Witches

3 Witches on Trial

Hundreds of legal documents have survived from the Salem witch hunt of 1692. These fall into three principal categories: (1) transcripts of pre- liminary examinations conducted by magistrates following the arrest of suspects; (2) depositions both for and against the accused; and (3) formal documents that n1ark the progress of individual cases. The formal docu- ments include complaints against suspected individuals, arrest warrants, mittimus1 warrants that ordered a prison keeper to hold prisoners incus- tody until delivered by due process of law, indictments (formal charges), subpoenas2 summoning witnesses to court, and execution warrants. Many of the examination transcripts and depositions were recorded by individ- uals who were known to sympathize with the accusers, not least Samuel Parris-a sobering reminder that in 1692 our modern commitment to avoiding conflicts of interest had yet to become an established judicial principle. The official transcripts of examinations included not only ques- tions and answers but also the observations and comments of the writer. The trial records themselves do not survive, but we do know from con- temporary accounts that the magistrates and jurymen heard from three groups hostile to the accused: (1) the afflicted girls, who often experi- enced yet more torments in the courtroom; (2) those who had already confessed and who now accused other defendants of belonging to the witch conspiracy; and (3) neighbors who had witnessed incidents that seemed to incriminate the accused (such as arguments and angry curses followed by mysterious ailments or mishaps).

Magistrates John Hathorne and Jonathan Corwin began their pre- liminary examinations of witch suspects in Nathaniel Ingersoll’s tavern, but they soon shifted them to the village meetinghouse, which would ac- commodate a larger crowd of observers. (Hathorne and Corwin had de- cided to disregard the usual practice of questioning suspects in private.)

1 Latin for “we send.” 2 Latin for “under penalty.”

66

.>

;__’-:’

~i

SARAH GOOD 67

The meetinghouse was the largest building in the village, a wooden struc- ture of thirty-four feet by twenty-eight feet, with rows of benches on the ground floor and two galleries above. The magistrates sat behind a large communion table; the accused stood before them. This was the same space in which Samuel Parris continued in his sermons to denounce the servants of Satan who were, he claimed, conspiring against God and his own ministry. The actual trials took place in Salem Town at the court- house there.

This section contains documents from six cases targeting Sarah Good (Documents 14-27), Tituba (Documents 28-32), John Proctor (Docu- ments 33-41), Bridget Bishop (Documents 42-51), Dorcas Hoar (Docu- ments 52-61), and George Burroughs (Documents 62-75). The cases are arranged in order of arrest; the documents for each case appear in chronological order. Due to limitations of space, some of the more repet- itive depositions have been omitted, along with most of the procedural documents. A sample arrest warrant, indictment, and death warrant are included for Sarah Good; these are almost identical to the procedural documents that survive from other witch prosecutions that year. 3

SARAH GOOD

Sarah Good was one of the first three individuals to be accused, the other two being Sarah Osborne and Tituba. Warrants went out for their arrest on February 29, 1692. After several days of examination, mag- istrates Jonathan Corwin and John Hathorne gave orders for all three women to be committed to the jail in Boston. Osborne, who was ill at the time of her arrest, died of natural causes in prison on May 10 and so never stood trial; she had maintained her innocence throughout the

3 Many of these documents were first published in an 1864 two–volume compilation. A fuller and more accurate version of the surviving legal records emerged from a project undertaken in the late 1930s that was funded by the Works Progress Administration (a New Deal work relief agency). Almost forty years later, historians Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum prepared a new and improved version of that WPA transcript for publication in a three-volume work, published in 1977. That edition became the authorita- tive source for scholars working on Salem until the publication in 2009 of an ambitious new compilation, edited by Bernard Rosenthal. This latest version contains new docu- ment~ and corrects many errors that crept into previous editions of the transcripts. Instead of organizing the documents case by case, Rosenthal presents the documents chronologically, which helps us to understand the crisis as it unfolded in ways that older editions inadvertently obscured. Yet some historians have pointed out that presenting the documents case by case best enables us to understand the individual stories and tragedies that lie at the center of the witch hunt I share that concern and have accord- ingly organized the documents below as a series of case studies.

‘””””‘~”-‘”‘-‘-·”‘·” ~’·–·~-·~·

68 WITCHES ON TRIAL

examinations. Sarah Good also denied that she was a witch, but she was brought to trial on June 28, convicted, and hanged on July 19.

Sarah Good’s father had been a prosperous innkeeper. At his death he left a substantial estate, but the man whom her mother subsequently married never handed over Sarah’s rightful share of that estate. Her first husband, Daniel Poole, was a former indentured servant; he died only a few years after they married, leaving Sarah nothing but his debts. Her sec- ond husband, William Good, was described in the records sometimes as a weaver and sometimes as a laborer. William and Sarah ended up home- less, destitute, and reliant upon local residents for food and shelter.

Sarah Good did not hold back her feelings of bitterness and resent- ment in the face of her declining fortunes. Her reluctance to accept God’s will doubtless shocked pious neighbors, and such outspokenness was particularly disturbing when coming from a woman. Good also had a reputation for holding a grudge and for muttering curses against those who crossed her, which would have alarmed her neighbors, not least because many people believed that such curses could work. The deposi- tions against Good illustrate vividly how interpersonal conflicts could accumulate and fester in tiny communities like Salem Village. They also show how easily people could become convinced that hostile neighbors were wielding occult forces against them. Personal animosity, inexpli- cable misfortunes, and belief in witchcraft combined in a lethal cocktail to bring about Sarah Good’s death.

14

Arrest Warrant for Sarah Good February 29, 1692

To Constable George Locker Whereas Masters joseph Hutcheson, Thomas Putnam, Edward

Putnam, and Thomas Preston, yeomen4 of Salem Village in the county

4 A yeoman owned and cultivated a small piece of land; he w&s of respectable standing but not affluent

Essex County Court Archives, vol. 1, no. 4, from the Records of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1692, Property of the Supreme Judicial Court, Division of Archives and Records Preservation, on deposit at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts.

io’

~I

ll H

;I

:i:i “”I

il

EXAMINATION OF SARAH GOOD (AS RECORDED BY EZEKIEL CHEEVER) 69

of Essex, personally appeared before us and made complaint on behalf of their Majesties against Sarah Good, the wife of William Good of Salem Village abovesaid, for suspicion of witchcraft by her committed, and thereby much injury done to Elizabeth Parris, Abigail Williams, Ann Putnam, and Elizabeth Hubbard, all of Salem Village aforesaid, sundry times within this two months and lately also done at Salem Village, con- trary to the peace of our Sovereign Lord and Lady, William and Mary, King and Queen of England, etc., you are therefore in their Majesties’ names hereby required to apprehend and bring before us the said Sarah Good, tomorrow about ten of the clock in the forenoon at the house of lieutenant Nathaniel Ingersoll in Salem Village, or as soon as may be, then and there to be examined relating to the abovesaid premises. And hereof you are not to fail at your peril.

15

John Hathorne Jonathan Corwin

Examination of Sarah Good (as Recorded by Ezekiel Cheever)

March 1, 1692

Hathorne: Sarah Good, what evil spirit have you familiarity with? Good: None. Hathorne: Have you made no contract with the Devil? Good: No. Hathorne: Why do you hurt these children? Good: I do not hurt them. I scorn it. Hathorne: Who do you employ, then, to do it? Good: I employ nobody. Hathorne: What creature do you employ, then? Good: No creature, but I am falsely accused. Hathorne: Why did you go away muttering from Mr. Parris’s house? Good: I did not mutter, but I thanked him for what he gave my child.

Essex County Court Archives, vol. 1, no. 11, from the Records of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1692, Property of the Supreme judicial Court, Division of Archives and Records Preservation, on deposit at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts.

70 WITCHES ON TRIAL

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 that had hurt them and so they all did look upon her and said this was one of the persons that did torment them. Pres- ently they were all tormented.

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

Good: I do not torment them. Hathorne: Who do you employ, then? Good: I employ nobody. I scorn it. Hathorne: How came they thus tormented? Good: What do I know? You bring others here and now you charge me

with it. Hathorne: Why, who was it? Good: I do not know, but it was some you brought into the meeting

house with you. Hathorne: We brought you into the meeting house. Good: But you brought in two more. Hathorne: Who was it, then, that tormented the children? Good: It was Osborne. Hathorne: What is it that you say when you go muttering away from

persons’ houses? Good: If I must tell, I will tell. Hathorne: Do tell us, then. Good: If I must tell, I will tell: it is the commandments. I may say my

commandments, I hope. Hathorne: What commandment is it? Good: If I must tell you, I will tell: it is a psalm. Hathorne: What psalm?

After a long time she muttered over some part of a psalm.

Hathorne: Who do you serve? Good: I serve God. Hathorne: What God do you serve? Good: The God that made heaven and earth (though she was not willing

to mention the word God).

Her answers were in a very wicked, spiteful manner, reflecting and re- torting against the authority with base and abusive words, and many

·:ti

:j

:I ·~! :I

¥1 !! ~

ELIZABfl.TH HUBBARD AGAINST SARAH GOOD 71

lies she was taken in. It was here said that her husband had said that he was afraid that she either was a witch or would be one very quickly the worse. Mr. Hathorne asked him his reason why he said so of her, whether he had ever seen anything by her. 5 He answered no, not in this nature, but it was her bad carriage to him. “And indeed,” said he, “I may say with tears that she is an enemy to all good.”

5 In other words, had he seen her do anything that might lead him to believe that she was a witch?

16

Elizabeth Hubbard against Sarah Good March 1, 1692

The deposition of Elizabeth Hubbard, aged about seventeen years, who testifieth and saith that on February 26, 1692 I saw the apparition of Sarah Good who did most grievously afflict me by pinching and pricking me and so she continued hurting of me till March 1, being the day of her examination, and then she did also most grievously afflict and torture me also during the time of her examination. And also several times since she hath afflicted me and urged me to write in her book. Also on the day of her examination, I saw the apparition of Sarah Good go and hurt and afflict the bodies of Elizabeth Parris, Abigail Williams, and Ann Putnam, Jr., and also I have seen the apparition of Sarah Good afflicting the body of Sarah Bibber.

Also in the night after Sarah Good’s examination, Sarah Good came to me bare foot and bare legged6 and did most grievously torment me by pricking and pinching me; and I verily believe that Sarah Good hath bewitched me. Also that night, Samuel Sibley that was then attending me struck Sarah Good on her arm.

6 Many Puritans would have considered such a state of undress to be indecent. According to Document 26, Elizabeth Hubbard claimed that Good’s breasts were also uncovered and called her “nasty slut.”

Essex County Court Archives, vol. 1, no. 20, from the Records of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1692, Property of the Supreme Judicial Court, Division of Archives and Records Preservation, on deposit at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusdts.

17

Ann Putnam ]r. against Sarah Good March 1, 1692

The deposition of Ann Putnam, Jr., who testifieth and saith that on Feb- ruary 25, 1692 I saw the apparition of Sarah Good which did torture me most grievously, but I did not know her name till February 27, and then she told me her name was Sarah Good and then she did prick me and pinch me most grievously, and also since several times, urging me vehemently to write in her book. And also on March 1, being the day of her examination, Sarah Good did most grievously torture me and also several times since. And also on March 1, 1692 I saw the apparition of Sarah Good go and afflict and torture the bodies of Elizabeth Parris, Abigail Williams, and Elizabeth Hubbard. Also I have seen the appari- tion of Sarah Good afflicting the body of Sarah Bibber.

Essex County Court Archives, vol. 1, no. 19, from the Records of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1692, Property of the Supreme Judicial Court, Division of Archives and Records Preservation, on deposit at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts.

18

William Allen, john Hughes, William Good, and Samuel Braybrook against Sarah Good,

Sarah Osborne, and Tituba March 5, 1692

William Allen saith that on March 1 at night he heard a strange noise not usually heard, and so [it] continued for many times so that he was affrighted, and coming nearer to it he there saw a strange and unusual beast lying on the ground, so that going up to it the said beast vanished

Essex County Court Archives, vol 1, no. 29, from the Records of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1692, Property of the Supreme Judicial Court, Division of Archives and Records Preservation, on deposit at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts.

72

WILLIAM ALLEN, JOHN HUGHES, WILLIAM GOOD, AND SAMUEL BRAYBROOK 73

away and in the said place started up two or three women and flew from me, not after the manner of other women, but swiftly vanished away out of our sight, which women we took to be Sarah Good, Sarah Osborne, and Tituba. The time was about an hour within night and I, John Hughes, saith the same, being in company then with said Allen, as witness our hands.

William Allen further saith that on March 2 the said Sarah Good vis- ibly appeared to him in his chamber, said Allen being in bed, and [she] brought an unusual light in with her. The said Sarah came and sat upon his foot; the said Allen went to kick at her, upon which she vanished and the light with her.

William Good saith that the night before his said wife was examined, he saw a wart or teat a little below her right shoulder which he never saw before and asked Goodwife Ingersoll whether she did not see it when she searched her.

John Hughes further saith that on March 2, coming from Goodman Sibley’s about eight of the clock in the night, he saw a great white dog whom he came up to, but he [the dog] would not stir, but when he [Hughes] was past, he, the said dog, followed him about four or five poles7 and so disappeared. The same night, the said John Hughes being in bed in a closed room and the door being fast so that no cat nor dog could come in, the said John saw a great light appear in the said cham- ber, and rising up in his bed he saw a large grey cat at his bed’s foot.

[On] March 2 Samuel Braybrook saith that, carrying Sarah Good to Ipswich, the said Sarah leapt off her horse three times, which was between twelve and three of the clock of the same day [on] which the daughter of Thomas Putnam declared the same at her father’s house. The said Braybrook further saith that said Sarah Good told him that she would not own herself to be a witch unless she is proved one; she saith that there is but one evidence, and that’s an Indian, and therefore she fears not, and so continued railing against the magistrates and she endeavored to kill herself.

7 One pole equaled 51h yards.

19

Abigail Williams against Sarah Good, Sarah Osborne, and Tituba

May23, 1692

Abigail Williams testifieth and saith that several times last February she hath been much afflicted with pains in her head and other parts and often pinched by the apparition of Sarah Good, Sarah Osborne, and Tituba Indian, all of Salem Village, and also excessively afflicted by the said apparition of said Good, Osborne, and Tituba at their examination before authority [on] March 1, 1692. Further the said Abigail Williams testifieth that she saw the apparition of said Sarah Good at her examina- tion pinch Elizabeth Hubbard and set her into fits and also Elizabeth Parris and Ann Putnam.

Essex County Court Archives, voJ. 1, no. 31, from the Records of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1692, Property of the Supreme Judicial Court, Division of Archives and Records Preservation, on deposit at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts.

20

Indictment against Sarah Good for Afflicting Sarah Bibber8

june 28, 1692

Anno [Regni] Regis et Reginae Willm et Mariae nunc Angliae etc. Quarto [in the fourth year of the reign of William and Mary, King and Queen of England, etc.]

[In] Essex [County 1

s Almost identical indictments accused Sarah Good of using witchcraft to afflict Elizabeth Hubbard and Ann Putnam Jr.

Essex County Court Archives, vol. 1, no. 3, from the Records of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1692, Property of the Supreme judicial Court, Division of Archives and Records Preservation, on deposit at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts.

74

SARAH BIBBERAGAINST SARAH GOOD 75

The Jurors for our Sovereign Lord and Lady, the King and Queen, pre- sent that Sarah Good, wife of William Good of Salem Village in the county of Essex, husbandman,9 [on] May 2 in the fourth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord and Lady, William and Mary, by the grace of God of En- gland, Scotland, France, and Ireland King and Queen, Defenders of the Faith, etc., and [on] diverse other days and times as well before as after, certain detestable arts called witchcrafts and sorceries wickedly and felo- niously hath used, practiced, and exercised at and within the township of Salem in the county of Essex aforesaid, in, upon, and against one Sarah Bibber, wife of John Bibber of Salem aforesaid, husbandman, by which said wicked arts she, the said Sarah Bib her, [on] the said May 2 in the fourth year abovesaid and diverse other days and times as well before as after, was and is tortured, afflicted, pined, consumed, wasted, and tor- mented, and also for sundry other acts of witchcraft by said Sarah Good committed and done before and since that time against the peace of our Sovereign Lord and Lady, the King and Queen, their crown and dignity, and against the form of the Statute in that case made and provided.

9Farmer.

21

Sarah Bibber against Sarah Good june 28, 1692

The deposition of Sarah Bibber, aged about thirty-six years, who testifieth and saith that since I have been afflicted I have often seen the apparition of Sarah Good, but she did not hurt me till May 2, 1692, though I saw her apparition most grievously torture Mercy Lewis and John Indian at Salem on Aprilll, 1692. But on May 2, 1692 the apparition of Sarah Good did most grievously torment me by pressing my breath almost out of my body; and also she did immediately afflict my child by pinching of it [so] that I could hardly hold it, and my husband seeing of it took hold

Essex County Court Archives, vol. 1, no. 26, from the Records of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1692, Property of the Supreme judicial Court, Division of Archives and Records Preservation, on deposit at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts.

76 WITCHF-‘i ON TRIAL

of the child, but it cried out and twisted so dreadfully by reason of the torture that the apparition of Sarah Good did afflict it withal that it got out of its father’s arms too. Also several times since, the apparition of Sarah Good has most grievously tormented me by beating and pinching me, and almost choking me to death, and pricking me with pins after a most dreadful manner.

22

Sarah Cadge and Thomas Cadge against Sarah Good

june 28, 1692

The deposition of Sarah Gadge, the wife of Thomas Gadge, aged about forty years: this deponent testifieth and saith that about two years and a half ago Sarah Good came to her house and would have come into the house, but said Sarah Gadge told her she should not come in for she was afraid she had been with them that had the smallpox, and with that she [Good] fell to muttering and scolding extremely, and so told said Gadge [that] if she would not let her in she should give her something; and she answered she would not have anything to do with her; and the next morning after, to said deponent’s best remembrance, one of said Gadge’s cows died in a sudden, terrible, and strange, unusual manner, so that some of the neighbors and said deponent did think it to be done by witchcraft, and [she] farther saith not

And Thomas Gadge, husband of said Sarah, testifieth that he had a cow so died about the time above mentioned, and though he and some neighbors opened the cow, yet they could find no natural cause of said cow’s death, and [he] farther saith not

Essex County Court Archives, vol. 1, no. 15, from the Records of the Court of Oyer

I and Terminer, 1692, Property of the Supreme Judicial Court, Division of Archives and Records Preservation, on deposit at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts.

. . . . l

23

joseph Herrick Sr. and Mary Herrick against Sarah Good

june 28, 1692

The deposition of Joseph Herrick, Sr., who testifieth and saith that on March 1, 1692, I being then Constable for Salem, there was delivered to me by warrant from the worshipful John Hathorne and Jonathan Corwin, Esquires, Sarah Good for me to carry to their Majesties’ jail at Ipswich. And that night I set a guard to watch her at my own house, namely Samuel Braybrook, Michael Dunell, [and] Jonathan Baker. And the aforenamed persons informed me in the morning that that night Sarah Good was gone for some time from them, both bare foot and bare legged. And I was also informed that that night Elizabeth Hubbard, one of the afflicted persons, complained that Sarah Good came and afflicted her, being bare foot and bare legged, and Samuel Sibley, that was one that was attending of Elizabeth Hubbard, struck Good on the arm, as Elizabeth Hubbard said, and Mary Herrick, wife of the above said Joseph Herrick, testifieth that on March 2, 1692 in the morning, I took notice of Sarah Good in the morning and one of her arms was bloody from a little below the elbow to the wrist, and I also took notice of her arms on the night before and there was no sign of blood on them.

Essex County Court Archives, vol 1, no. 16, from the Records of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1692, Property of the Supreme Judicial Court, Division of Archives and Records Preservation, on deposit at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts.

77

24

Samuel Abbey and Mary Abbey against Sarah Good june 29, 1692

Samuel Abbey of Salem Village, aged forty-five years or thereabouts, and Mary Abbey, his wife, aged thirty-eight years or thereabouts, deposeth and saith that about this time three years past, William Good and his wife Sarah Good, being destitute of a house to dwell in, these deponents, out of charity, they being poor, let them live in theirs some time, until that the said Sarah Good was of so turbulent a spirit, spiteful, and so maliciously bent that these deponents could not suffer her to live in their house any longer and was forced for quietness sake to turn she, the said Sarah, with her husband, out of their house. Ever since, which is about two years and an half ago, the said Sarah Good hath carried it very spitefully and maliciously towards them. The winter following after the said Sarah was gone from our house, we began to lose cattle and lost several after an unusual manner, in a drooping condition, and yet they would eat, and your deponents have lost after that manner seventeen head of cattle within two years, besides sheep and hogs, and both do believe they died by witchcraft. The said William Good on the last of May, [that] was twelve months [ago], went home to his wife the said Sarah Good, and told her what a sad accident had fallen out She asked what. He answered that his neighbor Abbey had lost two cows, both dying within half an hour of one another. The said Sarah Good said she did not care if he, the said Abbey, had lost all the cattle he had, as the said John Good told us. Just that very day that the said Sarah Good was taken up, 10 we, your deponents, had a cow that could not rise alone, but since presently after she [Good] was taken up, the said cow was well and could rise so well as if she had ailed nothing. She, the said Sarah Good, ever since these deponents turned her out of their house, hath behaved herself very crossly and maliciously to them and their children, calling their children vile names and hath threatened them often.

to Arrested.

Essex County Court Archives, vol. 1, no. 18, from the Records of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1692, Property of the Supreme judicial Court, Division of Archives and Records Preservation, on deposit at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts.

78

25

Henry Herrick and jonathan Batchelor against Sarah Good

june 29, 1692

The deposition of Henry Herrick, aged about twenty-one years: this deponent testifieth and saith that in last March, [that] was two years [ago], Sarah Good came to his father’s house and desired to lodge there, and his father forbid it, and she went away grumbling and my father bid us follow her and see that she went away clear, lest she should lie in the barn and by smoking of her pipe should fire the barn. And said depo- nent with Jonathan Batchelor seeing her make a stop near the barn, bid her be gone, or he would set her further off, to which she replied that then it should cost his father Zachariah Herrick one or two of the best cows which he had.

And Jonathan Batchelor, aged fourteen years, testifieth the same above written, and doth farther testify that about a week after, two of his grandfather’s master cattle were removed from their places and other younger cattle put in their rooms and since that several of their cattle have been set loose in a strange manner.

Essex County Court Archives, vol. 1, no. 21, from the Records of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1692, Property of the Supreme Judicial Court, Division of Archives and Records Preservation, on deposit at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts.

79

26

Samuel Sibley against Sarah Good june 29, 1692

Samuel Sibley, aged about thirty-four years, testifieth and saith that I being at the house of Doctor Griggs that night after that Sarah Good was examined, and Elizabeth Hubbard said, ‘There stands Sarah Good upon the table by you with all her naked breast and bare footed [and] bare legged,” and said, “0 nasty slut! If I had something I would kill her!” Then I struck with my staff where she, said Sarah Good, stood and Elizabeth Hubbard cried out, “You have hit her right across the back, you have almost killed her.” If anybody was there they may see it.

Essex Institute Collection, vol. 1, no. 30, from the Records of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1692, Property of the Supreme Judicial Court, Division of Archives and Records Preservation, on deposit at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts.

27

Death Warrant for Sarah Good, Rebecca Nurse, Susannah Martin, Elizabeth How, and

Sarah Wilds and Officer’s Return july 12, 1692, and july 19, 1692

To George Corwin, Gentleman, High Sheriff of the County of Essex Greeting:

Whereas Sarah Good, wife of William Good of Salem Village, Rebecca Nurse, wife of Francis Nurse of Salem Village, Susannah Martin of Amesbury, widow, Elizabeth How, wife of James How of Ipswich, [and] Sarah Wilds, wife of John Wilds of Topsfield, all of the county of Essex in their Majesties’ province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, at a Court of Oyer and Terminer held by adjournment for our Sovereign

Ms.Am.48, Rare Books and Manuscripts, Boston Public Library, Boston, Massachusetts, Courtesy of the Trustees of the Boston Public Library.

80

DEATII WARRANT AND OFFICER’S RETIJRN 81

Lord and Lady, King William and Queen Mary, for the said county of Essex at Salem in the said county on June 29 were severally arraigned on several indictments for the horrible crime of witchcraft by them prac- ticed and committed on several persons, and pleading not guilty did for their trial put themselves on God and their country, whereupon they were each of them found and brought in guilty by the jury that passed on them according to their respective indictments and sentence of death did then pass upon them as the law directs execution, whereof yet re- mains to be done.

These are therefore in their Majesties’ names, William and Mary, now King and Queen over England, etc., to will and command you that upon Tuesday next, being July 19, between the hours of eight and twelve in the forenoon [of] the same day, you safely conduct the said Sarah Good, Rebecca Nurse, Susannah Martin, Elizabeth How, and Sarah Wilds from their Majesties’ jail in Salem aforesaid to the place of execution, and there cause them and every of them to be hanged by the necks until they be dead, and of the doings herein make return to the clerk of the said court and this precept And hereof you are not to fail at your peril. And this shall be your sufficient warrant, given under my hand and seal at Boston July 12 in the fourth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord and Lady, William and Mary, King and Queen, etc.

William Stoughton

July 19, 1692

I caused the within mentioned persons to be executed according to the tenor of the within warrant

George Corwin, Sheriff

TITUBA

Tituba, described in the seventeenth-century records as an “Indian woman,” was a slave in the household of Salem Village’s minister, Sam- uel Parris. Parris had purchased Tituba, along with her husband John (also characterized in the records as an “Indian”), during his residence in Barbados during the 1670s. Almost no information survives regard- ing Tituba’s personal or family history, either before or after the Salem crisis, though she would become a central figure in the popular mythol- ogy surrounding 1692. We do know that she had a reputation for super- natural knowledge and in early 1692 was commissioned by the aunt of one of the afflicted girls to bake a urine-cake, the purpose of which was