EDITING THE SALEM WITCHCRAFT

RECORDS: AN EXPLORATION
OF A LINGUISTIC TREASURY

PETER GRUND MATTI RISSANEN

MERJA KY TÖ University of Helsinki
Uppsala University

The witchcraft trials in Salem Village, Massachusetts, in 1692 consti-

tute one of the best-known events in the history of the early English
settlement of the North American continent. Our knowledge of the course
of the trials mainly derives from the some 1,000 records preserved from the
trial proceedings and preliminary hearings. So far, it is mainly social
historians and literary scholars who have studied the original documents
(see, e.g., Rosenthal 1993 and references therein). However, the trial
documents also present a wealth of material significant to historical lin-
guists interested in early American English and the Early Modern period in
general (see Kytö 1991, forthcoming; Hiltunen 1996; Rissanen 1997,
2003). The documents constitute a rich variety of text categories from
records of examinations and depositions to formulaic warrants and indict-
ments. Consequently, apart from providing essential historical facts, the
documents also give unique insights into the language of the period both
in highly specialized, formal written uses and in less formal, speech-related
contexts. The aim of this article is to present work in progress on a new
edition of the documents from the Salem witchcraft trials that considers
the linguistic features of the documents. Focusing on examinations and
depositions, we will also discuss the characteristics of the documents and
their usefulness and value for linguistic research. In connection with this
discussion, we will consider the scribal context and the importance of this
feature to a linguistic exploration of the documents. We will show how a
new edition may further understanding of the early development of the
English language in North America.

HISTORIC AL BACKGROUND

The persecution of alleged witches in Salem Village began in March 1692

when a group of girls and young women accused three older women in the

American Speech, Vol. 79, No. 2, Summer 2004

Copyright © 2004 by the American Dialect Society

146
 Editing the Salem Witchcraft Records 147

Puritan settlement of being witches. Shortly thereafter, numerous allega-

tions were put forward by a large number of people against men as well as
women, children as well as adults, and neighbors as well as relatives. At the
end of the trials, over 156 people had been accused of witchcraft, of which
20 had been executed and 4 had died in prison. The Salem witchcraft trials
and the circumstances surrounding them have had a great impact on later
generations. Rosenthal (1993, 1) summarizes the historic and cultural
influence of the trials in the following way:

Few topics in American culture have received the broad attention received by the
Salem witch trials. The subject of scholarly tomes, films, television shows, folklore,
and newspaper cartoons, and the vehicle for countless metaphors of oppression
and persecution, Salem has had a powerful hold on American imagination. An
event that by some European standards of witchcraft persecutions would be rela-
tively minor in its magnitude has achieved an archetypal status in our own country
and in others.

THE SALEM EDITORIAL PROJECT

The aim of the Salem Editorial Project is to produce a new edition of the
documents relating to the witchcraft trials. The project comprises scholars
from the United States, Sweden, and Finland and is headed by Bernard
Rosenthal, State University of New York, Binghamton.1 The project is
largely Internet-based: images of the original documents have been made
available to the project members on Internet sites. Furthermore, state-of-
the-art databases are used for storing and working with the transcriptions of
the documents.2
There are several earlier editions that include some or most of the
documents. The most recent and most widely cited edition is Boyer and
Nissenbaum (1977). However, the text of this edition is based on earlier
transcriptions made in the 1930s; in most cases the editors did not inspect
the original documents (32). These transcriptions have been shown to be
deficient in many respects. In addition, the editorial principles adopted by
Boyer and Nissenbaum do not satisfy the demands of linguistic or philologi-
cal accuracy (see esp. pp. 37–39). Three examples, (1)–(3), illustrate some
of the differences in editorial principles between Boyer and Nissenbaum
and the present project and exemplify the types of omissions or misrepre-
sentations found in the 1977 edition.3

1. a. our son in law John Fuller: and our dauter rebecke Shepard did both of
them by #[a most] (a most violent death and did acting vere strangly at
the time of ther death) [Boyer and Nissenbaum 1977, 594]
148 american speech 79.2 (2004)

b. our son in law John fuller: and our d<aft>er rebecke Shep{a}rd did
both of them dy a most a most uiolent death and did acting uerey
strangly at the time of ther death.) [2: 125; no date]
2. a. their appeared to us a grate number of wicthes as neare as we could tell
about fifty thirteen we knew:who did Receive the sacriment in our right
[Boyer and Nissenbaum 1977, 245]
b. their appeared to us [“us” written in the left margin] a grate number of
wicthes as neare as we could tell about fifty thirteen of which we knew:
who did Receiued the sacriment in our sight [2: 91; no date]
3. a. A Yes how long has yo’r brother bin a witch: A: not long: [Boyer and
Nissenbaum 1977, 197–198]
b. A: Yes how long: has yor brother bin a wich: A: Near a monthe how
long: have you bin a witch: A: not long: [2: 111; 22 July 1692]

The editorial principles of our edition are adopted in order to repro-

duce the language and content of the original documents as closely as
possible. Consequently, we aim at producing a reader-friendly edition of
the documents that can be used for a wide range of research interests based
on linguistic, historical, and literary approaches. The examples above and
the transcription procedures outlined briefly in note 3 exhibit our current
principles that have been employed in the first, preliminary transcription
of the documents. These principles may be modified for the final version of
the edition after we have evaluated the scribal and genre-specific patterns
of the documents.

THE DOCUMENTS

major text categories. The records from the Salem witchcraft trials and
in particular from the hearings and processes preceding the trials consti-
tute a large number of different text categories. For this study we have
surveyed approximately 850 of the some 1,000 documents usually associ-
ated with the Salem witchcraft trials. A rough classification of the texts is
given in table 1.4
Table 1 shows that there are ten text categories that are represented by
ten or more documents in the body of Salem documents. The “Others”
category comprises a variety of less frequent types of text categories, such as
oaths, witness lists, physical examinations, and so on. Both highly formal
and specialized uses of language and more informal, speech-related usage
are represented in the documents. The more formal legal text categories
often provide examples of formulaic language usage. The indictments, for
example, seem to a large extent to have been preprepared: they almost
 Editing the Salem Witchcraft Records 149

table 1
Text Categories Represented in the Salem Witchcraft Papers

Text Categories N
Depositions 402 (47%)
Warrants/Mittimuses 89 (10%)
Indictments 81 (9%)
Petitions a 70 (8%)
Examinations 67 (8%)
Accounts/Receiptsa 33 (4%)
Orders of Paymenta 23 (3%)
Recognizancesa 23 (3%)
Complaints 16 (2%)
Summonses 14 (2%)
Others 32 (4%)
total 850

a. Mostly post-1692.

exclusively contain set formulations, and gaps have been left where the
names of the accused and of the victim tormented by witchcraft should be
filled in. The names and similar information have often been supplied by a
different scribal hand. (We have not indicated such gaps in the transcrip-
tion.) For an example of an indictment, see (4).5

4. The Juriors for our Sou~ Lord and Lady the King and Queen doe present
that William Procter of Salem In the County of Essex Husbandman in &
vpon the thirty first day of May In the yeare aforesaid and diuers other days
& times as well before as after Certaine detestable Art called Witchcrafts
and Sorceries Wickedly Mallitiously and felloniously hath used prac-
tised & Exercised At and in the Towneship of Salem Aforesaid in upon &
against one Mary Warren of Salem aforesaid Single Woman by which said
Wicked acts Mary Warren aforsaid the day & yea~ the aforesaid and diuers
other days and times both before & after was and is Tortured aflicted
Consumed Pined Wasted & Tormented & also for Sundry other acts of
Witchcraft by the said William Procter Comitted and done before & Since
that time against Our Sou~ Lord and Lady the King & Queen theire Crowne
and Dignity and the forme in the Stattute in that Case made & Prouided.
[2: 3; no date]

The vocabulary is indicative of a highly educated style. Furthermore, the

repetition of several near-synonyms such as “Tortured aflicted Consumed
Pined Wasted & Tormented” is a common feature in legal language and
150 american speech 79.2 (2004)

contributes to the formulaic character of the document (Rissanen 2000,

121–22).
Recent research (e.g., Kytö and Rissanen 1983; Culpeper and Kytö
1999a, 2000) has pointed out the importance of approaching language
diversity and change in a historical context by studying texts purporting to
record speech. As may be seen in table 1, depositions and examinations,
which present a record of speech taken down in the courtroom or else-
where, constitute a majority of the documents in the Salem corpus. Our
subsequent discussion will focus on these two text categories in a subset of
188 documents from one of the major collections of Salem documents,
Essex County Court Archives (vol. 2, docs. 1–188), held at Phillips Library
in Peabody Essex Museum Library, Salem, Massachusetts. In our experi-
ence, this collection, in its content and makeup, is largely representative of
the whole body of Salem documents.

examinations. The examinations constitute preliminary hearings of the

accused. Among the 188 documents studied, there are ten examinations.6
The Salem documents show three main types of examinations: those
recorded in direct speech, those recorded in indirect speech, and those
that contain both direct and indirect speech. The three examinations in
our subset written in direct speech are basically recorded dialogues be-
tween the accused and the interrogator. These examinations contain a
number of features that may be considered characteristic of speech in
modern times, and consequently, these features can be hypothesized to
have been part of the oral medium in the seventeenth century as well.
Consider, for example, extract (5).

5. The Examination of (1) Deliverance Hobbs. 22. Apr. 1692

[…]
Tell us what you know in this case. Who hurts them if you do not?
There are a great many Persons hurts us all.
But it is your appearance.
I do not know it.
Have not you consented to it, that they should be hurt?
No in the sight of God, & man, as I shall answere another day.
It is said you were afflicted, how came that about?
I have seen sundry sights.
What sights.
[…]
What have you seen since?
The shapes of severall persons.
What did they say?
 Editing the Salem Witchcraft Records 151

Nothing.
What neither the birds, nor perso<n>s?
No.
What persons did you see?
Goody Wilds & the shape of Mercy Lewes.
What is that? Did either of them hurt you?
None but Goody Wilds, who tore me almost to peices.
Where was you then?
In bed. [2: 101; 22 Apr. 1692]

A few features suggest that the scribe made an effort to record the speech
event as closely as possible, such as the accuser’s use of elliptic questions
and exclamations, as in “What sights,” “What neither the birds, nor
perso<n>s?” and “What is that? Did either of them hurt you?” Naturally,
recording the speech of the participants as verbatim as possible was of great
importance since everything the accused said could be used as evidence
that he or she was a witch. However, there is always a degree of scribal
intervention in documents of this type.7 (The scribal situation in Salem in
general will be discussed below.)
Three of the examinations occur in indirect speech (see example 6).

6. The Examination & Conffession of Ann ffoster at Salem Vilage 15 July 1692
after a while Ann ffoster conffesed that the diuill apered to her in the shape
of a bird at seurall Times, such a bird as she neuer saw the like before, &
that she had had this gift (viz of striking ye aflicted downe wth her eye euer)
since, & being askt why she thought yt bird was the diuill she answred
because he came while [= white] & vanish<e>d away black, & yt the diuill
told her {yt} she should haue this gift & yt she must beleiue hi<m> & told her
she should haue prosperity. [2: 48; 15 July 1692]

These examinations have a basic structure of reported speech indicated by

phrases such as “she/he said or answered”; the interrogator’s questions are
only rarely provided.
The linguistic features exhibited by examinations in indirect speech
are necessarily different in many ways from those of examinations in direct
speech. By way of illustration, we compared a number of linguistic features
in an examination given in direct speech and another given in indirect
speech. The results of the comparison are given in table 2. As may be
expected, the two examination types are quite different: The examination
in direct speech contains direct questions, discourse markers and interjec-
tions, first and second person pronouns, a variety of present tense forms,
and a more limited set of polysyllabic words. The examination in indirect
speech, on the other hand, is characterized by the use of third person
152 american speech 79.2 (2004)

table 2
Linguistic Features in Examinations in Direct versus Indirect Speech
(normalized figures within square brackets per 100 words)

Word Category Direct Speech (2: 101) Indirect Speech (2: 59)
Interrogative words why, how, what, —
who, when
32 [5]
Interjections, discourse yes, no, nay, well, —
markers, imperatives now, tell, come, etc.
32 [5]
Pronouns I (×13), you/your/yourself he (×49), it (×6)
(×52), us (×8), they/them 55 [12]
(×14), it (×12), his (×1)
100 [15]
Present tense forms is, are, comes, hurts, know, sayth/sayes, beleevs
have, say, do, etc. (in formulaic use)
36 [5] 5 [1]
Past tense forms came, did, consented, said, was, were, used, told,
said, was, were, etc. led, came, took, etc.
54 [8] 58 [13]
Present participles — being, returneing,
pincheing, etc.
6 [1]
Subordinating that (nominal), thô, that (nominal), as,
conjunctions whereas when, because, etc.
6 [0.9] 22 [5]
Words of three syllables appearance, affliction, etc. addition, negative,
or more 14 [2] discontented, etc.
18 [4]

pronouns, past tense forms, a more complex sentence structure indicated

by the employment of present participles and subordinating conjunctions,
and a wider range of polysyllabic words. Again, the extent of scribal
intervention is important. Although both types of examinations have been
subjected to scribal intervention to some extent, the examination in indi-
rect speech is more likely to reflect the linguistic habits of the scribe, since
the recording in indirect speech requires restructuring, reformulating,
and abbreviating of the accused’s original answers.
In four examinations containing mixed indirect and direct speech, the
indirect passages are predominant: the direct speech consists of only one
or two quoted statements. There is one exception to this model: the joint
examination of Rebecca Eames and Mary Lacey Senior. Figure 1 maps the
different structures in this text. The beginning of each switch between
 Editing the Salem Witchcraft Records 153

figure 1
Schematic Representation of the Examination
of Rebecca Eames and Mary Lacey Senior
(2: 52; 19 August 1692)

Indirect Speech
“She ownd she had bin in ye snare a monthe…”


Direct Speech: Question and Answer Structure
“Q who came wt: ye devil when he made you a witch A: a ragged girl…”


Indirect Speech
“She would not own: that she signd ye devils book…”


Direct Speech: Question and Answer Structure
“Q did you not say: ye devil babtized yor son daniell…”


Indirect Speech
“mary Lascy sd she had given her son Danll to ye devil…”


Direct Speech (midsentence switch)
“she did not know but she might do it nor I do not know he is a wich…”


Indirect Speech
“Mary Lascy sd. she had babtized her: son Danll…”


Direct Speech: Question and Answer Structure
“who was with you when you afflicted Swan: A. nobody but my son Danll…”


Indirect Speech
“she would have Danll perswaded to confes…”


Direct Speech: Question and Answer Structure
“but how do you afflict A I consent to it…”

direct and indirect speech is given in the figure; the remaining part of the
section is omitted. The arrows mark the transition from one mode of
speech representation to another as the text proceeds. There is no clear
pattern to the switches between indirect and direct reporting in the exami-
nation. In one instance, there is even a switch in mid-sentence. It is possible
that the scribe thought that certain statements by the accused or the
interrogator were so important for proving guilt or innocence that the
scribe was more careful to record the words verbatim.
154 american speech 79.2 (2004)

depositions. The other speech-related text category, depositions, is by far

the most common text category represented in the Salem documents.
Depositions are testimonies by witnesses taken down in court or elsewhere.
The depositions are less homogeneous and straightforward in their struc-
ture than the examinations. They usually begin with a recording of the
name of the witness, followed by his or her age; a profession is only rarely
given. These details provide information that may be of value for
sociolinguistic studies, since the linguistic features may be connected with
different extra-linguistic parameters, such as sex, age, and occupation. The
initial information is followed by the formulaic phrase “testifieth and
sayeth” or simply one of the verbs. Depositions vary in length from a few
lines to several pages, although most of them are about a page long. It is
important to recognize that there are several different types of depositions
and that the structure and content of the deposition have a bearing on the
interpretation of its linguistic features. Among the 188 documents studied
here, there are 79 depositions. These depositions can be categorized on
the basis of their discourse structure, as shown in table 3. The most
common type of deposition, with 56 instances in the Salem documents
investigated, is a testimony by the person specified, in the first person, as in
(7).

7. the deposistion of baniamen gould aged about 28 yea<r>es ho testifieth

and saith one the 6 day of april 1692 giles Cory and his wife Came to my
bead side and when locked apon me sum time and then went away and
emediately I had two penches apon my side: allso another time I saw giles
Cory and John proctir and I had then shuch a paine in one of my feet that
I Cold not ware my shue for 2: or .3. days. [2: 88; no date]

Depositions in the third person are fairly uncommon, and a mix of first and
third person occurs in only four documents. The “other person” category
includes texts that are written in the third person, but the witness recounts
the experience or actions of another person only without reference to

table 3
Deposition Types

First person 56 (71%)

Third person 9 (11%)
Mixed 4 (5%)
Other person 7 (9%)
Unclear 3 (4%)
total 79
 Editing the Salem Witchcraft Records 155

himself or herself. The “unclear category” comprises depositions that

discuss the experience or actions by the witness, but do not contain a
reference to himself or herself in the form of a pronoun.
As in the examinations, the depositions contain both direct and indi-
rect speech, but the reporting structures are much more complicated than
in the examinations. Several of the depositions have a multilayered dis-
course structure, similar to structures outlined by Culpeper and Kytö
(1999b). These depositions report the speech of two or more participants,
including the witness. As many as three layers of reporting can be found in
some depositions, as may be seen in (8).

8. The testimony of Joseph Ballard of andouer eaged about 41 yeares saith

that my brother John ballard told me that Samuel Wardel told him that I
had reported that he had bewich{ed} my wife [2: 61; no date]

Structures such as the one illustrated in (8) necessarily complicate the

interpretation of whose language is being reflected in the testimony. But it
must be noted that these multilayered structures are infrequent in the
depositions surveyed for this study. Furthermore, as has been pointed out
in the discussion of the examinations, scribal intervention must be taken
into account.
Usually, the depositions are given in the past tense in indirect speech:
the turns of the speakers are indicated by verbs such as said, told, asked, and
answered. But direct speech also occurs. However, it is important to note
that direct speech is given as quoted statements in the depositions, unlike
in the examinations where the full dialogue between the interrogator and
the accused is sometimes found. Ten of the depositions surveyed contain
quoted speech. Moreover, in seven of these ten depositions, the quoted
speech reported is not that of the witnesses themselves, but rather of a
second or third person. Only in three depositions is a dialogue between the
witnesses and another person reported. For an example of this kind of
dialogue and the mix of indirect and quoted speech, see (9).

9. Beniemin huchension. sd that [...] I went {in} to the g{r}eat Roome and I [a
hole in the MS owing to the cancellation] abigle come <in> and said ther
{he} stands I said wher wher <a>nd presently draed my rapyer but he
<em>medetly was gon as sh<e> said then said she <th>er is a gray catt then
i said wher abouts doth <sh>e stand ther sd shee she ther […] yn said ye
mary & abigell you haue killed a greet black woman of Stonintown. and an
Indian that come with her for ye flore is all couered with blod. then ye said
mary and abigaill looked out of dors & said: ye [=they] saw a greet company
of the{m} one a hill & there was three of them lay dead ye black woman &
the<?> indian & one more yt ye [=they] knew not [2: 35; no date]
156 american speech 79.2 (2004)

A complex situation arises when the dialogue reported is between the

witness and an alleged specter or apparition. For an example, see (10).

10. The deposition of Ann Putnam who testifieth and saith that on the 8th of
may {1692} at euening I saw the apperishtion of Mr George Burroughs
who greviously tortored me and urged me to writ in his book which I
refused then he tould me that his Two first wiues would appeare to me
presently and tell me a grat many lyes but I should not beleue them: then
jmmediatly appeared to me the forme of Two women in winding sheats
and napkins about their heads: att which I was gratly affrighted: and they
turned their faces towards Mr Burroughs and looked very red and ang<u>ry
and tould him that he had been a cruell man to them. and that their
blood did crie for vengance against him: and also tould him that they
should be cloathed with white Robes in heauen when he should be cast
into hell: and jmmediatly he vanished away: [2: 26; 23 Aug. 1692]

Many depositions in the Salem documents contain so-called spectral evi-

dence. In spite of the inherent problems of such evidence, it was accepted
at the hearings, often without questioning or an attempt at verification (for
a discussion, see Boyer and Nissenbaum 1977, 19–20). Naturally, in deposi-
tions of this type, it is difficult to determine whose language is being
reflected, especially if there is language attributed to the specter. In a
linguistic study, the language ascribed to the specter must be evaluated in
its own terms as well as in the light of the language of the scribe and the
witness. (See also example 14 below.)
The final category of depositions to be discussed is what we would term
formulaic first-person depositions. There are 21 depositions of this kind
among the documents surveyed for this study. About 90% of these deposi-
tions are written in the hand of one and the same scribe, Thomas Putnam,
to whom we will return later. Two examples of this kind of deposition are
found in (11).

11 a. The depossistion of Sarah phelps who testifieth and saith that about
the begining of August 1692 I was most greviously afflected and
tormented by Abigaill ffalkner or hir Apperanc: but most dreadfull she
did torment on the 11 August being the day of hir examination for if
she did but loock upon me she would strick me down or almost choake
me: also sence the begining of August I haue seen Abigaill ffalkner or
hir apperance most greviously afflet and torment mary walcott Ann
putnam and Martha Sprague and I veryly beleue in my heart that
Abigail ffalkner is a wic<t>h and that she has very offten affleted me
and the afforesaid parsons by accts of wicth<c>raft [2: 44; 17 Sept.
1692]
 Editing the Salem Witchcraft Records 157

b. The deposistion of mary walcott who testifieth and saith that I was for
a considerable time afflectid by a woman which tould me hir name
was Redd: and that she came from marblehead but on the 31: may
1692 being the day of the examination of willmott Redd then I saw that
she was the very same woman that tould me hir name was Redd: and
she did most dreadfully afflect and torme<nt> me dureing the time
of hir examination. for if she did but look upon me she would strick me
down or almost choak me: also on the day of hir examination I saw
willmott Redd: or hir Apperan<ce> most greviously afflet and tor-
ment marcy Lewes Eliz. Hubburd Eliz<:> Booth and Ann Putnam and
I beleue in my heart that willmott Redd is a wicth and that she has often
afflet<i>d and tormented me & the afforesd parsons by acts of
wicthcraft [2: 11; 14 Sept. 1692]

There is very little variation in formulation and content among these

depositions. To some extent they resemble the indictments discussed ear-
lier, which contain set formulations in which gaps have been left for the
names of the accused and accuser and other personal details. Thus, these
depositions seem to belong to the more formal, even formulaic text catego-
ries of the Salem documents.

the salem scribes. This part of the study considers the role of the scribes
in the Salem documents as a whole (i.e., the 850 documents). The scribal
situation has been largely neglected in earlier linguistic research on the
documents. Alexander (1928) was among the first to point out the value of
the Salem documents for research into early American English.8 Surveying
the documents, Alexander identifies a number of conspicuous patterns in
orthography/phonology and also indicates some interesting traits in mor-
phology, syntax, and lexis. However, as Kytö (forthcoming, 138) remarks,
Alexander provides no quantification except for occasional comments.
Furthermore, and more importantly, Alexander does not discuss the possi-
bility of linguistic influence by the scribes; he appears to attribute linguistic
features to the witnesses whose language is being reported rather than to
the scribes (392).
Boyer and Nissenbaum (1977) do not identify scribes for individual
documents; they simply point out that most documents included in the
Salem papers were not produced by well-educated people, but rather by
less-tutored writers (39). However, it is vital that the contributions of the
different scribal hands be carefully mapped, for linguists, historians, and
literary scholars alike. Example (12) illustrates the complexity of scribal
contributions that may be found in some Salem documents. Every shift in
scribal hand is marked by a note in square brackets. For the other transcrip-
tion conventions, see note 3.
158 american speech 79.2 (2004)

12. [Hand 1] Tho Greenslett: aged about forty years [Hand 2] ^{being de-
posed} [Hand 1] Testifieth yt about the first breaking out of the [Written
over “those”?] last Indian warre [“e” written over “s” in Hand 2?] {?} being
att the house of Capt [Hand 2] [In the left margin: Joshua] [Hand 1]
Scotto att Black point, this deponent saith yt he saw m~ [Hand 2] ^{George}
[Hand 1] Burrow’s [Hand 2] ^{who was lately executed at Salem} [Hand
1] lift a gunn of sex ffoott Barrell [Hand 2] ^{or thereabouts} [Hand 1]
putting the [Written over “his”] forefinger of his right hand into the
muzell of sd gunn and [Hand 2] ^{that he} [Hand 1] held <h>ar [Hand 2?]
th
^{it} [Hand 1] out att arms end only w ^{thatt} finger, and further this
deponent testifieth thatt about [Hand 2?] {at} [Hand 1] the same time he
saw the sd Burrows Take up a full barrll ofe molasses wth butt two of h<is>
fingers [Hand 2] ^{of one of his hands.} [Hand 1] in the bung and carry itt
from ye stage head to the door att the end of the stage wthout letting itt
downe [Hand 3] & that Liut Richd Hanniwell & John Greinslett were then
present & some others yt are dead. [2: 33; 15 Sept. 1692]

The mapping of scribal hands is taking place within the framework of the
Salem Editorial Project. Hiltunen and Peikola (forthcoming) have recently
discussed this part of the project in detail. This article will simply outline
the major features of the scribal situation in Salem.
The project aims at identifying as many of the scribes as possible by
name. However, a large number of scribes cannot be identified with any
degree of confidence, but we consider it important to show which docu-
ments are produced by one and the same scribe. The connecting of scribes
and documents promises to yield information that may be of value for
historians, literary scholars, and linguists. Work so far shows that there were
some 100 scribes at work in Salem. The scribes range from highly trained
officials or clerks of the court to ordinary, more or less untutored villagers
in Salem and its neighboring towns. Some of the scribes produced several
manuscripts and can be identified, such as Thomas Putnam, who was the
father of one of the girls allegedly tormented by witchcraft, Ann Putnam.
Thomas Putnam seems to be the most productive of the Salem scribes and
is involved in more than 100 documents, almost exclusively of the type of
formulaic depositions mentioned above. A comparison of these formulaic
depositions reveals that they probably reflect the linguistic preferences of
Putnam himself. In the 188 documents surveyed for this study, there are 19
depositions of such formulaic character penned by Putnam. Table 4 below
shows some of the orthographic patterns found in Putnam’s hand. There
are several patterns in the spelling of words. For example, the word witch is
always spelled wicth, and person is always parson. Even in spellings where
there seems to be variation, the different spellings probably reflect an
orthographic or even phonological preference in Putnam’s language, rather
 Editing the Salem Witchcraft Records 159

table 4
Orthography in Documents Written by Thomas Putnam

Present-day Spelling Documents by Thomas Putnam N

afflict(ed) afflect(ed) 21
afflet(ed) 13
deposition deposistion 14
depossistion 1
her hir 25
hire 1
person parson 7
witch/witchcraft wicth 12
wicthcraft 11
wicthcrafft 1

than the witnesses’ language. The verb afflict is spelled either with c or
without, giving forms such as afflect and afflet (see examples 11a and 11b).
There are 21 instances of afflect (in various forms), and 13 instances of afflet
(in various forms) in the depositions surveyed for this study. Since this
variation is found throughout the depositions taken down by Putnam, it is
most likely a feature of Putnam’s language, perhaps indicating that he did
not pronounce the plosive /k/. This example demonstrates that it is impor-
tant not to automatically attribute a feature to the general language of the
time or to one of the witnesses, even if it appears in a number of docu-
ments, since it may be a scribe’s idiosyncratic feature.
However, at times it is difficult to determine whether Putnam’s spell-
ings reflect his own usage, approximating his pronunciation of a word, or
whether the spelling reflects the pronunciation of the witness. As may be
seen in (13), there are two words evidencing the voicing of an initial
voiceless consonant: visek ‘physic’ and bosit ‘posset’ (‘medicinal potion’, see
OED2 s.v. posset). In the other documents surveyed for this article, there are
no other examples in Putnam’s hand of this kind of voicing. Possibly, these
spellings reflect the pronunciation of the witness rather than Putnam’s
orthographic-phonological preferences; Putnam may simply have recorded
what he heard in these cases. It is important to note that this particular
deposition does not belong to the formulaic depositions discussed earlier,
but is much longer and much more detailed.

13. I applyed my self to doctor crosbe [“crosbe” in the left margin] who
ga<u>e me a grate deal of visek [=physic] but could make non work tho
he steept tobacko in bosit [=posset] drink he could make non to work [2:
79; 9 Sept. 1692]
160 american speech 79.2 (2004)

In addition to the identifiable, fairly well-represented scribes in the

body of documents, more than 70 scribes appear in a very limited number
of documents, in some cases only one. These documents mostly contain
depositions. The ordinary untutored villagers who were recruited ad hoc
for the task of acting as a scribe at a hearing are probably responsible for
these documents. These scribes are of special importance since it is likely
that they were less language conscious than more professional scribes and,
hence, less motivated to change the language used or being reported by the
witness. Furthermore, the orthography of the scribes themselves, which is
very often phonetic, may give us insights into the pronunciation of the
time. Naturally, it is not always clear whose language is being reflected, that
of the scribe or that of the witness or even a mix. Consider, for example, the
seemingly phonetic spellings of Martha, linen, and children in (14).

14. The testimony of Elesebeth Booth Aged 18 yers or their about testifieth yt
one ye 8 of June Geiorg nedom Apeired vnto me & saide yt mattha Goerie
kiled him Because he wold not mend her Lening wheal
Elesebeth Booth.
The testimony of Elesebeth Booth Aged 18 yers or their about testifieth yt
on ye 8 day of June Thomas Goold Senyer Apered vnto me & told me yt she
{mattha Corie} kiled him because he told her she did not doe weel by
Goodman parkers Childringe [2: 112; 30 June 1692]

It is difficult to determine whether the spelling reflects Elizabeth’s pronun-

ciation of the words or whether it represents the way in which the scribe
understood the words or perhaps both. What is interesting, nevertheless, is
the existence of the two orthographic phenomena, r -dropping and -n as
-ng, which are also found in England at the time, as is shown by for instance
Matthews (1937, 218, 221) and Wyld (1936, 298–99, 290). These phenom-
ena can be taken as evidence of dialects (or sociolects) transported from
the mother country (cf. Kytö forthcoming).
Paying attention to scribal patterns also helps us to understand varia-
tion found in the body of Salem documents on a larger scale. To illustrate
this point, we have investigated words in the documents that contain
sequences of a vowel + r in a stressed syllable in present-day standard
English. In the Early Modern period, there was considerable variation in
the spelling of vowel + r combinations. This variation reflects a number of
phonological developments during the period 1500–1800 (for a full dis-
cussion, see Lass 1999, 108–13). Mapping the present-day standard English
ar, er, ir, ur, ear, and eir spellings in the Salem documents shows that much of
the variation found in the material considered as a whole can be attributed
to varying preferences by the different scribes. A subset of 33 documents
drawn from our 188 documents contains depositions taken down by 27
 Editing the Salem Witchcraft Records 161

different scribes. All the scribes are so far unidentified and probably belong
to the more untutored group of citizens. All the relevant instances are given
in the appendix.
The appendix illustrates a number of general trends. The spelling ar is
the norm for most scribes in rendering words that would be spelled ar in
present-day English. There are a few exceptions, however. The scribes of 2:
115 and 2: 121 (Hand 1) use er spellings in meruaile ‘marvel’ and mery
‘Mary’; and the scribe of 2: 123 and 2: 128 has yeard ‘yard’. There is more
variation among the scribes in the spelling of present-day er : although er is
the most common spelling, ar, or, ur, and ear also appear. The most interest-
ing trend involves the spelling of her (object form of she and possessive
pronoun). The form appears in four different spellings in the subset of 33
documents: har (× 1), hor (× 5), hur (× 26), and her (× 76).9 These spellings
are far from randomly distributed, however. Rather, they reflect distinct
scribal preferences. One scribe prefers har (2: 4), and another scribe has
exclusively hor (2: 121 [Hand 1]). Four scribes use hur, whereas her is found
in 14 scribal hands. In none of the scribal hands is there variation between
one or more spellings. Present-day ir is commonly ir in the Salem docu-
ments as well, but ur appears in three scribal hands (2: 58, 2: 62; 2: 67; 1:
121 [Hand 1]). There is also one instance of ar in sparet ‘spirit’. For present-
day English ur, most scribes have ur, though two scribes have or in the name
Burroughs (2: 30 [Hand 1]; 2: 113). There is a notable instance of er in bered
‘buried’ (1: 121 [Hand 1]). This spelling may be phonetic, indicating the
pronunciation of the word, but it may also be a dialectal form going back to
the various Middle English representations of Old English y as e, u, or y/i
(see, e.g., Wyld 1936, 244–46). In the case of present-day ear, there is again
some variation among the scribes. For example, heard is rendered as hard by
two scribes, har d and her d by one scribe, and heard by five scribes. Finally, eir
found in their is given as eir, er, or ir.
As may be seen above, there is considerable variation among the
scribes in their spelling. The motivation behind the different spellings is
difficult to evaluate in detail. Lass (1999, 108–13) shows that very complex
processes are involved in the development of the vowel sounds before r.
Some spellings in the Salem material may indicate that sounds had merged.
For example, ur spellings for original er words suggest that ur and er, which
were originally pronounced in different ways, represented the same sound
for some scribes.10 What is important is that spelling variation that appears
to be widespread in the Salem documents if considered as a whole may in
fact reflect scribal patterns. Although we have here considered a feature of
orthography (and to some extent phonology), features of morphology and
syntax merit equal attention from the point of view of scribal usage. When
all the scribal hands appearing in the Salem documents have been carefully
162 american speech 79.2 (2004)

mapped, we will be in a better position to evaluate the role of the scribe in

the documents in general, and perhaps in individual instances as well.

CONCLUSIONS

In outlining the Salem Editorial Project and discussing the characteristics

of different text categories in the body of Salem documents, we have shown
that a number of features must be taken into consideration when the
documents are used for linguistic research. First the text category of the
document must be considered, since there is a great deal of variation
among the documents of the same text category in content, discourse
structure, and reporting strategies. The second feature to consider is the
identity of the witness or speaker. The depositions especially exhibit quite
complex patterns of discourse structures, and it is thus important to map
the different layers of reported speech in an attempt to accurately identify
whose language is being recorded. Finally, the role of the scribe in record-
ing the situation and speech must be reckoned with. Both highly educated
and untutored scribes are represented in the Salem documents, and docu-
ments by different scribes must be evaluated in the light of each scribe’s
linguistic behavior.
Understanding a body of material as complex as the Salem witchcraft
records requires a multidisciplinary approach combining methodologies
from a number of different scholarly fields. Our study demonstrates what
kind of information can be gained within the linguistic-philological frame-
work. Its results call attention not only to characteristics of early English in
North America but also to details of interest to historians, such as the
production of the documents. The forthcoming edition of the Salem
Editorial Project will provide a rich source for further explorations in the
field.

APPENDIX
Vowel + r Combinations

Document -ar -er -ir -ur -ear -eir

2: 4 mary 1 har 1 — — — —
warrin 1
[=Warren]
2: 14, 2: 60 Charity 1 her 5 affirms 1 cured 1 hard 1 thire 1
farther 1 observed 1 desired 1 [=heard] [=their]
Marblehead 1 person 1 girle 2 hearing 1
Martha 1 servant 1 years 2
tarryed 1
wardle 1
[=Wardell]
warrant 1
 Editing the Salem Witchcraft Records 163

2: 22 Barrell 1 there 1 — Burroughs 2 heard 1 —

carryed 1 ware 1 yeares 2
2: 30 (Hand 1), aparill 1 her 1 — Borrous 1 apeared 3 th<ei>r 1
2: 35 (Hand 3) mary 6 There 2 feare 1
uery/very 4 yers 1
2: 32 Harres 5 her 4 — Burros/ yeares 1 —
[=Harris] thare 3 burross/
burrosses 6
further 1
Returne 1
2: 33, 2: 66, barr 1 determine 1 firkins 1 Burrows / apeared 1 their 1
2: 76 Barrell/barrll 2 her 7 first 1 Burrow’s 2 appearan<c>{e} 1
carry/Carried 2 served 1 thirty 1 disturb’d 1 fearei<n>g 1
Parker 3 there 3 further 4 near 1
part 1 verily 1 jury 1 heard 3
towards 2 very 3 turning 1 years 5
warre 1 were 2
whereupon 1
2: 35 (Hand 1) Cart 1 her 1 — — — —
there 1
Where 2
were 1
2: 35 (Hand 2) carrid 1 hur 2 — — hard 1 —
Sary 1 [=Sarah] ther 4 tare 1 [=tear]
wher 5
2: 58, 2: 62 bare 1 hur 1 gurll/gurls 3 further 2 heard 7 their 1
ffarnom 4 persons 1 years 3
[=Farnam]
Marten 1
wardwall 4
wordwall 4
[=Wardwell]
2: 61 bar 1 parson 1 — hurting 1 yeares 1 —
Wardel 2 theare 1
weare 1
2: 65 Carryed 2 her 11 — — hearth 1 their 1
Mariner 1 here 1 year(s) 3
Parker 4 very 3
part 1 were 3
party 1 where 1
2: 67 Ca<rr>ye/ her 11 desire 1 — years 1 —
Carryed 2 perish 1 durt 1
Care 1 there 1
park~ 1 were 2
where 1
2: 88 — — — — ware 1 [=wear] —
yea<r>es 1
2: 92, 2: 118 Cared 1 hur 2 — — years 2 —
[=carried] there 1
marget 1 were 2
[=Margaret]
Sary 1 [=Sarah]
2: 93 Jarman 1 her 1 — — heare 1 —
Martha 1 mercy 2 yeers 2
parker 3 sertinly 1
2: 112 mattha 2 her 2 — — Apered 1 —
parkers 1 their 2 Apeired 1
[=there] yers 2
2: 113 darst 1 [=darest] hur 21 sparet 1 Church 1 yers 1 —
Sarah 2 whairas 1 Borows 1
2: 115 meruaile 1 were 1 — — heard 1 theire 1
yard 1
2: 116 Sarah 2 her 8 — buried 1 years 1 there 1
there 3 burn 1
ware 3
were 2
2: 117 mary 1 her/her 6 — — hard 1 —
waren 1 herd 1
[=heard]
2: 119, 2: 120, quarrel(s) 2 her 8 spirit 4 turbulent 4 Bareing 1 —
2: 121 (Hand 2) obserue 3 [=bearing]
uery 5 neare 1
2: 121 (Hand 1) mery 1 [=Mary] hor 5 fust 1 bered 1 — —
parson 1 [=first] [=buried]
uery 5
were 1
were 1
[=where]
164 american speech 79.2 (2004)

2: 122 carrying 1 her 2 desired 1 further 1 years 1 —

there 1
thereto 1
were 1 —
2: 123, 2: 128 Caryed 1 her 9 — — heard 2 —
yeard 1
2: 125 bar 1 uerey 1 — — — ther 1
farder 1
2: 126 — contreeuarce 1 — — neer 1 —
[=controversy] yers 1
2: 127 — — — — years 2 —

NOTES

A version of this article was presented at the Twelfth International Conference of

English Historical Linguistics, Glasgow, Scotland, 21–26 August 2002. We are
grateful to Terry Walker, Molly Zahn, and two anonymous referees for reading and
commenting upon the article. Naturally, any remaining errors are entirely our
own.

1. Apart from the present authors, the project members include Gretchen Adams
(Texas Technological University), Margo Burns (University of New Hamp-
shire), Risto Hiltunen (University of Turku), Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (University
of Helsinki), Sara Lilja (Uppsala University), Matti Peikola (University of
Turku), Benjamin Ray (University of Virginia), and Richard Trask (Danvers
Archival Center, Peabody Institute Library). The edition is under contract with
Cambridge University Press.
2. For information on this part of the project, see http://jefferson.village
.virginia.edu/salem/intro.html (and relevant links).
3. Small capitals in these examples call attention to the differences between our
transcription and that of Boyer and Nissenbaum (1977). The example is
followed by a reference to the collection and the document from which the
example has been taken. All the documents cited come from the Essex County
Court Archives, Phillips Library in the Peabody Essex Museum Library in
Salem, Massachusetts. The first number in the reference refers to the volume
in which the documents occur (1 or 2), and the second is the number of the
document (e.g., 138). The reference is followed by a dating of the document.
If no date is available in the document, it is stated that it has “no date.” In these
working transcriptions of the examples, the following specific principles have
been followed: Superscript letters have been retained as superscript. The
capitalization and punctuation of the documents have been kept. The letters
u, v, i, and j have been kept as they appear in the document. Curly brackets, { },
signal that the feature occurs above the line. Angled brackets, < >, mark that
the feature is unclear or that the transcription is uncertain to some extent.
Square brackets with three periods, […], indicate that we have omitted text in
the example cited. Sometimes explanations in present-day English are pro-
vided within square brackets with an equal sign, [=]. Canceled material has
 Editing the Salem Witchcraft Records 165

been retained and struck through in the transcription. A superscript wavy

macron, ~, signals that a mark representing r preceded or followed by any
vowel is found in the document. Sometimes this mark in the document can
also be used as a general abbreviation mark (see example 4).
4. It must be recognized that a clear-cut classification of the documents is
problematic. Some of the documents contain several depositions, examina-
tions, etc., and it is sometimes difficult to classify a document as one or the
other text category. In this study, we have simply counted the number of
documents rather than texts. A document containing several depositions, for
example, has been classified as one deposition. (There are no examples of
different text categories appearing in one and the same document in the
sample surveyed for this study; see below.) A comprehensive description of the
quantitative distribution of the different text categories in the Salem docu-
ments will have to await the completion of the edition. Table 1 displays the
relative frequency of the different text categories and thus gives a good
overview of the type of documents found in the Salem papers.
5. The small capitals in this and subsequent examples are ours and call the
reader’s attention to the words and passages discussed.
6. There is an eleventh examination (2: 20). However, it is a nineteenth-century
copy of an earlier document and is written like a summation of the evidence
and testimonies against the accused. As a result, we have not considered this
examination in our subsequent discussion.
7. By “scribal intervention,” we mean words or forms that were not spoken by the
witness but introduced by the scribe when he produced the written record.
8. Alexander (1928) uses Woodward’s (1864) edition of the documents. Like
Boyer and Nissenbaum (1977), this edition contains many inaccuracies and
does not comprise all documents surviving from the trials.
9. The spelling hir also occurs in the Salem documents. As noted above, this is the
spelling preferred by Thomas Putnam (table 4). No depositions by Putnam
were included in this corpus, however.
10. Of course, even though some scribes have er for original er spellings and ur for
original ur, the sounds may have merged.

REFERENCES

Alexander, Henry. 1928. “The Language of the Salem Witchcraft Trials.” American
Speech 3: 390–400.
Boyer, Paul, and Stephen Nissenbaum, eds. 1977. The Salem Witchcraft Papers:
Verbatim Transcripts of the Legal Documents of the Salem Witchcraft Outbreak of 1692.
3 vols. New York: Da Capo.
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Merja Kytö. 1999a. “Modifying Pragmatic Force: Hedges
in Early Modern English Dialogues.” In Historical Dialogue Analysis, ed. Andreas
H. Jucker, Gerd Fritz, and Franz Lebsanft, 293–312. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
166 american speech 79.2 (2004)

———. 1999b. “Investigating Nonstandard Language in a Corpus of Early Modern

English Dialogues: Methodological Considerations and Problems.” In Writing
in Nonstandard English, ed. Irma Taavitsainen, Gunnel Melchers, and Päivi
Pahta, 171–87. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
———. 2000. “Data in Historical Pragmatics: Spoken Interaction (Re)cast in
Writing.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1: 175–99.
Hiltunen, Risto. 1996. “‘Tell Me, Be You a Witch?’ Questions in the Salem Witch-
craft Trials of 1692.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 9.25: 17–37.
Hiltunen, Risto, and Matti Peikola. Forthcoming. “Trial Discourse and Manuscript
Context: Scribal Profiles in the Salem Witchcraft Records.” In Court Trial
Discourse Past and Present, ed. Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kytö, Merja. 1991. Variation and Diachrony, with Early American English in Focus:
Studies on CAN/MAY and SHALL/WILL. University of Bamberg Studies in English
Linguistics 28. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
———. Forthcoming. “The Emergence of American English: Evidence from Sev-
enteenth-Century Records in New England.” In Legacies of Colonial English:
Studies in Transported Dialects, ed. Raymond Hickey. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press.
Kytö, Merja, and Matti Rissanen. 1983. “The Syntactic Study of Early American
English: The Variationist at the Mercy of His Corpus.” Neuphilologische Mitteil-
ungen 84: 470–90.
Lass, Roger. 1999. “Phonology and Morphology.” In The Cambridge History of the
English Language. Vol. 3, 1476–1776, ed. Roger Lass, 56–186. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Matthews, William. 1937. “The Vulgar Speech of London in the XV–XVII Centu-
ries.” Notes and Queries 172: 2–5, 21–24, 40–42, 56–60, 77–79, 92–96, 112–15,
130–33, 149–51, 167–70, 186–88, 204–7, 218–21, 241–43.
OED2. Oxford English Dictionary. 2d ed. 20 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. Available online
at http://dictionary.oed.com.
Rissanen, Matti. 1997. “‘Candy No Witch, Barbados’: Salem Witchcraft Trials as
Evidence of Early American English.” In Language in Time and Space: Studies in
Honour of Wolfgang Viereck on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, ed. Heinrich
Ramisch and Kenneth Wynne, 183–93. Stuttgart: Steiner.
———. 2000. “Standardisation and the Language of Early Statutes.” In The Develop-
ment of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts, ed. Laura
Wright, 117–30. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
———. 2003. “Salem Witchcraft Papers as Evidence of Early American English.”
English Linguistics (English Linguistic Society of Japan) 20.1: 84–114.
Rosenthal, Bernard. 1993. Salem Story: Reading the Witch Trials of 1692. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Woodward, W. Elliot, ed. 1864. Records of Salem Witchcraft Copied from the Original
Documents. 2 vols. Roxbury, Mass.: Woodward.
Wyld, Henry Cecil. 1936. A History of Modern Colloquial English. 3d ed. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Copyright of American Speech is the property of Duke University Press and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.