that very time deputy-governor, and always regarded as one of the chief
men in the country. Strange to say, very little notice appears to have
been taken of this event, beyond the immediate locality; but what
little has come down to us indicates that it was a case of outrageous
folly and barbarity, justly reflecting infamy upon the community at the
time. Hutchinson, who wrote a hundred years after the event, and
evidently had no other foundation for his opinion than vague
conjectural tradition, gives the following explanation of the
proceedings against her: "Losses, in the latter part of her husband's
life, had reduced his estate, and increased the natural crabbedness of
his wife's temper, which made her turbulent and quarrelsome, and
brought her under church censures, and at length rendered her so odious
to her neighbors as to cause some of them to accuse her of witchcraft."
While this is hardly worthy of being considered a sufficient
explanation of the matter,—it being beyond belief, that, even at that
time, a person could be condemned and executed merely on account of a
"crabbed temper,"—it is not consistent with the facts, as made known to
us from the record-offices. She could not have been so reduced in
circumstances as to produce such extraordinary effects upon her
character, for she[i.423] left a good estate. The truth is, that the
tongue of slander was let loose upon her, and the calumnies circulated
by reckless gossip became so magnified and exaggerated, and assumed
such proportions, as enabled her vilifiers to bring her under the
censure of the church, and that emboldened them to cry out against her
as a witch. Hutchinson expresses the opinion that she was the victim of
popular clamor. But that alone, without some pretence or show of
evidence, could not have brought the General Court, in reversal of the
judgment of the magistrates, to condemn to death a person of such a
high social position.
The only clue we have to the kind of evidence bearing upon the charge
of witchcraft that brought this recently bereaved widow to so cruel and
shameful a death, is in a letter, written by a clergyman in Jamaica to
Increase Mather in 1684, in which he says, "You may remember what I
have sometimes told you your famous Mr. Norton once said at his own
table,—before Mr. Wilson, the pastor, elder Penn, and myself and wife,
&c., who had the honor to be his guests,—that one of your magistrate's
wives, as I remember, was hanged for a witch only for having more wit
than her neighbors. It was his very expression; she having, as he
explained it, unhappily guessed that two of her persecutors, whom she
saw talking in the street, were talking of her, which, proving true,
cost her her life, notwithstanding all he could do to the contrary, as
he himself told us." Nothing was more natural than for her to suppose,
knowing the parties, witnessing their[i.424] manner, considering their
active co-operation in getting up the excitement against her, which was
then the all-engrossing topic, that they were talking about her. But,
in the blind infatuation of the time, it was considered proof positive
of her being possessed, by the aid of the Devil, of supernatural
insight,—precisely as, forty years afterwards, such evidence was
brought to bear, with telling effect, against George Burroughs.—The
body of this unfortunate lady was searched for witchmarks, and her
trunks and premises rummaged for puppets.
It is quite evident that means were used to get up a violent popular
excitement against her, which became so formidable as to silence every
voice that dared to speak in her favor. Joshua Scottow, a citizen of
great respectability and a selectman, ventured to give evidence in her
favor, counter, in its bearings, to some testimony against her; and he
was dealt with very severely, and compelled to write an humble apology
to the Court, to disavow all friendly interest in Mrs. Hibbins, and to
pray "that the sword of justice may be drawn forth against all
wickedness." He says, "I am cordially sorry that any thing from me,
either by word or writing, should give offence to the honored Court, my
dear brethren in the church, or any others."
Hutchinson states that there were, however, some persons then in
Boston, who denounced the proceedings against Mrs. Hibbins, and
regarded her, not merely as a persecuted woman, but as "a saint;" that
a deep feeling of resentment against her persecutors long[i.425]
remained in their minds; and that they afterwards "observed solemn
marks of Providence set upon those who were very forward to condemn
her." It is evident that the Court of Magistrates were opposed to her
conviction, and that Mr. Norton did what he could to save her. He was
one of the four "great Johns," who were the first ministers of the
church in Boston; and it is remarkable, as showing the violence of the
people against her, that even his influence was of no avail in her
favor. But she had other friends, as appears from her will, which,
after all, is the only source of reliable information we have
respecting her character. It is dated May 27, 1656, a few days after
she received the sentence of death. In it she names, as overseers and
administrators of her estate, "Captain Thomas Clarke, Lieutenant Edward
Hutchinson, Lieutenant William Hudson, Ensign Joshua Scottow, and
Cornet Peter Oliver." In a codicil, she says, "I do earnestly desire my
loving friends, Captain Johnson and Mr. Edward Rawson, to be added to
the rest of the gentlemen mentioned as overseers of my will." It can
hardly be doubted, that these persons—and they were all leading
citizens—were known by her to be among her friends.
The whole tone and manner of these instruments give evidence, that she
had a mind capable of rising above the power of wrong, suffering, and
death itself. They show a spirit calm and serene. The disposition of
her property indicates good sense, good feeling, and business faculties
suitable to the occasion. In the[i.426] body of the will, there is not
a word, a syllable, or a turn of expression, that refers to, or is in
the slightest degree colored by, her peculiar situation. In the
codicil, dated June 16, there is this sentence: "My desire is, that all
my overseers would be pleased to show so much respect unto my dead
corpse as to cause it to be decently interred, and, if it may be, near
my late husband."
When married to Mr. Hibbins, she was a widow, named Moore. There were
no children by her last marriage,—certainly none living at the time of
her death. There were three sons by her former marriage,—John, Joseph,
and Jonathan. These were all in England; but the youngest, hearing of
her situation, embarked for America. When she wrote the codicil,—three
days before her execution,—she added, at the end, having apparently
just heard of his coming, "I give my son Jonathan twenty pounds, over
and above what I have already given him, towards his pains and charge
in coming to see me, which shall be first paid out of my estate." There
is reason to cherish the belief that he reached her in the short
interval between the date of the codicil and her death, from the tenor
of the following postscript, written and signed on the morning of her
execution: "My further mind and will is, out of my sense of the more
than ordinary affection and pains of my son Jonathan in the times of my
distress, I give him, as a further legacy, ten pounds." The will was
proved in Court, July 2, 1656. The will and codicil speak of her "farms
at Muddy River;" and[i.427] of chests and a desk, in which were
valuables of such importance that she took especial pains to intrust
the keys of them to Edward Rawson, in a provision of the codicil. The
estate was inventoried at £344. 14_s._, which was a considerable
property in those days, as money was then valued.
Hutchinson mentions a case of witchcraft in Hartford, in 1662, where
some women were accused, and, after being proceeded against until they
were confounded and bewildered, one of them made the most preposterous
confessions, which ought to have satisfied every one that her reason
was overthrown; three of them were condemned, and one,
certainly,—probably all,—executed. In 1669, he says that Susanna
Martin, of Salisbury,—whom we shall meet again,—was bound over to the
Court on the same charge, "but escaped at that time." Another case is
mentioned by him as having occurred, in 1671, at Groton, in which the
party confessed, and thereby avoided condemnation. In 1673, a case
occurred at Hampton; but the jury, although, as they said, there was
strong ground of suspicion, returned a verdict of "Not guilty;" the
evidence not being deemed quite sufficient. There were several other
cases, about this time, in which some persons were severely handled in
consequence of being reputed witches; and others suffered, as they
imagined, "under an evil hand."
In this immediate neighborhood, there had been several attempts,
previous to the delusion at Salem Village in 1692, to get up witchcraft
prosecutions,[i.428] but without much success. The people of this
county had not become sufficiently infected with the fanaticism of the
times to proceed to extremities.
In September, 1652, the following presentment was made by the grand
jury:—
"We present John Bradstreet, of Rowley, for suspicion of having
familiarity with the Devil. He said he read in a book of magic, and
that he heard a voice asking him what work he had for him. He answered,
'Go make a bridge of sand over the sea; go make a ladder of sand up to
heaven, and go to God, and come down no more.'
"Witness hereof, Francis Parat and his wife, of Rowley.
"Witness, William Bartholomew, of Ipswich."
On the 28th of that month, the jury at Ipswich, "upon examination of
the case, found he had told a lie, which was a second, being convicted
once before. The Court sets a fine of twenty shillings, or else to be
whipped."
Bradstreet was probably in the habit of romancing, and it was wisely
concluded not to take a more serious view of his offences.
In 1658, a singular case of this kind occurred in Essex County. The
following papers relating to it illustrate the sentiments and forms of
thought prevalent at that time, and give an insight of the state of
society in some particulars:—
_"To the Honored Court to be holden at Ipswich, this twelfth month, '58
or '59._
"Honored Gentlemen,—Whereas divers of esteem with us, and as we hear in
other places also, have for[i.429] some time suffered losses in their
estates, and some affliction in their bodies also,—which, as they
suppose, doth not arise from any natural cause, or any neglect in
themselves, but rather from some ill-disposed person,—that, upon
differences had betwixt themselves and one John Godfrey, resident at
Andover or elsewhere at his pleasure, we whose names are underwritten
do make bold to sue by way of request to this honored court, that you,
in your wisdom, will be pleased, if you see cause for it, to call him
in question, and to hear, at present or at some after sessions, what
may be said in this respect.
"James Davis, Sr., in the behalf of his son Ephraim Davis.
John Haseldin, and Jane his wife.
Abraham Whitaker, for his ox and other things.
Ephraim Davis, in the behalf of himself."
The petitioners mention in brief some instances in confirmation of
their complaint. There are several depositions. That of Charles Browne
and wife says:—
"About six or seven years since, in the meeting-house of Rowley, being
in the gallery in the first seat, there was one in the second seat
which he doth, to his best remembrance, think and believe it was John
Godfrey. This deponent did see him, yawning, open his mouth; and, while
he so yawned, this deponent did see a small teat under his tongue. And,
further, this deponent saith that John Godfrey was in this deponent's
house about three years since. Speaking about the power of witches, he
the said Godfrey spoke, that, if witches were not kindly entertained,
the Devil will appear unto them, and ask them if they were grieved or
vexed with anybody, and ask them what he should do for them; and,
if[i.430] they would not give them beer or victuals, they might let all
the beer run out of the cellar; and, if they looked steadfastly upon
any creature, it would die; and, if it were hard to some witches to
take away life, either of man or beast, yet, when they once begin it,
then it is easy to them."
The depositions in this case are presented as they are in the originals
on file, leaving in blank such words or parts of words as have been
worn off. They are given in full.
"The Deposition of Isabel Holdred, who testifieth that John Godfree
came to the house of Henry Blazdall, where her husband and herself
were, and demanded a debt of her husband, and said a warrant was out,
and Goodman Lord was suddenly to come. John Godfree asked if we would
not pay him. The deponent answered, 'Yes, to-night or to-morrow, if we
had it; for I believe we shall not ... we are in thy debt.' John
Godfree answered, 'That is a bitter word;' ... said, 'I must begin, and
must send Goodman Lord.' The deponent answered, '... when thou wilt. I
fear thee not, nor all the devils in hell!' And, further, this deponent
testifieth, that, two days after this, she was taken with those strange
fits, with which she was tormented a fortnight together, night and day.
And several apparitions appeared to the deponent in the night. The
first night, a humble-bee, the next night a bear, appeared, which
grinned the teeth and shook the claw: 'Thou sayest thou art not afraid.
Thou thinkest Harry Blazdall's house will save thee.' The deponent
answered, 'I hope the Lord Jesus Christ will save me.' The apparition
then spake: 'Thou sayst thou art not afraid of all the devils in hell;
but I will[i.431] have thy heart's blood within a few hours!' The next
was the apparition of a great snake, at which the deponent was
exceedingly affrighted, and skipt to Nathan Gold, who was in the
opposite chimney-corner, and caught hold of the hair of his head; and
her speech was taken away for the space of half an hour. The next night
appeared a great horse; and, Thomas Hayne being there, the deponent
told him of it, and showed him where. The said Tho. Hayne took a stick,
and struck at the place where the apparition was; and his stroke
glanced by the side of it, and it went under the table. And he went to
strike again; then the apparition fled to the ... and made it shake,
and went away. And, about a week after, the deponent ... son were at
the door of Nathan Gold, and heard a rushing on the ... The deponent
said to her son, 'Yonder is a beast.' He answered, ''Tis one of Goodman
Cobbye's black oxen;' and it came toward them, and came within ...
yards of them. The deponent her heart began to ache, for it seemed to
have great eyes; and spoke to the boy, 'Let's go in.' But suddenly the
ox beat her up against the wall, and struck her down; and she was much
hurt by it, not being able to rise up. But some others carried me into
the house, all my face being bloody, being much bruised. The boy was
much affrighted a long time after; and, for the space of two hours, he
was in a sweat that one might have washed hands on his hair. Further
this deponent affirmeth, that she hath been often troubled with ...
black cat sometimes appearing in the house, and sometimes in the night
... bed, and lay on her, and sometimes stroking her face. The cat
seemed ... thrice as big as an ordinary cat."
"Thomas Hayne testifieth, that, being with Goodwife Holdridge, she told
me that she saw a great horse, and[i.432] showed me where it stood. I
then took a stick, and struck on the place, but felt nothing; and I
heard the door shake, and Good. H. said it was gone out at the door.
Immediately after, she was taken with extremity of fear and pain, so
that she presently fell into a sweat, and I thought she would swoon.
She trembled and shook like a leaf.
"Thomas Hayne."
"Nathan Gould being with Goodwife Holgreg one night, there appeared a
great snake, as she said, with open mouth; and she, being weak,—hardly
able to go alone,—yet then ran and laid hold of Nathan Gould by the
head, and could not speak for the space of half an hour.
"Nathan Gould."
"William Osgood testifieth, that, in the yeare '40, in the month of
August,—he being then building a barn for Mr. Spencer,—John Godfree
being then Mr. Spencer's herdsman, he on an evening came to the frame,
where divers men were at work, and said that he had gotten a new master
against the time he had done keeping cows. The said William Osgood
asked him who it was. He answered, he knew not. He again asked him
where he dwelt. He answered, he knew not. He asked him what his name
was. He answered, he knew not. He then said to him, 'How, then, wilt
thou go to him when thy time is out?' He said, 'The man will come and
fetch me then.' I asked him, 'Hast thou made an absolute bargain?' He
answered that a covenant was made, and he had set his hand to it. He
then asked of him whether he had not a counter covenant. Godfree
answered, 'No.' W.O. said, 'What a mad fellow art thou to make a
covenant in this manner!' He said, 'He's an honest man.'—'How knowest
thou?' said W.O. J. Godfree answered. 'He looks like one.' W.O.
then[i.433] answered, 'I am persuaded thou hast made a covenant with
the Devil.' He then skipped about, and said, 'I profess, I profess!'
William Osgood."
The proceedings against Godfrey were carried up to other tribunals, as
appears by a record of the County Court at Salem, 28th of June, 1659:—
"John Godfrey stands bound in one hundred pound bond to the treasurer
of this county for his appearance at a General Court, or Court of
Assistants, when he shall be legally summonsed thereunto."
What action, if any, was had by either of these high courts, I have
found no information. But he must have come off unscathed; for, soon
after, he commenced actions in the County Court for defamation against
his accusers; with the following results:—
"John Godfery plt. agst. Will. Simonds & Sam.ll his son dfts. in an
action of slander that the said Sam.ll son to Will. Simons, hath don
him in his name, Charging him to be a witch, the jury find for the plt.
2d damage & cost of Court 29sh., yet notwithstanding doe conceiue, that
by the testmonyes he is rendred suspicious."
"John Godfery plt. agst. Jonathan Singletary defendt. in an action of
Slander & Defamation for calling him witch & said is this witch on this
side Boston Gallows yet, the attachm.t & other evidences were read,
committed to the Jury & are on file. The Jury found for the plt. a
publique acknowledgmt, at Haverhill within a month that he hath done
the plt. wrong in his words or 10sh damage & costs of Court £2-16-0."
[i.434]
In the trial of the case between Godfrey and Singletary, the latter
attempted to prove the truth of his allegations against the former, by
giving the following piece of testimony, which, while it failed to
convince the jury, is worth preserving, from the inherent interest of
some of its details:—
"Date the fourteenth the twelfth month, '62.—The Deposition of Jonathan
Singletary, aged about 23, who testifieth that I, being in the prison
at Ipswich this night last past between nine and ten of the clock at
night, after the bell had rung, I being set in a corner of the prison,
upon a sudden I heard a great noise as if many cats had been climbing
up the prison walls, and skipping into the house at the windows, and
jumping about the chamber; and a noise as if boards' ends or stools had
been thrown about, and men walking in the chambers, and a crackling and
shaking as if the house would have fallen upon me. I seeing this, and
considering what I knew by a young man that kept at my house last
Indian Harvest, and, upon some difference with John Godfre, he was
presently several nights in a strange manner troubled, and complaining
as he did, and upon consideration of this and other things that I knew
by him, I was at present something affrighted; yet considering what I
had lately heard made out by Mr. Mitchel at Cambridge, that there is
more good in God than there is evil in sin, and that although God is
the greatest good, and sin the greatest evil, yet the first Being of
evil cannot weane the scales or overpower the first Being of good: so
considering that the author of good was of greater power than the
author of evil, God was pleased of his goodness to keep me from being
out of measure frighted. So this noise above[i.435]said held as I
suppose about a quarter of an hour, and then ceased: and presently I
heard the bolt of the door shoot or go back as perfectly, to my
thinking, as I did the next morning when the keeper came to unlock it;
and I could not see the door open, but I saw John Godfre stand within
the door and said, 'Jonathan, Jonathan.' So I, looking on him, said,
'What have you to do with me?' He said, 'I come to see you: are you
weary of your place yet?' I answered, 'I take no delight in being here,
but I will be out as soon as I can.' He said, 'If you will pay me in
corn, you shall come out.' I answered, 'No: if that had been my intent,
I would have paid the marshal, and never have come hither.' He,
knocking of his fist at me in a kind of a threatening way, said he
would make me weary of my part, and so went away, I knew not how nor
which way; and, as I was walking about in the prison, I tripped upon a
stone with my heel, and took it up in my hand, thinking that if he came
again I would strike at him. So, as I was walking about, he called at
the window, 'Jonathan,' said he, 'if you will pay me corn, I will give
you two years day, and we will come to an agreement;' I answered him
saying, 'Why do you come dissembling and playing the Devil's part here?
Your nature is nothing but envy and malice, which you will vent, though
to your own loss; and you seek peace with no man.'—'I do not
dissemble,' said he: 'I will give you my hand upon it, I am in
earnest.' So he put his hand in at the window, and I took hold of it
with my left hand, and pulled him to me; and with the stone in my right
hand I thought I struck him, and went to recover my hand to strike
again, and his hand was gone, and I would have struck, but there was
nothing to strike: and how he went away I know not; for I could[i.436]
neither feel when his hand went out of mine, nor see which way he
went."
It can hardly be doubted, that Singletary's story was the result of the
workings of an excited imagination, in wild and frightful dreams under
the spasms of nightmare. We shall meet similar phenomena, when we come
to the testimony in the trials of 1692.
Godfrey was a most eccentric character. He courted and challenged the
imputation of witchcraft, and took delight in playing upon the
credulity of his neighbors, enjoying the exhibition of their amazement,
horror, and consternation. He was a person of much notoriety, had more
lawsuits, it is probable, than any other man in the colony, and in one
instance came under the criminal jurisdiction for familiarity with
other than immaterial spirits; for we find, by the record of Sept. 25,
1666, that John Godfrey was "fined for being drunk."
I have allowed so much space to the foregoing documents, because they
show the fancies which, fermenting in the public mind, and inflamed by
the prevalent literature, theology, and philosophy, came to a head
thirty years afterwards; and because they prove that in 1660 a
conviction for witchcraft could not be obtained in this county. The
evidence against none of the convicts in 1692, throwing out of view the
statements and actings of the "afflicted children," was half so strong
as that against Godfrey. Short work would have been made with him then.
There is one particularly interesting item in Single[i.437]tary's
deposition. It illustrates the value of good preaching. This young man,
in his gloomy prison, and overwhelmed with the terrors of superstition,
found consolation, courage, and strength in what he remembered of a
sermon, to which he had happened to listen, from "Matchless Mitchel."
It was indeed good doctrine; and it is to be lamented that it was not
carried out to its logical conclusions, and constantly enforced by the
divines of that and subsequent times.