Chapter 6 of 7 · 3861 words · ~19 min read

Part 6

The neighbors in general agreed they were under an evil hand; some affirmed they had seen them flying, and it was pronounced a piece of witchcraft, as much as ever had been at Salem. Their parents were indulgent to them, and though some of the people were not without suspicion of fraud, yet no great pains were taken to detect them. Physicians were employed to no purpose, and ministers prayed over them without success.

After the children altered their behavior, they all persisted in it that there had been no fraud; and, although the affair lay with great weight upon the conscience of the eldest, and she would sometimes say to her next sister they should one time or other be discovered and brought to shame, yet it remained a long time a secret. The eldest, not having been baptized, desired and obtained baptism; and being examined by the minister as to her conduct in this affair, she persisted in her declarations of innocency. Having removed to Medford, she offered to join to the church there, in 1728, and gave a satisfactory account of herself to the minister of the town, who knew nothing of the share she had in this transaction; but, the Lord’s day before she was to be admitted, he happened to preach from this text, “He that speaketh lies shall not escape.” The woman supposed the sermon to be intended for her, and went to the minister to inquire. He informed her no body had been with him to object anything against her; but she had then determined to make a full confession, and disclosed the matter to him, owning the whole and every part to be the fraud of her and her sisters, and desired to make the most public acknowledgment of it in the face of the church, which was done accordingly. They had gone so far in their complaints that they found it necessary to accuse somebody, and pitched upon this particular woman, D—, having no former prejudice again (sic) her. The woman’s complaints, at the same time the children pretended she was struck, proceeded from other causes which were not properly inquired into. Once they were in danger of being detected by their father in one instance of their fraud; but the grounds of suspicion were overlooked or neglected through his prejudice and credulity in favor of his children.

[31] Gov. Hutchinson condensed the above statement from a manuscript prepared by Ebenezer Turell, minister of Medford, to whom the confession was made, which has since been printed in full in _Mass. Hist. Coll._ vol. xx. pp. 6-22. Though fully in the belief that there were fraud and deception in the actions of the Littleton children, Mr. Turell could not divest himself of the idea that there was also diabolical agency manifested in these transactions. “I make no doubt,” he says (p. 16), “but in this sinning Satan was very officious.” Again (p. 19) he gives this excellent advice: “Never use any of the Devil’s legerdemain tricks. You only gratify Satan, and invite him into your company to deceive you.” Persons who can accept the possibility of diabolical agency will find in Mr. Turell’s narrative ample scope for the exercise of their belief.

[32] Elisha Hutchinson, a merchant in Boston, and grandfather of the author. He was the grandson of Mrs. Ann Hutchinson, who was banished, in 1637, for her religious opinions.

[33] William Perkins, 1558-1602, a Puritan divine, and Fellow of Christ College, Cambridge. Several editions of his works, in three volumes folio, appeared from 1605 to 1635. One of his papers was on Witchcraft, and was a standard and, for the times, a charitable authority.

[34] Joseph Glanvil, 1636-1680. He was chaplain in ordinary to his Majesty, and Fellow of the Royal Society. The title of the work here mentioned is “Saducismus Triumphatus: or Full and Plain Evidence concerning Witches and Apparitions: with a letter of Dr. Henry More on the same subject; and an authentic but wonderful Story of certain Swedish Witches; done into English by Anth. Horneck, Preacher at the Savoy.” London, 1681. 8vo. 328 pp. Several later editions were issued. The story of the Swedish witchcrafts contained in this volume is mentioned by Increase Mather in _Remarkable Providences_, 1684, p. 132, ed. 1856, and by Cotton Mather in _Wonders of the Invisible World_, 1693, pp. 44, 88. Mr. C. W. Upham, supposing that C. Mather was the only person in New England, in 1692, who knew of this case, bases an argument upon it in _Salem Witchcraft and Cotton Mather_, 1869, pp. 34-35.

[35] Joseph Keble, 1632-1716, Fellow of All-Saint’s College and a legal writer of little modern reputation.

[36] Michael Dalton, 1554-1620, an English lawyer, author of several legal works which were popular in their time.

[37] Amy Duny and Rose Cullender, “two wrinkled old women,” were tried and convicted before Sir Matthew Hale at Bury St. Edmunds, county of Suffolk, in 1664-5. The case is reported in _Tryals of the Witches_, London, 1682. The document is copied into Howell’s _State Trials_, vol. vi. pp. 647-702, to which is prefixed Gov. Hutchinson’s entire account of witchcraft in New-England. An abstract of the case is in _Wonders of the Invisible World_, pp. 55-60; and allusions to the same are found in nearly all subsequent treatises on witchcraft. It is perhaps the most noted case on record, as Sir Matthew Hale here sanctioned by his great name the admission of spectral evidence, and the dogma that the devil could act only through persons in league with him, that is, actual witches. In the Dowse Library is “A Discourse concerning the great mercy of God in preserving us from the Power and Malice of Evil Angels; written by Sir Matthew Hale, at Cambridge 26 March 1661 [1665], upon occasion of a Tryal of certain Witches before him the week before at St. Edmund’s Bury.” London, 1693. 4to.

[38] 1684.

[39] Sir William Phips arrived at Boston, May 14, 1692. Increase Mather returned from his four years’ mission as colonial agent in England, in the same vessel.

[40] The organization and commission of the court is given in note 44.

[41] “A gentleman of more than ordinary understanding, learning and experience, desired me to write to New-England about your trials and convictions of witches; not being satisfied with the evidence upon which some who have been executed were found guilty. He told me, that in the time of the great reformation parliament, a certain person or persons had a commission to discover and prosecute witches. Upon these prosecutions many were executed, in at least one county in England, until, at length, a gentleman of estate and of great character for piety was accused, which put an end to the commission. And the judges upon a re-hearing, reversed many judgments; but many lives had been taken away. All that I speak with much wonder that any man, much less a man of such abilities, learning and experience as Mr. Stoughton, should take up a persuasion, that the devil cannot assume the likeness of an innocent, to afflict another person. In my opinion, it is a persuasion utterly destitute of any solid reason to render it so much as probable, and besides, contradictory to many instances of fact in history. If you think good, you may acquaint Mr. Stoughton and the other judges with what I write.” _Letter from London to I. Mather, Jan. 9, 1692-3._

[42] Richard Hatheway, a blacksmith’s apprentice, was tried before chief justice Holt, March 25, 1702, for imposture. He pretended to be bewitched by Sarah Morduck, and to be restored from his fits only by drawing blood from her by scratching. She had been tried for witchcraft by the same court the year before, and acquitted. He pretended to vomit pins, and to fast for ten weeks. “All the devils in hell,” said the chief justice, “could not have helped you fast so long.” Pins were found in his pocket; and being closely watched, it was ascertained that he partook of food when he assumed to be fasting. Another woman was brought in while he was in his fits, and by scratching her he recovered as well as before. He was sentenced to imprisonment for one year, and to stand in the pillory three times. Rev. Francis Hutchinson states the case in _Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft_, London 2d edition, 1720, p. 280, and it appears in _Wonders of the Invisible World_, pp. 55 and 60. The case with the evidence and arguments is reported in Howell’s _State Trials_, vol. xiv. pp. 639-669. Hatheway’s master and mistress, who sustained the apprentice in these impostures, were next prosecuted for assault on Sarah Morduck and for riot; and their trial is reported in the same volume.

Howell’s _State Trials_ contain full reports of other witchcraft proceedings, viz.: Case of Mary Smith, 1616, vol. ii. p. 1050; Proceeding against the Essex Witches, 1645, vol. iv. p. 817; and Proceedings against three Devon Witches, 1682, vol. viii. p. 1018.

[43] Eleven trials for witchcraft were held before chief justice Holt, from 1694 to 1702, in which he so charged the juries that they generally brought in verdicts of acquittal. The English statutes for the punishment of witchcraft, however, were not repealed till 1736. 9 Geo. II. chap. 5, _Statutes at Large_, vol. xvii. p. 3.

[44] “An Account of the Life and Character of Rev. Samuel Parris, of Salem village, and of his connection with the Witchcraft Delusion of 1692. By Samuel P. Fowler [of Danvers]” (Salem, 1857, 20 pp. 8vo.), is the fullest and most impartial estimate of Mr. Parris’s character which has appeared in print. Deacon Fowler is an officer of the original church of Salem village, now Danvers; he has the best collection of witch books in New-England, and is one of the most experienced antiquaries of the Essex Institute. He dispels much of the misapprehension which has existed respecting this noted clergyman.

Mr. Parris remained with his people for five years after these events, and in the midst of local disputes outside of the witchcraft tragedy. Mr. Fowler says (p. 19), “It seems there was always a majority of the parish in favor of Mr. Parris remaining with them; and there appears to have been a very general mistake with regard to his dismission from his people, they supposing that he was hastily driven away from the village; whereas he continued and maintained himself through a ministerial quarrel of five years, until he saw fit to discontinue it, when he informed his church of his intentions.”

Mr. Fowler’s entire paper is reprinted in Mr. Drake’s _Witchcraft Delusion in New-England_, vol. iii. pp. 198-221. The anonymous Ballad of 1692, _Giles Corey and Goodwyfe Corey_, which Mr. Drake reprints in the same volume (pp. 173-177), and supposes Mr. J. G. Whittier to have been the author—“as but one person could have written it”—was contributed to a Salem newspaper, more than thirty years ago, by Mr. Fitch Poole, of Danvers, now librarian of the Peabody Institute in Peabody.

[45] John Indian and his wife Tituba were slaves. In the mittimus to the jail keeper at Boston, she is described as “an Indian woman belonging to Samuel Parris of Salem village.” (Woodward’s _Records of Salem Witchcraft_, vol. i. p. 15.) Calef (p. 19) says, “she lay in jail till sold for her fees.” The Salem delusion had its origin in the fetichism practised by these two ignorant Spanish-African slaves, whom Mr. Parris probably obtained from the Barbadoes, where he was at one time in business.

[46] R. Calef. [_More Wonders_, p. 91.]

[47] Hale. [_Modest Inquiry_, p. 25, ed. 1711.]

[48] Calef. [p. 92.]

[49] This statement is a mistake, and is changed in the final draft. Mr. Parris on no occasion was employed to examine the accused. At the request of the magistrates he took down the evidence, he being a rapid penman and stenographer. On the occasion mentioned in the next paragraph, Danforth put the questions, and the record is, “Mr. Parris being desired and appointed to write out the examination, did take the same, and also read it before the council in public.”

[50] This was a meeting of the council for a preliminary examination, and not “a court” for the trial of the accused. Danforth, deputy governor; Addington, secretary, and Russell, Hathorne, Appleton, Sewall and Corwin, members of the council, were present. It was the only examination that Samuel Sewall attended. On his return to Boston he made this entry in his diary: “April 11, 1692. Went to Salem, where, in the meeting house, the persons accused of witchcraft were examined; was a very great assembly; ’twas awful to see how the afflicted were agitated.” At a later date he inserted in the margin, “_Væ, væ, væ_.” These words have been taken by a late writer “as expressions of much sensibility at the extent to which he had been misled.” He did in later years regret, and well he might, the course he took in the witchcraft trials; but he never expressed, as the writer does, his disbelief in the reality of diabolical agency as exhibited at that examination. The occasion itself was mournful enough to draw forth these exclamations from one holding his opinions; and hence they are explained without a forced interpretation.

[51] The maid here alluded to was Mary Warren, one of the most violent of the accusing girls. She was a domestic in Proctor’s family.

[52] The documents which Gov. Hutchinson printed belong with the court files at Salem, which have been very carefully arranged and mounted by Mr. William P. Upham. These papers, or such of them as remain, were printed (with many errors) by Mr. W. E. Woodward, in _Records of Salem Witchcraft_, Roxbury, 1865, 2 vols. sm. 4to. Among these the papers which Gov. Hutchinson printed do not appear. They were doubtless borrowed by him, and never returned. In the Massachusetts archives is a volume of witchcraft papers (vol. cxxxv.), but these documents are not among them.

In 1860, Mr. N. I. Bowditch presented a collection of original papers relating to Salem witchcraft, which once belonged to the Salem court files, to the Massachusetts Historical Society. More than sixty years ago these papers came into possession of the late Hon. John Pickering; who, says Mr. Bowditch, “as he was a sworn officer of the court, had some scruples of conscience about retaining them himself; and therefore, after examining them, gave them to my late father [Dr. Nathaniel Bowditch]. (Proceedings, 1860-62, p. 31).” The collection has been arranged and elegantly bound at the expense of Mr. Bowditch. The volume does not contain the papers printed by Gov. Hutchinson. As Gov. Hutchinson printed only portions of these papers, and doubtless took others which he did not print, it is a matter of some historical interest to know the present location (if they exist) of the original papers which he used.

[53] It is _can_ in the examination, but, I suppose, by the answer, should have been wrote _can’t_.

[54] Mr. Perkins mentions eight or ten proofs of witchcraft, two only of which he supposes sufficient, viz.: the testimony of two witnesses and the confession of the party. This authority probably had weight with the court as well as with Mr. Hale; but Perkins says it is objected to the latter that a confession may be urged by force or threatening, &c., or by a persuasion that it is the best course to save life or obtain liberty.

[55] [Note in final draft.] Mr. Deane, one of the ministers of Andover, then near fourscore, seems to have been in danger. He is tenderly touched in several of the examinations, which might be owing to a fair character, and he may be one of the persons accused, who caused a discouragement to further prosecutions. “Deliverance Deane being asked why she and the rest brought in Mr. Deane as afflicting persons, she answered, it was Satan’s subtilty, for he told her he would put a sham upon all these things, and make people believe that he did afflict. She said Mrs. Osgood and she gave their consent the devil should bring Mr. Deane’s shape to afflict. Being asked again if Mrs. Osgood and she acted this business, she said yes.” Mr. Deane was much beholden to this woman.

[56] Mr. Cary’s account is in Calef, pp. 95-99.

All my references to C. Mather’s _Wonders of the Invisible World_, and to Calef, are to the London editions of 1693 and 1700. Mr. S. G. Drake reprints both works in his _Witchcraft Delusion in New England_ (Roxbury, 1866, 3 vols. sm. 4to), with the original paging. This is the best reprint of these noted books. An excellent and inexpensive edition of the “_Wonders_” appeared in J. Russell Smith’s _Library of Old Authors_ (London, 1862, 16mo.), in which the original paging is not indicated. This edition is especially desirable as it contains reprints of _A Further Account of the Tryals of the New England Witches_, 1693, and _Cases of Conscience concerning Evil Spirits personating Men_, 1693, both by Increase Mather. There are several other reprints of the _Wonders_ and of Calef’s _More Wonders_; but they are carelessly done, and are not reliable for historical purposes. A copy (with one leaf missing) of the original _Wonders_ (Boston, 1693), brought two hundred and ninety dollars at the Woodward auction sale in New-York, April 19, 1869.

[57] See Calef, pp. 98-100.

[58] The jails of Boston and Ipswich were filled, as well as that of Salem. Many of the accused were heads of families; the season for putting in crops was far advanced, and farm labor had been interrupted. “Upon consideration,” say the records of the Council for May 27, 1692, “that there are many criminal offenders now in custody, some whereof have lain long, and many inconveniencies attending the thronging of the gaols at this hot season of the year, there being no judicatories or courts of justice yet established: Ordered, That a special commission of Oyer and Terminer be made out to William Stoughton, John Richards, Nathaniel Saltonstall, Wait Winthrop, Bartholomew Gedney, Samuel Sewall, John Hathorne, Jonathan Corwin and Peter Sergeant, Esquires, assigning them to be justices, or any five of them (whereof William Stoughton, John Richards and Bartholomew Gedney Esq’s to be one), to inquire of, hear and determine for this time, according to the law and custom of England and of this their Magesties’ Province, all and all manner of crimes and offences had, made, done or perpetrated within the counties of Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, and each of them.” Capt. Stephen Sewall was appointed clerk, and Thomas Newton as attorney. George Corwin was the sheriff, and Geo. Herrick, marshal.

[59] The testimony and other papers, in the case of Bridget Bishop, are in _Records of Salem Witchcraft_, Vol. i. pp. 135-172; _Wonders of the Invisible World_, pp. 65-70; and Calef’s _More Wonders_, pp. 119-126.

[60] Gov. Hutchinson found this document in the Postscript of Increase Mather’s _Cases of Conscience_, 1693. His copy, in the early draft, is quite correct, except that the concluding words of the fifth section “be consulted in such a case” were accidentally omitted. In making his final draft he probably noticed that the sentence was incomplete, and instead of recurring to the original authority, supplied words of his own: “may be observed.” This, and similar facts, show that he made little use of original authorities in preparing his final draft. In his last copy of this document, and in printing, ten errors were made in words and transpositions, but one of which appear in the early draft. The most important error was _defeat_ for _detect_ in the second section.

[61] Richard Bernard, 1566-1651, a famous Puritan minister at Batcomb in Somerset. His _Guide to Grand Jury-men in cases of Witchcraft_ (London, 1627), says Increase Mather, “is a solid and wise treatise. As for the judgment of the elders in New-England, so far as I can learn, they do generally concur with Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bernard.” (_Cases of Conscience_, pp. 252-3, ed. 1862.)

[62] Gov. Hutchinson omitted this paragraph when he prepared his next and final draft, which was a judicious proceeding. The above is a view of the document which may occur to a reader on a first and superficial examination; and it has been claimed by a late writer that “the paper is so worded as to mislead.” The paper was drawn by Cotton Mather; and was “concurringly presented before his Excellency and Council by twelve ministers” of Boston and the vicinity. (_Cases of Conscience_, Postscript.) Those twelve men knew the meaning of language; and it is hardly possible to believe that they would concur, at that solemn period, in a series of recommendations to the public authorities which carried a contradiction, if not a fraud, on the face of the document. Hutchinson’s omission of the passage may be regarded as a retraction of his first impressions, resulting from further investigation. The advice, in my opinion, is wholly consistent; but this is not the place to discuss the point. I purpose to do this on some other occasion.

[63] This statement shows that Hutchinson had not seen the records of the Council, a copy of which was made in the British State Paper office in 1846, and is now in the office of the Secretary of the State of Massachusetts.

[64] Erroneously printed “Wilder.” The trials of Susannah Martin and Elizabeth Howe are in _Records of Salem Witchcraft_, vol. i. 193-215, and vol. ii. pp. 69-93; Mather’s _Wonders_, pp. 70-80, and, with the trials of Bishop, Burroughs and Carrier, were copied by Calef, pp. 114-139.

[65] Calef [p. 101].

[66] Calef [p. 103].

[67] Samuel Sewall, one of the judges in the witchcraft trials, made, on this occasion, the following entry in his Diary—for the use of which I am indebted to the courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society: “Monday, Sept. 19, 1692. About noon, at Salem, Giles Corey was pressed to death for standing mute; much pains was used with him two days, one after another, by the court and Capt. Gardner of Nantucket, who had been his acquaintance; but all in vain. Sept. 20. Now I hear from Salem, that about eighteen years ago, he was suspected to have stamped and pressed a man to death; but was cleared. ’Twas not remembered till Ann Putnam was told of it by said Corey’s specter, the sabbath-day night before the execution.”

* * * * *

The following touching relation of the sufferings of the Corey family during the year 1692, is in _Mass. Archives_, vol. cxxxv. fol. 161. For the purpose of preserving the quaintness of the original document, I have copied it _verbatim_.

“To the Honrable Commite Apointed by the Generall Court to make enquire with Respect to the Suferings in The year 1692 &c.