Talk:Salem witch trials/Archive 2

Threads with no additions after June 30, 2008

Template

(Is not included there now. -- Lonewolf BC 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Vandalism notices

Repeated and widespread vandalism (28 Nov 06)

Recently there seems to be some major vandalism, ranging from a few words and facts here and there, to the obvious "Hey, I'm here" thing in the introduction. Perhaps this article needs to be locked? StarkRG 18:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written

I was kind of interested in reading about this.. but the article is so badly written that I managed to get as far as the end of the first line and gave up! Can it be unprotected so that it can be re-written?

(For example, a sentence should not start with "The first were ...." The first what? And the reference to "the Putnams" - who are they? They are mentioned here as if the reader should already know all about them. And so it goes on).

Marcus22 09:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wack away!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.94.18.201 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 5 December 2005

Article well written

Thanks for taking the time to do this precis - I enjoyed it and think it touches on most of the prevailing theories. One item I read elsewhere said that, a year or two after the trials ended, the original girl accusers tried to start things up all over again, but were ignored. Can't remember where I read it but if true it might indicate that someone originally invovled had an axe to grind and found the girls a useful tool ..... and didn't need them the second time around....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.31.131 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 4 May 2006

i believe that speculation was proven false sometime back but it was very possible, and in my opinion, the most probable beginnings of the SWT, that "it might indicate that someone originally invovled had an axe to grind and found the girls a useful tool". If you read my post in one of the last ergot sections, you will see my opinion on it dealing with the Parris', particularly Abigail, Betty, and Rev. Sammuel Parris. very good deduction skills, bravo --Gingerseymour 03:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an absolute mess. Do not copy/paste your junior themes on wikipedia!!! Sfrostee 5 May 2007

Being a National History Day alum. and a very well reseacherched SWT reader, i can agree, this is not well written in a dumb but

|Gingerseymour]] 03:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A question...

Has anyone here read the writings of Cotton Mather on The Salem Witch trials?

--JJ
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfritzyb (talk • contribs) 04:14, 21 October 2005

I have read all of them and they have proved to be very reflective of the views in that time. He is a particularly good character in the Witch Trials to have written so much about them BECAUSE if not inspite of his prominant role and beliefs on the matter, so to answer your question, yes, i have read the writings of Rev. Mather as well as his father, Rev. Increase Mather. I believe they are particularly nessisary to understand the beliefs and perspectives of people in that time.--Gingerseymour 03:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the lists

The lists provided in the article, while being slightly useful, are the most vandalized sections of the entire article (not to say this article is not constantly vandalized). Therefore, I would like to propose deletion of the lists altogether. This is for several reasons:

The list is wholly uncited and thus unverifiable
If the list were to be cited, it would likely be extremely close to the original version, at it would be far more useful to simply provide a link to the relevant reference source
At any given time, the list could be in an inconsistent state. This diminishes its usefulness, and in addition, no one is really sure whether or not when an anon edits the article its good faith or subtle misinformation.

An anon was recently deleting the list, I think that it was the right thing to do for the wrong reasons. If there are no objections, I will go ahead and delete the list. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAYE ROCKS MY SOCKS OFF!!!'

I think it would be a pity, but the more I see of this vandalism, the more I'm convinced that it might be an unfortunate necessity. AnnH ^(talk) 23:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Group will be fact-checking and editing

I am with a group that is using this article as a fact checking/editing project, so we will be working fairly hard on this piece. We just wanted to let everyone know that we may be doing a lot to this paper. Thanks —This unsigned comment was added by Erik's Angels (talk • contribs) 01:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's "maletic"?

"Good held the typical stereotype of a witch and had been suspected of engaging in maletic practices (citation needed)." What's "maletic"? 130.233.22.111 01:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably malefic. -- 86.56.48.12 06:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail

Abigail Williams did not become sick with Betty Parris. She was still in her right mind, the other girl fallen sick was Ruth Putnam. The article leads you to believe Abigail was ill.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.60 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 26 August 2006

The fact that you are calling her "Ruth" Putnam indicates to me that you are refering to the play ":The Crucible. Historically, Betty Parris and Abigail Williams were the first two apparently afflicted, followed by Ann Putnam Jr. Ogram 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very true. you cannot compare what is the truth to The Crucible. Because in fact, most facts in the play are very far from the truth. Very far... but yes, Betty Parris and Abigail williams were the first to show symptoms followed by others including Ann Putnam Jr. Who was, as you say Ruth Putnam which is completely inaccurate. and yes abigail williams did fall sick within a week of Betty Parris at the most, assuming it was no coincidence or disease, they played off of eachothers theatrics so to speak. they were cousins after all, and spent nearly every day together in the Parris household.--Gingerseymour 03:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV statement in Background

According to the article " The sexist beliefs that Puritans held for women further stressed the atmosphere: ...women were naturally lustful(although this belief was valid in that men were more likely to die early and thus women often outnumbered men, which made women compete fiercely for scarce men)." I feel such a statement is based on no fact at all. Women often times were survived by husbands due to death in childbirth. Despite the great number of deaths in the area, there is no evidence to suggest that more men died than women and that due to a lack of men, women became lustful and sought men through any means. Not to mention that the sentence feels weak and is certainly grammatically incorrect. I will remove it from the article unless someone can convince me otherwise.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternalmonkey (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 September 2006

I heartily agree with your objection. The state in the colonies was quite the opposite from the women outnumbering the men. When the colonies were formed it was during a time period when women were seen mainly as wives and housekeepers. Though there is historical proof that men outnumbered women in the much of the colonies history, aside from the facts it would not make sense to have women outnumber men, as women would not usually be sent over until after the settlement was created (a reason for the rape of native women).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.231.99 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 10 October 2006

I totally agree. Historically, this is a complete falsehood and an assumption by all means. Studying the Danvers (then Salem Village) Court and Land records as well as historical records and settlement records, many times, the percent of men to women were nearly identical at times. Furthermore, it was not so much sexist beliefs but, dare i say it, theological beliefs. They believed in the utmost perfection of God, and the total sinfulness of mankind. their community and religion, in a sense, did not belittle the woman, but rather the human. --Gingerseymour 03:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dog deaths?

We were taught today in English that 19 women and 2 dogs died during the times of the Salem Witch Hunt. Any conformation on this, or anything it could be? I'll take an educated guess if I have to, and say they were the dogs fed that "witch cake" baked out of urine, but I don't think they'd die from that. It just seems so abstract to be taught in a high school Honors English class, so, can anyone help out? Thanks! - King Louis XIV 23:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S: Something off-topic I just noticed. Why does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Carrier redirect to this article?—added at 23:36

In my college course on witchcraft we were told 19 PEOPLE (only 75% women) and 2 dogs were found guilty and put to death for witchcraft. As in, the dogs had a formal trial and were hung for the crime of witchcraft. Apparently they were acting funny, we didn't get into it much. I think they were considered familiars of one of the accused. We were also told that 4 most people died in prison awaiting trial, and one man was pressed to death w/out entering a plea. I'm not sure why the article says 20 people were put to death...?
-Christine
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.218.47 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 November 2006

Nineteen people were hanged and Giles Cory was pressed to death. Twenty. As for the dogs having formal trials, this is not so. The story about the two dogs comes from Robert Calef's "More Wonders of the Invisible World":

A Dog being afflicted at Salem-Village, those that had the Spectral sight being sent for, they accused Mr. John Bradstreet (Brother to the Justice) that he afflicted the said Dog, and now rid upon him: He made his Escape into Pescattequa-Government, and the Dog was put to death, and was all of the Afflicted that suffered death.
At Andover, the Afflicted complained of a Dog, as afflicting of them, and would fall into their Fits at the Dogs looking upon them; the Dog was put to death.

Ogram 01:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one dog was fed the witch cake. 19 women certainly were not hanged, rather 19 people were. Not all were women. 24 in all died, 4 in jail, 19 by hanging, and one Giles Corey who was pressed to death with stone weights (at age 81 believe it or not) for failiure to comply. Out of those, 14 of the ones hanged were women, and the 5 others were men. one of the 4 that died in jail was male. --Gingerseymour 04:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betty or Elizabeth?

I believe that Betty's name should be properly stated, which is Elizabeth Parris. This cited from "We're Not Suspicious" written by Vincent Benét and many other cases. Even if her nick name is Betty, it should be noted and clearly stated that her name is Elizabeth. I'm just the one kid who realizes the mistake in class and raises his hand out of the class that realizes and doesn't raise their hand.
-Jeremy
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitokiri900 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 5 October 2006

Most properly, her name would be Elizabeth Parris Jr., to differentiate her from her mother, with the same name. Ogram 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of links

Under "Legal Procedures", both "John Procter" and "Martha Cory" are listed, but don't link to any articles. However, Wikipedia has articles on both "John Proctor" and "Martha Corey", which I assume are what was meant by each. My knowledge on the subject is very limited, so I can't say if there are any other such problems, but I'd be on the lookout for it :)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.213.86 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 October 2006

What is the criteria for choosing the "correct" spelling of names which had various spellings in the primary sources? "Proctor" is the common spelling used today in many (but not all) references to the people involved. In the legal documents of the episode, however, written by people who actually knew the family, the name was consistently spelled "Procter" with an "e" not an "o". Ogram 04:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you will often find, when reading court documents of the time that many of the spellings are different. this often comes from the fact that the people recording court transcripts would sometimes spell the names incorrectly. this is also true of county records and such, at that time, they had no birth certificates to justify the real spelling of their names, so people spelled them how they felt so inclined or were used to spelling them. when choosing correct spellings, it doesnt matter so much, but you should make it consistant. if you use the old english spelling of one, use the same spelling with all, if you use the colonial spelling with one, do the same to all, etc.--Gingerseymour 04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danvers, not Salem

(This section was originally headed "edit protected". Seemingly, the article was edit-protected at the time of the originator's comment, just below, and that person either was thus unable to edit the article itself, or was put off by the protection notice. -- Lonewolf BC 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

the section about "salem today" is somewhat misleading. while all the information included in that paragraph is entirely accurate, it tends to give the impression that the town called "salem" is not infact the actual location of the "old salem village" where the hysteria and the trials actually occurred. just about a ten minute drive from the current town of Salem is a town called Danvers. this bustling town of 27,000 is much smaller than Salem and is not filled with any witch stores whatsoever. there are no signs portraying witches or museums that have wax figures and replicas on display. however they do have a monument to all those who were wrongfully killed during the trials. they also have the original house of rebecca nurse, an accused member of the community as well as a family member of the pastor and others involved in the trials. the exact location of the gallows that were used to execute some of the accused witches is not known, but it is within the city limits of Danvers, MA. Contrary to popular belief, none of the persecutions or hysteria took place in the town now known as Salem. The only thing that did actually happen there, were the trials held in the courthouse, although some were held in a smaller courtroom on the rebecca nurse property. Salem, MA is the place where all the tourists seem to flock too, because of its name and abundance of gift shops and theme stores. But if your really looking for the feel of those left behind by the witch trials, its Danvers you want to visit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriamoon (talk • contribs) 04:17, 10 November 2006

Salem (then Salem Towne) benefits from the Trials, 300 years later, and utilizes its earie appeal to promote tourism. In many ways, it has prospered from the Trials, but the area will never forget the 24 dead. Salem now has museums and tours showcasing the Trials. Among these are the Salem Witch Museum, Haunted Happenings, Haunted Salem, Witch Dungeon Museum, Salem Wax Museum of Witches and Seafarers, and the Witch House. It is ironic that something so devistating 300 years ago turned into such an economic boost for the area. In contrast, Danvers (then Salem Village) chooses to insead quietly remember the tragedy and some take it upon themselves to educate people so nothing like this will happen in America again. Danvers is, for example, the home of Richard Trask, the Danvers Archavist who deticates his life to researching the Salem Witch Trials and educating the next generation so that no 'modern-day witch hunt' will reach the level of hystaria the Salem Witch Trials did. If you are looking for a real experience of the Salem Witch Trials, the Rebecca Nurse house is owned by Archavist Richard Trask and is the last remaining house built in that era and the Peabody Essex Museum has a permanent collection of over 500 original documents pertaining to the Trials. Gingerseymour 04:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, The Rebecca Nurse Homestead is owned and operated by the Danvers Alarm List Company, Inc., a non-profit, educational, 18th century reenactment group. MegaMom 19:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Box

The summary box for this page really needs some work, but how is that done?

1: "Authorities" is a misleading word to use. Stoughton was the chief justice and Danforth was one of the justices of the peace, but John Hathorne, Jonathan Corwin and Bartholomew Gedney were the most active of the magistrates in proceedings. Hale, Parris, and Increase Mather were ministers, but where's Cotton Mather?

2: The "Accusers" is also incomplete, and biased toward listing only the "afflicted girls" in Salem Village -- adults Sarah Biber and Ann Putnam Sr. there also accused plenty of people. In Andover, main afflicted accusers were Timothy Swan, Rose Foster, Martha Sprague and Sarah Phelps, Jr. This also misses that it was the men in the communities who actually lodged the formal accusations -- Samuel Parris, Thomas Putnam, Edward Putnam, Ezekiel Cheever in Salem Village. A better category for this would be "Afflicted"

3: There were around 175 people for whom we have legal dcoumentation that chrages were lodged against them. This list is really not very complete, and tends to concentrate of Salem Village cases. The category should say sometrhing about it being a partial list.

It was acually 185, 141 women and 44 men. 77% were female. the number 185 dropped to 59 that were tried, then to 31 that were convicted, then to 19 who were hung. Gingerseymour 04:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - More Info - - - -

The total number of "cases" listed by secondary sources varies widely. These are examples:

188 -- Marilynne K. Roach names 188 accused people in Appendix A of her book The Salem Witch Trials: A Day-by-Day Chronicle of a Community Under Siege (Cooper Square Press: New York, 2002). Unfortunately, this list is incomplete, missing at least three people (George Jacobs Jr., Elizabeth Johnson Jr., and Mary Marston) and listing some people twice by different spellings of their names (Darling & Downing), and includes people against whom no formal legal proceedings were initiated, including Margaret Thatcher and Lady Mary Phips.

185 -- Carol F. Karlsen includes totals in her book in Table 3 on page 51 of her book, The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England: 185 accused (141 women, 44 men), of whom 59 were tried (52 women, 7 men), 31 of whom were convicted (26 women, 5 men), and 19 of whom were executed (14 women, 5 men). It is not clear how Karlsen has categorized the circumstances of Giles Cory, since he appears to be missing from her count of those executed, and the figure of 31 convictions is at odds with other sources, claiming only 30.

176 -- Enders A. Robinson in Salem Witchcraft and Hawthorne's House of the Seven Gables (Heritage Books: Bowie, MD, 1992) includes a "Chronological List of the Accused, 1692" on pp. 348-357, totaling 176 people. His list counts several suckling infants who went into jail with their mothers (Good, Scargen, Dike...), and several people such as "Mary Cox" and "Samuel Passanauton (an Indian)" who appear on a Boston jail bill, but whose connection to any case of witchcraft has not been confirmed. Included in the total are "three of four men," unnamed, who were "imprisoned at Ipswich." The source for this is the petition of several person from Ipswich for bail (see http://lcweb2.loc.gov/mss/mcc/003/0001.jpg), and at least three of them are liked already in the list as having been arrested on August 25: John Jackson Jr., John Jackson Sr., and John Howard.

156 -- Paul Boyer & Stephen Nissenbaum, eds., The Salem Witchcraft Papers: Verbatim Transcripts of the Legal Documents of the Salem Witchcraft Outbreak (DaCapo Press: New York, 1977) (henceforth referenced as SWP) derived a list of cases for their Table of Contents, based on the work of the WPA project in the 1930s. This list includes, by their own description on page 33 of their introduction, "case entries" against "afflicted girls not actually accused of witchcraft," becasue they were included that way in the original presentation of the transcriptions from the WPA. Boyer & Nissenbaum name four -- Sarah Bibber, Elizabeth Hubbard, Susannah Shelden, and Abigail Williams, but their table of contents includes a fifth as well: Mercy Lewis. This list also includes the name "Jerson Toothaker" which Enders A. Robinson has pointed out is not an actual person, but the conflation of the surnames "Ireson" and "Toothaker" on a single document. (See: Enders A. Robinson, The Devil Discovered: Salem Witchcraft 1692, Prospect Heights, Illinois, Waveland Press, 1991, p. 350 n285) Additionally, a "Rachel Hatfield" is listed as a "case entry," but this is the maiden name of a divorced woman from Ipswich who is elsewhere already counted as "Rachel Clinton."

156 -- Richard Godbeer in The Devil's Dominion: Magic and Religion in Early New England (Cambridge University Press: New York, 1992) includes an alphabetical list of 156 "Persons Accused During the Salem Witch Hunt" in his Appendix B, pp. 238-242, taken directly from the table of contents of SWP. Godbeer states that this list "includes only persons against whom legal actions were initiated during the Salem prosecutions in 1692. Many other were accused informally" (p. 238), but this is not entirely correct, since he fails to mention the exception Boyer & Nissenbaum made about the inclusion of accusers in the list.

144 -- Mary Beth Norton in "In The Devil's Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692" (Knopf: New York, 2002) give this as "at least 144 people" on page 3 of her introduction, but offers no specific list, other than the 31 whose cases went to trial, including Giles Cory, included in an Appendix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogram (talk • contribs) 05:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

141 -- Paul Boyer & Stephen Nissenbaum include a "List of All Persons Accused of Witchcrcaft in 1692" on pp. 376-378 of Salem-Village Witchcraft: A Documentary Record of Local Conflict in Colonial New England (Northeastern University Press: Boston, 1993) revised their list from SWP, no longer including the 5 afflicted accusers or "Rachel Clenton", it does still include include "Jerson Toothaker." (See above) This list adds 2 people to their SWP list: Nehemiah Abbott (Sr.) and Elizabeth Fosdick Jr., but they have unaccountably dropped 12: Arthur Abbott, Mary Bridges Jr., Bethia Carter Jr., Sarah Churchill, Mary Colson, Sarah Davis, (Phoebe) Day, Mehitable Dowing,Thomas Hardy, Sarah Parker, Mary Taylor, & (Rachel) Vincent, and they have split "Sarah Morey" into two entries: "Mary Morey" and "Sarah Morrill."

141 -- John Putnam Demos in Entertaining Salen: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England (Oxford: New York, 1982) does not have a list of Salem cases, but states on page 11 that his demographics of all New England witchcraft cases are based on a total of 234 cases (which he defines are based on "indictments and/or complaints being filed"), only 93 of which were not related to the Salem episode, which would leave 141 cases as "Salem" cases. However, Demos despite using ther figure of "93" for non-Salem cases, he lists 139 of them in his Appendix, pp. 402-409. Three of the women included on that list -- Rachel Clinton, Bridget (Oliver) Bishop, and Susannah Martin -- are among those also accused in the Salem episode but had survived early prosecutions for witchcraft, and it is not clear how he has counted them. Demos non-Salem cases include some people multiple times, for example, Eunice Cole of Hampton, NH, is included three times in this list for three separate occasions when she was prosecuted. It is simply not clear what Demos actually counts, and when he does his breakdown for the ages of those accused in Salem (Table 5, p. 65), he only includes the 118 whose "age-data is obtainable," suggesting that his criteria for whether something is counted where needs further scrutiny.

Ogram 15:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - -

4: The list of confessors is also incomplete. There were more people charged in Andover than in any other community -- over 50 -- and 7 out of 8 of them confessed.

5: Giles Cory is not in the list of those executed, but listed as "Died During Interrogation." This is incorrect. He was executed. The punishment of "Peine forte and dur" which crushed him to death was not an interrogation torture, but a specific punishment for his refusal to agree to put himself on trial before God and the country.

6: An important category that is often overlooked because we only count those who actually hanged, is that there were people who were convicted but were never executed: Abigail Hobbs, Mary Lacy Sr, Abigail Faulkner Sr., Dorcas Hoar, Mary Bradbury, Ann Foster, Elizabeth Procter, Sarah Wardwell, Elizabeth Johnson Jr. and Mary Post. It was petitions for reversals of attainder from some of these women that go the tide to turn a decade later. Ogram 13:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some of the people in the "executed" section, like Susannah Martin and Rebecca Nurse, don't appear in the "accused" section. Is there any reason for this? Nine999999999s 16:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection

Someone redirect Salem Witchcraft Trial to this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.22.81 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 November 2006

Okay, done. You know, you can do this yourself. Remember to be BOLD in editing. =) Nishkid 64 01:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Possible Explanations"

The article seems to imply that the "medical explanations" of the Salem Witch hysteria are untrue by appealing to historical authority (Norton, Rosenthal, etc.). Wouldn't it be more constructive to say why those historians don't buy into the medical explanations? threedimes—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.6.150 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 10 December 2006

Sure: The medical explanations typically don't get their historical facts correct, and then sometimes don't even get the medical facts correct, making the conclusions really suspect. I'll add in a reference to Spanos & Gottlieb, who literally dismantled the ergot thoery point by point. Ogram 13:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Procedures

Wasn't the outcome due in large part to the poor conduct of the legal procedures? I've read that, among the many legal errors made, that during the "pre-trial," additional "evidence" was produced by the hysterical girls. The girls should have been separated from the defendants so that wouldn't have happened.

And in fact, didn't the presiding officer(s) fail to follow proper procedure throughout, possibly through ignorance. There was nothing wrong, per se, for thinking that someone could cause harm at a distance (witchcraft). The problem was presenting this evidence in an objective manner for consideration by a jury. It was this failure to objectively present evidence that was the root of the problem, causing the miscarriage of justice. Student7 21:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal proceedures are not as clear-cut as we might want to think -- then and even now, although most proceedings are more codified now than they were then. The local magistrates were experienced in administering the laws of the colony, and did consult the best reference books of the time -- Bernard, Perkins, Dalton, and others. There is a lot of formulaic language in the original records, indicating that they were likely copying from established forms. Where they deviated was that early in Salem Village, the magistrates did not require the posting of a bond for prosecution when they took the complaint -- something that has nothing to do with current legal practice. The line between criminal and civil law was not as ditinct as it is today. Many commentaries on the trials mention how litigious the people in salem Village were, but the courts were a way for people with disgreements and perceived injustices done against them could turn the dispute over to the authorities to settle for them, instead of taking it into their own hands. Requiring a bond with a complaint was to try to make sure the Court's time wasn't wasted by trivial complaints and petty attacks on people, The other part of the proceedures that was debated even at the time, was the spectral evidence that was submitted. British law required a certain degree of evidence to convict anyone of a capital crime, the best being the sworn statements of two adult male witnesses to the felonious act. This was known to be VERY difficult to obtain in witchcraft cases, and what ended up happening was that adult witnesses to the afflictions were being accepted instead. Spectral evidence was legitimate for providing reason to presume someone was guilty, but it was not proof of guilt. Further debate about the spectral evidence revolved around whether the Devil could appropriate the likeness of an innocent person and use it to afflict people. If not, then the appearance of someone was considered evidence that they were responsible, but many others cited scripture Samuel 28:4–25 (the story of the Witch of Endor) to prove that the Devil could take on the shape of anyone, and that just because the afflicted claimed to see someone did not mean it was that person. The best evidence was confession by the accused, or the identification by a confessed witch of other witches. Ogram 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Today

Does this section really fit the article? Would it be better to provide a link to another page for information on the town today?
--Arcking 21:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It looks like a local tourism promo. Could someone with experience or first-hand knowledge of the city today clean it up? Thanks. Nine999999999s 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC

I was just looking at this and agree, it has no place in the article and does not add anything useful. Unless there are objections (or someone would like to merge it into another part of the article) I am going to remove it. Robogymnast 18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If dogs were accused why not the children

I learend that they also stated that the childred acted weird like barking and taking random fits for no reason im wondering why they were not acussed for anything. Tridentdc24 17:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a little surprising that the afflicted were not charged with witchcraft themselves, or that their behavior was caused byt he Devil himself --especially since they were claiming to have spectral visions, and in at least one case, to have been taken up on a hill by the Devil and talked to. Ogram 18:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible mistake

I think that there were actually 19 people that were hanged, 1 man was crushed to death and then the other deaths are from people who died in the horrible conditions of the jail. I work at a museum in Salem, and that is what I'm told to tell the tourists. So far that's proven to be true.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.130.31.88 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 February 2007

that is very true.

Hung:

June 10-Bridget Bishop

July 19-Sarah Good

Elizabeth Howe

Susannah Martin

Rebecca Nurse

Sarah Wilde

George Burroughs

Martha Carrier

August 19-George Jacobs

John Practor

John Willard

September 22-Martha Corey

Mary Easty

Alice Parker

Ann Pudeator

Margaret Scott

Wilmot Redd

Samuel Wardwll

Died in Jail:

May 10- Sarah Osburn and unborn child

June 16- Roger Toothaker

December 3- Ann Foster

March 10, 1693- Lydia Dustin

Pressed To Death:

September 19- Giles Corey (he was pressed for 2 days before dying on Sept. 19)

--Gingerseymour 04:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~I'm fairly certain this is true, in my AP US History class an article on the monument says there was 19 hanged, one tortured and 2 dogs killed. 20 benches adorn the memorial, one for each killed. --Ouroboros_chan

Biased section

I believe that the section Possible explanations of the "possessed" is biased in the opinion that the "possession" was caused by a disease. It gives high credibility to the speculations that diseases caused the problem, when the more likely answer is that political unstability and old family rivalries caused the trials (if they were diseased/ insane, how did the first accusers all concieve to accuse the same people?). Even if you don't agree with this idea, I still believe that it is biased (out of the who section, the political aspect has the 2nd shortest paragraph, and the other 3 paragraphs all deal with disease)66.41.231.99 23:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

from the infomation on the slem witch trials i have picked up thatlet those people who died rest in peace.i also have one more coment on it is death is a tragedy and we will all have to experiencie it one day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.182.168 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 February 2007

Please remember that Wikipedia is about building articles, not giving judgment on events. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 23:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salem trials in Literature

The Salem witch trials feature prominently in James Morrow's The Last Witchfinder. --Annafdd 13:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya'know, the "Further reading" section seems kinda long to me, anyway. I suggest we create a new article à la Joan of Arc bibliography and/or Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, and leave link and maybe only a select few books listed here. — AnnaKucsma (Talk to me!) 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A Break With Charity, A Book About The Salem Witch Trials". A good book for Teenagers who are interested in Witchcraft. Has some historical info. and some made up.

I agree -- after spending some time on the sections about the trials in literature and the trials in popular culture and media, I think they could easily be moved to their own articles. Ogram 11:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Salem witch trials are no different to some trials today some are due to fear we make assumptions of other people, based upon our own fears and bias. human kind was narrow minded then as some politicizations in our world are today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.70.232 (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify Trials

This article talks at length about the history behind the trials, and the Puritan backgrounds of those involved, as well as offering many explanations as to possible reasons for the "bewitchment" of the accusers. However, the actual description of the accusations, trials, and executions is rambling and confusing at best. It appears that in attempting to remain objective, the editors of this article have deliberately ignored the facts of the trials themselves. It seems to be a confirmed fact that, due to mass hysteria, the leaders of the Salem community tried hundreds of people on fabricated charges, convicted many of them based on circumstantial evidence and conjecture, and executed 20 of them, at least three of whom were upstanding members of the church. Why are these facts, the foundation of Salem Witch Trial history, so obfuscated?Sage1987 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorcas is missing!

I believe Dorcas Good is a prime example of the lasting effects of the SWT and i think she should be included in more depth. In Robinson, Enders A. The Devil Discovered: Salem Witchcraft in 1692. there is a section on Dorcas Good with her story and a quote by her father discribing her time during the trials. She was only 4 and not only was her mother accused and hanged, she was tried herself and put in jail. it really illustrates the cruelty and would be much better suited in this article than Salem Now, for example.Gingerseymour 04:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The little girl's name was actually Dorothy, not "Dorcas," as has been reported incorrectly since the 19th century. In the primary sources, the ONLY instance of the use of the name "Dorcas" is on the warrant for her arrest (see http://etext.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/archives/essex/ecca/vol1/small/061_0001.jpg), written by John Hathorne. All subsequent references to her in the primary sources that include her first name use "Dorothy," including two later instances where Hathorne himself corrected her name in documents (a list of prisoners -- http://etext.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/archives/essex/ecca/vol2/small/134_0002.jpg -- and a mittimus for the child's transfer -- http://etext.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/archives/essex/ecca/vol1/small/036_0001.jpg) from "Dorcas" to "Dorothy." Additionally, even though she was in jail from March to December of 1692, she was not tried. Ogram 23:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to get this discussion going here instead of having "Dorcas" and "Dorothy" swapped back and forth in the article. I'll leave "Dorcas" there for now, but do not agree that this nineteenth century error that is not supported by the primary sources should stand. Ogram 15:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Task Force

Hello!

Please check out a new task force dedicated to the Trials:

Salem Witch Trials task force

Thank you!

Psdubow 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiccan References

There are two references in the "Origin of trials" section that refer to "Wiccan sources" which feel rather out of place in this largely historical article. I know that not every reference must be attributed, but without any more specific description of "Wiccan sources" these two references seem questionable at best, especially in a good article nominee. -ReverendTed 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Encyclopedia of Witches and Witchcraft" by Rosemary Ellen Guiley is a publicly available, reputable source. The Second Edition, which contains the information in question, was published in 1990 by Checkmark Books, An imprint of Facts On File, Inc., 11 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10001. Facts On File's website is www.factsonfile.com. This Encyclopedia can be purchased in many bookstores and is registered with the Library of Congress. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and don't know how to add a footnote/reference. If you'd like to add this reference to the article for me, I'd be appreciative. Thanks! MegaMom 04:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is a legitimate public book, it is probably not the best kind of reference to use in this article. According to Wikipedia policy on Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources, such encyclopedias county only as tertiary sources, and the guidelines state: "'Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources."' Considering the plethoria of unverifiable assertions made in so many of even the secondary sources on this subject, the more important it is for us to stick to primary & make sure we use only trustworthy secondary sources. Ogram 12:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the "Wiccan Sources" are reputable, they'll cite their own sources, which should then be consulted and become the cited references. Otherwise, this article is just being used to advance an agenda. Wikipedia at its worst. 12.163.136.176 11:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA comment

Before somebody reviews this article, go through the article and make sure that all inline citations go directly after the punctuation with no spaces in between. --Nehrams2020 06:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA quick fail

It is too bad that no one followed Nehrams2020 advice. I am quick failing this article for GA: it lacks citations per WP:CITE and WP:GA?. I hope the editors have read the excellent list of books in the "Further reading". If so, they should have no trouble adding the citations and relisting this article for a thorough review. Awadewit | talk 10:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rathering than criticizing the work of newer users, it might be more productive to offer assistance in fixing the article. MegaMom 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who is a new user and who is an old user nor am I criticizing anyone unfairly. I am following the GAC guidelines which state: "Scan the article and decide if an article can be "Quick-failed" before an extensive review." The first reason on the quick-fail list is "A complete lack of reliable sources, see WP:Verifiability" (see WP:GAC and WP:QFC). My advice would obviously be, as my above comment implies: read the sources in the "Further reading" list. Awadewit | talk 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the tone of your first remark strikes me as somewhat snide and inappropriate. As for the "complete lack of reliable sources" perhaps you scanned the article a bit too qickly, for I count more than 20 footnotes and more than 20 references, some of which are copies of original historical documents. Are you saying that copies of the original historical documents do not qualify as reliable sources? It seems the article could use some more footnotes for contentious material, however, based upon the number of sources that have been provided it is apparent that the article has been well researched. In stating that there is a "complete lack" of reliable sources, it seems that you may, in fact, be "criticizing unfairly". MegaMom 02:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the comment sincerely; I am sorry that you read it as snide. I carefully looked at the sources. Twenty footnotes are not enough for an article such as this, with its many contentious statements; also wikipedia policy requires citations (either inline or Harvard, although for long articles inline is recommended). Also, "original historical documents" are not the sources wikipedia relies on (please read the pages I suggested on sourcing). Wikipedia articles rely on secondary sources not primary sources; primary sources are used to add flavor to a historical article, not as the basis of it. You as the editor are responsible for assembling the scholarly consensus on the Salem witch trials, not presenting your interpretation using the original sources. You are free to appeal this decision at GA review. You might also peruse Green Knight and Rosaline to get a sense of the kinds of sources wikipedia requires and its citation style. Awadewit | talk 05:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want other editors' help with the page, you might think about posting it at peer review. Awadewit | talk 05:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced comment

"often muttered under her breath as she walked away from failed attempts of obtaining food and/or shelter from neighbors and people interpreted her muttering as curses"... where is the source saying that she really was just muttering under her breath and that she was not actually cursing them? JayKeaton 03:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Good was questioned by John Hathorne during her examination on March 1 about her muttering:

from the Salem Witchcraft Papers (Boyer & Nissenbaum, eds, DaCapo Press, 1977), p. 356:

(H) why did you go away muttering from mr Parris his house

(g) I did not mutter but I thanked him for what he gave my child

SWP, p. 357:

(H) what is it that you say when you goe muttering away from persons houses

(g) if I must tell I will tell

(H) doe tell us then

(g) if I must tell I will tell, it is the commandments I may say my commandments I hope

(H) what commandment is it

(g) if I must tell you I will tell, it is a psalm

(H) what psalm

(g) after a long time shee muttered over some part of a psalm

Note that various witnesses against Bridget Bishop, Susannah Martin and Rachel Clinton also claimed that these women "muttered" things

Ogram 11:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peine forte et dure

According to the article, this was abolished 20 years before Giles Corey's death. However, the source cited says that it was abolished in 1772, 80 years after it.

Reverted talk page after vandalism

rvv edits by 69.235.19.41 to last version by 68.52.133.148. User 69.235.19.41 erased all previous comments on the talk page and replaced them with a paragraph about how s/he likes pie. My first day editing Wikipedia and this is the biggest thing I've done, but I decided to be bold! ShayDC 00:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and welcome to wikipedia :D Yamaka122 ...:) 21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture Citation Needed

"H. P. Lovecraft's fictional town of Arkham, Massachusetts is said to have been founded by refugees from the Salem Trials." It would be nice to have a citation because that's kind of cool. I don't recall that being mentioned in the stories. Pulsadinura 23:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be in the category "Religious persecution"?

Whether by perception or in fact of their beliefs, they were persecuted by the religious establishment. But now that it has been reverted, it remains uncategorized as such.
Brian0324 19:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the category is unfitting. The people were not persecuted for any actual religious beliefs, but for things they were falsely accused of doing: practicing witchcraft and diabolism, that is. Putting this article (and the respective articles on each person who suffered) in the category implies that these were really witches, who were persecuted for diabolism, or at least that there really was witchery and diabolism afoot, even if not everyone who suffered in the affair held such beliefs. There is, though, no reason to suppose that this was really so. -- Lonewolf BC 20:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with leaving this article out of the religious persecution category. The trials have been adopted in later centuries as being about religious persecution by people who have misunderstood what actually happened. The people prosecuted, ironically, were primarily church-going folks who denied the charges, many of them were covenanted church members and even three Puritan ministers were accused. None were advocating Quaker, Antinomian or Anabaptist sentiments, groups who were clearly being persecuted and banished by the Puritan authorities of the period. Bernard Rosenthal in Salem Story contends that Rev. George Burroughs -- the only one of the three accused ministers who was actually prosecuted -- may have become a Baptist, but I'm not sure that I can agree with him. He makes some big leaps in places that I find unsupportable. Even if supportable, it would mean only one case among the rest, and that can't color the entire event, I don't think. Of course, the fact that Elie Wiesel, Nobel Laureate writer about the Holocaust, was invited to speak at the 300th anniversary in 1992 likely reinforced the "persecution" interpretation in the public's eye. Ogram 11:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should put the meaning or revelance of the counties

10/10/07 i really do not see a need for the mention of the counties in the begging of the page it should be later in my opinion but its up to you. Just as a student it feels unessasary for me to know that information that early. Thanks! Kitty!!!! 22:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Courts in that day were defined by the county in which they were held, making the naming of the counties pertinent to providing an accurate summary of the geographic and judicial extent of the episode. Ogram 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

citing sources.

well hey there. I'm just a "user" i guess on wiki, trying to make sence of the Salem Witchcraft trials. well ok, i don't find the article bad, but some of the sources are not...leading me to where you ,meaning whoever put the info on the page, recieved the info. An example would be source 25. I was looking up the quote by Thomas Maule: "It were better than one hundred Witches should live, than that one person be put to death for a witch, which is not a Witch". When i clicked on the link, all that was shown was more links leading to different links which just led me to circles. Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Study buddies (talk • contribs) 03:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually, nevermind. maybe if i took the time to study the thingy a bit more instead of typing pretty much "i can't find it"...i would have found it? found it ya'll! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Study buddies (talk • contribs) 03:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling variation

Recently someone changed the spelling of some words to British/Canadian rather than American English. I'm changing them back and call for other editors to use American English spellings, in accordance with the Style Manual (item 14.8) that the specifies that an article with strong national ties to a particular topic should use the spelling conventions of that country. The Manual of Style also specifies that there shouldn't be a mix of spelling conventions. See WP:MANUAL Ogram 13:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Aftermath and closure" needs fixing up

The 'Aftermath and closure' sub-section of the article... doesn't seem to be an aftermath/closure, more like a 'list of events' that occurred afterwards. It should be made a more extensive 'conclusion of events', as in how the trials ended.

--Saphius (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The account of the trials ended in the subsection "Superior Court of Judicature" when all the cases were dealt with, but I see your point. I will work on changing the subsection about aftermath to turn it into paragraphs instead of bullets. --Ogram (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC) u are right.....i totally agree Wildnose94 19:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of names

I just reverted a good-faith edit by Dureo to the order of the names of the first three women accused. This user assumed it made sense to put Tituba first, but gave no general principle for determining "common sense" arrangement. The order I have reverted to is both alphabetical and happens to be the order in which the three women are documented to have been examined when they were brought before the magistrates on March 1. This raises a larger issue: should we have an agreed-upon principle when organizing lists of names in this article? Ideas? Ogram (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no preference, just the references I was looking at listed the Tituba, Good, Osborne exams(in that order), but going through it to the Osborne and Good exams it lists lists them singly, so I wasn't sure. For some reason thought the Tituba mittimus was sworn out prior to the Good and Osborne ones, and that the Good/Osborn ones came about because of the Tituba exam, but looking at it, appears they were all sworn out at the same time, so doesn't seem to matter. (also noticed the verbatim recordings at this site list it that way also (Summary of Examinations of Tituba, Sarah Good, and Sarah Osborne), but I am unsure if the headers are original or added, I cannot find the originals. -Dureo (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which references you are using that order. I am using the primary sources, to steer clear from conflicting organization in secondary sources, but even so, the major publications of transcriptions of these documents, Woodward's Records of Salem Witchcraft and Boyer & Nissenbaum's Salem Witchcraft Papers (SWP) include them in alphabetical order.

The way that the transcriptions of the examinations have been included in various collections do make it difficult: even though the witnesses to the examinations wrote them in single, continuous accounts of what happened that day, it has been more convenient for editors to separated these texts into three pieces each, to keep the text of each person's examination with other documents about them. There are three different handwritten accounts from witnesses to the three examinations on March 1, and all indicate that Sarah Good was examined first, followed by Sarah Osborne, then Tituba.

Images of the original manuscripts are available at the UVa archive:

Account written by Ezekiel Cheever: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/archives/essex/ecca/vol1/011.html and http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/archives/essex/ecca/vol1/012.html (Original in the Essex County Court Archives, vol. 1, nos. 11 & 12, Phillips Library, Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, MA.) In SWP, see Examination of Sarah Good pp. 356-357, Examination of Sarah Osburn pp. 610-611, Examination of Tituba pp. 747-749.
Account written by Joseph Putnam: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/archives/essex/ecca/vol1/009.html -- Note: descriptive title at UVa site incorrectly includes Wilmot Redd. (Original in Essex County Court Archives, vol. 1, no. 9, Phillips Library, Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, MA.) In SWP, see Examinations of Sarah Good, Sarah Osburn & Tituba pp. 360-361.
Account written by John Hathorne: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/archives/essex/ecca/vol1/014.html (Essex County Court Archives, vol. 1, no. 14, Phillips Library, Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, MA.) In SWP, see Examination of Sarah Good pp. 358-359, Examination of Sarah Osburn pp. 609-610, Summary of Examinations of Tituba, Sarah Good, & Sarah Osburn pp. 746-747 includes some content from March 2, 3 & 5. The text at the very end of this document, stating that Sarah Good, Sarah Osburn & Tituba had been sent to the jail in Boston, is not included anywhere in SWP.

-Ogram (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please write a to-the-point introduction!

What a large article like this needs especially is a synoptic introduction -- what happened where and when. Information such as exactly which county courts were involved doesn't belong into the introduction but into the main body of the article. I'm not competent to write such an intro, so I'd be grateful if someone else could chip in. Thanks. Maikel (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the revision I did yesterday to see if this is an improvement. -Ogram (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Evaluation and Comments

Hello,

I will first be making random, preliminary notes on issues that catch my eye, followed by a detailed, ordered list of questions and comments that go section by section. But first (at random)...

Please use "logical quotation". This means that all punctuation goes outside of the quotation marks, unless the sense of the punctuation is actually a part of the quoted material.
The last few sections need to be organized; the order should be (main section titles): "Medical theories", "See also", "Notes and references", "Further reading", "External links"
In the "background" section, each section ends with "for more, see...". Was there ever discussion and/or consensus on including this? I feel that it would be better for the article if these links were incorporated into the "Further Reading" section near the end. Also, the subsections for the most part do a very poor job of relating back to the subject; it's a rather long section whose direct connection/impact to the witch trials are not immediately obvious and unexplained.
Parts of the "Background" and the section "The events" are poorly/sparsely sourced with footnotes.

--Malachirality (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious context section

The first two sentences in the Religious context section aren't very accurate. They read:

Within the Puritan faith, one's soul was considered predestined from birth as to whether it had been chosen for Heaven or condemned to Hell. Puritans constantly searched for hints to this predestination, assuming God's pleasure and displeasure could be read in signs given in the visible world.

Firstly, the formulation of unconditional election given is incomplete, and as such, suggestive of "hyper-Calvinism" (in the informal sense), rather than the actual view of the Reformed churches. The creedal view is summarized by the famous Puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards, as follows:

The word election denotes this: it signifies a choosing out. The elect are favored by electing grace among the rest of mankind, with whom they are found mixed together as the tares and the wheat. They are found among them in the same sinfulness, and in the same misery, and are alike partakers of original corruption. They are among them in being destitute of anything in them that is good, in enmity against God, in being in bondage to Satan, in condemnation to eternal destruction, and in being without righteousness. So that there is no distinction between them prior to that which the election makes. There is no respect wherein the elect are not among the common multitude of mankind . . . Christians a Chosen Generation, a Royal Priesthood, a Holy Nation, a Peculiar People

By leaving out the part of the doctrine regarding the state of all souls being sinful, and deserving of condemnation from birth, due to original sin, it implies that God condemns innocents to hell on a fiat; a view which mainstream Calvinism strongly denies (e.g., Canons of Dordrecht, Art. 1, 15).

Secondly, saying that: "Puritans constantly searched for hints to this predestination, assuming God's pleasure and displeasure could be read in signs given in the visible world", is misleading in this context. Two points are in order.

1. They did not believe that external signs were or could be indications of predestination. A person was encouraged to examine their own internal attitudes, motivations, thoughts, &c. But even this was to be done, not as morbid introspection or vailed legalism (i.e., by constantly looking for a reason to doubt one's election, or by taking an inventory of good works), but in humble desire for holiness to be given through grace. Again, the creedal view is:

The elect in due time, though in various stages and in different measure, are made certain of this their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation. They attain this assurance, however, not by inquisitively prying into the hidden and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unfailing fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God - such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, and a hunger and thirst for righteousness. [. . .] Some do not yet clearly discern in themselves a living faith in Christ, an assured confidence of heart, peace of conscience, a zeal for childlike obedience, and a glorying in God through Christ; nevertheless, they use the means through which God has promised to work these things in us. They ought not to be alarmed when reprobation is mentioned, nor to count themselves among the reprobate. Rather, they must diligently continue in the use of these means, fervently desire a time of more abundant grace, and expect it with reverence and humility. Others seriously desire to be converted to God, to please Him only, and to be delivered from the body of death. Yet they cannot reach that point on the way of godliness and faith which they would like. They should be even less terrified by the doctrine of reprobation, since a merciful God has promised not to quench the smoking flax nor to break the bruised reed. . . (Canons of Dordrecht, Art. 12, 16)

2. The Puritans believed in the general "blessing / cursing" formula described in the Bible, where a person is blessed if they obey God's commands and cursed if they break them. For example, William Aspinwall's preface to John Cotton's Abstract includes the remark:

And verily great will be the benefit of this kingdom of Christ, when it shall be submitted unto by the nations [. . .] All burdens and tyrannical exactions will be removed; God will make their officers peace, and their exactors righteousness . . .

However, this belief is clearly not in reference to detecting external signs of predestination, but in regard to benefit / detriment (spiritual or temporal) in general, and applicable to all humanity rather than just believers. Further, there are extensive treatments in Reformed theologians, teaching that this is only a general (rather than absolute) rule, citing examples of persons obeying God and yet suffering. In one example, Calvin treats of 2 Cor. 12:7-10, and argues that what seems beneficial to a limited human point of view, may in fact be detrimental, and vise versa; thus, Paul's "thorn in the flesh" is actually a blessing.

In conclusion, the last clause of the second sentance: "assuming God's pleasure and displeasure could be read in signs given in the visible world", is inappropriate in this connection; the first clause of the last sentence: "Puritans constantly searched for hints to this predestination", is inaccurate in the context of external signs; and the first sentence is both incomplete and unnecessary if the next sentence is removed. So I have removed these sentences and edited the next sentence to read: "The Puritans believed in the existence of an invisible world inhabited. . ." » MonkeeSage « 17:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Afraid One Citation Is Wrong

John Proctor, George Burroughs, etc, were executed on Aug. 19, with Martha Carrier, not Susannah Martin. Martin was hanged on July 19th of the same year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.143.15 (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 15th Executions

Martha Carrier, not Susannah Martin, was executed on Aug 15th. The Overview section needs to be changed to reflect this. Martin was hung on July 19.

Sorry, did not see this was already posted.