Information on a figure from the 1692 Salem Witch Trials?

Question

I've been trying (without too much success) to find information on the 'afflicted' girl, Mary Warren (the historical one, not the one from Arthur Miler's "The Crucible"). If anyone has any links to any (reliable) sites or knows any books with information on her, would you please post them?

Thanks in advance!

Edit as of 8/17: A big thanks to all of you. This should help me out a great deal.

Answer 1

Try this link. It looks like a good summary of her role in the affair.

http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/salem/people/warren.html

Answer 2

Try www.wikipedia.org and type Salem Witch Trials they have tons of info and maybe other links on significant people.

Answer 3

it was traced to LSD POISONING FROM ERGOT IN RYE BREAD!!!a forenic scientist and archaeologist recently wrote an excellent treatise showing that rye is subject to ergot growth during periods which are unusually rainy and moist in low-lying areAs in particular AND THIS IS WHERE THE "WITCH" GIRLS LIVED IN RELATION TO THE OTHER VILLAGERS!!!this proved to be the case during the "SALEM WITCH TRIAL" PERIOD......AND MAKES THE MASS HYSTERIA AND UNUSUAL BEHAVIOR EVEN MORE UNDERSTANDABLE!!!ANOTHER INCIDENT OCCURRED IN FRANCE AFTER WW11 IN WHICH A WHOLE VILLAGE WENT "SEEMINGLY" MAD AFTER "ERGOT-TAINTED BREAD HAD BEEN WIDELY DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE SMALL VILLAGE....INCIDENTS OF RAPE.,incest..MURDER...MOLESTATION AND BESTIALITY ....etc WERE EVIDENT!!!IT WAS TOTALY DISORIENTING TO THE PEOPLE ENVOLVED!!!!

Answer 4

i'd supply a C . you are able to restoration some spelling blunders and how you placed your sentences together . additionally , do no longer say words "dumb" and "authentic" . those are kindergarten words . Use greater beneficial words , it is going to galvanize the reader .

Answer 5

Here are some great primary sources.

Boston Public Library
Witchcraft Documents
For permission to publish images or textual content of the witchcraft documents, please contact the Keeper of Rare Books and Manuscripts, Boston Public Library, P.O. Box 286, Boston, MA 02117 USA. Phone: [phone] ext. 2225.
Shelf Numbers & Document Numbers


NAME DOCUMENT BPL# DOC/IMAGE#
Walcott, Mary v. Susannah Martin
Reverse side MsAm45 B01A
B01B
Willard, John Examination,version 1
18 May 1692
multiple pages MsAm46 B02A
B02B
B02C
B02D
Willard, John Examination, version 2
18 May 1692
mutiple pages MsAm46 B03A
B03B
B03C
B03D
Putnam, Ann v. John Willard
Reverse side MsAm47 B04A
B04B
Nurse, Rebecca et al Death Warrant
Reverse side MsAm48 B05A
B05B
Walcott, Mary v. John Willard
Reverse side MsAm49 B06A
B06B
Wilkins, Daniel Inquest
Reverse side MsAm50 B07A
B07B
Complaint v. John Willard
Bottom portion
Reverse side MsAm51 B08A
B08B
B08C
Walcott, Mary v. Ann Foster 15 July 1692
Reverse side MsAm52 B09A
B09B
Walcott, Mary
Hubbard, Eliz v. Ann Foster MsAm1147.1 B10
Walcott, Mary v. Rebecca Eames MsAm1147.2 B11
Williams, Abigail v. John Willard MsAm1147.3 B12A
B12B
Complaint v. Margaret Hawkes MsCh1.154 B13
Cole, Sarah Warrant MsCh1.88 B14
Carrell & Coal Warrant
& Return MsCh2.12/13 B15A
B15B
Dod, Thomas
Kesor, Elizer Recognizance MsCh.2.44 B16A
B16B
Edwards, Mary v. Rachel Clenton MsCh.2.60 B17
Fuller, James, Jr v. Rachel Clenton MsCh.2.68 B18
Dolliver, Ann Examination
Multiple images MsCh.2.194 B19
B19A
B19B
Ireson, Mary Examination
Multiple images MsCh.2.194 B20
B20A
Stephens, Sarah
Pasque, Margaret v. Rebecca Nurse et al MsCh.2.110 B21
Jackson, John Examination MsCh.2.448 B22
Emerson, Martha Warrant MsCh.2.28 B23
Dier, Eliz.
Prince, Margaret Warrant MsCh.2.50 B24A
B24B
Hutchins, Wilford Warrant MsCh.2.92 B25A
B25B
Barker, Mary & Wm
Marstone Warrant MsAmCh.2.108 B26A
B26B
Complaint v. Mary Clark MsCh.2.156 B27
B27A
Marshall, Mary v. Colson MsCh.2.187 B28
Hill, Zebulon v. Peney MsCh.2.198
B29A
B29B
Post, Mary Warrant MsCh.2.204 B30
Carrier, Richard & Andrew Warrant MsCh.2.208 B31
Jackson, Sr., Jr. Warrant MsCh.2.222 B32
B23A
Bishop, Bridget Warrant (photo copy) MsCh.2.266 B33
Johnson, Abigail & Eliz Complaint MsCh..2.350 B34
Lacey, Mary, Jr. Warrant - Ballard MsCh.2.400 B35
Parris, Ingersoll
Putnam v. Eliz. Procter MsCh.2.500 B36
Jacobs, Geo
Andrew, Daniel Warrant 17May 1692 MsCh.A.K.48 B37

Alden, John, et al Bond, 31 Dec 1692 F. 10.47 B38
Browne, John v. Goodwife Cole 3 Oct 1692 MsF.1.7 B39
Foster & Tyler v. John Jackson, Jr. MsCh2.196 B40
Swan, Robert v. Mary Clark MsCh2.245 B41A
B41B
Peney, Joan Warrant MsCh2.249 B42
Bridges, Mary Warrant MsCh2.349 B43
Ballard, Joseph v. Mary Lacey 19 July 1692 MsCh2.401 B44
Complaint of Several 28 May 1692
Reverse MsAm44 B45A
B45B


MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL
SOCIETY

Documents In The Salem Witchcraft Papers




NAME DOCUMENT DOC # IMAGE #
Boroughs, G
Warrant
1
H01A
H01B
Hutchinson, Elisha Letter 2 may 1692 2 H02A
H02B
Hubbard, Wolcott,
Putnam, v G. Boroughs
3 H03A
H03B
Walcott, Vibber, Lewis, Putnam,
Hubbard v G. Boroughs 9, May, 1692 4 H04A
H04B
Lewis, Walcott, Hubbard, Putnam. v. G. Boroughs 9, May, 1692 5 H05A
H05B
Hobbs, A. v. G. Boroughs 1 June
1692 6a H06A
H06B
Walcott, Mary v. Boroughs 3 August 7a H07
H07
John Pierce & John
Lane G. Boroughs, summons
4 August, v 1692. 7b H08A
H08B
Warren, Mary v. G. Boroughs 3
August 8 H09A
H09B
Webber, Mary v. G. Boroughs 2 August
1692 9 H10A
H10B
Greinslitt, Thomas 15 Sept. 1692 10 H11A
H11B
Putnam, Thomas
Putnam, Edward v. G. Boroughs 11a H12A
H12B
Hubbard, Eliz v. Mary Bradbury 9 Sept. 1692 11b H13
Putnam, Ann v. Mary Bradbury 9 Sept. 1692 12a H14A
H14B
Walcott, Mary v. Mary Bradbury 12b H15
Vibber, Sarah v. Mary Bradbury 13 H16A
H16B
Lewis, Mercy v.Martha Cory 4 March 1692 14 H17A
H17B
Walcott, Mary
Hubbard, Eliz., Putnam, Ann v. Martha Carrier 15 H18A
H18B
Rogers, John, et al Summons 29 June 16a H19A
H19B
Williams, Abigail v. Martha Kory, 31 May 1692 16b H20A
H20B
Hubbard, Eliz. v. Martha Carrier, 1 July 1692 17a H21A
H21B
Walcott, Mary v. Martha Carrier, 1 July 1692 17b H22A
H22B
Capt. Danforth
Rogers, John Summons 18 H23A
H23B
Hubbard, Eliz. v. Martha Cory, 4 August 1692 19 H24A
H24B
Putnam, Edward v. Martha Cory 14 march 1692 20 H25A
H25B
Putnam, Thos
Putnam, John v. Martha Carrier 21a H26A
H26B
Horton, Andrew v. Carrier & Toothacker 21b H27
Lewis. Mercy
Hubbard, Eliz. v. Goody Cory 22a H28A
H28B
Vibber, Sarah 30 June, 1692 22b H29A
H29B
Andrew, Sarah v. Elizabeth How, 2 June 1692 23a H30A
H30B
Williams, Abigail v. Geo Jacobs, Sr. 10 May 1692 23b H31A
H31B
Lewis, Walcott, Hubbard, Putnam,
Churchill v. Geo. Jacobs, 4 August 1692 24 H32A
H32B
Hobs, William
Bishop, Ed., Wild, Sarah Summons 25 H33
Putnam, Thos., Putnam,John V. George Jacobs 26a H34A
H34B
Putnam, Ann v. George Jacobs 26b H35A
H35B
Derich, John v. George Jacobs 27 H36A
H36B
Fox, Rebecka For Rebecka Jacobs 28 H37A
H37B
Bradford, Wm & Rachell v. Mercy Lewis 29a H38
Putnam, Nathaniel For Rebecca Nurse 29b H39
Porter, Israel et al For Rebecca Nurse 30 H40
Parker, Alice Examination 31 H41A
H41B
Warren, Mary v. Alice Parker 6 Sept. 1692 32 H42A
H42B
Walcott, Mary v. Alice parker 33 H43A
H43B
Vibber, Walcott, Hubbard v. Alice Parker 7 Sept 1692 34 H44A
H44B
Philips, Sarah v. Mary Parker 31 August 1692 35 H45A
H45B
Towne Family Summons 6 Sept. 1692 36 H46A
H46B
Huchinson, Josiah Re: Abigail Williams 37a H47
Nurse, Sarah v. Sarah Vibber 29 June 1692 37b H48A
H48B



Documents in Miscellaneous Manuscripts


NAME DOCUMENT DATE IMAGE #
Hubbard, Eliz. v. Abigail Row, Esther Elwell, Rebecca. Diks Nov. 8, 1692 H49A
H49B
Restitution Document ND H50A
H50B
Eames, Daniel Examination 13 August 1692 Aug. 13, 1692 H51A
H51B
Burroughs, George Examination 9 May 1692 May 9, 1692 H52A
H52B
Warren, Mary v. Daniel Ames, January 1693 Jan. 1693 H53A
H53B


MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Documents in Salem Witchcraft Papers



PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM
Essex County Court Archives
Essex Institute Archive



MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES

Witchcraft, 1692-1759 ; Volume 135
Suffolk Court files; Volume 31 & 32
Middlesex County Court ; Witchcraft Documents
Judicial 1683 - 1724 Volume 40
Superior Court of Judicature: Witchcraft Trials



NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY

Manuscripts and Archives Division
(currently restricted pending permission)



MAINE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Manuscript Collections


Lastly a profile of Mary Warren.
At the time the Salem witchcraft trials began, Mary Warren was twenty years old and employed as a servant in the household of John Procter of Salem Village. Before her first formal examination on April 19, 1692, Warren participated mildly in the afflicted girls' accusations. Both John and Elizabeth Procter disagreed with the conduct of the trials. Therefore, when John Procter discovered that Mary Warren participated in the accusations he threatened to whip her until her senses returned. After Mary Warren stayed in town the night of Rebecca Nurse's examination, Samuel Sibley went to court and testified to Procter's opinions about the accusers and about Mary's participation in the accusations. Sibley claimed that: "Proctor replyed if they [the accusers] were let alone so we should all be Devils & witches quickly they should rather be had to the Whipping post but he would fetch his jade [Mary Warren] Home & thresh the Devil out of her & more to the like purpose crying hang them, hang them. And also added that when she [Mary Warren] was first taken with fits he kept her close to the Wheel & threatened to thresh her, & then she had no more fits till the next day he was gone forth, & then she must have her fits again firsooth" (SWP II: 683-684)..

Both of Mary Warren's parents died before this stage in her life. This situation forced Warren to become a servant and support herself since she had no funds or property to claim. Some of Mary's anxiety over the loss of her parents surfaced during the trials. The document in which John DeRich accused George Jacobs, Sr., states, "that Mary Warrens mother did appeare to this Deponent [John DeRich] this day with a white man and told him that goodwife Parker and Oliver did kill her." In her statement against Alice Parker, Mary Warren also claims that she killed her mother and afflicted her sister, Elizabeth, "she [Alice Parker] also told me she: bewiched my mother & was a caus of her death: also that: she bewiched my sister: Eliz: that is both deaf & dumb." Having no family and working for a man who beat her, it is not very surprising that, when accused of witchcraft herself, Mary Warren sought the public attention and legal protection of being an aggressive accuser of local witches.

On April 19, 1692, the magistrates in Salem began their questioning of Mary Warren. "I am innocent" were the first words out of her mouth. At this point in the trials no one had been hanged, so the clues as to how avoid being convicted had not yet been discovered. Mary Warren, however, quickly learned that assertions of innocence did not save, but following the judges' lead during questioning did help the defendant. Warren provided many evasive answers during her first examination, possibly because she was unsure as to how to not be convicted. Throughout this examination she continuously fell into fits, which often followed the fits of the other girls in the courtroom. At one point, Mary became so afflicted by the apparitions that tortured her that she had to be removed from the courtroom, and Bridget Bishop was then brought in for questioning:

"Afterwards she [Mary Warren] started up, & said I will speak & cryed out, Oh! I am sorry for it, I am sorry for it, & wringed her hands, & fell a little while into a fit again & then came to speak, but immediately her Teeth were set, & then she fell into a voilet fit, & cryed out, Oh Lord help me, Oh good Lord save me! And then afterwards cryed again, I will tell, I will tell, & then fell into a dead fit againe. And afterwards cryed, I will tell, they did, they did, they did, & then fell into a violent fit again. After a little recovery she cryed I will tell, I will tell, they brought me to it; & then fell into a fit again: which fits continuing, she was ordered to be had out, & the next to be brought in, viz: Bridget Byshop" (SWP II: 794).

Even after being brought back into the courtroom, Warren continued her fits until the magistrates held a private meeting with her. After that, Mary Warren began to confess and, once she did, the court recorder noted that, "not one of the sufferers was afflicted during her examination after once she began to confess, though they were tormented before." While in prison, Mary Warren changed her story. Her fits lessened, and she began to implicate the Procters in the mysterious events occurring in Salem. Following the examination in prison, Warren faced two more examinations: one on April 21 and the other on May 12. Now a confessed witch, Warren aggressively accused others of alliances with the devil. At this point, Warren actively accused the Procters of performing certain deeds, although she hesitated to call them a witch and a wizard. By the end of her examinations, Mary was established as an accuser, and she safeguarded her life by providing the magistrates with ample accusations and evidence.

Mary Warren's testimony did more than save her life, it also represented a turning point in the trials. For the first time fraud was introduced. Yet the judges made no move to aid the innocent, and they continued to encourage the accusers. In Edward Bishop, Sarah Bishop, and Mary Easty's complaint against Mary Warren they stated that, "for Said Mary warrin when I was Aflicted I thought I saw the Apparission of A hundred persons: for Shee said hir Head was Distempered that Shee Could not tell what Shee Said, And the Said Mary tould us that when Shee was well Againe Shee Could not Say that Shee saw any of Apparissons at the time Aforesaid -." During Warren's first examination, Elizabeth Hubbard "testifyed that a little after this Mary was well, she then said that the afflicted persons did but dissemble." Both of these statements suggest that either Warren was mentally unstable, or that she and the accusers were participating in concocted lies. Keeping in mind the above statements, Mary's remarkable description in the prison of Giles Cory's clothes could possibly be explained by the fact that the accusers were "dissembling" - and not that Giles Cory was afflicting Mary at that very moment. In Salem Story, Bernard Rosenthal claims Warren understood that "cooperation with the accusers proved salutary" and that her decision to become an active accuser provided a great lesson to others who would later employ the same tactic.