The Penguin Book of Witches

by Katherine Howe

  [Rebecca Nurse]: No.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: Are you an innocent person relating to this witchcraft?

  Here Thomas Putnam’s wife cried out, Did you not bring the black man with you? Did you not bid me tempt God and die? How oft have you eat and drunk your own damaon?5

  [Mr. Hathorne]: What do you say to them?

  [Rebecca Nurse]: Oh, Lord help me, and spread out her hands, and the afflicted were grievously vexed.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: Do you not see what a solemn condition these are in? When your hands are loose the persons are afflicted.

  Then Mary Walcott (who often heretofore said she had seen her, but never could say or did say that she either bit or pinched her or hurt her) and also Elizabeth Hubbard6 under the like circumstances both openly accused her of hurting them.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: Here are these 2 grown persons now accuse you. What say you? Do not you see these afflicted persons and hear them accuse you?

  [Rebecca Nurse]: The Lord knows I have not hurt them. I am an innocent person.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: It is very awful to all to see these agonies and you an old professor7 thus charged with contracting with the Devil by the effects of it and yet to see you stand with dry eyes when these are so many what.

  [Rebecca Nurse]: You do not know my heart.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: You would do well if you are guilty to confess and give glory to God.

  [Rebecca Nurse]: I am clear as the child unborn.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: What uncertainty there may be in apparitions I know not, yet this with me strikes hard upon you that you are at this very present charged with familiar spirits. This is your bodily person they speak to. They say now they see these familiar spirits come to your bodily person. Now what do you say to that?

  [Rebecca Nurse]: I have none, sir.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: If you have confessed and give glory to God, I pray God clear you if you be innocent, and if you are guilty discover you. And therefore give me an upright answer. Have you any familiarity with these spirits?

  [Rebecca Nurse]: No, I have none but with God alone.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: How came you sick for there is an odd discourse of that in the mouths of many.

  [Rebecca Nurse]: I am sick at my stomach.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: Have you no wounds?

  [Rebecca Nurse]: I have none but old age.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: You do know whether you are guilty and have familiarity with the Devil and now when you are here present to see such a thing as these testify a black man whispering in your ear and birds about you, what do you say to it?

  [Rebecca Nurse]: It is all false. I am clear.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: Possibly you may apprehend you are no witch, but have you not been led aside by temptations that way?8

  [Rebecca Nurse]: I have not.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: What a sad thing is it that a church member here and now an9 others of Salem should be thus accused and charged.

  Mrs. Pope fell into a grievous fit and cried out, A sad thing sure enough. And then many more fell into lamentable fits.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: Tell us. Have not you had visible appearances more than what is common in nature?

  [Rebecca Nurse]: I have none nor never had in my life.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: Do you think these suffer voluntary or involuntary?

  [Rebecca Nurse]: I cannot tell.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: That is strange. Everyone can judge.

  [Rebecca Nurse]: I must be silent.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: They accuse you of hurting them, and if you think it is [torn] but by design you must look upon them as murderers.

  [Rebecca Nurse]: I cannot tell what to think of it.

  Afterward when she was somewhat insisted on, she said, I do not think so. She did not understand aright what was said.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: Well, then, give an answer now. Do you think these suffer against their wills or not?

  [Rebecca Nurse]: I do not think these suffer against their wills.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: Why did you never visit these afflicted persons?

  [Rebecca Nurse]: Because I was afraid I should have fits too.

  Not upon the motion of her body had [scored out] fits followed upon the complainants abundantly and very frequently.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: Is it not an unaccountable case that when yes[scored out] you are examined these persons are afflicted?

  [Rebecca Nurse]: I have got nobody to look to but God.

  Again upon stirring her hands, the afflicted persons were seized with violent fits of torture.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: Do you believe these afflicted persons are bewitched?

  [Rebecca Nurse]: I do think they are.10

  [Mr. Hathorne]: When this witchcraft came upon the stage there was no suspicion of Tituba (Mr. Parris’s Indian woman). She professed much love to that child Betty Parris, but it was her apparition did the mischief, and why should not you also be guilty, for your apparition doth hurt also.

  [Rebecca Nurse]: Would you have me bely11 my your [scored out] self.

  She held her neck on one side, and accordingly so were the afflicted taken.

  The authority requiring it Samuel Parris read what he had in character12 taken from Mr. Thomas Putman’s wife in her fits.

  [Mr. Hathorne]: What do you think of this?

  [Verso]

  This is a true account of the sum of her examination, but by reason of great noises by the afflicted and many speakers many things are pretermitted.13

  Memorandum

  Nurse held her neck on one side and Elizabeth Hubbard (one of the sufferers) had her neck set in that posture. Whereupon another patient, Abigail Williams, cried out, Set up Goody Nurse’s head. The maid’s neck will be broke and when some set up Nurse’s head Aaron Wey observed that Betty Hubbard’s was immediately righted.

  Salem Village, March 24th, 1691/2

  The Reverend Mr. Samuel Parris being desired to take in writing the examination of Rebecca Nurse hath returned it aforesaid.

  Upon hearing the aforesaid and seeing what we then did see together with the charges of the persons then present were committed Rebecca Nurse, the wife of Frances Nurse of Salem Village, unto Their Majesties’ jail in Salem as a Mittimus then given out, and [scored out] in order to further examination.

  John Hathorne. Assistant, Jonathan Corwin

  WARRANT FOR THE APPREHENSION OF RACHEL CLINTON, WITH SUMMONS FOR WITNESSES, AND OFFICER’S RETURN, TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 1692

  This warrant was the first that did not directly issue from the authorities in Salem Village. Rachel Clinton had actually suffered a bad reputation for decades.1 She had an unfortunate marriage and was disinherited, plummeting from the top of society to the bottom, and at this point lived in Ipswich. Thus, the accusation of Rachel, who, on the one hand, was a usual suspect as far as witches were concerned but on the other hand was outside the power struggles of Salem Village, marked a crucial turning point in the transition of the Salem panic from small-scale community battle to large-scale outbreak. With this warrant, the Salem panic began to extend into the rest of Essex County.

  Warrant Against Rachel Clinton2

  To the constable of Ipswich

  Whereas there is complaint exhibited to the honored court now Const[illegible] holden at Ipswich in behalf of Their Majesties against Rachel, formerly the wife of Laurence Clinton of Ipswich, on grounded suspicion of witchcraft and whereas recognizance is entered for prosecution.

  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  You are hereby required in Their Majesties’ names forthwith or s[illegible] soon as may be to apprehend, seize, and bring before the honored court to be holden at Ipswich the said Rachel Clinton on the next morrow[scored out] morning at eight a clock in order to an orderly examination and conviction and hereof fail not at your peril and for so doing this shall be your warrant of which you are to make
a true return as the law directs.

  Ipswich, March 29th, 1692, Curiam Thomas Wade, clerk, to the constable of Ipswich

  You are hereby required in Their Majesties’ names to summons, warn, and require to appear at the court to be holden at Ipswich on the morrow morning. Namely, Mary Fuller Senior and Mary Fuller Junior and Alexander Thomson Junior and Richard Fits and Doctor John Brigham and Thomas Manning and Nathaniel Burnham, all of Ipswich, and Thomas Knowlton Junior and Mary Thorne to give in their several evidences before the court to clear up the grounds of suspicion of Rachel Clinton’s being a witch and hereof fail not at your peril but make a true return under your hand as the law directs.

  Curiam Thomas Wade, clerk

  [verso]

  I have served this Sp[scored out] warrant or read it to Rachel Clinton this morning and seized her body and left her in the hands of Samuel Ordway here in the courthouse against your honors shall call for her.

  And I have read the several warrants, one the other side written this morning. Save only Richard Fits and Mary Thorne. And Richard Fits I could not find and Mary Thorne is not well, as witness, my hand, Joseph Fuller, constable of Ipswich, dated this 29th March, 1691/2.

  Warrant against Rachel Clinton returned.3

  DEPOSITION OF THOMAS KNOWLTON JR. VERSUS RACHEL CLINTON

  Rachel Clinton was without question an angry woman. In this deposition, we learn that Clinton had been forced into begging to sustain herself after her husband abandoned her. Clinton went to the house of John Rogers, who was out of town in Boston, and over the protests of the maid, began to peek around the house looking for milk and meat. The maid asked Thomas Knowlton to assist in removing Rachel from Rogers’s house. As he did this, Clinton denounced him, calling him “hellhound” and “whoremasterly rogue” and a “limb of the Devil.”

  This account is incredibly vibrant, exposing how dangerous it was to be an angry woman in the early modern period, especially at the fringes of society. Rachel Clinton’s frustrations at being without food led to her being accused of witchcraft.

  Knowlton’s Deposition1

  [Torn]he deposition of Thomas Knowlton, aged 50 years, saith that about 3 weeks ago that Mr. John Rogers and his wife were gone to Bosto[torn] That Rachel, the wife of Laron Clinton that is now suspected to be a witch, went to Mr. Rogers’s house and told Mr. Rogers’s maid that she must have some meat and milk and the said Rachel went into seve[torn]al rooms of the said house, as Mr. Rogers’s maid told me and then sent for me, this deponent, to get her away out of the hous[torn] And when I came into the house there was Rachel Clinton and when she sa[illegible]we me come in she, the said Rachel, went away scoldi[torn]2 and railing. Calling of me, the said Thomas, hellhound and whoremasterly rogue and said I was a limb of the Devil and she said[torn] she had rather see the Devil than see me, the said Thomas. And that Samuel Aires and Thomas Smith, tailor, can testify to the same languages that Rachel used or called the said Knowlton. And after this the said Rachel took up a stone and threw it toward me and it fell short three or four yards from me, said Knowlton, a[torn] so came rolling to me and just touched the toe of my shoe[torn] And presently my great toe was in a great rage as if the nail were held up by a pair of pinchers up by the roots.

  And further the said Thomas Knowlton testifieth and saith that about 3 months ago that my daughter Mary Ded [torn][illegible]e and cried out in a dreadful manner that she was p[torn]3 of her side with pins as she thought. Being asked who pric[torn] her, she said she could not tell and when she was out of her fits, I, this deponent, asked her whether she gave Rach[torn]4 any pins and she said she gave Rachel about seven and after this she had one fit more of being pricked and then there came into our house Cornelius Kent and John Best, a[torn] saw Mary Knowlton in a solemn condition, crying as if she would be pricked to death and then said Kent and Best and my son Thomas went over and threatened said Rachel that if ever she pricked said Mary Knowlton again they would knock out her brains and ever since my girl hath been well.

  BRIDGET BISHOP, TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1692

  Bridget Bishop, though she was accused a few months after Sarah Good, Sarah Osburn, and Tituba Indian, was the first person executed. She was accused of the murder of her first husband by witchcraft and of spectrally coming into the bedchamber of Marshal Herrick. The account of her entry into his bedchamber illustrates the sexual threat embodied by witches, particularly the threat that they posed to male authority.

  Bridget Bishop was also an example of the spread of the accusations outside the main purview of the small community of Salem Village. She was a woman of dubious character, living in Salem Town, who was not personally acquainted with any of the afflicted girls, nor did she have a stake in any of the ongoing conflict between the various factions in Salem Village. Instead, she was a woman who had been tried as a witch once before and who had stoked the suspicion of her neighbors for years.1

  The use of conventional courtroom arguments, like proof by negation (“if you don’t know what a witch is, how do you know that you are not a witch?”), illustrates that the existence of witchcraft was treated in the court system like any other common felony. Witchcraft was a real enough phenomenon in the colonial New England intellectual world that it could be argued as any other criminal act.

  The Examination of Bridget Bishop2

  The Examination of Bridget Bishop at Salem Village 19 April, 1692

  by John Hathorne and Jonathan Corwin, esquires

  As soon as she came near all fell into fits.

  [Q]: Bridget Bishop, you are now brought before authority to give account of what witchcrafts you are conversant in.

  [A]: I take all this people (turning her head and eyes about) to witness that I am clear.

  [Q]: Hath this woman hurt you (speaking to the afflicted)?

  A[illegible]g Hubb[?]d[scored out] Elizabeth Hubbard, Ann Putnam, Abigail Williams, and Mercy Lewis affirmed she had hurt them.

  [Q]: You are here accused by 4 or 5 for hurting them. What do you say to it?

  [A]: I never saw these persons before; nor I never was in this place before.

  Mary Walcott says that her brother Jonathan stroke her appearance and she saw that ha[scored out] he had tore her coat in striking, and she heard it tear.

  Upon sea[scored out] some search in the court, a rent that seems to answer what was alleged was found.

  [Q]: They say you bewitched your first husband to death.3

  [A]: If it please your worship, I know nothing of it.

  She shake her head and the afflicted were tortured.

  The like again upon the motion of her head.

  Sam. Braybrook affirmed that she told him today that she had been accounted a witch these 10 years, but she was no witch. The Devil cannot hurt her.

  [A]: I am no witch.

  [Q]: Why if you have not wrote in the book, yet tell me how far you have gone? Have you not to do with familiar spirits?

  [A]: I have no familiarity with the Devil.

  [Q]: How is it, then, that your appearance doth hurt these?

  [A]: I am innocent.

  [Q]: Why you seem to act witchcraft before us, but the motion of your body, which has in[scored out] seems to have influence upon the afflicted.

  [A]: I know nothing of it. I am innocent to a witch. I know not what a witch is.

  [Q]: How do you know then that you are not a witch? And yet not know what a witch is? [scored out from “and yet”]

  [A]: I do not understand [scored out] know what you say.

  [Q]: How can you know you are no witch, and yet not know what a witch is?4

  [A]: I am clear: if I were any such person you should know it.

  [Q]: You may threaten, but you can do no more than you are permitted.

  [A]: I am innocent of a witch.

  [Q]: What do you say of those murders you are charged with?

  [A]:
I hope I am not guilty of murder.

  Then she turned up her eyes and they [scored out] the eyes of the afflicted were turned up.

  [Q]: It may be you do not know that any have confessed today, who have been examined before you, that they are witches.

  [A]: No, I know nothing of it.

  John Hutchinson and John Hewes in open court affirmed that they had told her.5

  [Q]: Why look you, you are taken now in a flat lie.

  [A]: I did not hear them.

  Note Sam. Gold saith that after this examination he asked said Bridget Bishop if she were not troubled to see the afflicted persons so tormented, said Bishop answered no, she was not troubled for them. Then he asked her whether she thought they were bewitched. She said she could not tell what to think about them. Will Good and John Buxton Junior was by and he supposeth they heard her also.

  Salem Village, April the 19th, 1692, Mr. Samuel Parris being desired to take into writing the examination of Bridget Bishop, hath delivered it as aforesaid. And upon hearing the same, and seeing what we did then see, together wit[torn] the charge of the afflicted persons th[torn] present, we committed said Bridg[torn] Oliver.

  John Hathorne.

  THE NOTORIOUS GILES CORY, TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1692

  Giles Cory, husband of accused witch Martha Cory, is one of the most notorious Salem witches because he was not only a man, but a man who was crushed to death between stones rather than hanged. With his case, we can see the spreading of the accusations not only across class lines, but also within families. Cory died because he refused to enter a plea, and the punishment of “peine forte et dure,” or “pain long and difficult,” was imposed in an attempt to compel him to plead.1

  Giles Cory, however, was no gentle and retiring soul. In 1675 he had kicked a servant to death, a crime which had largely gone forgotten in his community, but which reasserted itself in the public memory once Ann Putnam began to report seeing him in her spectral visitations.2 Even choosing the death that would come from being pressed to death required a certain stoniness of character. Robert Calef, writing his later skeptical account of the Salem trials, reported that the pressure on his body was so great that his “Tongue being prest out of his Mouth, the Sheriff with his Cane forced it in again, when he was dying.”3