Part 6

Chapter 63,747 wordsPublic domain

[44] “An Account of the Life and Character of Rev. Samuel Parris, of Salem village, and of his connection with the Witchcraft Delusion of 1692. By Samuel P. Fowler [of Danvers]” (Salem, 1857, 20 pp. 8vo.), is the fullest and most impartial estimate of Mr. Parris’s character which has appeared in print. Deacon Fowler is an officer of the original church of Salem village, now Danvers; he has the best collection of witch books in New-England, and is one of the most experienced antiquaries of the Essex Institute. He dispels much of the misapprehension which has existed respecting this noted clergyman.

Mr. Parris remained with his people for five years after these events, and in the midst of local disputes outside of the witchcraft tragedy. Mr. Fowler says (p. 19), “It seems there was always a majority of the parish in favor of Mr. Parris remaining with them; and there appears to have been a very general mistake with regard to his dismission from his people, they supposing that he was hastily driven away from the village; whereas he continued and maintained himself through a ministerial quarrel of five years, until he saw fit to discontinue it, when he informed his church of his intentions.”

Mr. Fowler’s entire paper is reprinted in Mr. Drake’s _Witchcraft Delusion in New-England_, vol. iii. pp. 198-221. The anonymous Ballad of 1692, _Giles Corey and Goodwyfe Corey_, which Mr. Drake reprints in the same volume (pp. 173-177), and supposes Mr. J. G. Whittier to have been the author—“as but one person could have written it”—was contributed to a Salem newspaper, more than thirty years ago, by Mr. Fitch Poole, of Danvers, now librarian of the Peabody Institute in Peabody.

[45] John Indian and his wife Tituba were slaves. In the mittimus to the jail keeper at Boston, she is described as “an Indian woman belonging to Samuel Parris of Salem village.” (Woodward’s _Records of Salem Witchcraft_, vol. i. p. 15.) Calef (p. 19) says, “she lay in jail till sold for her fees.” The Salem delusion had its origin in the fetichism practised by these two ignorant Spanish-African slaves, whom Mr. Parris probably obtained from the Barbadoes, where he was at one time in business.

[46] R. Calef. [_More Wonders_, p. 91.]

[47] Hale. [_Modest Inquiry_, p. 25, ed. 1711.]

[48] Calef. [p. 92.]

[49] This statement is a mistake, and is changed in the final draft. Mr. Parris on no occasion was employed to examine the accused. At the request of the magistrates he took down the evidence, he being a rapid penman and stenographer. On the occasion mentioned in the next paragraph, Danforth put the questions, and the record is, “Mr. Parris being desired and appointed to write out the examination, did take the same, and also read it before the council in public.”

[50] This was a meeting of the council for a preliminary examination, and not “a court” for the trial of the accused. Danforth, deputy governor; Addington, secretary, and Russell, Hathorne, Appleton, Sewall and Corwin, members of the council, were present. It was the only examination that Samuel Sewall attended. On his return to Boston he made this entry in his diary: “April 11, 1692. Went to Salem, where, in the meeting house, the persons accused of witchcraft were examined; was a very great assembly; ’twas awful to see how the afflicted were agitated.” At a later date he inserted in the margin, “_Væ, væ, væ_.” These words have been taken by a late writer “as expressions of much sensibility at the extent to which he had been misled.” He did in later years regret, and well he might, the course he took in the witchcraft trials; but he never expressed, as the writer does, his disbelief in the reality of diabolical agency as exhibited at that examination. The occasion itself was mournful enough to draw forth these exclamations from one holding his opinions; and hence they are explained without a forced interpretation.

[51] The maid here alluded to was Mary Warren, one of the most violent of the accusing girls. She was a domestic in Proctor’s family.

[52] The documents which Gov. Hutchinson printed belong with the court files at Salem, which have been very carefully arranged and mounted by Mr. William P. Upham. These papers, or such of them as remain, were printed (with many errors) by Mr. W. E. Woodward, in _Records of Salem Witchcraft_, Roxbury, 1865, 2 vols. sm. 4to. Among these the papers which Gov. Hutchinson printed do not appear. They were doubtless borrowed by him, and never returned. In the Massachusetts archives is a volume of witchcraft papers (vol. cxxxv.), but these documents are not among them.

In 1860, Mr. N. I. Bowditch presented a collection of original papers relating to Salem witchcraft, which once belonged to the Salem court files, to the Massachusetts Historical Society. More than sixty years ago these papers came into possession of the late Hon. John Pickering; who, says Mr. Bowditch, “as he was a sworn officer of the court, had some scruples of conscience about retaining them himself; and therefore, after examining them, gave them to my late father [Dr. Nathaniel Bowditch]. (Proceedings, 1860-62, p. 31).” The collection has been arranged and elegantly bound at the expense of Mr. Bowditch. The volume does not contain the papers printed by Gov. Hutchinson. As Gov. Hutchinson printed only portions of these papers, and doubtless took others which he did not print, it is a matter of some historical interest to know the present location (if they exist) of the original papers which he used.

[53] It is _can_ in the examination, but, I suppose, by the answer, should have been wrote _can’t_.

[54] Mr. Perkins mentions eight or ten proofs of witchcraft, two only of which he supposes sufficient, viz.: the testimony of two witnesses and the confession of the party. This authority probably had weight with the court as well as with Mr. Hale; but Perkins says it is objected to the latter that a confession may be urged by force or threatening, &c., or by a persuasion that it is the best course to save life or obtain liberty.

[55] [Note in final draft.] Mr. Deane, one of the ministers of Andover, then near fourscore, seems to have been in danger. He is tenderly touched in several of the examinations, which might be owing to a fair character, and he may be one of the persons accused, who caused a discouragement to further prosecutions. “Deliverance Deane being asked why she and the rest brought in Mr. Deane as afflicting persons, she answered, it was Satan’s subtilty, for he told her he would put a sham upon all these things, and make people believe that he did afflict. She said Mrs. Osgood and she gave their consent the devil should bring Mr. Deane’s shape to afflict. Being asked again if Mrs. Osgood and she acted this business, she said yes.” Mr. Deane was much beholden to this woman.

[56] Mr. Cary’s account is in Calef, pp. 95-99.

All my references to C. Mather’s _Wonders of the Invisible World_, and to Calef, are to the London editions of 1693 and 1700. Mr. S. G. Drake reprints both works in his _Witchcraft Delusion in New England_ (Roxbury, 1866, 3 vols. sm. 4to), with the original paging. This is the best reprint of these noted books. An excellent and inexpensive edition of the “_Wonders_” appeared in J. Russell Smith’s _Library of Old Authors_ (London, 1862, 16mo.), in which the original paging is not indicated. This edition is especially desirable as it contains reprints of _A Further Account of the Tryals of the New England Witches_, 1693, and _Cases of Conscience concerning Evil Spirits personating Men_, 1693, both by Increase Mather. There are several other reprints of the _Wonders_ and of Calef’s _More Wonders_; but they are carelessly done, and are not reliable for historical purposes. A copy (with one leaf missing) of the original _Wonders_ (Boston, 1693), brought two hundred and ninety dollars at the Woodward auction sale in New-York, April 19, 1869.

[57] See Calef, pp. 98-100.

[58] The jails of Boston and Ipswich were filled, as well as that of Salem. Many of the accused were heads of families; the season for putting in crops was far advanced, and farm labor had been interrupted. “Upon consideration,” say the records of the Council for May 27, 1692, “that there are many criminal offenders now in custody, some whereof have lain long, and many inconveniencies attending the thronging of the gaols at this hot season of the year, there being no judicatories or courts of justice yet established: Ordered, That a special commission of Oyer and Terminer be made out to William Stoughton, John Richards, Nathaniel Saltonstall, Wait Winthrop, Bartholomew Gedney, Samuel Sewall, John Hathorne, Jonathan Corwin and Peter Sergeant, Esquires, assigning them to be justices, or any five of them (whereof William Stoughton, John Richards and Bartholomew Gedney Esq’s to be one), to inquire of, hear and determine for this time, according to the law and custom of England and of this their Magesties’ Province, all and all manner of crimes and offences had, made, done or perpetrated within the counties of Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, and each of them.” Capt. Stephen Sewall was appointed clerk, and Thomas Newton as attorney. George Corwin was the sheriff, and Geo. Herrick, marshal.

[59] The testimony and other papers, in the case of Bridget Bishop, are in _Records of Salem Witchcraft_, Vol. i. pp. 135-172; _Wonders of the Invisible World_, pp. 65-70; and Calef’s _More Wonders_, pp. 119-126.

[60] Gov. Hutchinson found this document in the Postscript of Increase Mather’s _Cases of Conscience_, 1693. His copy, in the early draft, is quite correct, except that the concluding words of the fifth section “be consulted in such a case” were accidentally omitted. In making his final draft he probably noticed that the sentence was incomplete, and instead of recurring to the original authority, supplied words of his own: “may be observed.” This, and similar facts, show that he made little use of original authorities in preparing his final draft. In his last copy of this document, and in printing, ten errors were made in words and transpositions, but one of which appear in the early draft. The most important error was _defeat_ for _detect_ in the second section.

[61] Richard Bernard, 1566-1651, a famous Puritan minister at Batcomb in Somerset. His _Guide to Grand Jury-men in cases of Witchcraft_ (London, 1627), says Increase Mather, “is a solid and wise treatise. As for the judgment of the elders in New-England, so far as I can learn, they do generally concur with Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bernard.” (_Cases of Conscience_, pp. 252-3, ed. 1862.)

[62] Gov. Hutchinson omitted this paragraph when he prepared his next and final draft, which was a judicious proceeding. The above is a view of the document which may occur to a reader on a first and superficial examination; and it has been claimed by a late writer that “the paper is so worded as to mislead.” The paper was drawn by Cotton Mather; and was “concurringly presented before his Excellency and Council by twelve ministers” of Boston and the vicinity. (_Cases of Conscience_, Postscript.) Those twelve men knew the meaning of language; and it is hardly possible to believe that they would concur, at that solemn period, in a series of recommendations to the public authorities which carried a contradiction, if not a fraud, on the face of the document. Hutchinson’s omission of the passage may be regarded as a retraction of his first impressions, resulting from further investigation. The advice, in my opinion, is wholly consistent; but this is not the place to discuss the point. I purpose to do this on some other occasion.

[63] This statement shows that Hutchinson had not seen the records of the Council, a copy of which was made in the British State Paper office in 1846, and is now in the office of the Secretary of the State of Massachusetts.

[64] Erroneously printed “Wilder.” The trials of Susannah Martin and Elizabeth Howe are in _Records of Salem Witchcraft_, vol. i. 193-215, and vol. ii. pp. 69-93; Mather’s _Wonders_, pp. 70-80, and, with the trials of Bishop, Burroughs and Carrier, were copied by Calef, pp. 114-139.

[65] Calef [p. 101].

[66] Calef [p. 103].

[67] Samuel Sewall, one of the judges in the witchcraft trials, made, on this occasion, the following entry in his Diary—for the use of which I am indebted to the courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society: “Monday, Sept. 19, 1692. About noon, at Salem, Giles Corey was pressed to death for standing mute; much pains was used with him two days, one after another, by the court and Capt. Gardner of Nantucket, who had been his acquaintance; but all in vain. Sept. 20. Now I hear from Salem, that about eighteen years ago, he was suspected to have stamped and pressed a man to death; but was cleared. ’Twas not remembered till Ann Putnam was told of it by said Corey’s specter, the sabbath-day night before the execution.”

* * * * *

The following touching relation of the sufferings of the Corey family during the year 1692, is in _Mass. Archives_, vol. cxxxv. fol. 161. For the purpose of preserving the quaintness of the original document, I have copied it _verbatim_.

“To the Honrable Commite Apointed by the Generall Court to make enquire with Respect to the Suferings in The year 1692 &c.

“these are to giue you a Short Acount of our Sorrows and Suferings which was in the yere 1692. Some time in march our honerd father and mother Giles Corey & martha his wife ware acused for Suposed wichcraft and imprisoned and ware Remoued from one prison to another as from Salem to ipswitch & from ipswitch to boston and from boston to Salem againe and soe remained in close imprisonment about four months we ware att the whole Charge of their maintainance which was very chargable and soe much the more being soe farr adistant from us as also by Reason of soe many remoues in all which we could doe not less then Acompanie them which further added both to our trouble and Charge and although that was very Great in the least of our greavence or cause of These lines but that which breakes our harts and for which wee goe mourning still is that our father was put to soe cruell a death as being prest to death our mother was put to death also though in another way. And we Cannot Sufficiantly exspress our Griffe for the loss of our father and mother in such away. Soe we Cannot Compute our exspences and coast but shall Comite to your wisdome to iudge of but after our fathers death the Shirfe thretend to size our fathers estate and for feare tharof we Complied with him and paid him eleauen pound six shillings in monie by which we have bee[n] greaty damnified & impouerishd by being exsposed to sell Creaturs and other things for litle more then half the worth of them to get the monie to pay as aforesd and to maintain our father & mother in prison but that which is grieueous to us is that wee are not only impouerished but also Reproached and soe may bee for all generatians and that wrongfully tow unless something bee done fore the remoueall thearof all which we humbly Committe to the honarable Court Praying God to direct to that which may be axceptable in his Sight and for the good of this land

“September the 13th 1710

“We Cannot Judge our necessary Expense to be less than Ten pounds

“Wee Subscrib your humbl Searuants in all Christian obedeance

“JOHN MOULTON who mared Elizabeth Corey daughtr of the abovesd in the behalf of the reast of that familie”

[68] The author has already stated that the court chiefly relied on the decisions of Sir Matthew Hale, and the authorities of Keble, Dalton and other lawyers of note who lay down “rules of conviction as absurd as any ever adopted in New-England.” These illegal methods of procedure the judges certainly did not receive from the clergy, or from Perkins and Bernard, the clerical authorities recommended to them. Lord Campbell brings similar charges against Sir Matthew Hale, in connection with the Bury St. Edmund’s trial. He says, “he violated the plainest rules of justice, and really was the murderer of two innocent women.... I would very readily have pardoned him for an undoubted belief in witchcraft, and I should have considered that this belief detracted little from his character for discernment and humanity.... There not only was no evidence against them which ought to have weighed in the mind of any reasonable man who believed in witchcraft; but during the trial the imposture practised by the prosecutors was detected and exposed. The enormous violation of justice then perpetrated has become more revolting as the mists of ignorance, which partly covered it, have been dispersed.” (_Lives of the Chief Justices_, vol. i. p. 561, 563.)

[69] The colony law against witchcraft was re-enacted October 29, 1692. The statute of King James I. was passed December 14, and published two days later. Both were disallowed by the Privy Council, Aug. 22, 1695; the latter for “being not found to agree with the statute of King James I., whereby the dower is saved to the widow, and the inheritance to the heir of the party convicted.” (_Province Laws_, 1869, vol. i. pp. 55, 91.)

[70] The law was passed Nov. 25. December 7, William Stoughton was elected chief justice (receiving every vote present), and Thomas Danforth, John Richards, Wait Winthrop and Samuel Sewall, receiving only majorities as associate judges. December 22, they received their commissions.

Gov. Hutchinson states that the colony law against witchcraft was revived by the first act of the Provincial Assembly, passed June 15, and published June 28, 1692, providing “That all the local laws of Massachusetts Bay and New Plymouth, being not repugnant to the laws of England, do remain in full force, until the 10 day of November next.” As the charges alleged in the witchcraft trials were committed, and proceedings instituted, before June 28, and the special court was instructed, May 27, to proceed under English law and custom, it is probable that the court tried and executed every one of its victims under English law, the statute of James I. Trials were held after the old colony law was re-enacted; but no persons were executed after September 22, 1692.

[71] Nathaniel Saltonstall, of Haverhill, was also under suspicion. Judge Sewall, March 3, 1692-3, wrote to him a letter expressing disbelief in such reports, and sympathy for him and his family. The letter is in Judge Sewall’s Diary under that date.

[72] “As to what you mention, concerning that poor creature in your town that is afflicted, and mentioned my name to yourself and son, I return you hearty thanks for your intimation about it, and for your charity therein mentioned; and I have great cause to bless God, who, of his mercy hitherto, hath not left me to fall into such an horrid evil.” _Extract from letter [of Secretary Allen] to I. Mather, Hartford, 18 March, 92 [-3]._

[73] It is singular that Gov. Hutchinson did not give the date of this confession, which is noted in Calef. In this manuscript he says, “sometime after.” In the final draft he says, “it was not long before one of the judges was sensible of his error.” The confession was made January 14, 1696-7, nearly five years after the error was committed to which he alludes. Up to this time, he gave little or no evidence of contrition in his Diary. He was now under deep domestic affliction. Of his thirteen children he had lost eight. On the 25th of December, 1696, he buried his little Sarah, two years old, and on the 22d of May previous an infant son. His Diary shows that his mind was in a state of abject despondency. After the religious type of the period he regarded these repeated strokes of Divine Providence as brought upon him by his own unworthiness. On the 11th of January, three days before the appointed fast, he writes, “God helped me to pray more than ordinarily, that he would make up our loss in the burial of our little daughter and other children, and that [he] would give us a child to serve him, pleading with him as the institutor of marriage, and the author of every good work.”

Calef (p. 144) gives an abstract from memory of Judge Sewall’s confession; and Dr. Abiel Holmes, who had seen the Diary, gives, in _American Annals_ (vol. ii. p. 9), a brief extract. The following, copied, by permission, from his original Diary now in possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society, is the paper entire:

[Sidenote: _N. B. Bill put up at Fast._]

“Copy of the Bill I put up on the Fast Day, giving it to Mr. Willard as he passed by, and standing up at the reading of it, and bowing when finished, in the afternoon.

“Samuel Sewall, sensible of the reiterated strokes of God upon himself and family; and being sensible, that as to the guilt contracted upon the opening of the late Commission of Oyer and Terminer, at Salem (to which the order of this day relates), he is, upon many accounts, more concerned than any that he knows of, desires to take the blame and shame of it; asking pardon of men, and especially desiring prayers that God, who has an unlimited authority, would pardon that sin, and all other his sins, personal and relative: and according to his infinite benignity and sovereignty, not visit the sin of him, or of any other, upon himself or any of his, nor upon the land: but that he would powerfully defend him against all temptations to sin, for the future; and vouchsafe him the efficacious, saving conduct of his word and spirit.”

The following entry is the first indication I find in his diary, of sensitiveness or compunction for the part he took in the witchcraft trials. It was made December 24, 1696, while his little Sarah lay dead in his house: “Sam [his son] recites to me, in Latin, Matthew xii. from the 6th to the end of the 12th verse. The 7th verse [Quod si nossetis quid sit, misericordiam volo, et non sacrificium, non condemnassetis inculpabiles] did awfully bring to mind the Salem tragedy.”