The Witchcraft Delusion in Colonial Connecticut Part 15

MARY SANFORD. Hartford, 1662. Convicted June 13, 1662. Executed.

_Records Particular Court_ (2: 174-175); HOADLEY'S _Record Witchcraft Trials_.

ANDREW SANFORD. Hartford, 1662. No indictment.

_Records Particular Court_ (2: 174-175); HOADLEY'S _Record Witchcraft Trials_.

JUDITH VARLETT (VARLETH). Hartford, 1662. Arrested; released.

It will be recalled that Rebecca Greensmith in her confession, among other things, said that Mrs. Judith Varlett told her that she (Varlett) "was much troubled wth ye Marshall Jonath: Gilbert & cried, & she sayd if it lay in her power she would doe him a mischief, or what hurt shee could."

Judith must have indulged in other indiscretions of a.s.sociation or of speech, since she soon fell under suspicion of witchcraft, and was put under arrest and imprisoned. But she had a powerful friend at court (who, despite his many contentions and intrigues, commanded the attention of the Connecticut authorities), in the person of her brother-in-law Peter Stuyvesant, then bearing the t.i.tle and office of "Captain General and Commander-in-Chief of Amsterdam In New Netherland, now called New York, and the Dutch West India Islands." It was doubtless due to his intercession in a letter of October 13, 1662, that she was released.

The letter:

"To the Honorable Deputy Governour & Court of "Magistracy att Harafort.

(Oct. 1662)

"Honoured and Worthy Srs.--

"By this occasion of me Brother in Lawe (beinge necessitated to make a Second Voyage for ayde his distressed sister Judith Varleth jmprisoned as we are jmformed, uppon pretend accusation of wicherye we Realy Beleeve and out her wel known education Life Conversation & profession of faith, wee dear a.s.sure that shee is jnnocent of Such a horrible Crimen, & wherefor j doubt not hee will now, as formerly finde jour dhonnours favour and ayde for the jnnocent). _Ye Ld Stephesons Letter_ (C.B. 2: doc. 1).

MARY BARNES. Farmington, 1662. Convicted January 6. Probably executed.

_Records Particular Court_ (2: 184).

WILLIAM AYRES and GOODY AYRES his Wife. Hartford, 1662. Arrested. Fled from the colony.

ELIZABETH SEAGER. Hartford, 1662. Convicted; discharged.

Goody Seager probably deserved all that came to her in trials and punishment. She was one of the typical characters in the early communities upon whom distrust and dislike and suspicion inevitably fell. Exercising witch powers was one of her more reputable qualities.

She was indicted for blasphemy, adultery, and witchcraft at various times, was convicted of adultery, and found guilty of witchcraft in June, 1665. She owed her escape from hanging to a finding of the Court of a.s.sistants that the jury's verdict did not legally answer to the indictment, and she was set "free from further suffering or imprisonment." _Records County Court_ (3: 5: 52); _Colonial Records of Connecticut_ (2: 531); _Rhode Island Colonial Records_ (2: 388).

JAMES WALKLEY. Hartford, 1662. Arrested. Fled to Rhode Island.

KATHERINE HARRISON. Wethersfield, 1669. Convicted; discharged.

See account in previous chapter. _Records Court of, a.s.sistants_ (I, 1-7); _Colonial Records of Connecticut_ (2: 118, 132); _Doc. History New York_ (4th ed., 4: 87).

NICHOLAS DESBOROUGH. Hartford, 1683. Suspicioned.

Desborough was a landowner in Hartford, having received a grant of fifty acres for his services in the Pequot war. He owes his enrollment in the hall of fame to Cotton Mather, who was so self-satisfied with his efforts in "Relating the wonders of the invisible world in preternatural occurrences" that in his pedantic exuberance he put in a learned sub-t.i.tle: "Miranda cano, sed sunt credenda" (The themes I sing are marvelous, yet true).

Fourteen examples were chosen for the "Thaumatographia Pneumatica," as "remarkable histories" of molestations from evil spirits, and Mather said of them, "that no reasonable man in this whole country ever did question them."

Desborough stands in place as the "fourth example." No case more clearly ill.u.s.trates the credulity that neutralized common sense in strong men.

It was a case of abstraction, or theft, or mistaken thrift. A "chest of cloaths" was missing. The owner, instead of going to law, found his remedy "in things beyond the course of nature," and he and his friends with "nimble hands" pelted Desborough's house, and himself when abroad, with stones, turves, and corncobs, and finally some of his property was burned by a fire "in an unknown way kindled." Is it not enough to note that Mather closes this wondrous tale of the spiritual molestations with the very human explanation that "upon the restoring of the cloaths, the trouble ceased"?

ELIZABETH CLAWSON. Fairfield, 1692. Acquitted.

Account in previous chapter.

MARY and HANNAH HARVEY. Fairfield, 1692. Jury found no bill.

GOODY MILLER. Fairfield, 1692. Acquitted.

MARY STAPLIES. Fairfield, 1692. Jury found no bill.

Account in previous chapter.

MERCY DISBOROUGH. Fairfield, 1692. Convicted; reprieved. Account in previous chapter. HUGH CROTIA. Stratford, 1693. Jury found no bill.

Account in previous chapter. _C. & D._ (Vol. I,185).

WINIFRED BENHAM SENIOR and JUNIOR. Wallingford, 1697. Acquitted.

They were mother and daughter (twelve or thirteen years old), tried at Hartford and acquitted in August, 1697; indicted on new complaints in October, 1697, but the jury returned on the bill, "Ignoramus." _Records Court of a.s.sistants_ (1: 74, 77).

SARAH SPENCER. Colchester, 1724. Accused. Damages 1s.

Even a certificate of the minister as to her religion and virtue, could not free Sarah from a reputation as a witch. And when Elizabeth (and how many Connecticut witches bore that name) Ackley accused her of "riding and pinching," and James Ackley, her husband, made threats, Sarah sued them for a fortune in those days, 500 damages, and got judgment for 5, with costs. The Ackleys appealed, and at the trial the jury awarded Sarah damages of ls., and also stated that they found the Ackleys not insane--a clear demonstration that the mental condition of witchcraft accusers was taken account of in the later and saner times.

NORTON. Bristol, 1768. Suspicioned. No record.

"On the mountain," probably Fall mountain in Bristol, the antics of a young woman named Norton, who accused her aunt of putting a bridle on her and driving her through the air to witch meetings in Albany, caused a commotion among the virtuous people. Deacon Dutton's ox was torn apart by an invisible agent, and unseen hands brought new ailments to the residents there, pinched them and stuck red hot pins into them.

Elder Wildman set out to exorcise the evil spirit, but became so terrorized that he called for help, and one of his posse of a.s.sistants was scared into convulsions. This case may be counted among the last, perhaps the last traditions of the strange delusion which aforetime filled the hills and valleys of Quohnectacut with its baleful light.

_Memorial History Hartford County_ (2: 51).

ROLL OF NAMES

ALSE YOUNG 1647 MARY JOHNSON 1648 JOHN CARRINGTON 1650-51 JOAN CARRINGTON 1650-71 GOODY Ba.s.sETT 1651 GOODWIFE KNAPP 1653 LYDIA GILBERT 1654 ELIZABETH G.o.dMAN 1655 NICHOLAS BAYLY 1655 GOODWIFE BAYLY 1655 WILLIAM MEAKER 1657 ELIZABETH GARLICK 1658 NICHOLAS JENNINGS 1661 MARGARET JENNINGS 1661 NATHANIEL GREENSMITH 1662 REBECCA GREENSMITH 1662 MARY SANFORD 1662 ANDREW SANFORD 1662 GOODY AYRES 1662 KATHERINE PALMER 1662 JUDITH VARLETT 1662 JAMES WALKLEY 1662 MARY BARNES 1662-63 ELIZABETH SEAGER 1666 KATHERINE HARRISON 1669 NICHOLAS DISBOROUGH 1683 MARY STAPLIES 1692 MERCY DISBOROUGH 1692 ELIZABETH CLAWSON 1692 MARY HARVEY 1692 HANNAH HARVEY 1692 GOODY MILLER 1692 HUGH CROTIA 1693 WINIFRED BENHAM, SENR. 1697 WINIFRED BENHAM, JUNR. 1697 SARAH SPENCER 1724 ---- NORTON 1768

What of those men and women to whom justice in their time was meted out, in this age of reason, of religious enlightenment, liberty, and catholicity, when witchcraft has lost its mystery and power, when intelligence reigns, and the Devil works his will in other devious ways and in a more attractive guise?

They were the victims of delusion, not of dishonor, of a perverted theology fed by moral aberrations, of a fanaticism which never stopped to reason, and halted at no sacrifice to do G.o.d's service; and they were all done to death, or harried into exile, disgrace, or social ostracism, through a mistaken sense of religious duty: but they stand innocent of deep offense and only guilty in the eye of the law written in the Word of G.o.d, as interpreted and enforced by the forefathers who wrought their condemnation, and whose religion made witchcraft a heinous sin, and whose law made it a heinous crime.

Is the contrast in human experience, between the servitude to credulity and superst.i.tion in 1647-97 and the deliverance from it of this day, any wider than between the ironclad theology of that and of later times, and the challenge to it, and its diabolical logic, of yesterday, which marks a new era in denominational creeds, in religious beliefs, and their expression?