The Penguin Book of Witches

by Katherine Howe

  JOAN WRIGHT, CHESAPEAKE REGION, VIRGINIA 1626

  Witchcraft was not a belief restricted to the English colonists in New England; belief in magic was interwoven in religious thought throughout the colonies, including New York and the Chesapeake. The first English settler accused of witchcraft to leave a record of herself, however scanty, was Goodwife Joan Wright in Virginia. Wright was tried but not convicted, following her suspected involvement with a difficult birth, for prophesying the death of several colonists (to be fair, not a difficult thing to do in colonial Virginia, given the high mortality rate), and for threatening that she would make a servant girl dance “stark naked.” Wright might have been a kind of cunning woman, for she is not accused of dealings with the Devil, and she seemed to be consulted on matters of health and love.1 However, the suggestion that she might have the power to cause a servant girl to dance naked points to the fear of female sexuality that appears frequently in early modern accounts of witches’ gender.2

  [A CASE OF WITCHCRAFT]

  A Case of Witchcraft in Surry

  Before a court held the 11th of September, 1626, appeared Lieutenant Giles Allington, a member of the London Company of Virginia3 and a substantial citizen of the colony. By his testimony he accused Goodwife Joan Wright of witchcraft. She was the wife of Robert Wright, aged 44 in 1624–25, who came in the Swan in 1608. In 1625 he and his wife and two children both born in Virginia were living in Elizabeth City at Kicoughtan4 but at the time of this trial had moved to Mr. Perry’s plantation in Surry.

  Giles Allington “sworn and examined saith that he had spoke to Goodwife Wright for to bring his wife to bed5 but that the said Goodwife being left-handed, his wife desired him to get Mrs. Gray, which he did and said that the next day after his wife was delivered the said Goodwife Wright went away from his house very much discontented in regard the other midwife and brought his wife to bed. Shortly after this his wife’s breast grew dangerously sore and it was a month or five weeks before she recovered, at which time this deponent himself fell sick and continued so for the space of three weeks. Further that his child after it was born fell sick and so continued for the space of a month and afterward fell into extreme pain for a space of five weeks and so departed.”

  Rebecca Gray sworn and examined “saith that Goodwife Wright did tell her, this deponent, that by a token that this deponent had in her forehead6 she should bury her husband and further saith the Goodwife Wright did tell this deponent she told Mr. Felgate he would bury his wife, which came to pass, and further this deponent saith that Goodwife Wright did tell this deponent that she told Thomas Harris he should bury his first wife being then betrothed unto him, which came to pass, and further this deponent saith Goodwife Wright did tell her that a woman said to her, “I have a cross man for a husband,” to whom Goodwife Wright replied, “be content for those shall shortly bury him” (which came to pass).

  Thomas Jones (of whom we shall hear hereafter) was sworn and said that Sergeant Booth told him he had words with Goodwife Wright and after the said Sergeant Booth went forth with his piece to shoot and came to good game and very fair to shoot at but for a long time after he could never kill anything.

  Robert Wright sworn and examined said he had been married to his wife sixteen years but knew nothing touching up “the crime she is accused of.”

  Mrs. Isabella Perry *** “saith that upon the losing of a log of lightwood out of the fort, Goodwife Wright railed upon a girl of Goodwife Yates for stealing the same, whereupon Goodwife Yates charged Goodwife Wright with witchcraft and said she had done many bad things at Kickotan, whereupon this examinant chided Goodwife Wright. *** and said why do thou not complain and clear thyself of same. Goodwife Wright replied, “God forgive them,” and made light of it but that Goodwife Wright threatened Goodwife Yates’s girl and told her if she did not bring the lightwoods again she would make her dance stark naked7 and the next morning the lightwood was found in the fort.***

  Alice Baylie sworn *** said she asked Goodwife Wright whether her husband should bury her or she bury him, to which Goodwife Wright answered, “I can tell you if I would but I am exclaimed against for such things and I’ll tell no more.”8

  Goodwife Wright was found guilty by the court but was fined only 100 pounds of tobacco.

  JANE JAMES, MARBLEHEAD, MASSACHUSETTS 1646

  Jane James was repeatedly in court in Marblehead, though in slander cases as opposed to witchcraft trials, and so she serves as one example of the sometimes subtle ways in which witches whisper around the edges of the historical record. In her slander trials James was defending herself against rumors that she was a witch, a reputation which could be devastating in a tightly knit fishing community like Marblehead. Oftentimes a suspected witch would attempt to reclaim her tarnished reputation by going on the offensive, bringing those gossiping about her to court. However, to do so was a risky maneuver. If the defendants in a slander suit were found to be speaking the truth, rather than spreading rumors, the plaintiff could very quickly find herself on trial for witchcraft.1

  Jane James illustrates both the central role of gossip and reputation in the small colonial community, and the fact that suspected witches were widespread, even if they did not always make it to the deadly end of the judicial process. This early account of Goody James shows her in a violent altercation with a neighbor over a shoulder of mutton; though brief, it provides a tantalizing portrait of behavior that was frowned upon in women, sometimes with dire consequences for their reputations.

  THE CASE OF JANE JAMES

  Salem, 10th month2 1646

  Thomas Bo[torn] about 24 years testif[torn] that William [torn] in the said deponent[torn] house, that the [torn] lying scandalous whores in M [torn] in any place in New England. W[? torn] James said, Goodman Barber you [torn] whereupon the said William Barber said [torn] Jane, look at you for one of them, get you out of doors you filthy old bawd or else I will cuttle your hide, you old filthy baggage and took up a firebrand but did not throw it at her. This deponent also testifieth that he saw William Barber carry away a shoulder of mutton that Jane James should have had, giving her a push on the breast and said he could eat a shoulder of mutton as well as she. This is the sum of what I can say as also witness my hand this 26th of 10th month, 1646.

  The mark of

  Thomas [his mark] Bowen

  Elizabeth the wife of Thomas Bowen doth testify the same thing, being also present at the same time. aprd [?] thereunto also doth put to her hand this 26th of 10th month, 1646.

  The mark of

  Elizabeth [her mark] Bowen

  MARGARET JONES, CHARLESTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS 1648

  Margaret Jones was one of the first witches to be executed in Massachusetts; her husband, Thomas, was also suspected, though never brought to trial. John Winthrop’s account suggests that she functioned as a cunning woman, which complicates the common picture of the witch as someone who was purely a deviant from social norms, or a scapegoat.1 Cunning folk functioned in a shadowy moral universe in early modern English village life in that they filled a vital social role—that of offering occult services for a fee—while nevertheless being objects of fear. In fact, William Perkins was more concerned about cunning folk than about so-called hurting witches because the temptation that they presented to believers desperate for relief from supposed enchantment posed a threat to Christian faith.2

  THE CASE OF MARGARET JONES3

  At this court one Margaret Jones of Charles Towne was indicted and found guilty of witchcraft and hanged for it.4 The evidence against her was: 1. That she was found to have such a malignant touch, as many persons (men and women and children) whom she stroked or touched (with any affection [illegible] displeasure or et cetera) were taken with deafness or vomiting or other violent pains or sickness. 2. She practicing physick, and her medicines being such things as (by her own confession) were harmless,5 as aniseed, liquoris,6 et cetera, yet had extraordinary violent effects. 3
. She would use to tell such as would not make use of her physick, that they would never be healed,7 and accordingly their diseases and hurts continued with relapses against the ordinary course and beyond the apprehension of all physicians and surgeons. 4. Some things which she foretold came to pass accordingly; other things she could tell of (as secret speeches, et cetera) which she had no ordinary means to come to the knowledge off.8 5. She had (upon search) an apparent teat in her secret parts, as fresh as if it had been newly sucked,9 and after it had been searched, upon a second search, that was withered, and another began on the opposite side. 6. In the prison, in the clear daylight, there was seen in her arms (she sitting on the floor and her clothes up, et cetera) a little child, which ran from her into another room and the officer following it, it was vanished. The like child was seen in two other places, to which she had relation, and one maid that saw it fell sick upon it and was cured by the said Margaret, who used means10 to be employed to that end. Her behavior at her trial was very intemperate, lying notoriously, and railing upon the jury and witnesses, et cetera and in the like distemper she died. The same day and hour she was executed there was a very great tempest at Connecticut, which blew down many trees, et cetera.

  Margaret Jones also puts in an appearance in Reverend John Hale’s 1697 account A Modest Enquiry into the Nature of Witchcraft, published in Boston in 1702.11 Hale was a minister in Beverly whose wife was accused during the Salem panic. A Modest Enquiry was his attempt to look at the nature of witchcraft in North America. He mistakenly cites Jones as the first person executed for witchcraft in New England; there is evidence that one Alice Young was executed in Windsor, Connecticut, in 1647, though very little record of her survives.12

  HALE’S ACCOUNT OF MARGARET JONES

  Section 5. The first was a woman of Charlestown, anno 1647 or ’48. She was suspected partly because that after some angry words passing between her and her neighbors, some mischief befell such neighbors in their creatures, or the like. Partly because some things supposed to be bewitched or have a charm upon them, being burned, she came to the fire and seemed concerned.13

  The day of her execution, I went in company of some neighbors, who took great pains to bring her to confession and repentance. But she constantly professed herself innocent of that crime. Then one prayed her to consider if God did not bring this punishment upon her for some other crime and asked if she had not been guilty of stealing many years ago; she answered, she had stolen something, but it was long since and she had repented of it, and there was grace enough in Christ to pardon that long ago; but as for witchcraft she was wholly free from it, and so she said unto her death.

  RALPH AND MARY HALL, SETAUKET, NEW YORK1 1665

  New York had vastly fewer witch trials than did New England due to the different religious structure in that region. New Netherland had some difficulty attracting Dutch settlers and as such the region in the seventeenth century was a more heterogeneous place than New England, peopled with Dutch, but also Huguenots and settlers from Scandinavia, to say nothing of African slaves. Control of the colony passed to England in 1664, thereby increasing immigration to the region from New England.2 Could this subtle shift in the character of the inhabitants of New York account for the appearance of the first known witch trial the following year in New York? The nineteenth-century transcriber believes so, even going so far as to remark that Ralph and Mary Hall are fortunate to likely have been tried by a largely Dutch jury. If they had been tried on the same grounds in New England they would not have been let off so easily, as plenty of people were hanged as witches in New England for less.

  INDICTMENT OF RALPH AND MARY HALL3

  Witchcraft

  The following is a correct copy of a bill of indictment preserved in the city of New York [and the proceedings thereon], against Ralph Hall and Mary, his wife, for witchcraft in the year 1665. This was the only trial for that offence in this colony. It is curious to read this relic of a barbarous age, and while we do so, we should not forget the lights of learning and civilization which have introduced a better order of things.

  At a court of assizes held in New York, the 2nd day of October 1665, et cetera, the trial of Ralph Hall and Mary, his wife, upon suspicion of witchcraft. The names of the persons who served upon the grand jury are Thomas Baker, foreman of the jury, of Easthampton; Captain John Symonds of Hempstead; Mr. Helmet of Jamaica; Anthony Waters; Thomas Wardell of March Path Hill; Mr. Nichols of Stanford; Bethazar D. Haart, John Garland, Jacob Luster, Anthonio De Mill, Alexander Munro, Thomas Searle of New York.

  The prisoner being brought to the bar by Allan Anthony, sheriff of New York, this following indictment was read, first against Ralph Hall and then against Mary, his wife, namely:

  The constable and overseers of the town of Setalcott,4 in the east riding of Yorkshire upon Long Island, do present for our sovereign lord the king that Ralph Hall of Setalcott aforesaid, upon the 25th day of December, being Christmas day last was twelve months, in the 15th year of the reign of our sovereign lord Charles 2nd by the grace of God king of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, et cetera and several other days and times since that day, by some detestable and wicked arts, commonly called witchcraft and sorcery,5 did (as is suspected) maliciously and feloniously practice and exercise at the said town of Setalcott in the east riding of Yorkshire, on Long Island aforesaid, on the person of George Wood, late of the same place, by which wicked and detestable arts the said George Wood (as is suspected) most dangerously and mortally sickened and languished, and not long after, by the aforesaid wicked and detestable arts, the said George Wood (as is likewise suspected) died.

  Moreover, the constable and overseers of the said town do further present for our sovereign lord the king, that some while after the death of the said George Wood, the said Ralph Hall did, as is suspected, diverse times by the like wicked and detestable arts, commonly called witchcraft and sorcery, maliciously and feloniously practice and exercise at the said town of Setalcott, on the person of an infant child of Ann Rogers, widow of the aforesaid George Wood, deceased, by which wicked and detestable arts, the said infant child, as is suspected, most dangerously and mortally sickened and languished, and not long after, by the said wicked and detestable arts (as is suspected) died. And so the said constable and overseers do present that the said George Wood and the said Infant child, by the ways and means aforesaid, most wickedly and maliciously and feloniously were (as is suspected) murdered by the said Ralph Hall at the times and places aforesaid, and against the laws of this government in such cases provided.

  The like indictment was read against Mary, the wife of Ralph Hall. Thereupon several depositions accusing the prisoners of the fact for which they were indicted were read, but no witness appeared to give testimony in court vive voce.6 Then the clerk, calling up Ralph Hall, bade him hold up his hand and read as follows: “Ralph Hall thou standest here indicted for that having not the fear of God before thine eyes, thou didst upon the 25th day of December, being Christmas last was 12 months and at several other times since (as is suspected) by some wicked and detestable arts commonly called witchcraft and sorcery, maliciously and feloniously practice and exercise upon the bodies of George Wood and an infant child of Ann Rogers, by which said arts the said George Wood and the infant child (as is suspected) most dangerously and mortally fell sick and languished unto death. Ralph Hall, what dost thou say for thyself—art thou guilty, or not guilty?” Mary, the wife of Ralph Hall, was called in like manner.7 They both pleaded not guilty and threw themselves to be tried by God and the country. Whereupon the cause was referred to the jury, who brought into court this following verdict, namely:

  We, having severally considered the case committed to our charge against the prisoner at the bar, and having well weighed the evidence, we find that there are some suspicions by the evidence of what the woman is charged with, but nothing of considerable of value to take away her life, but in reference to the man, we find
nothing considerable to charge him with.

  The court thereupon gave this sentence. That the man should be bound, body and goods, for his wife’s appearance at the next sessions, and so on from sessions to sessions as long as they stay within this government. In the mean time to be of good behavior. So they were returned to the sheriff’s custody and upon entering into a recognizance, according to the sentence of the court, they were released.

  It is worthy of remark that not a word was ever mentioned in this colony about the spectral evidence which was so much relied on the cases of witchcraft in New England. Cotton Mather in his Magnalia8 states that the opinion of the Dutch and French ministers was asked in relation to the spectral accusation of the New England witch cases and that they made the following answer under their hands. “If we believe no venefick9 witchcraft we must renounce the scripture of God and the consent of almost all the world; but that yet the apparition of a person afflicting another is very insufficient proof of a witch; nor is it inconsistent with the holy and righteous government of God over men to permit the affliction of the neighbors by devils in the shape of good men; and that a good name, obtained by a good life, should not be lost by mere spectral accusations.”

  This was the first and last prosecution for witchcraft in the government of New York, and although the Dutch are considered as superstitious, yet they invariably dismissed all complaint proffered for this alleged offence (see instances) and they punished all attempts to introduce superstition by publicly alarming the populace. (See punishment of fellow in New York for crying woe of Ephraim, et cetera.) It is worthy of remark that this solitary instance of a prosecution for witchcraft did not originate in that part of the colony settled by the sober burghers from the Naderlandt but among the emigrants from Connecticut and Massachusetts on the eastern part of Long Island, and it is fair to presume that if the majority of the jury had not been Dutchmen it would have gone hard with poor Ralph Hall and his wife. Many were executed in New England against whom the case was nothing like as strong as this.