<A HREF="http://www.puritansermons.com/poetry/wigglife.htm">Click here: About Michael Wigglesworth and his Poetry</A> You might study the poems of MICHAEL WIGGLESWORTH (one of my ancestors) to learn what our ancestors in Essex County were reading and influenced by. His DAY OF DOOM was the first best seller in the history of literature in our country. Jacqueline Sleeper Russell

>From Jenny Gibbons: >So to summarize, I think that our ancestors were terrified of a >non-existant Satanic conspiracy. The witches they feared didn't exist; >the witches that existed weren't feared. Moreover the real witches (cunning folk) feared and hated these non-existant witches as much as everybody else. If this were true, then Elizabeth Morse would never have been accused, prosecuted, and convicted. She was a folk healer who was turned to for help when people or animals were ill. But when her help didn't work, when children or animals died after she visited instead of getting well, people claimed she had deliberately done harm. As most scholars of magic point out--as well as those who have looked at what happened to midwives--people were quick to accuse "white witches" if their methods didn't produce the desired result. As Northwest Coast native healer Johnny Moses says, in the old days, if a medcine man or woman tried to help, and the person died instead of getting well, then sometimes the luckless healer was killed on the spot. In Puritan New England, the process was a little slower: the person was accused of witchcraft, tried, convicted, and then killed. In practice (as Owen Davies has pointed out), the distinctions between those who used what we call magic to do good vs. those who used it for harm often blurred. For example, cunning folk (as opposed to charmers) were credited with the ability to identify when illness was the result of a witch's curse, and cunning folk were enlisted to reverse the effect by harming the witch. A number of scholars have pointed out that the general public often felt ambivalently towards those who could wield magical power: they turned to them when they were desperate, but they also feared their abilities. While I agree that many of the modern historical studies of New England witchcraft accusations often lack much knowledge of what witchcraft meant, I also would suggest studies other than the ones you recommended. I think Keith Thomas' studies were important as pioneering studies (the subject has only recently become "respectable" in scholarly circles), but his studies are largely confined to England and France, and they have become dated. Robin Briggs' study has been criticized for drawing broad conclusions based on a rather narrow geographic scope. My own feeling is that while studies of England, France, and Germany are interesting, they do not tell us what was happening in New England. Although New England was like England in some respects, it was also unique in others. I'm hoping someone will do a thorough examination of the court records, the local histories, and the books people were reading to examine what people in New England actually thought and how their ideas determined their actions. I'd especially recommend the work of Owen Davies, for example his article in History Today, August 1999 v49 i8 p7 WITCHCRAFT THE SPELL THAT DIDN'T BREAK, and his articles on the differences between charmers and cunning folk that appeared in the English journal, _Folklore_. David D. Hall has published several good studies of Puritan attitudes towards "wonders", a subject that touches closely on how they regarded witchcraft. I also recommend the article, "The Devil Hath Laughed at the Physicians”: Witchcraft and Medical Practice in Seventeenth-Century New England" by NORMAN GEVITZ which appeared in Journal of the History of Medicine Vol. 55, January 2000 (Oxford university press issn 0022-5045 volume 55 pages 5 to 36). I also recommend, in a general way, Claire Fanger (ed.), _Conjuring Spirits_, the various books written or edited by Karen Jolly, and Richard Kieckhefer's _Magic in the Middle Ages_. A while ago, I read an article on Puritan perceptions of Indians and how it affected the Salem trials (the article predated Norton's book by several years). The author pointed out that "John Indian" was used to detect witches. The unstated presumption seemed to be that since he was an Indian, John had the ability to discern spirits. I've been trying to find the reference but no luck so far. Francine Nicholson _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Wondered if there were any witches with the SURNAME of SLEEPER? JSR

>From Jenny Gibbons: >All of which is a round-about way of saying no new news. No evidence of >witches being charged with mischief. More evidence of what we know -- that witches were believed to do mischief (ie., tangible harm). Thanks for looking in the various sources you cited. I agree that there's no smoking gun here, but there's lots of smoke (connecting mischief with what witches do), enough to justify further research in county court records to verify what charges of mischief meant to the courts. Another thought: Enders Robinson did a lot more research in familiy and local histories than most historians of the hysteria customarily do. I wonder whether histories of Billerica might contain local traditions about Rebecca Chamberlain. And is it possible that she was related to someone who was charged with witchcraft? Francine Nicholson _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Hi all! This has been an interesting thread to follow! Bear in mind that the "mischief" witches caused was called "maleficium" because it was aided by the Devil. On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 11:20 PM, among other things, Joan < Jma8763@aol.com > wrote: > It certainly seems to me that witchcraft was one of the easiest > crimes to prove, since it was impossible to defend against!! Wouldn't > it be easier to CLAIM that you saw someone's spectral being committing > a crime, than to actually PROVE, through REAL physical evidence, that > some OTHER crime had been committed?? It may seem that way, but according to Mary Beth Norton's book, it was not. The magistrates spent a great deal of time and care researching English law on the subject. In fact, it was more common for accusations of witchcraft to boomerang on an accuser with a countersuit of libel. And one feature of the trials that made Salem truly unusual was that the magistrates ignored the precedent that spectral evidence alone could not be enough to convict someone. Cheers, Margo Margo Burns, List Owner of the Salem-Witch List at rootsweb.com margo@ogram.org

Hi Francine, Well, I guess I'll start at the END of your post, and work my way up... >>Excuse me, but *no one* has suggested or assumed this. Accusations of mischief and witchcraft are actually quite similar, the distinction being *how* the damage was caused. My vague recollection is that charges of witchcraft often mentioned mischief. Therefore, the suggestion that someone charged with mischief--as Goody Chamberlain was; it's not that she simply died in prison of an unknown charge or cause--might have been considered a witch is worthy of further research.<< Judging by the tone of your post, apparently, I've offended you, although I honestly can't see HOW! I never said that anyone DID assume she was a witch, I merely cautioned against making such an assumption. Personally, I find it very helpful when others share their mistakes with me, so that I might not make them myself.... I was merely trying to make a helpful suggestion....if that offended you, I apologize. Also, I believe I DID recommend further research, but you knew that, since you quoted in your post. >>I think you've misunderstood what was posted about her case....However, no one has suggested that Goody Chamberlain was *proved* to be a witch.<< I don't believe that I did misunderstand the post about her case, but you're certainly free to believe what you wish, I was merely asking questions to try and further understand her situation, if the answers were known by anyone. I did NOT, however, say that ANYONE suggested that she had been "proven a witch". Perhaps you misunderstood my post? >>ALL that anyone has suggested is that because of the timing and the similarity between mischief and witchcraft, the case bears further investigation.<< You completely lose me on this one! First of all, as I said above, I too recommended further investigation! But where you lose me is in the "similarity" between mischief and witchcraft. Unless I have COMPLETELY misunderstood all the court documents from the trials, those accused during the hysteria of 1692 were alleged to have committed grievous personal assaults, including those causing several deaths, particularly in Ann Putnam's family. I don't see much similarity between those allegations and something as petty as a mischief, even though I can certainly see where mischievous behavior could be PART of witchcraft allegation. And certainly the punishments for the two would have been vastly different, as I doubt there were too many people being hanged for mischief! >>Seems to me that you're thinking more like a 20th c. than a 17thc. person. "Proof" would be testimony that the accused did witchy-type things immediately before someone's child or cows got sick.<< Nope, sorry, it's definitely the 17th century that I'm thinking of, and the argument that you make suggesting that I'm confused over the era, is in complete support of what I wrote...IF you read the whole thing together, as the reply that it was! The suggestion was made that perhaps mischief was charged BECAUSE there was proof of THAT crime, but NOT of witchcraft. The "witch-type" behavior you mention, would be proof of WITCHCRAFT, which, according to the suggestion I was addressing, would not have existed! My suggestion was that the evidence of mischief WITHOUT witchcraft, would be something that any mere mortal could have done, so why then would witchcraft be suspected. While spectral evidence was admitted into the trials of the accused witches, other crimes were tried using quite ordinary evidence, even in the 17th century! Proof of a mischief that did NOT involve witchcraft would have been very similar to what it would be today...a witness, a motive, a threat, etc. Remember, I'm NOT talking about evidence of WITCHCRAFT, but rather mischief!! >>Did they really always believe that?....My point is that what made some people accuse other people was not simply a belief that the crime of witchcraft had been committed.<< ABSOLUTELY NOT....nor did I say that I thought they did!! In fact, I've quite clearly stated that I absolutely do NOT believe that the ACCUSERS believed the accused to be witches, nor do I think those close to the accused believed them to be witches, but the VAST MAJORITY of the population, who WERE NOT the accused or the accusers, or close friends or relatives of either, would have, more likely than not, in my humble opinion, believed the allegations to be true, and thus have been in fear of falling victim to witchcraft. After all, it wasn't until AFTER it was over, when the whole atrocity was studied thoroughly, that all the possible motives for the accusations were made public, so why wouldn't those who were not close to the situation believe what was being reported or told to them at the time?? >>Look around you--prosecutors often charge people with what they think they can prove.<< It certainly seems to me that witchcraft was one of the easiest crimes to prove, since it was impossible to defend against!! Wouldn't it be easier to CLAIM that you saw someone's spectral being committing a crime, than to actually PROVE, through REAL physical evidence, that some OTHER crime had been committed?? >>But it might be possible to prove that Goody Chamberlain did something that looked like deliberate harm, like letting her pigs into someone's garden.<< TRUE, but if Goody Chamberlain WAS a witch, why would SHE let her pigs into someone's garden, running the risk of her or her pigs being seen, when she could easily do just as much harm to the garden without being seen anywhere near it? >>No proof? Consider what constituted proof, statements like, "I saw Goody X chanting funny words behind my house and right afterwards my child got ill." That's proof. If your child got ill but no one had seen Goody X chanting nearby, then you have no proof.<< Again, it would seem that you're making my argument for me...if you read the whole context, you'll see that was exactly my point!! The question was whether someone may have been charged with mischief INSTEAD of witchcraft, because the mischief was provable but the witchcraft was not. Your description above would have been proof of WITCHCRAFT...and if there WAS "proof" of witchcraft, then mischief isn't an issue!! The other opinion I gave, was in the thinking of the times, it would be the crimes that had no REAL physical evidence that would be believed to have been done by witchcraft, which would explain WHY there was no REAL proof!! Cheers! Joan In a message dated 11/6/2002 6:02:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, sorcha432@hotmail.com writes: > >From : Jma8763@aol.com > >As you stated, given the spirit of > the times, I wouldn't think that anyone would have "settled" for a lesser > charge if they believed the offender to be a witch! It certainly sounds > like > the majority of people in the New England states in 1692 BELIEVED that those > accused of witchcraft were in fact witches, and they were terrified of > them! > > Did they really always believe that? I think what Boyer and Nissenbaum and, > to some extent, Karlsen argue is that accusations of witchcraft sometimes > were used to knock off one's rivals or enemies, or to gain possession of > property. In fact, Karlsen presents evidence suggesting that legal > accusations were consistebntly used by magistrates and male relatives to > gain control of female-owned property. And, in the case of my ancestor, > Elizabeth Morse, almost all of her accusers were young (in their 20s or so) > males who m she had, in modern terms, "disrespected." > My point is that what made some people accuse other people was not simply a > belief that the crime of witchcraft had been committed. > > >So it would stand to reason, that if a crime was thought to have been > committed through witchcraft, the charge would have reflected that! > > Look around you--prosecutors often charge people with what they think they > can prove. Wasn't Al Capone convicted of tax evasion? That's not what > everyone *suspected* was his worst crime, but it was what they had the > evidence to prove. Therefore, I think it's quite possible that if > prosecutors couldn't find an accuser who could testify, "I saw Goody > Chamberlain meeting with a tawny man in the woods" or even, "I saw Goody > Chamberlain chanting funny words behind my house and right afterwards my > cow > died," then witchcraft might be impossible to prove. But it might be > possible to prove that Goody Chamberlain did something that looked like > deliberate harm, like letting her pigs into someone's garden. > > > Also, wouldn't it stand to reason that if a mischief was thought to > have been committed through witchcraft, that there would be NO proof that > the > accused had been the one to commit the mischief? > > No proof? Consider what constituted proof, statements like, "I saw Goody X > chanting funny words behind my house and right afterwards my child got > ill." > That's proof. If your child got ill but no one had seen Goody X chanting > nearby, then you have no proof. > > >It seems to me that if there was ANY proof that a particular person > >committed ANY crime, then > there would be no reason to believe that witchcraft had been involved, since > the proof itself would have to be such that any "mere mortal" could have > committed the offense! > > Seems to me that you're thinking more like a 20th c. than a 17thc. person. > "Proof" would be testimony that the accused did witchy-type things > immediately before someone's child or cows got sick. Proof would be > shooting > a cat and finding Goody X with a wound in the same place. Proof would be > having a dream or vision in which Goody X attacked you. All these would be > different from proof that someone let their pigs into your garden. > > I have already suggested and reiterate that I think further research on > this > issue should include seeing what consistituted proof of mischief in other > Middlesex County cases. I'd also look at how "mischief" is mentioned in > cases of witchcraft in Middlesex and Essex County. > > >Getting back to Rebecca Chamberlain, I understand that she died in > prison in 1692, which of course, COULD just be a coincidence, but do we know > WHEN she was first imprisoned? If there is good reason to believe that she > was thought a witch, is it possible that she was imprisoned long before the > winter/spring of 1692, and was serving her sentence of something other > than death, when she died in prison? The prison conditions of the time were > deplorable, so it wouldn't be surprising at all for people to have > survived them for only a relatively short period of time!! > > I think you've misunderstood what was posted about her case. She died in > prison in Sept. 1692 while awaiting trial for mischief. It's not known when > she was first charged and imprisoned. The details of the charge are > unknown. > As I understand it, there's no evidence that she was tried, merely that she > was charged with mischief. Often a good bit of time passed between initial > charge and trial; in fact, one of the points authors often make is that we > really don't know how many people were charged of witchcraft and died in > prison before being tried. However, no one has suggested that Goody > Chamberlain was *proved* to be a witch. ALL that anyone has suggsted is > that > because of the timing and the similarity between mischief and witchcraft, > the case bears further investigation. As has been noted, there are reasons > that someone might be charged with mischief though the aura of witchcraft > hng about them. > > >I agree that the only way of proving or disproving allegations of > witchcraft will be to find either the original charge/arrest warrant, or > better still, the court transcripts. I don't think that it is safe to > assume that just because a woman died in prison in 1692, that they had been > charged with witchcraft. > > Excuse me, but *no one* has suggested or assumed this. Accusations of > mischief and witchcraft are actually quite similar, the distinction being > *how* the damage was caused. My vague recollection is that charges of > witchcraft often mentioned mischief. Therefore, the suggestion that someone > charged with mischief--as Goody Chamberlain was; it's not that she simply > died in prison of an unknown charge or cause--might have been considered a > witch is worthy of further research. > > Francine Nicholson >

Then mischief would be our new govenor putting in a toxic waste dump on the banks of the Ashelot river 1/8 of a mile from my shop. I wonder...If I were in old Salem what I should do.....Guess we will just go and protest (in vain I fear). Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Francine Nicholson" <sorcha432@hotmail.com> To: <SALEM-WITCH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:32 PM Subject: [SALEM-WITCH-L] Re: Mischief > Jenny Gibbons wrote: > >"Mischief" is causing damage to another person's property, according to > >Black's Law Dictionary. The damage can have been caused deliberately > (in which case it's sometimes called "malicious mischief") or through > negligence. For instance if your cows destroyed part of a neighbor's > crops, that could be considered mischief. The Oxford English Dictionary > confirms that the legal term "mischief" meant tangible damage as early as > the 16th century. > > That's quite useful information, but I can see that mischief could be linked > to witchcraft, and, iirc, sometimes was. After all, most of the complaints > against witches seem to involve damage of persons or property. I can also > see that elderly persons, especially women, might not keep up their property > as well as their neighbors might like, and thus complaints might follow. > > I'm curious: who got the property after Goody Chamberlain died in prison? > Carol Karlsen has piointed out that often civil complaints were followed by > neighbors or (male) relatives taking over (female-owned) property that > otherwise the male relatvies or neighbors would not have gotten their hands > on. > > Francine Nicholson > > _________________________________________________________________ > Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN! > http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp > > >

>From : "Upacreek" <upacreek@screaminet.com> >That's what I would like to find out. Did it have anything to do with the Witchcraft hysteria? No one has been able to find any documented proof that Rebecca Chamberlain was accused of Witchcraft, but apparently there isn't any question that she died in prison in September 1692. So, why was she there? Mischief? She was living in Billerica with her husband William Chamberlain. He didn't die until years later. She was the mother of a number of children, and I believe they were respected members of the community. Curious. If she was suspected of being a witch--and I mean "if"--the presence of her husband and children may have inhibited witnesses from accusing her of witchcraft, and instead the charge remained mischief. I urge you to look in *Middlesex* County records to see what there is about other cases of mischief. What was offered as proof? What were people accused of doing? I'd also look at what Essex County records say about the same charge. But I would not assume that Essex and Middlesex magistrates interpreted the law in the same way. I'd also look at witchcraft cases in Middlesex courts. What were people accused of doing? What was accepted as proof? I'd also try to reach someone at ProGenealogists.com in hopes that they might explain why Rebecca Chamberlain was on their list of witches. Francine Nicholson _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

>From : "Jenny Gibbons" <jenny@panix.com> >But there could be circumstances when someone would be accused of another crime, if there was some advantage to it. (I don't know of any New England cases off-hand, so I can't give you an example.) It might be difficult to find an example of, say, the charges being reduced. I only know of one of that sort. Caleb Powell was not convicted of witchcraft but the magistrates ruled that though the charges were not proven, they suspected that he really was a witch, and so the accusers were not obliged to pay liabilities for false accusation. Incidentally, the threat of being sued for false accusation might be a reason someone would make an accusation of mischief rather than witchcraft, especially if there had been earlier unproven accusations. This might be especially true if there were a husband and children around to threaten to sue, as the Chamberlains may have done. >With mischief, there are two possible advantages I can see. One, it was a comparatively minor charge, a trespass (under common law) versus a capital offense. Given the spirit of the time, however, I wouldn't expect people to be lenient to a suspected witch. Two, it might have been easier to prove. Theoretically it *shouldn't* have been. Mischief required you to prove that the accused damaged your goods. If you believed that your neighbor did this with magic, you had to prove that she was capable of using magic -- ie., that she was a witch. So in theory, magical mischief ought to be as hard to prove as witchcraft. Agreed. But if you had proof of ordinary damage, then you might opt to press that charge instead, if you were afraid of being sued for false accusation. I've had another thought. Jenny, what was the law concerning malicious gossip? Was that ever called "mischief"? >But in reality the theory of magic wasn't well-thought-out. Religious leaders, like the Puritans divines, taught that witchcraft was essentially a form of heresy. Just as Quakerism, Catholicism, and Indian religion were all consideed heresies and therefore liable to the same capital penalty. >You made a pact with the Devil and he gave you powers. To the divines and many intellectuals, what a witch did didn't matter -- it was making the pact with Satan, breaking faith with God, that was the crime. That's why the divines insisted that "white" witches (people who healed) were every bit as foul as "black" witches (people who harmed). >Most people disagreed with the divines. English legal tradition treated witchcraft as a tort: witchcraft was doing harm by magic. Non-harmful magic, like healing or divination, was not treated as witchcraft. Colonial Americans inherited this legal tradition, which is why, as Francine pointed out, most trials involved charges of harm to people or property. The English and American laws changed in the 16th and 17th centuries, and it became possible to try people without evidence of harm. But most judges and most accusers continued to press for proof of "real" witchcraft -- dead cows, sick children, etc. I think we can see the conflicts among the differing traditions being worked out in the trials. In Elizabeth Morse's case, the accusers emphasized that she did them harm. But the testimony that ehr husband William Morse gave suggests that the magistrates were thinking all powers were inherently evil, because William went to great lengths to argue that there might be good powers that healed people and therefore ought to be permitted (Elizabeth was what today we might call a folk healer, and her methods included charms as well as herbal potions, etc.). The Wardwell fellow from Andover who was accused, convicted, and executed did the kinds of divination tricks that folklorists collect today, things that were accepted and even advertized in the eighteenth century. His testimony suggests that a lot of people asked him to do divination for them, and he complied. But when the hysteria struck, it was his undoing. >Getting back to the mischief question, I can imagine a situation where someone might think, "I can't prove she has a familiar spirit, but I can prove that she killed my cows," even though the divines would insist this wasn't possible. Or they might choose to go after a lesser charge they could prove. >Sounds like the only way to resolve the question for sure is to find the original complaint. That would be ideal. However, I can think of other possibly fruitful endeavors: - See whether "mischief" was ever used in Middlesex cases to describe witchcraft - See whether Rebecca Chamberlain or other members of her family were accused of other crimes earlier in their lives, who made the charges, and what the outcomes were - Check out the neighborhood dynamics. Who were their neighbors and enemies? Francine Nicholson _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

>From : Jma8763@aol.com >As you stated, given the spirit of the times, I wouldn't think that anyone would have "settled" for a lesser charge if they believed the offender to be a witch! It certainly sounds like the majority of people in the New England states in 1692 BELIEVED that those accused of witchcraft were in fact witches, and they were terrified of them! Did they really always believe that? I think what Boyer and Nissenbaum and, to some extent, Karlsen argue is that accusations of witchcraft sometimes were used to knock off one's rivals or enemies, or to gain possession of property. In fact, Karlsen presents evidence suggesting that legal accusations were consistebntly used by magistrates and male relatives to gain control of female-owned property. And, in the case of my ancestor, Elizabeth Morse, almost all of her accusers were young (in their 20s or so) males who m she had, in modern terms, "disrespected." My point is that what made some people accuse other people was not simply a belief that the crime of witchcraft had been committed. >So it would stand to reason, that if a crime was thought to have been committed through witchcraft, the charge would have reflected that! Look around you--prosecutors often charge people with what they think they can prove. Wasn't Al Capone convicted of tax evasion? That's not what everyone *suspected* was his worst crime, but it was what they had the evidence to prove. Therefore, I think it's quite possible that if prosecutors couldn't find an accuser who could testify, "I saw Goody Chamberlain meeting with a tawny man in the woods" or even, "I saw Goody Chamberlain chanting funny words behind my house and right afterwards my cow died," then witchcraft might be impossible to prove. But it might be possible to prove that Goody Chamberlain did something that looked like deliberate harm, like letting her pigs into someone's garden. > Also, wouldn't it stand to reason that if a mischief was thought to have been committed through witchcraft, that there would be NO proof that the accused had been the one to commit the mischief? No proof? Consider what constituted proof, statements like, "I saw Goody X chanting funny words behind my house and right afterwards my child got ill." That's proof. If your child got ill but no one had seen Goody X chanting nearby, then you have no proof. >It seems to me that if there was ANY proof that a particular person >committed ANY crime, then there would be no reason to believe that witchcraft had been involved, since the proof itself would have to be such that any "mere mortal" could have committed the offense! Seems to me that you're thinking more like a 20th c. than a 17thc. person. "Proof" would be testimony that the accused did witchy-type things immediately before someone's child or cows got sick. Proof would be shooting a cat and finding Goody X with a wound in the same place. Proof would be having a dream or vision in which Goody X attacked you. All these would be different from proof that someone let their pigs into your garden. I have already suggested and reiterate that I think further research on this issue should include seeing what consistituted proof of mischief in other Middlesex County cases. I'd also look at how "mischief" is mentioned in cases of witchcraft in Middlesex and Essex County. >Getting back to Rebecca Chamberlain, I understand that she died in prison in 1692, which of course, COULD just be a coincidence, but do we know WHEN she was first imprisoned? If there is good reason to believe that she was thought a witch, is it possible that she was imprisoned long before the winter/spring of 1692, and was serving her sentence of something other than death, when she died in prison? The prison conditions of the time were deplorable, so it wouldn't be surprising at all for people to have survived them for only a relatively short period of time!! I think you've misunderstood what was posted about her case. She died in prison in Sept. 1692 while awaiting trial for mischief. It's not known when she was first charged and imprisoned. The details of the charge are unknown. As I understand it, there's no evidence that she was tried, merely that she was charged with mischief. Often a good bit of time passed between initial charge and trial; in fact, one of the points authors often make is that we really don't know how many people were charged of witchcraft and died in prison before being tried. However, no one has suggested that Goody Chamberlain was *proved* to be a witch. ALL that anyone has suggsted is that because of the timing and the similarity between mischief and witchcraft, the case bears further investigation. As has been noted, there are reasons that someone might be charged with mischief though the aura of witchcraft hng about them. >I agree that the only way of proving or disproving allegations of witchcraft will be to find either the original charge/arrest warrant, or better still, the court transcripts. I don't think that it is safe to assume that just because a woman died in prison in 1692, that they had been charged with witchcraft. Excuse me, but *no one* has suggested or assumed this. Accusations of mischief and witchcraft are actually quite similar, the distinction being *how* the damage was caused. My vague recollection is that charges of witchcraft often mentioned mischief. Therefore, the suggestion that someone charged with mischief--as Goody Chamberlain was; it's not that she simply died in prison of an unknown charge or cause--might have been considered a witch is worthy of further research. Francine Nicholson _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

From: <halloweenqueen@cheshire.net> >? Was it being terrified of witches or was it intolerance and hating witches just a bit more than hating others not of your religious persuasion llike Quakers, Catholics etc. I see the same intolerance today in the name of many different fundamentalist groups. Tolerance is a concept that the Puritans would not have understood, any more than modern fundamentalist groups do. The Puritans considered Quakers, Catholics, unbaptized Indians, and witches to be agents of the devil. If you didn't wipe out these agents, they would overwhelm the world and run things. Also, if you didn't extirminate them, then you would anger God and God wouldn't protect you from evil forces. Mary Beth Norton suggests (persuasively, IMHO) that the Puritans thought the reasons they couldn't beat the Indians was because they were allied with the devil. So they had to eliminate all agents of the devil. So, yes, it was intolerance and hate, but it was also terror. Francine Nicholson _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

>>I've had another thought. Jenny, what was the law concerning malicious gossip? Was that ever called "mischief"?<< Good question... and I'm not sure. I did a little more research on "mischief" and found that (at least under modern law) mischief includes causing damages through threats -- which is precisely what many witches were accused of doing. Unfortunately I haven't had much luck connecting this to colonial America or the witch trials. I have electronic copies of a couple English witch-hunting guides that were popular in both Old and New England. I ran searches for the word "mischief" to see if I could find any cases where a witch was charged with mischief, or where judges recommended charging suspected witches with michief. I didn't find any. On the other hand all of these writers talk about witches doing "mischief" (that is, tangible harm). William Perkins (_A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft_, 1618) lists the signs that a magistrate should look for, if he suspects someone of witchcraft. Two of these signs include "mischief". For instance Perksins says it is a evidence of witchcraft "if after cursing, there followeth death, or at least some mischeiefe. For Witches are wont to practise their mischievous facts by cursing and banning." (pg. 44) Also "if after enmitie, quarrelling, or threatning, a prese[n]t mischiefe doth follow." (pg. 44) In both cases mischief is grounds for suspecting a witch, but not confirmation of witchcraft. About half of _The Lawes Against Witchcraft and Conjuration_ (anonymous, 1645) is a summary of Richard Bernard's _A Guide to Grand Jurymen_ (1629), one of the most influential English guides for witch trials. Again, although no one mentions charging witches with the crime of "mischief", "mischief" is the term they use for the results of malign witchcraft. "4. There are other presumptions against these Witches; as if they be given to usuall cursing, and bitter imprecations, and withall use threatenings to be revenged, and their imprecations, or some other mischief presently followeth." Or again, "7. When the party shall see visibly some apparition, and shortly after some mischief shall befall him." (Both of these rules are paraphrases of Bernard's guidelines.) None of the books discussed malicious gossip, so no help there. All of which is a round-about way of saying no new news. No evidence of witches being charged with mischief. More evidence of what we know -- that witches were believed to do mischief (ie., tangible harm). Jenny Gibbons

Joan, I guess your last paragraph encompassed it all and I totally agree. However, I still feel that the intolerance and hate of the greedy overcame many. Jealousy, covetness..etc. I often think we are making too many excusses for those involved in the trials. I think some of them knew very well well what they were doing. We had a case last year up state NH where a Wiccan was burnt out of her home because her neighbor found out her religious persuasion. He wasn't frightened of her he made life miserable for her and then burnt her house down. The police botched the investigation and so he got away with it. The odds said to Putnum and Parris and Mather etc. etc. that they would land up wealthier or at least getting some or much of what they wanted. In horse racing even the favorites loose. Anyway, I didn't mean to butt in ....the devil made me do it...just joking....Blessings, Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: <Jma8763@aol.com> To: <SALEM-WITCH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 8:14 PM Subject: Re: [SALEM-WITCH-L] Re: Mischief > Hi Pamela, > > Well, certainly there was intolerance of other religions and beliefs going > on at that time, as there is now, although I don't believe it's any where > near as widespread, or should I say severe, as it was then. It's even very > possible that intolerance was at least one of the causes of the accusations, > however, I don't think that the vast majority of the population, who TRULY > BELIEVED the accused were in fact witches, can be accused of intolerance. In > 1692, it was believed that if someone was a witch, that person had not only > made a pact with the devil, but had mystical powers which could easily be > used to harm others...generally the God fearing Christians of the community, > who would be the natural enemies to Satan. I believe that the normal > reaction to such a perceived threat would be fear. > Yes, if such an occurrence happened today, I would call it a result of > intolerance, but that's because I don't believe that there are too many among > us today, who believe that either being a Wiccan OR a Satanic worshiper gives > a person supernatural powers!! Yes, there are loads of people who still fear > both groups, as well as many others, but because they assume them to be evil, > not supernatural! > And as long as I'm tossing around my humble opinions, let me just add > this... I don't believe that there's a whole world of difference between fear > and intolerance! I believe most intolerances and prejudices are born out of > the FEAR of the unknown or the unfamiliar! > > Just my opinion!!! > Joan > > > In a message dated 11/5/2002 3:02:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, > halloweenqueen@cheshire.net writes: > > > > ? Was it being terrified of witches or was it intolerance and hating witches > > just a bit more than hating others not of your religious persuasion llike > > Quakers, Catholics etc. I see the same intolerance today in the name of many > > different fundamentalist groups. Just wondering..... Sorry to bother you. > > Pamela > > > > > > >

Hello, I had been under the impression that the first minister in the village was Samuel SKELTON on July 20,1629, Gov. Winthrop had sent for him. As an ancestor of mine, I had thought this true. History of Essex County,1888, pg. 29. I have many on both sides of this issue in the village. Thank you for your time. Deborah Ray Piper Spencer Co., Indiana allpiper@swindiana.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vicki Brooker" <VBrooker@msn.com> To: <SALEM-WITCH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [SALEM-WITCH-L] Rev. Burroughs in Casco Bay, Maine > Hi Helen - > > >From Mary Beth Norton's book "In The Devil's Snare" ppg 16 - 17: > > "Whether because strife in the Village came to focus on the church or because the Villagers made inappropriate choices of clergymen, each of the first four ministers who served the Village failed to earn consistent support from his parishioners. The first minister, James Bayley - a young Harvard graduate when hired in 1672 - lasted the longest, until 1680. George Burroughs, who had fled Falmouth, Maine in 1676, during the First Indian War, succeeded Bayley, but in early 1683 agreed to return to his former congregation." > > I, too, am trying to trace Burroughs' during the relevant time period. Will share more info as I find it. > > Vicki Greenslit Brooker > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Helen Graves > Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 8:53 PM > To: SALEM-WITCH-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SALEM-WITCH-L] Rev. Burroughs in Casco Bay, Maine > > Has anyone on the list thoroughly researched the Rev. George Burroughs ? > > I need to know exactly when he was in Casco Bay, Maine. > > According to 'Salem Witchcraft and Hawthorne's House of the Seven Gables' by Enders Robinson, he was the minister of Salem Village from 1681-1683. Then he went to Casco, Maine, and then to Wells where he was the minister, but no dates were given. > > Does anyone know EXACTLY when he was in Casco Bay and how long there, and then when did he arrive in Wells? > > Any help would be appreciated. > > -- Helen Greenslit Graves >

In support of what Joan said, I would point out that a lot of the apparent "intolerance" of the trials comes from a misunderstanding of what "witch" meant to our ancestors. To modern people, a witch is someone who uses magic. So when we read books and trial records about "witches", we often assume that that's what the word means. But it isn't -- in the trial records OR in modern history books. Most of our ancestors cut a sharp division between "white" witches (or cunning folk) and "black" witches. Far from being hated, "white" witches were generally respected by their communities. In fact their popularity infuriated the clergy. Ministers, priests, and divines all fumed about how popular "good" witches were. For instance John Stearne complained that no one objected to helpful witches: "Men rather uphold them and say why should any man be questioned for doing good." The clergy believed that there was no difference between a "good" and a "bad" witch. But as Keith Thomas notes (in _Religion and the Decline of Magic_), their view never prevailed. "The attempt by the theologians to wipe out the distinction between black and white witches by branding them both as diabolical never got through to the people to whom these witches ministered. On the contrary, they were more likely to believe that the cunning folk were taught by God, or that they were helped by angels, or even that they possessed some divinity of their own." (pg. 266) "Black" witches, the people who ended up charged with witchcraft, were almost always people believed to be magical criminals. "Black" witches were hated and feared -- for the same reason we hate and fear murderers. This is why witch trials almost invariably involve damage to people and property: because most people didn't think a witch was bad unless she hurt people. The clergy and the law might say that anyone who had magical power served Satan, but relatively few people agreed with them. Ironically, since most history books focus on the trials, most of them tell us next to nothing about the "real" witches. You have to look for books on magic generally to learn what life was like for cunning folk. (Some good books on the subject include Keith Thomas' _Religion and the Decline of Magic_ for England; Richard Godbeer's _The Devil's Dominion_ for America; and Robin Briggs' _Witches and Neighbors_ which focuses on France but has a lot of generally applicable information.) Perhaps the strongest argument against intolerance is the fact that witches supported the witch trials, too. Oh, not "black" witches -- the people accused defended themselves with every breath in their bodies. But the "real" witches, the cunning folk, were active supporters of the persecution of "black" witches. When people suspected they were bewitched, it was a wise man or a wise woman that they turned to to confirm their suspicions. Traditional healers frequently diagnosed "bewitchment" when a child or animal was sick. And many "white" witches were willing to divine the identity of the "black" witch. The Great European Witch Hunt was not a conflict between witches and non-witches. Robin Briggs (_Witches and Neighbors_), one of the few historians to research this question, discovered that in France a "white" witch was far more likely to be an witch-accuser than a victim of the trials. So to summarize, I think that our ancestors were terrified of a non-existant Satanic conspiracy. The witches they feared didn't exist; the witches that existed weren't feared. Moreover the real witches (cunning folk) feared and hated these non-existant witches as much as everybody else. Jenny Gibbons

Hello I am a new member so forgive me if this has been mentioned before. In Enders A Robinson's book "The Devil Discovered" Salem Witchraft 1692" he quotes Samuel Adams Drake, History of Middlesex County, 1:261 Maybe there is more info there. "Rebecca (mnu) Chamberlain Billerica John Durant Billerica "Rebecca, the wife of WIlliam Chamberlain, and John Durrant, both of Billerica, died in prison in Cambridge, where they were incarcerated for witchcraft" Enders goes on to provide the following" In 1692 John Durrant, about forty-four, formerly of Reading, lived in Billercia with his wife, Susannah (Dutton( Durrant. Susannah was the step daughter of Ruth (mnu) Hooper Dutton. Ruth was also the step mother of Sarah (Hooper) Hawkes Wardwell. It is not known when JOhn Durrant was accused and arrested." Susan

Hi Pamela, Well, certainly there was intolerance of other religions and beliefs going on at that time, as there is now, although I don't believe it's any where near as widespread, or should I say severe, as it was then. It's even very possible that intolerance was at least one of the causes of the accusations, however, I don't think that the vast majority of the population, who TRULY BELIEVED the accused were in fact witches, can be accused of intolerance. In 1692, it was believed that if someone was a witch, that person had not only made a pact with the devil, but had mystical powers which could easily be used to harm others...generally the God fearing Christians of the community, who would be the natural enemies to Satan. I believe that the normal reaction to such a perceived threat would be fear. Yes, if such an occurrence happened today, I would call it a result of intolerance, but that's because I don't believe that there are too many among us today, who believe that either being a Wiccan OR a Satanic worshiper gives a person supernatural powers!! Yes, there are loads of people who still fear both groups, as well as many others, but because they assume them to be evil, not supernatural! And as long as I'm tossing around my humble opinions, let me just add this... I don't believe that there's a whole world of difference between fear and intolerance! I believe most intolerances and prejudices are born out of the FEAR of the unknown or the unfamiliar! Just my opinion!!! Joan In a message dated 11/5/2002 3:02:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, halloweenqueen@cheshire.net writes: > ? Was it being terrified of witches or was it intolerance and hating witches > just a bit more than hating others not of your religious persuasion llike > Quakers, Catholics etc. I see the same intolerance today in the name of many > different fundamentalist groups. Just wondering..... Sorry to bother you. > Pamela >

? Was it being terrified of witches or was it intolerance and hating witches just a bit more than hating others not of your religious persuasion llike Quakers, Catholics etc. I see the same intolerance today in the name of many different fundamentalist groups. Just wondering..... Sorry to bother you. Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: <Jma8763@aol.com> To: <SALEM-WITCH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [SALEM-WITCH-L] Re: Mischief > Thanks Jenny! > > That's pretty much what I thought! As you stated, given the spirit of the > times, I wouldn't think that anyone would have "settled" for a lesser charge > if they believed the offender to be a witch! It certainly sounds like the > majority of people in the New England states in 1692 BELIEVED that those > accused of witchcraft were in fact witches, and they were terrified of them! > So it would stand to reason, that if a crime was thought to have been > committed through witchcraft, the charge would have reflected that! > Also, wouldn't it stand to reason that if a mischief was thought to have > been committed through witchcraft, that there would be NO proof that the > accused had been the one to commit the mischief? It seems to me that if > there was ANY proof that a particular person committed ANY crime, then there > would be no reason to believe that witchcraft had been involved, since the > proof itself would have to be such that any "mere mortal" could have > committed the offense! > > Getting back to Rebecca Chamberlain, I understand that she died in prison > in 1692, which of course, COULD just be a coincidence, but do we know WHEN > she was first imprisoned? If there is good reason to believe that she was > thought a witch, is it possible that she was imprisoned long before the > winter/spring of 1692, and was serving her sentence of something other than > death, when she died in prison? The prison conditions of the time were > deplorable, so it wouldn't be surprising at all for people to have survived > them for only a relatively short period of time!! > > I agree that the only way of proving or disproving allegations of > witchcraft will be to find either the original charge/arrest warrant, or > better still, the court transcripts. I don't think that it is safe to assume > that just because a woman died in prison in 1692, that they had been charged > with witchcraft. > > GOOD LUCK!! > Joan > > In a message dated 11/5/2002 10:02:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, > jenny@panix.com writes: > > > > You're right, Joan -- witchcraft itself was illegal in New England. > > Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Hampshire defined a witch as a person who had > > a familiar spirit. And normally people were accused of witchcraft, not > > something else. But there could be circumstances when someone would be > > accused of another crime, if there was some advantage to it. (I don't know > > of any New England cases off-hand, so I can't give you an example.) > > > > With mischief, there are two possible advantages I can see. One, it was a > > comparatively minor charge, a trespass (under common law) versus a capital > > offense. Given the spirit of the time, however, I wouldn't expect people to > > be lenient to a suspected witch. Two, it might have been easier to prove. > > Theoretically it *shouldn't* have been. Mischief required you to prove that > > the accused damaged your goods. If you believed that your neighbor did this > > with magic, you had to prove that she was capable of using magic -- ie., > > that she was a witch. So in theory, magical mischief ought to be as hard to > > prove as witchcraft. > > > > But in reality the theory of magic wasn't well-thought-out. Religious > > leaders, like the Puritans divines, taught that witchcraft was essentially a > > form of heresy. You made a pact with the Devil and he gave you powers. To > > the divines and many intellectuals, what a witch did didn't matter -- it was > > making the pact with Satan, breaking faith with God, that was the crime. > > That's why the divines insisted that "white" witches (people who healed) > > were every bit as foul as "black" witches (people who harmed). > > > > Most people disagreed with the divines. English legal tradition treated > > witchcraft as a tort: witchcraft was doing harm by magic. Non-harmful > > magic, like healing or divination, was not treated as witchcraft. Colonial > > Americans inherited this legal tradition, which is why, as Francine pointed > > out, most trials involved charges of harm to people or property. The > > English and American laws changed in the 16th and 17th centuries, and it > > became possible to try people without evidence of harm. But most judges and > > most accusers continued to press for proof of "real" witchcraft -- dead > > cows, sick children, etc. > > > > Getting back to the mischief question, I can imagine a situation where > > someone might think, "I can't prove she has a familiar spirit, but I can > > prove that she killed my cows," even though the divines would insist this > > wasn't possible. > > > > The ProGenealogist list is very interesting, and suggests that this is worth > > investigating more. Somebody, at some time, clearly thought Rebecca > > Chamberlain was a witch. But she doesn't appear on Richard Godbeer's list > > of suspected witches. Godbeer's list includes people who had formal legal > > complaints lodged against them. Normally historians are sensitive to the > > fact that witchcraft could be called something else, and they include all > > accusations that involve magic. So since we know that Rebecca Chamberlain > > had formal charges lodged against her, I would expect her to appear on > > Godbeer's list if the mischief involved witchcraft. > > > > Sounds like the only way to resolve the question for sure is to find the > > original complaint. Good luck with your research, George! > > > > Jenny Gibbons > > > > > > > > >

Thanks Jenny! That's pretty much what I thought! As you stated, given the spirit of the times, I wouldn't think that anyone would have "settled" for a lesser charge if they believed the offender to be a witch! It certainly sounds like the majority of people in the New England states in 1692 BELIEVED that those accused of witchcraft were in fact witches, and they were terrified of them! So it would stand to reason, that if a crime was thought to have been committed through witchcraft, the charge would have reflected that! Also, wouldn't it stand to reason that if a mischief was thought to have been committed through witchcraft, that there would be NO proof that the accused had been the one to commit the mischief? It seems to me that if there was ANY proof that a particular person committed ANY crime, then there would be no reason to believe that witchcraft had been involved, since the proof itself would have to be such that any "mere mortal" could have committed the offense! Getting back to Rebecca Chamberlain, I understand that she died in prison in 1692, which of course, COULD just be a coincidence, but do we know WHEN she was first imprisoned? If there is good reason to believe that she was thought a witch, is it possible that she was imprisoned long before the winter/spring of 1692, and was serving her sentence of something other than death, when she died in prison? The prison conditions of the time were deplorable, so it wouldn't be surprising at all for people to have survived them for only a relatively short period of time!! I agree that the only way of proving or disproving allegations of witchcraft will be to find either the original charge/arrest warrant, or better still, the court transcripts. I don't think that it is safe to assume that just because a woman died in prison in 1692, that they had been charged with witchcraft. GOOD LUCK!! Joan In a message dated 11/5/2002 10:02:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, jenny@panix.com writes: > You're right, Joan -- witchcraft itself was illegal in New England. > Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Hampshire defined a witch as a person who had > a familiar spirit. And normally people were accused of witchcraft, not > something else. But there could be circumstances when someone would be > accused of another crime, if there was some advantage to it. (I don't know > of any New England cases off-hand, so I can't give you an example.) > > With mischief, there are two possible advantages I can see. One, it was a > comparatively minor charge, a trespass (under common law) versus a capital > offense. Given the spirit of the time, however, I wouldn't expect people to > be lenient to a suspected witch. Two, it might have been easier to prove. > Theoretically it *shouldn't* have been. Mischief required you to prove that > the accused damaged your goods. If you believed that your neighbor did this > with magic, you had to prove that she was capable of using magic -- ie., > that she was a witch. So in theory, magical mischief ought to be as hard to > prove as witchcraft. > > But in reality the theory of magic wasn't well-thought-out. Religious > leaders, like the Puritans divines, taught that witchcraft was essentially a > form of heresy. You made a pact with the Devil and he gave you powers. To > the divines and many intellectuals, what a witch did didn't matter -- it was > making the pact with Satan, breaking faith with God, that was the crime. > That's why the divines insisted that "white" witches (people who healed) > were every bit as foul as "black" witches (people who harmed). > > Most people disagreed with the divines. English legal tradition treated > witchcraft as a tort: witchcraft was doing harm by magic. Non-harmful > magic, like healing or divination, was not treated as witchcraft. Colonial > Americans inherited this legal tradition, which is why, as Francine pointed > out, most trials involved charges of harm to people or property. The > English and American laws changed in the 16th and 17th centuries, and it > became possible to try people without evidence of harm. But most judges and > most accusers continued to press for proof of "real" witchcraft -- dead > cows, sick children, etc. > > Getting back to the mischief question, I can imagine a situation where > someone might think, "I can't prove she has a familiar spirit, but I can > prove that she killed my cows," even though the divines would insist this > wasn't possible. > > The ProGenealogist list is very interesting, and suggests that this is worth > investigating more. Somebody, at some time, clearly thought Rebecca > Chamberlain was a witch. But she doesn't appear on Richard Godbeer's list > of suspected witches. Godbeer's list includes people who had formal legal > complaints lodged against them. Normally historians are sensitive to the > fact that witchcraft could be called something else, and they include all > accusations that involve magic. So since we know that Rebecca Chamberlain > had formal charges lodged against her, I would expect her to appear on > Godbeer's list if the mischief involved witchcraft. > > Sounds like the only way to resolve the question for sure is to find the > original complaint. Good luck with your research, George! > > Jenny Gibbons > >

You're right, Joan -- witchcraft itself was illegal in New England. Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Hampshire defined a witch as a person who had a familiar spirit. And normally people were accused of witchcraft, not something else. But there could be circumstances when someone would be accused of another crime, if there was some advantage to it. (I don't know of any New England cases off-hand, so I can't give you an example.) With mischief, there are two possible advantages I can see. One, it was a comparatively minor charge, a trespass (under common law) versus a capital offense. Given the spirit of the time, however, I wouldn't expect people to be lenient to a suspected witch. Two, it might have been easier to prove. Theoretically it *shouldn't* have been. Mischief required you to prove that the accused damaged your goods. If you believed that your neighbor did this with magic, you had to prove that she was capable of using magic -- ie., that she was a witch. So in theory, magical mischief ought to be as hard to prove as witchcraft. But in reality the theory of magic wasn't well-thought-out. Religious leaders, like the Puritans divines, taught that witchcraft was essentially a form of heresy. You made a pact with the Devil and he gave you powers. To the divines and many intellectuals, what a witch did didn't matter -- it was making the pact with Satan, breaking faith with God, that was the crime. That's why the divines insisted that "white" witches (people who healed) were every bit as foul as "black" witches (people who harmed). Most people disagreed with the divines. English legal tradition treated witchcraft as a tort: witchcraft was doing harm by magic. Non-harmful magic, like healing or divination, was not treated as witchcraft. Colonial Americans inherited this legal tradition, which is why, as Francine pointed out, most trials involved charges of harm to people or property. The English and American laws changed in the 16th and 17th centuries, and it became possible to try people without evidence of harm. But most judges and most accusers continued to press for proof of "real" witchcraft -- dead cows, sick children, etc. Getting back to the mischief question, I can imagine a situation where someone might think, "I can't prove she has a familiar spirit, but I can prove that she killed my cows," even though the divines would insist this wasn't possible. The ProGenealogist list is very interesting, and suggests that this is worth investigating more. Somebody, at some time, clearly thought Rebecca Chamberlain was a witch. But she doesn't appear on Richard Godbeer's list of suspected witches. Godbeer's list includes people who had formal legal complaints lodged against them. Normally historians are sensitive to the fact that witchcraft could be called something else, and they include all accusations that involve magic. So since we know that Rebecca Chamberlain had formal charges lodged against her, I would expect her to appear on Godbeer's list if the mischief involved witchcraft. Sounds like the only way to resolve the question for sure is to find the original complaint. Good luck with your research, George! Jenny Gibbons