Laura Neller

Witchcraft Practices in Salem, Massachusetts

Keywords: 17^th century witchcraft, Salem, afflicted girls, the accused, the Devil’s pact, inflicting harm, Tituba, Sarah Good, Judge Hathorne

I. Abstract

Witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts was a system of belief in which the community at large played the main role in defining its main characteristics and practices. Witchcraft in Salem was not in fact a practice in which those who associated with it openly proclaimed themselves as witches. Instead, Salem’s society took upon themselves the task of defining and labeling of who was and was not a witch. The cases of the afflicted girls and the trials of the accused women stand as evidence that Salem deemed witchcraft to be an evil within society that needed to be eradicated. The result of this was the discrediting of the belief that the accused women or “witches” had made a pact with the Devil with the ultimate intent of harming and tormenting the innocent. Defining witchcraft in Salem relied heavily upon the subjectivity of the community and what they were willing to accept or believe to be witchcraft.

II. Scope and Purpose of System

The system of witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts was initially labeled and identified in large part due a group of teenage girls who were believed to be “afflicted” or tormented by witchcraft. The unusual behaviors of these girls began in the household of a Salem minister by the name of Samuel Parris. His Carib Indian slave – Tituba – had been telling the girls ghost stories and her influence upon the girls was believed by many to be the cause of affliction seen in these young women (Hall 280-281). Because of the large amount of attention that these girls caused due to their bizarre, seemingly tormented actions, the Salem community was drawn to their situation and determined to identify the cause of their suffering.

The girls were asked to explain why they were acting in such a strange manner, and they seemed to “have taken their cue from the questions of their better-informed elders, and [began] to show significant symptoms: not only a very natural distaste for the long Puritan prayers, but a real inability to say them, or the name of God; and they now had visions of the Devil and his ministers, lurking nearby” (Hoyt 122). Once questioned, the girls began to name names and identify specific members of Salem’s society who were believed to be the “witches” responsible for their suffering. The Salem community believed that one was a witch if one engaged in harmful black magic. Such black magic was further defined as making a pact with the devil with the ultimate goal of harming and afflicting the innocent (Levack vii).

In Salem, these definitions of witchcraft went hand in hand with explaining the case of the afflicted girls. Thus it became very easy for the afflicted girls to point fingers and isolate vulnerable and weak members of their society, like the slave Tituba. Along with Tituba came accusations directed towards many other women in the Salem community which in turn led to more implications. The accused women in Salem were not of high-birth or well-known to many, but were instead found to be more reclusive and on the outside of the social order (Hoyt 123).

III. Authority Structure

A) Sources and Criteria of Valid Knowledge

In Salem, knowledge of witchcraft was determined by the clerical and ruling elite as a crime in which one was directly involved with the Devil. Salem’s religious ideologies coupled with the basic beliefs of the community were responsible in large part for labeling and categorizing witches rather than the witches themselves. In Salem, witchcraft did not necessarily “manifest” itself into the society in the way the one would think. More specifically, the Salem community found itself caught up in the struggle to define the practices of witchcraft as well as eradicate them from society.

For example, the knowledge of witchcraft was highly subjective and depended to a large degree on what the people of Salem were willing to define as witchcraft. From drowning to the loss of crops and livestock, any instance of bad luck or misfortune could be constituted as an act of malice directed by a witch. The intent to harm the innocent was a key factor in defining witchcraft in Salem. Furthermore, the system of witchcraft was not one that associated itself with being inspired by God, but instead by being in alliance with the Devil. The direct result of this was a combination of black magic and demonism (Hoyt 124-125). Accumulated records and conclusions of witchcraft evidence were highly subjective for the fact that anyone could classify or identify anything with being associated with the Devil and therefore being labeled as witchcraft. Defining witchcraft in Salem was simply based upon what the people of Salem were willing to accept.

B) Methods of Inquiry

Acquiring knowledge of witchcraft in Salem was not at all rational or empirical. Instead, witchcraft was a system in which its beliefs, practices, and abilities were defined by the Salem community. From Witch-hunting in Seventeeth Century New England, a narrative entitled “The Salem Witch-hunt (1692),” offers an explanation of the “remarks of things more than ordinary about the afflicted persons” as well as the “remarks concerning the accused” (Hall 288-289). For example, since the common belief in Salem at the time of the witch trials was that these accused women were in accordance with the Devil, this primary source serves as an example of what the Salem community believed that the Devil practiced. According to this source, the general belief amongst the Salem community in the seventeenth century was that: “Satan rages principally amongst the visible subjects of Christ’s kingdom and makes use (at least in appearance) of some of them to afflict others; that Christ’s kingdom may be divided against itself, and so be weakened” (Hall 288-289). Thus with the community’s general understanding of what the Devil and the so-called witches conspired to do, it became easy for them to begin to name names and point fingers at every opportunity.

In proving that an accused woman was a witch, Salem staged a series of trials in which the accusers put forth their situation and claimed their cases to be directly caused by the influence of a witch. Specifically, Salem’s afflicted girls seemed “to have taken their cue from the questions of their better-informed elders, and [began] to show significant symptoms” (Hoyt 122). In contrast to other systems of belief or knowledge, the accused females in Salem found themselves forced to defend and explain their behaviors and practices. The result of this was that Salem courts were ultimately responsible in issuing the final decision as to who was a witch (Levack ix-x).

C) Institutions and Professional Structure

Since the knowledge of witchcraft derived itself from the trials of the accused witches and the testimonies of the afflicted girls, witchcraft found its central authorities to be a separate institution that was not typically linked to the practices of witchcraft (i.e. the courts of Salem). There was no hierarchy of accredited practitioners or professional teachers with the purpose of defining what it required for one to be labeled as a witch. Society instead performed the task of distinguishing how one could recognize a witch and the powers these witches maintained.

The accused women in Salem were responsible for either accepting or clarifying the label that society gave them. Apart from the accusers and the courts, the accused women maintained a small degree of control over the system of witchcraft. For example, since these women were brought to the stand in front of the community, they had the power to captivate listeners and compel them to believe their defense. However, to the women’s dismay, the courts and the public were generally unwilling to believe or sympathize with the testimonies of such women. In this way, the women lacked power within their system. The number of witchcraft convictions and hangings in Salem are testimony to the accused women’s powerlessness in many situations.

IV. History

The origins of witchcraft in the United States date back to the days of the first New England settlers. While one may think that the witchcraft hysteria began at Salem in 1692, witchcraft actually was already a 17^th century reality in New England due to previously established beliefs and fears that were brought over from Europe. Even long before the Salem trials there were over a hundred cases of witchcraft indictments in New England. However, if it were not for the Salem episode, “in which 141 persons were charged and 30 were convicted, New England would appear to have had a relatively mild or restrained witch-hunt” because, “of the 36 executions for witchcraft trials in seventeenth-century New England, 19 occurred as a result of the Salem trials” (Levack ix). The Salem trials beginning in the winter of 1692 simply stand out for the sheer number of convictions and hangings that took place in such a short time period. Furthermore, the Salem trials are significant in serving as a major transition point in the history of witchcraft because after the trials ended, the witchcraft hysteria largely subsided in New England.

Primary sources such as the trial records fit into the history of witchcraft because they offer a perspective taken from people who were actually in Salem around the time of the trials. For example, shortly after accusing Tituba, Sarah Good was identified as a “tormentor” by the afflicted girls and was claimed to be in conspiracy with Tituba against the girls. According to a post-Salem narrative written by Reverend John Hale in 1702, the afflicted girls were “bitten and pinched by invisible agents; their arms, necks, and backs turned this way and that way, and returned back again” (Burr 413). Hale further goes on to explain, “In a short time after other persons who were of age to be witnesses, were molested by Satan, and in their fits cryed out upon Tituba and [Sarah Osborn] and [Sarah Good] that they or Specters in their Shapes did grievously torment them…” (Burr 414). Thus women like Sarah Osborn and Sarah Good labeled as being in cohorts with Tituba in tormenting and bewitching the afflicted girls and were therefore put on trial for witchcraft.

An account exists in which Judge Hathorne examines Sarah Good in the Salem court. This particular account was recorded March 1, 1691 by a man named Ezekiell Chevers. Chevers carefully documented Hathorne’s inquiry of Sarah Good:

Hathorne: Have you made no contract with the devil?

Good: No.

Mr Hathorne desired the children all of them to look upon her and see if this were the person what had hurt them, and so they all did looke upon her, and said this was one of the persons that did torment them – presently they were all tormented.

Hathorne: Sarah Good, do you not see now what you have done? Why doe you not tell us the truth? Why doe you thus torment these poor children?

Good: I doe not torment them (Woods 196).

From this primary source, it is obvious that Chevers is biased in his recording even if he recorded the events and dialogues exactly as they took place in Salem. Chevers - along with everyone else in the Salem courtroom - had a biased perspective simply because he was a part of a society that was entirely anti-witch. Whether or not Chevers’ account was biased or not is irrelevant; from his primary source it becomes clear that Judge Hathorne’s method of questioning Sarah Good was unfair. The phrasing of his questions indicates that Salem’s method of interviewing a defendant was not taken from an objective standpoint. Instead, it is obvious to readers that Hathorne believed that Sarah Good was a witch and he was determined to prove this to the Salem community through his questioning and through the example of the afflicted girls.

V. Representative Examples of Argumentation

The truth or value of the system of witchcraft is explained or defended by the major historical turning point of the Salem trials. Because the witchcraft hysteria largely dominated all aspects of Salem life for one year, the testimonies of the accused “witches” and the descriptions of what constituted a witch at this time help to further illuminate what exactly the system of witchcraft was in Salem.

The accused women were given the chance to defend themselves; however, their defenses were rarely ever accepted as being honest or even slightly acceptable in Salem society. As seen in the example of Judge Hathorne’s questioning of the witness, Sarah Good was not given ample opportunity to justly defend herself. Clearly, in Salem it did not take much for an accused woman to be condemned and hanged as a witch. The case of Sarah Good stands further testimony to this fact. While Good may have stood her ground and denied that she made any contract with the Devil or meant to torment the afflicted girls, she was nonetheless hanged along with four others. Not once did Good ever confess to being a witch and when asked to do so by the Reverend Mr. Noyes, she replied, “You are a liar. I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my life God will give you blood to drink” (Woods 198). Good’s defiance and resolve not to allow herself to be defined by the Salem society as a witch is significant. Salem’s community completely conflicted with the way in which so-called “witches” considered themselves. Ultimately, accused women like Sarah Good did not allow for the Salem community to label them as witches and their practices as witchcraft.

VI. Suggested Position in Comparative Scales

The scale here is based on 1-10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest in terms of each category relating to the system of witchcraft.

a) Relative emphasis on traditional authority (10) or the testimony of experience (1): 10, because the society of Salem at large was chiefly responsible for defining witchcraft. The authorities in Salem deemed it important to bring the accused women to a community trial but rarely did they ever believe the women’s testimonies.

b) Relative centralization of authority (10) or decentralization (1): 10, because the courts and the religious scene dominated all aspects of life in Salem.

c) Relative emphasis on invisible realities (10) or material, earthly ones (1): 8, because the accused women were supposedly in accordance with the Devil yet the Devil’s presence on earth was known through the way the accused women supposedly harmed their victims.

d) Mainly spiritual or moral objectives (10) or pragmatic aims (1): 1, because witches in Salem were believed to exorcise the power to inflict harm and suffering rather than the power to heal or predict the future. Therefore, there is little morality in the belief that witched in Salem sought to harm the innocent.

e) Most power or agency reserved for a divine being (10) or realizable in individuals (1): 10, because it was believed that witches were working solely for the Devil. Even though the witches were in control of their chosen victims, the Devil maintained the ultimate source of power.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Burr, George Lincoln. Narratives of the Witchcraft Cases. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1914.

The most helpful narrative in this book is entitled “A Modest Inquiry Into the Nature of Witchcraft, By John Hale, 1702.” This book’s preface is also particularly helpful in understanding the background of the narratives.

Hall, David D. Witch-hunting in Seventeenth Century New England. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1991.

This book offers an excerpt of a primary source entitled The Salem Witch-hunt (1692). The introductory information to this except was particularly helpful in understanding the context in which the Salem hysteria began.

Woods, William. A Casebook of Witchcraft. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1974.

The primary source “From the Examination of Sarah Good” served as evidence to support the claim that the Salem community was entirely biased towards the accused women.

Secondary Sources:

Hoyt, Charles Alva. Witchcraft. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1981.

The section of this book entitled Salem was an excellent, concise summary of the major events of the Salem witch-hunting.

Levack, Brian P. Witchcraft in Colonial America. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc, 1992.

The introductory pages of this book were found most helpful in understanding when and how witchcraft came to Colonial America.