Part 15 (1/2)

see the devil?” ”The ”Why have you done it?”

devil come to me, and bid ”I have done nothing. I me serve him.” can't tell when the devil works.” ”What! Doth the devil tell you that he hurts them?” ”No, he tells me nothing.”

Thus Cheever makes her say that ”_the devil_” came to her and bade her serve him, while Corwin, reporting the same part of the examination makes her say that ”_the devil_” never told her anything. Further on, Corwin makes her say, ”A thing like a man told me serve him.” Cheever says the _devil_ told her thus. t.i.tuba herself, and all the clairvoyants of that age, preserved a distinction between the devil and the personages they saw, heard, and talked with. But the recorders of their testimony, failing to observe this distinction, often perverted the evidence. A comparison of the two records throughout suggests the probability that Corwin, who is most minute, gives the questions and answers in their original order and sequences much more nearly than does Cheever, whose record, when compared with the other, appears in some parts to be summings-up of several minutes' talks into a brief sentence or two, and also gives evidence of his taking it as obvious fact, that t.i.tuba's ”thing like a man” was the veritable devil. This is probable, because his minutes make her say ”_the devil_ come to me, and bid me serve him,” at a point in the examination where, according to Corwin, she said _the devil_ ”tells me nothing.” Thus the appearance is, that Cheever carried back in time words which _she_ subsequently applied to her ”thing like a man,” and on his own authority--not hers--applied them to ”the devil.” In Corwin's account, her conception of the separate individualities of ”the devil” and her ”thing like a man” reveals itself clearly, and is nowhere contravened. But Cheever, almost at the commencement of his record, and at a point where she, according to Corwin, said the devil told her _nothing_, reports her as then applying to _the devil_ what she a few minutes or hours afterward applied to her ”thing like a man.” According to the more full and the more trustworthy record, she at no time confessed to any interview with ”_The Devil_,” though she did freely to many conversations with ”the man.” These facts are important, very interesting, and instructive. As we interpret them now, they indicate that t.i.tuba never confessed to any intercommunings with the devil, never charged Mrs. Good, Mrs. Osburn, or any one else with being familiar with his Sable Majesty, but only with ”a tall man, with white hair,” wearing a ”serge coat.”

The court before whom she was questioned, and the people around, generally, no doubt, deemed her ”thing like a man” to be the veritable devil, as Cheever did. But the more exact recorder of her words furnishes good grounds for belief that t.i.tuba herself conceived otherwise. She who was gifted with faculties which let her see, hear, and feel the actors, apprehended that one of them at least was a disembodied human spirit; while the spiritually blind, but physically and logically keen-eyed ones around her, wrongfully inferred the presence of their Malignant and Mighty Devil with her.

Some dates fixed by this witness in Corwin's account, and entirely omitted in Cheever's, are interesting and somewhat important. We learn what, so far as we know, escaped the notice of all former searchers, that it was on Friday, January 15, just as she was going to sleep, that ”one like a man”

came to her and appointed a meeting there at Mr. Parris's house, to take place on the next Wednesday evening. Accordingly, on Wednesday evening, January 20, ”the man” and four women came, and then designedly and deliberately pushed t.i.tuba on, and made her pinch the daughter and niece of Mr. Parris; and _on that very evening_, Abigail, at least, if not Betty also, ”_was first taken ill_.” Here is an important and significant coincidence. Just at the time when the illness was developed, spirits, in compliance with a previous arrangement, were there present at work seeking to produce just such a result as was manifested. Did they, or did other agencies, produce the mysterious disorders which seemed to devil-dreading beholders like diabolical obsessions? In view of all the facts, it is plain that a spirit or spirits caused the children to suffer.

By failing to present the above points, which, though lacking in the account that he copied and followed, yet came under his eye, Upham clearly failed to use some very important historic facts which are essential to a fair presentation of both the time at which, and the agents through whom, Salem witchcraft had its origin, and consequently to a fair presentation of its nature. But those facts strenuously conflict with his theory that embodied girls and women were the designers and perpetrators of that great and terrific manifestation of destructive forces. How strong the chains of a pet theory! How blinding the cataracts of long-cherished conclusions!

If there exists in the world's annals more distinct testimony that a particular individual was the deliberate and intentional producer of acts which generated suffering, than t.i.tuba gave that the ”thing like a man,”

which came to her once ”when she was about going to sleep,” once ”in the lean-to chamber,” once ”when she was was.h.i.+ng the room,” and who, on Friday night, appointed a place for meeting the next Wednesday night, and, with a.s.sistants, kept his appointment, and then and there, as he had previously announced his purpose to do, severely ”hurt the children”--if there ever was recorded testimony which more distinctly designated a particular being as the princ.i.p.al in planning and enacting any scheme than is this from t.i.tuba, by which she designates over and over again ”a tall man with white hair,” wearing ”black clothes sometimes, and sometimes serge coat of other color,” as the chief executor of the strange and momentous development of illnesses in the family of Mr. Parris, I know not where that clearer testimony is recorded. He who ignored several very significant parts of what t.i.tuba said, rejected corner-stones which are essential to the foundation of a genuinely philosophical disclosure of the source and consequent nature of the mysteries he attempted to explain.

t.i.tuba has been described by Upham as ”indicating, in most respects, a mind at the lowest level of general intelligence,” so that any one must be more rash than prudent who will impute to her ability to fabricate a series of facts, all of which seem to be natural and probable in the province of psychology.

Mr. Parris informs us that the strange sicknesses existed in his family during several weeks before he or others had any suspicion that they might be of diabolical origin. t.i.tuba dates their commencement on the evening of January 20, just six weeks before her examination. Therefore Mr. Parris's ”several weeks” may have been five at least, during which he and his wife and their physician and friends probably studied symptoms, administered and watched the action of medicines, and cared for the children in every way, with as much freedom from delusion or bewildering excitement, as they could have done in any other equal portion of their lives. Such medical skill as then existed there, obviously had and used a very considerable period of time, not less than four or five weeks, in which to do its best, and yet was baffled. Its best was unavailing. We to-day perceive sufficient cause of its failure. It was contending against a special spirit infliction, the authors of which could either counteract, intensify, or nullify at their pleasure, the normal action of any common medicines or nursings. Parents, physician, and nurses no doubt witnessed from day to day such anomalous and changeful manifestations, sequent upon the administration of ”physic,” as confounded their judgments, and made them at last suspect ”an evil hand.” t.i.tuba knew the cause of the illnesses, but probably lacked power to see and appreciate the continuous connection of that cause with the long series of its effects. Had she divulged her knowledge, what heed would have been given to the word of the ignorant slave? What beatings might she not well fear if she confessed to any dealings with invisible beings? No wonder that she kept her knowledge to herself, till fear of her master's cane influenced her to disclose the facts to the magistrates.

Small as t.i.tuba's mental capacities were, she had some unusual susceptibilities, which permitted, or rather obliged, her to possess more knowledge of the origin and progress, and also of the nature and of the active producer, of the distressing ailments and ”amazing feats” in her master's family, than did master, mistress, physician, and magistrates combined. They saw--if it can be said that they saw at all--they saw only through thick, coa.r.s.e, and blurred gla.s.ses, very dimly; while she, at times, clearly saw living actors face to face. From her we get the testimony of a witness who learned directly through her own senses what she stated; her testimony gives forth the ring of unflawed truth, and lifts a vail off from long-hidden mysteries.

Hutchinson, Upham, and Drake each sought to make it apparent that mundane roguishness, trickery, and malice, operating amid public credulity and infatuation, prompted and enabled frail girls and women to produce the ”amazing feats,” marvelous convulsions, and all the many other woeful outworkings of witchcraft. Having been either un.o.bservant of, or having ignored, the plain historic fact seen over and over again in t.i.tuba's testimony, that certain other intelligences than girls, that minds which were freed more or less fully and permanently from the hamperings of flesh, actually started the first display of witchcraft pinchings, fits, and convulsions at Salem Village, those historians wrongfully charged girls and women, whose bodies were then the subjects and tools of other intelligences, with being the feigners of maladies and the producers of acts which an eye-witness and reluctant partic.i.p.ator distinctly declares were manifested in obedience to a will or wills not their own. Such oversight, or such discarding of facts, whichever it may have been, caused those writers to so restrict their stores of intelligent agents having more or less access to and power over man, as to put outside of their own reach and vision the actual producers of witchcraft phenomena. This self-imposed or self-retained restriction forced upon them necessity for efforts to show that mere children possessed gigantic physical and mental powers and brains which concocted and executed schemes that shook to their very foundations the strong fabrics of church and state--yes, forced them to ascribe mighty public agitations to insignificant operators.

t.i.tuba, on the other hand, by a simple statement of what her own interior self saw, heard, felt, and did,--by a statement of what she actually _knew_,--designated the genuine and the obviously competent authors of witchcraft marvels, and explained their advent rationally. She, therefore, by far--very far--outranks each and all of those historians as a competent and authoritative expounder of the authors.h.i.+p, origin, and nature of Salem Witchcraft. Her ”something like a man”--her _tall white-haired man in serge coat_--was its author. That man was a spirit, and his works were Spiritualism of some quality. Opposition revealed his possession of mighty force. And, whatever his motive, the result of his scheme was the death of witchcraft throughout Christendom, and consequent wide emanc.i.p.ation from mental slavery.

Some statements made and published by Robert Calef not long subsequent to 1692, wear on their surface the semblance of impeachments, or at least of questionings of the value of t.i.tuba's testimony. He says, ”The first complained of was the said Indian woman named t.i.tuba; she confessed _the devil_ urged her to sign a book, which he presented to her, and also to work mischief to the children,” &c. We fail to find in Corwin's report anything like a _confession_ of any such things; she there states distinctly that _The Devil tells her nothing_, and also that the book was offered to her, and that the urgings to hurt the children were made to her by ”something like a man”--by ”_the man_.” She had no idea that the devil was her visitant, and never confessed that he tempted her.

Calef goes on and says, ”She was afterward committed to prison, and lay there till sold for her fees. The account she since gives of it is, that her master did beat her and otherwise abuse her to make her confess and accuse (such as he called) her sister witches; and that whatsoever she said by way of confessing, or accusing others, was the effect of such usage.” This is credible, and is probably true. Such proceedings on the part of Mr. Parris are not inconsistent with the character which he bears.

t.i.tuba's other master, the white-haired man, had charged her ”to say nothing;” she perhaps, therefore, was in fact induced to utter ”whatsoever she said by way of confessing or accusing others,” by beatings she received from her visible master. But what did she say by way of confessing or accusing? Nothing, really. She merely stated facts known to her; and such statement should not be misnamed either confession or accusation.

Corwin's record of that slave's testimony excites an apprehension--yes, generates belief--that Calef unconsciously made misleading statement when he wrote that ”she _confessed_ the _devil_ urged her to sign a book.” We have met with no indication that she ever made what should be called _confession_. We repeat, that she quite fully narrated that she had seen, held conversation with, and been forced to obey, a white-haired _man_, and also that the women Good and Osburn were at times her companion operators when the Man was present. That frank statement of facts const.i.tuted her only confession, so far as we perceive. Had this been made by an intelligent witness who comprehended how the public mind would interpret it, there might be plausible reason for saying that she or he ”_confessed_.” But with t.i.tuba it was a simple statement of the truth.

We suspect that Calef, under the prevalent habit of his day, unwittingly wrote _devil_ where t.i.tuba, according to Corwin, said ”the man.” If he followed Cheever's report of the trial, he seemed to have authority for doing so. That t.i.tuba regarded the devil and ”the tall man” as two distinct individuals is very obvious. When questioned, she admitted that the devil _might_ hurt the children for aught she knew, but she had never seen _him_, nor had _he_ ever told her anything. She had no acquaintance with that personage. While the questions related to _his_ doings she could give no information; but as soon as opportunity was given her to introduce her ”tall man” she was ready to speak of him freely and instructively. The people around her, not interiorly illumined, applied the name _devil_ to any disembodied intelligence that acted upon, or whose power became manifest to, their external senses; not so did either t.i.tuba or any of her clairvoyant sister sufferers or sister _accusers_ either. Throughout the whole of her two days' rigid examination she persistently called her strange visitant ”the man.” And it is a significant fact that all the mediumistic ones then, both accusers and accused, escaped ever falling into the prevalent habit of accusing THE DEVIL. Other agents met their vision.

Fear of Mr. Parris may have forced t.i.tuba to tell her true tale, which but for him she might have withheld. But is there probability either that he dictated any part of her testimony, or that she fabricated anything? We see none. The fair and just presumption is, that though forced to speak, she simply described what she had seen, and narrated what she had experienced. The apparent promptness, directness, and general consistency of her answers, strongly favor that presumption. In her judgment, as in ours, what she said was no confession of familiarity with the devil, for she disclaimed any knowledge of him; and therefore she made no confession of witchcraft as then defined, and no accusation of it against the other women.

Calef imputes to her a subsequent position which may be so construed as to indicate that she declined to stand by her previous statements. He says, ”her master refused to pay her” jail ”fees,” and thus liberate her from prison, ”unless she would stand to what she had said.” In that quotation is involved all that we find in the older records which wears even a semblance of impeaching her testimony, or suggests any reason why we should distrust its intentional accuracy in any particular. The master did not pay the fees. She ”lay in jail thirteen months, and was then sold to pay her prison charges.” (Drake. Annals, 190.) But what did her master require her to ”stand to”? Calef says he beat her ”to make her confess, and accuse [such as he called] her sister witches; and that whatsoever she did by way of _confessing_ or _accusing_ others, was the effect of such usage.” What she may have confessed to having done, or what she may have accused others of doing, at other times than when she was under examination, we do not know. Her statements then, as she then meant, and as we now understand them, fell far short of confessing familiarity with the devil, or of laying that crime to any others; therefore she neither made herself nor her companions _witches_. Still her master, no doubt, as did the recorder Ezekiel Cheever and the court, understood her as meaning _devil_ when she said ”the man,” though she herself did not so mean. Even Corwin, apparently, as judge, put the prevalent construction upon her words, though his fidelity as a recorder caused him to write ”the man”

when she said ”the man.” This general habit of understanding _devil_, when some other personage was both named and meant, enables us to see that there may have been subsequent dispute between her and her master as to her real meaning, and that he made it a condition for her liberation that she should put his construction upon what she had said, rather than her own. It is an open question whether she ever refused to stand by her own meaning, or the true meaning of her own words. Perhaps she did refuse to stand by construction which the faith and habit of the day led most minds to put upon her words unjustifiably; but we doubt whether she refused to stand by the literal and intended meaning of what she had said.

Poor t.i.tuba! Because of your forced connection with a scheme and works which entirely baffled your comprehension, because of your forced disclosure of things you had witnessed and experienced behind the vail of flesh, your own body was imprisoned thirteen months, and two innocent women were doomed to death. Guileless and innocent, so far as connected with witchcraft, you was borne on by mighty forces to seem to act voluntarily, though in fact unwillingly and perforce, a prominent part in one of the most fearful scenes in human history. Man's ignorance of spiritual agents and forces in your day, together with the prevalent hallucination devil-ward, made you a humble and pitiable martyr to simple truth-telling. Some seeds in your simple story now gathered from out the chaff that has covered them for nine-score years, may soon be scattered over New England soil, from which, we trust, you above, and men below, may gather wholesome fruits of justice and truth.

SARAH GOOD.

t.i.tuba's sister witch, as that slave's master called Sarah Good, may not have been regarded in her generation as possessor of any large amount of such qualities as her name is commonly used to designate. Still her neighbors doomed her to lasting fame by selecting her as the first person to be put under examination on suspicion of being a producer of Salem witchcraft. As a facile tool in supernal hands she may have been, and probably was, good in quality as well as name.

Indications that her spirit-form was susceptible of either easy elimination or wide radiations from its material counterpart, are contained in the facts that on January 20, 1692, the inner eye of t.i.tuba saw this Sarah; on February 25, Ann Putnam, and on the 28th, Elizabeth Hubbard saw her apparition, or her spirit-form.

Man's ”natural” or physical optics do not discern a spirit. Spirit, when not materialized, is discernible only by our inner or spirit-eyes; spirit is ”spiritually discerned.” The spirit forms, however, of embodied, living men and women, are not all equally discernible by clairvoyants. Generally, only such among flesh-clad spirits are readily seen by inner optics as are able to slip, or are liable to be drawn, or to radiate out, from one's ordinary integuments of flesh, or, at least, those only whose integuments are transparent of spirit-light. Only few, relatively, can either see or be seen readily and frequently by spiritual eyes. Eagles exist as well as owls and bats. And clear perception of objects by the former amid light that blinds the latter, is no proof either that the vision of eagles is perverted, or that the objects they behold are but creatures of fancy.

Mediumistic Sarah Good, because she was highly mediumistic, would naturally be a brilliant and attractive object in the field of vision which the inner eyes of other mediumistic ones might be able and attracted to survey. Distance is of little or no account in connection with vision by the inner eye. Persons and objects, scores and hundreds of miles away, are practically near to the inner optics. Spirit-forms are, perhaps, thought-forms, and, like thought, can traverse oceans and continents in the twinkling of an eye.

It is not our purpose to multiply pages by largely quoting minute accounts of what transpired at the examinations and trials of those who were suspected of witchcraft; and yet it may be well to present rather fully one sample of the proceedings of the courts. This first case which the civil authorities gave attention to may serve that purpose as well as any other.