Salem Possessed: Two Authors Possessed?

The first major claim made by Boyer and Nissenbaum is that factionalism led to the witch-hunts. Particularly, they demonstrated how the villagers that lived on the western side of town happened to be the accusers, and those on the eastern side of town happened to be the accused, as well as convicted . With such division evident, there must be a faction of some sort. Boyer and Nissenbaum then make an argument that factionalism has to do with wealth. In 1695, a tax to benefit the ministry was passed, and was based on the land a person owned (the more they owned, the more they paid). Those who signed the pro-Parris petition in 1695 had a lower average tax than those who signed the anti-Parris petition. Therefore, the wealthier someone was, the more likely they would be to oppose Parris.

Where this all comes together is that it is inferred by Boyer and Nissenbaum that this factionalism led to the witch-hunts. As people with less money start to resent those with more money, as well as the inverse, they start to make accusations of witchcraft as a way of “getting even” or “settling old scores”. Therefore, the witch-hunts no longer become a debate over religion, but a life-and-death battle of stab your neighbor in the back. But, there seems to be one chink in Boyer and Nissenbaum’s argument.

The biggest problem posed is that the witch-hunts occurred in 1692, and the pro-Parris and anti-Parris petitions circled in 1695. Several things had happened between these three years. First, a number of citizens were no longer there due to an acute case of a broken neck (executed). Also, a number of people, despising the backstabbing atmosphere, likely could have moved away. A great number of demographic shifts may have occurred between the two events (hunts and petitions), and this may be enough to invalidate Boyer and Nissenbaum’s arguments altogether. Boyer and Nissenbaum cover for this glaring disparity on page 186:
But despite all the evidence suggesting that the accusations of 1692 represented a direct and conscious continuation of factional conflict, such an explanation is ultimately insufficient. In part, this is because of the sheer mechanical difficulties in reconstructing fully those linkages that do exist.

Not only do they acknowledge their oversight, but cast it as a cornerstone of the uncertainty of their entire argument.

Boyer and Nissenbaum argue that factionalism and divisions based on wealth led to the witch-hunts of 1692. Furthermore, they back up their assertions by comparing it with pro- and anti-Parris petitions circulated in 1695. Unfortunately, these petitions circled three years after the witch-hunts, and therefore can be very inaccurate (especially with the low number of people living in Salem Village, which can lead to high variance). While they address this, it still helps invalidate their argument. However, one finding the reader can take out of this book is that this is a matter that may not need to be looked at in a religious manner, but rather in a factional manner, and that when looking for a solution, it is possible to look outside of the parameters of conventional wisdom within the historical community (that this was fueled by religion) and look instead toward other factors (social constructs).

Works Cited

Boyer, Paul and Nissenbaum, Stephen, Salem Possessed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003).