Hubbry Logo
Elizabeth HoweElizabeth HoweMain
Open search
Elizabeth Howe
Community hub
Elizabeth Howe
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Elizabeth Howe
Elizabeth Howe
Elizabeth Howe
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Elizabeth Howe (née Jackson; c. 1637 – July 19, 1692) was one of the accused in the Salem witch trials. She was found guilty and executed on July 19, 1692.

Key Information

Early life

[edit]

Elizabeth Jackson was born around 1637 near Rowley, Yorkshire, the daughter of William and Joanne Jackson. Elizabeth married James Howe II in 1658 in Ipswich, Massachusetts. The couple lived in Topsfield, Massachusetts and had six children:

  • James Howe III (born 1659)
  • Elizabeth Howe Jr. (born 1661)
  • Mary Howe (born 1664)
  • Deborah Howe (born 1667)
  • John Howe (born 1671)
  • Abigail Howe (born 1673)

Topsfield was a Puritan community. They were a deeply pious society, with an extreme religious focus not only as a community but also on an individual basis.[1] They believed firmly in the devil, and felt that he was not only an enemy to mankind, but to the Puritans specifically. "The devil, as envisioned by the people of Salem, was a short, black man with cloven feet who stood about as high as a walking stick". The fight against the devil was viewed as an individual religious responsibility.[1]

Accused of witchcraft

[edit]

The Perley (also spelled Pearly) family of Ipswich, Massachusetts, were among the chief accusers of Elizabeth Howe. They had a ten-year-old daughter they claimed was being afflicted by Howe. The child complained of being pricked by pins and sometimes fell into fits.[2] In their testimony against Howe, on June 1, 1692, they quoted their daughter as saying, "I could never afflict a dog as Good Howe afflicts me." At first the parents did not believe their daughter's accusations. They took the child to several doctors who told them she was "under an evil hand".[2] Her condition continued for two or three years, until "she pined away to skin and bones and ended her sorrowful life".[2] Howe was accused of afflicting several other girls within Salem Village. The identities of the girls Elizabeth Howe was accused of afflicting are recorded in the transcript of her examination:[2]

  • Mercy Lewis was nineteen years old during the Salem trials. When her entire family was killed in an Indian attack she was sent to be a servant in the house of Thomas Putnam. Mercy Lewis acted as key player in the accusation of Elizabeth Howe, as well as many other individuals in Salem Village.[3] Mercy Lewis was a major contributor of spectral evidence in the examination of Elizabeth Howe. She threw herself to the floor in a fit as soon as Howe entered the meeting house.[2]
  • Mary Walcott played a significant role in the Salem trials, being one of the original girls to become "afflicted".[4] Her name not only appeared on the arrest warrant served to Elizabeth Howe but appeared in one of two indictments.[2] Her cousin, Ann Putnam, Jr., was one of the most active accusers.[4]
  • Ann Putnam, Jr. was one of the "afflicted" girls. She was one of the most aggressive accusers, her name appearing over 400 times in court documents. Ann was twelve years old at the start of the trials. She accused nineteen people and saw eleven of them hanged. This is a significant amount when one considers the fact that only nineteen people total hanged because of the accusations against them. In 1706, Ann Putnam, Jr. apologized for her actions; she was the only "afflictee" to do so publicly.[5]
Ann Putnam
  • Abigail Williams was 11 at the time of Elizabeth Howe's trial in 1692. She was one of the most well-known "afflicted" girls in the Salem witch trials. Her name appeared on the arrest warrant for Elizabeth Howe.[2] She was the niece of Reverend Samuel Parris, reverend of Salem Village and was one of the first two girls to become "afflicted".[6]
  • Mary Warren was 21 when the trials began. She was employed as a servant in the house of John Proctor of Salem Village. Warren participated in some of the "afflicted girls" accusations before confessing that the other girls were lying. However, they turned on her and Warren herself was eventually tried for being a witch. She escaped conviction by changing sides again, accusing her employer and his wife of "certain deeds, although she hesitated to call them a witch and a wizard".[7]

Warrant for arrest

[edit]

On May 28, 1692, a warrant was released for the arrest of Elizabeth Howe by John Hathorne and Jonathan Corwin. She was to be apprehended and taken to the home of Lieutenant Nathaniel Ingersolls. She stood charged with "Sundry Acts of Witch-craft done or [committed] on the [bodies] of Mary Walcott, Abigail Williams, and others of Salem Village." She was apprehended by Ephraim Wildes, constable of Tops-field, on May 29, 1692.[2] A copy of her original warrant can be read below. This transcript was taken from The Salem Witchcraft Papers.[2]

To the Constable of Topsfield
Your are in they're Majestyes Names hereby Required to Apprehend & bring before us Elizabeth Howe the wife of James Howe if Topsfeild Husbandman on Tuesday next being the thirty first day of may about Ten of the Clock forenoone att the house: of Leut Nathaniell Ingersolls of Salem Village, Whoe stande Charged w'th Sundry Acts of Witch-craft done or Committed on the bodyes of Mary Walcott, Abigaill Williams & others of Salem Village, to theyr great hurt, in order to hir examination, Relating to the above s'd premises. & hereof you are nott to fayle.
Dat'd. Salem. May. 28th. 1692/
In obedience to this warrant I have appreend [r] ed Elizabeth Howe the wife of Jems how on the 29th of may 1692 and have brought har unto the house of leftenant nathaniell engleson according too to the warrant as attested by me Ephraim Wildes constabell
For the town of Topsfelld.

Dated May 31st 1692

Imprisonment

[edit]

The accused "witches" were, "bound with cords and irons for months, subjected to insulting, unending examinations and excommunication from the church".[1] In Marion L. Starkey's The Devil in Massachusetts it says, "... they were periodically subjected by prison officials, especially by the juries assigned to search them for witch marks".[8] While Elizabeth Howe was imprisoned in these conditions she was able to rely on the support of her family. Her daughters, and occasionally her blind husband, would take turns in making regular trips to Boston. Starkey said they would bring her "country butter, clean linen, and comfort".[8]

Trial

[edit]
Chaos in the Courtroom

Court conditions verged on the point of ridiculous during the Salem witch trials. There are many pauses in court records because of the chaos that surrounded trials of the supposed witches. For instance, "afflicted" girls would throw themselves on the ground in hysterical fits, and when the examinant moved their body the afflicted individuals would cry out in pain.[1] Magistrate Samuel Sewall of Boston recorded his observation about the conditions he found in the meeting house. His diary reads, "Went to Salem, where in the meeting house, the persons accused of witchcraft were examined ... 'twas awful to see how the afflicted persons were agitated".[9]

Such was the case of Elizabeth Howe's trial which began on May 31, 1692.[2] The following is a true account of the examination of Elizabeth Howe as witnessed by Samuel Parris. This account is taken from The Salem Witchcraft Papers, Transcripts of the Legal Documents from the Salem Witch Trials. When Howe was brought in for examination Mercy Lewis and Mary Walcott, two of her main accusers, fell into a fit. She was accused by Mary of pinching and choking her in the month of May. Ann Putnam, Jr. added her accusations to these by saying she had been hurt three times by Howe. When asked how she pleaded to the charges made against her, Elizabeth Howe boldly responded, "If it was the last moment I was to live, God knows I am innocent of any thing of this nature."[2]

Actual examination:

The examination of Eliz: 31. May. 1692

Mercy Lewis & Mary Walcot fell in a fit quickly after the examinant came in
Mary Walcot said that this woman the examinant had pincht her & choakt this month.
Ann Putnam said she had hurt her three times.
What say you to this charge? Here are them that charge you with witchcraft
If it was the last moment I was to live, God knows I am innocent of any thing in this nature
Did not you take notice that now when you lookt upon Mercy Lewis she was struck down?
I cannot help it.
You are charged here; what doe you say?
I am innocent of any thing of this nature.
Is this the first time that ever you were accused?
Yes S'r.
Do not you know that one at Ipswitch hath accused you?
This is the first time that ever I heard of it
You say that you never heard of these folks before
Mercy Lewis at length spake & charged this woman with hurting & pinching her: And then Abigail Williams cryed she hath hurt me a great many times, a great while & she hath brought me the book.
Ann Putnam had a pin stuck in her hand
What do you say to this?
I cannot help it.
What consent have you given?
Mary Warren cryed out she was prickt
Abig: Williams cryed out that she was pincht, & great printes were seen in her arm.
Have not you seen some apparition—
No, never in all my life
Those that have confessed, they tell us they used images & pins, now tell us what you have used.
You would not have me confess that which I know not
She lookt upon Mary Warren, & said Warren violently fell down.
Look upon this maid viz: Mary Walcot, her back being towards the examinant Mary Warren & Ann Putnam said they saw this woman upon her. Susan: Sheldon saith this was the woman that carryed her yesterday to the Pond Sus: Sheldon carried to the Examinant in a fit & was well upon grasping her arm.
You said you never heard before of these people
Not before the warrant was served upon me last Sabbath day
John Indian cryed out O she bites, & fell into a grevious fit, & so carried to her in his fir & was well upon her grasping him.
What do you say to these things, they cannot come to you?
S'r. I am not able to give account of it
Cannot you tell what keeps them off from your body?
I cannot tell, I know not what it is?
That is strange that you should do these things & not be able to tell how.
This is a true account of the examination of Eliz: How taken from my characters written at the time thereof. Witness my hand

Sam. Parris.

(Reverse) Eliza. How Exam.Adjour't. June 30 92 How

(witnesses v. Elizabeth Howe)

Indictments against Elizabeth Howe

[edit]

These indictments are transcripts of the legal documents taken from The Salem Witchcraft Papers (3).Anno Regis et Reginae

Anno Regis et Reginae Willm et Mariae:
nunc Angliae &c: Quarto

Essex ss The Jurors for our Sovereigne Lord and Lady the King & Queen presents that Elizabeth Howe Wife of James How of Ipswich — the 29th day of May in the forth Year of the Reigne of our Sovereigne Lord and Lady William and Mary by the Grace of God [of God] of England Scottland France and Ireland King and Queen defend'rs of the faith &c: and divers other dayes and times as well before as after certaine detestable Arts called witchcraft & Sorceries wickedly & felloniously hath Used Practised and Exercised at and within the Towne ship of Salem in the County of Essex aforesaid in upon and against one: Marcy Lewis of Salem Villiage Single woman — by which said wicked Acts the said Marcy Lewis — the 29th day of May in the forth Year aboves'd: and divers other dayes & times as well before as after was and is Tortured. Afflicted: Pined Consumed & Tormented and also for sundrey other Acts of witchcraft by the Said Elizabeth Howe Committed & done before and since that Time ag't. the Peace of our Sovereigne Lord and Lady the King & Queen, and ag't the forme of the Statute in that case made and Provided (7)
Witnesses.

Mercy Lewis. Jurat
Mary Wolcott Jurat
Abigall Williams
Ann Putnam Jurat
Sam'll. Pearly & wife Jurat
Sam'll. Pearly & wife Ruth Jurat
Joseph Andrews & wife Sarah Jurat
Jno. Sherrin Jurat
Jos. Safford Jurat
francis Leane Jurat
Abraham fosters wife Lydia J[urat]
Isack Cumins Jun'r

the thirty first day of May in the forth Year of the Reigne of our Sovereigne Lord and Lady William and Mary by the Grace of God of England Scottland. France, and Ireland King and Queen defenders of the faith &c: and divers other dayes and times. as well before as after Certaine Detestable Arts called witchcraft, and Sorceries wickedly and felloniously. hath used Practised and Exercised at and within the Towneship of Salem in the County of Essex afores'd: in upon and against one Mary Wolcott of Salem Villiage Singlewoman by which said wicked arts the said Mary Walcott the 31st day of May in the forth Year as abovesaid, and divers other dayes and times as well before as after was and is Tortured Afflicted Pined Consumed wasted & Tormented and also for sundrey other Acts of witchcraft by said Elizabeth Howe Committed and Done before and since that time, ag't. the Peace. of our Sovereigne Lord & Lady the King and Queen, and against the forme of the Statute in that Case made & Provided. (7)

Mary Wolcott Jurat
Ann Putnam Jurat
Abigall Williams.
Sam'll. Pearly & wife
Ruth Jurat
Joseph Andrews & wife.
Sarah Jurat
Jno. Sherrin Jurat
Jos: Safford. Jurat.
francis Leane. Jurant
Abraham fosters wife Lydia Jurat
Isack Cumins Jun'r. Jurat

Evidence in the court and witnesses against Howe

[edit]

There were many different types of evidence that were used to convict a supposed witch. These were confession, supernatural attributes, the witch's teat or witch's mark (any small skin growth or abnormality found on the body of the accused), anger followed by mischief, and probably most importantly spectral evidence[10] defined by The Witches of Early America as "the supernatural phenomena thought to occur when a vision or 'spectre' of an accused witch appeared to a witness".[11]

Witch examination

Anger followed by mischief is one form of evidence that was brought against Elizabeth Howe. The Perley (sometimes spelled Pearly) family, who had also accused her of afflicting their ten-year-old daughter, blamed the sudden illness of the family's cow upon her.[2] This was due, they claimed, to the fact that they had thwarted Elizabeth Howe's chance of becoming a member of the Ipswich Church. Samuel Perley (or Pearly) stated: "the above said goode how had a mind to joyn to Ipswich Church thai being unsatisfied sent to us to bring in what we had against her and when we had decleared to them what we knew thai se cause to put a stop to her coming into the Church". Samuel went on to explain a few days afterwards his cow suddenly went mad and ran into a pond drowning herself.[2]

Spectral evidence played a key role in the Salem Witch Trials. The Witches of Early America defines spectral evidence as, "the supernatural phenomena thought to occur when a vision or 'spectre' of an accused witch appeared to a witness".[11] The accusation of the Perley family (also spelled Pearly) is not a direct example of when "an accused witch appeared to a witness". However, they did bring forth spectral evidence with the story of their daughter. Apparently she told her parents that when she went near fire or water, "this witch [pulled her] in".[2]

Another accusation of anger before mischief was raised against Elizabeth Howe by her own brother-in-law. From his account we learn that she asked John Howe to go with her to "Salem farmes".[2] He told her that had she been accused of any other thing he would go with her, but because the accusation was witchcraft he "would not for ten pounds", he continued, "If you are a witch tell me how long you have ben [sic] a witch and what mischeve you have done and then I will go with you".[2] His report explains that she "semed to be aingry with me". John owned a sow with six small piglets. Around sunset he recounted the sow "leaped up about [three or four feet high] and [turned about] and gave one [squeak] and fell [down dead]". He went on to say that he cut off the ear of the sow and the hand he used to do this became numb and full of pain for several days after. All of this he blamed upon his sister-in-law Elizabeth How [sic].[2]

Witnesses on behalf of Howe

[edit]

Having witnessed a conversation between Samuel Perley (also spelled Pearly)'s little girl and Elizabeth Howe. Reverend Phillips of Rowley was able to testify in her defense[8] on June 3, 1692. This testimony is taken from the Salem Witchcraft Papers.[2]

The testimony of Samuel Phillips aged about 67, minister of the word of God in Rowly, who sayth, that mr payson (minister of gods word alsoe in Rowley) and my self went, being desired, to Samuel pearly of ipswich to se their young daughter who was viseted with strang fitts & in her fitts (as her father & mother affirmed) did mention good wife How the wife of James Howe Junior of Ipswich, as if she was in the house & did afflict her: when we were in the house the child had one of her fitts but made noe mention of goodwife how; & when the fitt was over & she come to herself, goodwife How, went to the child and took her by the hand & askt her whether she had ever done her any hurt And she answered no never and if I did complain of you in my fitts I know not that I did soe: I further can affirm upon oath that young Samuel Pearly, Brother to the afflicted girle looking out of a chamber window (I and the afflicted child being without dores together) and say to his sister say goodwife Howe is a witch, say she is a witch & the child spake not a word that way, but I lookt up to the window where the youth stood & rebuked him for his boldness to stirr up his sister to accuse the said goodw: How where as she had cleared her from doing any hurt to his sister in both our hearing, & I added noo wonder that the child in har fitts did mention Goodwife Howe, when her nearest relations were soe frequent in expressing theire suspicions in the childs hearing when she was out of her fitts, that the sayd Goodwif How, was an Instrument of mischief to the child.

A colleague of Phillips, Payson of Rowley, was also present at this "encounter" between Elizabeth Howe and the Perley (also spelled Pearly)'s daughter.[8] He added his testimony as a second witness stating, "their afflicted daughter, upon something that her mother spake to her with tartness, presently fell into one of her usuall strange fitts, during which, she made no mention(as I observed)of the above s'd How her name, or any thing relating to her some time after, the s'd how came in."[2]

In her defense, Elizabeth Howe's father-in-law testified to her good nature. He said that she, "[set] a side humain infurmitys as [become] a Christion with Respact to [himself] as a father very dutifully & a wifife to [his] son very carfull loveing obedient and kind Considering his want of eye sight." He concluded his witness by saying, "now desiering god may guide your honours to se a difference between predigous and Consentes I rest yours to Sarve."[2]

Execution

[edit]

Public execution was considered the most severe punishment of the time in Puritan Massachusetts.[12] Convicted witches were hanged on Gallows Hill.[12] Elizabeth Howe was hanged on July 19, 1692, along with Rebecca Nurse, Sarah Good, Sarah Wildes and Susanna Martin.[8]

The execution methods in New England were very similar to those used in England. The condemned would ride to the execution spot with a minister. He[who?] would then elaborate on the saving grace of Jesus Christ and repentance.[12] The minister would also preach a sermon to the crowd that had gathered to watch the execution. Historian Louis P. Masur wrote, "The ritual of execution day required that condemned prisoners demonstrate publicly that they were penitent, and the execution sermons repeatedly pounded the chord of penitence." In an ideal situation the convicted would confess to their crime, alleviating worry from the community that they were sending an unprepared soul to the next life.[12]

Conclusion

[edit]

Elizabeth Howe, Rebecca Nurse, Sarah Good, Sarah Wildes and Susanna Martin were hanged on July 19, 1692, and buried in a crevice on Gallows hill.[8]

Giles Corey (image)

Nineteen people were hanged for witchcraft during the Salem witch trials, and one man, Giles Corey, was pressed to death because he refused to attest to the indictment against him.[13]

In 1709, many were encouraged to join in a petition with Phillip English; they began with approximately twenty-one accused witches and children of the accused; although, later many others added their sentiments. Among these were the daughters of Elizabeth Howe. They requested that their good names be restored and also wanted financial compensation for their losses during the trials. It was not until 1711 that a sum of approximately £598 was distributed among the survivors.[8]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Elizabeth Howe

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Elizabeth Howe (c. 1635 – 19 July 1692) was an English-born settler in the convicted of and executed by hanging during the 1692 . Born near Rowley, , to and Joanna Jackson, Howe immigrated to as a child and married farmer Jr. in 1658, with whom she had six children and resided on a Topsfield farm. Her family endured hardships, including her husband's blindness in middle age, and she faced early suspicions of in 1682 amid disputes over church admission in and neighborhood conflicts, particularly with the Perley family. Arrested on 28 May 1692 following complaints that she spectrally afflicted Salem Village girls such as , , and —causing fits, pinpricks, and other harms—Howe was examined the next day and indicted on 29 June for bewitching complainants through supernatural means, including prior incidents like choking a man with a and sickening . Despite character testimonies from supporters and her consistent denials of guilt—"If it was the last moment I was to live, God knows I am innocent"—the Court of convicted her on unreliable and accuser depositions rooted in longstanding grudges rather than verifiable acts. Howe was hanged on 19 July at Gallows Hill (now identified as Proctor's Ledge) alongside , , , and , becoming one of nineteen individuals executed for in Salem that year; her body was disposed of in an unmarked crevice without ceremony. Her case exemplifies how interpersonal animosities, Puritan fears of the , and procedural flaws relying on unverifiable propelled the trials' miscarriages of .

Early Life and Background

Origins and Immigration

Elizabeth Howe, née Jackson, was born circa 1635 near Rowley in , , to parents William and Joane Jackson. Her family emigrated to the in approximately 1638, when she was about three years old, participating in the Puritan Great Migration of the 1620s–1640s, a period when over 20,000 English settlers, primarily nonconformist Protestants fleeing religious and political pressures under King Charles I, relocated to to establish communities aligned with their Calvinist beliefs. This influx contributed to the rapid expansion of Puritan settlements, with families like the Jacksons adapting to subsistence farming on cleared lands amid challenging environmental and social conditions, including dense forests, harsh winters, and communal governance under colonial charters emphasizing religious orthodoxy.

Family and Residence in Topsfield

Elizabeth Jackson married , a farmer from who had immigrated to , on April 13, 1658, in . The couple had six children—John, Mary, James, Abigail, Deborah, and another—all born in the , reflecting the growing family units common among Puritan settlers establishing roots in . James Howe Sr., Elizabeth's father-in-law, owned property in the region and supported the young family, which helped secure their foothold in the colonial agrarian society. The Howes resided on a in , situated along what is now Linebrook Road near the border, approximately five miles from Salem Village. This location placed them in a community reliant on subsistence farming, rearing, and cultivation, with Topsfield's centered on clearing wooded acreage for crops like corn, rye, and vegetables to sustain households amid harsh environmental and Native American pressures. As , James Howe contributed to land-based livelihoods, though the family endured hardships including crop failures and disputes over property boundaries inherent to expanding Puritan settlements. In line with Puritan social norms, Elizabeth served as the household matriarch, overseeing domestic production such as food preservation, textile work, and child-rearing, while increasingly managing farm labor after James lost his sight around age 50 in the 1680s. This division of roles underscored the interdependent family economy, where women's contributions to household management were essential for survival in isolated rural settings, though legally subordinate to male authority under colonial governance.

Pre-Trial Conflicts and Reputation

Local Disputes and Prior Suspicions

Suspicions of against Elizabeth Howe emerged in the Topsfield and communities as early as 1682, when the approximately ten-year-old daughter of her neighbors and Ruth Perley, named Hannah, began suffering fits, pricking sensations, and other afflictions that she attributed to Howe. The child endured these torments for two to three years before dying, with a local doctor reportedly concluding bewitchment as the cause; this episode was cited as a factor in the church's denial of Howe's membership application around the same period. Subsequent neighborly conflicts reinforced these doubts without resulting in formal charges. After a dispute with Timothy and Perley over boards, their cows yielded scant milk for four days before recovering. Howe expressed doubt about the sturdiness of posts and rails erected with assistance from John Perley, after which many promptly broke, necessitating repairs. Nehemiah Abbott experienced livestock misfortunes—including a choked and a cow that became lame and required aid—following Howe's anger at one of his animals trespassing in her field. Such incidents, absent legal repercussions, nonetheless sustained gossip in the insular Puritan settlements, where Howe's assertive demeanor amplified perceptions of discord as potential malice. Even familial relations harbored suspicions, as evidenced by John How, a relative, attributing the sudden death of his sow and subsequent hand pain to an interaction with her. These pre-1692 strains highlighted relational tensions over property and animals but lacked empirical proof beyond anecdotal claims of supernatural interference.

Community Perceptions in Puritan Society

In Puritan New England, communal order rested on rigid expectations for women's conduct, emphasizing submissiveness, , domestic diligence, and deference to and patriarchal authority as bulwarks against decay and satanic incursion. Outspokenness or contentiousness in women was frequently construed as a failing indicative of inner turmoil or diabolical alliance, eroding social cohesion and inviting suspicion of as a causal mechanism for such deviance. Elizabeth Howe's temperament, marked by a sharp tongue and unwillingness to yield in disputes, clashed with these ideals, cultivating a reputation for non-conformity in her Topsfield and communities well before 1692. Neighbors recounted her as quarrelsome, with interpersonal frictions amplifying perceptions of her as disruptive to harmonious village life. This ill repute manifested concretely when, circa 1687, Ipswich church elders denied her communion privileges amid whispers of prior witchcraft suspicions, citing her behavior as evidence of unregenerate character unfit for full congregational standing. Such pre-existing views underscored a broader pattern where non-conformists like Howe, refusing to temper their dispositions to align with collective fears of spiritual disorder, faced heightened vulnerability compared to those who preemptively conformed through public repentance or deference, thereby reinforcing community bonds. Empirical recollections in early complaints highlighted Howe's decade-old tarnished standing, framing her as emblematic of the independent streak equated with vulnerability to infernal pacts.

Accusation of Witchcraft

Initial Complaints from Accusers

The initial complaints against Elizabeth Howe arose in late May 1692, as the accusations of witchcraft in Salem Village expanded beyond local residents to include individuals from neighboring towns like Ipswich. A warrant for Howe's arrest was issued on May 28, 1692, prompted by claims from several afflicted girls who alleged that her spectral form had appeared to torment them, marking a key escalation in the outbreak that began earlier in the spring with afflictions reported by Betty Parris and Abigail Williams in January. The primary accusers were teenage girls from Salem Village households, including Ann Putnam Jr., , , and , who described physical assaults by Howe's apparition, such as pinching, choking, and pricking with pins—symptoms that coincided with their fits during interrogations. specifically complained that Howe had "pincht her & choakt" her earlier that month. Ann Putnam Jr. stated that Howe had hurt her on three occasions, while charged Howe with "hurting & pinching" her, and claimed repeated hurts along with an attempt by the specter to force her to sign a spectral book. These spectral visions were reported in the context of group examinations, where the girls' convulsions intensified upon Howe's presence or mention. The played a prominent role in advancing such complaints, with , father of Jr., signing multiple formal accusations against suspected witches during this period, reflecting their influence in channeling the girls' testimonies into official proceedings. Earlier local suspicions against Howe, dating back a decade to afflictions claimed by Hannah Perley of around 1682–1685, resurfaced in supporting depositions filed shortly after the May warrant, though these were secondary to the spectral claims driving the immediate action.

Specific Allegations of Affliction

The specific allegations against Elizabeth Howe primarily involved claims of afflictions—apparitions of Howe tormenting the accusers through physical torments such as pinching, , and causing convulsions—reported by a circle of young women in Salem Village during her examination on May 31, 1692. , aged 19, testified that Howe's specter had pinched and hurt her, triggering immediate fits upon Howe's entry into the meetinghouse. similarly claimed repeated harm from Howe's apparition over an extended period, including pinching and that induced severe physical distress. and Ann Putnam Jr. also exhibited fits, shrieking and collapsing, which they attributed to Howe's presence, with Hubbard specifically noting immediate affliction upon seeing Howe. These 1692 claims echoed an earlier accusation from 1682, when Howe was suspected of bewitching the 10-year-old daughter of neighbors and Ruth Perley following a dispute; the reportedly suffered pin pricks under her , unexplained bruises, and recurrent fits, which the Perleys linked to Howe's curse-like wish that a fellow laborer be "choked," after which he experienced a sudden episode with a . Such symptoms were presented as empirical signs of , though reliant on the accusers' subjective reports and spectral testimony, lacking independent corroboration beyond the fits observed in court. Additional testimonies referenced apparitional afflictions on adults, including Joseph Safford's wife, who claimed Howe's specter tormented her with similar pinching and choking, tied to longstanding neighborhood grudges over land and labor disputes in Topsfield. These allegations portrayed Howe as motivated by malice from prior conflicts, manifesting as targeted physical and respiratory torments on children and vulnerable individuals, though no tangible evidence like pins or marks was produced beyond the Perley case's anecdotal bruises.

Arrest and Imprisonment

Issuance of Warrant and Arrest on May 28, 1692

On May 28, 1692, magistrates and , assistants to the governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, issued a warrant for the apprehension of Elizabeth Howe, wife of of and resident of Topsfield. The warrant directed the constable of Topsfield to seize Howe and bring her before the magistrates for examination, charging her with "sundry acts of by her Committed Lately on the bodys" of , , , and of Salem Village, to the "great hurt" of the accusers. This language reflected complaints rooted in the spectral visions and physical torments reported by the afflicted girls, whose testimonies formed the evidentiary basis for the accusation despite lacking tangible proof of maleficium. The warrant's issuance followed standard procedure in the escalating examinations conducted by Hathorne and Corwin, who had already handled dozens of similar cases since , relying on the accusers' fits and claims of spectral assault as under Puritan legal norms influenced by English witchcraft precedents like the . No physical evidence or prior criminal conviction was required; the magistrates accepted the girls' declarations as sufficient to justify , underscoring the trials' departure from empirical standards toward credulity in claims. Howe was apprehended that same day by the Topsfield constable without recorded resistance from her or her family, and conveyed to Salem for impending examination, marking her formal entry into the judicial process amid a wave of over 30 warrants issued in May alone.

Conditions and Preliminary Examination

Following her examination on May 31, 1692, Elizabeth Howe was committed to jail in Salem, where prisoners faced severe deprivations including unheated cells, inadequate food rations, and physical restraints such as iron chains for those deemed flight risks or spectral threats. Overcrowding exacerbated the spread of diseases like and , contributing to the deaths of at least seven accused witches in custody during the trials, though Howe survived until her execution. Family separation was absolute, with visitation restricted and no provisions for children or spouses, leaving Howe's husband, James, to manage their Topsfield farm alone while petitioning authorities for her release on grounds of innocence. Howe's preliminary examination occurred at Nathaniel Ingersoll's tavern in Salem Village before magistrates and , with accusers including , Mary Warren, , , and Jr. present. Upon the proceedings' start, the accusers reportedly fell into violent fits, which temporarily subsided when Howe touched them, only to recur later when they were struck dumb and unable to speak or testify coherently. Hathorne repeatedly charged Howe with afflicting the girls through spectral means and prior acts, such as harming Joseph Herrick's child, Samuel Perley's child, and livestock, prompting her consistent denials of innocence without admission or confession. No or voluntary testimony from Howe supported the allegations, and the session concluded without extracting any self-incriminating statement, binding her over for formal .

Court of Oyer and Terminer Indictments

Elizabeth Howe faced two formal indictments for witchcraft issued by an Essex County grand jury and presented to the Court of Oyer and Terminer on June 29, 1692. The first charged her with employing "detestable arts" of witchcraft to torture, afflict, pinch, and choke Mary Walcott of Salem Village on May 31, 1692, and on divers other occasions before and after that date. The second indictment accused her of using similar diabolical means to torment Mercy Lewis of Salem Village on May 29, 1692, and at other times. These charges aligned with the court's mandate under a special commission established by Governor in May 1692 to adjudicate cases, operating beyond standard procedures by accepting presentments based on accusations of and physical harm as sufficient for proceeding to . The indictments invoked colonial statutes equating with high against and the crown, punishable by death, though they did not explicitly detail a covenant with the devil in the surviving bills of indictment, focusing instead on specific acts of affliction attributed to Howe's agency. Additional allegations in related proceedings referenced sundry acts of , including prior suspicions of diabolical pacts, but the core legal accusations centered on the torment of named victims through unhallowed means.

Prosecution Witnesses and Spectral Evidence

The prosecution in Elizabeth Howe's trial before the Court of Oyer and Terminer presented testimonies primarily from afflicted young women who alleged torment by Howe's spectral apparition. Mary Walcott deposed on May 31, 1692, that Howe had pinched and choked her that month, while Mercy Lewis similarly charged Howe with hurting and pinching her, both falling into fits shortly after Howe's entrance during the examination phase informing the trial. Ann Putnam Jr. claimed Howe had hurt her three times, exhibiting a pin stuck in her hand as a physical demonstration during proceedings. Abigail Williams reported that Howe's specter had hurt her repeatedly and brought her a book, leaving visible prints on her arm. These accounts formed the core of the , consisting of apparitions of Howe's spirit—visible only to the accusers—that allegedly inflicted physical harm through pinching, choking, and other torments, without independent corroboration of the acts themselves. Sarah Bibber further testified on June 30, 1692, that Howe afflicted her, , , and by choking and throwing her down during the examination. Joseph Safford deposed that his wife encountered Howe's apparition peering through a crevice, altering her prior favorable view of Howe and inducing a trance-like state. Howe's indictments on June 29, 1692, specifically charged her with for torturing Walcott on May 31 and Lewis on May 29, relying on these witnesses' claims of affliction as the evidentiary basis. No tangible , such as physical traces of diabolical pacts or witnessed overt acts of maleficium beyond the accusers' reported visions and fits, substantiated the allegations. The testimonies emphasized subjective encounters, with the accusers' physical reactions in —falling into fits upon Howe's gaze—serving to dramatize the purported invisible assaults.

Defense Testimonies and Howe's Denials

During her trial before the Court of on , 1692, Elizabeth Howe presented character witnesses who attested to her longstanding reputation as a pious and dutiful individual without prior indications of malevolent activity. These testimonies emphasized her Christian conduct and neighborly relations, countering the and advanced by the prosecution. Key defense witnesses included James Howe Sr., aged approximately 94, who had cohabited with Elizabeth for 30 years and described her as a loving, dutiful daughter-in-law whose aligned with Christian principles. Joseph Knowlton, aged about 42, and his wife Mary, aged about 32, testified on June 27, 1692, that they had known her for a decade and observed her as forgiving, humble, and honest in dealings. Similarly, Simon Chapman, aged about 48, and Mary Chapman reported on June 25, 1692, familiarity over 9 to 10 years, portraying her as just, faithful, pious, and non-reviling toward accusers. Further testimonies came from Deborah Hadley, aged about 70, who on June 24, 1692, affirmed 24 years of neighborly acquaintance, noting Howe's conscientious and faithful demeanor. Daniel Warner, John , and Sarah Warner, acquainted for over 20 years, stated on June 25, 1692, that her words and actions befitted a good Christian who professed innocence and solicited prayers. Ministers Samuel Phillips, aged about 67, and Edward , in a June 3, 1692, deposition, recounted visiting the afflicted Hannah Perley, where Howe inquired if the girl had been harmed, and Perley initially denied any affliction from her despite familial urging to accuse. Howe herself vehemently denied the witchcraft charges throughout proceedings, invoking divine knowledge of her innocence. At her preliminary examination on May 31, 1692, she declared, "If it was the last moment I was to live, knows I am innocent of any thing in this nature," rejecting claims of apparitions or malefic practices and reiterating her innocence multiple times. These denials persisted into the trial, where she maintained no involvement in supernatural harm.

Execution and Immediate Aftermath

Hanging on July 19, 1692

On July 19, 1692, Elizabeth Howe was executed by hanging at Proctor's Ledge in , together with , , , and , marking the second group of convictions carried out under the Court of Oyer and Terminer. The site, a rocky outcrop below Gallows Hill, was identified through analysis of 17th-century maps, eyewitness testimonies, and geophysical surveys revealing shallow soil unsuitable for burials but consistent with historical descriptions of the execution area. Sheriff oversaw the hangings pursuant to warrants authorizing the executions, with the women carted from jail to the ledge for public spectacle. The condemned were hanged in sequence from a rudimentary scaffold, though primary accounts do not specify the order among the five women. Howe, approximately 55 years old, protested her innocence throughout the ordeal, having earlier declared during examination, "If it was the last moment I was to live, knows I am innocent of anything of this nature," a denial rooted in her consistent rejection of spectral accusations. This stance aligned with behaviors observed among other victims, such as Good's refusal to confess when exhorted by Reverend Nicholas Noyes, underscoring the prisoners' resistance amid coerced admissions expected by authorities. Spectators, numbering in the hundreds and reflective of the Puritan colony's entrenched fears, gathered to witness what officials presented as divine against diabolical threats, with no recorded dissent in contemporary records from figures like , who endorsed the trials' framework. The executions proceeded without interruption, bodies left dangling as warnings before being cut down and disposed of unceremoniously, reinforcing communal beliefs in causation over alternative explanations like natural illness or .

Family Response and Property Disputes

Following Elizabeth Howe's execution by hanging on July 19, 1692, her James Howe Jr., a blind , retained management of their in Farms, averting immediate forfeiture despite the resulting from her conviction for , a capital that typically escheated the convict's property to . James Jr. executed his will on November 19, 1701, distributing the estate primarily to their daughters Mary and , who continued residing at the family home. The family pursued formal redress through petitions to reverse the and secure restitution for losses incurred during Elizabeth's imprisonment and trial. On September 9, 1710, daughters Mary and Abigail petitioned the for reversal of their mother's and reimbursement of £12 to compensate for damages, including costs associated with the proceedings; the petition was approved on , 1711, as part of broader legislative efforts to rectify select witch trial convictions. This action addressed potential inheritance complications for the children, as the had clouded title to any property Elizabeth held or influenced. Community responses revealed divisions impacting the family, with some neighbors offering pre-execution support—such as testimonies from Deborah Hadley and the Warner family attesting to Elizabeth's conscientious dealings—while others, including relative John Howe, had contributed accusatory depositions linking her to afflictions and livestock harms. These rifts, exacerbated by prior property quarrels with accusers like the Perleys over fencing materials, led to social ostracism for the Howes, though records indicate no protracted legal contests over the estate itself.

Historical Context and Interpretations

Puritan Beliefs in Witchcraft and Biblical Justifications

Puritans adhered to a literal interpretation of biblical injunctions against , viewing it as a covenant with that warranted . Exodus 22:18 explicitly states, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," while Deuteronomy 18:10-12 condemns , sorcery, and consulting familiar spirits as abominations. Leviticus 19:31 further prohibits turning to mediums or wizards, reinforcing the theological imperative to eradicate such practices. These verses formed the scriptural foundation for Puritan , as codified in the 1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties, which prescribed death for those entering pacts with the . Prominent Puritan theologians, such as William Perkins in his 1596 A Discourse of Conscience, described witchcraft as the "chief ordinance in Satan's kingdom," enabling the devil to perform apparent miracles through human agents to deceive the godly. Cotton Mather, in his 1689 Memorable Providences Relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions, documented cases of spectral assaults and possessions as evidence of demonic agency, affirming witches' tangible power to harm via invisible means. His 1693 Wonders of the Invisible World further argued that denying witchcraft equated to skepticism of Scripture, citing historical precedents and biblical precedents to justify vigilant prosecution. Increase Mather, while advocating caution against spectral evidence in his 1692 Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits, upheld the reality of witchcraft in Remarkable Providences (1684), insisting that witches could indeed enter diabolical leagues and inflict harm, though convictions required corporeal proof. This doctrinal framework manifested in prior executions across , demonstrating widespread acceptance of as a prosecutable offense. Alse Young became the first colonist executed for on May 26, 1647, in , hanged after accusations of spectral harm via a cloth-doll . Between 1647 and 1663, courts indicted 34 individuals and executed at least 11 for , often based on testimonies of maleficium like unexplained illnesses or livestock deaths. saw executions as early as 1656, with cases like Ann Hibbens in , tried for bewitching goods and executed despite gubernatorial reprieve attempts. These incidents, totaling around 46 witchcraft-related deaths before 1692, reflected a communal equating unconfessed sorcery with existential threats to the covenant community. Puritan society framed within a broader paradigm of , where actively contested the errand into the wilderness. Clerical exhortations portrayed the colonies as a bulwark against infernal forces, with witches as diabolical infiltrators undermining and provoking . Sermons emphasized Ephesians 6:12—"we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers"—to underscore invisible battles, fostering consensus that afflictions signaled escalated demonic incursions. This worldview, rooted in millennial expectations of Satan's wrath before Christ's return, unified and ministers in viewing not as but as verifiable demanding eradication to preserve communal .

Causes of Accusations: Feuds, Superstition, and Social Dynamics

Elizabeth Howe's accusation in 1692 echoed a prior dispute earlier, when neighbors and Ruth Perley claimed she bewitched their 10-year-old Hannah following a quarrel between the families; Hannah experienced fits during which she implicated Howe, though she later recanted upon recovery. This 1682 incident, which did not lead to formal charges but damaged Howe's reputation in , illustrates how personal grudges over mundane conflicts—such as livestock or property boundaries—often escalated into allegations when unexplained illnesses or misfortunes struck accusers. Similar patterns appeared in other cases, where longstanding enmities provided motive for neighbors to interpret adversities through a supernatural lens, prioritizing retaliation over coincidence. Widespread Puritan superstition in late-17th-century framed such feuds as diabolical warfare, with residents viewing spectral afflictions or crop failures as evidence of maleficium rather than natural or human causes; this belief, rooted in biblical injunctions against sorcery, enabled grudge-holders to weaponize against rivals without empirical scrutiny. Howe's case fit this template, as her indictment cited harms to neighbors' children and animals, reviving suspicions from the Perley feud and amplified by testimonies from afflicted girls who claimed her specter tormented them. Even family members, including her brother-in-law, contributed accusations, underscoring how intra-family tensions could merge with communal to target individuals perceived as contentious. Broader social dynamics exacerbated these feuds, as Essex County's frontier position amid (1689–1697) flooded the region with refugees from Native American raids, fostering a where fears of invisible enemies—whether spectral witches or ambushing warriors—blurred into collective anxiety. This wartime trauma, involving brutal attacks that killed hundreds in nearby settlements, spilled over into interpreting local disputes as part of a cosmic battle against , with accusations serving to purge suspected internal threats. While women like Howe comprised most victims (14 of 19 hanged), male accusees such as John Proctor and indicate gender roles amplified but did not solely drive the dynamics, as economic rivalries and social outsiders faced equal peril regardless of sex. Thus, grudges provided the spark, ignited by superstition and fanned by the era's precarious social fabric.

Critiques of Trial Procedures and Spectral Evidence

Spectral evidence, consisting of testimony from accusers claiming visions of the accused's spirit afflicting them in dreams or apparitions, formed a cornerstone of the prosecution in Elizabeth Howe's trial before the Court of in May 1692. Afflicted girls such as and reported seeing Howe's specter tormenting them, which the court under Chief Justice William Stoughton accepted as valid despite the absence of physical corroboration. This evidentiary standard drew immediate contemporary criticism for its reliance on subjective, unverifiable experiences prone to fabrication or , as it inverted traditional burdens of proof by presuming guilt from uncorroborated claims of harm. Prominent Puritan minister articulated key logical flaws in in his October 1692 treatise Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits Personating Men, arguing that the possessed the power to impersonate innocent individuals, thereby deceiving accusers and courts into convicting the godly. Mather conceded it might justify arrests or indictments when supported by other proofs but insisted it alone could not warrant conviction or execution, as "it was not justice to hang a Witch upon Spectral Testimony alone." This critique highlighted the procedure's vulnerability to satanic manipulation, undermining its reliability in distinguishing true witches from the falsely accused, and echoed broader ministerial reservations about the trials' without tangible evidence like maleficium or pacts with the . Trial procedures further exacerbated these issues through coercive tactics and procedural irregularities, such as pressuring defendants to confess via promises of leniency or threats of torment, though Howe steadfastly denied the charges. Confessions, when obtained, often served to validate claims retroactively, but their extraction under duress—amid public examinations rife with leading questions and orchestrated fits from accusers—compromised voluntariness. Critics like Mather noted the absence of emphasizing corroboration, allowing Stoughton's bench to dominate with preconceptions favoring prosecution, which perpetuated convictions like Howe's despite petitions from Essex County ministers urging caution on July 7, 1692. While these critiques exposed systemic flaws, they coexisted with genuine Puritan apprehensions rooted in observed folk magic practices and anomalous illnesses, suggesting not all fears were irrational but rather amplified by evidentiary overreach. Mather's intervention, circulated among colonial leaders, influenced Governor William Phips to suspend the court in October 1692, curtailing further reliance on spectral evidence, though it arrived after Howe's execution on July 19.

Legacy and Modern Reassessments

Post-Trial Reversals and Pardons

In 1697, amid growing remorse over the Salem trials, the proclaimed January 15 as a day of and to atone for the judicial errors committed, including the reliance on that led to executions like that of Elizabeth Howe. Judge , who had presided over some proceedings, publicly confessed his role in the injustices on , 1697, by standing in Boston's South Church to read a statement acknowledging the wrongful convictions and seeking divine forgiveness, though this was a collective acknowledgment rather than individual vindication. By 1710, Howe's daughters, Mary Post and Abigail Howe, petitioned the for reversal of their mother's and compensation for her , citing the lack of substantial evidence and the trials' procedural flaws. This followed the province's broader efforts to address the scandals; on October 17, 1711, the General Court enacted "An Act to Reverse the Attainders of Certain Persons Executed for ," which explicitly reversed convictions and authorized restitution for 22 named individuals, primarily those imprisoned or whose property was seized, but initially excluding some executed victims like Howe whose cases required separate petitions. In response to the Howe family's appeal, the court granted them £25 in restitution on January 23, 1712, effectively vindicating Elizabeth Howe's innocence posthumously and restoring her heirs' legal standing, though without a formal , as pardons applied only to living persons. In the , continued addressing the trials' legacies through legislative actions that encompassed executed victims like Howe. On July 22, 1957, the passed a resolution declaring the proceedings unlawful and affirming the innocence of all those convicted, including the 19 hanged, as a symbolic rectification of historical wrongs. This built on earlier reversals but lacked specificity for unnamed cases; a more comprehensive measure came in October 2001, when Governor signed a bill exonerating all remaining unaddressed victims of the 1692-1693 trials, effectively including Howe among those fully cleared by modern standards, though her 1712 restitution had already provided family-level closure. Unlike survivors or the last unexonerated convict, Elizabeth Johnson Jr., who received a targeted in 2022 after efforts, Howe's status as an executed victim precluded further processes, with reversals focusing instead on nullification and reparations.

Scholarly Debates on Hysteria vs. Rational Fears

Scholars have long debated whether the stemmed from collective psychological or from fears deemed rational within the prevailing cultural and evidentiary framework of late 17th-century . The interpretation, popularized by Marion Starkey in her 1949 book The Devil in Massachusetts, frames the events as a contagion of irrational driven by adolescent fits and spectral visions, akin to modern , with little regard for the accused's prior behaviors or community tensions. This view, however, has faced criticism for oversimplifying the trials as pathological aberration while discounting the sincerity of participants' beliefs in as a causal agent of harm, a perspective reinforced by contemporary legal and theological norms. Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, in Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft (1974), shifted emphasis from to socio-economic fractures, arguing that accusations arose from longstanding factional rivalries in Salem Village, particularly between pro- and anti-ministerial groups amid land disputes and economic pressures following . Their analysis posits that envy and power struggles, rather than undifferentiated delusion, channeled suspicions into witchcraft charges, with figures like Elizabeth Howe targeted partly due to her family's disputes with neighbors over property and livestock losses dating to the 1680s—such as the unexplained deaths of Joseph Safford's pigs in 1691, attributed to her malice. This socio-political lens critiques pure models by highlighting empirical patterns of accusation along fault lines of and community status, evidenced in court records showing Howe's prior complaints for bewitching animals and children. Revisionist scholarship further challenges the hysteria narrative by underscoring the rationality of fears given the era's causal attributions, where unexplained misfortunes—like failures, illnesses, or deaths—were empirically linked to interpersonal animosities and interpreted as maleficium under a integrating natural and supernatural causation. Chadwick Hansen's Witchcraft at Salem (1969) contends that accusations reflected genuine perils perceived through accumulated testimonies of harm, not baseless panic, noting precedents for in and the accused's reputations for occult-adjacent practices, such as Howe's longstanding suspicion for causing ailments via curses. Recent analyses question the portrayal of victims as uniformly innocent, pointing to archival of pre-trial about Howe's "familiar spirit" and family feuds, suggesting accusations built on observable patterns rather than spontaneous . These views argue that dismissing Puritan fears as irrational imposes modern secular , ignoring how, within their evidential horizon, explained correlations between disputes and harms more coherently than coincidence. Critics of academia's bias toward pathological explanations, often rooted in 20th-century Freudian or secular frameworks, note that such interpretations underplay primary sources' consistency—accusers provided detailed, non-contradictory accounts of torments—and overlook how trials halted not from hysteria's dissipation but from evidentiary reforms like barring testimony after 1692. This causal realism posits that fears were proportionate to the data available: repeated, village-wide reports of fits, livestock deaths, and assaults following quarrels with suspects like Howe, who denied but could not disprove the attributions under the period's ontological assumptions. While claims lack empirical validation today, the debates highlight how socio-economic stressors amplified pre-existing suspicions into legal action, rendering the episode less a fit of madness than a flawed but worldview-consistent response to perceived threats.

Cultural Depictions and Memorials

Elizabeth Howe has been depicted in historical literature focused on the , particularly through primary trial records rather than fictionalized narratives. Sidney Perley's 1911 publication, A Short History of the Salem Village Witchcraft Trials, Illustrated by a Verbatim Report of the Trial of Mrs. Elizabeth Howe, reproduces court documents from her May 1692 examination and trial, framing her as a victim of unsubstantiated accusations based on and neighbor disputes. This work, drawing directly from County court archives, counters later romanticized portrayals by emphasizing the procedural flaws, such as reliance on testimonies of afflicted girls claiming spectral attacks, without endorsing claims. Broader cultural representations of the trials, including films like (1957 and 1996 adaptations), incorporate composite victims inspired by figures such as Howe but prioritize dramatic elements over individual accuracies, often amplifying themes of innocence amid hysteria while omitting trial specifics like Howe's defense against charges of afflicting livestock and children. Such depictions, influenced by Arthur Miller's allegory to McCarthyism, tend to homogenize victims as symbols of injustice, potentially overlooking evidentiary contexts like Howe's prior 1686 complaint against Hutchinson for slander, which fueled local enmities. Memorials to Howe center on Salem sites acknowledging execution victims. The Proctor's Ledge Memorial, dedicated by the City of Salem on July 19, 2017—the 325th anniversary of her hanging—features a granite wall with engraved names of the 19 executed, including Howe alongside , , , and , marking the confirmed site via archaeological and documentary evidence. This public acknowledgment, supported by the University of Virginia's Documentary Archive, prioritizes historical restitution over Puritan-era justifications, though it reflects modern consensus on miscarriages of rather than reevaluating beliefs empirically. A separate memorial stone in Salem honors Howe specifically as a trial victim, often visited in guided tours contextualizing her Topsfield origins and family pleas for clemency. Her symbolic grave marker on further perpetuates this recognition, noting her English birth circa 1637 and execution at age 55.

References

  1. https://historyofmassachusetts.org/elizabeth-howe-salem/
  2. https://salem.lib.virginia.edu/n72.html
  3. https://historicipswich.net/2024/07/30/the-witchcraft-trial-of-elizabeth-howe/
  4. https://historicipswich.net/2025/07/30/the-witchcraft-trial-of-elizabeth-howe/
  5. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jackson-4419
  6. https://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2008/05/elizabeth-jackson-howe.html
  7. https://www.geni.com/people/Elizabeth-Howe-Salem-Witch-Trials/6000000006577241343
  8. https://historicipswich.net/stories-from-topsfield/
  9. https://escholarship.org/content/qt0c55n489/qt0c55n489_noSplash_3612e40cfa0eb04e40b7e2438774f688.pdf
  10. https://twu.edu/history/ibid/previous-ibid-issues/ibid-a-student-history-journal-volume-15-spring-2022/review-elizabeth-reis-damned-women-sinners-and-witches-in-puritan-new-england/
  11. https://salemhauntedadventures.com/the-tragic-life-and-death-of-elizabeth-howe-during-the-salem-witch-trials/
  12. https://www.congregationallibrary.org/salem-witchcraft-trials-research-guide
  13. https://24andmoreblog.com/2019/09/18/elizabeth-jackson-howe/
  14. https://salemwitchmuseum.com/locations/proctors-ledge-memorial/
  15. https://news.virginia.edu/content/uvas-help-salem-finally-discovers-where-its-witches-were-executed
  16. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/15/salem-witch-trials-hangings-location-confirmed-proctors-ledge
  17. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/asa_good.htm
  18. https://salem.lib.virginia.edu/n94.html
  19. https://salem.lib.virginia.edu/d1e132.html
  20. https://lastwordsoftheexecuted.com/excerpt/
  21. https://chs.vcu.edu/media/chs/documents/PaperforResearchFellows.pdf
  22. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/54042/pg54042-images.html
  23. https://pilgrimandshire.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/a-puritan-view-of-witchcraft/
  24. https://famous-trials.com/salem/2074-asal-math
  25. http://www.columbia.edu/~lmg21/Supernatural/Readings/Cotton_Mather_Wonders_of_the_Invisible_World_%281693%29.pdf
  26. https://collections.museumofthebible.org/artifacts/64155-cases-of-conscience-concerning-witchcraft-and-evil-spirits-personating-men
  27. https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/history/witches.htm
  28. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/influence-of-the-puritan-religion-on-the-salem-witch-trials.php
  29. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/a-brief-history-of-the-salem-witch-trials-175162489/
  30. https://guides.bpl.org/salemwitchtrials/accusersandaccused
  31. https://www.thecollector.com/what-caused-the-salem-witch-trials/
  32. https://gsas.harvard.edu/news/colloquy-podcast-snare-devil-what-really-caused-salem-witch-crisis
  33. https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2020/08/evidence-from-invisible-worlds-in-salem/
  34. https://thehistoryjunkie.com/elizabeth-howe-trial-and-execution/
  35. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-spectral-evidence-3528204
  36. https://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44539342.pdf
  37. https://salemwitchmuseum.com/salem-witch-trials-chronology/
  38. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/last-convicted-salem-witch-is-finally-cleared-180980516/
  39. https://www.nytimes.com/1949/08/21/archives/the-salem-witch-trialsa-study-in-mass-hysteria-the-devil-in.html
  40. https://daily.jstor.org/caused-salem-witch-trials/
  41. https://www.academia.edu/33874823/Causes_of_the_Salem_Witch_Trials
  42. https://retrospectjournal.com/2021/04/04/dark-magic-and-witchcraft-a-reasonable-fear-the-rationale-behind-witchcraft-belief-in-early-modern-europe/
  43. https://you.stonybrook.edu/crisisandcatharsis/2020/08/13/historical-interpretations-of-the-salem-witch-trials-1692-with-anika-choudhury/
  44. https://www2.rivier.edu/journal/rcoaj-spring-2007/j90-purdy-salem-trials.pdf
  45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/492670
  46. https://jaapl.org/content/41/2/294
  47. https://k12database.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2012/05/SalemWitchTrials1.pdf
  48. https://www.socialstudies.com/blog/learning-from-the-salem-witch-trials-polarization-fear-and-reconciliation/
  49. https://archive.org/details/shorthistoryofsa00perl
  50. https://historyofmassachusetts.org/proctors-ledge-memorial/
  51. https://salemhauntedadventures.com/salem-photo-stream/memorial-stone-for-elizabeth-howe-victim-of-the-salem-witch-trials/
  52. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/8293/elizabeth-how
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.