house for the time. In complaining of her, and bringing her forward
first, the prosecutors showed that they were well advised. There was a
general readiness to receive the charge against her, as she was
evidently the object of much prejudice in the neighborhood. Her
husband, who was a weak,[ii.13] ignorant, and dependent person, had
become alienated from her. The family were very poor; and she and her
children had sometimes been without a house to shelter them, and left
to wander from door to door for relief. Whether justly or not, she
appears to have been subject to general obloquy. Probably there was no
one in the country around, against whom popular suspicion could have
been more readily directed, or in whose favor and defence less interest
could be awakened. She was a forlorn, friendless, and forsaken
creature, broken down by wretchedness of condition and ill-repute. The
following are the minutes of her examination, as found among the
files:—
"_The Examination of Sarah Good before the Worshipful Esqrs. John
Hathorne and Jonathan Corwin._
"Sarah Good, what evil spirit have you familiarity with?—None.
"Have you made no contracts with the Devil?—No.
"Why do you hurt these children?—I do not hurt them. I scorn it.
"Who do you employ then to do it?—I employ nobody.
"What creature do you employ then?—No creature: but I am falsely
accused.
"Why did you go away muttering from Mr. Parris his house?—I did not
mutter, but I thanked him for what he gave my child.
"Have you made no contract with the Devil?—No.
"Hathorne desired the children all of them to look upon her, and see if
this were the person that hurt them; and so they all did look upon her,
and said this was one of the persons that did torment them. Presently
they were all tormented.[ii.14]
"Sarah Good, do you not see now what you have done? Why do you not tell
us the truth? Why do you thus torment these poor children?—I do not
torment them.
"Who do you employ then?—I employ nobody. I scorn it.
"How came they thus tormented?—What do I know? You bring others here,
and now you charge me with it.
"Why, who was it?—I do not know but it was some you brought into the
meeting-house with you.
"We brought you into the meeting-house.—But you brought in two more.
"Who was it, then, that tormented the children?—It was Osburn.
"What is it you say when you go muttering away from persons' houses?—If
I must tell, I will tell.
"Do tell us then.—If I must tell, I will tell: it is the Commandments.
I may say my Commandments, I hope.
"What Commandment is it?—If I must tell you, I will tell: it is a
psalm.
"What psalm?
"(After a long time she muttered over some part of a psalm.)
"Who do you serve?—I serve God.
"What God do you serve?—The God that made heaven and earth (though she
was not willing to mention the word 'God'). Her answers were in a very
wicked, spiteful manner, reflecting and retorting against the authority
with base and abusive words; and many lies she was taken in. It was
here said that her husband had said that he was afraid that she either
was a witch or would be one very quickly. The worshipful Mr. Hathorne,
asked him his reason why he[ii.15] said so of her, whether he had ever
seen any thing by her. He answered 'No, not in this nature; but it was
her bad carriage to him: and indeed,' said he, 'I may say with tears,
that she is an enemy to all good.'"
The foregoing is in the handwriting of Ezekiel Cheever. The following
is in that of John Hathorne:—
"Salem Village, March the 1st, 1692.—Sarah Good, upon examination,
denied the matter of fact (viz.) that she ever used any witchcraft, or
hurt the abovesaid children, or any of them.
"The abovenamed children, being all present, positively accused her of
hurting of them sundry times within this two months, and also that
morning. Sarah Good denied that she had been at their houses in said
time or near them, or had done them any hurt. All the abovesaid
children then present accused her face to face; upon which they were
all dreadfully tortured and tormented for a short space of time; and,
the affliction and tortures being over, they charged said Sarah Good
again that she had then so tortured them, and came to them and did it,
although she was personally then kept at a considerable distance from
them.
"Sarah Good being asked if that she did not then hurt them, who did it;
and the children being again tortured, she looked upon them, and said
that it was one of them we brought into the house with us. We asked her
who it was: she then answered, and said it was Sarah Osburn, and Sarah
Osburn was then under custody, and not in the house; and the children,
being quickly after recovered out of their fit, said that it was Sarah
Good and also Sarah Osburn that then did hurt and torment or afflict
them, although both of them at the same time at a distance[ii.16] or
remote from them personally. There were also sundry other questions put
to her, and answers given thereunto by her according as is also given
in."
It will be noticed that the examination was conducted in the form of
questions put by the magistrate, Hathorne, based upon a foregone
conclusion of the prisoner's guilt, and expressive of a conviction, all
along on his part, that the evidence of "the afflicted" against her
amounted to, and was, absolute demonstration. It will also be noticed,
that, severe as was the opinion of her husband in reference to her
general conduct, he could not be made to say that he had ever noticed
any thing in her of the nature of witchcraft. The torments the girls
affected to experience in looking at her must have produced an
overwhelming effect on the crowd, as they did on the magistrate, and
even on the poor, amazed creature herself. She did not seem to doubt
the reality of their sufferings. In this, and in all cases, it must be
remembered that the account of the examination comes to us from those
who were under the wildest excitement against the prisoners; that no
counsel was allowed them; that, if any thing was suffered to be said in
their defence by others, it has failed to reach us; that the accused
persons were wholly unaccustomed to such scenes and exposures,
unsuspicious of the perils of a cross-examination, or of an inquisition
conducted with a design to entrap and ensnare; and that what they did
say was liable to be misunderstood, as well as misrepresented. We
cannot hear their story. All we know is from parties[ii.17] prejudiced,
to the highest degree, against them. Sarah Good was an unfortunate and
miserable woman in her circumstances and condition: but, from all that
appears on the record, making due allowance for the credulity,
extravagance, prejudice, folly, or malignity of the witnesses; giving
full effect to every thing that can claim the character of substantial
force alleged against her, it is undeniable, that there was not, beyond
the afflicted girls, a particle of evidence to sustain the charge on
which she was arraigned; and that, in the worst aspect of her case, she
was an object for compassion, rather than punishment. Altogether, the
proceedings against her, which terminated with her execution, were
cruel and shameful to the highest degree.
On the conclusion of her examination, she was removed from the
meeting-house, and Sarah Osburn brought in. Her selection, as one of
the persons to be first cried out upon, was judicious. The public mind
was prepared to believe the charge against her. Her original name was
Sarah Warren. She was married, April 5, 1662, to Robert Prince, who
belonged to a leading family, and owned a valuable farm. He died early,
leaving her with two young children, James and Joseph.
In the early colonial period, it was the custom for persons who desired
to come from the old country to America, but had not the means to
defray the expenses of the passage, to let or sell themselves, for a
greater or less length of time, to individuals residing here who needed
their service. The practice continued[ii.18] down to the present
century. Emigrants who thus sold themselves for a period of years were
called "redemptioners." Alexander Osburn came over from Ireland in this
character. The widow of Robert Prince bought out the residue of his
time from the person to whom he was thus under contract, for fifteen
pounds, and employed him to carry on her farm. After a while, she
married him. This, it is probable, gave rise to some criticism; and, as
her boys grew up, became more and more disagreeable to them. The
marriage, as was natural, led to unhappy results. In 1720, after Osburn
had been dead some years, a curious case was brought into court, in
which the sons of Robert Prince testified that Osburn treated their
mother and them with great cruelty and barbarity. They had become of
age before their mother's death, and had signed their names to a deed
conveying away land belonging to their patrimony. The object of the
suit was to invalidate the conveyance by proving that they were
compelled by Osburn to sign the deed, he using threats and violence
upon them at the time. There was an extraordinary conflict of testimony
in the trial; some witnesses strongly corroborating the accusations of
the Princes, and some equally strong in vindication of the character of
Osburn. It was shown, that, in the opinion of several of his neighbors,
he was an industrious, respectable, and worthy person. It is difficult
to determine the precise merits of the case. After the death of his
wife, Osburn married Ruth, a daughter of William Cantlebury, and widow
of William Sibley.[ii.19] She was a woman of unquestioned excellence of
character, and of a large landed estate. Osburn was her third husband,
the first having been Thomas Small. After her marriage to Osburn, he
and she joined the church, and were reputable persons in all respects.
He was well regarded as a citizen, and often on the parish committee.
Neither he nor the widow Sibley appear to have been implicated in the
witchcraft proceedings in any other particular than that he testified
that his then wife Sarah had not been for some time at meeting. There
is no indication that this was volunteer testimony. He and his wife
Ruth were among the firmest opponents of Mr. Parris. There is no
mention of his having had children by either of his American wives. His
son John, who probably came with him to the country, was an inhabitant
of the Village; and his name is on the rate-list, for the last time, in
1718, his father having died some years before. The Osborne family, in
this part of the country, does not appear to have sprung from this
source.
Without attempting to decide where, or in what proportions, the blame
is to be laid, the fact is evident, that the marriage of the widow
Sarah Prince to Alexander Osburn was an unhappy one. Her mind became
depressed, if not distracted. For some time, she had been bedridden. Of
course, as she had occupied a respectable social position, and was a
woman of property, her case naturally gave rise to scandal. Rumor was
busy and gossip rife in reference to her; and it was quite natural that
she should have been suggested[ii.20] for the accusing girls to pitch
upon. The following is an account of her examination by the
magistrates, in the handwriting of John Hathorne:—
"Sarah Osburne, upon examination, denied the matter of fact, viz., that
she ever understood or used any witchcraft, or hurt any of the
abovesaid children.
"The children above named, being all personally present, accused her
face to face; which, being done, they were all hurt, afflicted, and
tortured very much; which, being over, and they out of their fits, they
said that said Sarah Osburne did then come to them, and hurt them,
Sarah Osburne being then kept at a distance personally from them. Sarah
Osburne was asked why she then hurt them. She denied it. It being asked
of her how she could so pinch and hurt them, and yet she be at that
distance personally from them, she answered she did not then hurt them,
nor ever did. She was asked who, then, did it, or who she employed to
do it. She answered she did not know that the Devil goes about in her
likeness to do any hurt. Sarah Osburne, being told that Sarah Good, one
of her companions, had, upon examination, accused her, she,
notwithstanding, denied the same, according to her examination, which
is more at large given in, as therein will appear."
The following is in the handwriting of Ezekiel Cheever:—
"_Sarah Osburn her Examination._
"What evil spirit have you familiarity with?—None.
"Have you made no contract with the Devil?—No: I never saw the Devil in
my life.
"Why do you hurt these children?—I do not hurt them.[ii.21]
"Who do you employ, then, to hurt them?—I employ nobody.
"What familiarity have you with Sarah Good?—None: I have not seen her
these two years.
"Where did you see her then?—One day, agoing to town.
"What communications had you with her?—I had none, only 'How do you
do?' or so. I do not know her by name.
"What did you call her, then?
"(Osburn made a stand at that; at last, said she called her Sarah.)
"Sarah Good saith that it was you that hurt the children.—I do not know
that the Devil goes about in my likeness to do any hurt.
"Mr. Hathorne desired all the children to stand up, and look upon her,
and see if they did know her, which they all did; and every one of them
said that this was one of the women that did afflict them, and that
they had constantly seen her in the very habit that she was now in.
Three evidences declared that she said this morning, that she was more
like to be bewitched than that she was a witch. Mr. Hathorne asked her
what made her say so. She answered that she was frighted one time in
her sleep, and either saw, or dreamed that she saw, a thing like an
Indian all black, which did pinch her in her neck, and pulled her by
the back part of her head to the door of the house.
"Did you never see any thing else?—No.
"(It was said by some in the meeting-house, that she had said that she
would never believe that lying spirit any more.)
"What lying spirit is this? Hath the Devil ever deceived you, and been
false to you?—I do not know the Devil. I never did see him.[ii.22]
"What lying spirit was it, then?—It was a voice that I thought I heard.
"What did it propound to you?—That I should go no more to meeting; but
I said I would, and did go the next sabbath-day.
"Were you never tempted further?—No.
"Why did you yield thus far to the Devil as never to go to meeting
since?—Alas! I have been sick, and not able to go.
"Her husband and others said that she had not been at meeting three
years and two months."
The foregoing illustrates the unfairness practised by the examining
magistrate. He took for granted, as we shall find to have been the case
in all instances, the guilt of the prisoner, and endeavored to entangle
her by leading questions, thus involving her in contradiction. By the
force of his own assumptions, he had compelled Sarah Good to admit the
reality of the sufferings of the girls, and that they must be caused by
some one. The amount of what she had said was, that, if caused by one
or the other of them, "then it must be Osburn," for she was sure of her
own innocence. This expression, to which she was driven in
self-exculpation, was perverted by the reporter, Ezekiel Cheever, and
by the magistrate, into an indirect confession and a direct accusation
of Osburn. In the absence of Good, the magistrate told Osburn that Good
had confessed and accused her. This was a misrepresentation of one, and
a false and fraudulent trick upon the other. Considering the feeble
condition of Sarah Osburn generally, the snares by which she[ii.23] was
beset, the distressing and bewildering circumstances in which she was
placed, and the infirm state of her reason, as evidenced in her
statement of what she saw, or dreamed that she saw and heard,—not
having a clear idea which,—her answers, as reported by the prosecutors,
show that her broken and disordered mind was essentially truthful and
innocent.
Sarah Osburn was removed from the meeting-house, and Tituba brought in
and examined, as follows:—
"Tituba, what evil spirit have you familiarity with?—None.
"Why do you hurt these children?—I do not hurt them.
"Who is it then?—The Devil, for aught I know.
"Did you never see the Devil?—The Devil came to me, and bid me serve
him.
"Who have you seen?—Four women sometimes hurt the children.
"Who were they?—Goody Osburn and Sarah Good, and I do not know who the
others were. Sarah Good and Osburn would have me hurt the children, but
I would not.
"(She further saith there was a tall man of Boston that she did see.)
"When did you see them?—Last night, at Boston.
"What did they say to you?—They said, 'Hurt the children.'
"And did you hurt them?—No: there is four women and one man, they hurt
the children, and then they lay all upon me; and they tell me, if I
will not hurt the children, they will hurt me.[ii.24]
"But did you not hurt them?—Yes; but I will hurt them no more.
"Are you not sorry that you did hurt them?—Yes.
"And why, then, do you hurt them?—They say, 'Hurt children, or we will
do worse to you.'
"What have you seen?—A man come to me, and say, 'Serve me.'
"What service?—Hurt the children: and last night there was an
appearance that said, 'Kill the children;' and, if I would not go on
hurting the children, they would do worse to me.
"What is this appearance you see?—Sometimes it is like a hog, and
sometimes like a great dog.
"(This appearance she saith she did see four times.)
"What did it say to you?—The black dog said, 'Serve me;' but I said, 'I
am afraid.' He said, if I did not, he would do worse to me.
"What did you say to it?—I will serve you no longer. Then he said he
would hurt me; and then he looks like a man, and threatens to hurt me.
(She said that this man had a yellow-bird that kept with him.) And he
told me he had more pretty things that he would give me, if I would
serve him.
"What were these pretty things?—He did not show me them.
"What else have you seen?—Two cats; a red cat, and a black cat.
"What did they say to you?—They said, 'Serve me.'
"When did you see them?—Last night; and they said, 'Serve me;' but I
said I would not.
"What service?—She said, hurt the children.[ii.25]
"Did you not pinch Elizabeth Hubbard this morning?—The man brought her
to me, and made pinch her.
"Why did you go to Thomas Putnam's last night, and hurt his child?—They
pull and haul me, and make go.
"And what would they have you do?—Kill her with a knife.
"(Lieutenant Fuller and others said at this time, when the child saw
these persons, and was tormented by them, that she did complain of a
knife,—that they would have her cut her head off with a knife.)
"How did you go?—We ride upon sticks, and are there presently.
"Do you go through the trees or over them?—We see nothing, but are
there presently.
"Why did you not tell your master?—I was afraid: they said they would
cut off my head if I told.
"Would you not have hurt others, if you could?—They said they would
hurt others, but they could not.
"What attendants hath Sarah Good?—A yellow-bird, and she would have
given me one.
"What meat did she give it?—It did suck her between her fingers.
"Did you not hurt Mr. Curren's child?—Goody Good and Goody Osburn told
that they did hurt Mr. Curren's child, and would have had me hurt him
too; but I did not.
"What hath Sarah Osburn?—Yesterday she had a thing with a head like a
woman, with two legs and wings.
"(Abigail Williams, that lives with her uncle Mr. Parris, said that she
did see the same creature, and it turned into the shape of Goodie
Osburn.)
"What else have you seen with Osburn?—Another thing, hairy: it goes
upright like a man, it hath only two legs.[ii.26]
"Did you not see Sarah Good upon Elizabeth Hubbard, last Saturday?—I
did see her set a wolf upon her to afflict her.
"(The persons with this maid did say that she did complain of a wolf.
She further said that she saw a cat with Good at another time.)
"What clothes doth the man go in?—He goes in black clothes; a tall man,
with white hair, I think.
"How doth the woman go?—In a white hood, and a black hood with a
top-knot.
"Do you see who it is that torments these children now?—Yes: it is
Goody Good; she hurts them in her own shape.
"Who is it that hurts them now?—I am blind now: I cannot see.
"Written by Ezekiel Cheever.
"Salem Village, March the 1st, 1692."
Another report of Tituba's examination has been preserved, and may be
found in the second volume of the collection edited by Samuel G. Drake,
entitled the "Witchcraft Delusion in New England." It is in the
handwriting of Jonathan Corwin, very full and minute, and shows that
the Indian woman was familiar with all the ridiculous and monstrous
fancies then prevalent. The details of her statement cover nearly the
whole ground of them. While indicating, in most respects, a mind at the
lowest level of general intelligence, they give evidence of cunning and
wariness in the highest degree. This document is also valuable, as it
affords information about particulars, incidentally mentioned and thus
rescued from oblivion, which[ii.27] serve to bring back the life of the
past. Tituba describes the dresses of some of the witches: "A black
silk hood, with a white silk hood under it, with top-knots." One of
them wore "a serge coat, with a white cap." The Devil appeared "in
black clothes sometimes, sometimes serge coat of other color." She
speaks of the "lean-to chamber" in the parsonage, and describes an
aërial night ride "up" to Thomas Putnam's. "How did you go? What did
you ride upon?" asked the wondering magistrate. "I ride upon a stick,
or pole, and Good and Osburn behind me: we ride taking hold of one
another; don't know how we go, for I saw no trees nor path, but was
presently there when we were up." In both reports, Tituba describes,
quite graphically, the likenesses in which the Devil appeared to his
confederates; but Corwin gives the details more fully than Cheever.
What the latter reports of the appearances in which the Devil
accompanied Osburn, the former amplifies. "The thing with two legs and
wings, and a face like a woman," "turns" into a full woman. The "hairy
thing" becomes "a thing all over hairy, all the face hairy, and a long
nose, and I don't know how to tell how the face looks; is about two or
three feet high, and goeth upright like a man; and, last night, it
stood before the fire in Mr. Parris's hall."
It is quite evident that the part played by the Indian woman on this
occasion was pre-arranged. She had, from the first, been concerned with
the circle of girls in their necromantic operations; and her
state[ii.28]ments show the materials out of which their ridiculous and
monstrous stories were constructed. She said that there were four who
"hurt the children." Upon being pressed by the magistrate to tell who
they were, she named Osburn and Good, but did "not know who the others
were." Two others were marked; but it was not thought best to bring
them out until these three examinations had first been made to tell
upon the public mind. Tituba had been apprised of Elizabeth Hubbard's
story, that she had been "pinched" that morning; and, as well as
"Lieutenant Fuller and others," had heard of the delirious exclamation
of Thomas Putnam's sick child during the night. "Abigail Williams, that
lives with her uncle Parris," had communicated to the Indian slave the
story of "the woman with two legs and wings." In fact, she had been
fully admitted to their councils, and made acquainted with all the
stories they were to tell. But, when it became necessary to avoid
specifications touching parties whose names it had been decided not to
divulge at that stage of the business, the wily old servant escapes
further interrogation, "I am blind now: I cannot see."
Proceedings connected with these examinations were continued several
days. The result appears, in the handwriting of John Hathorne, as
follows:—
"Salem Village, March 1, 1691/2.—Tituba, an Indian woman, brought
before us by Constable Jos. Herrick, of Salem, upon suspicion of
witchcraft by her committed, according to the complaint of Jos.
Hutchinson and Thomas[ii.29] Putnam, &c., of Salem Village, as appears
per warrant granted, Salem, 29th February, 1691/2. Tituba, upon
examination, and after some denial, acknowledged the matter of fact,
as, according to her examination given in, more fully will appear, and
who also charged Sarah Good and Sarah Osburn with the same.