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 > >

? 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 > > > > > > > > >