"The Geography and Genealogy of Gloucester Witchcraft"

Written by Jedediah Drolet (copyright, 2005)

History 209, An Undergraduate Course, Cornell Univeristy

Spring Semester, 2003

Revised for presentation to the Berkshire Conference, June, 2005

Most scholarship on the Salem Witchcraft crisis has focused on Salem Village and to some extent on Salem Town. This is hardly surprising, since the crisis started in Salem Village and these two communities, along with nearby Andover, produced the vast majority of witchcraft accusations and trials. However, other towns in Essex County also experienced witchcraft allegations, some of which produced trials and even executions. One of these towns was Gloucester.

Gloucester in 1692 was still an isolated farming community, not yet the thriving port and fishing town it would soon become. It had survived a series of factional conflicts earlier in the seventeenth century and attained the kind of stable, harmonious equilibrium Puritans expected of their communities.1 And yet, this model New England town produced nine witchcraft accusations during the crisis, more than any other community except for Andover, Salem Village and Salem Town.2 There have been several explanations offered over the years, but none have been wholly satisfactory. This paper will offer a few tentative steps toward a new answer.

The Gloucester residents accused of witchcraft in 1692 fall neatly into a few discrete groups, due to the extremely scanty nature of the surviving records. The first group consisted of Margaret Prince and Elizabeth Dicer, who were accused by Ebenezer Babson on behalf of his mother, the widow Eleanor Babson, on September 3, 1692. This same Ebenezer Babson had been involved in the odd hysteria over phantom Indians and French soldiers that had gripped Gloucester the preceding summer, so there is much of interest in this case. However, a close look at this case would extend this paper far beyond a reasonable length, so I will not discuss it in detail, merely noting connections between it and the later case on which I focus.

The next Gloucesterwoman to be accused was Joan Penney. She was accused on September 13, 1692 by one Zebulon Hill, a former resident of Gloucester who lived in Salem Town in 1692. There are many intricacies of this case which have already been described in some detail by Carol Karlsen in The Devil in the Shape of a Woman, so I will not discuss this case either.

Phoebe Day, Mary Rowe and Rachel Vinson were probably the next women accused in Gloucester. There is no record of their accusation or examination extant, but their names were on a petition to the Governor and Council signed by a group of prisoners held at Ipswich jail sometime in early winter, asking to be set free on bail pending trial in the spring.3 Their accusation has traditionally been placed here in the chronology, between Joan Penney and the women accused of afflicting Mary Fitch.4 There is no extant contemporary evidence corroborating the traditional account, nor is there any other evidence of these women's cases to consider. There are, however, certain intriguing connections between these women and the next group, which will be explored in this paper.

The last group about which there are court records consists of Esther Elwell, Abigail Rowe and Rebecca Dike, a warrant for the arrest of whom was issued on November 3, 1692 on account of accusations that they had afflicted one Mary Fitch made by her brother, nephew and son. This paper will focus on these women, their accusers, and the possible connections between them and the previously mentioned group of women in Ipswich jail.

Unlike the other cases involving Gloucester residents, the accusation of these three women followed a pattern unique to the events of 1692. In late October or early November Lieutenant James Stevens, a highly-regarded member of the Gloucester community, sent for the "afflicted girls" of Salem Village to find the culprit responsible for the bewitching of his sister Mrs. Mary Fitch, much as Joseph Ballard had done in Andover in July. The girls named Rebecca Dike, Esther Elwell and Abigail Rowe as the witches, and Stevens, his son William, and Mrs. Fitch's son Nathaniel Coit subsequently filed a complaint with the magistrates. A warrant for the three, the last arrest of the crisis, was issued November 5.5

Among the little surviving evidence in this case is the testimony of Mrs. Fitch's brother James Stevens about his sister feeling a woman sitting on her when he saw nothing, dated November 8.6 There is also a deposition of Betty Hubbard, one of the "afflicted girls" of Salem Village, against the three women with the same date.7 These scraps tell little about the subsequent experience of the three suspected witches, but it seems they were probably not indicted, since they would have been tried under the new courts convened in 1693 to replace the dissolved Court of Oyer and Terminer and there would be some record of their trials.

This James Stevens was an important figure in town. He was a deacon of the church and a lieutenant in the militia. His father William Stevens had been one of the early settlers of Gloucester and was a noted shipbuilder. James may have followed in the trade. He married Susannah Eveleth, daughter of Sylvester Eveleth, in 1656 and in 1658 received a grant from the town of land on Town Neck, near Trynall Cove. It is possible that he lived there, but there is no solid information on his place of residence. Eight of his eleven children were still living at the time of his death in 1697: William (who is also listed on the witchcraft accusation), Samuel, Ebenezer, David, Jonathan, Mary and Hannah.8 He probably inherited all of Eastern Point below the Great Pond from his father, who was apparently granted it by the town, since it was in the possession of his son Samuel Stevens in 1697.9 At his death in 1697 his estate totaled £239 19s.10

Mary Stevens, the daughter of William and sister of James, married John Coit in 1652 and had five children, one of whom, Nathaniel, is listed on the witchcraft complaint. She married John Fitch in 1667, after her husband's death. While John Coit was alive, the couple lived on the Neck of Houselots; the location of John Fitch's residence is frustratingly difficult to determine from the brief notices in the records. He received a grant at Kettle Cove in 1680 for his service in King Philip's War; there is no indication that he lived there, but even if he did he must have lived somewhere else prior to that.11 These people were all of relatively high status in the town, as indicated by the offices they held and the titles used to refer to them (particularly "Mistress" used of Mary Fitch). Mary Fitch's sickness in November 1692, leading to her death, was the trigger for the accusation of witchcraft under discussion.

Esther12 Dutch, the daughter of Osman and Grace Dutch, was born around 1639 and married Samuel Elwell in 1658. Her parents lived at the Harbor at a place known as Dutch's Slough and were rather prominent in town affairs.13 Samuel Elwell's father Robert was also a distinguished citizen of the town. He lived at the Harbor at first, but most of his land was on Eastern Point, and he probably ended up living there.14 Samuel inherited his house and most of his land when he died in 1683. Prior to that Samuel had lived across the Harbor, near the Cut, in a house belonging to Robert that went to Samuel's son Samuel when Samuel (senior) inherited his father's house. The value of Robert Elwell's estate totaled £290 10s.15

Rebecca Dolliver was born around 1640, the daughter of Samuel Dolliver, who lived at Freshwater Cove. She married Richard Dike, who was about the same age, in 1667. They lived at Little River, where Richard had inherited land from his grandfather Walter Tybbot. Over the years his landholdings steadily grew through grants from the town and purchases from neighbors such as Joseph Eveleth, from whom he bought 13 acres in 1669.16 This Joseph Eveleth was the son of Sylvester Eveleth and the brother of James Stevens's wife Susannah.17

Abigail Rowe was born in 1677 to Hugh and Mary Prince Rowe, who lived at Little Good Harbor and had large amounts of land there. The fact that she was only fifteen years old in 1692 shows immediately that there is more to this case than meets the eye. While it was certainly not unheard of for children to be accused of witchcraft, especially in the Salem hysteria, they were generally accused along with other family members as part of the cascade of accusations that swept through towns like Andover. Seeing a teenaged girl accused along with two adult women, neither of them close relatives, is quite unusual.

As it happens, Abigail Rowe was not, in fact, the only woman in her family accused of witchcraft, just the only one listed in this accusation. Her mother was one of the three women listed in the petition from Ipswich jail (as "the wife of Hugh Roe of Cape Anne"),18 and her grandmother was the aforementioned Margaret Prince, accused early on by Ebenezer Babson and also listed in the Ipswich petition. This is a strong indication of a link among these three accusations, as well as a clue to the date of accusation of the three women listed only in the petition; it would be unlikely for the daughter to be accused before her mother and grandmother, especially since she is not even listed in the petition herself. The link becomes stronger when the connections between the Rowe family and the Day and Vinson families are examined.

Hugh Rowe and his older brother John, along with their mother, received equal portions of their father John's estate of £205 16s. 10d. upon his death in 1662.19 Hugh received the land further from the house, toward Starknought Harbor, while John received the land closer to the house and their mother Brigit got the land in between. Hugh was also to share the east end of the house with his mother, and receive it for himself upon her death.20 Five years later Hugh and John entered into an agreement witnessed by Robert Elwell, who must have been a figure of mutual trust to John and Hugh.21 Another witness to a transaction of Hugh Rowe was Clement Coldum, who witnessed a sale of one-third of his property to James Gardner in 1668. In exchange for this land, Hugh received from Gardner his house and nine acres scattered around the Little Good Harbor/Eastern Point area, along with various other possessions. Gardner's land adjoined Hugh's, according to boundary landmarks mentioned in various land grants, including one from 1683 extending his land from the corner of Robert Elwell's marsh to the road to the Cape. So Elwell was also a neighbor.22

As for Coldum, he would later resurface in 1692 to give a deposition against Betty Hubbard, the seventeen-year-old girl who deposed against Esther Elwell, Rebecca Dike and Abigail Rowe, saying that when he was taking her home from meeting on May 29 she asked him to go faster because "she said the woods were full of Devils, & said ther & there they be, but I could se none." After he obediently sped up, she told him they had passed the devils and he could slow down. He then asked her if she was afraid of the Devil, and she said no, that "she could discourse with the Devil as well as with me."23 This raises the obvious question of what Coldum, who lived in either Gloucester or Lynn at the time, was doing in Salem in May of 1692, and why he was taking Betty Hubbard home, presumably to the house of William Griggs, where she was a servant. The most obvious answer is that he had been summoned for the grand jury for the Court of Oyer and Terminer established on May 27. No records of the names of jurymen survive, so there is no way to firmly establish if Coldum was one of them, but he had served on many juries for the Essex County Quarterly Courts, so it is entirely reasonable to suppose that he may have been summoned for this one.24

Betty Hubbard also had Gloucester connections; her master William Griggs lived there for several years and after the trials she herself settled down there and married. The influence her Gloucester connections may have had on her role in the accusations of Gloucester residents is still obscure but a ripe area for future study.

In 1685, Hugh Rowe received three parcels of land from his "father-in-law" William Vinson.25 Hugh's wife at the time was Mary, the daughter of Thomas and Margaret Prince, whom he had married in 1674.26 However, he had married her six months after the death of his first wife, one Rachel Langton, whom he had married in 1667 and who had borne him three daughters.27 She was likely a widowed daughter of William Vinson by his first wife, Sarah, who had been accused of witchcraft in 1653. Even after her death, her father apparently continued to consider her widower his son-in-law.28

Thus Hugh and Mary Rowe lived near Robert Elwell, whose daughter-in-law was accused, and had a close relationship to William Vinson, whose wife was accused. Mary, who was accused herself, was also the daughter of Margaret Prince, who was accused. Thomas and Margaret Prince lived at the harbor, but they owned land all over, including Little River and Little Good Harbor.

The Rowes also had strong ties to the Day family. Hugh and Rachel Rowe's daughters Mary, Ruth and Rachel married, respectively, Ezekiel, Nathaniel and Samuel Day, sons of Anthony Day. These marriages took place between 1690 and 1692.29 Another of Anthony Day's sons, Timothy, married Phoebe Wilds in 1679. She was one of the women mentioned in the Ipswich petition.30

All of the Gloucesterwomen whose accusations are only known from the Ipswich petition were connected to the Rowe family. This provides clear evidence that there was a connection between their accusations and the accusation of November 3 against Esther Elwell, Rebecca Dike and Abigail Rowe. The fact that none of these women were listed in the petition, moreover, suggests that it was made before they were accused or at least before they had been put in jail. The petition is undated but mentions winter being "soe far come on that it can not be exspected that we should be tryed during this winter season," which could be reconciled with an autumn date.

A possible series of events, then, is as follows: the hysteria over spectral French soldiers and Indians during the summer, initiated by Ebenezer Babson, then in September the accusation of Margaret Prince and Elizabeth Dicer by Babson, based on complaints by his mother. Next, at some point in September or October, Rachel Vinson, Phoebe Day and Mary Rowe were accused, either together or separately, by someone in Gloucester, probably influenced by the torrents of accusations emerging in other Essex County towns. Since Margaret Prince had already been accused, it is likely that her daughter Mary Rowe was the focus of whatever accusation was made, and the other two were brought into it because of their connections to the Rowe family. The illness of someone in town could have been the catalyst for this accusation.

After that, Mary Fitch became ill. With hysteria over witchcraft growing, her family looked around for witches to blame, even sending for some of the Salem Village girls to uncover the culprits. The people they came up with, whether on their own or with the help of the afflicted girls, were tangentially connected to the women already in jail. Thus the accusation, listing three women not particularly connected to one another but part of the large social group that already had several more prominent members accused. However, by this time the trials were winding down and none of the accused women from Gloucester were tried.

This scenario fits with several pieces of evidence: the women accused early on, such as Margaret Prince and Elizabeth Dicer, were notorious for various reasons and thus more likely to arouse suspicions. Prince had a sharp tongue, and Dicer was once fined for calling Mrs. Hollingsworth of Salem a witch. The women in the Ipswich petition were somewhat less notorious, but had had their problems: Phoebe Day, whose maiden name was Wilds, was related to Sarah Wilds of Topsfield, who was hanged for witchcraft on July 19, 1692,31 Mary Rowe was Margaret Prince's daughter, and Rachel Vinson was the widow of William Vinson, whose first wife had once been accused of witchcraft.32 The last group of accused women was even more distant from past suspicions: Abigail Rowe was probably accused because her mother and grandmother already had been, Esther Elwell's mother Ruth Dutch had been accused of witchcraft together with William Vinson's first wife, and Rebecca Dike seems to have had no clear connection to past suspicions at all, at least from extant records, but she lived near the Eveleths, in-laws of the Stevenses, who may have had their problems with her.

One final note about these accusations is that all the people involved were of high social and economic status. The Gloucester accusations involved no singling out of poor, marginal women, as was often true of witchcraft accusations (in Salem Village, for example). All of the estates of these families that were recorded were valued at more than 200 pounds. Furthermore, this is true of both the accusers and the victims. They all had comparatively large holdings of land and held many town offices. From a comparative perspective, this is perhaps the most striking aspect of the Gloucester accusations. The cases seem to have been based on fear and suspicion among the upper class against a backdrop of paranoia throughout the county.

Christine Heyrman, Commerce and Culture, 47-51. I include in this number all the accused women resident in Gloucester or accused by a resident of Gloucester. These are: Phoebe Day, Rebecca Dike, Esther Elwell, Joan Penney, Margaret Prince, Abigail Rowe, Mary Rowe, Rachel Vinson (all residents) and Elizabeth Dicer (accused by resident Ebenezer Babson). Salem Witchcraft Papers (henceforth SWP)3:881. Joan Penney and Elizabeth Dicer (described as ³of Piscataqua²) also signed this petition, but the other accused Gloucester women did not; perhaps they were being held elsewhere. See Marshall W. S. Swan, ³The Bedevilment of Cape Ann,² Essex Institute Historical Collections, 117 (1981): 169. Babson, History, 211-212; Mary Beth Norton, In the Devil¹s Snare, 233 (on Ballard); SWP 1:305 (warrant). Christine Heyrman uses this incident as a key point supporting her thesis that association with Quakers was a reason for witchcraft allegations, but she misinterprets the evidence. She confuses Mary Stevens Coit Fitch, the sister of Lieutenant James Stevens and the actual victim, with Mary Stevens Norwood, the sister of Lieutenant William Stevens (and daughter of James) who was being courted by the Quaker Francis Norwood Jr. around this time. She makes her argument in Commerce and Culture,107-108, 111-112; compare the warrant (SWP 1:305), where it is very clear who is bewitched. SWP 1:306. Betty Hubbard, deposition, 8 November 1692, Miscellaneous Manuscripts Bound, Massachusetts Historical Society. Babson, History, 164-167. Garland, Eastern Point, 15. Babson, History, 167. Babson, History, 71 on the Coits; "Gloucester Town Records" (manuscript in Gloucester City Archives, henceforth GTR) 1:150 (Kettle Cove), 221 (land allotted at the Cape 1688 ­ gave to Nathaniel Coit), 346 (house from George Blake 1665), 347 (fence route), 350 (parcel from his meadow to the way 1662) on John Fitch. The boundaries of his land from George Blake are defined by the lots of Arthur Lester and Solomon Martin, the location of whose land is impossible to determine from surviving information. Gloucester records give her name uniformly as Hester, while documents related to her trial for witchcraft call her Esther. Since this paper focuses on her accusation, I have adopted the latter version. Babson, History, 83. So Babson, History, 87-88. However, his will (see next note) makes mention of lands ³both here & at the Easterne poynt² (69), so he may have still resided at the harbor. This would clearly have been at the eastern end of the harbor, so the difference may be moot. Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County (henceforth ECCR) 9:69-72. GTR 1:85 (from John Hardain 1668), 86 (from Thomas Kent 1669), 87 (from Joseph Eveleth 1669), 148 (from the town 1679), 201 (from the town 1688). ECCR 1:247 (will of Walter Tybbot). Babson, History, 92. Joseph Eveleth later moved to Chebacco Parish (now Essex) and died there in 1745 at the age of one hundred and five. His brother Isaac married Abigail Coit, daughter of none other than Mary Stevens Coit, in 1677 (ibid., 71). SWP 3:881. ECCR 2:423-424. GTR 1:75. ibid. 1:76. ibid. 1:94, 152. SWP 2:455. See ECCR 2:182, 2:281, 4:66, 4:429, 9:236 for other juries he served on; after about 1675 the name is associated with Lynn rather than Gloucester, and someone by that name apparently served as constable of Lynn for many years. I am not certain whether this is the same person or not, but I am assuming that the Clement Coldum who deposed against Betty Hubbard is the same one who is associated with Gloucester, whether or not he actually lived there in 1692. In any case, the ages given in the court records are consistent with this being the same man. GTR 1:184. Gloucester Vital Records (henceforth GVR) 2:472. ibid. 2:464 (marriage), 1:596 (births of daughters). Babson, History, 145 (Rachel Langton), ECCR 1:301 (Sarah Vinson¹s 1653 accusation). GVR 2:469 (Mary), 470 (Ruth), 464 (Rachel). ibid. 2:173. See EIHC 42 (1906): 273 for the (previously unrecognized) connection with Sarah Wilds. ECCR 1:301.

Babson, John J., History of the Town of Gloucester, Cape Ann, Including the Town of Rockport. Gloucester: Proctor Brothers, 1860.

Boyer, Paul and Stephen Nissenbaum, Eds. The Salem Witchcraft Papers: Verbatim Transcripts of the Legal Documents of the Salem Witchcraft Outbreak of 1692. New York: Da Capo Press, 1977.

Essex Institute. Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts. Salem, Mass.: Essex Institute, 1911-1975.

Garland, Joseph E. Eastern Point. Beverly, Mass.: Commonwealth Editions, 1999.

Heyrman, Christine. Commerce and Culture. New York: W. M. Norton & Co., 1984.

Norton, Mary Beth. In the Devil's Snare: the Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692. New York: Vintage Books, 2002.

Swan, Marshall W. S. "The Bedevilment of Cape Ann." Essex Institute Historical Collections, 117 (1981): Topsfield Historical Society.

Vital Records of Gloucester, Massachusetts, to the End of the Year 1849. Topsfield, Mass.: Topsfield Historical Society, 1917-1924.