Summary
Chapter 4: Salem Town and Salem Village: The Dynamics of Factional Conflict
The four ministers were the immediate source of conflict, but not the “ultimate source of factionalism” (80).
The Two Factions: A Profile
Church Membership: There was a clear connection between membership in the Salem Village church and support for Parris.
Wealth: The richer men of Salem Village opposed Parris by roughly a margin of two-to-one.
Geography: Those who lived closer to Salem Town opposed Parris by a ratio of six-to-one.; those who lived in more remote parts supported him. There were larger individual landholdings on the anti-Parris side.
Commercial Town, Agricultural Village: The Seeds of Discord
Salem Town was a dominant force in the life of the Village, not just in fact but in quality. After 1660, the Town entered its prosperous, mercantile years of expansion. It was gaining closer relations with London and the broader trading orbit, and was closer to resembling Boston. Relative wealth grew, and the merchants were propelled to the top of the social hierarchy.
The farmers of the Village, who were about ⅕ of the Town’s total population in the 1660s-1700, started to see that agriculture was a declining industry. Additionally, Salem Town and Boston with their merchant class and international orientation “spawned a style of life and a sensibility decidedly alien to the pre-capitalist patterns of village existence” (89).
The Village was very vulnerable to change. It did not have a town center of a common and a square of houses; the lack of a systematic layout made the Village seem random. There was also population turnover and a diminishing amount of land. Villagers could not easily expand or generate new settlements in nearby territory.
Geography was not the only thing that separated the Town and the Village. For example, the Villagers complained that they had to participate in military watch in the Town miles away.
By the 1660s, the Villagers “came to feel both exploited and neglected by the Town” (92).
The Development of Village Factionalism
Not everyone was hostile to the Town, however. Some Villagers benefited from the changes happening there, and it was these divisions that truly led to the factionalism in the Village. By the 1670s, "proximity to the Town, and even a direct involvement in its economic life, repeatedly emerged as a determining factor in the divisions which plagued the Village" (92).
Thus, the problems in Salem Village were not actually a problem between Town and Village; rather, there were divisions within both. The Town had its own problems with the merchant class, and in the Village many inhabitants were excited about the new commercial opportunities.
In terms of agriculture, the Village was crucial to the Town because it supplied food. However, agriculture was “being pursued under certain adverse conditions” (94). The Villagers on the Town side had advantages in terms of land and access to market, meaning they “had a crucial edge in supplying the needs of Salem Town, and, to a limited degree, the broader Atlantic market of which it was a part” (94). The Villagers on the opposite side, then, were at a disadvantage.
The Ipswich Road: An Anti-Parris Paradigm
The eastern section of the Village had most of the non-agricultural economic activity. Ipswich Road was the boundary between the Town and the Village and ran past, not into, the Village. Those Villagers who lived along the Road were exposed to the Town and its concerns. There were four taverns along it, and those adjoining Villagers came into contact with a wide variety of people and progressions. There was a strong anti-Parris sentiment along this road.
The Village Church: A Pro-Parris Paradigm
The new Village church promised more than community—it also was a “potential counterweight, spiritual and political, to the unfamiliar developments which were gaining such force so near at hand”(98). It provided solace for some, most of them middle-class residents of the Village. It became almost a bulwark against the wealthiest Villagers. Of the 29 non-church members who signed the pro-Parris petition, almost all of them were the poorest citizens. Thus, the poorer Villagers and middle-class church members were a coalition in support of Paris, but were a more vulnerable group than the anti-Parris Villagers.
The Road seemed like an affront to people who felt like the Village was menaced by the Town and its interest. The multiple taverns were also problematic, as taverns were often viewed as destabilizing to social stability.
Village Factionalism: A Wider Perspective
Boyer and Nissenbaum ask again how this dispute between rival factions became so bitter and deadly, wondering why the economic issues even became so “vindictive and implacable” (103) in the first place.
There were important issues at stake, yes, but the intensity surrounding them seems too elevated; thus, the historians suggest that there was actually a larger question about the nature of the community and what it ought to be.
Puritans distrusted the individual as well as private will, and advocated scrutinizing and regulating all facets of individual behavior. The community’s health was at stake; its future lay in the balance. Yet by the end of the 17th century, this attitude had been eroding, and by the mid-18th century “the fundamental questions as to the nature and structure of the social order had been resolved—and resolved on the side of individual freedom” (105).
The growing commercialization was a clear threat to the nature of farm life with its seasonal rhythms, and thus a threat to social stability and continuity. It is not as simple as a conflict between capitalists (the anti-Parris side) and Puritans (the pro-Parris side), since the Puritan relationship to capitalism was complicated, the sides seemed to have more similarities than differences, and the pro-Parris side was often intrigued by what was happening around the Town and economic change and growth. It is a helpful way to begin to see these conflicts, though, and the historians probe why that is the case.
Why Salem Village?
These conflicts were not only present in Salem in the 1690s, so why Salem Village in terms of the Witch Trials? The historians locate the answer in 1) the physical setting: the Town was right there on its borders, and the Village was not very remote and could not ignore the Town; 2) lack of autonomy: the Town controlled the Village’s institutions; 3) taste of independence; 4) lack of power in the Town’s politics; and 5) a weak stick in Boston.
Overall, what confronted the people of Salem Village was not “deviants,” but rather “a group of people who were on the advancing edge of profound historical change” (109).
Chapter 5: Two Families: The Porters and the Putnams
In 1644, two of the most important men in the Village were John Putnam, 65, and John Porter, 48. Both were prosperous, both had five sons and three who survived. They were from the same part of England and for all intents and purposes looked like they had a good deal in common. Yet by the 1690s, they were in fervent opposition to each other, following very divergent paths. The Porters were anti-Parris while the Putnams were pro-Parris, and both of the families were staunch and unwavering in their stance.
The Putnams’ approach was “bluff, direct, and obvious” (115) while the Porters’ was behind the scenes. Ann Putnam was one of the most afflicted girls, and many members of the Putnam family were accusers and involved in the prosecution of witches. The Porters threw their influence behind those opposed to the Trials, but they did so in a way that was cautious and indirect. The patriarch at the time of the Trials, Israel Porter, only accused one witch, and it was Rebecca Nurse, a person on good terms with the pro-Parris faction.
So what pushed these two families, seemingly so alike, apart? First, the Porter lands were on the Town side of the Village, and they had a much more diversified economic tableau. John Porter revealed his fundamental affiliation with the Town, and he figured much more prominently in Town government and church affairs. He was in spirit a member of the Town.
The second generation strengthened the ties to the Town. Israel Porter was a member in full communion of the Salem Church and was also a Town selectman. The Porter daughters married Townsmen. One of them was Daniel Andrew, a major landowner and presence in the Village—its fourth wealthiest man. His loyalties, ambition, and employment linked him to the Town, and he was also elected a Town selectman.
The Porters were some of the largest landowners and taxpayers in the Village, but “they were all, by inclination and marital ties, Townsmen” (122). They are emblematic of how “a combination of economic and social interests, rooted initially, perhaps, in an accident of geography, flowered into a distinctive political orientation (and even the distinct pattern of life) we have summed up in the terse and opaque term ‘anti-Parris’” (123).
The Putnams, by contrast, had land nearer the interior. Their land was less arable and one major attempt to turn their liability into an asset failed—an iron-smelting endeavor never worked out for them, and almost turned them into a laughingstock and public nuisance. The family was forced back to its near total reliance on agriculture, and as time passed the land had to be divided up among more and more individuals.
The Putnams were gradually frozen out of Town politics, and with one exception, did not form marital or commercial ties with the Town. The consolidation of power in a merchant class in the Town “severely reduced and finally almost silenced the Putnam voice in Town politics” (129). Nathaniel Putnam and Captain John Putnam were the two biggest victims of this move, serving as selectmen fewer and fewer times.
The family also began directing their energies into Village affairs, but remained part of an almost dissident faction within the Town. The Porters were moving to the Town’s political center by the 1680s. All of this opened up into a real division on the eve of the Salem Witch Trials.
Another man, Phillip English, became a powerful ally of the Porter clan. He was “representative of the economic and social transformations which were overtaking Salem—and Massachusetts as a whole—in the late seventeenth century” (131). As a powerful merchant, his appearance as a Town selectman along with the Porters in 1692 “was an event of considerable symbolic importance” (132).
Normal politics came to a halt, unsurprisingly, with the Trials. Both Daniel Andrew and Philip English were accused of witchcraft, but both escaped. Their Town allies were on the defensive now, and five new men were elected to the Town council. The moderator of the special election meeting was Captain John Putnam, and for a brief moment, it seemed "possible that Salem might again become the kind of community which valued men like the Putnams and the things for which they stood” (132).
Analysis
In these two chapters, Boyer and Nissenbaum set out to uncover the reasons for such a heightened amount of factionalism in Salem Village. As we already learned, the Village and the Town had a complicated history, with the former nursing an inferiority complex and striving for, and failing to attain, independence. A series of four complicated ministers, with the fourth pushing forward with ordination even when some of the congregation was not quite ready to pursue that, added more fuel to the fire. The historians explain that what undergirded all of this was the Village’s wariness about the larger changes happening economically and, by extension, socially and religiously. The rise of Salem Town as a center for commerce “spawned a style of life and a sensibility decidedly alien to the pre-capitalist patterns of the village existence” (88).
Yet, as Boyer and Nissenbaum explain, this isn’t exactly a Town-versus-Village story; after all, the Trials were in and of the Village more than any other place. The reality is that many Villagers were attracted to the Town and what it represented, setting them apart from their fellow Villagers who looked on with suspicion. This is what truly “produced the factional lines which from the beginning divided the Village” (92).
There were roughly two distinct factions leading up to, and persisting during, the Trials—the anti-Parris faction and the pro-Parris faction. The historians reveal some of the commonalities among the members of each side, noting that the wealthier, commerce-oriented Villagers tended to oppose Parris and the agriculture-oriented Villagers tended to support him. Those who lived along the Ipswich Road, an important thoroughfare between the Town and the Village as well as a space populated by several taverns, were anti-Parris. Those who were very active in the church, most of them middle class, were pro-Parris, for “the church which the Village lacked before 1689 promised more than religious solace; it loomed also as a potential counterweight, spiritual and political, to the unfamiliar developments which were gaining such force so near at hand” (98). Boyer and Nissenbaum further delve into the factionalism by taking a close look at two powerful families in the Village, the Porters and the Putnams.
Those families, with one notable exception, were split between the pro and anti-Parris sides, with the Putnams supporting the minister and the Porters working, primarily behind the scenes, to question his leadership. Importantly, the historians do not claim that the families were engaged in any sort of petty squabble or economic rivalry; rather, there were serious concerns about the character of the Village itself. Philip J. Greven, Jr. praises the chapters on the families (Chapter 6 also deals with them), writing “[the] chapters devoted to these families are superb as they explore the economic and political ties of the wealthy Porters to Salem Town and examine the declining fortunes and extrapolate the economic and psychological pressures bearing down upon the Putnams, exemplary Villagers. Here, at last, it is possible to discern some of the implications for individuals of the general patterns of economic decline through successive generations of partible inheritances characteristic of this and other Essex County communities. While the central role of the Putnam family in the witchcraft accusations always has been evident, never before have the details of their lives and relationships been explored with the evidence and the imaginative perception of this study.”
Richard Latner also praises aspects of the text, but offers a criticism of the emphasis on the families and their engagement with larger economic changes sweeping the region at the expense of other concerns: “Its emphasis on factional conflict rooted in economic transformation did little to explain women's special prominence in Salem and New England witchcraft incidents. And little was said about events beyond Salem. Did the geographic and economic conditions revealed within Salem operate in Andover or the more than twenty other Massachusetts communities that participated in 1692? Perhaps these communities, too, were involved in the turmoil provoked by commercial capitalism; if so, Boyer and Nissenbaum presented no evidence.”
