The Witchcraft Delusion in Colonial Connecticut (1647-1697) — Story, Setting & Ideas

The Structure of Accusation

The excerpts reveal a consistent pattern in how accusations were framed. The grand jury presentment uses the phrase “common fame” alongside sworn testimony, indicating that reputation alone could trigger legal action. The indictments follow a tripartite structure: a statement of the defendant’s failure to fear God, a claim of covenanting with the Devil, and a charge of afflicting others “in a preternaturall way.” This formula appears in both the 1650 and 1693 cases, suggesting that the legal machinery of witchcraft prosecution remained remarkably stable over decades. Taylor’s inclusion of the original records—complete with marginal notes like “Hobbamocke”—preserves the raw texture of these proceedings.

Recurring Images: The “Swonding Fitt” and the “Fierce Looke”

In the case of Elizabeth Godman, two images recur: the “swonding fitt” (a swoon or fainting spell) and the “fierce looke.” Witnesses testified that after Godman “flung out of the roome in a discontented way and cast a fierce looke vpon Mr. Goodyeare,” he immediately fell into a swoon. The court treated this sequence as evidence of maleficium—harm caused by supernatural means. The physicality of the description—the flinging, the fierce look, the sudden collapse—creates a vivid tableau that the court read as cause and effect. Taylor lets the testimony speak for itself, without editorializing, allowing the reader to see how mundane gestures were interpreted as diabolical acts.

Movement Between Scenes: From Household to Courtroom

The Godman case illustrates a characteristic movement: accusations that began in domestic spaces—the Goodyear household, the chamber, the room where a chapter was expounded—were then transferred to the formal setting of the court. The “wrighting” (written examination) taken in May 1653 is read aloud in court in August, bridging the private and public spheres. Witnesses like Mr. Goodyeare, Mrs. Goodyeare, and the Lamberton women affirm that Godman was not present in the room during the alleged swoon, contradicting her claim. This shift from household gossip to sworn testimony underlines how the witchcraft delusion operated through a network of personal relationships that became legal evidence.

The Role of Written Documents

Taylor’s excerpts foreground the importance of written records within the legal process. The grand jury presentment is a physical document, reproduced as an illustration. The “wrighting” of Elizabeth Godman’s examination is read aloud in court and then entered into the record. The indictments themselves are preserved in the “Record Particular Court” and “Record Court of Assistants.” These documents are not merely evidence of the past; they were active tools in the proceedings, shaping how accusations were formalized and remembered. Taylor’s decision to include them verbatim—with original spelling and marginalia—gives the reader direct access to the textual infrastructure of the witch-hunt.

Readers should attend to the interplay between the standardized legal language and the idiosyncratic details of each case. The indictments may look alike, but the testimonies—like Godman’s claim that she was “not herselfe” or the mention of “Hobbamocke” as a supposed husband—reveal the personal conflicts and beliefs that fueled the accusations. Taylor’s method of letting the records speak with minimal commentary invites the reader to become a kind of historical juror, weighing the evidence as it was presented in seventeenth-century Connecticut.

Reading the witch trial records, I recalled sitting on my grandmother’s porch as a child, puzzling over why anyone would confess to something so impossible. That same quiet bewilderment returned years later with The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland — Background and Themes—both books share a heavy, procedural solemnity, an echo of ordinary people caught in systems far larger than themselves.