Vexed with Devils: Manhood and Witchcraft in Old and New England

The subtitle of Erika Gasser's Vexed with Devils: Manhood and Witchcraft in Old and New England might more appropriately be Gender and Witchcraft-Possession in Old and New England. Gasser uses gender as a category of analysis to examine early modern English and colonial cases of possession between 1564 and 1700. Using published pamphlets of demonic possession and obsession almost exclusively, Gasser argues that gender, particularly issues of manhood, was integral to how both demoniacs and those accused of causing the possession were treated. Among other things, Gasser identifies the pamphlets written about possession cases as forums for determining who had authority about the meaning and treatment of possession. Her secondary argument is that there was more similarity than difference in concepts of manhood and patriarchy on both sides of the Atlantic.Historians of early modern England, as well as scholars of witchcraft and magic, will be familiar with the territory Gasser covers. Her sources and case studies are well-known and have been explored extensively by other scholars, but she introduces a new perspective by examining the gendered aspects of the discourse surrounding possession and dispossession, and by interpreting the “gendered cultural meanings” of the pamphlet literature (8). This augments the previous work done by historians on the religious and political motivations of the pamphlet authors, such as Anne Reiber De Windt's “Witchcraft and Conflicting Visions of the Ideal Village Community” (1995), Marion Gibson's Possession, Puritanism and Print (Cambridge, 2006), and Mary Beth Norton's In the Devil's Snare (Vintage, 2002). To my knowledge, there is no new archival research. Private correspondence of the pamphlet authors and their readers, if available, would have added a further dimension to her analysis.For nonspecialist readers, Gasser carefully outlines the characteristics of the possessed, providing many examples and quotations. Detailed explanations, combined with the absence of dense gender theory, make her work equally accessible to undergraduates and the interested public. Typical demoniacs displayed convulsive fits, demonstrated extraordinary strength, spoke in strange voices and in languages unknown to the demoniac, saw apparitions, had aversion to prayer and other religious elements, and vomited bizarre items such as pins and nails. The “possession script” that was developed by the discourse, in turn, affected the performance of possession (9). Gasser points out that the performance of possession was culturally constructed, but without giving the reader any hints as to how that performance evolved. How much was the development of that discourse affected by gender?The male authors of the pamphlet literature were interested in providing moral instruction at the same time that they were reinforcing their own personal views of Protestantism and politics. Similar to those who wrote pamphlets in conjunction with witchcraft trials, the writers of possession pamphlets used the events to put forward their own political or religious platforms. That gendered language was employed by the authors, both implicitly and explicitly, is no surprise when one considers that all of the pamphlets were written by educated males who had a strong interest in upholding the patriarchal authority of the era. As Gasser points out, “power, patriarchy, and claims to legitimate authority” were embedded in the narratives surrounding possession. In fact, she seems surprised to see that “where we do not expect to see manhood” we learn “that gender fed the languages of power and authority” (9, 12). But patriarchy, by definition, is gendered. This is even more relevant when one takes into consideration the exclusive male authorship of the literature and the fact that 65 percent of the demoniacs investigated were young females.Information on what it meant to be a man in the seventeenth century is interwoven into the several case studies. A reader new to the subject of gender might find it more helpful to have some of this information up front to more fully understand what was at stake in the maintenance of patriarchal authority at this moment in time. For the most part, Gasser assumes that her reader is familiar with the intricacies of early modern manhood and broader gender issues. At one point, Gasser refers to “gender's malleability” without delving further into this fascinating aspect of early modern gender (11).The book contains five chapters, some of which provide general background information, whereas others focus on specific cases. Chapter 1, “Discerning Demonic Possession and Witchcraft-Possession in Early Modern England,” examines the possession scripts as documented in the pamphlets. Gasser maintains that the authors had an interest in a happy ending to possession cases, thereby restoring patriarchal authority to an otherwise disorderly experience.Chapter 2 offers a clear and concise narrative of the well-known witches of Warboys case. Gasser convincingly argues that John Samuel, who along with his wife and daughter was accused of witchcraft, was unmade as a man in order to convict him as a witch. His roles as head of household, husband, and father were undermined by Robert Throckmorton, the father of the afflicted girls. Disruptions of gender and social order were common to cases of possession, and the struggle between Samuel and Throckmorton effectively presented the former as a less-than-proper man, which supported his guilt as a witch. Samuel's authority over his wife and daughter was contested and ultimately transferred to Throckmorton, but Gasser downplays the role that Throckmorton's higher social status played in this drama. Paradoxically, the destruction of individual family patriarchy actually reinforced the broader patriarchy of society.Chapter 3 offers a close reading of the literature surrounding the war of words between the Puritan minister John Darrell, who engaged in the dispossession of demoniacs in England, and Samuel Harsnett, an Anglican chaplain ranting against both Puritans and Catholics. Gasser examines their pamphlet war's gendered use of language, with which each of the two men attempted to challenge the manhood and manly authority of the other. Verbal attacks were based on unruly passions, references to unmanly occupations, comparisons to Catholic exorcists, and association with weak women and youths. Gasser's presentation of gender as an element of (male) social order as opposed to (female) disorder adds another dimension to the previous assessments of this case in terms of politics and religion, and it contributes a nuanced interpretation to Harsnett and Darrell's competition for patriarchal authority.In chapters 3 and 4, Gasser revisits transatlantic continuities in New England in relation to the renowned Salem witchcraft trials. Chapter 3 focuses on the former minister of Salem Village, George Burroughs, who was accused and hanged as a witch. Gasser highlights how accusers and the men who recorded the affair used issues of manhood to transform Burroughs from a minister into a witch. His failure as a husband, in both lack of care and excessive control of his wives, contributed to his image as a failed minister who did not provide sufficient care to his flock. His position as a male authority made his shortcomings even more pertinent to his guilt. Gasser points out that wife beating in and of itself was not a provocation for accusations of witchcraft, but once the suspicion of witchcraft was raised, elements that were antithetical to proper manhood were added to the mix—similar to how aspects of improper womanhood were raised after initial charges of maleficium were made in witchcraft cases.Chapter 4 reviews the conflict between Cotton Mather, who supported the decisions made in the Salem trials, and Robert Calef, a Boston merchant who was skeptical about Mather's beliefs in possession as well as in his right to interpret the afflictions. Gasser highlights how issues of credit, trade, and manly honor were employed in attempts to unman the opponents. Mather's attempts at forwarding his “superior reputation, learning, and authority” were ultimately used to reinforce the unmanly attributes of “immoderation, arrogance, and ambition” (149–50).The pamphlets discussed also inform the reader about female bodies and who had power over them. On more than one occasion, Gasser raises the issue of “unruly bodies” and the contest to determine who had authority to discipline them, but more information on the leaky bodies of female demoniacs and how and why that threatened the men in charge would have been welcome. The treatment of the victims, whether to prove fraud or for their deliverance, was often penetrative and sexual. In the case of Joan Jorden, for example, one of the male authorities attempted to open her clenched jaw with his dagger and a key. A stiff rush was thrust into her nostril up to her brain and water was poured into her mouth. Martha Brossier was pricked with long pins. Mary Glover had a long pin, which had been heated over a candle, shoved up her nose. In other cases, the young women were tied to chairs and physically held down by several men at a time. Gasser does not offer any gendered analyses of these psychological rapes of victims by male physicians and clergy. In the Warboys case, the author directs our attention to the aspect of scratching a witch to neutralize her power, commenting that “the efficacy of the scratching test resided in the truths held and revealed by the women's bodies,” but she does not elaborate on what those truths were or how or why they operated (52).In some instances, Gasser confuses the difference between the agency of the performer of possession and the mandate of the author of the pamphlet. For example, fourteen-year-old Margaret Hurdman obsessed about luxurious undergarments while possessed, which Gasser refers to as a pedagogical performance. She argues that the author of the published narrative, George More, chose to include this element of Hurdman's fits as an example of female pride. But the actual performance was designed by Hurdman. Where is the evidence that the men involved were directing Hurdman's actions? Gasser focuses on the religious aspects of the situation and ignores the sexual undercurrents of Hurdman's detailed description of petticoats and farthingales. Likewise, the narrative of Mary Glover's performance is considered an opportunity for the men in charge to restore proper order, but the actions were her own. Possibly Glover's return to normal social expectations was more important to her reputation as a female than it was to the male actors' interest in patriarchy. Also of interest, but insufficiently discussed, is Glover's apparent need to cooperate with patriarchal authority. Gasser acknowledges that Glover's body “became a battleground” but holds back from a deeper analysis concerning “the power to control and declare bodies' meaning” and how that reflects on manhood (36).Gasser consistently presents the performance of the afflicted demoniacs as fraudulent and staged, which could be viewed as limiting the cultural understanding of possession and the spirit world in general, as the authors of the pamphlets were not only establishing their manhood in relation to the demoniacs and other men but also to the male demons who invaded the bodies of the young women under their control. In the current political climate, this understanding of gender as the foundation of (patriarchal) authority and legitimacy is particularly relevant to what is at stake for political players and, more importantly, to what is at stake for the broader citizenship who still suffer the repercussions of the performance of manhood.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.