Escaping Salem: The Other Witch Hunt of 1692 - Essay Example

Witch Trials of the 17th Century The Credibility of Katherine Branch Katherine Branch’s credibility as an accuser is questionable. Her fits and torments are dubious at best. From a legal perspective, the testimonies were not even convincing. Of all the testimonies given against the two accused—Disborough and Clawson—extremely few provided any sign of a connection between the Devil and the defendants. One of the numerous battles of Katherine against her supernatural tormentors gives a vital hint why she accused the Devil. On this specific event, she communicated with the spirits tormenting her and that two ministers—Thomas Hanford and John Bishop—had encouraged her not to give in. These two ministers had just seen Katherine and had talked with her extensively. It is possible that they could have convinced her that her fits were a result of fiendish attack. Importantly, there was no proof that she said that the Devil was her tormentor before the ministers talked with her. Katherine’s testimonies before the court became more and more questionable. The niece of Abigail Wescott, Lidia Penoir, revealed an exchange where in Katherine said that she cannot remember saying that she was bewitched. She also told the court about the observation of her aunt Abigail about Katherine: “shee saith that shee heard her a[u]nt Abigail wescot say that her servant girl Catern branch was such a Lying gairl that not any boddy Could believe one word what shee said” (Godbeer 56). The nature of the fits and troubles of Katherine seems to prove this accusation. It seems that she was counterfeiting her fits. There were several instances that prove assumption. Joseph Garnsey testified that he and Nathaniel Wyatt were at the Wescott’s house when Katherine had a convulsion. When they feigned to cut her, her convulsion instantly ceased and she admitted that she was bewitched (Godbeer 55). The testimony of Sarah Bates revealed the same thing—the questionable nature of Katherine’s fits. She said that when she agreed to Abigail Westcott’s suggestion to bleed the unconscious, flaccid Katherine, she became conscious instantly. After pricking Katherine’s foot with a pin, the girl had an extreme convulsion that Abigail Westcott started to scream and exclaim that she was bedeviled. Upon hearing this, according to Sarah’s testimony, Katherine laughed and made an attempt to bury her head in a pillow to hide her amusement (Godbeer 16). This testimony alone suggests that Katherine was faking her convulsions. Another testimony that strongly proved Katherine’s fake epileptic fits was the minister’s. According to his written statement, the mother of Katherine had experienced similar violent convulsions (Godbeer 17). Hence it is possible that Katherine’s predicaments were a medical disorder passed on to her by her mother. But all of these are only assumptions. It is very difficult, almost impossible, to determine if Katherine was telling the truth or not. But based on the testimonies, Katherine was probably trying to deceive the people around her. For what reason/s, it will remain a mystery forever. Puritanism and Witchcraft Stamford was an isolated southwestern colony of Puritan New England. The locals were largely associated with Puritanism and English ancestry. The conditions in this Puritan town encouraged obsession with witchcraft and reinforced the accusatory nature of the mania. Puritan ministers did not preach that women were naturally more wicked or malevolent than their male counterparts, but they believed that women were more vulnerable to evil desires and instincts. Historian Elizabeth Reis explained that “colonists shared with their English brethren the belief that women’s bodies were physically weaker than men’s” (Godbeer 150) and that consequently “the Devil could more frequently and successfully gain access to and possess women’s souls” (Godbeer 150). Puritan ministers preach to the New England worshipers that it was Eve who was the cause of the fall of man because of giving in to Satan and seducing Adam; every woman became heir to that devious combination of power and vulnerability from Eve. But certain women were more prone to accusations of witchcraft. During the 17th century, women became prone to charges of witchcraft if they were discovered abandoning their predetermined position in a gendered order that Puritanism believed to be decreed by God. Such limitation in Puritan gender principle became disastrous for women. Women whose actions or situations appeared to unsettle the social order or status quo could simply forfeit their standing as Handmaidens of the Lord and come to be labeled as the Servant of Satan (Godbeer 152). Women who displayed too much aggression and rebelliousness or who were not able to submit to men’s authority, such as Mercy Disborough and Elizabeth Clawson, were more vulnerable to accusations. These two women had qualities that made them highly prone to accusations of witchcraft—they were old, strong-minded, assertive, and fearless. Most New Englanders thought that these attitudes were completely improper in women (Godbeer 152-153). In addition to the initial allegations made, Puritans were likely to view the existence of witchcraft as a perilous corrupting element. It appears the anxiety over the possibility of natives attacking them contributed much to the paranoia, because the Puritans viewed the natives as associated with evil deeds and sorcery. Hence, they were easily persuaded that the devil was always trying to wreak havoc on them. As a result, they became strongly convinced that the devil could possess a mortal soul or the physical body (Godbeer 153). Moreover, the witch trials were taken advantage by some influential families to gain leverage over their enemies. And there were accounts suggesting that there could have been a mind-altering drug that contaminated foodstuffs during the 17th century. This drug made a large number of individuals vulnerable to hallucinations, wrongly relating these to black magic. Conducting Witch Trials In numerous instances where there were circumstantial or questionable evidence, magistrates dispensed punishment devoid of death, although they expressed their thought that the accused was, indeed, guilty. Several criminal acts that were punishable by death were very difficult to correctly determine, particularly with cases related to witchcraft—a paranormal and hence indiscernible offense. If the accused was eager to plead guilty, the problem vanished (Godbeer 88-89). However, magistrates assigned to handle witch trials had to confront not just the rigid legal rules but also with the clash between expert and religious opinions. Magistrates at times made attempts to deal with public rage by acknowledging in their official rulings that legal acquittal did not automatically indicate ‘genuine’ innocence. In a particular case they discovered the defendant “suspiciously guilty of witchcraft, but not legally guilty according to law and evidence received” (Godbeer 90). William Jones was aware that almost all of the testimonies given by Compo and Stamford occupants associated with misfortunes that took place after altercations with either of the defendants. He approved of the legal professionals’ statement that such circumstantial evidence was barely strong enough to justify a death sentence. However, it could have hit him as disastrous that this kind of evidence was considered “strong grounds of suspicion” (Godbeer 101) for an official investigation and still refuted as an evidence of conviction. Jones may not have anticipated the task of clarifying to those who were convinced that Disborough and Clawson were guilty why majority of the testimonies proving their guilt were legally ‘insufficient’ (Godbeer 102). The trial of Disborough and Clawson would confirm the diplomatic and judicial talents of Jones and the other magistrates. But Jones went to Fairfield completely ready and informed, having armed himself of relevant knowledge on the process of conducting and handling a witch trial. Almost all of the laws, written statements, pamphlets, and books he studied had been written in England, such as Guide to Grand-Jury Men by Richard Bernard and Discourse on the Damned Art of Witchcraft by William Perkins (Godbeer 91). These two scholars tried to introduce a simple and trustworthy process for determining the guilt of those accused with witchcraft; Jones thought that their thorough explanation of the subject matters involved was very helpful. An educated reverend who resided in Boston, Increase Mather, had written in 1684 the Essay for the Recording of Illustrious Providences. This written work was a source of knowledge on the issue of witchcraft and other paranormal occurrences (Godbeer 91). Jones summed up the knowledge that he obtained from these different authors in his journals that would inform or help him as he evaluated the testimonies and evidence against the defendants in the Fairfield witch trial. Hence prepared, Jones aimed to serve a praiseworthy function in the trial as it tried to manage its dual functions as God’s weapon against evil deeds and a powerful representative of the law. The letter of Jones was separated into two—a record of valid justifications for conducting an official investigation after an allegation of witchcraft (Godbeer 91-92). As stated by the scholars he studied, authorities should carry out an inquiry if any of the stated conditions was satisfied. Differences between Salem Witch Hunt and Stamford Witch Trials Preliminary hearings were conducted by the magistrates, following a process resembling that of the Salem witch trials. Guided by the careful investigation and gathering of evidence, the court’s procedures seem to have been thoroughly and correctly followed, resulting finally in the dropping of charges against the defendants, and then finally by the freeing of Disborough and Clawson, Disborough freed on appeal and Clawson being freed by the jury (Godbeer 126). But there were numerous differences between Salem witch trials and those held in Stamford. Connecticut, unlike Massachusetts, was not in a violent and perilous war; it was also less influenced by Puritanism and more open to doubt despite such allegations. None of these factors weaken the impact of Jones’s determined use of legal and scientific processes, which resulted in a decision very different from that of Salem. The Fairfield witch trial of 1692 followed a quite different path from the mania in Salem. The residents of Stamford were mostly careful in responding to the accusations of Katherine. The authorities assigned to deal with this problem declined to make reckless judgments about the suspects and demanded thorough and correct gathering of evidence and legal procedures—if the accused were to die, their culpability should be beyond reasonable doubt (Godbeer 8-9). The Salem witch trials created a stereotype of 17th-century residents of New England as careless in their accusations. Such stereotype developed in Salem, which was, in its magnitude and extent of panic, not like other occurrences of witch trials in New England (Godbeer 8). There were obvious similarities between the Stamford and Salem witch hysterias. Both started with unexplainable convulsions that numerous residents viewed as inflicted by witchcraft. In 1692, magistrates started dispensing death penalties against the accused of witchcraft in Salem based on testimonies and evidence that several experts and lay people found questionable. Those who challenged the decision of the court were certain of the presence of witchcraft (Godbeer 8). Almost all of them were also convinced that the tormented in Salem were victims of witchcraft. However, the evidence given against the suspects was, according to some, inadequate to determine the guilt of the accused. By the latter part of 1692, criticisms of the court had become quite intense that the Massachusetts’s governor realized he had to dismiss the trials. The Salem witch trials have been infamous from then on (Godbeer 8-9). In contrast, the Connecticut witch trials did not start until the mid-part of 1692. The magistrates in the Fairfield witch trials were committed to prevent the disastrous inaccuracies of decisions that they assumed had took place in Salem. Indeed, the magistrates decided to put on trial only those accused whom there were proofs from witnesses besides Katherine Branch. The negligible magnitude of the witch trials in Connecticut, particularly in comparison to what was taking place in Massachusetts, explains its consequent insignificance (Godbeer 9-10). However, for the two of the accused, Disborough and Clawson, the witch hysteria in Connecticut was no insignificant part of human history. Work Cited Godbeer, Richard. Escaping Salem: The Other Witch Hunt of 1692. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print. Read More