The Salem Witch Hunt: The Case of Tituba by Tajae Pryce

New England in the 17^th century was a society contrived of Puritan settlers who incorporated their belief systems into the social structures in which they upheld. Church leaders and political figures were essentially one in the same and cases of blasphemy, or any other act seen as going against the Puritan faith, were seen in the same legal light as instances of civic misconduct. These settlers generally believed that the world around them was a spiritual place and that the Christian God played a direct role in all matters of fate and circumstance through predetermined providence. In such a society, moments of crisis such as 1692’s Salem Village’s witch-hunt held much complication and encompassed all levels of life. Closely analyzing the details behind some of the accusations of witchcraft, such as the evidence presented against certain individuals is necessary for historical analysis of the culture and mentality of the New England colonists at this time period. In the case of one of the first individuals to be accused of witchcraft, Tituba, one can evaluate records of court proceedings and accusations to find out more about how the colonists viewed outsiders, both from their ethnicity and their society, as well as the extent to which this society was willing to seriously credit supernatural possession as the cause for the afflictions.

Tituba was a slave of Salem’s minister, Samuel Parris, whom had been purchased in Barbados.[1] She could be described as Indian or African; however, records of slaves and their race were often relegated to arbitrary distinctions based on skin color or physical appearance. It is to be noted that Puritans did believe that Indians inherently worshipped the Devil, therefore, it can be rightfully assumed that anyone a darker race than the settlers were looked at with suspicion and caution. The villagers also had prior attribution to Tituba and dark magic as stories of her knowledge of witchcraft and the occult from her past were widely known.[2] Suspicions of direct Tituba’s involvement in the Salem crisis came to light after the affliction of Samuel Parris’ daughter and niece. After succumbing to drastic changes in their temperament and exhibiting signs of what the colonists referred to as “fits”, the young girls were determined to be bewitched, both by Salem’s residents and the villages’ presiding physician.[3] The girls exhibited wounds on their bodies believed done by agents separate from their own selves, and evidence of witchcraft was thoroughly sought. Tituba was named as the inflictor of the evil deeds by the young girls and was examined and questioned by the presiding councils. Tituba admitted to being learned on the art of the detection of witchcraft due to her being taught by her mistress in Barbados.[4] While being interrogated, she would eventually confess that she was indeed bewitched and had allied with the Devil to carry out his work and went into detail about how others and herself went about with the molestation of the innocent and their convenience with Satan.[5] Her testimonies, however, varied over the course of her interrogations. There were instances where Tituba denied all claims of witchcraft and instances where she provided specific details on her meetings with the Devil, the convent made between them, and the names of her accomplices. Her confession played a major role on the credibility and necessity of both the accusatory trials and concurrent witch hunts as her admittance provided evidence of the existence of witchcraft in the community and prove that others were indeed hiding their true selves. According to neighboring minister John Hale, Tituba’s confessions were held as credible due to the consistency of her answers given during her multiple interrogations, her repentant nature during her trial, and because her confessions aligned with the accusations stated by her afflicted victims. Her interrogations and subsequent confessions were regarded as a success by the council as more suspects were brought to light and details of what the allegiance with the Devil actually entailed emerged.[6]

            The format in which the trials and interrogations were performed can be seen as fundamentally flawed. Magistrates presiding over the trials had no formal legal training, nor were they secular or partisan in nature. Officials did prepare by researching legal and medical surveys on the topic of witchcraft and dark magic, but theological principles were the most important source of information to be taken into account in Puritan Salem. Spectral evidence was assessed in virtually all trials and the existence of witchcraft itself was implicit.[7]  The accused were beaten and fervently interrogated once taken in and execution was an inevitable fate to those who were convicted of the crime or for lying about their involvement. Confession with the provision of accomplices’ would oftentimes lead to lesser punitive sentences and spare one from brutal execution, as was the case with Tituba.[8]

 The Puritan view on women also played a role in terms of bias during the witch-hunt. Through the Puritan interpretation of the Bible, women were viewed as spiritually weaker than men.[9] Most of the accused were women and few mentions of men being the cause for the afflictions are given in the sources; only as victims. In Tituba’s case, she was at an even greater disadvantage and her accusation was perhaps expected seeing that she was not only a woman, but also a different ethnicity. “Indians”, as Tituba was described, were cast as devil worshipping barbarians who, although had the capability to be converted, were still associated with evil. Stereotypes assumed by the colonists of Tituba’s ethnicity and her known involvement in magic affairs, such as her witch-detecting urine cake,[10] made her not only a prime suspect, but also a suspect who was seen as a way of exposing other witches.

The mentality the settlers had regarding Indians and the certainty of Tituba’s involvement even before her admittance shows that they more than likely saw Indians as an enemy to the integrity of Puritan and New England society.[11] The war-like mentality by ministers such as Deodat Lawson and others exhibits a need for the elimination of all things evil and destructive to the church. Lawson’s rhetoric of “devils” penetrating the church was also used in regards to Indians attacking the lands of the settlers. These attacks were viewed as being assaulted by the Devil himself.[12] Putting Tituba on the forefront of the witch-hunt and as the primary conspirator with Satan himself, could have potentially allowed lawmakers, who are also church leaders, to systematically impose policies that would make it more difficult for the integration of both Indians and people of African decent into Puritan society. Assimilation of these people could now be seen as a threat to the threads of religious piety, which were fundamentally woven into New England communities. Also serving as a threat to traditional Puritan society was the diversity of values and moralities. As new generations of settlers emerged as constructive members of society and older generations phased out, new focus on economic advancement and new ideas would diminish the importance of religious values of the community. Such was seen as a decline in morality and as work by the Devil.[13]

Tituba’s circumstance of being an Indian slave woman simply claiming to know about witchcraft in 17^th century New England all but guaranteed suspicions of her being part of the cause for the afflictions in Salem if not the main instigator. Her confessions, however, brought forth by fear or torture, were essential in providing justification for conducting more witch trials and certainly expanded the longevity of not only the trials, but also the paranoia associated with witchcraft. Tituba’s confessions confirmed the theories of the believers and probably changed the minds of some skeptics showing that the afflictions in Salem were not matters of circumstance but truly signs of the Devil infiltrating their society. It must also be questioned, what options did Tituba have once put on trial? She had no true social standing in the community and had no supporter system to back her up had she remained in denial of the allegations. She was made aware that her confessions could spare her life; compromising the credibility of anyone’s confessions given such propositions. Tituba’s cultural background also plays a part in why she confessed. Perhaps she truly did believe that evil spirits were at work in Salem. There is no indication that she was religiously assimilated into Puritan life. In fact, she admitted to practicing magic and adhering to her cultural routes and traditions.[14] With no real inclination to adhere to Salem’s society, Tituba’s disconnect from the social system led to her giving some of the most paranormal confessions of all the accused; confessions that would later be deemed not worthy of execution with Tituba’s ultimate fate left unknown to history. Tituba’s role was to both prove the existence of witchcraft and to show the power of Christian redemption and hope for the upholding of Puritan ideologies for years to come.

Works Cited

Godbeer, Richard. The Salem Witch Hunt: A Brief History with Documents. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011.

---

[1] Godbeer, Richard. The Salem Witch Hunt: A Brief History with Documents. (Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011)., 81.

[2] Godbeer, 82

[3] Ibid., 51

[4] Ibid., 52

[5] Ibid., 82

[6] Godbeer, 53

[7] Godbeer, 26

[8] Ibid., 53

[9] Ibid., 11

[10] Godbeer, 52

[11] Ibid., 17

[12] Ibid., 19

[13] Ibid., 19

[14] Godbeer, 52

Causes of Bacon’s Rebellion and its Various Interpretations by Tajae Pryce

            The moment in American history that has now become known as Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676 offers insight into the psyche of a collective social consciousness of 17^th century settlers in the Virginia colony. This is achieved not only through actual events that occurred during this time period recorded through primary sources, but also how these events were interpreted, throughout all levels of society, creating differing narratives that place emphasis on the incident’s varying causes, implications and nuances. A complete exploration of the Virginia colony’s social, political and economical atmosphere in the years leading up to Bacon’s Rebellion is necessary for historians to conduct and record true surveys that can be referenced and learned from as time progresses. As James D. Rice suggests in Tales from a Revolution, Bacon’s Rebellion should not be understood as a sensational uprising from a rouge group settlers led by one man, fighting for change, but rather a pre-Revolutionary example of resiliency and retaliation from a group of people who believed that their unfavorable conditions were so overwhelmingly oppressive that a need for rising against it by any means possible was necessary for the betterment of themselves and the future inhabitants of the colony. Rice challenges mainstream history’s focus on Bacon and instead uses him as a composite representative of a revolutionary-driven colonist faced with challenges that encompassed all areas of society, social, political and economic.

            Late 17^th century Virginia was the New World’s southern hub for trade and the accumulation of revenue and resources for the Crown. However, the colony was inhabited both by European settlers as well as displaced native peoples of various tribes responding in different ways to the presence of the Europeans and how they would affect the survival of the native’s people and natural resources. The Europeans traded with the Indians and, at times lived in close proximity with them. Conflict would arise, however, because of the absence of an effective system serving to protect the integrity of these interactions often leading to whatever arty who was wronged taken justice into its own hands and creating further tension. Rice gives an example of this type of conflict with Thomas Matthew. Matthew, a planter at Cherry Point had some of his livestock taken from him by Doeg Indians as a response to him cheating them out of what was owed for a transaction (Rice, 5). This heist led to retaliation by Matthew and some of his fellow Englishmen going after and attacking the Doegs. Evidence of such vigilance against the natives as well as the overall clash between the two cultures shows how much of an impact it had on the eventual uprising in Virginia. Natives and Europeans attacked and pillaged from one another under no effective structure of the government.  The settlers felt that this hands-off approach from their government regarding attacks by natives was highly unjustified and corrupt. In addition to the settlers’ distrust in their government’s lack of protection, Governor William Berkeley’ identification of any type of militia formed against the natives as mutinous rebels create an irreparable rift between the working class and their governing body (44). The increase in the amount of attacks and the governor’s failure to address the issue effectively in the way the settlers wanted was a root cause in the uprising. Fear of the natives and the social rhetoric of savage beasts ravaging the land and killing innocent Englishmen promoted the need for retaliation for those who may not have been directly involved by such matters.

            Taking fear of the natives and a strong disconnect between the government and the people and combining it with the poor economic state of the colony at that time created such a heightened level of distress that change was necessary. Virginia’s dependence on tobacco farming created a period plagued with substantial drop in price for the commodity as well as high taxes being imposed in order to pay for structures and systems not necessarily beneficial to a working class Virginian. “Additional taxes to pay the legislators’ (the Burgesses) general expense allowances during frequent assemblies were bitterly resented (15)…a growing chorus of complaints blamed the commissioners of Virginia’s county governments for levying such heavy taxes, which heavily burdened small planters who grew little tobacco or had little to spare” (16).

Tobacco farming required substantially large amounts of time land and labor before the profits of the 13^th month harvesting process could be reaped; all factors that Virginia could not expend. This economically distressed state further agitated the mentality of the average Virginia who could no longer live in prosperity and provide for the security of his family nor feel that he was being rewarded for the amount of work he put in. This was a time of desperation and a need for action. Figures such as Bacon, with his call to battle against injustice appealed to the oppressed and provided for the motivationally driven force of ‘soldiers’.

            More can be learned about the motivation behind Bacon’s Rebellion by addressing the primary sources directly, especially those from Bacon himself as well as his supporters. In regards to what Bacon identified as “the Indian troubles”, one learns that the trade system was a primary issue behind the need for ratification. “…no Trade should be held with the Indians, notwithstanding Which our present Governor monopolized trade with the Indians and granted licenses to others to trade with them…I fear we shall be all lost for this commerce having acquainted the Indians…(Bacon 1676). Bacon addresses the Governor’s blatant protection of the interest of the interest while seemingly putting the settlers’ issues aside. He believes that the governor personal benefits from these diplomatic arrangements and that Berkeley’s attitude towards his own people is characteristically traitorous to the colonists. In Bacon’s Declaration, he lists a series of grievances against the governor and the current state of affairs including Berkeley taking advantage of magistrates for personal interests, his monopolization of beaver trade and showing favor towards the natives, and the governor’s essential blocking of Bacon or any other settlers to assemble militias to not only protect themselves but to eradicate the threat of natives altogether (Declaration, 1676). Perhaps even more important to understanding the causes for the Rebellion is the testimony ad declaration from the people themselves. Had Bacon been the only representative of a class bent on revolution, the reliability of its causes would be scrutinized much more, however, sources exist from petitions of grievances from the people of Surry and Isle of Wight counties a year after Bacon’s Declaration expressing many of the same grievances he outlined. The people condemn the governor for unfairly taxing the planter class and exempting large landowners as well as their seasonally increasing tax money not being able to be accounted for. Criticisms dealing with the political and judicial systems are also made residents calling for ratifications in term lengths for officers and, more importantly, public Court proceedings to be held (Surry, 1677). In a similar address of grievances from residents of the Isle of Wight county calls for “continuous war” with natives in order to eliminate them as a force entirely. This is important to understanding relations between settlers and natives because this county laid on the frontier, an area closer to native tribal lands therefore they were more affected by hostility and conflict between the two groups than citizens of more centralized localities. These citizens, as well as Bacon and his associates, make note that what was taking place in Virginia under Berkeley was not conductive with proceedings in England under the king. A ‘good vs. evil’ mentality is utilized throughout the corresponding documents juxtaposing the benevolently prudent intentions of the rebels with the evilness and savagery of natives who aim to kill and plunder with no remorse under the protection of the corrupted and immoral governor Berkeley. The Isle of Wight County inhabitants further state their actions as an uprising, “…not that we rose in any ways of a Rebellion against our most [dear] Sovereign Lord the King as our actions may appear…”(Isle of Wight, 1677). This is a significant acknowledgement and is necessary for the understanding of what Bacon’s Rebellion truly was; a collective of settlers aimed at the protection of their interests and the integrity of their moral values taking it upon themselves to directly challenge and attack the forces prohibiting ideological prosperity.

            Revolutionary moments in time are subject to subjective criticism as there is never one side to such an event. In most cases, each side participating in a conflict believes that they are right and the defeat of their opposition is objectively justifiable. In the case of Bacon’s Rebellion, one individual serves as the main focus, both as protagonist and antagonist. From the Berkeley administration’s standpoint, Bacon was nothing more than a voice that spread his seditious propaganda enough that it reached the attention of impressionable men who chose to rebel against authority whereas Bacon’s supporters would have seen him as a transformative organizer and leader for the just cause of revolution. Perceptions aside, labeling this event Bacon’s Rebellion may take away from all the factors involved that led to the uprising. The issues of violence, corrupt and opaque political practices, and a heavily expressed economical system are indispensable to the understanding of this event. Identifying such moments of population-driven revolution with distinct namesakes or monikers devalues the information that can be learned from them and likens them to offshoot, arbitrary incidents. These issues have occurred and could potentially arise in any given society, at any given moment in time; therefore, the causes of such events and the context of the time and state they occur must be thoroughly evaluated before being labeled blanketed titles hurt their historical and societal significance.

Works Cited

Bacon, Nathaniel. "Nathaniel Bacon's Account of the Indian Troubles." Virginia. 18 June 1676. Declaration.

The Declaration (1676) (testimony of Nathaniel Bacon). Print.

"Petition of Grievance by the Inhabitantt of Surry County." Virginia, Surry County. March or April. 1677. Petition.

Rice, James D. Tales from a Revolution: Bacon's Rebellion and the Transformation of Early America. New York City: Oxford University Press, 2012

Miguel de Cervantes’ “The Dialogue of the Dogs” as Social Commentary by Tajae Pryce

            “In The Dialogue of the Dogs”, Cervantes employs the use of colloquial exchange between two characters to touch on various aspects of society in early modern Spain. This dialogue, however, is irrationally taking place between two dogs sharing autobiographical stories allowing Cervantes’ social satire and criticisms to come across as more accessible to his audiences rather than blatant denigration. A few of the social topics he addresses through this unconventionally constructed short story are the corruption of authority, both civic and religious, the effects of disconnected systems of power in morally misguided societies and the plight of creative artists and writers such as himself of being true to their works or creating publications tailored for mass appeal.

            One of the stories Berganza the dog shares is about his time in a slaughterhouse in Seville. Here, he is exposed to people of selfish intentions who have shunned morality and proper social order in pursuit of the attainment of their own self-interests. “…They are like vultures, maintaining themselves and their mistresses on what they steal” (253). The unsupervised workers at the slaughterhouse allowed their true personas to show, doing whatever it took to plunder prime cutes of meet for themselves including causing harm or imposing death to others without much remorse, as Berganza explains, “But nothing shocked me more or struck me as more scandalous than to see that these slaughterhouse workers will kill a man as easily as a cow”. The actions of these workers represent the tendency for society to act in a mob mentality when presented with opportunities, especially in societies where immoral behavior was as commonplace as in early modern Spain’s working class. This may also be a representation of Cervantes’ view of Spain’s lawmakers and nobility governing a population whom they have no connection nor direct intervention into their day to day lives, seeing how these laws actually impact the people. Rather, the nobility employs public servants as protectors of the legal system despite the fact that these servants can be just as immoral and self-interested as other social deviants.

            “Dialogue’s” episode detailing Bergama’s tenure as a shepherd dog, addresses the corruptive nature of humankind as well as dishonesty in spiritual leadership. The cruelty conveyed through the dishonest shepherds, feigning attacks by wolves in order to steal from their owners, serves as a vivid analogy of shepherds of Christian followers deceiving their blindly faithful and unquestioning flock in order to carry out their own agendas. Spain’s religious system at the time was interwoven with the governmental system, thus allowing for decrees of indulgence requirements and essentially ‘witch-hunts’ for religious deviants. Berganza’s strong loyalty to his shepherd masters leads him to truly believe their commands and accept punishment that may be given to him despite his own rationale because he trusts them. They have fed him, seen him as useful and continuously reinforce their orders. It is not only until he is exposed to the true nature of the shepherds that Berganza is enlightened to the horrible paradox that systematically exists and questions how such a corrupt system based on trust could be exposed to more people. “I was shocked and amazed to see that the shepherds were the wolves and the very people who were supposed to be guarding the flock were tearing it to pieces”, “Who will have the power to persuade anyone that the defenders are on the offensive, that the sentries are sleeping, that it doesn’t pay to trust anyone and that those who guard also kill?” (259). The parallels drawn from the story to Spanish society is Cervantes’ call to action to a conscious collective of revolutionaries who must aim to enlighten society of the corruption that exists in the Church and how the same church that condemns nonbelievers and heretics does so to propagate the gluttonous agendas of those in positions of power.

            Cervantes also comments on the challenges that writers face in his section detailing the poet Berganza meets. Perhaps a reflection of Cervantes’ own impediments, the poet is described as deeply enthralled in the particulars of his play, striving to make it as historically accurate and poetically sound as possible only to be ridiculed and deserted by one of the actors for the poets exorbitance and demands. Cervantes seems to illustrate his own frustrations with a society focused more on sensational and entertaining works of art as opposed to literal contributions that serve to challenge societal inconsistencies and provide historical and rational insight on social issues; thus inciting constructive debate into the social consciousness of a population.  I believe that Cervantes may feel that some of his literary work and especially his poetry had been undervalued by society while contributions such as Don Quixote, a classic in its own right, were more appreciated because of its entertainment value. The poet portrayed in “Dialogue” is fixated on the need for accuracy in his play and his efforts are received as arbitrary embellishments. Cervantes hold the philosophy that art and literature should serve the role of not only reflecting the society it describes, but to also advocate for morality and the rectification of injustices.

            The discourse between Berganza and Scipio is one that allows the audience to view themselves and their actions from a different perspective, one of innocence and simplicity. These dogs provide subjective insight into the actions of various levels of early modern Spain’s society, and the corruption and inconsistencies that exist throughout. Cervantes’ unconventional approach effectively accomplishes his purpose for this short story. He humbles the audience and forces autoscopic reflection, not only for the reader’s own motives and behavior, but also for their societal institutions and cultural norms. The constant theme of corruption expressed through satire in this story is a genre that has been utilized by generations of advocacies in order to allow the level of accessibility needed to incite grassroots-driven transformations of what pillars society chooses to uphold, maintain and ratify.

      De Cervantes, Miguel. “The Dialogue of the Dogs.” In Exemplary Stories. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998