legal proceedings, was as follows: It was believed, that, when witches
found it inconvenient from any cause to execute their infernal designs
upon[i.406] those whom they wished to afflict by going to them in their
natural human persons, they transformed themselves into the likeness of
some animal,—a dog, hog, cat, rat, mouse, or toad; birds—particularly
yellow birds—were often imagined to perform this service, as
representing witches or the Devil. They also had imps under their
control. These imps were generally supposed to bear the resemblance of
some small insect,—such as a fly or a spider. The latter animal was
prevailingly considered as most likely to act in this character. The
accused person was closely watched, in order that the spider imp might
be seen when it approached to obtain its nourishment, as it was thought
to do, from the witchmark on the body of the culprit. Within the cells
of a prison, spiders were, of course, often seen. Whenever one made its
appearance, the guard attacked it with all the zeal and vehemence with
which it was natural and proper to assault an agent of the Wicked One.
If the spider was killed in the encounter, it was considered as an
innocent animal, and all suspicion was removed from its character as
the diabolical confederate of the prisoner; but if it escaped into a
crack or crevice of the apartment, as spiders often do when assailed,
all doubt of its guilty connection with the person accused of
witchcraft was removed: it was set down as, beyond question or cavil,
her veritable imp; and the evidence of her confederacy with Satan was
thenceforward regarded as complete. The books of law and other learned
writings, as well as the practice of courts in the old[i.407]
countries, recognized this doctrine of transformation into the shapes
of animals, and the employment of imps. Where judicial tribunals
countenanced the popular credulity in maintaining these ideas, there
was no security for innocence, and no escape from wrong. No matter how
clear and certain the evidence adduced, that an accused individual, at
the time alleged, was absent from the specified place; no matter how
far distant, whether twenty or a thousand miles, it availed him
nothing; for it was charged that he was present, and acted through his
agent or imp. This notion was further enlarged by the establishment of
the additional doctrine, that a witch could be present, and act with
demoniac power upon her victims, anywhere, at all times, and at any
distance, without the instrumental agency of any other animal or being,
in her spirit, spectre, or apparition. When the person on trial was
accused of having tortured or strangled or pinched or bruised another,
it did not break the force of the accusation to bring hundreds of
witnesses to prove that he was, at the very time, in another remote
place or country; for it was alleged that he was present in the
spectral shape in which Satan enabled his spirit to be and to act any
and every where at once. It was impossible to disprove the charge, and
the last defence of innocence was swept away.
If any thing strange or remarkable could be discovered in the persons,
histories, or deportment of accused persons, the usage of the
tribunals, and the books of authority on the subject, allowed it to be
brought in[i.408] evidence against them. If any thing they had
forewarned, or even conjectured, happened to come to pass, any careless
speech had been verified by events, any extraordinary knowledge had
been manifested, or any marvellous feats of strength or agility been
displayed, they were brought up with decisive and fatal effect.
A witch was believed to have the power of operating upon her victims,
at any distance, by the instrumentality of puppets. She would procure
or make an object like a doll, or a figure of some animal,—any little
bunch of cloth or bundle of rags would answer the purpose. She would
will the puppet to represent the person whom she proposed to torment or
afflict; and then whatever she did to the puppet would be suffered by
the party it represented at any distance, however remote. A pin stuck
into the puppet would pierce the flesh of the person whom she wished to
afflict, and produce the appropriate sensations of pain. So would a
pinch, or a blow, or any kind of violence. When any one was arrested on
the charge of witchcraft, a search was immediately made for puppets
from garret to cellar; and if any thing could be found that might
possibly be imagined to possess that character,—any remnant of flannel
or linen wrapped up, the foot of an old stocking, or a cushion of any
kind, particularly if there were any pins in it,—it was considered as
weighty and quite decisive evidence against the accused party.
A writer, in a recent number of the "North-Ameri[i.409]can Review," on
the superstitions of the American Indians, makes the following
statement:—
"The sorcerer, by charms, magic songs, magic feats, and the beating of
his drum, had power over the spirits, and those occult influences
inherent in animals and inanimate things. He could call to him the
souls of his enemies. They appeared before him in the form of stones.
He chopped and bruised them with his hatchet; blood and flesh issued
forth; and the intended victim, however distant, languished and died.
Like the sorcerer of the middle ages, he made images of those he wished
to destroy, and, muttering incantations, punctured them with an awl;
whereupon the persons represented sickened and pined away."
It was a received opinion, accredited and acted upon in courts, that a
person in confederacy with the Evil One could not weep. Those accused
of this crime, both in Europe and America, were, in many instances, of
an age and condition which rendered it impossible for them, however
innocent, to escape the effect of this test. A decrepit, emaciated
person, shrivelled and desiccated by age, was placed at the bar: and if
she could not weep on the spot; if, in consequence of her withered
frame, her amazement and indignation at the false and malignant charges
by which she was circumvented, her exhausted sensibility, her sullen
despair, the hopeless horror of her situation, or, from what often was
found to be the effect of the treatment such persons received, a
high-toned consciousness of innocence, and a brave defiance and stern
condemnation of her maligners and persecutors; if, from any
cause,[i.410] the fountain of tears was closed or dried up,—their
failure to come forth at the bidding of her defamers was regarded as a
sure and irrefragable proof of her guilt.
King James explains the circumstance, that witches could not weep, in
rather a curious manner:—
"For as, in a secret murther, if the dead carkasse bee at any time
thereafter handled by the murtherer it will gush out of bloud, as if
the bloud were crying to the heaven for revenge of the murtherer, God
having appointed that secret supernaturall signe for triall of that
secret unnaturall crime; so it appeares that God hath appointed (for a
supernaturall signe of the monstrous impietie of witches), that the
water shall refuse to receive them in her bosome that have shaken off
them the sacred water of baptisme, and wilfully refused the benefite
thereof: no, not so much as their eyes are able to shed teares
(threaten and torture them as ye please), while first they repent (God
not permitting them to dissemble their obstinacie in so horrible a
crime), albeit the woman kind especially be able otherwise to shed
teares at every light occasion when they will,—yea, although it were
dissemblingly like the crocodiles."
Reginald Scott, in introducing a Romish form of adjuration, makes the
following excellent remarks on the trial by tears:—
"But alas that teares should be thought sufficient to excuse or condemn
in so great a cause, and so weightie a triall! I am sure that the worst
sort of the children of Israel wept bitterlie; yea, if there were any
witches at all in Israel, they wept. For it is written, that all the
children[i.411] of Israel wept. Finallie, if there be any witches in
hell, I am sure they weepe; for there is weeping and wailing and
gnashing of teeth. But God knoweth many an honest matron cannot
sometimes in the heaviness of her heart shed teares; the which
oftentimes are more readie and common with crafty queans and strumpets
than with sober women. For we read of two kinds of teares in a woman's
eie; the one of true greefe, and the other of deceipt. And it is
written, that 'Dediscere flere foeminam est mendacium;' which argueth
that they lie, which saie that wicked women cannot weepe. But let these
tormentors take heed, that the teares in this case which runne down the
widowe's cheeks, with their crie, spoken of by Jesus Sirach, be not
heard above. But, lo, what learned, godlie and lawful meanes these
Popish Inquisitors have invented for the triall of true or false
teares:—
'I conjure thee, by the amorous tears which Jesus Christ, our Saviour,
shed upon the crosse for the salvation of the world; and by the most
earnest and burning teares of his mother, the most glorious Virgine
Marie, sprinkled upon his wounds late in the evening; and by all the
teares which everie saint and elect vessell of God hath poured out
heere in the world, and from whose eies he hath wiped awaie all
teares,—that, if thou be without fault, thou maist poure downe teares
aboundantlie; and, if thou be guiltie, that thou weep in no wise. In
the name of the Father, of the Sonne, and of the Holie Ghost. Amen.'
"The more you conjure, the lesse she weepeth."
A distinction was made between black and white witches. The former were
those who had leagued with Satan for the purpose of doing injury to
others,[i.412] while the latter class was composed of such persons as
had resorted to the arts and charms of divination and sorcery in order
to protect themselves and others from diabolical influence. They were
both considered as highly, if not equally, criminal. Fuller, in his
"Profane State," thus speaks of them: "Better is it to lap one's
pottage like a dog, than to eat it mannerly, with a spoon of the
Devil's giving. Black witches hurt and do mischief; but, in deeds of
darkness, there is no difference of colors. The white and the black are
both guilty alike in compounding with the Devil." White witches
pretended to extract their power from the mysterious virtues of certain
plants. The following form of charmed words was used in plucking them:—
"Hail to thee, holy herb,
Growing in the ground;
On the Mount of Calvarie,
First wert thou found;
Thou art good for many a grief,
And healest many a wound:
In the name of sweet Jesu,
I lift thee from the ground."
Then there was the evidence of ocular fascination. The accused and the
accusers were brought into the presence of the examining magistrate,
and the supposed witch was ordered to look upon the afflicted persons;
instantly upon coming within the glance of her eye, they would scream
out, and fall down as in a fit. It was thought that an invisible and
impalpable fluid darted from the eye of the witch, and penetrated the
brain of the bewitched. By bringing the witch so[i.413] near that she
could touch the afflicted persons with her hand, the malignant fluid
was attracted back into her hand, and the sufferers recovered their
senses. It is singular to notice the curious resemblance between this
opinion—the joint product of superstition and imposture—and the results
to which modern science has led us in the discoveries of galvanism and
animal electricity. The doctrine of fascination maintained its hold
upon the public credulity for a long time, and gave occasion to the
phrase, still in familiar use among us, of "looking upon a person with
an evil eye." Its advocates claimed, in its defence, the authority of
the Cartesian philosophy; but it cannot be considered, in an age of
science and reason, as having any better support than the rural
superstition of Virgil's simple shepherd, who thus complains of the
condition of his emaciated flock:—
"They look so thin,
Their bones are barely covered with their skin.
What magic has bewitched the woolly dams?
And what ill eyes beheld the tender lambs?"
Witchcraft, in all ages and countries, was recognized as a reality,
just as much as any of the facts of nature, or incidents to which
mankind is liable. By the laws of all nations, Catholic and Protestant
alike, in the old country and in the new, it was treated as a capital
offence, and classed with murder and other highest crimes, although
regarded as of a deeper dye and blacker character than them all.
Indictments and trials of persons accused of it were not,
therefore,[i.414] considered as of any special interest, or as
differing in any essential particulars from proceedings against any
other description of offenders. There had been many such proceedings in
the American colonies,—more, perhaps, than have come to our
knowledge,—previous to 1692. They were not looked upon as sufficiently
extraordinary to be transferred, from the oblivion sweeping like a
perpetual deluge over the vast multitude of human experiences, to the
ark of history, which rescues only a select few. The following are the
principal facts of this class of which we have information:—
William Penn presided, in his judicial character, at the trial of two
Swedish women for witchcraft; the grand jury, acting under instructions
from him, having found bills against them. They were saved, not in
consequence of any peculiar reluctance to proceed against them arising
out of the nature of the alleged crime, but only from some technical
defect in the indictment. If it had not been for this accidental
circumstance, as the annalist of Philadelphia suggests, scenes similar
to those subsequently occurring in Salem Village might have darkened
the history of the Quakers, Swedes, Germans, and Dutch, who dwelt in
the City of Brotherly Love and the adjacent colonies. There had been
trials and executions for witchcraft in other parts of New England, and
excitements had obtained more or less currency in reference to the
assaults of the powers of darkness upon human affairs. These incidents
prepared the way for the delusion in Salem, and[i.415] provided
elements to form its character. They must not, therefore, be wholly
overlooked. But the memorials for their elucidation are very defective.
Hutchinson's "History of Massachusetts" is, perhaps, the most valuable
authority on the subject. He enjoyed an advantage over any other
writer, before, since, or hereafter, so far as relates to the
witchcraft proceedings in 1692; for he had access to all the records
and documents connected with it, a great part of which have
subsequently been lost or destroyed. His treatment of that particular
topic is more satisfactory than can elsewhere be found. But of
incidents of the sort that preceded it, his information appears to have
been very slight and unreliable. It is a singular fact, that we know
more of the history of the first century of New England than was known
by the most enlightened persons of the intermediate century. There was
no regular organized newspaper press, the commemorative age had not
begun, and none seem to have been fully aware of the importance of
putting events on record. The publication, but a few years since, of
the colonial journals of the first half-century of Massachusetts;
researches by innumerable hands among papers on file in public offices;
the printing of town-histories, and the collections made by historical
and genealogical societies,—have rescued from oblivion, and redeemed
from error, many points of the greatest interest and importance.
Winthrop, in his "Journal," gives an account of the execution of
Margaret Jones, of Charlestown, who had been tried and condemned by the
Court of Assistants.[i.416] The charges against her were, that she had
a malignant touch, so that many persons,—"men, women, and children,"—on
coming in contact with her, were "taken with deafness, vomiting, or
other violent pains or sickness;" that she practised physic, and her
medicines, "being such things as (by her own confession) were harmless,
as aniseed, liquors, &c., yet had extraordinary violent effects;" and
that they found on her body, "upon a forced search," the witchmarks,
particularly "a teat, as fresh if it had been newly sucked." Other
ridiculous allegations were made against her. As for the effects of the
touch, it is obvious that they could be easily simulated by
evil-disposed persons. The whole substance of her offence seems to have
been, that she was very successful in the use of simple prescriptions
for the cure of diseases. Her practice was charged as "against the
ordinary course, and beyond the apprehension of all physicians and
surgeons." A bitter animosity was, accordingly, raised against her. She
treated her accusers and defamers with indignant resentment. "Her
behavior at her trial," says Winthrop, "was very intemperate, lying
notoriously, and railing upon the jury and witnesses, &c.; and, in the
like distemper, she died." We shall find that the bold assertion of
innocence, and indignant denunciations of the persecutors and defamers
who had destroyed their reputations and pursued them to the death, by
persons tried and executed for witchcraft, in 1692, were regarded by
some, as they were by Winthrop, as proofs of ill-temper and falsehood.
The Governor closes his statement[i.417] about Margaret Jones, by
relating what he regarded as a demonstration of her guilt: "The same
day and hour she was executed, there was a very great tempest at
Connecticut, which blew down many trees, &c." The records of the
General Court contain no express notice of this case. Perhaps it is
referred to in the following paragraph, under date of May 13, 1648:—
"This Court, being desirous that the same course which hath been taken
in England for the discovery of witches, by watching, may also be taken
here, with the witch now in question, and therefore do order that a
strict watch be set about her every night, and that her husband be
confined to a private room, and watched also."
Margaret Jones was executed in Boston on the 15th of June. Hutchinson
refers to the statement made by Johnson, in the "Wonder-working
Providence," that "more than one or two in Springfield, in 1645, were
suspected of witchcraft; that much diligence was used, both for the
finding them and for the Lord's assisting them against their witchery;
yet have they, as is supposed, bewitched not a few persons, among whom
two of the reverend elder's children." Johnson's loose and immethodical
narrative covers the period from 1645 till toward the end of 1651; and
Hutchinson was probably misled in supposing that the Springfield cases
occurred as early as 1645. The Massachusetts colonial records, under
the date of May 8, 1651, have this entry:[i.418]—
"The Court, understanding that Mary Parsons, now in prison, accused for
a witch, is likely, through weakness, to die before trial, if it be
deferred, do order, that, on the morrow, by eight o'clock in the
morning, she be brought before and tried by the General Court, the
rather that Mr. Pinchon may be present to give his testimony in the
case."
Mr. Pinchon was probably able to stay a few days longer. She was not
brought to trial before the Court until the 13th, under which date is
the following:—
"Mary Parsons, wife of Hugh Parsons, of Springfield, being committed to
prison for suspicion of witchcraft, as also for murdering her own
child, was this day called forth, and indicted for witchcraft. 'By the
name of Mary Parsons, you are here, before the General Court, charged,
in the name of this Commonwealth, that, not having the fear of God
before your eyes nor in your heart, being seduced by the Devil, and
yielding to his malicious motion, about the end of February last, at
Springfield, to have familiarity, or consulted with, a familiar spirit,
making a covenant with him; and have used divers devilish practices by
witchcraft, to the hurt of the persons of Martha and Rebecca Moxon,
against the word of God and the laws of this jurisdiction, long since
made and published.' To which indictment she pleaded 'Not guilty.' All
evidences brought in against her being heard and examined, the Court
found the evidences were not sufficient to prove her a witch, and
therefore she was cleared in that respect.
"At the same time, she was indicted for murdering her child. 'By the
name of Mary Parsons, you are here, before the General Court, charged,
in the name of this Common[i.419]wealth, that, not having the fear of
God before your eyes nor in your heart, being seduced by the Devil, and
yielding to his instigations and the wickedness of your own heart,
about the beginning of March last, in Springfield, in or near your own
house, did wilfully and most wickedly murder your own child, against
the word of God and the laws of this jurisdiction, long since made and
published.' To which she acknowledged herself guilty.
"The Court, finding her guilty of murder by her own confession, &c.,
proceeded to judgment: 'You shall be carried from this place to the
place from whence you came, and from thence to the place of execution,
and there hang till you be dead.'"
Under the same date—May 13—is an order of the Court appointing a day of
humiliation "throughout our jurisdiction in all the churches," in
consideration, among other things, of the extent to which "Satan
prevails amongst us in respect of witchcrafts."
The colonial records, under date of May 31, 1652, recite the facts,
that Hugh Parsons, of Springfield, had been tried before the Court of
Assistants—held at Boston, May 12, 1652—for witchcraft; that the case
was transferred to a "jury of trials," which found him guilty. The
magistrates not consenting to the verdict of the jury, the case came
legally to the General Court, which body decided that "he was not
legally guilty of witchcraft, and so not to die by law."
When these citations are collated and examined, and it is remembered
that Mr. Moxon was the "reverend elder" of the church at Springfield,
it cannot be doubted[i.420] that the case of the Parsonses is that
referred to by Johnson in the "Wonder-working Providence," and that
Hutchinson was in error as to the date. We are left in doubt as to the
fate of Mary Parsons. There is a marginal entry on the records, to the
effect that she was reprieved to the 29th of May. Neither Johnson nor
Hutchinson seem to have thought that the sentence was ever carried into
effect. It clearly never ought to have been. The woman was in a weak
and dying condition, her mind was probably broken down,—the victim of
that peculiar kind of mania—partaking of the character of a religious
fanaticism and perversion of ideas—that has often led to child-murder.
These instances show, that, at that time, the General Court exercised
consideration and discrimination in the treatment of questions of this
kind brought before it.
Hutchinson, on the authority of Hale, says that a woman at Dorchester,
and another at Cambridge, were executed, not far from this time, for
witchcraft; and that they asserted their innocence with their dying
breath. He also says, that, in 1650, "a poor wretch,—Mary
Oliver,—probably weary of her life from the general reputation of being
a witch, after long examination, was brought to a confession of her
guilt; but I do not find that she was executed."
In 1656, a very remarkable case occurred. William Hibbins was a
merchant in Boston, and one of the most prominent and honored citizens
of Massachusetts. He was admitted a freeman in 1640; was deputy in
the[i.421] General Court in that and the following year; was elected an
assistant for twelve successive years,—from 1643 to 1654; represented
the Colony, for a time, as its agent in England, and received the
thanks of the General Court for his valuable service there. No one
appears to have had more influence, or to have enjoyed more honorable
distinction, during his long legislative career. He died in 1654.
Hutchinson says, in the text of his first and second volumes, that his
widow was tried, condemned, and hanged as a witch in 1655, although he
corrects the error in a note to the passage in the first volume. The
following is the statement of the case in the Massachusetts colonial
records, under the date of May 14, 1656:—
"The magistrates not receiving the verdict of the jury in Mrs. Hibbins
her case, having been on trial for witchcraft, it came and fell, of
course, to the General Court. Mrs. Ann Hibbins was called forth,
appeared at the bar, the indictment against her was read; to which she
answered, 'Not guilty,' and was willing to be tried by God and this
Court. The evidence against her was read, the parties witnessing being
present, her answers considered on; and the whole Court, being met
together, by their vote, determined that Mrs. Ann Hibbins is guilty of
witchcraft, according to the bill of indictment found against her by
the jury of life and death. The Governor, in open Court, pronounced
sentence accordingly; declaring she was to go from the bar to the place
from whence she came, and from thence to the place of execution, and
there to hang till she was dead.
"It is ordered, that warrant shall issue out from the secretary to the
marshal general, for the execution of Mrs. Hib[i.422]bins, on the fifth
day next come fortnight, presently after the lecture at Boston, being
the 19th of June next; the marshal general taking with him a sufficient
guard."