The Geography and Genealogy of Gloucester Witchcraft

Most scholarship on the Salem Witchcraft crisis has focused on Salem Village

and to some extent Salem Town. This is hardly surprising, since the crisis started in

Salem Village and these two communities, along with nearby Andover, produced the vast

majority of witchcraft accusations and trials. However, other towns in Essex County also

experienced witchcraft allegations, some of which produced trials and even executions.

One of these towns was Gloucester.

Gloucester in 1692 was still an isolated farming community, not yet the thriving

port and fishing town it would soon become. It had survived a series of factional

conflicts earlier in the seventeenth century and attained the kind of stable, harmonious

equilibrium Puritans expected of their communities.1 And yet, this model New England

town produced nine witchcraft accusations during the crisis, more than any other

community except for Andover, Salem Village and Salem Town.2 There have been

several explanations offered over the years, but none have been wholly satisfactory. This

paper will offer a few tentative steps toward a new answer.

The Gloucester residents accused of witchcraft in 1692 fall neatly into a few

discrete groups, due to the extremely scanty nature of the surviving records. The first

group consisted of Margaret Prince and Elizabeth Dicer, who were accused by Ebenezer

Babson on behalf of his mother, the widow Eleanor Babson, on September 3, 1692. This

same Ebenezer Babson had been involved in the odd hysteria over phantom Indians and

1
Christine Heyrman, Commerce and Culture, 47-51.

2
I include in this number all the accused women resident in Gloucester or accused by a resident of
Gloucester. These are: Phoebe Day, Rebecca Dike, Esther Elwell, Joan Penney, Margaret Prince, Abigail
Rowe, Mary Rowe, Rachel Vinson (all resident) and Elizabeth Dicer (accused by resident Ebenezer
Babson).
French soldiers that had gripped Gloucester the preceding summer, so there is much of

interest in this case. However, a close look at this case would extend this paper far

beyond a reasonable length, so I will not discuss it in detail, merely noting connections

between it and the later case on which I focus.

The next Gloucesterwoman to be accused was Joan Penney. She was accused on

September 13, 1692 by one Zebulon Hill, a former resident of Gloucester who lived in

Salem Town in 1692. There are many intricacies of this case which have already been

described in some detail by Carol Karlsen in The Devil in the Shape of a Woman, so I

will not discuss this case either.

Phoebe Day, Mary Rowe and Rachel Vinson were probably the next women

accused in Gloucester. There is no record of their accusation or examination extant, but

their names were on a petition to the Governor and Council signed by a group of

prisoners held at Ipswich jail sometime in early winter, asking to be set free on bail

pending trial in the spring.3 Their accusation has traditionally been placed here in the

chronology, between Joan Penney and the women accused of afflicting Mary Fitch. 4

There is no extant contemporary evidence corroborating the traditional account, nor is

there any other evidence of these womens cases to consider. There are, however, certain

intriguing connections between these women and the next group, which will be explored

in this paper.

3
Salem Witchcraft Papers (henceforth SWP)3:881. Joan Penney and Elizabeth Dicer (described as
of Piscataqua) also signed this petition, but the other accused Gloucester women did not; perhaps they
were being held elsewhere.
4
See Marshall W. S. Swan, The Bedevilment of Cape Ann, Essex Institute Historical
Collections 117 (1981): 169.
 The last group about which there are court records consists of Esther Elwell,

Abigail Rowe and Rebecca Dike, a warrant for the arrest of whom was issued on

November 3, 1692 on account of accusations that they had afflicted one Mary Fitch made

by her brother, nephew and son. This paper will focus on these women, their accusers,

and the possible connections between them and the previously mentioned group of

women in Ipswich jail.

Unlike the other cases involving Gloucester residents, the accusation of these

three women followed a pattern unique to the events of 1692. In late October or early

November Lieutenant James Stevens, a highly-regarded member of the Gloucester

community, sent for the afflicted girls of Salem Village to find the culprit responsible

for the bewitching of his sister Mrs. Mary Fitch, much as Joseph Ballard had done in

Andover in July. The girls named Rebecca Dike, Esther Elwell and Abigail Rowe as the

witches, and Stevens, his son William, and Mrs. Fitchs son Nathaniel Coit subsequently

filed a complaint with the magistrates. A warrant for the three, the last arrest of the crisis,

was issued November 5.5

Among the little surviving evidence in this case is the testimony of Mrs. Fitchs

brother James Stevens about his sister feeling a woman sitting on her when he saw

nothing, dated November 8.6 There is also a deposition of Betty Hubbard, one of the

5
Babson, History, 211-212; Mary Beth Norton, In the Devils Snare, 233 (on Ballard); SWP 1:305
(warrant). Christine Heyrman uses this incident as a key point supporting her thesis that association with
Quakers was a reason for witchcraft allegations, but she misinterprets the evidence. She confuses Mary
Stevens Coit Fitch, the sister of Lieutenant James Stevens and the actual victim, with Mary Stevens
Norwood, the sister of Lieutenant William Stevens (and daughter of James) who was being courted by the
Quaker Francis Norwood Jr. around this time. She makes her argument in Commerce and Culture, 107-
108, 111-112; compare the warrant (SWP 1:305), where it is very clear who is bewitched.
6
SWP 1:306.
afflicted girls of Salem Village, against the three women with the same date.7 These

scraps tell little about the subsequent experience of the three suspected witches, but it

seems they were probably not indicted, since they would have been tried under the new

courts convened in 1693 to replace the dissolved Court of Oyer and Terminer and there

would be some record of their trials.

This James Stevens was an important figure in town. He was a deacon of the

church and a lieutenant in the militia. His father William Stevens had been one of the

early settlers of Gloucester and was a noted shipbuilder. James may have followed in the

trade. He married Susannah Eveleth, daughter of Sylvester Eveleth, in 1656 and in 1658

received a grant from the town of land on Town Neck, near Trynall Cove. It is possible

that he lived there, but there is no solid information on his place of residence. Eight of

his eleven children were still living at the time of his death in 1697: William (who is also

listed on the witchcraft accusation), Samuel, Ebenezer, David, Jonathan, Mary and

Hannah.8 He probably inherited all of Eastern Point below the Great Pond from his

father, who was apparently granted it by the town, since it was in the possession of his

son Samuel Stevens in 1697.9 At his death in 1697 his estate totaled 239 19s.10

Mary Stevens, the daughter of William and sister of James, married John Coit in

1652 and had five children, one of whom, Nathaniel, is listed on the witchcraft complaint.

She married John Fitch in 1667, after her husbands death. While John Coit was alive,

the couple lived on the Neck of Houselots; the location of John Fitchs residence is

frustratingly difficult to determine from the brief notices in the records. He received a

7
Betty Hubbard, deposition, 8 November 1692, Miscellaneous Manuscripts Bound, Massachusetts
Historical Society.
8
Babson, History, 164-167.
9
Garland, Eastern Point, 15.
10
Babson, History, 167.
grant at Kettle Cove in 1680 for his service in King Philips War; there is no indication

that he lived there, but even if he did he must have lived somewhere else prior to that.11

These people were all of relatively high status in the town, as indicated by the offices

they held and the titles used to refer to them (particularly Mistress used of Mary Fitch).

Mary Fitchs sickness in November 1692, leading to her death, was the trigger for the

accusation of witchcraft under discussion.

Esther12 Dutch, the daughter of Osman and Grace Dutch, was born around 1639

and married Samuel Elwell in 1658. Her parents lived at the Harbor at a place known as

Dutchs Slough and were rather prominent in town affairs.13 Samuel Elwells father

Robert was also a distinguished citizen of the town. He lived at the Harbor at first, but

most of his land was on Eastern Point, and he probably ended up living there.14 Samuel

inherited his house and most of his land when he died in 1683. Prior to that Samuel had

lived across the Harbor, near the Cut, in a house belonging to Robert that went to

Samuels son Samuel when Samuel (senior) inherited his fathers house. The value of

Robert Elwells estate totaled 290 10s.15

Rebecca Dolliver was born around 1640, the daughter of Samuel Dolliver, who

lived at Freshwater Cove. She married Richard Dike, who was about the same age, in

1667. They lived at Little River, where Richard had inherited land from his grandfather
11
Babson, History, 71 on the Coits; Gloucester Town Records (manuscript in Gloucester City
Archives, henceforth GTR) 1:150 (Kettle Cove), 221 (land allotted at the Cape 1688 gave to Nathaniel
Coit), 346 (house from George Blake 1665), 347 (fence route), 350 (parcel from his meadow to the way
1662) on John Fitch. The boundaries of his land from George Blake are defined by the lots of Arthur
Lester and Solomon Martin, the location of whose land is impossible to determine from surviving
information.
12
Gloucester records give her name uniformly as Hester, while documents related to her trial for
witchcraft call her Esther. Since this paper focuses on her accusation, I have adopted the latter version.
13
Babson, History, 83.
14
So Babson, History, 87-88. However, his will (see next note) makes mention of lands both
here & at the Easterne poynt (69), so he may have still resided at the harbor. This would clearly have been
at the eastern end of the harbor, so the difference may be moot.
15
Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County (henceforth ECCR) 9:69-72.
Walter Tybbot. Over the years his landholdings steadily grew through grants from the

town and purchases from neighbors such as Joseph Eveleth, from whom he bought 13

acres in 1669.16 This Joseph Eveleth was the son of Sylvester Eveleth and the brother of

James Stevenss wife Susannah.17

Abigail Rowe was born in 1677 to Hugh and Mary Prince Rowe, who lived at

Little Good Harbor and had large amounts of land there. The fact that she was only

fifteen years old in 1692 shows immediately that there is more to this case than meets the

eye. While it was certainly not unheard of for children to be accused of witchcraft,

especially in the Salem hysteria, they were generally accused along with other family

members as part of the cascade of accusations that swept through towns like Andover.

Seeing a teenaged girl accused along with two adult women, neither of them close

relatives, is quite unusual.

As it happens, Abigail Rowe was not, in fact, the only woman in her family

accused of witchcraft, just the only one listed in this accusation. Her mother was one of

the three women listed in the petition from Ipswich jail (as the wife of Hugh Roe of

Cape Anne),18 and her grandmother was the aforementioned Margaret Prince, accused

early on by Ebenezer Babson and also listed in the Ipswich petition. This is a strong

indication of a link among these three accusations, as well as a clue to the date of

accusation of the three women listed only in the petition; it would be unlikely for the

daughter to be accused before her mother and grandmother, especially since she is not

16
GTR 1:85 (from John Hardain 1668), 86 (from Thomas Kent 1669), 87 (from Joseph Eveleth
1669), 148 (from the town 1679), 201 (from the town 1688). ECCR 1:247 (will of Walter Tybbot).
17
Babson, History, 92. Joseph Eveleth later moved to Chebacco Parish (now Essex) and died
there in 1745 at the age of one hundred and five. His brother Isaac married Abigail Coit, daughter of none
other than Mary Stevens Coit, in 1677 (ibid., 71).
18
SWP 3:881.
even listed in the petition herself. The link becomes stronger when the connections

between the Rowe family and the Day and Vinson families are examined.

Hugh Rowe and his older brother John, along with their mother, received equal

portions of their father Johns estate of 205 16s. 10d. upon his death in 1662.19 Hugh

received the land further from the house, toward Starknought Harbor, while John

received the land closer to the house and their mother Brigit got the land in between.

Hugh was also to share the east end of the house with his mother, and receive it for

himself upon her death.20 Five years later Hugh and John entered into an agreement

witnessed by Robert Elwell, who must have been a figure of mutual trust to John and

Hugh.21 Another witness to a transaction of Hugh Rowe was Clement Coldum, who

witnessed a sale of one-third of his property to James Gardner in 1668. In exchange for

this land, Hugh received from Gardner his house and nine acres scattered around the

Little Good Harbor/Eastern Point area, along with various other possessions. Gardners

land adjoined Hughs, according to boundary landmarks mentioned in various land grants,

including one from 1683 extending his land from the corner of Robert Elwells marsh to

the road to the Cape. So Elwell was also a neighbor. 22

As for Coldum, he would later resurface in 1692 to give a deposition against

Betty Hubbard, the seventeen-year-old girl who deposed against Esther Elwell, Rebecca

Dike and Abigail Rowe, saying that when he was taking her home from meeting on May

29 she asked him to go faster because she said the woods were full of Devils, & said

ther & there they be, but I could se none. After he obediently sped up, she told him they

19
ECCR 2:423-424.
20
GTR 1:75.
21
ibid. 1:76.
22
ibid. 1:94, 152.
had passed the devils and he could slow down. He then asked her if she was afraid of the

Devil, and she said no, that she could discourse with the Devil as well as with me.23

This raises the obvious question of what Coldum, who lived in either Gloucester or Lynn

at the time, was doing in Salem in May of 1692, and why he was taking Betty Hubbard

home, presumably to the house of William Griggs, where she was a servant. The most

obvious answer is that he had been summoned for the grand jury for the Court of Oyer

and Terminer established on May 27. No records of the names of jurymen survive, so

there is no way to firmly establish if Coldum was one of them, but he had served on

many juries for the Essex County Quarterly Courts, so it is entirely reasonable to suppose

that he may have been summoned for this one.24

Betty Hubbard also had Gloucester connections; her master William Griggs lived

there for several years and after the trials she herself settled down there and married. The

influence her Gloucester connections may have had on her role in the accusations of

Gloucester residents is still obscure but a ripe area for future study.

In 1685, Hugh Rowe received three parcels of land from his father-in-law

William Vinson.25 Hughs wife at the time was Mary, the daughter of Thomas and

Margaret Prince, whom he had married in 1674.26 However, he had married her six

months after the death of his first wife, one Rachel Langton, whom he had married in

23
SWP 2:455.
24
See ECCR 2:182, 2:281, 4:66, 4:429, 9:236 for other juries he served on; after about 1675 the
name is associated with Lynn rather than Gloucester, and someone by that name apparently served as
constable of Lynn for many years. I am not certain whether this is the same person or not, but I am
assuming that the Clement Coldum who deposed against Betty Hubbard is the same one who is associated
with Gloucester, whether or not he actually lived there in 1692. In any case, the ages given in the court
records are consistent with this being the same man.
25
GTR 1:184.
26
Gloucester Vital Records (henceforth GVR) 2:472.
1667 and who had borne him three daughters.27 She was likely a widowed daughter of

William Vinson by his first wife, Sarah, who had been accused of witchcraft in 1653.

Even after her death, her father apparently continued to consider her widower his son-in-

law.28

Thus Hugh and Mary Rowe lived near Robert Elwell, whose daughter-in-law was

accused, and had a close relationship to William Vinson, whose wife was accused. Mary,

who was accused herself, was also the daughter of Margaret Prince, who was accused.

Thomas and Margaret Prince lived at the harbor, but they owned land all over, including

Little River and Little Good Harbor.

The Rowes also had strong ties to the Day family. Hugh and Rachel Rowes

daughters Mary, Ruth and Rachel married, respectively, Ezekiel, Nathaniel and Samuel

Day, sons of Anthony Day. These marriages took place between 1690 and 1692.29

Another of Anthony Days sons, Timothy, married Phoebe Wilds in 1679. She was one

of the women mentioned in the Ipswich petition.30

All of the Gloucesterwomen whose accusations are only known from the Ipswich

petition were connected to the Rowe family. This provides clear evidence that there was

a connection between their accusations and the accusation of November 3 against Esther

Elwell, Rebecca Dike and Abigail Rowe. The fact that none of these women were listed

in the petition, moreover, suggests that it was made before they were accused or at least

before they had been put in jail. The petition is undated but mentions winter being soe

27
ibid. 2:464 (marriage), 1:596 (births of daughters).
28
Babson, History 145 (Rachel Langton), ECCR 1:301 (Sarah Vinsons 1653 accusation).
29
GVR 2:469 (Mary), 470 (Ruth), 464 (Rachel).
30
ibid. 2:173.
far come on that it can not be exspected that we should be tryed during this winter

season, which could be reconciled with an autumn date.

A possible series of events, then, is as follows: the hysteria over spectral French

soldiers and Indians during the summer, initiated by Ebenezer Babson, then in September

the accusation of Margaret Prince and Elizabeth Dicer by Babson, based on complaints

by his mother. Next, at some point in September or October, Rachel Vinson, Phoebe Day

and Mary Rowe were accused, either together or separately, by someone in Gloucester,

probably influenced by the torrents of accusations emerging in other Essex County towns.

Since Margaret Prince had already been accused, it is likely that her daughter Mary Rowe

was the focus of whatever accusation was made, and the other two were brought into it

because of their connections to the Rowe family. The illness of someone in town could

have been the catalyst for this accusation.

After that, Mary Fitch became ill. With hysteria over witchcraft growing, her

family looked around for witches to blame, even sending for some of the Salem Village

girls to uncover the culprits. The people they came up with, whether on their own or with

the help of the afflicted girls, were tangentially connected to the women already in jail.

Thus the accusation, listing three women not particularly connected to one another but

part of the large social group that already had several more prominent members accused.

However, by this time the trials were winding down and none of the accused women

from Gloucester were tried.

This scenario fits with several pieces of evidence: the women accused early on,

such as Margaret Prince and Elizabeth Dicer, were notorious for various reasons and thus

more likely to arouse suspicions. Prince had a sharp tongue, and Dicer was once fined
for calling Mrs. Hollingsworth of Salem a witch. The women in the Ipswich petition

were somewhat less notorious, but had had their problems: Phoebe Day, whose maiden

name was Wilds, was related to Sarah Wilds of Topsfield, who was hanged for witchcraft

on July 19, 1692,31 Mary Rowe was Margaret Princes daughter, and Rachel Vinson was

the widow of William Vinson, whose first wife had once been accused of witchcraft.32

The last group of accused women was even more distant from past suspicions: Abigail

Rowe was probably accused because her mother and grandmother already had been,

Esther Elwells mother Ruth Dutch had been accused of witchcraft together with William

Vinsons first wife, and Rebecca Dike seems to have had no clear connection to past

suspicions at all, at least from extant records, but she lived near the Eveleths, in-laws of

the Stevenses, who may have had their problems with her.

One final note about these accusations is that all the people involved were of high

social and economic status. The Gloucester accusations involved no singling out of poor,

marginal women, as was often true of witchcraft accusations (in Salem Village, for

example). All of the estates of these families that were recorded were valued at more

than 200 pounds. Furthermore, this is true of both the accusers and the victims. They all

had comparatively large holdings of land and held many town offices. From a

comparative perspective, this is perhaps the most striking aspect of the Gloucester

accusations. The cases seem to have been based on fear and suspicion among the upper

class against a backdrop of paranoia throughout the county.

31
See EIHC 42 (1906): 273 for the (previously unrecognized) connection with Sarah Wilds.
32
ECCR 1:301.
 Bibliography

Babson, John J. History of the Town of Gloucester, Cape Ann, Including the Town of

Rockport. Gloucester: Proctor Brothers, 1860.

Boyer, Paul and Stephen Nissenbaum, Eds. The Salem Witchcraft Papers: Verbatim

Transcripts of the Legal Documents of the Salem Witchcraft Outbreak of 1692.

New York: Da Capo Press, 1977.

Essex Institute. Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County,

Massachusetts. Salem, Mass.: Essex Institute, 1911-1975.

Garland, Joseph E. Eastern Point. Beverly, Mass.: Commonwealth Editions, 1999.

Heyrman, Christine. Commerce and Culture. New York: W. M. Norton & Co., 1984.

Norton, Mary Beth. In the Devils Snare: the Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692. New York:

Vintage Books, 2002.

Swan, Marshall W. S. The Bedevilment of Cape Ann. Essex Institute Historical

Collections 117 (1981):

Topsfield Historical Society. Vital Records of Gloucester, Massachusetts, to the End of

the Year 1849. Topsfield, Mass.: Topsfield Historical Society, 1917-1924.