Читать книгу The True Story vs. Myth of Witchcraft - William Godwin - Страница 49

Table of Contents

Witchcraft in America—In Illinois: Moreau and Emmanuel—In Virginia: Case of Grace Sherwood—In Pennsylvania: Two Swedish Women—In South Carolina—In Connecticut: Many Cases—In Massachusetts: Margaret Jones; Mary Parsons; Ann Hibbins; Other Cases.

North America has been colonized by the British long enough to have enjoyed the visitations of the Devil. And the present Americans, judging by the amount of literature written thereon,121 seem rather proud of his having dwelt among them; it gives an air of antiquity, and an old-world tone, to the favoured States, which is sadly lacking, and not otherwise procurable, in those unvisited by his Satanic Majesty. As far as I know, there have been but six or seven States troubled with witchcraft: Virginia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Illinois.

The latter is somewhat remarkable, as it was only received into the Union, as a State, in 1818; yet I read, in ‘The Pioneer History of Illinois,’ by ex-Governor John Reynolds (Bellville, Ill., 1852), pp. 142, 143, the following:

‘In early times the inhabitants of Illinois were in a small degree tinctured with the absurdity and nonsense of witchcraft and fortune-telling; but in after-days this ignorant superstition has entirely disappeared.... It was the belief of some people, and families, that an old woman living on Silver Creek, Illinois, had the power of witchcraft, to take milk from her neighbours’ cows, without seeing or touching them....

‘In Cahokia, about the year 1790, this superstition [witchcraft] got the upper hand of reason, and several poor African slaves were immolated at the shrine of ignorance for this imaginary offence. An African negro, named Moreau, was hung for this crime on a tree not far south-east of Cahokia. It is stated that he had said, “he poisoned his master, but his mistress was too strong for his necromancy.” Another slave, Emmanuel, was shot, in Cahokia, for this crime, and an old woman, Janette, was supposed to have the power to destroy persons and property by her incantations. Many grown people, and all the children, were terrified at her approach.’

These two cases are verified by extracts from the ‘Record Book’ of Colonel John Todd, Lieutenant-Commandant of the County of Illinois, under Governor Patrick Henry, of the Commonwealth of Virginia:

‘Illinois to wit.

‘To Richard Winston, Esqre, Sheriff in chief of the District of Kaskaskia.

‘Negro Manuel, a Slave, in your custody, is condemned by the Court of Kaskaskia, after having made honorable fine at the door of the church, to be chained to a post at the water side, and then to be burnt alive, and his ashes scattered, as appears to me by record. This sentence you are hereby required to put in execution, on tuesday next at 9 o’clock in the morning, and this shall be your warrant.

‘Given under my hand and seal at Kaskaskia, the 13^th day of June, in the 3^rd year of the Commonwealth.’

‘To Capt. Nicolas Janis.

‘You are hereby required to call upon a party of your militia to guard Moreau, a slave condemned to execution, up to the town of Kohos. Put them under an officer. They shall be entitled to pay, rashions and refreshment during the time they shall be upon duty, to be certifyed hereafter by you.

‘I am, Sir, your hble servant,

‘John Todd.

‘15^th June 1779.’

Virginia, I believe, can only boast of one witch, and her case is not very widely known. Princess Anne is the southernmost county of Virginia, bounded on the north by Chesapeake Bay, and on the east by the Atlantic. Lynhaven Bay is on the Chesapeake River; and there lived, in the days of ‘good Queen Anne,’ a young woman named Grace Sherwood, who was somewhat shy in her dealings with her neighbours, probably because they invested her with uncanny powers, and even said that she had voyaged across the Atlantic, as far as the Mediterranean, in an eggshell; that on her arrival, at the end of her journey, she had been so pleased with the smell of the rosemary she had found growing there, that she brought back some of the plants with her, and set them about her cottage. These evil rumours were brought to the ears of the authorities, and Grace Sherwood was haled before the justices assembled at Princess Anne Court House; and the entry of her examination, etc., in the court record is as follows:

‘Princess Annes.

‘At a Court held y^e 10th July 1706.

Present	{	Colo Moseley		Capt. Moseley	}	Justices.
Capt Woodhouse		Jno. Cormick
Capt. Chapman		Capt. Wm Smyth
	Richason—come late.

Grace Sherwood to be Ducked.

‘Whereas Grace Sherwood being Suspected of Witchcraft—have a long time waited for a fit opportunity for a further Examination—and by her Consent, & Approbation of y^e Court, it is ordered y^t y^e Sherr take all such Convenient assistance of boats and men, as shall be by him thought fit to meet & at John Harper’s plantation, in order to take y^e said Grace Sherwood forthwith, & put her into water above man’s Debth & try her how she swims. Therein always having Care of her life to preserve her from Drowning & as soon as she comes Out y^t he request as many Ancient and Knowing women as possible to come to Serch her Carefully for teat spotts and marks about her body not usual on Others & y^t as they find y^e same to make report on Oath To y^e truth ther of to the Court; and, further, it is ordered y^t Four women be requested to Shift and Serch her before she goo into y^e water y^t she carry nothing about her to cause any further Suspicion.

Order XX.

Grace Sherwood Ducked, etc.

‘Whereas on Complaint of Luke Hill in behalf of her Majesty y^t now is ag^t Grace Sherwood for a person Suspected of Witch craft & having had Sundry Evidences sworn ag^t her, proving many Circumstances to which She could not make any Excuse, Little or Nothing to say in her own behalf, only Seamed to Rely on w^t y^e Court should doo, and there upon Consented to be tryed in y^e Water, & Like-wise to be Serched again Bodily. Experiment being tried, She swiming w^en therein, and bound Contrary to Custom & y^e judg^t of all y^e Spectators, & afterward, being Serched, & five Ancient weomen who have all Declared on Oath y^t she is not like y^em nor noo Other women y^t they know of ... all w^ch Circumstances y^e Court weighing in their Consideration, Doo there fore ord^r y^t y^e Sherr take y^e s^d Grace Into his custody, and to comm^t her body to ye Common Gaol of this County, there to secure her by irons or other Wise, there to Remain till Such time as shall be otherwise Directed in order for her comming to y^e Common Gaol of y^e County, to be brought to a future tryall there.

‘Edw^d Moseley & ‘Jno Richason.’

As nothing more can be found respecting her, she was probably let go.

As a justice of the peace, William Penn had to sit in judgment upon two Swedish women who were indicted as witches, and true bills were found against them; but they got off, owing to some flaw in the indictment. And this, as far as I know, is the sole instance of a trial for witchcraft in Pennsylvania.

Drake, in ‘Annals of Witchcraft,’ p. 215, says: ‘About this period [1712], in the Colony of South Carolina, some suspected of witchcraft were seized upon by a sort of ruffianly Vigilance Committee, and condemned to be burnt, and were actually roasted by fire, although we do not learn that the injuries thus inflicted proved fatal. The parties so tortured, or their friends, brought action in the regular courts, for the recovery of damages; but the jury gave them nothing.’

In the early days of Connecticut there were twelve crimes punishable by death, according to the ‘Capitall Lawes, established by the General Court the First of December 1642,’ the second of which is: ‘Yf any man or woman be a witch (that is) hath, or consulteth w^th a familliar spirit, they shall be put to death. Ex. xxii. 18. Lev. xx. 27. Deu. xxvij. 10, 11.’122 And they had not to wait long for a victim, for the last entry in John Winthrop’s Journal for 1646 is, ‘One ... of Windsor arraigned and executed at Hartford for a witch,’ Nothing more is certainly known of this case, which is memorable as being the first execution for witchcraft in New England.

The Connecticut Legislature also applied the same law, somewhat modified, to the Pequot Indians, on May 31, 1675:123 ‘(2) That whosoever shall powau, or use witchcraft, or any worship to the divill, or any fals god, shall be convented and punished.’

The following are the known cases of witchcraft in Connecticut; but, as far as I can see, none present any particular features of interest for the reader.124

1646.	Winthrop’s ‘One ... of Windsor’		executed.
1648.	Mary Jonson, of Hartford or Wethersfield		do.
1651.	Mr. and Mrs. Carrington, of Wethersfield		do.
"	Goody Bassett, of Stratford		do.
1653.	Goody Knapp, of Fairfield		do.
1658.	Goody Garlick, of Easthampton, L.I.		acquitted.
1661.	Mr. and Mrs. Jennings, of Laybrook		freed by disagreement of jury.
1662.	Mr. and Mrs. Greensmith, of Hartford		executed.
1663.	Mary Barnes, of Farmington		do.
"	Mrs. Elizabeth Seager, of Hartford (?)		acquitted.
"	Mrs. Elizabeth Seager, of Hartford (2nd trial)		do.
1665.	Mrs. Elizabeth Seager, of Hartford (3rd trial)		convicted, but freed by the court.
1670.	Katharine Harrison, of Wethersfield		convicted; the court refused to sentence, and dismissed the accused.
1692.	Mrs. Staples, of Fairfield		acquitted.
"	Goody Miller, of Fairfield		do.
"	Elizabeth Clawson, of Fairfield		do.
"	Mercy Disborough, of Fairfield		convicted, but probably pardoned by the general court.
1697.	Mrs. Denham and daughter		acquitted, perhaps accused only before the grand jury.

But it was in Massachusetts that witchcraft was rampant. The Pilgrim Fathers when they landed at Plymouth, on December 22, 1620, brought with them from England the belief in witchcraft and the personality of the Devil, which was then the creed of the majority of those living in the mother country, and therefore they were no worse than their brethren or parents. So that we must not blame them if we find among their early records, dated New Plymouth, November 15, 1636, that they considered witchcraft a capital crime, and enumerated as such directly after treason and murder; and they defined the crime so punishable as ‘Solemne compaction, or conversing with the divell, by way of witchcraft, conjuration, or the like.’

The Devil, however, had got somehow into Massachusetts, for we read in Governor Winthrop’s Journal that in 1639 ‘The Indians near Aquiday being pawwawing in this tempest, the Devil came and fetched away five of them. Query.’

The first instance of witchcraft in this Colony is recorded in Winthrop’s Journal in 1648, but he gives no specific date of the court being held, but most likely it was that of May 13, 1648, of which a record remains: ‘That This Court, being desirous that the same Course which hath been taken in England for the discovery of witches, by watching, may also be taken here, with the witch now in question, and therefore do order that a strict watch be set about her, every night, and that her husband be confined in a private room, and watched also.’

The entry in the Journal is as follows: ‘At this Court, one Margaret Jones of Charlestown was indicted and found guilty of witchcraft, and hanged for it. The evidence against her was: 1. that she was found to have such a malignant touch, as many persons (men, women and children), whom she stroaked or touched with any affection or displeasure, or etc., were taken with deafness, or vomiting, or other violent pains or sickness. 2. The practising physic, and her medicines being such things as (by her own confession) were harmless, as aniseed, liquors, &c., yet had extraordinary violent effects. 3. She would use to tell such as would not make use of her physic, that they would never be healed, and, accordingly, their diseases and hurts continued, with relapse 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, etc.) which she had no ordinary means to come to the knowledge of. 5. She had, upon search, an apparent teat, as fresh as if it had been newly sucked, and, after it had been scanned; upon a forced 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, etc., 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 means to be employed to that end. Her behaviour at her trial was very intemperate, lying notoriously, and railing upon the jury and witnesses, etc., and in the like distemper she died. The same day and hour she was executed, there was a very great tempest in Connecticut, which blew down many trees, etc.’

The next authentic instance is that of Mary Parsons, whose case seems to have been somewhat urgent, as on May 8, 1651, there is a minute on the court records:125 ‘The Court, understanding that Mary Parsons, now in prison, accused for a witch, is likely, through weakness to die before trial, if it be deferred, do order, that on the morrow, by eight o’clock in the morning, she be brought before and tried by the General Court, the rather that Mr. Pynchon may be present to give his testimony in the Case.’

This ‘Mr. Pynchon’ came from England with Governor Winthrop in 1630, and was named in the charter granted by Charles II. to Massachusetts, as one of the Governor’s eighteen assistants. He returned to England in 1652, settled at Wraysbury, Bucks, where he died October 29, 1662. Hutchinson says of him: ‘Mr. Pynchon was a gentleman of learning, as well as religion. He laid the foundation of Roxbury, but soon removed to Connecticut River; was the father of the town of Springfield, where his family hath flourished ever since.’

For some reason, she was not brought before the court till May 13, when the following is recorded: ‘Mary Parsons, wife of Hugh Parsons of Springfield, being committed to prison for suspicion of witchcraft, as also for murdering her own child, was, this day, called forth, and indicted for Witchcraft. “By the name of Mary Parsons, you are here, before the General Court, charged, in the name of this Commonwealth, that, not having the fear of God before your eyes, nor in your heart, being seduced by the Devil, and yielding to his malicious motion, about the end of February last at Springfield, to have familiarity, or consulted with, a familiar spirit, making a covenant with him; and have used divers devilish practices by witchcraft, to the hurt of the persons of Martha and Rebecca Moxon, against the Word of God, and the laws of this jurisdiction, long since made and published.” To which indictment she pleaded “Not guilty.” All evidences brought in against her being heard and examined, the Court found the evidences were not sufficient to prove her a witch, and therefore she was cleared in that respect.’

But she was indicted for the murder of her child, found guilty, and sentenced to be hanged; it is doubtful, however, whether the sentence was ever carried out. Her husband, ‘One Hugh Parsons of Springfield, was tried in 1652 for witchcraft, and found guilty by the jury. The Magistrate refused to consent to the verdict, and the case, as the law provided, came to the General Court, who determined that he was not legally guilty of witchcraft.’126

‘The most remarkable occurrence in the Colony in the year 1655 was the trial and condemnation of Mrs. Ann Hibbins for witchcraft. Her husband, who died in the year 1654, was an agent for the Colony in England, several years one of the assistants, and a merchant of note in the town of Boston; but losses in the latter part of his life had reduced his estate and increased the natural crabbedness of his wife’s temper, which made her turbulent and quarrelsome, and brought her under church censures; and, at length, rendered her so odious to her neighbours, as to cause some of them to accuse her of witchcraft. The Jury brought her in guilty, but the magistrates refused to accept the verdict, so the cause came to the General Court, where the popular clamour prevailed against her, and the miserable old woman was condemned and executed. Search was made upon her body for tetts, and in her chests for puppets, images, etc., but there is no record of anything of that sort being found. Mr. Beach, a minister in Jamaica, in a letter to Doctor Increase Mather in the year 1684, says, “You may remember what I have sometimes told you your famous Mr. Norton once said at his own table, before Mr. Wilson the pastor, elder Penn and myself and wife, etc., who had the honour to be his guests. That one of your magistrate’s wives, as I remember, was hanged for a witch, only for having more wit than her neighbours. It was his very expression, she having, as he explained it, unhappily guessed that two of her persecutors, whom she saw talking in the street, were talking of her; which, proving true, cost her her life, notwithstanding all he could do to the contrary, as he, himself, told us.”127

‘It fared with her as it did with Joan of Arc in France; some counted her a saint, and some a witch, and some observed solemn marks of Providence set upon those who were very forward to condemn her, and to brand others upon the like ground, with the like reproach. This was the second instance upon record of any persons being executed for witchcraft in New England. She was not executed until June, 1656. She disposed of her estate by will executed May 27, 1656, and a codicil June 16. She appointed several of the principal gentlemen overseers, and hoped they would show her so much respect, as to see her decently interred. There was no forfeiture of goods for felony.’

There was a case of witchcraft in Hartford in 1662, when three women were condemned, and one, at least, executed. In 1669 Susanna Martin, of Salisbury, was tried on this charge, ‘but escaped at that time.’ Another case at Groton in 1671, and yet another at Hampton in 1673. In 1658, in Essex County, an attempt was made to convict one John Godfrey, of Andover, as a witch, and at the County Court of Salem, June 29, 1659, he was bound in one hundred pounds to appear when called upon. But he turned the tables against his accusers, bringing actions against them for slander. In one case he got twopence damages and twenty-nine shillings costs, in another ten shillings damages and costs fifty shillings.

In November, 1669, Goody Burt, a widow, was prosecuted, but acquitted. In 1673 Eunice Cole, of Hampton, was tried, but her sentence was ‘to depart from, and abide out of, this jurisdiction.’ On November 24, 1674, at Salem, which even then was coming to the fore with its witches, Christopher Browne was had up before the County Court, for ‘having reported that he had been treating or discoursing with one whom he apprehended to be the Devil, which came like a gentleman, in order to his binding himself to be a servant to him. Upon his examination, his discourse seeming inconsistent with truth, etc., the Court giving him good counsel and caution, for the present dismiss him.’

On March 30, 1680, Caleb Powell was brought before the court at Ipswich, under an indictment of witchcraft, in molesting one William Morse, of Newbury, stones being thrown, furniture behaving abnormally, bedclothes snatched off, and many other inconveniences; but it could not be proved, and the wind-up of the affair was: ‘Though this court cannot find any evident ground of proceeding against the said Caleb Powell, yet we determine that he hath given such ground of suspicion of his so dealing, that we cannot so acquit him, but that he justly deserves to bear his own share, and the costs of the prosecution of the complaint.’ Elizabeth Morse, wife of the above, was next, on May 20, 1680, tried and convicted of witchcraft. On May 27 she was sentenced to death, was twice reprieved, and ultimately allowed to return home.