| Notes |
- Mary was charged with witchcraft 1674 and sent to Boston, Massachusetts for trail in 05-1675. She was acquitted by the jury and lived until 1712.
Mary Bliss Parsons, wife of Cornet Joseph Parsons, daughter of Thomas and Margaret Bliss of Hartford, Ct., both very prominent families, was born in England about 1628 and came to this country with her parents when she was about eight years old. She was eleven or twelve when they decided on still another move, to the rude little settlement of Hartford. There for a time life stablized, and Mary grew to womanhood as an average member of an ordinary New England community. In 1646 she married Joseph Parsons, a successful merchant, and went to live in Springfield. Henceforth, her life would be increasingly set apart from the average.
In 1654 the Parsonses moved to Northampton. The family, which included eleven children, became members of the church. Local tradition has remembered Mary as being "possessed of great beauty and talents, but ... not very amiable ... exclusive in the choice of her associates, and ... of haughty manners."
In 1656, soon after the Parsons family moved to Northampton, Joseph Parsons brought an action for slander against Sarah Bridgeman, charging that Sarah had accused Mary, his wife, of being a witch. On the docket of the Middlesex County Court, for its session of October 7, 1656, is found the following entry: "Joseph Parsons, plaintiff, against Sarah, the wife of James Bridgman, defendant, in an action of the case for slandering her [Parson's wife] in her name. This action, by consent of both parties, was referred to the judgment of the Honored Bench of Magistrates." A separate document records the magistrates' finding in favor of the plaintiff and their order that the defendant make "public acknowledgment" of the wrong she had done. The acknowledgment was to be a dual performance - once in the town of Northampton and again at Springfield. Failure to fulfill either part of this requirement would result in a fine of £10.
The testimony against Mary Parsons was that following hard upon the heels of any disagreement or quarrel between Mary Parsons and any member of the Bridgeman family, a fatal disease would seize upon some horse, cow, or pig, belonging to the Bridgeman family and, as the disease could not be accounted for in any other way, it must be the result of Mary's uncanny influence exercised by way of revenge.
The first set of testimonies was recorded at Northampton on or about the 20th of June. For example: Robert Bartlett testifieth that George Langdon told him the last winter that Goody Bridgman and Goody Branch were speaking about Mary Parsons concerning her being a witch. And the said George told to the said Robert that my [Langdon's] wife being there said she could not think so - which the said Goody Bridgman seemed to be distates with. As also [according to Langdon] they had hard thoughts of the wife of the said Robert [Bartlett] because she was intimate with the said Mary Parsons."
The other depositions in this early group enlarge on the gossip theme. The same Hannah Langdon mentioned in Bartlett's statement testified that "Sarah Bridgman ... told her that her boy when his knee was sore cried out of the wife of Joseph Parsons." Bridgman had also alleged widespread "jealousies that the wife of Joseph Parsons was not right." For a time Langdon herself had entertained suspicions of Mary Parsons, but recently "it hath pleased God to help her over them, ... and [she] is sorry she should have [had] hard thoughts of her upon no better grounds." These depositions converged on the issue of what Goody Bridgman had said.
The second major group of papers in the case carries a date several weeks later. They were taken before a different official, and probably in a different place (Springfield). They expressed a different viewpoint, as the recorder noted at the top of the opening page: "Testimonies Taken on Behalf of Sarah, the wife of James Bridgman, the 11th day of August, 1656." The Bridgmans themselves supplied lengthy testimony on the events which had caused them to suspect Goody Parsons.
The previous summer the Bridgemans' eleven-year-old son had suffered a bizarre injury while tending their cows: "In a swamp there came something and gave him a great blow on the had ... and going a little further he ... stumbled ... and put his knee out of joint." Subsequently, the knee was "set" but it would not heal properly - and he was in grievous torture about a month." Then the boy discovered the cause of his sufferings: "He cried out [that] Goody Parsons would pull off his knee, [saying] 'there she sits on the shelf.' ... I and my husband labored to quiet him, but could hardly hold him in bed for he was very fierce. We told him there was nobody ... 'Yea," says he, 'there she is; do you not see her? There she runs away and a black mouse follows her.' And this he said many times and with great violence ... and he was like to die in our apprehension." At about the same time the Bridgmans had also lost an infant son:
"I [Sarah] being brought to bed, about three days after as I was sitting up, having the child in my lap, there was something that gave a great blow on the door. And that very instant, as I apprehended, my child changed. And I thought with myself and told my girl that I was afraid my child would die ... Presently .... I looking towards the door, through a hole ... I saw ... two women pass by the door, with white clothes on their heads; then I concluded my child would die indeed. And I sent my girl out to see who they were, but she could see nobody, and this made me think there is wickedness in the place."
The decision of the court was in favor of the plaintiff and against Mrs. Bridgeman, and she was ordered to make public acknowledgment of her fault at Northampton and Springfield, and that her husband, James Bridgman, pay to plaintiff 10£ and cost of court.
But the charge of witchcraft against Mary Parsons did not end with the judgment in the slander suit. Her name was cleared, but only from a legal standpoint. In the years that followed, her husband prospered ever more greatly, her children grew in number and (mostly) flourished, her mother and brothers sank the Bliss family roots deep into the CT Valley. But her reputation for witchcraft hung on.
In 1674 the whole matter was renewed in court - with the important difference that now Mary Parsons was cast as defendant. Unfortunately, most of the evidence from this later case has disappeared. All that survives is the summary material from the dockets of the two courts involved. In August 1674, a young woman of Northampton, Mary Bartlett, had died rather suddenly. She was twenty-two, wife of Samuel Bartlett and the mother of an infant son. More importantly, she was a daughter of Sarah and James Bridgman. Her husband and father jointly believed, as they later testified in court, that "she came to her end by some unlawful and unnatural means, ... viz. by means of some evil instrument." And they had distinct ideas about the person most likely to have used such means..
On September 29, the Hampshire County Court received "diverse testimonies" on the matter. Mary Parsons was also there - on her own initiative: "She having intimation that such things were bruited abroad, and that she should be called in question ... ..."the fact that Mrs. Parsons voluntarily appeared before the court desiring to clear herself of such an execrable crime, and that subsequently she argued her own case before the court must not be overlooked. On both these occasions she met her accusers boldly, protesting her innocence, and showing 'how clear she was of such a crime.' In this trial Mrs. Parsons was called to speak for herself and from the meager report upon record, undoubtedly did so most effectively." The court examined her, considered all the evidence, and deferred further action to its next meeting in November. There followed a second deferral "for special reasons" (about which the court did not elaborate).
On January 5, 1675, the county magistrates conducted their most extended hearing of the case. The previous depositions were reviewed and (apparently) some new ones were taken. Both Samuel Bartlett and Mary Parsons were present in person once again.
Mary was "called to speak for herself, [and] she did assert her own innocency, often mentioning ... how clear she was of such a crime, and that the righteous God knew her innocency - with whom she had left her cause." The magistrates decided that final jurisdiction in such matters belonged not to them but to the Court of Assistants in Boston . Still, considering "the season" and "the remoteness" [i.e., of their own court from Boston] and "the difficulties, if not incapabilities, or persons there to appear," they determined to do their utmost "in inquriing into the case." Among other things, they appointed a committee of "soberdized, chaste women" to conduct a body-search on Mary Parsons, to see "whether any marks of witchcraft might appear." (The result was "an account" which the court did not disclose.) Eventually, all the documents were gathered and forwarded to Boston.
At the same court, and apparently as part of the same proceeding, "some testimony" was offered "reflecting on John Parsons." John was Mary's second son: he was twenty-four at the time, and as yet unmarried. How and why he should have been implicated in the charges against his mother cannot now be discovered; but the evidence was in any case unpersuasive. The court did "not find ... any such weight whereby he should be prosecute on suspicion of witchcraft" and discharged him accordingly.
Meanwhile, the case against Mary Parsons moved towards its final round. On March 2, Mary was taken to Boston, "presented" at the Court of Assistants, and formally indicted by the grand jury. Thereupon the court ordered her commitment to prison until "her further trial." The trial came some ten weeks later (May 13, 1675). An imposing roster of Assistants lined the bench: the governor, the deputy-governor, and a dozen magistrates (including her husband's old associate, John Pynchon). However, her fate rested with "the jury of trails for life and death" - twelve men, of no particular distinction, from Boston and the surrounding towns. The indictment was read one last time: "Mary Parsons, the wife of Joseph Parsons ... being instigated by the Devil, hath ... entered into familiarity with the Devil, and committed several acts of witchcraft on the person or persons of one or more." The evidence in the case was also read. And "the prisoner at the bar, holding up her hand and pleading not guilty, ... [put] herself on her trial." The tension of this moment must have been very great, but it does not come through in the final, spare notation of the court recorder: "The jury brought in their verdict. They found her not guilty. And so she was discharged."
The jury gave her a full acquittal of the crime. Of Mary's life subsequent to 1674 there is little direct information. She and her husband would eventually give up their home in Northampton and move back to Springfield. Joseph would died in 1683, leaving a substantial estate of £2,088, and Mary would enter a very long widowhood.
She remained thereafter in Springfield, completed the rearing of her numerous progeny, and saw her sons - and then her grandsons - assume positions of prominence in several CT Valley towns. Death claimed her in January, 1712, when she was about eighty-five years old. She was not again tried for witchcraft, but neither was she ever free from local suspicion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Descendants of Cornet Joseph Parsons, Springfield, 1636--Northampton, 1655 by Henry Parsons, A.M., Frank Allaben Genealogical Company
History of Northampton by J. Hammond Trumbull, Vol. I, pp. 43-50; also on pages 228-234
Witch-Hunting in Seventeenth-Century New England by Davd D. Hall, Northeastern University Press, Second Edition, Boston, MA, 1999
Entertaining Satan by John Putnam Demons, Oxford University Press, New York, 1982
Graphic - "Arresting a Witch" - 1883 Illustration in Harper's New Monthly Magazine by Howard Pyle
The Witchcraft Case (1674)
ife for the Parsons continued, with Mary bearing more children, and Joseph growing more successful in his business and civic life. But in August of 1674, Mary (Bridgman) Bartlett, wife of Samuel Bartlett and daughter of Sara and James Bridgman, died unexpectedly at a young age (probably about 22).
Mary Parsons was again suspected of witchcraft. At the urging of Mary's father, the widower Samuel Bartlett filed a complaint against Mary Parsons, and on September 29th, 1674, Hampshire County Court received the testimonies of family, friends, and neighbors. On January 5th, 1675, county magistrates conducted a hearing, at which Mary spoke for herself. Her body was searched for signs of "witch marks." The magistrates decided that this was beyond their jurisdiction, so they sent the case to the Court of Assistants in Boston.
On March 2nd, Mary was taken to Boston and "presented" at the Court of Assistants. She was then committed to prison until her trial, where she no doubt endured harsh conditions. While her family's money was probably able to buy her a larger cell and provide her with decent food and clean water, the situation was certainly unpleasant. On May 13th, Mary was acquitted by a jury of twelve men from the Boston area. William Pynchon sat on the case (along with other dignitaries). Again, Joseph's business dealings with Pynchon may have helped his wife's case, and surely the money and prestige of the family worked in Mary's favor.
After this, it appears that Mary and Joseph may have remained in Boston for some time, as Joseph had a warehouse in Boston and may have been engaged in some business. They still maintained their residence in Northampton for the next few years, but as Mary's reputation in Northampton had not improved, they do not appear to have been eager to return.
When Mary's son, Ebenezer was killed September of 1675 in battle with the Indians at Northfield, many felt that this was punishment for Mary's dealings with the devil. Local legend claims that they believed: "though human judges may be bought off, God's vengeance neither turns aside nor slumbers!"
Aftershocks and Outcome
In 1676, James Bridgman died; his estate probate inventory yielded a value of 114 pounds. While it might seem that with him, the grudge between the Parsons and Bridgmans would die out, this was not the case. Back in Northampton, on March 7th of 1678[/9], a man named John Stebbins died in mysterious circumstances. His wife was the sister of Samuel Bartlett, who was the widower of Mary (Bridgman) Bartlett. Believing that Stebbins had been killed by witches, Samuel Bartlett gathered evidence to send to Boston in 1679, although the court did not make any indictments. Unfortunately, Bartlett's evidence and the records of the case have disappeared; many suppose that Mary Parsons was suspected in the case, due to the involvement of Bartlett.
Since it was clear that the rumors and suspicions were not going to end, Mary and Joseph Parsons permanently left Northampton in 1679 or 1680, and returned to Springfield. Mary and Joseph Parsons' grandson, Nathaniel Parsons (1686 - 1736) probably raised the house that is known today as "The Parsons House."
Cornet Joseph Parsons died in Springfield on October 9th, 1683, leaving a large estate of over 2000 pounds to his wife and children. Mary went on to live almost 30 years more, and appears to have made a considerable fortune with the money.
While it might seem that Mary Parsons' troubles were left behind once she removed from Northampton, her reputation as a witch apparently lived on for many years. In 1702, Mary was again the subject of neighborhood gossip. Hannah (Parsons) Glover's husband, Peletiah Glover complained in local court that Betty Negro struck their son (Peletiah junior) and told him that his grandmother (i.e., Mary Parsons) had killed several people, and that his mother (Hannah) was "half a witch." Both John Pynchon and Joseph Parsons Junior presided and sentenced Betty to lashes at the hand of Thomas Bliss.
If marriages can mend fences between such bitterly opposed families, perhaps there was eventually reconciliation. In 1711, Mary Parsons, granddaughter of Mary (Bliss) Parsons, married Ebenezer Bridgman, grandson of Sarah Bridgman. Mary Parsons herself was alive to witness the union, although no accounts survive to detail her reaction to it. The young couple removed to Belchertown and had three children, Joseph, Ebenezer, and Mary. That their children were named after both of Mary's parents perhaps might indicate that they were still on good terms with her side of the family.
Mary (Bliss) Parsons died in Springfield on January 29th, 1712. Five of her eleven children survived her (Joseph, John, Samuel, Hannah, and Esther).
The Slander Case (1656)
s Sarah Bridgman's gossip about Mary Parsons spread, Joseph Parsons decided to take decisive action to stop any further damage to the reputation of his wife and family. In 1656, during the month of August, testimony was presented before commissioners at Springfield in the case of Parsons v Bridgman, and in October the case was brought before the Magistrates' Court at Cambridge.
The testimony in the case involves various community members testifying on behalf of Mary Parsons that they had heard Sarah Bridgman abusing her character. On the other side of the case were the many individuals defending Sarah's accusations as not slander, but truth; these individuals cited various encounters with Mary that seemed to prove that she had caused them (or their property) harm.
It seems that Mary was believed to be the cause of a strange variety of problems for her neighbors. Chief among her offenses is the death of William Hannum's cow. Hannum testified that "Mary came to my house about the yarn that she missed and then we had a falling out about it and some discontented words passed on both sides: this was in an evening, and as I take it in March last and that evening all my Cattle were well for ought I could see by them, the next morning One cow lay in my yard, ready to die as I thought: which when I had considered I endeavored to get her up and at length got her to stand: but she languished away and died about a fortnight after, though I took great care night and day to save her, giving her wholesome drinks eggs etc. and this Cow being young was hefty before this very time." Such accusations, indicating that Mary was responsible for damage to livestock and property, appear frequently in the record, and were intended to "prove" that Mary was involved in witchcraft.
The focus of the case, however, was not Mary's guilt, but Sarah's. Sarah Bridgman's own testimony is perhaps the most damaging, accusing Mary of causing harm, not to her animals, but to her own child. Sarah testified that "having my child in my lap, there was something that gave a great blow on the door, and at very instant as I apprehended my child changed : and I thought with myself and told my girl I was afraid my child would die. And I sent out the girl to look who it was at the door, but she could see nobody about the house : Presently after the girl came in, I looking towards the door thorough a hole by the door, I saw to my apprehension two women pass by the door with white clothes on their heads, then I concluded my child would die indeed : and I sent out the girl to see who they were but she could see nobody : they made me think there is wickedness in the place."
As the case unfolded however, the many alliances within the community were uncovered, and it seems that some individuals who had first testified on Sarah's behalf later changed their stories. For instance, we learn that soon after testifying about Mary's curious behavior, John Matthews recanted, claiming that he "hath at present no grounds of jealousy for himself, of Mary Parsons the wife of Joseph Parsons, to be a witch, and that what he testified yesterday on oath was upon the earnest Importunity of James Bridgman and his Brother."
While the strange coincidences and incidents with livestock might be ignored by us today, members of her community, and perhaps even her own family firmly believed that Mary had supernatural powers. Curious stories of Mary had been circulating in the area for some time. For instance, "William Branch of Springfield testified on oath that when I lived at the long meadow and Joseph Parsons lived there, a certain time Joseph Parsons told me that wherever he lay the key his wife could find it : and would go out in the night and that when she went out a woman went out with her and came in with her but says Joseph Parsons God preserves his with his Angels: and further the said William Branch sayth that while they lived together in the Long Meddow; George Cotton told me that he following Mary Parsons in her fit, he followed her thorough the water where he was up to the knees and she was not wet : this thing I told to William Pynchon when he was here : who wondered at it but said he could not tell what to say to it."
But ultimately, what had to be proven was that Sarah had been spreading rumors maliciously. To this end, Mary's own mother, Margaret Bliss, "testifieth that Sarah Bridgman told her that she did hear that her daughter Parsons was suspected to be a witch." Hearing the recanting of some testimony, and finding other stories perhaps inexplicable or too wild it seemed clear that Sarah was guilty of slander.
The magistrates issued their decision in favor of the Parsonses, and ordered Sarah Bridgman to make public apology for her slander in both Northampton and Springfield, or to pay a fine. It appears that despite the financial hardship, Sarah chose to pay the fine rather than submit to the public humiliation.
The court's decision did nothing to change the opinion of Sarah or the Bridgman clan. In 1668 Sarah Bridgman died at the age of about forty-seven, but her family still held a grudge against the Parsons, and over time, the testimony from the slander case would be evidence in Mary's own trial for witchcraft.
The Mary (Bliss) Parsons Story
ary Parsons is perhaps the most infamous resident of Northampton's early settlement period. She was involved in witchcraft-related trials in 1656 and 1674, and possibly again in 1679. Her story is a fascinating one that sheds light on the workings of the Puritan mind and the complicated social and cultural situation of the period.
The Parsonses were one of the first families of Northampton; Historic Northampton's buildings are located on what was once Parsons family land, where Mary and her husband, Cornet Joseph Parsons, started their family in the newly settled town. The Parsonses moved to Northampton in 1654, where the were very successful. Cornet Joseph Parsons earned his title as a color-bearer in the Hampshire Troop of Horses, and held various positions of merit in the town. In his early career, he earned money and distinction working as a merchant and fur trader for the Pynchon family, and eventually kept the first house of entertainment in Northampton; the Parsonses would eventually become the wealthiest family in Northampton. Their wealth can also be measured in terms of their family size: Mary and Joseph had a total of eleven children, most of whom lived to adulthood.
But soon after the Parsonses moved to Northampton, rumors of witchcraft began to circulate, implying that the family's success came at the expense of other families, and was the result of Mary's dealings with the devil. To head off the allegations, Joseph Parsons initiated a slander case in 1656, which he won. But eighteen years later, Mary was officially accused of and tried for witchcraft in 1674. She was eventually acquitted, but it seemed that the residents of Northampton, despite any court decrees, were convinced that Mary was a witch. Mary may have been the subject of another witchcraft inquiry in 1679; however, no records remain to prove this theory. Joseph and Mary Parsons left Northampton in 1679 or 1680, amid lingering questions and gossip.
The story of Mary's trial in Northampton serves to show how the law courts worked in such complicated cases, and establishes a pattern that can be seen in witchcraft trials across New England, eventually culminating in the Salem Witch Hysteria in 1692.
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=princessinot&id=I00620
|
Abt 1623 - 1712 (~ 89 years)
