|
Erica Harbin Dr. Losh Humanities Core Course 27 April 2004 Beyond Superstition: Biological and Psychological Forces “…he put it to the said Bishop why she Asked: she answered because folks counted her a witch...” (trial transcript)
Few events are as overwhelmingly accepted as dark stains in the colorful tapestry of American history as the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Mass hysteria, widespread disease, conspiracy of power—all explanations of the event build on the premise that what happened was terribly wrong. Other premises are not as consistently accepted, as the argument given by Chadwick Hansen confirms: Hansen proposed that witchcraft was a primary cause of the afflictions, contrary to the assumption that all previous leading theories had made (Hansen 64). Therefore, the difficulty in analyzing the Salem Witchcraft Trials is no longer solely in formulating a sufficient causal explanation, but even fundamental “truths” must also be evaluated for accuracy. Accounting for the individual experiences of the citizens of Salem is even more difficult; although the inconsistencies in the evidentiary records may be resolved with other testimonies when evaluating the overall effects of the Salem Witch Trials, the flaws in the individual witnesses’ testimony must be accepted—and error in judgment allowed for—when considering specific cases. For example, the evidence given by Bridget Bishop’s accusers is suspiciously prejudiced and often incomplete. Understandably, several theories explaining witch accusers’ actions have been presented; among them, sleep paralysis and psychological issues stand out. However, each of these explanations is insufficient individually; multiple causes must account for the four nocturnal experiences involving Bridget Bishop. Contrary to the claim that Bridget Bishop was a true witch who afflicted the lives of the people of Salem, the men did not experience witchcraft but rather sleep paralysis, that when combined with psychological factors explain the men’s visions of Bishop. Although the men’s descriptions of Bishop’s alleged witchcraft may initially seem unremarkable, a more in-depth analysis reveals intriguing similarities in the accusations. William Stacy described a chill and a pressure on his teeth, as well as a vision of Bridget Bishop that was “as light as if it had been day” (trial transcript). Samuel Gray also testified to an illuminated vision of Bishop and felt “some thing Come to his mouth or lipes cold,” describing a chill accompanied by a sensation involving his mouth, as in Stacy’s experience (trial transcript). Although John Louder did not indicate that he experienced coldness or any sort of pressure (which does not necessarily mean that he did not experience such symptoms), he shared a sensation of brightness when Bishop appeared to him, echoing Stacy’s and Gray’s descriptions (trial transcript). Additionally, Louder complained of a sensation of weakness and of pressure, not on his mouth, but on his chest: “[I] felt great weight upon my Breast and [saw] her likeness sitting upon my stomake…and I had noe strenth or power in my hands to resist or help my selfe” (trial transcript). Richard Coman also testified to simultaneously feeling chest pressure and the inability to move, observing that Bishop “lay upon [his] Brest or body and soe oppressed him that he could not speake nor stur noe not soe much as to awake his wife” (trial transcript). Such commonalities cannot be ignored. Although the possibility of sheer coincidence is present, a much higher likelihood of a shared condition overrides this less probable option. Knowing that the men did not experience similar visions by coincidence, we must search for an alternative explanation that encompasses all the men’s testimonies. Linnda Caporael offers an interesting explanation of the events—that the “ingestion of grain contaminated with ergot” was responsible for the afflicted persons’ delusions (Caporael 21). However, Nicholas Spanos counters Caporael’s claim, noting that Salem’s location and the characteristics of the accusers, among other features, were incompatible with what is usually observed in epidemics of ergotism (Spanos 1390-4). Although such evidence against the likelihood of ergotism casts serious doubts on Caporael’s argument, one of her arguments is useful in determining the actual cause of the afflictions: a physiological condition was likely responsible for the delusions (Caporael 21). This argument is useful in determining a more likely cause of the men’s experiences. Using Caporael’s assumption, we understand that because the four men that accused Bridget Bishop experienced similar sensations in similar circumstances, such parallels in the evidence cannot be merely recognized as coincidence, but should be attributed to a shared medical condition. However, a shared medical condition is not sufficient to explain the apparition of Bridget Bishop to the four men. Both a somatic and a psychological cause are necessary causes, but neither is individually a sufficient cause, because each leaves aspects of the event unexplained. However, since the two arguments may complement and complete—without contradicting—each other, the combination of the two produces a likely, sufficient causal explanation for the men’s experiences. As for the somatic cause, an analysis of the men’s testimonies reveals the likelihood that the men all suffered from sleep paralysis, or “the nightmare experience” (Davies 185). Owen Davies, a professor who specializes in the study of English witchcraft, undoubtedly recognized that since the people of Salem Village had recently (in a historical sense) arrived from England, their experience with witchcraft was strongly based on English witchcraft. Therefore, he applied his knowledge of the connection between English witchcraft and sleep paralysis to the Salem Witchcraft Trials and found several parallels (Davies 185). He found that the analysis of historical records and current medical knowledge allows an understanding of “supernatural” experiences (Davies 182). Davies explains some of the common symptoms of sleep paralysis, including the ability to see and hear, but not to physically move (Davies 182). He also noted that the episodes generally last no more than ten minutes, although the sufferers may believe the episode lasted much longer (Davies 182). An impression of light is also common in nightmares, as several people Davies quote observed a type of light (Davies 193). Additionally, the feeling of pressure is “integral to the nightmare both as a concept and as an experience” (Davies 183). All of these symptoms were experienced by Bishop’s accusers, giving a clear indication of the likelihood that they suffered from sleep paralysis. However, Davies’ argument lacks an explanation for the specific appearance of Bridget Bishop, rather than someone else, to each of the men. Since the men experienced sleep paralysis (as their symptoms suggest), the common occurrence of Bishop in their nightmares is the only aspect left unaccounted for; John Demos presents a psychological causal explanation which completes Davies’ somatic argument. Demos explains how it is possible to analyze events to deduce their psychological causes (Demos 1313). His argument suggests that psychological issues in the life of each citizen of Salem had the potential to bring an object to mind by power of suggestion. Each of the men’s hallucinations of Bishop could be attributed to a psychological cause (although each cause is distinct from the others). For instance, William Stacy’s vision of Bishop likely arose from her recent confession of love for him. As for Samuel Gray, who asserts that he had never seen Bishop before the night of his vision, it is more than likely that he had seen her in passing, or perhaps in her tavern, or at some other time when his mind unconsciously registered her appearance. There it lay dormant until his nightmare. John Louder, being Bishop’s next-door neighbor, had an apparent reason for having her on his mind; not only was she his neighbor, but they frequently quarreled, making it likely that he had her on his mind when he went to sleep on the night of his nightmare. The reason Richard Coman conjured a vision of Bishop is less apparent. However, his mention of Bishop’s “Red paragon Bodys” suggests that this provocative article of clothing caught his attention (trial transcript). Whether for righteous indignation, romantic reasons, or something else entirely, Bishop’s bodice brought her to the forefront of Coman’s subconscious mind until he envisioned her in his nightmare. Although it initially seems erroneous to attribute the occurrence of Bishop in each of the men’s nightmares to coincidence, such an explanation is actually the most likely. Because of the lack of complete evidence from the Salem Witch Trials, it is difficult to accurately determine whether or not there was some sort of medical condition that activated a certain area of these men’s brains, causing them to all conjure a vision of Bishop. However, coincidence is a far more likely an explanation for the psychological symptoms than it was for the physical symptoms the men experienced. A random occurrence of similar thought patterns is far easier to imagine than that of several uncontrolled physical experiences; this is because similar experiences induce similar thought patterns, whereas physical experiences cannot be mentally induced. Therefore, coincidence was not sufficient to explain the physical symptoms, but it is the simplest and most likely explanation for the psychological symptoms. Interpreting the Salem Witch Trials is a difficult task for several reasons. Not only are contemporary historians’ analyses colored by their own biases, but the primary source information is profoundly contaminated by the bias toward the supernatural shared by many of the people in Salem. Although witchcraft was probably practiced in Salem, as shown by Hansen’s analysis (among others), one must assume that since the records point to that conclusion, that witchcraft indeed caused the afflictions. Instead, one can search for the facts not wholly based on a belief in witchcraft—such as descriptions of experiences, without accusations, although these may be slightly biased as well—and come to a conclusion better supported by investigation. In this way, it can be shown that the “supernatural” experiences of four of Bridgett Bishop’s accusers were more likely based on medical and psychological causes.
Works Cited Caporael, Linnda R. “Ergotism: The Satan Loosed in Salem?” Science 192.4234 (1976): 21-26. Davies, Owen. “The nightmare experience, sleep paralysis, and witchcraft accusations.” Folklore 114.2 (2003): 181-203. Demos, John. “Underlying Themes in the Witchcraft of Seventeenth-Century New England.” The American Historical Review 75.5 (1970): 1311-1326. Hansen, Chadwick. Witchcraft at Salem. New York: George Braziller, Inc, 1969. Spanos, Nicholas. "Ergotism and the Salem Village Witch Trials." Science 94.4272 (1976): 1390-1394. “Verbatim Transcripts of the Legal Documents of the Salem Witchcraft Outbreak of 1692.” Ed. Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum. University of Virginia. Salem Witch Trials: documentary Archive and Transcription Project. 25 Apr 2004. <http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-salemname?specfile=/texts/english/ salem/public/salem.o2w&act=text&offset=1001011&textreg=div2&query=bisbri> |