and saith that shee heard her ant Abigail Wescot say that shee did not belieue that Mearcy nor goody Miller nor Hannah nor any of these women whome shee had apeacht was any more witches then shee was and that her husband would belieue Catern before he would belieue Mr. Bishop or Leiftenat Bell or herself.
"The testimony of Lidia Penoir. She says that she heard her aunt Abigail Wescot say that her servant girl Catern Branch was such a lying girl that nobody could believe a word she said. She also heard her aunt Abigail Wescot say that she didn’t believe that Mearcy, Goody Miller, Hannah, or any of the other women she had accused were any more witches than she was, and that her husband would believe Catern before he would believe Mr. Bishop, Lieutenant Bell, or herself."
"The testor is ready to giue oath to sd testimony. Standford, Augt 24th 1692."
"The tester is ready to swear to the above testimony. Standford, August 24th, 1692."
ELEZER SLAWSON—"A woman for pease"—A good word
ELEZER SLAWSON—"A woman for peace"—A good word
"The testimony of Elezer Slawson aged 51 year.
"The testimony of Elezer Slawson, 51 years old."
"He saith yt he liued neare neighbour, to goodwife Clawson many years & did allways observe her to be a woman for pease and to counsell for pease & when she hath had prouacations from her neighbours would answer & say we must liue in pease for we are naibours & would neuer to my obseruation giue threatning words nor did I look at her as one giuen to malice; & further saith not
"He says that he lived very close to goodwife Clawson for many years and always observed her to be a woman focused on peace and encouraging others to do the same. When she faced provocations from her neighbors, she would respond by saying we must live in peace since we are neighbors, and I never saw her as someone who would use threatening words, nor did I perceive her to be malicious; and he has nothing more to add."
"ELEAZAR SLASON. "CLEMENT BUXSTUM.
ELEAZAR SLASON. CLEMENT BUXSTUM.
"The above written subscribers declared the aboue written & signed it with their own hands before me
"The subscribers above stated declared the above-written and signed it with their own hands in my presence."
"JONOTHAN BELL Comissionr."
"JONOTHAN BELL Commissioner."
In closing the citations of testimony in the Clawson case, other performances of Catherine Branch, the maid servant of Daniel and Abigail Wescot, are given to emphasize the absurdities which found credence in the community and brought several women to the bar of justice, to answer to the charge of a capital offense.
In wrapping up the citations of evidence in the Clawson case, other actions of Catherine Branch, the maid of Daniel and Abigail Wescot, are mentioned to highlight the ridiculous beliefs that took hold in the community and led several women to face justice for a serious crime.
An epileptic fit—Muscular contortions—"Talkeing to the appearances"—"Hell fyre to all eternity"—A creature "with a great head & wings & noe boddy & all black"—Songs and tunes—Secular and scriptural recitations—" The lock of hayer"
An epileptic seizure—muscle spasms—"Talking to the appearances"—"Hellfire for all eternity"—A being "with a big head & wings & no body & all black"—Songs and melodies—secular and religious recitations—"The lock of hair"
"June 28th 1692.
June 28, 1692.
"Sergt Daniell Wescott brought his Mayd Katheren Branch to my house to be examined, which was dune as is within mentioned, & the sd Katheren Branch being dismised was gott about 40 or 50 rodd from my house, my Indian girl runeing back sayinge sd Kate was falen downe & looked black in the face soe my sonn John Selleck & cousen Dauid Selleck went out & fecht her in, shee being in a stife fitt—& comeing out of that fitt fell a schrickeing, crying out you kill me, Goody Clawson you kill me, two or three times shee spoke it & her head was bent downe backwards allmost to her back; & sometimes her arme would be twisted round the sd Kate cryeing out you break my arme & with many such fitts following, that two men could hardly prevent by all their strenth the breaking of her neck & arme, as was thought by all the standers by; & in this maner sd Kate continued all the night, & neuer came to her sences but had som litell respitt betweene those terible fitts & then sd Kate would be talkeing to the appearances & would answer them & ask questions of them to manny to be here inserted or remembered. They askt her to be as they were & then shee should be well & we herd sd Kate saye I will not yeald to you for you are wiches & yor portion is hell fyre to all eternity & many such like expressions shee had; telling them that Mr. Bishop had often tould her that shee must not yield to them, & that that daye Norwalk minister tould her the same therefore she sayd I hope God will keep me from yielding to you; sd Kate sayd Goody Clawson why doe you torment me soe; I neuer did you any harme neather in word nor acction; sayeing why are you all come now to afflict me. Katherine tould their names, saying Goody Clawson, Mercy Disbrow, Goody Miller, & a woman & a gail, five of you. Then she sd Kate spoke to the gail whom she caled Sarah, & sayd is Sarah Staples your right name; I am aferd you tell me a lye; tell me your rite name; & soe uged it much; & then stoped & sayd, tell; yeas I must tell my master & Capt. Selleck if they aske me but Ile tell noe body els. Soe at last sd Kate sayd, Hanah Haruy once or twice out is that your name why then did you tell me a lye before; Well then sayd Kate what is the womans name that comes with you; & soe stoped & then sayd tell yeas I must tell my master & Capt. Selleok if he askes me, but Ile tell noeboddy els, & sayd you will not tell me then I will ask Goody Crumpe;& she sd Gody Crump what is the woemans name yt comes with Hanah Haruy; & so urged severall times, a then sd Marry Mary what, & then Mary Haruy; well sayd Kate is Mary Haruy ye mother of Hanah Haruy; & then sayd now I know it seeming to reioyce, & saying Hanah why did you not tell me before, sayeing their was more catts come at first & I shall know all your names; & Kate sayd what creature is that with a great head & wings & noe boddy & all black, sayeing Hanah is that your father; I believe it is for you are a wich; & sd Kate sayd Hanah what is yor fathers name; & have you noe grandfather & grandmother; how come you to be a witch & then stoped, & sd again a grandmother what is her name & then stoped, & sd Goody Staples what is her maiden name & then again fell into terrible fits which much affrighted the standers by, which were many pesons to behould & here what was sd & dune by Kate. Shee fell into a fitt singeing songes & then tunes as Kate sd giges for them to daunce by each takeing their turns; then sd Kate rehersed a great many verses, which are in some primers, & allsoe ye dialoge between Christ ye yoong man & the dieull, the Lords prayer, all the comand-ments & catechism, the creede & severall such good things, & then sayd, Hanah I will say noe more; let me here you, & sayd why doe I say these things; you doe not loue them & a great deale more she sayd which I cannot well remember but what is aboue & on ye other syde was herd and seene by myselfe & others as I've attest to it.
"Sgt. Daniell Wescott brought his maid Katheren Branch to my house for examination, which was done as mentioned before, and after Katheren was dismissed, she got about 40 or 50 rods from my house. My Indian girl ran back saying Katheren had fallen down and looked pale, so my son John Selleck and cousin David Selleck went out to bring her in. She was having a violent seizure—when she came out of the fit, she started screaming, 'You’re killing me, Goody Clawson, you’re killing me,' repeating it two or three times, with her head nearly bent backward. Sometimes her arm would twist around, and she cried out, 'You’re breaking my arm!' With many fits following, it took two men all their strength to prevent her neck and arm from being injured, as everyone around feared. Katheren continued like this all night, never regaining her senses, except for brief moments between the terrible fits. During these moments, she would talk to the apparitions, answer them, and ask many questions that cannot all be recorded here. They told her to be like them, and she would be well, but we heard Katheren say, 'I will not yield to you because you are witches, and your fate is hellfire for all eternity,' along with many similar statements. She mentioned that Mr. Bishop often told her not to give in to them, and that day the minister of Norwalk told her the same. Therefore, she said, 'I hope God will keep me from yielding to you.' Katheren asked Goody Clawson, 'Why are you tormenting me like this? I never harmed you, neither in word nor action,' questioning why they had all come to afflict her. She identified the names of some, saying, 'Goody Clawson, Mercy Disbrow, Goody Miller, and a woman and a girl, five of you.' Then Katheren spoke to the girl she called Sarah and asked, 'Is Sarah Staples your real name? I'm afraid you’re lying. Tell me your real name.' She pressed for this information a lot and then paused, saying, 'Yes, I must tell my master and Capt. Selleck if they ask me, but I won’t tell anyone else.' Eventually, Katheren said, 'Hannah Haruy, is that your name? Why did you lie before?' Then she asked, 'What is the name of the woman who comes with you?' and paused again, then said, 'I must tell my master and Capt. Selleck if he asks me, but I won’t tell anybody else.' When she sensed resistance, she decided to ask Goody Crump, saying, 'Goody Crump, what is the woman’s name that comes with Hannah Haruy?' After several urgings, she said, 'Mary Mary what?' and then identified 'Mary Haruy.' Katheren then said, 'So Mary Haruy is the mother of Hannah Haruy,' expressing a sense of understanding and joy, adding, 'Hannah, why didn’t you tell me before? There were more cats that came at first, and I shall know all your names.' Katheren asked, 'What creature is that with a big head and wings, no body, and all black? Is that your father, Hannah? I believe it is because you’re a witch.' Katheren then inquired, 'What is your father’s name? Don’t you have a grandfather and grandmother? How did you become a witch?' and paused again, asking, 'Grandmother, what is her name?' Then she stopped and asked Goody Staples about her maiden name, after which she fell into terrible fits that frightened those watching, who were many. She fell into a fit singing songs and then tunes, as Katheren said was to make them dance, each taking their turns. Katheren recited many verses, which are in some primers, as well as the dialogue between Christ, the young man, and the devil, the Lord’s Prayer, all the commandments and catechism, the creed, and several other valuable teachings. Then she said, 'Hannah, I will say no more; let me hear you,' and questioned why she was saying these things if they didn’t love them. Katheren said a lot more that I can’t recall exactly, but I, along with others, witnessed all that was said and done."
"Jonahn Selleck Commissioner."
"Jonahn Selleck, Commissioner."
"To add one thing more to my relation as is within of what I saw & herd, is that som persons atempted to cutt of a lock of the sd Kates hayer, when shee was in her fitts but could not doe it, for allthough she knew not what was sayd & dune by them, & let them come neuer soe priuately behynd her to doe it yeat shee would at once turne about and preuent it; At last Dauid Waterbery tooks her in his armes to hould her by force; that a lock of hayer might be cutt; but though at other times a weake & light gail yeat shee was then soe stronge & soe extreame heauy that he could not deale with her, not her hayer could not be cutt; & Kate cryeing out biterly, as if shee had bin beaten all ye time. When sd Kate come to herself, was askt if she was wileing her hayer should be cutt; shee answered yeas—we might cutt all of it we would."
"To add one more thing to my account of what I saw and heard, some people tried to cut off a lock of Kate's hair while she was having her fits, but they couldn't do it. Even though she didn't know what they were saying or doing and let them approach her from behind, she would immediately turn around and stop them. Finally, David Waterbury picked her up and held her forcefully so that a lock of hair could be cut. But even though she was usually weak and light, she was so strong and heavy at that moment that he couldn't manage her, and her hair couldn't be cut. Kate cried out bitterly, as if she were being beaten the entire time. When Kate came to her senses, she was asked if she was okay with her hair being cut. She replied, 'Yes—we could cut all of it if we wanted to.'"
Elizabeth Clawson was found not guilty.
Elizabeth Clawson was found not guilty.
A court of Assistants holden at Hartford, May 8th, 1693.
A court of Assistants held in Hartford, May 8, 1693.
Present.
|
|
Robert Treat, Esq. Governor | |
William Joanes, Esq. Dept. Govr. | |
Samuel Willis, Esq. | } } |
William Pitkin, Esq. | |
Col. John Allyn | |
Nath. Stanly, Esq. | |
Caleb Stanly, Esq. | |
Moses Mansfield, Esq. |
Gent. of the Jury are:
Members of the Jury are:
Joseph Bull, Nathaneal Loomis, Joseph Wadsworth, Nathanael Bowman, Jonathan Ashley, Stephen Chester, Daniel Heyden, Samuell Newell, Abraham Phelps, Joseph North, John Stoughton, Thomas Ward.
Joseph Bull, Nathaneal Loomis, Joseph Wadsworth, Nathanael Bowman, Jonathan Ashley, Stephen Chester, Daniel Heyden, Samuell Newell, Abraham Phelps, Joseph North, John Stoughton, Thomas Ward.
And the names of the Grand Jury are: Bartholomew Barnard, Joseph Mygatt, William Williams, John Marsh, John Pantry, Joseph Langton, William Gibbons, Stephen Kelsey, Cornelious Gillett, Samuel Collins, James Steele, Jonathan Loomis.
And the names of the Grand Jury are: Bartholomew Barnard, Joseph Mygatt, William Williams, John Marsh, John Pantry, Joseph Langton, William Gibbons, Stephen Kelsey, Cornelious Gillett, Samuel Collins, James Steele, Jonathan Loomis.
THE INDICTMENT
THE INDICTMENT
"Hugh Crotia, Thou Standest here presented by the Name of Hugh Crotia of Stratford in the Colony of Connecticutt, in New England; for that not haveing the fear of God before thine Eyes, through the Instigation of the Devill, thou hast forsaken thy God, & covenanted with the Devill, and by his help hast in a preternaturall way afflicted the bodys of Sundry of his Majestie's good subjects, for which according to the Law of God, and the Law of this Colony, thou deservest to dye."
"Hugh Crotia, you are here presented as Hugh Crotia from Stratford in the Colony of Connecticut, New England; because you have not had the fear of God before your eyes, through the influence of the Devil, you have abandoned your God, and made a pact with the Devil. With his help, you have harmed the bodies of several of His Majesty's loyal subjects in a supernatural way, for which, according to the Law of God and the Law of this Colony, you deserve to die."
The arrest—Satan the accessory—An alibi—The confession—A contract to serve the devil
The arrest—Satan as an accomplice—An alibi—The confession—A contract to serve the devil
"Fayrfield this 15 Novembor 1692 acording as is Informed that hugh Crosia is complained of by a gerll at Stratford for aflicting her and hee being met on ye road going westward from fayrfeild hee being met by Joseph Stirg and danill bets of norwak and being brought back by them to athority in fayrfeild and on thare report to sd authority of sum confesion sd Croshaw mad of such things as rendar him undar suspecion of familiarity with satan sd Crosha being asked whethar he sayd he sent ye deuell to hold downe Eben Booths gerll ye gerll above intended hee answared hee did say so but hee was not thar himself hee answereth he lyed when he sayd he sent ye deuell as above.
"Fayrfield, this 15th of November, 1692, as reported, Hugh Crosia is accused by a girl in Stratford of afflicting her. He was met on the road heading west from Fayrfield by Joseph Stirg and Danill Bets of Norwalk, who brought him back to the authorities in Fayrfield. Based on their report to the authorities regarding some confession, Crosia was placed under suspicion of having dealings with Satan. When asked if he said he sent the devil to hold down Eben Booth's girl, the girl in question, he responded that he did say that, but he was not there himself. He then claimed he lied when he said he sent the devil as stated above."
"Sd hugh beeing asked whethar hee did not say hee had made a Contract with ye deuell five years senc with his heart and signed to ye deuells book and then seald it with his bloud which Contract was to serve ye deuell and the deuell to serve him he saith he did say so and sayd he ded so and wret his name and sealed ye Contract with his bloud and that he had ever since been practising Eivel against every man: hee also sayd ye deuell opned ye dore of eben booths hous made it fly open and ye gate fly open being asked how he could tell he sayd he deuell apeered to him like a boye and told him hee ded make them fly open and then ye boye went out of his sight.
"Sd Hugh, when asked if he didn't say he had made a contract with the devil five years ago with his heart and signed it in the devil's book, then sealed it with his blood, stated that he did say so. He claimed he wrote his name and sealed the contract with his blood, and that ever since then he had been practicing evil against every man. He also said the devil opened the door of Eben Booth's house, made it fly open, and the gate flew open as well. When asked how he could know this, he replied that the devil appeared to him like a boy and told him he did make them fly open, and then the boy vanished from his sight."
"This examination taken and Confessed before authority in fairefeild before Us Testis the date above "Jon. Bur, Assist "Nathan Gold, Asist."
"This examination was taken and confessed before authority in Fairfield before us, the witnesses, on the date above. "Jon. Bur, Assistant "Nathan Gold, Assistant."
"The Grand Jury upon consideration of this Case re-turnd, Ignoramus....
The Grand Jury, after reviewing this case, returned a verdict of Ignoramus....
"This Court do grant to the said Hugh Crotia A Gaol Delivery, he paying the Master of the Gaol his just fees and dues upon his release and also all the Charge laid out on him at Fairfield, & in bringing him to prison.
"This Court grants Hugh Crotia a Gaol Delivery, provided he pays the Master of the Gaol his fair fees and charges upon his release, as well as all the expenses incurred at Fairfield and in transporting him to prison."
ELIZABETH GARLICK
ELIZABETH GARLICK
In 1657, when Easthampton, Long Island, was within the jurisdiction of New York, becoming a few months later a part of Connecticut, two persons came over from Gardiner's Island and settled in the colony, Joshua Garlick and Elizabeth his wife—whilom servants of the famous engineer and colonist Lion Gardiner.
In 1657, when Easthampton, Long Island, was part of New York and a few months later became part of Connecticut, two people came over from Gardiner's Island and settled in the colony: Joshua Garlick and his wife Elizabeth, former servants of the famous engineer and colonist Lion Gardiner.
Stories of Elizabeth's practice of witchcraft and other black arts followed her, and despite her attendance at church she fell under suspicion, and was arrested, and held by the magistrates for trial after hearing various witnesses. Credulity offers no better illustrations than those which fell from the lips of some of the witnesses in this case.
Stories about Elizabeth practicing witchcraft and other dark arts followed her, and even though she went to church, people became suspicious of her. She was arrested and held by the magistrates for trial after hearing from several witnesses. There's no better example of gullibility than the statements made by some of the witnesses in this case.
Tuning a psalm—A black thing—A double tongued woman—A doleful noise—Burning the herbs—The sick child—Gardiner's ox—The dead ram—Burning "the sow's tale"
Tuning a song—A dark thing—A two-faced woman—A mournful sound—Burning the herbs—The ill child—Gardiner's ox—The dead ram—Burning "the pig's tale"
Goodwife Howell, during her illness which hastened Elizabeth's arrest, "tuned a psalm and screked out several times together very grievously," and cried "a witch! a witch! now are you come to torter me because I spoke two or three words against you," and also said, she saw a black thing at the beds featte, that Garlick was double-tongued, pinched her with pins, and stood by the bed ready to tear her in pieces. And William Russell, in a fit of insomnia or indigestion, before daybreak, "heard a very doleful noyse on ye backside of ye fire, like ye noyse of a great stone thrown down among a heap of stones."
Goodwife Howell, during her illness which sped up Elizabeth's arrest, "sang a psalm and shouted out several times very mournfully," and yelled "a witch! a witch! now you’ve come to torture me because I said a couple of things against you," and also claimed she saw a dark figure at the foot of the bed, that Garlick was double-tongued, poked her with pins, and stood by the bed ready to tear her apart. And William Russell, in a fit of insomnia or indigestion, before dawn, "heard a very sad noise at the back of the fire, like the sound of a large stone being thrown down among a pile of stones."
Goody Birdsall "declared y't she was in the house of Goody Simons when Goody Bishop came into the house with ye dockweed and between Goody Davis and Goody Simons they burned the herbs. Farther, she said y't formerly dressing flax at Goody Davis's house, Goody D>avis saith y't she had dressed her children in clean linen at the island, and Goody Garlick came in and said, 'How pretty the child doth look,' and so soon as she had spoken Goody Garlick said, 'the child is not well, for it groaneth,' and Goody Davis said her heart did rise, and Goody Davis said, when she took the child from Goody Garlick, she said she saw death in the face of it, & her child sickened presently upon it, and lay five daies and 5 nights and never opened the eyes nor dried till it died. Also she saith as she dothe remember Goody Davis told her upon some difference between Mr. Gardiner or some of his family, Goodman Garlick gave out some threateningse speeches, & suddenly after Mr. Gardiner had an ox legge broke upon Ram Island. Moreover Goody Davis said that Goody Garlick was a naughtie woman."
Goody Birdsall said that she was at Goody Simons' house when Goody Bishop came in with the dockweed, and between Goody Davis and Goody Simons, they burned the herbs. Additionally, she mentioned that while she was dressing flax at Goody Davis' house, Goody Davis stated that she had dressed her children in clean linen at the island. Goody Garlick came in and said, "How pretty the child looks," and as soon as she said that, Goody Garlick added, "The child is not well, for it groans." Goody Davis felt a rising in her heart, and when she took the child from Goody Garlick, she saw death in its face. Soon after, her child became sick, lying for five days and five nights without opening its eyes or crying, until it died. She also recalled that Goody Davis told her about some dispute involving Mr. Gardiner or his family, where Goodman Garlick made some threatening remarks, and shortly after, Mr. Gardiner had an ox's leg broken on Ram Island. Furthermore, Goody Davis said that Goody Garlick was a wicked woman.
Goody Edwards testified: "Y't as Goody Garlick owned, she sent to her daughter for a little best milk and she had some and presently after, her daughters milk went away as she thought and as she remembers the child sickened about y't time." Goody Hand deposed that "she had heard Goody Davis say that she hoped Goody Garlick would not come to Eastharapton, because, she said, Goody Garlick was naughty, and there had many sad things befallen y'm at the Island, as about ye child, and ye ox, as Goody Birdsall have declared, as also the negro child she said was taken away, as I understood by her words, in a strange manner, and also of a ram y't was dead, and this fell out quickly one after another, and also of a sow y't was fat and lustie and died. She said they did burn some of the sow's tale and presently Goody Garlick did come in.">
Goody Edwards testified: "As Goody Garlick mentioned, she sent for some fresh milk for her daughter, and she had some. Shortly after, her daughter's milk disappeared, and she remembers the child becoming sick around that time." Goody Hand stated that "she heard Goody Davis say she hoped Goody Garlick wouldn't come to Easthampton because, as she said, Goody Garlick was trouble. Many unfortunate things had happened to them at the Island, like with the child and the ox, as Goody Birdsall also said, including a negro child that she claimed was taken away in a strange way, as well as a ram that died. These incidents happened one after another quickly, and there was also a fat, healthy sow that died. She mentioned they burned part of the sow's tail, and then Goody Garlick came in."
The settlers held a town meeting, and wisely questioning whether they had legal authority to hold a trial in a capital case, they appointed a committee to go "unto Keniticut to carry up Goodwife Garlick yt she may be delivered up unto the authoritie there for the trial of the cause of witchcraft which she is suspected for." The General Court of Connecticut took jurisdiction of the case, a trial of Goody Garlick was held, resulting in her acquittal, and she was sent back to Easthampton, to what end is not told in the records of the day.
The settlers held a town meeting and sensibly questioned whether they had the legal authority to hold a trial in a serious case. They appointed a committee to go "to Connecticut to bring Goodwife Garlick so she can be handed over to the authorities there for the trial regarding the witchcraft she is suspected of." The General Court of Connecticut took over the case, a trial for Goody Garlick was held, which resulted in her being found not guilty, and she was sent back to Easthampton, although the records from that time do not explain the outcome.
CHAPTER X
"This case is one of the most painful in the entire Connecticut list, for she impresses one as the best woman; how the just and high minded old lady had excited hate or suspicion, we cannot know." Connecticut as a Colony (1: 212), MORGAN.
"This case is one of the most heartbreaking in Connecticut's history, as she seems like an extraordinary woman; we can't comprehend how the just and respected elderly lady provoked hate or suspicion." Connecticut as a Colony (1: 212), MORGAN.
"Mr. Dauenport gaue in as followeth—That Mr. Ludlow sitting with him and his wife alone, and discoursing of the passages concerning Knapps wife, the Witch and her execution, said that she came downe from the ladder (as he understood it), and desired to speak with him alone, and told him who was the witch spoken of." New Haven Colonial Record (2: 78).
Mr. Dauenport said this—Mr. Ludlow was sitting alone with him and his wife, talking about what happened with Knapp's wife, the witch, and her execution. He mentioned that she came down from the ladder (as he understood it), asked to speak with him privately, and told him who the witch they were talking about was. New Haven Colonial Record (2: 78).
"Shortly after this, a poor simple minded woman living in Fairfield, by the name of Knap, was suspected of witchcraft. She was tried, condemned and sentenced to be hanged." SCHENCK'S History of Fairfield (1: 71).
Shortly after this, a poor, simple woman named Knap, who lived in Fairfield, was suspected of witchcraft. She was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to hang. SCHENCK'S History of Fairfield (1: 71).
"GOODWIFE KNAP"
"Good Wife Knap"
This was one of the most notable of the witchcraft cases. It stands among the early instances of the infliction of the death penalty in Connecticut; the victim was presumably a woman of good repute, and not a common scold, an outcast, or a harridan; it is singularly illustrative of witchcraft's activities and their grasp on the lives of the best men and women, of the beliefs that ruled the community, and of the crude and revolting practices resorted to in the punishments of the condemned, and especially since in its later developments it involved in controversy and litigation two of the great characters in colonial history, Rev. John Davenport, one of the founders of New Haven, and Roger Ludlow, Deputy Governor of Massachusetts and Connecticut.[I] Goodwife Knapp of Fairfield was "suspicioned." That was enough to set the villagers agog with talk and gossip and scandal about the unfortunate woman, which poisoned the wells of sober thought and charitable purpose, and swiftly ripened into a formal accusation and indictment.
This was one of the most significant witchcraft cases. It ranks among the early instances of the death penalty in Connecticut; the victim was likely a woman of good standing, not a loudmouth, an outcast, or a troublemaker. It strikingly illustrates the impact of witchcraft on the lives of decent men and women, the beliefs that dominated the community, and the brutal and shocking methods used in punishing the accused. Moreover, its later developments sparked controversy and legal battles involving two prominent figures in colonial history, Rev. John Davenport, one of the founders of New Haven, and Roger Ludlow, Deputy Governor of Massachusetts and Connecticut.[I] Goodwife Knapp of Fairfield was "suspected." That was enough to set the villagers buzzing with talk, gossip, and scandal about the unfortunate woman, which contaminated rational thought and compassion, quickly leading to a formal accusation and indictment.
[I] Connecticut, through its Commission of Sculpture, in recognition of his services to the Colony, is to erect a memorial statue to Ludlow to occupy the western niche on the northern facade of the Capitol building at Hartford.
[I] Connecticut, through its Commission of Sculpture, is set to build a memorial statue for Ludlow in honor of his contributions to the Colony. The statue will be placed in the western niche on the northern side of the Capitol building in Hartford.
Pending her trial the prisoner was committed to the house of correction or common jail for the safe keeping of "refractory persons" and criminals.
Pending her trial, the prisoner was sent to the correctional facility or common jail for the safe keeping of "disobedient individuals" and criminals.
What terrors of mind and spirit must have waited on this "simple minded" woman, in the cold, gloomy, and comfortless prison, probably built of rough logs, with a single barred window and massive iron studded door, a ghost haunted torture chamber, in charge of some harsh wardsmen.
What kind of fears and struggles must this "simple-minded" woman have faced in that cold, dark, and uncomfortable prison, likely made of rough logs, with just one barred window and a heavy door full of iron studs—a torture chamber haunted by ghosts, overseen by some cruel guards?
Knapp was duly and truly tried, and sentenced to death by hanging, the usual mode of execution. No witch was ever burned in New England.
Knapp was properly tried and sentenced to death by hanging, the standard method of execution. No witch was ever burned in New England.
From the day sentence was pronounced until the hanging took place, out in Try's field beyond the Indian field, in view of the villagers, whose curiosity or thirst for horrors or whose duty led them there, this prisoner of delusion was made the object of rudest treatment, espionage, and of inhuman attempts to wring from her lips a confession of her own guilt or an accusation against some other person as a witch.
From the day the sentence was given until the hanging happened, out in Try's field beyond the Indian field, visible to the villagers, who were either curious, drawn by a taste for horror, or felt it was their duty to be there, this prisoner of delusion was subjected to the harshest treatment, surveillance, and cruel attempts to force her to confess her guilt or accuse someone else of being a witch.
The very day of her condemnation, a self-constituted committee of women, with one man on it,—Mistress Thomas Sherwood, Goodwife Odell, Mistress Pell, and her two daughters, Goody Lockwood, and Goodwife Purdy,—visited the prison, and pressed her to name any other witch in town, and so receive such consolation from the minister as would be for her soul's welfare.
The same day she was sentenced, a group of women, along with one man—Mistress Thomas Sherwood, Goodwife Odell, Mistress Pell, and her two daughters, Goody Lockwood, and Goodwife Purdy—visited the prison and urged her to name any other witch in town, so she could get some comfort from the minister for her soul's well-being.
Mistress Pell seems to have been the chief spokeswoman, and each member of the committee served in some degree as an inquisitor, or exhorter, not to repentance, but to disclosures. Baited and badgered, warned and threatened, the hapless prisoner protested she was innocent, denied the charges made against her, told one of the committee to "take heed the devile have not you," and also said, "I must not render evil for evil.... I have sins enough allready, and I will not add this [accusing another] to my condemnation." And at last in agony of soul she made that pathetic appeal to one of her relentless tormentors, "neuer, neuer poore creature was tempted as I am tempted, pray, pray for me."
Mistress Pell seems to have been the main spokesperson, and each member of the committee acted as some kind of interrogator or encourager, not to repent, but to reveal secrets. Pressured and hassled, cautioned and threatened, the unfortunate prisoner insisted she was innocent, denied the accusations against her, warned one of the committee to "be careful that the devil doesn’t have you," and also said, "I won’t repay evil with evil... I already have enough sins, and I won’t add this [accusing someone else] to my condemnation." Finally, in a deep state of despair, she made a heart-wrenching plea to one of her relentless tormentors, "never, never has a poor creature been tempted as I am tempted, please, please pray for me."
But even after death on the scaffold, the witch-hunters of the day did not refrain from their ghoulish work, but desecrated the remains of Goodwife Knapp at the grave side in their search for witch marks.
But even after her execution, the witch-hunters of the time didn’t stop their gruesome activities; they defiled Goodwife Knapp’s remains at the gravesite in their search for witch marks.
All the facts during the imprisonment, execution and burial are set forth in some of the testimonies herewith given, in a chapter of related history (the evidence at the trial not being disclosed in any present record), and all of them marked by a total unconsciousness of their sinister and revolting character.
All the details about the imprisonment, execution, and burial are presented in some of the testimonies included here, in a chapter of related history (the evidence from the trial is not included in any current record), and all of them show a complete lack of awareness of their dark and disturbing nature.
At a magistrate's court held at New Haven the 29th of May, 1654.
At a magistrate's court in New Haven on May 29, 1654.
Present. Now. |
|
Theophilus Eaton Esqr, Gouernor. | |
Mr. Stephen Goodyeare, Dept, Gouernor. | |
Francis Newman | } Please provide the text you would like me to modernize. |
Mr. William Fowler | |
Mr. William Leete |
a suit was heard entitled—
a lawsuit was filed named—
Thomas Staplies of Fairfield, plant'.
Thomas Staplies of Fairfield, plants.
Mr Rogger Ludlow late of Fairfield, defendt.
Mr. Rogger Ludlow, formerly of Fairfield, defendant.
It was brought by an aggrieved husband to recover damages for defamation of the character of his wife. It centered in one of the dramatic incidents at Knapp's execution. In the last extremity, and in the presence of immediate death, the prisoner came down from the ladder, and asking to speak with Ludlow alone, told him that Goodwife Staplies was a witch.
It was presented by an upset husband seeking damages for his wife's defamation. It revolved around one of the dramatic moments during Knapp's execution. At the last moment, facing imminent death, the prisoner stepped down from the ladder and asked to speak with Ludlow privately, telling him that Goodwife Staplies was a witch.
Some time afterward Ludlow, at New Haven, told the Rev. John Davenport and his wife the story, in confidence, and under the promise of secrecy, but it spread abroad with inevitable accretions, and when it reached Fairfield Thomas Staplies went to law, to vindicate his wife's character in pounds, shillings, and pence. These are some of the statements and remarkable testimonies:
Some time later, Ludlow, in New Haven, shared the story with Rev. John Davenport and his wife, in confidence and under a promise of secrecy. However, it quickly spread with added details, and by the time it reached Fairfield, Thomas Staplies decided to take legal action to defend his wife's reputation in monetary terms. Here are some of the statements and notable testimonies:
Attorney Banke's declaration—Ensigne Bryan's answer—Davenport's view of an oath, Hebrews vi,16—His account and conscientious scruples—Mistress Davenport's forgetfulness—"A tract of lying"—"Indian gods"—Luce Pell and Hester Ward's visit to the prison—The "search" of Knapp—"Witches teates"—Feminine resemblances—Matronly opinions—Post-mortem evidence— Contradictions—Knapp's ordeal—"Fished wthall in private"—Her denials— Talk on the road to the "gallowes"
Attorney Banke's statement—Ensign Bryan's response—Davenport's perspective on an oath, Hebrews vi,16—His account and moral doubts—Mistress Davenport's forgetfulness—"A series of lies"—"Indian gods"—Luce Pell and Hester Ward's visit to the jail—The "search" of Knapp—"Witches' teats"—Similarities among women—Motherly views—Post-mortem evidence—Inconsistencies—Knapp's trial—"Caught with it all in private"—Her denials—Conversation on the way to the "gallows"
"John Bankes, atturny for Thomas Staplies, declared, that Mr. Ludlow had defamed Thomas Staplies wife, in reporting to Mr. Dauenport and Mris. Dauenport that she had laid herselfe vnder a new suspition of being a witch, that she had caused Knapps wife to be new searched after she was hanged, and when she saw the teates, said if they were the markes of a witch, then she was one, or she had such markes; secondly, Mr. Ludlow said Knapps wife told him that goodwife Staplies was a witch; thirdly, that Mr. Ludlow hath slandered goodwife Staplies in saying that she made a trade of lying, or went on in a tract of lying, &c.
"John Bankes, attorney for Thomas Staplies, stated that Mr. Ludlow had defamed Thomas Staplies' wife by telling Mr. Dauenport and Mrs. Dauenport that she had come under new suspicion of being a witch, that she had caused Knapp's wife to be re-examined after she was hanged, and when she saw the marks, she said if they were the signs of a witch, then she was one, or she had those signs; secondly, Mr. Ludlow said Knapp's wife told him that goodwife Staplies was a witch; thirdly, that Mr. Ludlow has slandered goodwife Staplies by claiming that she made a habit of lying or was continuously lying, etc."
"Ensigne Bryan, atturny for Mr. Ludlow, desired the charge might bee proued, wch accordingly the plant' did, and first an attestation vnder Master Dauenports hand, conteyning the testimony of Master and Mistris Dauenport, was presented and read; but the defendant desired what was testified and accepted for proofe might be vpon oath, vpon wch Mr. Dauenport gaue in as followeth, That he hoped the former attestation hee wrott and sent to the court, being compared wth Mr. Ludlowes letter, and Mr. Dauenports answer, would haue satisfyed concerning the truth of the pticulars wthout his oath, but seeing Mr. Ludlowes atturny will not be so satisfyed, and therefore the court requires his oath, and yt he lookes at an oath, in a case of necessitie, for confirmation of truth, to end strife among men, as an ordinance of God, according to Heb: 6,16, hee therevpon declares as followeth,
"Attorney Bryan, representing Mr. Ludlow, requested that the charges be proven, which the plaintiff did. First, an affidavit signed by Master Davenport, containing the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Davenport, was presented and read. However, the defendant asked that any testimony accepted as proof be under oath. In response, Mr. Davenport stated that he hoped the previous affidavit he wrote and sent to the court, when compared with Mr. Ludlow's letter and Mr. Davenport's answer, would have satisfied the truth of the details without requiring an oath. But since Mr. Ludlow's attorney is not satisfied and the court now requires his oath, Mr. Davenport views an oath, in a case of necessity, as a means to confirm the truth and resolve disputes among people, as per Hebrews 6:16. He then declares as follows,"
"That Mr. Ludlow, sitting wth him & his wife alone, and discoursing of the passages concerning Knapps wife the witch, and her execution, said that she came downe from the ladder, (as he vnderstood it,) and desired to speake wth him alone, and told him who was the witch spoken of; and so fair as he remembers, he or his wife asked him who it was; he said she named goodwife Stapleies; Mr. Dauenport replyed that hee beleeued it was vtterly vntrue and spoken out of malice, or to that purpose; Mr. Ludlow answered that he hoped better of her, but said she was a foolish woman, and then told them a further storey, how she tumbled the corpes of the witch vp & downe after her death, before sundrie women, and spake to this effect, if these be the markes of a witch I am one, or I haue such markes. Mr. Dauenport vtterly disliked the speech, not haueing heard anything from others in that pticular, either for her or against her, and supposing Mr. Ludlow spake it vpon such intelligenc as satisfyed him; and whereas Mr. Ludlow saith he required and they promised secrecy, he doth not remember that either he required or they pmised it, and he doth rather beleeue the contrary, both because he told them that some did ouerheare what the witch said to him, and either had or would spread it abroad, and because he is carefull not to make vnlawfull promises, and when he hath made a lawfull promise he is, through the help of Christ, carefull to keepe it.
"Mr. Ludlow, sitting with him and his wife alone, talked about the events concerning Knapp's wife, the witch, and her execution. He mentioned that she came down from the ladder (as he understood it) and wanted to speak with him privately, revealing who the witch was. As far as he remembers, either he or his wife asked for the name, and he said she named goodwife Stapleies. Mr. Davenport responded that he believed this was completely untrue and said out of malice or something like that. Mr. Ludlow replied that he hoped better of her but noted that she was a foolish woman. He then shared another story about how she tossed the corpse of the witch around after her death in front of several women and said something along the lines of, 'If these are the signs of a witch, then I'm one, or I have such signs.' Mr. Davenport strongly disapproved of this comment, having not heard anything from others about her either for or against her, and assuming that Mr. Ludlow spoke based on information that satisfied him. As for Mr. Ludlow claiming he asked for and they promised secrecy, he doesn't remember this being the case. He rather believes the opposite, partly because he told them that some people overheard what the witch said to him and either had or would spread it around. Also, he is careful not to make unlawful promises, and when he has made a lawful promise, he is, with Christ's help, careful to keep it."
"Mris. Dauenport saith, that Mr. Ludlow being at their house, and speakeing aboute the execution of Knapps wife, (he being free in his speech,) was telling seuerall passages of her, and to the best of her remembrance said that Knapps wife came downe from the ladder to speake wth him, and told him that goodwife Staplyes was a witch, and that Mr. Daueport replyed something on behalfe of goodwife Staplies, but the words she remembers not; and something Mr. Ludlow spake, as some did or might ouer-heare what she said to him, or words to that effect, and that she tumbled the dead body of Knapps wife vp & downe and spake words to this purpose, that if these be the markes of a witch she was one, or had such markes; and concerning any promise of secrecy she remembers not."
"Mrs. Davenport says that Mr. Ludlow was at their house, and while speaking about the execution of Knapp's wife (he was quite open in his speech), he recounted several details about her. To the best of her memory, he mentioned that Knapp's wife came down from the ladder to talk to him and told him that Goodwife Staplyes was a witch. Mr. Davenport responded in defense of Goodwife Staplyes, but she can't remember exactly what he said. Mr. Ludlow also mentioned that some people might have overheard what she said to him, or something like that, and that she tossed around the dead body of Knapp's wife and said something to the effect that if these were the marks of a witch, then she was one or had such marks. As for any promise of secrecy, she doesn't recall."
"Mr. Dauenport and Mris. Dauenport affirmed ypon oath, that the testimonies before written, as they properly belong to each, is the truth, according to their best knowledg & memory.
"Mr. Dauenport and Mrs. Dauenport affirmed upon oath that the testimonies written above, as they pertain to each of them, are true to the best of their knowledge and memory."
"Mr. Dauenport desired that in takeing his oath to be thus vnderstood, that as he takes his oath to giue satisfaction to the court and Mr. Ludlowes atturny, in the matters attested betwixt M' Ludlow & Thomas Staplies, so he lymits his oath onely to that pt and not to ye preface or conclusion, they being no pt of the attestation and so his oath not required in them.
"Mr. Dauenport wanted to clarify that when he takes his oath, it should be understood that he is doing so to provide satisfaction to the court and Mr. Ludlow's attorney regarding the matters attested between Mr. Ludlow and Thomas Staplies. He limits his oath only to that part and not to the preface or conclusion, as they are not part of the attestation and therefore do not require his oath."
"To the latter pt of the declaration, the plant' pduced ye proofe following,
"To the latter part of the declaration, the plant produced the following proof:"
"John Tompson of Fairfeild testifyeth vpon oath, that in discourse he hath heard Mr. Ludlow express himselfe more then once that goodwife Staplies went on in a tract of lying, and when goodwife Staplyes hath desired Mr. Ludlow to convince her of telling one lye, he said she need not say so, for she went on in a tract of lying.
"John Tompson of Fairfeild testifies under oath that in conversations he has heard Mr. Ludlow say more than once that goodwife Staplies was engaged in a pattern of lying. When goodwife Staplyes asked Mr. Ludlow to prove that she had told a single lie, he replied that she didn't need to ask that, because she was indeed following a pattern of lying."
"Goodwife Gould of Fairefeild testifyeth vpon oath, that in a debate in ye church wth Mr. Ludlow, goodwife Staplyes desired him to show her wherein she had told one lye, but Mr. Ludlow said she need not mention ptculars, for she had gon on in a tract of lying.
"Goodwife Gould of Fairfield testifies under oath that during a discussion in the church with Mr. Ludlow, Goodwife Staplyes asked him to point out where she had lied, but Mr. Ludlow replied that she didn't need to mention specifics, as she had been consistently lying."
"Ensigne Bryan was told, he sees how the plantife hath proued his charge, to wch he might now answer; wherevpon he presented seuerall testimonies in wrighting vpon oath, taken before Mr. Wells and Mr. Ludlow.
"Ensign Bryan was informed that he could see how the planter had proven his case, to which he could now respond; therefore, he submitted several written testimonies under oath, taken before Mr. Wells and Mr. Ludlow."
"May the thirteenth, 1654.
May 13, 1654.
"Hester Ward, wife of Andrew Ward, being sworne deposeth, that aboute a day after that goodwife Knapp was condemned for a witch, she goeing to ye prison house where the said Knapp was kept, she, ye said Knapp, voluntarily, wthout any occasion giuen her, said that goodwife Staplyes told her, the said Knapp, that an Indian brought vnto her, the said Staplyes, two litle things brighter then the light of the day, and told the said goodwife Staplyes they were Indian gods, as the Indian called ym; and the Indian wthall told her, the said Staplyes, if she would keepe them, she would be so big rich, all one god, and that the said Staplyes told the said Knapp, she gaue them again to the said Indian, but she could not tell whether she did so or no.
"Hester Ward, wife of Andrew Ward, swears that about a day after goodwife Knapp was condemned for witchcraft, she went to the prison where Knapp was held. Knapp, without any prompting, said that goodwife Staplyes told her an Indian brought her two small things that were brighter than daylight and said they were Indian gods, as the Indian called them. The Indian also told Staplyes that if she kept them, she would become incredibly rich, like a god, and that Staplyes told Knapp she gave them back to the Indian, but she couldn’t say for sure whether she did or not."
"Luce Pell, the wife of Thomas Pell, being sworne deposeth as followeth, that aboute a day after goodwife Knapp was condemned for a witch, Mris. Jones earnestly intreated her to goe to ye said Knapp, who had sent for her, and then this deponent called the said Hester Ward, and they went together; then the said Knapp voluntarily, of her owne accord, spake as the said Hester Ward hath testifyed, word by word; and the said Mris. Pell further saith, that she being one of ye women that was required by the court to search the said Knapp before she was condemned, & then Mris. Jones presed her, the said Knapp, to confess whether ther were any other that were witches, because goodwife goodwife Basset, when she was condemned, said there was another witch in Fairefeild that held her head full high, and then the said goodwife Knapp stepped a litle aside, and told her, this deponent, goodwife Basset ment not her; she asked her whom she ment, and she named goodwife Staplyes, and then vttered the same speeches as formerly conerning ye Indian gods, and that goodwife Staplyes her sister Martha told the said goodwife Knapp, that her sister Staplyes stood by her, by the fire in there house, and she called to her, sister, sister, and she would not answer, but she, the said Martha, strucke at her and then she went away, and ye next day she asked her sister, and she said she was not there; and Mris. Ward doth also testify wth Mris. Pell, that the said Knapp said the same to her; and the said Mris. Pell saith, that aboute two dayes after the search afforesaid, she went to ye said Knapp in prison house, and the said Knapp said to her, I told you a thing the other day, and goodman Staplies had bine wth her and threatened her, that she had told some thing of his wife that would bring his wiues name in question, and this deponent she told no body of it but her husband, & she was much moued at it.
"Luce Pell, the wife of Thomas Pell, being sworn, testifies as follows: about a day after Goodwife Knapp was condemned for witchcraft, Mrs. Jones urged her to go to the Knapp, who had sent for her. Then this deponent called Hester Ward, and they went together. The Knapp voluntarily spoke, as Hester Ward has testified, word for word. Mrs. Pell further states that she was one of the women required by the court to search Knapp before she was condemned. Then Mrs. Jones pressed Knapp to confess if there were any other witches, because Goodwife Basset, when she was condemned, said there was another witch in Fairfield who held her head very high. The Goodwife Knapp then stepped aside and told this deponent that Goodwife Basset did not mean her. When asked whom she meant, she named Goodwife Staplyes and then repeated the same statements as before about the Indian gods. She mentioned that Goodwife Staplyes' sister Martha told the Goodwife Knapp that her sister Staplyes stood by her, by the fire in their house, and she called to her, ‘sister, sister,’ but she would not answer. Then Martha struck at her, and she went away. The next day, she asked her sister, and she said she was not there. Mrs. Ward also testifies with Mrs. Pell that Knapp said the same to her. Furthermore, Mrs. Pell states that about two days after the aforementioned search, she went to Knapp in the prison, and Knapp said to her, ‘I told you something the other day, and Goodman Staplyes had been with her and threatened her that she had said something about his wife that would bring his wife's name into question.’ This deponent told no one about it except her husband, and she was quite upset about it."
"Elizabeth Brewster being sworne, deposeth and saith, that after goodwife Knap was executed, as soone as she was cut downe, she, the said Knapp, being caried to the graue side, goodwife Staplyes wth some other women went to search the said Knapp, concerning findeing out teats, and goodwife Staplyes handled her verey much, and called to goodwife Lockwood, and said, these were no witches teates, but such as she herselfe had, and other women might haue the same, wringing her hands and takeing ye Lords name in her mouth, and said, will you say these were witches teates, they were not, and called vpon goodwife Lockwood to come & see them; then this deponent desired goodwife Odell to come & see, for she had bine vpon her oath when she found the teates, and she, this depont, desired the said Odill to come and clere it to goodwife Staplies; goodwife Odill would not come; then the said Staplies still called vpon goodwife Lockwood to come, will you say these are witches teates, I, sayes the said Staplies, haue such myselfe, and so haue you if you search yorselfe; goodwife Lockwood replyed, if I had such, she would be hanged; would you, sayes Staplies, yes, saith Lockwood, and deserve it; and the said Staplies handeled the said teates very much, and pulled them wth her fingers, and then goodwife Odill came neere, and she, the said Staplies, still questioning, the said Odill told her no honest woman had such, and then all the women rebuking her and said they were witches teates, and the said Staplies yeilded it.
"Elizabeth Brewster, having been sworn in, states that after goodwife Knap was executed, as soon as she was cut down and carried to the grave site, goodwife Staplyes and some other women went to check on Knap to find out whether she had teats. Goodwife Staplyes handled her a lot and called to goodwife Lockwood, saying these were not witch's teats but ones similar to her own, and other women could have the same. While wringing her hands and invoking the Lord's name, she said, 'Will you say these are witch's teats? They are not,' and called for goodwife Lockwood to come and see them. Then this deponent asked goodwife Odell to come and see since she had been under oath when she found the teats. This deponent urged Odell to come and clarify it to goodwife Staplyes, but goodwife Odell refused to come. Staplyes continued to call on goodwife Lockwood to come, saying, 'Will you say these are witch's teats? I say I have some myself, and you could have the same if you checked.' Goodwife Lockwood replied, 'If I had such, she would be hanged.' 'Would you?' asked Staplyes. 'Yes,' said Lockwood, 'and deserve it.' Staplyes handled the teats a lot, pulling at them with her fingers, and then goodwife Odell came closer. Still questioning, Staplyes listened as Odell told her no honest woman had such. Then all the women rebuked her and said they were witch's teats, and Staplyes conceded."
"Mary Brewster being sworn & deposed, saith as followeth, that she was present after the execution of ye said Knapp, and she being brought to the graue side, she saw goodwife Staplyes pull the teates that were found aboute goodwife Knapp, and was verey earnest to know whether those were witches teates wch were found aboute her, the said Knapp, wn the women searched her, and the said Staplyes pulled them as though she would haue pulled them of, and prsently she, ths depont, went away, as hauing no desire to looke vpon them.
"Mary Brewster, having been sworn in and deposed, states the following: she was present after the execution of Knapp, and when she was taken to the graveside, she saw Goodwife Staplyes pulling the teats found around Goodwife Knapp. Staplyes was very eager to know whether those were witch's teats that were discovered on Knapp when the women searched her. Staplyes pulled them as if she wanted to remove them, and then the deponent immediately left, as she had no desire to look at them."
"Susan Lockwood, wife of Robert Lockwood, being sworne & examined saith as foll, that she was at the execution of goodwife Knapp that was hanged for a witch, and after the said Knapp was cut downe and brought to the graue, goodwife Staplyes, wth other women, looked after the teates that the women spake of appointed by the magistrats, and the said goodwife Staplies was handling of her where the teates were, and the said Staplies stood vp and called three or foure times and bid me come looke of them, & asked her whether she would say they were teates, and she made this answer, no matter whether there were teates or no, she had teates and confessed she was a witch, that was sufficient; if these be teates, here are no more teates then I myselfe haue, or any other women, or you either if you would search yor body; this depont saith she said, I know not what you haue, but for herselfe, if any finde any such things aboute me, I deserved to be hanged as she was, and yet afterward she, the said Staplyes, stooped downe againe and handled her, ye said Knapp, verey much, about ye place where the teates were, and seuerall of ye women cryed her downe, and said they were teates, and then she, the said Staplyes, yeilded, & said verey like they might be teates.
"Susan Lockwood, wife of Robert Lockwood, being sworn and examined says as follows: she was at the execution of Goodwife Knapp, who was hanged for witchcraft, and after Knapp was taken down and brought to the grave, Goodwife Staplyes, along with other women, looked for the teats that the women mentioned were pointed out by the magistrates. Goodwife Staplyes was touching her where the teats were, and she stood up and called three or four times, asking me to come look at them, and asked her whether she would say they were teats. She replied that it didn't matter whether there were teats or not; she had teats and had confessed she was a witch, which was enough. If these are teats, then there are no more teats than I have, or any other woman, or you either if you searched your body. This deponent says she said, 'I don’t know what you have, but for myself, if anyone finds any such things about me, I deserve to be hanged just like she was.' Yet afterward, the said Staplyes bent down again and handled her, the said Knapp, very much around the area where the teats were, and several of the women dismissed her, saying they were teats, and then she, the said Staplyes, conceded and said that they very well could be teats."
"Thomas Sheruington & Christopher Combstocke & goodwife Baldwine were all together at the prison house where goodwife Knapp was, and ye said goodwife Baldwin asked her whether she, the said Knapp, knew of any other, and she said there were some, or one, that had receiued Indian gods that were very bright; the said Baldwin asked her how she could tell, if she were not a witch herselfe, and she said the party told her so, and her husband was witnes to it; and to this they were all sworne & doe depose.
"Thomas Sheruington, Christopher Combstock, and Goodwife Baldwin were all together at the prison where Goodwife Knapp was held. Goodwife Baldwin asked Knapp if she knew of anyone else, and Knapp replied that there were some people, or at least one, who had received very bright Indian gods. Baldwin then asked how she could know this unless she was a witch herself, and Knapp responded that the person had told her so, and her husband was a witness to it. They all made an oath and testified to this."
"Rebecka Hull, wife of Cornelius Hull, being sworne & examined, deposeth & saith as followeth, that when goodwife Knapp was goeing to execution, Mr. Ludlow, and her father Mr. Jones, pressing the said Knapp to confess that she was a witch, vpon wch goodwife Staplies said, why should she, the said Knapp, confess that wch she was not, and after she, the said goodwife Staplyes, had said so, on that stood by, why should she say so, she the said Staplyes replyed, she made no doubt if she the said Knapp were one, she would confess it.
"Rebecka Hull, wife of Cornelius Hull, being sworn and examined, states as follows: when goodwife Knapp was going to execution, Mr. Ludlow and her father Mr. Jones pressured her to confess that she was a witch. At that point, goodwife Staplies said, 'Why should she, the said Knapp, confess to something she is not?' After she said this, those who were present asked, 'Why should she say that?' Goodwife Staplies replied that she had no doubt if Knapp were a witch, she would confess it."
"Deborah Lockwood, of the age of 17 or thereaboute, sworne & examined, saith as followeth, that she being present when goodwife Knapp was goeing to execution, betweene Tryes & the mill, she heard goodwife Staplyes say to goodwife Gould, she was pswaded goodwife Knapp was no witch; goodwife Gould said, sister Staplyes, she is a witch, & hath confessed had had familiarity wth the Deuill. Staplies replyed, I was wth her yesterday, or last night, and she said no such thing as she heard.
"Deborah Lockwood, around 17 years old, sworn and examined, says the following: she was present when goodwife Knapp was going to her execution, between Tryes and the mill. She heard goodwife Staplyes tell goodwife Gould that she was convinced goodwife Knapp was not a witch. Goodwife Gould replied, 'Sister Staplyes, she is a witch and has confessed to having had dealings with the Devil.' Staplyes responded, 'I was with her yesterday, or last night, and she said no such thing as you heard.'"
"Aprill 26th, 1654.
April 26, 1654.
"Bethia Brundish, of the age of sixteene or thereaboutes, maketh oath, as they were goeing to execution of goodwife Knapp, who was condemned for a witch by the court & jury at Fairfeild, there being present herselfe & Deborah Lockwood and Sarah Cable, she heard goodwife Staplyes say, that she thought the said goodwife Knapp was no witch, and goodwife Gould presently reproued her for it." "Witnes
"Bethia Brundish, around sixteen years old, swears that while they were taking goodwife Knapp to her execution—she had been condemned as a witch by the court and jury in Fairfield—she, along with Deborah Lockwood and Sarah Cable, heard goodwife Staples say that she believed goodwife Knapp was not a witch. Immediately, goodwife Gould scolded her for it." "Witness"
"Andrew Warde,
"Andrew Warde,"
"Jurat' die & anno prdicto,
"Jurat' die & anno prdicto,"
"Coram me, Ro Ludlowe.
"Before me, Ro Ludlow."
"The plant' replyed that he had seuerall other witnesses wch he thought would cleere the matters in question, if the court please to heare them, wch being granted, he first presented a testimony of goodwife Whitlocke of Fairfeild, vpon oath taken before Mr. Fowler at Millford, the 27th of May, 1654, wherein she saith, that concerning goodwife Staplyes speeches at the execution of goodwife Knapp, she being present & next to goody Staplyes when they were goeing to put the dead corpes of goodwife Knapp into the graue, seuerall women were looking for the markes of a witch vpon the dead body, and seuerall of the women said they could finde none, & this depont said, nor I; and she heard goodwife Staplyes say, nor I; then came one that had searched the said witch, & shewed them the markes that were vpon her, and said what are these; and then this depont heard goodwife Staplyes say she never saw such in all her life, and that she was pswaded that no honest woman had such things as those were; and the dead corps being then prsently put into the graue, goodwife Staplyes & myselfe came imediately away together vnto the towne, from the place of execution.
"The witness replied that he had several other witnesses who he thought would clarify the matters in question, if the court would allow them to be heard. This request being granted, he first presented a testimony from Goodwife Whitlock of Fairfield, given under oath before Mr. Fowler in Milford on May 27, 1654. In her testimony, she stated that regarding Goodwife Stapley's remarks during the execution of Goodwife Knapp, she was present and standing next to Goodwife Stapley when they were about to put the deceased body of Goodwife Knapp into the grave. Several women were searching for the marks of a witch on the dead body, and some of the women said they couldn’t find any. This witness said, "Me neither;" and she heard Goodwife Stapley say, "Me neither." Then someone who had searched the supposed witch pointed out the marks on her and asked, "What are these?" The witness heard Goodwife Stapley exclaim that she had never seen anything like that in her life and that she was sure no honest woman had such things. With the dead body being put into the grave, Goodwife Stapley and I left immediately together for the town from the place of execution."
"Goodwife Barlow of Fairfeild before the court did now testify vpon oath, that when Knapps wife was hanged and ready to be buried, she desired to see the markes of a witch and spake to one of her neighbours to goe wth her, and they looked but found them not; then goodwife Staplyes came to them, and one or two more, goodwife Stapyleyes kneeled downe by them, and they all looked but found ym not, & said they saw nothing but what is comon to other women, but after they found them they all wondered, and goodwife Staplyes in pticular, and said they neuer saw such things in their life before, so they went away.
"Goodwife Barlow of Fairfield testified in court that when Knapp's wife was about to be hanged and buried, she wanted to see the marks of a witch and asked one of her neighbors to go with her. They looked but didn’t find any. Then Goodwife Staplyes joined them, along with a couple of others. Goodwife Staplyes knelt down with them, and they all looked again but still didn’t find anything unusual, saying they saw nothing different from what is common to other women. But afterward, when they finally found the marks, they were all surprised, especially Goodwife Staplyes, who remarked that she had never seen anything like that in her life before, and then they left."
"The wife of John Tompson of Fairefeild testifyeth vpon oath, that goodwife Whitlock, goodwife Staplyes and herselfe, were at the graue and desired to see ye markes of the witch that was hanged, they looked but found them not at first, then the midwife came & shewed them, goodwife Staplyes said she neuer saw such, and she beleeved no honest woman had such.
"The wife of John Tompson from Fairfield testifies under oath that goodwife Whitlock, goodwife Staplyes, and she went to the grave and wanted to see the marks of the witch who was hanged. They looked but didn’t find them at first. Then the midwife came and showed them. Goodwife Staplyes said she had never seen anything like that, and she believed no honest woman had such marks."
"Goodwife Sherwood of Fairefeild testifyeth vpon oath, that that day Knapps wife was condemned for a witch, she was there to see her, all being gone forth but goodwife Odill and her selfe, then their came in Mris. Pell and her two daughters, Elizabeth & Mary, goody Lockwood and goodwife Purdy; Mris. Pell told Knapps wife she was sent to speake to her, to haue her confess that for wch she was condemned, and if she knew any other to be a witch to discover them, and told her, before she was condemned she might thinke it would be a meanes to take away her life, but now she must dye, and therefore she should discouer all, for though she and her family by the providence of God had brought in nothing against her, yet ther was many witnesses came in against her, and she was cast by the jury & godly magistrats hauing found her guilty, and that the last evidence cast the cause. So the next day she went in againe to see the witch wth other neighbours, there was Mr. Jones, Mris. Pell & her two daughters, Mris. Ward and goodwife Lockwood, where she heard Mris. Pell desire Knapps wife to lay open herselfe, and make way for the minister to doe her good; her daughter Elizabeth bid her doe as the witch at the other towne did, that is, discouer all she knew to be witches. Goodwife Knapp said she must not say anything wch is not true, she must not wrong any body, and what had bine said to her in private, before she went out of the world, when she was vpon the ladder, she would reveale to Mr. Ludlow or ye minister. Elizabeth Bruster said, if you keepe it a litle longer till you come to the ladder, the diuill will haue you quick, if you reveale it not till then. Good: Knapp replyed, take heed the devile haue not you, for she could not tell how soone she might be her companyon, and added, the truth is you would haue me say that goodwife Staplyes is a witch, but I haue sinns enough to answer for allready, and I hope I shall not add to my condemnation; I know nothing by goodwife Staplyes, and I hope she is an honest woman. Then goodwife Lockwood said, goodwife Knapp what ayle you; goodman Lyon, I pray speake, did you heare vs name goodwif Staplyes name since we came here; Lyon wished her to haue a care what she said and not breed difference betwixt neighbours after she was gone; Knapp replyed, goodman Lyon hold yor tongue, you know not what I know, I haue ground for what I say, I haue bine fished wthall in private more then you are aware of; I apprehend goodwife Staples hath done me some wrong in her testimony, but I must not render euill for euill. Then this depont spake to goody Knapp, wishing her to speake wth the jury, for she apprehended goodwife Staplyes witnessed nothing contrary to other witnesses, and she supposed they would informe her that the last evidence did not cast ye cause; she replyed that she had bine told so wthin this halfe houre, & desired Mr. Jones and herselfe to stay and the rest to depart, that she might speake wth vs in private, and desired me to declare to Mr. Jones what they said against goodwife Staplyes the day before, but she told her she heard not goodwife Staplyes named, but she knew nothing of that nature; she desired her to declare her minde fully to M' Jones, so she went away.
"Goodwife Sherwood of Fairfield testifies under oath that on the day Knapp's wife was condemned as a witch, she was there to witness it, with only Goodwife Odell and herself remaining. Then Mrs. Pell and her two daughters, Elizabeth and Mary, along with Goody Lockwood and Goodwife Purdy, entered. Mrs. Pell told Knapp's wife that she was sent to speak with her, urging her to confess to the reasons for her condemnation and to reveal if she knew of any other witches. She warned that before the trial, Knapp's wife might have thought this could save her life, but now she was to die, and thus she should confess everything. Although Mrs. Pell and her family had not brought anything against her, many witnesses had testified against her, resulting in the jury and godly magistrates finding her guilty, with the final evidence sealing her fate. The following day, she returned to see the accused with other neighbors, including Mr. Jones, Mrs. Pell and her daughters, Mrs. Ward, and Goody Lockwood. There she heard Mrs. Pell urging Knapp's wife to open up and allow the minister to help her. Her daughter Elizabeth encouraged her to do as the witch in the other town had done, which was to reveal all she knew about witches. Goodwife Knapp insisted she could not say anything untrue or wrong anyone, and insisted that anything said to her privately before her execution would only be revealed to Mr. Ludlow or the minister. Elizabeth Bruster warned her that if she held onto it until she was on the ladder, the devil would claim her. Goodwife Knapp replied, warning that Elizabeth should be careful not to be taken by the devil, as she could join her soon, and added that the truth was they wanted her to accuse Goodwife Staples of witchcraft, but she felt she had enough sins to answer for already and hoped not to add to her condemnation; she claimed to know nothing about Goodwife Staples and hoped she was a good woman. Then Goodwife Lockwood asked Knapp what was troubling her, and Goodman Lyon requested her to be careful not to stir up conflict among neighbors after her passing. Knapp replied that Goodman Lyon should be quiet, as he did not know what she knew, asserting she had reasons for her claims and had dealt with the issue privately more than he realized. She believed Goodwife Staples had wronged her in her testimony but felt she should not repay evil for evil. This deponent urged Goodwife Knapp to speak with the jury, as she believed Goodwife Staples’ evidence was consistent with other witnesses, and supposed they would inform her that the last evidence did not impact the case. Knapp replied she had just been informed of this half an hour ago and requested Mr. Jones and herself to stay while the others left so she could speak with them privately. She asked me to tell Mr. Jones what had been said against Goodwife Staples the previous day, but I informed her that I had not heard Goodwife Staples' name mentioned and knew nothing regarding that matter. She asked me to fully share her thoughts with Mr. Jones, and then she left."
"Further this depont saith, that comeing into the house where the witch was kept, she found onely the wardsman and goodwife Baldwine, there goodwife Baldwin whispered her in the eare and said to her that goodwife Knapp told her that a woman in ye towne was a witch and would be hanged wthin a twelue moneth, and would confess herselfe a witch and cleere her that she was none, and that she asked her how she knew she was a witch, and she told her she had reeived Indian gods of an Indian, wch are shining things, wch shine lighter then the day. Then this depont asked goodwife Knapp if she had said so, and she denyed it; goodwife Baldwin affirmed she did, but Knapps wife againe denyed it and said she knowes no woman in the towne that is a witch, nor any woman that hath received Indian gods, but she said there was an Indian at a womans house and offerred her a coople of shining things, but she woman neuer told her she tooke them, but was afraide and ran away, and she knowes not that the woman euer tooke them. Goodwife desired this depont to goe out and speake wth the wardsmen; Thomas Shervington, who was one of them, said hee remembred not that Knapps wife said a woman in the towne was a witch and would be hanged, but spake something of shining things, but Kester, Mr. Pells man, being by said, but I remember; and as they were goeing to the graue, goodwife Staplyes said, it was long before she could beleeve this poore woman was a witch, or that their were any witches, till the word of God convinced her, wch saith, thou shalt not suffer a witch to liue.
"Furthermore, this witness says that upon entering the house where the witch was held, she found only the guard and Goodwife Baldwin. There, Goodwife Baldwin whispered in her ear and told her that Goodwife Knapp mentioned a woman in town was a witch and would be hanged within a year, and would confess she was a witch and clear herself of that label. She asked how she knew this woman was a witch, and Baldwin said she had received Indian gods from an Indian, which are shining things that shine brighter than the day. Then this witness asked Goodwife Knapp if she had said that, and she denied it; Goodwife Baldwin asserted that she did, but Knapp's wife again denied it and claimed she knew of no woman in town who was a witch or who had received Indian gods. However, she mentioned there was an Indian at a woman's house who offered her a couple of shining things, but the woman never told her she took them; instead, she was afraid and ran away, and she doesn’t know if the woman ever took them. Goodwife asked this witness to go out and speak with the guards; Thomas Shervington, one of them, said he didn’t remember Knapp's wife saying a woman in town was a witch and would be hanged, but recalled something about shining things. But Kester, Mr. Pell's man, added, ‘But I remember.’ As they were going to the grave, Goodwife Staplyes said it took her a long time to believe that this poor woman was a witch or that there were any witches at all, until the word of God convinced her, which states, ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’"
"Thomas Lyon of Fairfeild testifyeth vpon oath, taken before Mr. Fowler, the 27th May, 1654, that he being set by authority to watch wth Knapps wife, there came in Mris. Pell, Mrs. Ward, goodwife Lockwood, and Mris. Pells two daughters; the fell into some discourse, that goodwife Knapp should say to them in private wch goodwife Knapp would not owne, but did seeme to be much troubled at them and said, the truth is you would haue me to say that goodwife Staplyes is a witch; I haue sinnes enough allready, I will not add this to my condemnation, I know no such thing by her, I hope she is an honest woman; then goodwife Lockwood caled to mee and asked whether they had named goodwife Staplyes, so I spake to goodwife Knapp to haue a care what she said, that she did not make differrence amongst her neighbours when she was gon, and I told her that I hoped they were her frends and desired her soules good, and not to accuse any out of envy, or to that effect; Knapps wife said, goodman Lyon hold yor tongue, you know not so much as I doe, you know not what hath bine said to me in private; and after they was gon, of her owne accord, betweene she & I, goody Knapp said she knew nothing against goodwife Staplyes of being a witch.
"Thomas Lyon of Fairfield testifies under oath, given before Mr. Fowler, on May 27, 1654, that while he was assigned by the authorities to watch over Knapp's wife, Mrs. Pell, Mrs. Ward, Goodwife Lockwood, and Mrs. Pell’s two daughters entered. They began to discuss something that Goodwife Knapp wouldn’t acknowledge but seemed very troubled by. She said, 'The truth is, you want me to say that Goodwife Staples is a witch; I have enough sins already, I won't add this to my condemnation. I don’t know anything about her being a witch; I hope she is an honest woman.' Then Goodwife Lockwood called to me and asked if they had mentioned Goodwife Staples. So I spoke to Goodwife Knapp to be careful about what she said, to not create division among her neighbors when she was gone. I told her that I hoped they were her friends and wanted her soul's good, and not to accuse anyone out of envy, or something like that. Knapp's wife replied, 'Goodman Lyon, be quiet; you don’t know as much as I do; you don’t know what has been said to me in private.' After they left, just between her and me, Goodwife Knapp said she knew nothing against Goodwife Staples regarding being a witch."
"Goodwife Gould of Fairfeild testifyeth vpon oath, that goodwife Sherwood & herselfe came in to see the witch, there was one before had bine speaking aboute some suspicious words of one in the towne, this depont wished her if she knew anything vpon good ground she would declare it, if not, that she would take heede that the deuill pswaded her not to sow malicious seed to doe hurt when she was dead, yet wished her to speake the truth if she knew anything by any pson; she said she knew nothing but vpon suspicion by the rumours she heares; this depont told her she was now to dye, and therefore she should deale truly; she burst forth ito weeping and desired me to pray for her, and said I knew not how she was tempted; neuer, neuer poore creature was tempted as I am tempted, pray, pray for me. Further this depont saith, as they were goeing to ye graue, Mr. Buckly, goodwife Sherwood, goodwife Staplye and myselfe, goodwife Staplyes was next me, she said it was a good while before she could beleeue this woman was a witch, and that she could not beleue a good while that there were any witches, till she went to ye word of God, and then she was convinced, and as she remembers, goodwife Stapleyes went along wth her all the way till they came at ye gallowes. Further this deponent saith, that Mr. Jones some time since that Knapps wife was condemned, did tell her, and that wth a very cherefull countenance & blessing God for it, that Knapps wife had cleered one in ye towne, & said you know who I meane sister Staplyes, blessed be God for it."
"Goodwife Gould of Fairfield testifies under oath that Goodwife Sherwood and she went to see the witch. There had been some talk about suspicious words from someone in the town. This witness urged her that if she knew anything solid, she should say it; otherwise, she should be careful that the devil didn’t trick her into spreading harmful falsehoods after her death. Still, she encouraged her to speak the truth if she had any information about anyone. She said she knew nothing except what she suspected from rumors she had heard. This witness told her she was about to die, and therefore she should be honest. She burst into tears and asked me to pray for her, saying I had no idea how much she was being tempted; never, never had a poor creature been tempted as she was, pray, pray for me. Furthermore, this witness states that as they were going to the grave, Mr. Buckly, Goodwife Sherwood, Goodwife Staplye, and I were present. Goodwife Staplye was next to me; she said it took her a long time to believe this woman was a witch, and she couldn’t believe there were any witches for a while until she consulted the word of God, and then she was convinced. As she remembers, Goodwife Staplye walked with her all the way until they reached the gallows. Furthermore, this witness states that Mr. Jones, some time ago when Knapp’s wife was condemned, told her, with a very cheerful expression and praising God for it, that Knapp’s wife had cleared someone in the town, and he said, 'You know who I mean, Sister Staplye, blessed be God for it.'"
Staplies' wife was a character. She was "a light woman" from the night of her memorable ride with Tom Tash, to Jemeaco, Long Island, to the suspicion of herself as a witch, and the "repairing" of her name by Thomas' lawsuit, and her own indictment for familiarity with Satan some years later. That she had many of the traditional witch qualities, and was something of a gymnast and hypnotist, is written in the vivid recollections of Tash's experience with her. This was his account of it on oath thirty years after:
Staples' wife was quite a character. She was "a loose woman" from the night of her unforgettable ride with Tom Tash to Jemeaco, Long Island, to the suspicion of her being a witch, and the "clearing" of her name through Thomas' lawsuit, along with her own indictment for being too familiar with Satan a few years later. The fact that she had many of the traditional witch traits and was somewhat of a gymnast and hypnotist is captured in Tash's vivid memories of her. This was his sworn account of it thirty years later:
"John Tash aged about sixty four or thareabouts saith he being at Master Laueridges at Newtown on Long Island aboutt thirty year since Goodman Owen and Goody Owin desired me to goe with Thomas Stapels wiffe of Fairfield to Jemeaco on Long Island to the hous of George Woolsy and as we war going along we cam to a durty slow and thar the hors blundred in the slow and I mistrusted that she the said Goody Stapels was off the hors and I was troubiled in my mind very much soe as I cam back I thought I would tak better noatis how it was and when I cam to the slow abovesaid I put on the hors prity sharp and then I put my hand behind me and felt for her and she was not upon the hors and as soon as we war out of the slow she was on the hors behind me boath going and coming and when I cam home I told thes words to Master Leveredg that she was a light woman as I judged and I am redy to give oath to this when leagaly caled tharunto as witnes my hand.
"John Tash, around sixty-four years old or so, says that about thirty years ago, when he was at Master Laueridge's in Newtown on Long Island, Goodman Owen and Goody Owen asked him to go with Thomas Stapel's wife from Fairfield to Jamaica on Long Island to the house of George Woolsey. While we were on our way, we came to a muddy spot, and the horse slipped in the mud. I suspected that Goody Stapels had fallen off the horse, and I was quite troubled about it. As I went back, I decided to pay closer attention to what had happened. When I reached the muddy area, I urged the horse on a bit and then reached behind me to check for her; she wasn't there. Once we got past the mud, she was back on the horse behind me, both going and coming. When I got home, I told these words to Master Leveredge that she was a loose woman, as I believed, and I am ready to swear to this if legally called upon as a witness. My hand."
his "John+Tash mark
his "John+Tash mark"
"Grenwich July 12, 1692.
"Grenwich, July 12, 1692."
"John Tash hath given oath to his testimony abovesaid
"John Tash has sworn to his testimony mentioned above."
"Before me John Renels Comessener."
"John Renels Comessener is before me."
And Mistress Staplies had other qualities, always potent in small communities to invite criticism and dislike. She was a shrewd and shrewish woman, impatient of some of the Puritan social standards and of the laws of everyday life. She openly condemned certain common moralities, was reckless in criticism of her neighbors, and quarreled with Ludlow about some church matters.
And Mistress Staplies had other traits that often drew criticism and dislike in tight-knit communities. She was a sharp and fiery woman, frustrated by some of the Puritan social standards and the rules of daily life. She openly disapproved of certain common morals, was bold in criticizing her neighbors, and had disputes with Ludlow over some church issues.
It is evident from the testimonies that Staplies was on both sides as to the guilt of goodwife Knapp, and when rumor and suspicion began to point to herself as a mischief-maker and busybody in witchcraft matters, to divert attention from his wife and set a backfire to the sweep of public opinion, Thomas sued Ludlow, and despite his strong and clear defense as shown on the record evidence, the court in his absence awarded damages against him for defamation and for charging Staplies' wife with going on "in a tract of lying," "in reparation of his wife's name" as the judgment reads. Mistress Staplies did not grow in grace, or in the graces of her neighbors, since some years later she was indicted for witchcraft, tried, and acquitted with others, at Fairfield, in 1692.[J]
It’s clear from the testimonies that Staplies had mixed feelings about Goodwife Knapp’s guilt. When rumors and suspicions started pointing towards him as a troublemaker involved in witchcraft, he tried to shift the focus away from his wife and redirect public opinion. So, Thomas sued Ludlow, but despite a strong defense shown in the records, the court ruled against him in his absence, awarding damages for defamation and for accusing Staplies’ wife of being involved in "a tract of lying" as the judgment puts it, "in reparation of his wife's name." Mistress Staplies didn’t gain any favor or goodwill from her neighbors because, a few years later, she was charged with witchcraft, tried, and acquitted along with others in Fairfield in 1692.[J]
[J] See Historical Note, p. 161.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ See Historical Note, p. 161.
CHAPTER XI
"The planters of New England were Englishmen, not exempt from English prejudices in favor of English institutions, laws and usages ... They had not been taught to question the wisdom or the humanity of English criminal law. They were as unconscious of its barbarism, as were the parliaments which had enacted or the courts which dispensed it." Blue Laws, True and False (p. 15), J. HAMMOND TRUMBULL.
"The planters of New England were Englishmen, not free from English biases that favored English institutions, laws, and customs... They hadn’t learned to question the wisdom or the fairness of English criminal law. They were just as unaware of its cruelty as the parliaments that created it or the courts that enforced it." Blue Laws, True and False (p. 15), J. HAMMOND TRUMBULL.
This brief review of witchcraft in some of its historical aspects, of its spread to the New England colonies, of its rise and suppression in the Connecticut towns, with the citations from the original records which admit no challenge of the facts, may be aptly closed by what is believed to be a complete list of the Connecticut witchcraft cases, authenticated by conclusive evidence of time, place, incident, and circumstance.
This short overview of witchcraft in some of its historical contexts, its spread to the New England colonies, and its rise and decline in the Connecticut towns, along with references from original records that are indisputable, can be effectively concluded with what is thought to be a complete list of the witchcraft cases in Connecticut, supported by definitive evidence of time, place, incident, and circumstance.
Some minor questions may be put, or kept in controversy, as one writer or another, who regards history as a matter of opinion, not of fact, and relying on tradition or hearsay evidence or on superficial investigation, gives a place to guesswork instead of truth, to historical conceits instead of historical verities.
Some minor questions might be raised or kept up for debate, as various writers, who see history as subjective rather than factual, and who depend on tradition, hearsay, or shallow research, prioritize speculation over truth and historical myths over historical facts.
Herein are written the names of all persons in anywise involved in the witchcraft delusion in Connecticut, with the consequences to them in indictments, trials, convictions, executions, or in banishment, exile, warnings, reprieves, or acquittals, so far as made known in any tradition, document, public or private record, to this time.
Here are the names of all the people connected to the witchcraft hysteria in Connecticut, along with the outcomes they faced, including indictments, trials, convictions, executions, as well as banishment, exile, warnings, reprieves, or acquittals, as far as known from any tradition, document, or public or private record, up to this time.
MARY JOHNSON. Windsor, 1647.
MARY JOHNSON. Windsor, 1647.
There is no documentary or other evidence to show that Mary Johnson was executed for witchcraft in Windsor in 1647. The charge rests on an entry in Governor Winthrop's Journal, "One ---- of Windsor arraigned and executed at Hartford for a witch." WINTHROP'S History of New England (Savage, 2: 374).
There’s no documentation or other proof that Mary Johnson was executed for witchcraft in Windsor in 1647. The accusation is based on a note in Governor Winthrop's Journal, "One ---- of Windsor arraigned and executed at Hartford for a witch." WINTHROP'S History of New England (Savage, 2: 374).
No importance would have attached to this statement, which bears no date and does not give the name or sex of the condemned, had not Dr. Savage in his annotations of the Journal (2: 374) asserted that it was "the first instance of the delusion in New England," and without warrant added, "Perhaps there was sense enough early in the colony to destroy the record."
No importance would have been given to this statement, which has no date and doesn't mention the name or gender of the condemned, if Dr. Savage hadn't claimed in his notes on the Journal (2: 374) that it was "the first instance of the delusion in New England." He also unwarrantedly added, "Perhaps there was enough sense early in the colony to destroy the record."
In all discussions of this matter, it has been assumed or conceded (in the absence of any positive proof), by such eminent critics and scholars as Drake, Fiske, Poole, Hoadley, Stiles, and others, that Winthrop's note was based on rumor or hearsay, or that it related to the later conviction and execution of a woman of the same name, next noted, and the errors as to person, time, and place might easily have been made.
In all discussions about this issue, it has been assumed or acknowledged (without any solid proof) by prominent critics and scholars like Drake, Fiske, Poole, Hoadley, Stiles, and others, that Winthrop's note was based on rumors or hearsay, or that it referred to the later conviction and execution of a woman with the same name, as noted next, and that mistakes regarding person, time, and place could have easily occurred.
MARY JOHNSON. Wethersfield, 1648.
MARY JOHNSON. Wethersfield, 1648.
This Mary Johnson left a definite record. It is written in broad lines in the dry-as-dust chronicles of the time. Cotton Mather embalmed the tragedy in his Magnalia.
This Mary Johnson left a clear mark. It's outlined broadly in the dull records of the time. Cotton Mather preserved the tragedy in his Magnalia.
"There was one Mary Johnson tryd at Hartford in this countrey, upon an indictment of 'familiarity with the devil,' and was found guilty thereof, chiefly upon her own confession."
"There was one Mary Johnson tried in Hartford in this country, for an indictment of 'familiarity with the devil,' and she was found guilty mainly based on her own confession."
"And she dyd in a frame extreamly to the satisfaction of them that were spectators of it." Magnalia Christi Americana (6: 7).
"And she did it in a way that extremely satisfied those who were watching." Magnalia Christi Americana (6: 7).
At a session of the Particular Court held in Hartford, August 21, 1646, Mary Johnson for thievery was sentenced to be presently whipped, and to be brought forth a month hence at Wethersfield, and there whipped. The whipping post, even in those days, did not prove a means to repentance and reformation, since at a session of the same court, December 7, 1648, the jury found a bill of indictment against Mary Johnson, that by her own confession she was guilty of familiarity with the devil.
At a session of the Particular Court held in Hartford on August 21, 1646, Mary Johnson was sentenced for theft to be whipped immediately and then brought back a month later to Wethersfield to be whipped again. Even back then, the whipping post didn’t seem to lead to repentance and reform, as at a session of the same court on December 7, 1648, the jury found an indictment against Mary Johnson, and by her own admission, she was guilty of being too familiar with the devil.
That she was condemned and executed seems certain (it being assumed that Mary and Elizabeth Johnson were one and the same person, both Christian names appearing in the record), since at a session of the General Court, May 21, 1650, the prison-keeper's charges for her imprisonment were allowed and ordered paid "out of her estate."
That she was convicted and executed seems clear (since it's assumed that Mary and Elizabeth Johnson were the same person, as both names are listed in the records), because during a session of the General Court on May 21, 1650, the prison warden's fees for her imprisonment were approved and ordered to be paid "from her estate."
A pathetic incident attaches to this case. A child to this poor woman was "borne in the prison," who was bound out until he became twenty-one years of age, to Nathaniel Rescew, to whom £15 were paid according to the mother's promise to him, he having engaged himself "to meinteine and well educate her sonne." Colonial Records of Connecticut (I,143: 171: 209-22-26-32).
A sad incident is connected to this case. A child of this poor woman was "born in prison," who was bound out until he turned twenty-one years old, to Nathaniel Rescew, to whom £15 was paid according to the mother's promise to him, as he had agreed "to maintain and properly educate her son." Colonial Records of Connecticut (I,143: 171: 209-22-26-32).
THE FIRST EXECUTION FOR WITCHCRAFT IN NEW ENGLAND
THE FIRST EXECUTION FOR WITCHCRAFT IN NEW ENGLAND
A secret long kept made known—Winthrop's journal entry probably correct—Tradition and surmise make place for historical certainty—The evidence of an eyewitness—A notable service.
A long-kept secret revealed—Winthrop's journal entry likely accurate—Tradition and speculation give way to historical fact—The account of an eyewitness—A significant contribution.
ALSE YOUNG. Windsor, 1647.
ALSE YOUNG. Windsor, 1647.
"May 26. 47 Alse Young was hanged." MATTHEW GRANT'S Diary.
"May 26. 47 Alse Young was hanged." MATTHEW GRANT'S Diary.
"The first entry (the executions of Carrington and his wife being next mentioned) supplies the name of the 'One (blank) of Windsor arraigned and executed at Hartford for a witch'—the first known execution for witchcraft in New England. I have found no mention elsewhere of this Alse Young." J. HAMMOND TRUMBULL'S Observation on Grant's Entry.
"The first entry (the executions of Carrington and his wife being next mentioned) provides the name of the 'One (blank) of Windsor arraigned and executed at Hartford for a witch'—the first known execution for witchcraft in New England. I have found no mention elsewhere of this Alse Young." J. HAMMOND TRUMBULL'S Observation on Grant's Entry.
"Who then was the 'witch' with whose execution Connecticut stepped into the dark shadow of persecution? She has been called Mary Johnson, but no Mary Johnson has been identified as this earliest victim. Whose is that pathetic figure shrinking in the twilight of that early record? We could think of her with no less kindly compassion could we give a name to the unhappy victim of the misread Word of God, who was led forth to a death stripped of dignity as of consolation: who to an ignorance and credulity, brought from an old world and not yet sifted out by the enlightenment and experience of a new, yielded up her perhaps miserable but unforfeited life. Here is the note which in all probability establishes the identity of the One of Windsor arraigned and executed as a witch—'May 26, 47 Alse Young was hanged.'" "One Blank" of Windsor (Courant Literary Section, 12, 3, 1904), ANNIE ELIOT TRUMBULL.
"Who was the 'witch' whose execution marked Connecticut's descent into the dark era of persecution? She has been referred to as Mary Johnson, but no identifiable Mary Johnson has been linked to this first victim. Whose is that sorrowful figure cowering in the shadows of those early records? We could feel just as much compassion for her if we could name the unfortunate victim of a misinterpreted Word of God, who was taken to her death stripped of dignity and comfort: who, to an ignorance and gullibility carried over from an old world and not yet filtered through the enlightenment and experience of a new one, surrendered her perhaps miserable but unyielded life. Here is the note that likely confirms the identity of the woman from Windsor who was charged and executed as a witch—'May 26, 47 Alse Young was hanged.'" "One Blank" of Windsor (Courant Literary Section, 12, 3, 1904), ANNIE ELIOT TRUMBULL.
Matthew Grant came over with the Dorchester men from the Bay Colony in 1635, and settled in Windsor, Connecticut, where he lived until his death there in 1683.
Matthew Grant came over with the Dorchester men from the Bay Colony in 1635 and settled in Windsor, Connecticut, where he lived until he died there in 1683.
He was a land surveyor, and the town clerk, a close observer of men and their public and private affairs, and kept a careful record of current events in a "crabbed, eccentric but by no means entirely illegible hand" during the long years of his sojourn in the "Lord's Waste."
He was a land surveyor and the town clerk, someone who closely observed people and their public and private lives, keeping a detailed record of current events in a "hard to read, quirky but still mostly legible handwriting" throughout his long time in the "Lord's Waste."
It has been surmised for several years—but without confirmation—and credited by the highest authorities in Connecticut colonial history, and known only to one of them, that Grant's manuscript diary contained the significant historical note as to the fate of Alse Young. It waited two centuries and more for its true interpreter, as did Wolcott's cipher notes of Hooker's famous sermon, and there it is, "not made on the decorous pages which memorize the saints," Brookes, Hooker, Warham, Reyner, Hanford, and Huit, "but scrawled on the inside of the cover, where it might be the sinner might escape detection."
It has been speculated for many years—though unproven—and recognized by leading experts in Connecticut colonial history, and only known to one of them, that Grant's handwritten diary held important historical information about Alse Young. It lingered for more than two centuries waiting for its accurate interpreter, much like Wolcott's coded notes from Hooker's famous sermon, and there it is, "not written on the respectful pages that commemorate the saints," Brookes, Hooker, Warham, Reyner, Hanford, and Huit, "but scribbled on the inside cover, where it might have allowed the sinner to go unnoticed."
In the publication of Grant's note Miss Trumbull has rendered a great service in the settlement of a disputed question, in the correction of errors, in fixing the priority of the outbreak between Massachusetts and Connecticut; and in the new light shining through this revelation stands Alse, glorified with the qualities of youth, of gentleness, of innocence; and the story of her going to the unholy sacrifice on that fateful May morning more than two and a half centuries ago is told with exquisite tenderness and pathos.
In the release of Grant's note, Miss Trumbull has done a great job resolving a debated issue, correcting mistakes, and establishing who acted first between Massachusetts and Connecticut. The new insights from this revelation cast Alse in a beautiful light, showcasing her youth, kindness, and innocence. The account of her tragic sacrifice on that fateful May morning over two and a half centuries ago is told with remarkable tenderness and emotion.
Confirmation of the truth of Grant's entry is given by the scholarly historian of Windsor, Dr. Stiles, who says in his history of that ancient town:
Confirmation of the truth of Grant's entry is provided by the scholarly historian of Windsor, Dr. Stiles, who states in his history of that ancient town:
"We know that a John Youngs, [?] bought land in Windsor of William Hubbard in 1641—which he sold in 1649—and thereafter disappears from record. He may have been the husband or father of 'Achsah'[?] the witch; if so, it would be most natural that he and his family should leave Windsor." STILES' History of Windsor (pp. 444-450).
"We know that a John Youngs bought land in Windsor from William Hubbard in 1641, which he sold in 1649—after that, he disappears from records. He might have been the husband or father of 'Achsah' the witch; if that’s the case, it makes sense that he and his family would leave Windsor." STILES' History of Windsor (pp. 444-450).
JOHN and JOAN CARRINGTON. Wethersfield, 1651.
JOHN and JOAN CARRINGTON. Wethersfield, 1651.
They were indicted at a court held February 20, 1651, Governor John Haynes and Edward Hopkins being present, with other magistrates; and they were found guilty on March 6, 1651. Both were executed. Records Particular Court (2: 17). [Dr. Hoadley's note in this case: "Mr. Trumbull (Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull) told me he had a record of execution in these cases. I suppose he referred to the diary of Matthew Grant."] The entry of the execution appears in Grant's Diary, after the note as to Alse Young. One Blank of Windsor, TRUMBULL.
They were charged in a court on February 20, 1651, with Governor John Haynes and Edward Hopkins present, along with other officials; they were found guilty on March 6, 1651. Both were executed. Records Particular Court (2: 17). [Dr. Hoadley's note on this case: "Mr. Trumbull (Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull) told me he had a record of execution in these cases. I assume he was referring to the diary of Matthew Grant."] The entry of the execution is found in Grant's Diary, after the note regarding Alse Young. One Blank of Windsor, TRUMBULL.
LYDIA GILBERT. Windsor, 1654.
LYDIA GILBERT. Windsor, 1654.
October 3, 1651, Henry Stiles of Windsor was killed by the accidental discharge of a gun in the hands of Thomas Allyn, also of Windsor. An inquest was held, and Thomas was indicted in the following December. He plead guilty, and at the trial the jury found the fact to be "homicide by misadventure." Thomas was fined £20 for his "sinful neglect and careless carriage," and put under a bond of £10, for good behavior for a year. Records Particular Court (2: 29-57).
October 3, 1651, Henry Stiles from Windsor was accidentally killed when a gun discharged in the hands of Thomas Allyn, also from Windsor. An inquest took place, and in December, Thomas was charged. He pleaded guilty, and during the trial, the jury determined it was "homicide by misadventure." Thomas was fined £20 for his "sinful neglect and careless handling," and required to post a £10 bond for good behavior for a year. Records Particular Court (2: 29-57).
But witchcraft was abroad, and its tools and emissaries more than two years afterwards fastened suspicion of this death by clear accident, on Lydia Gilbert, it being charged that "thou hast of late years, or still dost give entertainment to Sathan ... and by his helpe hast killed the body of Henry Styles, besides other witchcrafts."
But witchcraft was rampant, and its tools and followers more than two years later brought suspicion onto Lydia Gilbert for this clearly accidental death, claiming that "you have lately, or still do, entertain Satan ... and with his help have killed Henry Styles, as well as committed other acts of witchcraft."
She was indicted and tried in September or November, 1654, and "Ye party above mentioned is found guilty of witchcraft by ye jury." Her fate is not written in any known record, but the late Honorable S.O. Griswold, a recognized authority on early colonial history in Windsor, says that as the result of a close examination of the record, "I think the reasonable probability is that she was hanged." Records Particular Court (2: 51); STILE'S History of Windsor (pp. 169, 444-450).
She was charged and put on trial in September or November, 1654, and "The party mentioned above is found guilty of witchcraft by the jury." Her outcome isn't documented in any known records, but the late Honorable S.O. Griswold, a recognized expert on early colonial history in Windsor, states that after a thorough review of the record, "I think it's reasonable to assume she was hanged." Records Particular Court (2: 51); STILE'S History of Windsor (pp. 169, 444-450).
GOODY BASSETT. Stratford, 1651. Executed.
Goody Bassett. Stratford, 1651. Executed.
"The Gouernor, Mr. Cullick, and Mr. Clarke are desired to goe downe to Stratford to keepe courte uppon the tryall of Goody Bassett for her life"—May, 1651. "Because goodwife Bassett when she was condemned" (probably on her own confession, as in the Greensmith case). Colonial Records of Connecticut (1: 220); New Haven Colonial Records (2: 77-88).
"The Governor, Mr. Cullick, and Mr. Clarke are asked to go down to Stratford to hold court for the trial of Goody Bassett for her life"—May, 1651. "Because Goodwife Bassett, when she was found guilty" (probably based on her own confession, like in the Greensmith case). Colonial Records of Connecticut (1: 220); New Haven Colonial Records (2: 77-88).
GOODWIFE KNAPP. Fairfield, 1653. Executed.
GOODWIFE KNAPP. Fairfield, 1653. Executed.
"After goodwife Knapp was executed, as soon as she was cut downe." New Haven Colonial Records (1: 81).
"After Goodwife Knapp was executed, as soon as she was taken down." New Haven Colonial Records (1: 81).
Full account in previous chapter.
See previous chapter for details.
ELIZABETH GODMAN. New Haven, 1655. Acquitted.
ELIZABETH GODMAN. New Haven, 1655. Found not guilty.
Elizabeth was released from prison September 4, 1655, with a reprimand and warning by the court. New Haven Town Records (2: 174, 179); New Haven Colonial Records (2: 29, 151).
Elizabeth was released from prison on September 4, 1655, with a reprimand and warning from the court. New Haven Town Records (2: 174, 179); New Haven Colonial Records (2: 29, 151).
Account in previous chapter.
Account in the last chapter.
NICHOLAS BAYLEY and WIFE. New Haven, 1655. Acquitted.
NICHOLAS BAYLEY and WIFE. New Haven, 1655. Found not guilty.
Nicholas and his wife, after several appearances in court on account of a suspicion of witchcraft, and for various other offenses—among them, lying and filthy speeches by the wife—were advised to remove from the colony. They took the advice.
Nicholas and his wife, after several court appearances due to suspicion of witchcraft and various other offenses—including lying and inappropriate remarks by the wife—were advised to leave the colony. They followed the advice.
WILLIAM MEAKER. New Haven, 1657. Accused acquitted.
WILLIAM MEAKER. New Haven, 1657. Accused was found not guilty.
Thomas Mullener was always in trouble. He was a chronic litigant. His many contentions are noted at length in the court records. Among other things he made up his mind that his pigs were bewitched, so "he did cut of the tayle and eare of one and threw into the fire," "said it was a meanes used in England by some people to finde out witches," and in the light of this porcine sacrifice he charged his neighbor William Meaker with the bewitching. Meaker promptly brought an action of defamation, but Mullener became involved in other controversies and "miscarriages," to the degree that he was advised to remove out of the place, and put under bonds for good behavior; and Meaker, probably feeling himself vindicated, dropped his suit. New Haven Colonial Records (2: 224).
Thomas Mullener was always getting into trouble. He was a habitual litigant. His numerous disputes are detailed extensively in the court records. Among other things, he convinced himself that his pigs were bewitched, so "he cut off the tail and ear of one and threw it into the fire," saying it was "a means used in England by some people to find out witches." Following this pig sacrifice, he accused his neighbor William Meaker of witchcraft. Meaker quickly filed a defamation lawsuit, but Mullener got caught up in other conflicts and "miscarriages," leading to advice that he should leave the area and be put under bonds for good behavior; Meaker, probably feeling justified, dropped his case. New Haven Colonial Records (2: 224).
ELIZABETH GARLICK. Easthampton, 1658. Acquitted.
ELIZABETH GARLICK. Easthampton, 1658. Not guilty.
Records Particular Court (2 :113); Colonial Records of Connecticut (1: 573); STILES' History of Windsor (p. 735).
Records Particular Court (2:113); Colonial Records of Connecticut (1:573); STILES' History of Windsor (p. 735).
Account in previous chapter.
Account in the last chapter.
NICHOLAS and MARGARET JENNINGS. Saybrook, 1661.
NICHOLAS and MARGARET JENNINGS. Saybrook, 1661.
Jury disagreed.
Jury had different opinions.
The major part of the jury found Nicholas guilty, but the rest only strongly suspected him, and as to Margaret, some found her guilty, and the others suspected her to be guilty. It is probable that the Jennings were under inquiry when, at a session of the General Court at Hartford, June 15, 1659, it was recorded that "Mr. Willis is requested to goe downe to Sea Brook, to assist ye Maior in examininge the suspitions about witchery, and to act therin as may be requisite." Records Particular Court (2: 160-3); Colonial Records of Connecticut (1: 338).
The majority of the jury found Nicholas guilty, while the rest only strongly suspected him. As for Margaret, some jurors found her guilty, while others suspected her guilt. It’s likely that the Jennings were being investigated when, at a session of the General Court in Hartford on June 15, 1659, it was recorded that “Mr. Willis is requested to go down to Sea Brook, to assist the Mayor in examining the suspicions about witchcraft, and to act as necessary.” Records Particular Court (2: 160-3); Colonial Records of Connecticut (1: 338).
1662-63 was a notable year in the history of witchcraft in Connecticut. It marked the last execution for the crime within the commonwealth, and thirty years before the outbreak at Salem.
1662-63 was a significant year in Connecticut's witchcraft history. It saw the last execution for the crime in the state, and it happened thirty years before the Salem witch trials.
NATHANIEL GREENSMITH and REBECCA his WIFE. Hartford, 1662. Both executed.
NATHANIEL GREENSMITH and HIS WIFE REBECCA. Hartford, 1662. Both executed.
Account in previous chapter. Records Particular Court (2: 182); Memorial History Hartford County (1: 274); Connecticut Magazine (November 1899, pp. 557-561).
Account in previous chapter. Records Particular Court (2: 182); Memorial History Hartford County (1: 274); Connecticut Magazine (November 1899, pp. 557-561).
MARY SANFORD. Hartford, 1662. Convicted June 13, 1662. Executed.
MARY SANFORD. Hartford, 1662. Found guilty on June 13, 1662. Executed.
Records Particular Court (2: 174-175); HOADLEY'S Record Witchcraft Trials.
Records Particular Court (2: 174-175); HOADLEY'S Record Witchcraft Trials.
ANDREW SANFORD. Hartford, 1662. No indictment.
ANDREW SANFORD. Hartford, 1662. No charges filed.
Records Particular Court (2: 174-175); HOADLEY'S Record Witchcraft Trials.
Records Particular Court (2: 174-175); HOADLEY'S Record Witchcraft Trials.
JUDITH VARLETT (VARLETH). Hartford, 1662. Arrested; released.
JUDITH VARLETT (VARLETH). Hartford, 1662. Arrested; freed.
It will be recalled that Rebecca Greensmith in her confession, among other things, said that Mrs. Judith Varlett told her that she (Varlett) "was much troubled wth ye Marshall Jonath: Gilbert & cried, & she sayd if it lay in her power she would doe him a mischief, or what hurt shee could."
It should be remembered that Rebecca Greensmith, in her confession, mentioned that Mrs. Judith Varlett told her that she (Varlett) "was very troubled with the Marshall Jonath: Gilbert and cried, and she said if she could, she would do him harm or whatever damage she could."
Judith must have indulged in other indiscretions of association or of speech, since she soon fell under suspicion of witchcraft, and was put under arrest and imprisoned. But she had a powerful friend at court (who, despite his many contentions and intrigues, commanded the attention of the Connecticut authorities), in the person of her brother-in-law Peter Stuyvesant, then bearing the title and office of "Captain General and Commander-in-Chief of Amsterdam In New Netherland, now called New York, and the Dutch West India Islands." It was doubtless due to his intercession in a letter of October 13, 1662, that she was released.
Judith must have gotten involved in other questionable interactions or conversations, as she soon became a suspect for witchcraft and was arrested and imprisoned. However, she had a powerful ally at court (who, despite his various conflicts and schemes, caught the attention of the Connecticut authorities), her brother-in-law Peter Stuyvesant, who held the position of "Captain General and Commander-in-Chief of Amsterdam In New Netherland, now called New York, and the Dutch West India Islands." It was likely because of his intervention in a letter dated October 13, 1662, that she was set free.
The letter:
The letter:
"To the Honorable Deputy Governour & Court of
"Magistracy att Harafort.
(Oct. 1662)
"To the Honorable Deputy Governor & Court of
"Magistracy at Harafort. (Oct. 1662)
"Honoured and Worthy Srs.—
"Honored and Worthy Srs.—"
"By this occasion of me Brother in Lawe (beinge necessitated to make a Second Voyage for ayde his distressed sister Judith Varleth jmprisoned as we are jmformed, uppon pretend accusation of wicherye we Realy Beleeve and out her wel known education Life Conversation & profession of faith, wee dear assure that shee is jnnocent of Such a horrible Crimen, & wherefor j doubt not hee will now, as formerly finde jour dhonnours favour and ayde for the jnnocent). Ye Ld Stephesons Letter (C.B. 2: doc. 1).
"On this occasion, my brother-in-law is forced to make a second trip to help his imprisoned sister, Judith Varleth, who we understand is accused of witchcraft. We truly believe, based on her well-known upbringing, life, conduct, and faith, that she is innocent of such a horrible crime. Therefore, I have no doubt he will, as before, find your honor’s support and assistance for the innocent. Ye Ld Stephesons Letter (C.B. 2: doc. 1).
MARY BARNES. Farmington, 1662. Convicted January 6. Probably executed. Records Particular Court (2: 184).
MARY BARNES. Farmington, 1662. Convicted January 6. Likely executed. Records Particular Court (2: 184).
WILLIAM AYRES and GOODY AYRES his Wife. Hartford, 1662. Arrested. Fled from the colony.
WILLIAM AYRES and his wife GOODY AYRES. Hartford, 1662. Arrested. They fled the colony.
ELIZABETH SEAGER. Hartford, 1662. Convicted; discharged.
ELIZABETH SEAGER. Hartford, 1662. Found guilty; released.
Goody Seager probably deserved all that came to her in trials and punishment. She was one of the typical characters in the early communities upon whom distrust and dislike and suspicion inevitably fell. Exercising witch powers was one of her more reputable qualities. She was indicted for blasphemy, adultery, and witchcraft at various times, was convicted of adultery, and found guilty of witchcraft in June, 1665. She owed her escape from hanging to a finding of the Court of Assistants that the jury's verdict did not legally answer to the indictment, and she was set "free from further suffering or imprisonment." Records County Court (3: 5: 52); Colonial Records of Connecticut (2: 531); Rhode Island Colonial Records (2: 388).
Goody Seager probably deserved everything that happened to her in trials and punishment. She was one of those typical figures in early communities who faced distrust, dislike, and suspicion. Practicing witchcraft was one of her more socially acceptable traits. She was charged with blasphemy, adultery, and witchcraft at different times, convicted of adultery, and found guilty of witchcraft in June 1665. She avoided execution by a ruling from the Court of Assistants that the jury's verdict did not legally respond to the indictment, and she was set "free from further suffering or imprisonment." Records County Court (3: 5: 52); Colonial Records of Connecticut (2: 531); Rhode Island Colonial Records (2: 388).
JAMES WALKLEY. Hartford, 1662. Arrested. Fled to Rhode Island.
JAMES WALKLEY. Hartford, 1662. Arrested. Escaped to Rhode Island.
KATHERINE HARRISON. Wethersfield, 1669. Convicted; discharged.
KATHERINE HARRISON. Wethersfield, 1669. Found guilty; released.
See account in previous chapter. Records Court of, Assistants (I, 1-7); Colonial Records of Connecticut (2: 118, 132); Doc. History New York (4th ed., 4: 87).
See account in the previous chapter. Records Court of, Assistants (I, 1-7); Colonial Records of Connecticut (2: 118, 132); Doc. History New York (4th ed., 4: 87).
NICHOLAS DESBOROUGH. Hartford, 1683. Suspicioned.
NICHOLAS DESBOROUGH. Hartford, 1683. Suspected.
Desborough was a landowner in Hartford, having received a grant of fifty acres for his services in the Pequot war. He owes his enrollment in the hall of fame to Cotton Mather, who was so self-satisfied with his efforts in "Relating the wonders of the invisible world in preternatural occurrences" that in his pedantic exuberance he put in a learned sub-title: "Miranda cano, sed sunt credenda" (The themes I sing are marvelous, yet true).
Desborough was a landowner in Hartford who received a grant of fifty acres for his service in the Pequot war. He owes his spot in the hall of fame to Cotton Mather, who was so pleased with his work in "Relating the wonders of the invisible world in preternatural occurrences" that in his scholarly enthusiasm, he added an elaborate subtitle: "Miranda cano, sed sunt credenda" (The themes I sing are marvelous, yet true).
Desborough stands in place as the "fourth example." No case more clearly illustrates the credulity that neutralized common sense in strong men. It was a case of abstraction, or theft, or mistaken thrift. A "chest of cloaths" was missing. The owner, instead of going to law, found his remedy "in things beyond the course of nature," and he and his friends with "nimble hands" pelted Desborough's house, and himself when abroad, with stones, turves, and corncobs, and finally some of his property was burned by a fire "in an unknown way kindled." Is it not enough to note that Mather closes this wondrous tale of the spiritual molestations with the very human explanation that "upon the restoring of the cloaths, the trouble ceased"?
Desborough is referred to as the "fourth example." No other case highlights the gullibility that undermined common sense in strong individuals more clearly. It was a situation involving theft or misguided frugality. A "chest of clothes" went missing. Instead of seeking legal action, the owner looked for solutions “in things beyond the course of nature," and he and his friends, with "nimble hands," bombarded Desborough's house — and him when he was out — with stones, chunks of turf, and corncobs. Ultimately, some of his property was burned in a fire "in an unknown way kindled." Isn’t it enough to point out that Mather finishes this astonishing story of spiritual disturbances with the very human note that "upon the restoring of the cloaths, the trouble ceased"?
ELIZABETH CLAWSON. Fairfield, 1692. Acquitted. Account in previous chapter.
ELIZABETH CLAWSON. Fairfield, 1692. Acquitted. Account in previous chapter.
MARY and HANNAH HARVEY. Fairfield, 1692. Jury found no bill.
MARY and HANNAH HARVEY. Fairfield, 1692. The jury did not file a charge.
GOODY MILLER. Fairfield, 1692. Acquitted.
GOODY MILLER. Fairfield, 1692. Not guilty.
MARY STAPLIES. Fairfield, 1692. Jury found no bill. Account in previous chapter.
MARY STAPLIES. Fairfield, 1692. Jury found no charges. See details in the previous chapter.
MERCY DISBOROUGH. Fairfield, 1692. Convicted; reprieved. Account in previous chapter.
MERCY DISBOROUGH. Fairfield, 1692. Convicted; reprieved. See the account in the previous chapter.
HUGH CROTIA. Stratford, 1693. Jury found no bill. Account in previous chapter. C. & D. (Vol. I,185).
HUGH CROTIA. Stratford, 1693. Jury found no bill. Account in previous chapter. C. & D. (Vol. I, 185).
WINIFRED BENHAM SENIOR and JUNIOR. Wallingford, 1697. Acquitted.
WINIFRED BENHAM SENIOR and JUNIOR. Wallingford, 1697. Acquitted.
They were mother and daughter (twelve or thirteen years old), tried at Hartford and acquitted in August, 1697; indicted on new complaints in October, 1697, but the jury returned on the bill, "Ignoramus." Records Court of Assistants (1: 74, 77).
They were a mother and her daughter (around twelve or thirteen years old), who were tried in Hartford and found not guilty in August 1697; they were charged again with new complaints in October 1697, but the jury declared the bill "Ignoramus." Records Court of Assistants (1: 74, 77).
SARAH SPENCER. Colchester, 1724. Accused. Damages 1s.
SARAH SPENCER. Colchester, 1724. Accused. Damages 1 shilling.
Even a certificate of the minister as to her religion and virtue, could not free Sarah from a reputation as a witch. And when Elizabeth (and how many Connecticut witches bore that name) Ackley accused her of "riding and pinching," and James Ackley, her husband, made threats, Sarah sued them for a fortune in those days, £500 damages, and got judgment for £5, with costs. The Ackleys appealed, and at the trial the jury awarded Sarah damages of ls., and also stated that they found the Ackleys not insane—a clear demonstration that the mental condition of witchcraft accusers was taken account of in the later and saner times.
Even a certificate from the minister regarding her religion and character couldn't save Sarah from being labeled as a witch. When Elizabeth (and how many witches from Connecticut had that name) Ackley accused her of "riding and pinching," and her husband James Ackley made threats, Sarah sued them for a fortune at that time—£500 in damages. She ended up receiving a judgment for £5, plus costs. The Ackleys appealed, and during the trial, the jury awarded Sarah damages of 1 shilling and also stated that they found the Ackleys not insane—clearly showing that the mental state of witchcraft accusers was considered in the later, more rational times.
NORTON. Bristol, 1768. Suspicioned. No record.
NORTON. Bristol, 1768. Under suspicion. No record.
"On the mountain," probably Fall mountain in Bristol, the antics of a young woman named Norton, who accused her aunt of putting a bridle on her and driving her through the air to witch meetings in Albany, caused a commotion among the virtuous people. Deacon Dutton's ox was torn apart by an invisible agent, and unseen hands brought new ailments to the residents there, pinched them and stuck red hot pins into them. Elder Wildman set out to exorcise the evil spirit, but became so terrorized that he called for help, and one of his posse of assistants was scared into convulsions. This case may be counted among the last, perhaps the last traditions of the strange delusion which aforetime filled the hills and valleys of Quohnectacut with its baleful light. Memorial History Hartford County (2: 51).
"On the mountain," probably Fall Mountain in Bristol, the antics of a young woman named Norton, who claimed her aunt was putting a bridle on her and flying her through the air to witch meetings in Albany, caused <> a stir among the righteous people. Deacon Dutton's ox was ripped apart by an invisible force, and unseen hands inflicted new ailments on the locals, pinching them and sticking red-hot pins into them. Elder Wildman set out to drive away the evil spirit but became so frightened that he called for help, and one of his assistants was so scared he fell into convulsions. This case may be counted among the last, possibly the last remnants of the strange delusion that once filled the hills and valleys of Quohnectacut with its sinister glow. Memorial History Hartford County (2: 51).
What of those men and women to whom justice in their time was meted out, in this age of reason, of religious enlightenment, liberty, and catholicity, when witchcraft has lost its mystery and power, when intelligence reigns, and the Devil works his will in other devious ways and in a more attractive guise?
What about those men and women who were served justice in their time, in this age of reason, religious enlightenment, freedom, and inclusiveness, when witchcraft has lost its mystery and power, when intelligence prevails, and the Devil shows up in different sneaky ways and a more appealing form?
They were the victims of delusion, not of dishonor, of a perverted theology fed by moral aberrations, of a fanaticism which never stopped to reason, and halted at no sacrifice to do God's service; and they were all done to death, or harried into exile, disgrace, or social ostracism, through a mistaken sense of religious duty: but they stand innocent of deep offense and only guilty in the eye of the law written in the Word of God, as interpreted and enforced by the forefathers who wrought their condemnation, and whose religion made witchcraft a heinous sin, and whose law made it a heinous crime.
They were victims of delusion, not dishonor, caught up in a twisted belief system fueled by moral failures, driven by a fanaticism that never paused to think and wouldn’t stop at any sacrifice to serve God; and they were all either put to death or forced into exile, disgrace, or social isolation due to a misguided sense of religious duty: yet they remain innocent of serious wrongdoing and are only guilty in the eyes of the laws laid out in the Word of God, as interpreted and enforced by the forefathers who condemned them, and whose religion deemed witchcraft a terrible sin, and whose laws classified it as a terrible crime.
Is the contrast in human experience, between the servitude to credulity and superstition in 1647-97 and the deliverance from it of this day, any wider than between the ironclad theology of that and of later times, and the challenge to it, and its diabolical logic, of yesterday, which marks a new era in denominational creeds, in religious beliefs, and their expression?
Is the difference in human experience, between the bondage of belief and superstition in 1647-97 and our freedom from it today, any greater than the rigid theology of that time and later, versus the challenges to it and its twisted reasoning from yesterday, which signal a new era in religious denominations, beliefs, and their expression?
Jonathan Edwards, in his famous sermon at Enfield in 1741, on "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God," was inspired to say to the impenitent: "The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you and is dreadfully provoked; His wrath toward you burns like fire; He looks upon you as worthy of nothing else but to be cast into the fire; He is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in His sight; you are 10,000 times so abominable in His eyes as the most hateful and venomous serpent is in ours.... Instead of one how many is it likely will remember this discourse in hell! And it would be a wonder if some that are now present should not be in hell in a very short time—before this year is out. And it would be no wonder if some persons, that now sit here in some seats of this meeting-house, in health and quiet, and secure, should be there before to-morrow morning." One hundred and sixty-three years later, Rev. Dr. Samuel T. Carter, a godly minister of the same faith, "a heretic who is no heretic," stood before the presbytery of Nassau, was invited to remain in the Presbyterian communion, and yet said this of the doctrine of Edwards, as written in the Westminster Confession: "In God's name and Christ's name it is not true. There is no such God as the God of the confession. There is no such world as the world of the confession. There is no such eternity as the eternity of the confession.... This world so full of flowers and sunshine and the laughter of children is not a cursed lost world, and the 'endless torment' of the confession is not God's, nor Christ's, nor the Bible's idea of future punishment."
Jonathan Edwards, in his famous sermon in Enfield in 1741, titled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," boldly addressed the unrepentant: "The God who holds you over the pit of hell, just like someone holds a spider or a disgusting insect over the fire, hates you and is incredibly angered; His wrath towards you burns like fire; He sees you as deserving nothing but to be thrown into the fire; His eyes are too pure to tolerate having you in His sight; you are 10,000 times more abominable in His eyes than the most hated and venomous serpent is in ours.... Instead of just one person, how many are likely to remember this message in hell! And it would be a shock if some of those present here do not end up in hell quite soon—before this year is over. And it wouldn’t be surprising if some people, who are now seated comfortably in this meeting-house, healthy and at ease, find themselves there by tomorrow morning." One hundred and sixty-three years later, Rev. Dr. Samuel T. Carter, a devoted minister of the same faith, "a heretic who is no heretic," stood before the presbytery of Nassau, was invited to stay in the Presbyterian communion, and yet remarked on Edwards' doctrine as stated in the Westminster Confession: "In God's name and Christ's name it is not true. There is no such God as the God of the confession. There is no such world as the world of the confession. There is no such eternity as the eternity of the confession.... This world, so filled with flowers and sunshine and the laughter of children, is not a cursed lost world, and the 'endless torment' of the confession is not God's, nor Christ's, nor the Bible's idea of future punishment."
What should constitute the true faith of a Christian, and set him apart from his fellowmen in duties and observances, was one of the crucial questions in the everyday life of the early New England colonists, and the hanging and discipline of witches was one of its necessary incidents.
What should define the true faith of a Christian and distinguish him from others in responsibilities and practices was one of the key issues in the daily lives of the early New England colonists, and the execution and punishment of witches were part of that reality.
It was the same spirit of intolerance and of religious animosity that was written in the treatment of the Quakers and Baptists at Boston; in the experience of Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson; and of "The Rogerenes" in Connecticut, for "profanation of the Sabbath," told in a chapter of forgotten history.
It was the same spirit of intolerance and religious hostility that showed in the treatment of the Quakers and Baptists in Boston; in the experiences of Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson; and of "The Rogerenes" in Connecticut, for "violating the Sabbath," recounted in a chapter of forgotten history.
In the sunlight of the later revelation, is not the present judgment of the men and women of those far off times, "when the wheel of prayer was in perpetual motion," when fear and superstition and the wrath of an angry God ruled the strongest minds, truly interpreted in the solemn afterthoughts which the poet ascribes to the magistrate and minister at the grave of Giles Corey?
In the light of later revelations, isn't the current judgment of the men and women from those distant times, "when the wheel of prayer was always turning," when fear, superstition, and the anger of a vengeful God dominated even the strongest minds, really captured in the serious reflections that the poet attributes to the magistrate and minister at Giles Corey’s grave?
HISTORICAL NOTE
ROGER LUDLOW
ROGER LUDLOW
The Connecticut historians to a very recent date, in ignorance of the facts, and despite his notable services of twenty-four years to the colonies, left Ludlow to die in obscurity in Virginia or elsewhere, and some of the traditions, based on no record or other evidence, have been recently repeated. It is therefore proper to state here in few words who Ludlow was, what he did both in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and after his "return into England" in 1654.
The historians of Connecticut, until recently, overlooked the facts and, despite his significant contributions over twenty-four years to the colonies, allowed Ludlow to fade into obscurity in Virginia or elsewhere. Some of the stories, lacking any record or evidence, have been repeated recently. Therefore, it's important to briefly outline who Ludlow was, what he accomplished in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and what happened after his return to England in 1654.
Ludlow came of an ancient English family, which gave to history in his own time and generation such illustrious kinsmen as Sir Henry Ludlow, a member of the Long Parliament and one of the Puritan leaders, and Sir Edmund Ludlow, member of Parliament, Lieutenant-General under Cromwell, member of the court at King Charles' trial, and whom Macaulay named "the most illustrious saviour of a mighty race of men, the judges of a king, the founders of a republic."
Ludlow came from an old English family that, in his own time, produced notable relatives like Sir Henry Ludlow, a member of the Long Parliament and one of the Puritan leaders, and Sir Edmund Ludlow, a Member of Parliament, Lieutenant-General under Cromwell, and part of the court during King Charles' trial, whom Macaulay referred to as "the most illustrious saviour of a mighty race of men, the judges of a king, the founders of a republic."
In May, 1630, Ludlow came to Massachusetts, as one of the Assistants under the charter of "The Governor and company of Massachusetts Bay in New England."
In May 1630, Ludlow arrived in Massachusetts as one of the Assistants under the charter of "The Governor and company of Massachusetts Bay in New England."
His services in the Bay Colony from 1630-35 ranged from the duties of a magistrate in the Great Charter Court to those of the high office of Deputy Governor. The quality of that service is written in a bare statement of his various offices—surveyor, negotiator of the Pequot treaty, colonel ex officio, auditor of Governor Winthrop's accounts, superintendent of fortifications, military commissioner, member of the General Court, Deputy Governor when Thomas Dudley was Governor; and he was always one of the foremost men in civil, political, and social affairs, to the day of his departure to "the valley of the long river,"—a day of good fortune for Connecticut.
His role in the Bay Colony from 1630 to 1635 included everything from being a magistrate in the Great Charter Court to serving as Deputy Governor. The value of that service is captured in a simple list of his various positions—surveyor, negotiator of the Pequot treaty, colonel by virtue of his position, auditor of Governor Winthrop's accounts, supervisor of fortifications, military commissioner, member of the General Court, Deputy Governor while Thomas Dudley was in office; and he was always one of the leading figures in civil, political, and social matters, right up until the day he left for "the valley of the long river,"—a fortunate day for Connecticut.
When Massachusetts established church membership as the condition of suffrage,—and radical differences of opinion on other matters arose,—it marked the culmination of a set purpose of some of her ablest men to remove from her jurisdiction, among whom Hooker, Ludlow, and Haynes were the most notable. The General Court created a commission to govern Connecticut for a year, and made Ludlow its chief. He came to the new land of promise with the Dorchester men, and settled in Windsor in 1635-36.
When Massachusetts made church membership a requirement for voting—and significant disagreements on other issues emerged—it signified the peak of a determined effort by some of its most capable leaders, including Hooker, Ludlow, and Haynes. The General Court set up a commission to govern Connecticut for a year, appointing Ludlow as its head. He arrived in the new land of opportunity with the Dorchester group and settled in Windsor around 1635-36.
What he did in the nineteen years of his residence at Windsor and Fairfield is epitomized in a brief summary of the duties and honors to which he was called by his fellowmen:
What he did during the nineteen years he lived in Windsor and Fairfield can be summed up in a brief overview of the responsibilities and honors his peers assigned to him:
Chief of the Massachusetts commission and the first Governor, de facto; organizer and chief magistrate of the first court; writer of the earliest laws; president of the court which declared war against the Pequots; framer of the Fundamental Orders—the Constitution of 1639—which embodied the great principles of government by the people propounded and elucidated by the illustrious Thomas Hooker, in his letter to Governor Winthrop, and in his famous sermon; compiler, at the request of the General Court, of the Body of Lawes, the Code of 1650; commissioner on important state matters; commissioner for the United Colonies; founder and defender of Fairfield; patriot, jurist, statesman.
Chief of the Massachusetts commission and the first Governor in practice; organizer and head of the first court; author of the initial laws; president of the court that declared war on the Pequots; architect of the Fundamental Orders—the Constitution of 1639—which incorporated the key principles of government by the people proposed and explained by the notable Thomas Hooker, in his letter to Governor Winthrop, and in his famous sermon; compiler, at the request of the General Court, of the Body of Lawes, the Code of 1650; commissioner for significant state matters; commissioner for the United Colonies; founder and defender of Fairfield; patriot, jurist, statesman.
Ludlow left Connecticut in 1654, not to die in obscurity as the earlier writers imagined, but to serve abroad for several years in positions of honor and distinction.
Ludlow left Connecticut in 1654, not to die in obscurity as earlier writers thought, but to serve overseas for several years in roles of honor and distinction.
Cromwell invited him to return, as he did many of the leading Puritans in New England, and appointed him a commissioner for the administration of justice in Dublin; also to serve with the chief justice of the upper bench and other distinguished lawyers, to determine all the claims to the forfeited Irish lands, and at last as a Master in Chancery.
Cromwell asked him to come back, like he did with many of the prominent Puritans in New England, and gave him the role of a commissioner for overseeing justice in Dublin. He was also assigned to work alongside the chief justice of the upper court and other prominent lawyers to settle all claims to the confiscated Irish lands, eventually becoming a Master in Chancery.
Ten years Ludlow served in these important stations; and at his death, probably in 1664, he was buried in St. Michael's churchyard in Dublin, with his wife—a sister of Governor John Endicott—and other members of his family.[K]
Ten years, Ludlow held these important positions; and at his death, likely in 1664, he was buried in St. Michael's churchyard in Dublin, alongside his wife—a sister of Governor John Endicott—and other family members.[K]
[K] Roger Ludlow—The Colonial Lawmaker—TAYLOR.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Some of the authorities and records in witchcraft literature consulted in the writing of this essay are here cited for reference and information:
Some of the sources and documents in witchcraft literature used in writing this essay are listed here for reference and information:
Connecticut Archives: Wyllys Papers, Original Witchcraft Depositions; Records: General Court, Particular Court, Court of Assistants, County Court, Colonial Boundaries, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Connecticut Colonial, New Haven Colonial, Hartford Probate, New Haven Town; Magnolia Christi Americana (MATHER); MATTHEW GRANT'S Diary (TRUMBULL'S Observations) Courant Literary Section, 12-3-1904; HOADLEY'S Witchcraft Trials and Notes (Manuscript); WINTHROP'S History of New England; STILES' History of Windsor; Blue Laws, True and False (TRUMBULL); PERKINS' Discourse; The Literature of Witchcraft (BURR); Hammurabi's Code; Cent. Mag., June, 1903; BLACKSTONE'S Commentaries; A Tale of the Witches (STONE); LECKY'S Rationalism in Europe; The Witch Persecutions (BURR); Encyc. Articles ("Witchcraft"): Britannica, Americana, International, Chambers', Johnson's; Connecticut: Origin of her Courts and Laws (HAMERSLEY); BARBER'S Connecticut Historical Collections; SCHENCK'S Fairfield; Connecticut as a Colony and State (MORGAN et al.); The House of the Seven Gables (HAWTHORNE); LATIMER'S Salem; JOHNSTON'S Nathan Hale; Connecticut History (TRUMBULL); UPHAM'S Salem Witchcraft; Conn. Mag., Nov., 1899; Dalton's Justice; Mem. Hist, of Boston; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County; Palfrey's New England; Historic Towns of New England (Latimer); Giles Corey of the Salem Farms (Longfellow); New France and New England (Fiske); Scott's Demonology and Witchcraft; Lowell's "Witchcraft" (Among My Books); Whitmore's Colonial Laws; Drake's Witchcraft Delusion in New England; Fowler's Salem Witchcraft; Hutchinson's Hist, of Massachusetts Bay; Larned's Hist, of Ready Reference (Mass.); Howe's Puritan Republic; Goodwin's Pilgrim Republic; Merejkowski's Romance of Leonardo da Vinci; Bulwer's Last Days of Pompeii; Weyman's The Long Night; Crockett's The Black Douglas; Lea's Hist, of the Inquisition; Scarlet Letter (Hawthorne); A Case of Witchcraft in Connecticut (Hoadley); Witches in Connecticut (Bliss); Historical Discourses (Bacon); History of Wethersfield (Stiles); History of Long Island (Thompson), Witchcraft in Boston (Poole); Literature of Witchcraft in New England (Winsor); Witchcraft and Second Sight in the Scottish Highlands (Campbell); Witch-hunter in the Bookshops (Burr); Epidemic Delusions (Carpenter); History of New England (Neal); History of Colonization of U.S. (Bancroft); Salem Witchcraft (Fowler); Bouvier's Law Dic.; Witchcraft in Connecticut (Livermore); Witchcraft in Salem Village, 1692 (Nevins); History of Stratford and Bridgeport (Orcutt); Bench and Bar (Adams); Conway's Demonology and Devil-lore; Domestic and Social Life in Colonial Times (Warner); Nat. Mag. Nov. 15, 1891.
Connecticut Archives: Wyllys Papers, Original Witchcraft Depositions; Records: General Court, Particular Court, Court of Assistants, County Court, Colonial Boundaries, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Connecticut Colonial, New Haven Colonial, Hartford Probate, New Haven Town; Magnolia Christi Americana (MATHER); MATTHEW GRANT'S Diary (TRUMBULL'S Observations) Courant Literary Section, 12-3-1904; HOADLEY'S Witchcraft Trials and Notes (Manuscript); WINTHROP'S History of New England; STILES' History of Windsor; Blue Laws, True and False (TRUMBULL); PERKINS' Discourse; The Literature of Witchcraft (BURR); Hammurabi's Code; Cent. Mag., June, 1903; BLACKSTONE'S Commentaries; A Tale of the Witches (STONE); LECKY'S Rationalism in Europe; The Witch Persecutions (BURR); Encyc. Articles ("Witchcraft"): Britannica, Americana, International, Chambers', Johnson's; Connecticut: Origin of her Courts and Laws (HAMERSLEY); BARBER'S Connecticut Historical Collections; SCHENCK'S Fairfield; Connecticut as a Colony and State (MORGAN et al.); The House of the Seven Gables (HAWTHORNE); LATIMER'S Salem; JOHNSTON'S Nathan Hale; Connecticut History (TRUMBULL); UPHAM'S Salem Witchcraft; Conn. Mag., Nov., 1899; Dalton's Justice; Mem. Hist, of Boston; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County; Palfrey's New England; Historic Towns of New England (Latimer); Giles Corey of the Salem Farms (Longfellow); New France and New England (Fiske); Scott's Demonology and Witchcraft; Lowell's "Witchcraft" (Among My Books); Whitmore's Colonial Laws; Drake's Witchcraft Delusion in New England; Fowler's Salem Witchcraft; Hutchinson's Hist, of Massachusetts Bay; Larned's Hist, of Ready Reference (Mass.); Howe's Puritan Republic; Goodwin's Pilgrim Republic; Merejkowski's Romance of Leonardo da Vinci; Bulwer's Last Days of Pompeii; Weyman's The Long Night; Crockett's The Black Douglas; Lea's Hist, of the Inquisition; Scarlet Letter (Hawthorne); A Case of Witchcraft in Connecticut (Hoadley); Witches in Connecticut (Bliss); Historical Discourses (Bacon); History of Wethersfield (Stiles); History of Long Island (Thompson), Witchcraft in Boston (Poole); Literature of Witchcraft in New England (Winsor); Witchcraft and Second Sight in the Scottish Highlands (Campbell); Witch-hunter in the Bookshops (Burr); Epidemic Delusions (Carpenter); History of New England (Neal); History of Colonization of U.S. (Bancroft); Salem Witchcraft (Fowler); Bouvier's Law Dic.; Witchcraft in Connecticut (Livermore); Witchcraft in Salem Village, 1692 (Nevins); History of Stratford and Bridgeport (Orcutt); Bench and Bar (Adams); Conway's Demonology and Devil-lore; Domestic and Social Life in Colonial Times (Warner); Nat. Mag. Nov. 15, 1891.
Index
A
|
|
Allyn, John Allyn, John |
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__-__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_3__-__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_4__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_5__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_6__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_7__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_8__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_9__ |
B
|
|
Baldwin, Goodwife Baldwin, Goodwife |
133, 137 __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__ |
C
|
|
Carrington, Joan Carrington, Joan |
38, 145, 147, 156 __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_3__ |
D
|
|
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__-__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_3__ |
|
E
|
|
Eaton, Theophilus Eaton, Theophilus |
|
F
|
|
Finch, Abraham Finch, Abraham Fowler, William Francis, Joane Fyler, Walt |
|
G
|
|
Gardiner, Lion Gardiner, Lion |
119 119 |
H
|
|
Hale, Mary Hale, Mary |
54 54 |
J
|
|
Jennings, Margaret Jennings, Margaret |
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__ |
K
|
|
Kecham, Sarah Kecham, Sarah |
|
L
|
|
93 93 |
|
M
|
|
Mansfield, Moses Mansfield, Moses |
117 |
N
|
|
Newell, Samuel Newell, Samuel |
|
O
|
|
Odell, Goodwife Odell, Mrs. |
|
P
|
|
Palmer, Katherine Palmer, Katherine |
157 |
R
|
|
Renels, John Renels, John |
|
S
|
|
Saltonstall, Nathl. Saltonstall, Nathl. |
27 27 |
T
|
|
V
|
|
Varlett, Judith Judith Varlett |
|
W
|
|
Wadsworth, Joseph Wadsworth, Joseph |
117 117 |
Y
|
|
Young, Alse Young, Alse |
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!