Chapter 2. The Blame and Shame of It:

The linked response is from Mary Beth Norton, Mary Dolon Alger Professor of American History at Cornell University, and president of the American Historical Association at the time of this response. Among her notable writings is In the Devil’s Snare (2002)a book about the Salem witch trials. Professor Norton was asked to review and comment on Chapter 2, “The Blame and Shame of it: Salem Witch Trials.

“I think the aim of the books is admirable, but as of now I haven’t had a chance to look at anything else in the volumes other than the chapter on Salem. However, just looking at the titles of the episodes and individuals you’ve selected, they seem appropriate to me.

I noted a few minor mistakes, a couple in the introductory section that could be corrected easily in another printing.

1) the “lost colony” of Raleigh was not the one founded in 1585 (those men returned safely to and indeed didn’t intend to stay in N America) but the one founded in 1587. 2) the Virginia colony began to thrive using indentured English servants to grow tobacco by the -50s. African slaves were not introduced in large numbers until after Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676-77.

As for the discussion of NE, the Puritans were not quite as strict as you indicate, especially not with children. They did have some toys (e.g. tops, hoops) and even dolls.

The summary of the Salem trials is largely accurate, though attenuated. One point: the specters that tortured the afflicted were not monsters; the accused witches did not appear in such shapes to attack accusers—they were always themselves (sometimes there was even discussion of the clothes they were wearing). and a few others did report seeing monstrous spectral creatures, but those were not attackers. They were just there, indicating perhaps the devil’s presence. (Although I must admit that my very own ancestor, , was said to have turned herself into a blue boar to frighten the horse of the man who accused her of . But the boar was, well, just a boar and not a monster, though blue!)

I was surprised that you used Arthur Miller’s version of John Proctor as your example—you could have used any number of actual statements or actual interrogation records to make the same, or similar points. Also, I was surprised you didn’t quote Sewall’s full statement. It’s very short. One more point—the text makes it seem that Sewall read his statement to the church himself. He didn’t. He gave it to his pastor, , to read for him while he stood in silence next to him.

All these points are rather minor (except for the use of Miller, although that does allow for a more modern reference too, which is good), and as I say could be corrected in another printing.

Thanks for the explicit acknowledgements of my book.

I hope the books do well, for, as I said above, the aim is admirable.”

Mary Beth Norton