The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England

Chapter 1 opens on the trial of Ann Hibbens on May 14, 1656. Hibbens, a Boston widow, was on trial for witchcraft and was found guilty. Both Hibbens’ neighbors and leading clergymen attested to Hibbens’ witchlike characteristics. In June of that year, Hibbens was executed. Karlsen reflects that Hibbens’ case exemplifies how witchcraft accusations had both religious and social dimensions. She notes that witches “were not merely threats to their neighbors’ physical and economic well-being, but heretics. Witches were enemies not only of society, but of God” (4). When women of 17th-century New England faced criticisms from both neighbors and the Church, they were often labeled as a witch.

The witch’s most feared power was called maleficium, which was her capacity to harm others with her supernatural aspects. Puritan communities believed that witches harmed their neighbors when they were angry or jealous. Witches were also believed to harm neighbors’ property and animals. The witch was thought of as a danger to the natural order. Witches were feared to cause birth defects, miscarriages, and other general illnesses. It was believed that these supernatural abilities were given to witches by the Devil. Because witches were accused of supernatural acts, witches’ identities were difficult to prove in court. The court resorted to torture to extract confessions from suspected witches. Psychological pressure exerted from the larger community also encouraged the accused to make false confessions. The clergy had the power to singlehandedly confirm or deny witchcraft accusations.

Karlsen structures the rest of her chapter around five time periods. No witchcraft prosecutions were made in 1620-1646. It wasn’t until the late 1640s where witchcraft became a serious concern. 1647-1663 saw a wave of witchcraft trials. New England’s first “outbreak” of frenzied accusations occurred in Hartford, Connecticut in 1662-3. In that short timeframe, a total of 79 accusations were made. In 1664-88, New England saw a cooling of witchcraft trials. However, by 1688, incidents of possession cropped up in Boston, Salem, and Fairfield, Connecticut, triggering another wave of trials from 1688-1693. Accusations became so frenzied at this time that an official investigation into witchcraft was launched by the Connecticut Court of Assistants. By 1694-1725, the number of trials waned considerably. Karlsen observes that a case against Sarah Spencer in 1724 ended with the court ordering the accusers to undergo mental health exams, marking a cultural shift.

Many witchcraft accusations came from those who knew the accused well. Interpersonal conflicts and even family arguments of Puritan New England often resulted in witchcraft accusations. Some groups were far more predisposed to be accused than others. Karlsen devotes her second chapter to ascertaining demographic information about New England witches. Here, gender is of special note. Karlsen immediately points out, “The single most salient characteristic of witches was their sex” (47). She goes on to cite figures that identify a whopping 78% of those accused of witchcraft in New England from 1620-1725 were women. Even when men were accused, their punishments were far less strict and were rarely executed.

To illustrate her argument, Karlsen employs the examples of Eunice Cole and John Godfrey. Both had infamous reputations for witchcraft in their communities yet suffered drastically different punishments. From 1656 to 1680, Eunice Cole was followed by witchcraft accusations from neighbors. She was in and out of jail multiple times for witchcraft over the course of this period, and the experience left her ostracized and destitute. John Godfrey was also followed by a reputation for witchcraft, although unlike Cole, he routinely threatened members of his community. Brought before the courts multiple times, Godfrey was acquitted of charges every time.

Other determining factors that brought witchcraft accusations upon some more than others had economic bases. Property disputes often resulted in witchcraft accusations. Age was another significant factor. Women over forty were “consistently more vulnerable to accusation, whether or not the community was in the grips of an outbreak” (66). Women over 60 received particularly harsh punishment by the courts whenever accused. Karlsen points out that both older age demographics defied the acceptable parameters of womanhood in Puritan society because they could no longer bear children.

While married women were the most often accused, husbands could serve as a shield of protection against prosecution. Single women did not have this shield; they suffered further stigmatization by the larger community for being unmarried. Still, Karlsen stresses, no conclusive statements can be made about which marriage status demographic was most vulnerable.

Karlsen continues her demographic analysis via economic dimensions. While it is widely agreed that English witches were of the poorer classes, Karlsen argues it is more difficult to make definitive statements about the economic statuses of New England witches. “Still,” Karlsen writes, “the poor account for only a minority of the women accused” in New England (79). This makes economics an important demographic dimension that marks a difference between witchcraft in England and the Puritan colonies.

However, the most telling economic factor in determining who was accused of witchcraft in Puritan New England was property ownership. Specifically, women who inherited—or were in line to inherit—property were special targets of witchcraft accusations. These women inherited land from husbands or fathers when these male family members passed away. While Puritan customs dictated that men limit the land they passed on to wives or daughters, there were occasions where these customs were broken, such as when there were no male heirs to pass land on to.

Karlsen conducts a close analysis of five women who came from families without male heirs: Katherine Harrison, Susanna Martin, Joan Penney, Mehitabel Downing, and Martha Carrier. All five women came to inherit land because they were either daughters to parents with no sons, wives who had no sons, or wives in marriages without any children. All five were also accused of witchcraft, establishing the link between witchcraft accusations and women who, according to Puritan norms, were living outside of their station because they owned land.

While women who inherited land were often accused shortly after their male family died, accusations also came before women ever inherited land. Simply being in line to inherit was threat enough for Puritan society. Women could even be disinherited, wherein courts would litigate cases between family members and often strip women of their inherited land. Such were the stories of women like Rachel Clinton and Sarah Good. Karlsen reflects, “Looking back over the lives of these many women—most particularly those that did not have brothers or sons to inherit—we begin to understand the complexity of the economic dimension of New England witchcraft” (115). Importantly, economic circumstances were rarely mentioned in witchcraft trials themselves. It is only through close analyses of the stories of accused women where these demographic details come into light.