Witch Trial Basics
Q: What is the difference between a
Puritan and a Pilgrim? Where did they settle?
A: "Pilgrim" is a modern term for a
17th-century Englishman who believed in complete separation from the Anglican
church.
Pilgrims generally settled in
Plymouth Colony, south of Boston, and referred to themselves as "separatists."
Puritans were 17th-century Englishmen who wanted to purify the Anglican church
by removing all traces of Catholic papist trappings, such as crosses, vestments,
or anything resembling Catholicism. They generally settled in the Boston area
starting around 1630. Plymouth Colony was absorbed into Massachusetts Bay Colony
in 1692.
Q: How was witchcraft defined in the
17th century?
A: In the 17th century, witches were
both male and female persons who had made a pact to serve the devil. In
exchange, the devil passed along certain powers to the witches. According to
confessed witch William Barker, the devil promised to pay all Barker's debts and
that he would live comfortably. The devil also told him that he wanted to set up
his own kingdom where there would be neither punishment nor shame for
sin.
Q: To what degree did one's
socio-economic position play a part in the trials? Were any of the "elite" ever
named as witches or was this primarily the plight of the agrarian community?
A: In most witchcraft cases, the
status and sex of the witch had much to do with who was accused. It began that
way with 1692 Salem, but eventually became much more democratic as to who was
accused. Many men were accused, as were a number of church members and upper
class types, including Philip English, one of the Colony's richest men. It is
true that rich or influential persons could find means of escape.
Q: What was the average age of the
"witches" and the "afflicted" persons?
A: In the Salem cases, accused
witches could be any age, from a four-year-old girl up to individuals in their
80s and 90s. As for the "afflicted ones," most were adolescent girls between the
ages of 9 and 18, though they were joined by some older women and by at least
two adolescent boys.
Q: What is known about Tituba?
A: If it weren't for the Salem
witchcraft proceedings, we would know nothing about Tituba. And precious little
is known about her. Almost nothing is written about lower-class people of that
era. There is evidence that suggests that Tituba was not black but an Indian.
After her imprisonment, Tituba was sold by the Reverend Parris, and the rest of
her existence was lost to history.
Q: Were Salem witches ever burned at
the stake?
A: No. According to English law,
which prevailed in New England at the time, witchcraft was a felony punishable
by hanging. In continental Europe witchcraft was heresy against the church and
was punishable by burning at the stake .
Q: What happened to the so-called
"afflicted" girls?
A: Most of those young women have
been lost to history. The young ones married, changed their names, and moved
away. Several remained in the area, however. Ann Putnam never married, but
eventually made an apology for 1692 and became a full member of the Salem
Village church. She was said to be "sickly" and is known to have died young.
Elizabeth Parris married and moved about 20 miles from Salem Village to
Concord.
Q: Why were some of the accused
convicted even after they maintained that they were Christians? How were the
cases investigated? What evidence was found?
A: Generally, citizens made
complaints against individuals, who were then brought before magistrates for
preliminary hearings. When magistrates felt that there was sufficient evidence
for a trial, the accused was jailed pending a hearing before a grand jury. And
if those juries handed up a "true bill" (signifying evidence of misbehavior), a
formal trial by jury could follow.
The formal trial followed
17th-century English precedents, in which the accused were not represented by
lawyers but could question accusers and witnesses. Most, however, were not
emotionally or intellectually equipped to defend themselves against a hanging
court and hysterical witnesses--over 40 persons confessed to being witches.
Remember also. Not all were convicted and died, not all were 'innocent', there
were true witches accused. but many more innocents. Witches knew the consequence
of 'standing out.'
The numbers who died as a result
of the craze is at best arbitrary.
Many of the accused died in
prison waiting for trials. many went mad and never heard from again. Many 'met
their bond' and in the interim fled so never be seen again.and a few of those
were hung in obsolete areas of countrysides. Well researched reports vary from
19 to as many as 57. The numbers are insignificant to me. One is too many. Witch
or not.
The historical irony is that only
those who did not confess to being witches were actually tried and convicted.
And with "spectral evidence" being accepted, your accuser is the only person who
presents and verifies your "crime." So, you could say the afflicted girls
provided the evidence while sometimes other confessed witches corroborated
it.
Q: Why were they considered witches?
A: If you confessed that you were a
witch, as Tituba did, they could use this as prima facia evidence. Over 40
people in 1692 did in fact confess, and in some instances those confessing
accused others. Also, the court tended to believe the afflicted--those who
claimed to be tormented by the spectres of witches--and the spectral evidence
exhibited within the court itself really made believers of those who were
present. Judge Stoughton and other prominent officials believed that God would
not allow the spectre of an innocent person to afflict others.
Q: Was Giles Cory pressed to death
because he wanted to hold onto his estate?
A: No. Although convicted witches
might have had their personal estates confiscated according to the law, their
land could be inherited. Cory was most likely showing his complete distaste for
the court and its legitimacy. When Cory was indicted, he refused to enter a plea
to be tried.
Q: What brought about the end of the
Salem witchcraft hysteria? Did some of the judges refuse to convict for reasons
of conscience?
A: There were a number of factors
that ended the hysteria. The chief reason was that "spectral evidence" against
the accused was eventually disallowed, which meant there wasn't enough
additional evidence to bring about convictions.
Q: When did the people of Salem
realize that they had made a grave error?
A: By 1693 is was recognized that
incorrect procedures and invalid proofs had been used. Most people, however,
still believed in witchcraft as a reality. Following the trials, the people felt
that the devil was still loose among them, but that he had deluded people into
believing that innocents were witches.
Although by 1700 most learned people
doubted the reality of witchcraft, there were scattered witchcraft accusations
in America far into the 18th century.
Q: Did the British crown take any
action on this matter or was it left to the colony?
A: Obviously there was a
communication problem at that time in terms of asking for advice and receiving
responses from the mother country. Even if there had been instant communication,
the English government would most likely have kept its hands off what was
considered a local problem. Massachusetts Governor Phips, as the representative
of the Crown, was expected to take care of his provincial problems. Phips
received some advice--when it was almost all over--that said "Do what you think
is appropriate."
Q: Are there any witchcraft laws
today in Salem?
A: There are no Massachusetts
statutes with respect to witchcraft. In 1992 the Massachusetts House of
Representatives passed a resolution acknowledging the good names of those
condemned witches of 1692 who had not been previously exonerated.
Witches now face a crisis. As
new data appears, historians altered their theories to account for it. We have
not. Therefore an enormous gap has opened between the academic and the "average"
Pagan view of witchcraft. We continue to use of out-dated and poor writers, like
Margaret Murray, Montague Summers, Gerald Gardner, and Jules Michelet. We avoid
the somewhat dull academic texts that present solid research, preferring
sensational writers who play to our emotions. For example, I have never seen a
copy of Brian Levack's The Witch Hunt in Early Modern Europe in a Pagan
bookstore. Yet half the stores I visit carry Anne Llewellyn Barstow's
Witchcraze, a deeply flawed book which has been ignored or reviled by most
scholarly historians.