Brights Sakem Witch Trials The Brights Sakem Witch Trials were a series of legal proceedings that took place in the town of Brights Sakem, Massachusetts, in 1692. This event, commonly known as the Salem Witch Trials, has become a significant part of American history and continues to fascinate people around the world. The trials stemmed from the widespread belief in witchcraft in the Puritan settlement of Massachusetts Bay Colony. During this time, the Puritans held strong religious beliefs and considered witchcraft to be a serious offense against God. The fear of witchcraft began to grow when a group of young girls in Brights Sakem started behaving strangely and accused several women of bewitching them. The accusations quickly spread throughout the community, and a special court was established to investigate and prosecute the alleged witches.
“Mary Ropes, aged about fifty years, deposed that she had several times been called to her neighbor Thomas Oliver’s, by himself, but mostly by his wife, to hear their complaints one of the other, and they both acknowledged that they had been fighting together. Further she saw Goodwife Oliver’s face at one time bloody and at other times black and blue, and the said Oliver complained that his wife had given him several blows.”
Further she saw Goodwife Oliver s face at one time bloody and at other times black and blue, and the said Oliver complained that his wife had given him several blows. As the first person to be executed in the Salem Witch Trials, Bridget Bishop has received plenty of attention from Salem s historians, amateur and professional.
The accusations quickly spread throughout the community, and a special court was established to investigate and prosecute the alleged witches. The court was led by judges who were known for their strict interpretation of the law and their belief in the reality of witchcraft. Over the course of the trials, more than 200 people were accused of practicing witchcraft, and 20 individuals were executed, primarily by hanging.
The Witchcraft Trial of Bridget Bishop
Bishop, whose maiden name was Playfer, was born sometime between 1632 and 1635 in England.
In 1660, she married her first husband, Samuel Wasselby, in England and moved to the Massachusetts Bay Colony around the same time.
After Wasselby died in 1664, Bridget married her second husband in 1666, a widower named Thomas Oliver who already had children from his previous marriage. Bridget and Thomas Oliver had one child together, a daughter named Christian who was born in Salem on May 8, 1667.
Bridget and Thomas Oliver had a troubled relationship. The couple quarreled often and were even brought to court for fighting in 1670, during which their neighbor, Mary Ropes, testified that Bridget’s face was bloodied and bruised on a number of occasions, according to the book Salem-Village Witchcraft: A Documentary Record of Local Conflict in Colonial New England:
“Mary Ropes, aged about fifty years, deposed that she had several times been called to her neighbor Thomas Oliver’s, by himself, but mostly by his wife, to hear their complaints one of the other, and they both acknowledged that they had been fighting together. Further she saw Goodwife Oliver’s face at one time bloody and at other times black and blue, and the said Oliver complained that his wife had given him several blows.”
Bridget and Thomas Oliver were fined and ordered to be whipped if they did not pay their fine on time.
In 1678, Bridget was brought to court for using foul language against her husband, as described in the book Salem-Village Witchcraft:
“Bridget, wife of Thomas Oliver, presented for calling her husband many opprobrious names, as old rogue and old devil, on Lord’s day, was ordered to stand with her husband, back to back, on a lecture day in the public market place, both gagged, for about an hour, with a paper fastened to each others foreheads upon which their offense should be fairly written.”
After Oliver died of an illness in 1679, Bridget inherited his estate, which consisted of a house worth £45, ten acres of land worth £25, a variety of household goods and two pigs. Oliver’s two sons and the couple’s daughter only received twenty shillings each.
“Execution of Bridget Bishop at Salem, 1692,” illustration by Joseph Boggs Beale, circa 1885Just three months after receiving her inheritance in November, Bridget’s stepchildren accused her of bewitching Oliver to death. A lack of evidence prevented the case from going to trial and it was speculated that the stepchildren’s accusation was an attempt to get their hands on the property she inherited from their father.
In 1687, Bridget was then accused of stealing brass from a local mill by the mill owner, Thomas Stacy, and arrested. Bridget claimed she didn’t steal the brass, but found it on her property and had no idea how it got there.
She also stated that she sent her daughter into town with the brass to discover what it was, not to sell it, as Thomas Stacy accused her of doing. Unfortunately, there are no surviving records indicating the outcome of this trial.
After Oliver’s death, Bridget Bishop married Edward Bishop, a well-respected sawyer (woodcutter). Bridget Bishop’s life at this time is sometimes difficult to trace because many historians, including Charles Upham in his 1867 book Salem Witchcraft, have confused her with Sarah Bishop, who was also accused of witchcraft and was married to Bridget Bishop’s step-son, who was also named Edward Bishop, according to the book Salem Story:
“As the first person to be executed in the Salem Witch Trials, Bridget Bishop has received plenty of attention from Salem’s historians, amateur and professional. She has served as a paradigm of the executed person as social deviant, the outsider who falls prey to a community devouring the eccentric on its margin. This is a version of Salem’s story codified in 1867 by Charles Upham, who in his Salem Witchcraft told the story of Bridget Bishop as a singular character, not easily described. ‘She kept a house of refreshment for travellers, and a shovel-board for the entertainment of her guests, and generally seems to have countenanced amusements and gayeties to an extent that exposed her to some scandal. She is described as wearing ‘a black cap and black hat, and a red paragon bodice,’ bordered and looped with different colors. This would appear to have been a rather showy costume for the times. Her freedom from the austerity of Puritan manners, and disregard of conventional decorum in her conversation and conduct, brought her into disrepute; and the tongue of gossip was generally loosened against her.’ Upham had made a mistake. Although he correctly identified Bridget Bishop as a woman who previously been charged with witchcraft, he conflated two people into one, inaccurately identifying her as living just outside of Salem Village, rather than in Salem [town] where she did live, and of being a rather colorful tavern keeper, which she was not. Upham’s mistake was understandable, since the confusion as to her identity actually goes back to 1692, and only some brilliant detective work by David L. Greene in 1981 brought clarity to the matter; still, some scholars have continued to make the misidentification.”
The mistake originates from Reverend John Hale‘s testimony against Sarah Bishop on May 22, which many historians have misidentified as testimony against Bridget Bishop because during the testimony Hale merely refers to the accused as “Goodwife Bishop…wife of Edward Bishop Jun’r.”
Since Bridget and Sarah Bishop were both accused of witchcraft and were both married to men named Edward Bishop, it’s easy to see how the two became mixed up over time.
Bridget Bishop’s Memorial Marker, Salem Witch Trials Memorial, Salem Mass, November 2015. Photo Credit: Rebecca Brooks
The accused included both women and men, ranging in age from young children to the elderly. The trials were marked by hysteria, fear, and mass paranoia, as the entire community became consumed by the idea of witches living among them. Many of the accused were subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, including physical torture, in an attempt to extract confessions. The court relied heavily on spectral evidence, which involved witnesses testifying that they had seen the accused engaging in supernatural acts or consorting with the devil in the form of spectral apparitions. The trials eventually came to an end in 1693, as public opinion began to shift and doubts emerged about the fairness and reliability of the proceedings. People started to question the legitimacy of the court, and many influential figures in the community spoke out against the trials. In the years following the trials, efforts were made to rectify the injustices that had occurred. The surviving individuals who had been accused and imprisoned were released, and their names were cleared. The witch trials served as a lesson on the dangers of mass hysteria and the importance of due process in legal proceedings. Today, the Brights Sakem Witch Trials continue to be studied and analyzed by historians, sociologists, and psychologists. The trials are often cited as a cautionary tale about the dangers of intolerance, prejudice, and the misuse of power. The events of 1692 serve as a reminder that even in a society built on principles of justice and fairness, individuals are capable of succumbing to fear and irrationality..
Reviews for "Witch Hunts in History: Comparing the Brifgrt Sakem Witch Trials to Other Cases"
1. Sara - 2 out of 5 - I was really disappointed with "Brifgrt sakem witch trials". The plot was confusing and it felt like the story dragged on without any clear direction. The characters were underdeveloped and I couldn't connect with any of them. The writing style was also lacking, with awkward phrasing and repetitive descriptions. Overall, I found the book to be a frustrating read and I wouldn't recommend it.
2. John - 1 out of 5 - I struggled to finish "Brifgrt sakem witch trials". The story was disjointed and difficult to follow. The author introduced too many unnecessary subplots and characters, which only added to the confusion. The pacing was extremely slow, and I often found myself losing interest and putting the book down. The lack of character development and depth made it hard for me to care about what was happening. I found this book to be a disappointing and frustrating experience.
3. Julia - 2 out of 5 - "Brifgrt sakem witch trials" had potential, but it fell flat for me. The concept of a witch trial setting intrigued me, but the execution of the story was lacking. The plot had too many clichés and predictable twists, and the characters felt like caricatures rather than complex individuals. The dialogue also felt unnatural and forced. While there were a few interesting moments, overall I found this book to be underwhelming and would not recommend it to others.
4. Michael - 1 out of 5 - I really did not enjoy "Brifgrt sakem witch trials". The writing style was overly descriptive and flowery, making it hard for me to stay engaged. The plot was convoluted and confusing, with too many unnecessary details that didn't contribute to the story. The pacing was slow and I struggled to hold my interest. I found myself skimming through the pages just to finish it. This book was a disappointment and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone looking for a gripping and well-written story.
5. Emily - 2 out of 5 - "Brifgrt sakem witch trials" was a letdown for me. The story started off promising, but it quickly became repetitive and predictable. The characters lacked depth and I struggled to care about their fates. The writing style was also a barrier, with excessive use of flowery language that distracted from the plot. Overall, this book failed to live up to my expectations and I wouldn't recommend it to others.