Mythology surrounding witchcraft is deeply embedded in the social tapestry of modern western civilization. Yet there is a great deal of misconception and outright fallacy in popular culture regarding the phenomenon. Contemporary scholarship to a great extent endeavours to alter these preconceptions. In order to begin the analysis of the tragic spectacle of witchcraft, the nature of accusation must first be addressed: what situations typically led to suspicion? Additionally, the character of the “average” witch must be determined; indeed, the scholastic theories concerning witches differ greatly from traditional stereotypes, which developed after the majority of witch trials had passed into history. Similarly, those who accused witches have been misconceived in the centuries after their actions and therefore must be re-examined. Yet, while these stereotypes are in question, some witches were in fact executed, agreeing with convention; however, a greater number of those accused were acquitted of the charges against them, or never entered court at all. The relationship between witches and accusers is itself of great importance in analyzing witchcraft cases. While a number of factors governed the attitudes of each party for the other, the most obvious aspect of the interactions between accused witches and their accusers was conflict, usually of a financial nature. When such personal conflict was elevated to include the entire community, as occurred in Salem in 1692, a major outbreak of witchcraft persecution erupted. Yet Salem is a peculiar case; it will be briefly examined as an extremity of the normal model of witchcraft, and not as the defining element of colonial witchcraft as it is popularly believed to have been.
The most fundamental issue that needs to be explored is the nature and origins of witchcraft accusations: on what grounds were they given? Scholastic consensus attributes suspicion with conflict between two individuals, most likely neighbours. They might have had a dispute over land claims or other large-scale financial matter, or over smaller interpersonal experiences, such as one party’s constant intrusion into the house of the other, which would lead to disdain. The events which were most conducive to suspicion involved the exchange of goods, frequently initiated by the witch. Demands for goods or favours were usually rejected; the victim might project their guilty conscience towards the witch, which would frequently be confirmed with some chastising remark from the witch. Such seemingly minor incidents would climax when the victim would suffer an accident or disaster, either to himself or his family, or to his property. Any contact with the witch prior to being afflicted in the aforementioned fashion could lead to a formal accusation for witchcraft. Yet a further situational aspect was required. Seemingly in opposition to all the internal conflict that was required in order to promote suspicion of witchcraft, a fundamental stability needed to exist at the level of the community. One does not see periods of witchcraft trials during town settlement, or when a dangerous external force threatened the community. After examining the sources it becomes clear that the traditional stereotypes have some modicum of truth, yet are greatly exaggerated in the details. Therefore, while the majority of witches were in fact older women, the evidence requires further contemplation. Accusations for witchcraft were not dispensed at the sight of one instance of possible witchcraft. Alternately, suspicions of witchcraft gradually increased over several decades before one event, as described above, triggered formal accusations. When interpreted in a social context, the majority of those who participated in witchcraft proceedings were members of the lower classes. It was they who accepted witchcraft as a societal danger most readily; it is quite easy to envisage the economic hardships suffered by the lower classes and therefore their willingness to denounce their economic rivals. Yet when a powerful individual was a participant, the case had a higher probability of entering the courts. At the same time however, many educated members of the upper class were skeptical of the legality of such trials.
From these beginnings, models of typical witches and their victims can be created. Far from being old wise-women who engaged in pagan religious practices in contempt of their Puritan neighbours or social misfits who defied authority, those accused and condemned for witchcraft were conventional members of their communities. In virtually every case, however, there was one abnormality which differentiated the accused from the other members of their town and forced them into being viewed as “outsiders”. The most obvious of these abnormalities, at least from the position of the accuser, was the social status of the accused. In the majority of witchcraft trials, witches were of the low and lower-middle classes, while the individuals bringing forth charges were of a higher class. Such statistics have a relatively easy explanation: wealthier individuals could bring charges of witchcraft to court with greater authority and less opposition. They could have more easily condemned their social inferiors and would not have been as vulnerable to counter accusations. Notably, those “mobile”individuals who began to lose their wealth and high status were also easily accused. It is easy to visualize such individuals incurring the enmity of their higher-class neighbours in attempting to ameliorate their position by engaging in activities which could have been seen as socially threatening, or by allowing their jealousies to be exhibited. Additionally, it must be noted that while members of the upper classes were not exempt from accusations, they were rarely convicted; their influence in the community was simply too great. The portrait of witchcraft victims is less straightforward than that of their accused. Indeed, to a modern observer they do not seem to be victims so much as persecutors in their own right. Yet they did not use witchcraft merely to gain advantage over those whom they disdained; conversely, they truly believed that they were the victims of diabolical machinations. One group stands out among victims: young adult males. Men in this age group were most susceptible to victimization because to a great extent they were the most vulnerable individuals financially; they had begun the long, arduous process of establishing an independent livelihood. Analyzing such a situation, it is easy to interpret witchcraft accusations deriving from the crop and handicraft failures noted above; these men projected their own failure onto others.
The Salem witchcraft outbreak in 1692 is exceptional due to the excessiveness of both the circumstances which led up to it and the extent to which it progressed. Fundamentally, the situation in Salem was similar to other cases in that accusations derived from conflict. Yet personal conflicts increased to engulf the entire community, dividing it into factions. This fragmentation can be traced to several linked sources: hostility between Salem Town and Salem Village; divided loyalties for the Village minister of the time, Samuel Parris; and financial conflict between the two leading families of the Village. Each of these aspects was linked by threads of power, in both the financial and political spheres. The evidence is quite clear: those whose loyalties lay with the Village attempted to accuse those whose interests lay in the Town, or at least individuals who were involved with them. Notably, in opposition to the expected trend, accusations rose from the lower classes to being aimed at some of the powerful and influential people of the Village. However, it was ultimately these same individuals who brought an end to the accusations, mainly through the inability of the law to properly deal with the situation. Therefore, in examining the abnormal degree of persecution in Salem, one must remain aware of the peculiarities of the Town’s situation; the nineteen witches who were executed were not killed on the basis of crop failures or petty jealousies alone.
Witchcraft is one of the most cited yet most misunderstood aspects of colonial America. The language and philosophy of the persecutions have entered into the cultural conscience of the western world. It is interesting to note, however, that most of these fragments of history were derived from the extreme case of Salem. The outbreak in 1692 is not representative of witchcraft in the colonies as a whole. Indeed, the typical case is a cautious and rational one, although the particular convictions do not associate with modern ideology. Yet it is important to situate the phenomenon of witchcraft as a part of the normal experiences of early settlers in the new world.
Bibliography
Boyer, Paul, and Stephen Nissenbaum. Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1974.
Demos, John Putnam. Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.
No comments:
Post a Comment