The Conquest of New Spain

In class we watched the film: Wrestling with Manhood: Boys, Bullying, & Battering. In the film, researchers shared the data they had gathered on professional wrestling. The questions of "Why are people watching?" and "How is it affecting society?" were asked. Before I say anything else let me just say that I've never watched any professional wrestling. I was never allowed as a child and I don't recall ever wanting to watch it either. I understand that it is completely fake, fiction, a man soap opera-whatever. From what I saw in class I was appalled and disgusted. I was angered by the violence against women and how they were merely "sexual play things." I was also completely disgusted with the suggestions that an "unconscious woman likes what happens to her." The dumbest thing I saw was a woman told to get on her hands and knees and bark like a dog. She was then forced to strip out of her clothes. I am more angry at these women than anything else. WHY would they subject themselves to this kind of treatment?!! REAL OR FAKE, I don't care. They are making the statement that it is OK for domestic violence against women because it "seems deserved." The thing is-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS NOT FUNNY-REAL OR FAKE. When you know someone or IF you are someone who has been in this kind of situation, funny would never be the word to describe such a horrific occurrence. I am so angered by these women. I just want to tell them to get some self-esteem, grow up, and help fight AGAINST domestic violence towards women! Okay...now that I'm done venting....The Conquest of New Spain....

The reason that we watched the above said film was to show an idea of masculinity, what it means to be a man. There is something in this idea of conquest that just attracts people's attention. Why do we gravitate towards images of violence? This idea of conquering is all about dominance, having the power, inviting fear and respect, and the preservation of self. It also includes retribution and bragging rights. What drives people to dominate? Greed, seems to be the most obvious answer. However, there is also the religious reason, such as the spreading of Christianity, like in the book. Security and knowledge are also other possible reasons that there is a need to dominate. And hand in hand with all this violence is sex. In class we discussed how America was portrayed as a naked, seductive, and voluptuous woman. This was a virgin land and they were on a sexual conquest. So...there is something to both aspects, violence and sex, where through the domination and possession of others' bodies, this conquering is achieved.

In the book, Diaz tells how Cortes and his men captured both Montezuma and Mexico. Here that same conquering idea is displayed over and over again. On page 225 Diaz describes Montezuma: "The great Montezuma was about forty years old, of good height, well proportioned, spare and slight, and not very dark, though of the usual Indian complexion. He did not wear his hair long but just over his ears, and he had a short black beard, well-shaped and thin. His face was rather long and cheerful, he had fine eyes, and in his appearance and manner could express geniality or, when necessary, a serious composure. He was very neat and clean and took a bath every afternoon. He had many women as his mistresses...and when he had intercourse with any of them it was so secret that only some of his servants knew of it. He was quite free from sodomy. The clothes he wore one day he did not wear again till three or four days later." Throughout this entire description we see Diaz feminizing Montezuma by his appearance, his grooming habits, and in his sexual life. This is a way of "conquering" or putting down the ideal of Montezuma's masculinity. Apparently, "real" men at that time, or the "masculine man" were dirty with long beards, and had loud sex with women so that everyone could hear...Yes, that screams masculine to me...This idea of stripping masculinity or bullying can be see everywhere from the elementary school playground to the ring of the professional wrestlers. It seems that by putting others down they make themselves appear more of a manly man.

The violence in the narrative seems to be everywhere! Diaz describes what kind of things he saw while there. On page 239, he says: "A little apart from the cue stood another small tower which was also an idolhouse or true hell...a little way off was a place of sacrifice, all bloodstained and black with smoke. There were many great pots and jars and pitchers in this house, full of water. For it was here that they cooked the flesh of the wretched Indians who were sacrificed and eaten by the papas. Near this place of sacrifice there were many large knives and chopping-blocks...I always called that building Hell." Later he goes on to describe the actual sacrifices: "Then after they had danced the papas laid them down on their backs on some narrow stones of sacrifice and, cutting open their chests, drew out their palpitating hearts which they offered to the idols before them. Then they kicked the bodies down the steps, and the Indian butchers who were waiting below cut off their arms and legs and flayed their faces, which they afterwards prepared like glove leather, with their beards on, and kept for their drunken festivals. Then they ate their flesh with a sauce of peppers and tomatoes. They sacrificed all our men in this way, eating their legs and arms, offering their hearts and blood to their idols as I have said, and throwing their trunks and entrails to the lions and tigers and serpents and snakes...(387)." I know that this doesn't seem to have anything to do with masculinity and sex. However, I think this shows that Montezuma and his people had a religion that they believed in and that violence was an important aspect of that religion. Diaz may have thought that by describing their frightening religious rituals and sacrifices their victory over the Aztecs would seem much greater. Again this putting down and conquering in order to have power...

This brings me to another point. The idea of using religion as an excuse for the violence and destruction of others. Diaz says in his narrative: "Those readers who are interested by this history must wonder at the great deeds we did in those days: first in destroying our ships; then in daring to enter that strong city despite many warnings that they would kill us once they had us inside; then in having the temerity to seize the great Montezuma, king of that country, in his own city and inside his very palace, and to throw him in chains while the execution was carried out. Now that I am old, I often pause to consider the heroic actions of that time. I seem to see them present before my eyes; and I believe that we performed them not of our own volition but by the guidance of God (250)." This appears to be nothing but a bragging list of what they accomplished and how they dominated someone who seemed to have a lot of power. What I find annoying is how he insists that they performed all of these duties because it was God's will. Now I understand that religion has always been connected to horrible crimes: the Crusades, the Reformation, the Holocaust, etc. However, I feel that, though Cortes and his men didn't see it, they were doing all of these "heroic actions" to satisfy their own greed for power and material objects. They wanted to dominant. They wanted to conquer for their own selfish "needs." They wanted to be the definition of masculinity. Though the Church has certainly been guilty of violence in the past, Cortes and his men used religion in general as an excuse to dominant and demolish a thriving civilization.

At the end of the narrative Diaz continues to brag about their accomplishments and how much courage it took to be a part of such an event. "For great courage was at that time required of a soldier. I must say that when I saw my comrades dragged up each day to the altar, and their chests struck open and their palpitating hearts drawn out, and when I saw the arms and legs of these sixty-two men cut off and eaten, I feared that one day or another they would do the same to me. Twice already they had laid hands on me to drag me off, but it pleased God that I should escape from their clutches...I came to fear death more than ever in the past. Before I went into battle, a sort of horror and gloom would seize my heart, and I would make water once or twice and commend myself to God and His blessed Mother. It was always like this before battle, but my fear quickly left me (408)." Diaz makes it seem as if he was only scared for a short time and then he was okay again, kind of like stage fright. So, apparently at that time a "man" only had one thing on his mind: and that was to conquer and dominant over others. This can be seen not only in Cortes and his men's dominance over the Aztec, but over each other on their own side! They argued amongst each other over gold!!!

Now this may seem extremely random but last night I was watching Moulin Rouge with my girlfriends. I about jumped out of my chair when I noticed this same idea of violence/sex/dominance in the film. The story begins with Christian, a young English poet, falling madly in love with a courtesan named Satine. Now Satine accidentally falls in love with Christian believing him to be a Duke. A real Duke has promised Harold Zidler, the owner of the Moulin Rouge, to invest if he can meet with Satine. As the story goes on we see the Duke become very jealous and makes Zidler sign a contract stating that only he would have Satine. Zidler also has to sign over the deeds to the Moulin Rouge to the Duke. Here is a prime example of this power and need for dominance over others. I really hadn't noticed this theme of masculinity, violence, and sex when I had watched the movie before!

I don't really know what it means to be a man in today's society. It appears to have a lot to do with job, money, and social status. I think that this idea of dominance also lies hidden beneath waiting to come out at any time. For me, a man takes care of his family, has morals, and is satisfied with what he has. What do you think it means to be a man in today's society? Is it really all about dominating over the bodies of others through violence and sex?

Mary Rowlandson: Fortunate to be Captured?

What would you do if you were held captive in an unknown environment? I believe that I would most likely act in Mary Rowlandson's manner, turning to faith when there seems to be nothing else left to turn towards. While reading this narrative I couldn't help but think of all the kidnapping stories that I have watched on television newscasts or read in the newspapers. There was Jaycee Dugard who was found eighteen years after she was taken from a school bus stop. She lived in the backyard in tents and sheds where her kidnapper kept her as a slave. She even had two children by this man!!! Or what about the five year old girl from Toledo, Ohio? Neveah Buchanan was kidnapped from her mother's apartment and was later found seven miles away...encased in cement. These cases seem to put Mary Rowlandson's captivity in the light of a mere vacation with "friends." However, I'm sure that it was terrifying for Mary. I'm sure that it would be extremely frightening to be kidnapped and held captive by Native Americans during King Philip's War. However, in both cases; the kidnapping of Mary Rowlandson and the kidnappings of today, I'm sure that the experience is unlike anything that we can comprehend.

Mary Rowlandson's life changed forever on February 10, 1675, when the Indians attacked Lancaster. She witnessed great brutality and cruelty beyond her imagination. She saw her family and friends butchered to death. Mary's own child was shot and wounded while held in her own arms! While Mary and some of her family were in the house the Native Americans set it on fire. She was forced out and into their captivity. She tells in her narrative how they were constantly on the move. She also tells of the heartbreak she experience as a mother when her "sweet Babe like a Lamb departed [this] life." This poor woman just can't seem to catch a break!

Despite all of these horrible events that have happened to her Mary still finds comfort in her faith. She said: "I cannot but take notice of the wonderful mercy of God to me in those afflictions, in sending me a Bible: one of the Indians that came from Medfield fight and had brought some plunder; came to me, and asked me, if I would have a Bible, he had got one in his Basket, I was glad of it, and asked him, whether he thought the Indians would let me read? he answered yes: so I took the Bible...(19)." This Bible is Mary's way of survival in every conceivable way possible. Throughout her narrative she references to different passages in the Bible and how they comfort her during her times of trouble.

As we have discovered in the other reading materials for this class thus far, the wilderness is a vast land of uncertainty and is portrayed as savage, brutal, and unforgiving. Mary seems to get used to it after awhile but then realizes where she is once again. She said: "And here I cannot but remember how many times sitting in their Wigwams, and musing on things past, I should suddenly leap up and run out, as if I had been at home, forgetting where I was, and what my condition was: But when I was without, and saw nothing but Wilderness, and Woods, and a company of barbarous Heathen; my mind quickly returned to me...(30)." So, apparently this theme dominated early American literature. I find it interesting that after awhile Mary found the place to be "as if I had been at home" and then suddenly once out in the open of the wilderness feels that she really is not home at all.

The only thing that I can imagine that would keep a person going after all they have seen and been through: the butchering of family and friends, the loss of a child, the loss of a familiar environment, the hunger from starvation, and the uncertainty of the next hour, let alone the next day...is faith. Faith is clearly a connection between all the works read thus far. Mary with her physical body was fighting against the elements, in bad conditions, while simultaneously fighting starvation: "I cannot but think what a Wolvish appetite persons have in a starving condition: for many times when they gave me that which was hot, I was so greedy, that I should burn my mouth, that it would trouble me hours after; and yet I should quickly do the same again. And after I was thoroughly hungry, I was never again satisfied...(34)." The poor woman is starving!!! She feels guilty because of her "greed" for the food. I think there is big difference between eating for survival and being a glutton. In my opinion it was her spiritual/soul body and her FAITH that kept her alive. Her FAITH kept her alive, even while her body was weak. This brings up a contradiction against the traditional Puritan thought that a weak body enabled evil to dominate...Interesting, is it not?

Another aspect of this narrative that really threw me for a loop was this idea of Mary needing to conceal her faith. She tells of a visit to her son: "I went to see him, and found him lying flat upon the ground: I asked him how he could sleep so? he answered me, that he was not asleep, but at Prayer; and lay so, that they might not observe what he was doing...(25)." She also mentions a time when her Mistress caught her reading her Bible: "...she found me sitting, and reading in my Bible: she snatched it hastily out of my hand, and threw it out of doors; I ran out, and catcht it up, and put it into my pocket, and never let her see it afterward (28)." So Mary chose to conceal her faith from the Native Americans because it was all that she had left and they could not take it away from her. I doubt that she would let them take it!!! Is it wrong to conceal one's faith?! My answer is no. Think of all the people you pass on the street...some may be atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Baptist, Catholic, Puritan...You get the picture. Now how would you know? Some people are loud about their religion and others are not. I feel that one can be extremely religious but not have to shout it out loud. And I don't think Mary was wrong in what she did. She was not ashamed of her religion! She was protecting her religion, her faith, and herself!!!

"Affliction I wanted, and Affliction I had, full measure (I thought) pressed down and running over: yet I see when God calls a person to any thing, and through never so many difficulties, yet he is fully able to carry them through, and make them see and say they have been gainers thereby. And I hope I can say in some measure, as David did, It is good for me that I have been afflicted (51)." At the end of her narrative Mary Rowlandson is happy about her afflictions! I interpreted this as her belief that she was a chosen one by God. She did not see this as a punishment. This seems unusual to me because the Puritans saw the bad things that happened to people as punishment straight from God. Yet again, another contradiction!!! Mary goes against this Puritan ideal. She views these trials and tribulations as a test and God's belief that she could find the strength within herself to be a good Christian woman and keep her FAITH, despite the horrible things that were happening to her. I think that this is extremely interesting because it is a woman that brings this idea forward! Not a man!!! I believe this is an example of how new ideas and the views about religion are forming.

Mary Rowlandson gained much power; all stemming from her kidnapping by the Native Americans. She already had some power before she was kidnapped because she was the wife of a Puritan minister. After her return to her husband she wrote her narrative which went on to become an immediate bestseller. This begin the origin of the American Western. It also was the foundational fiction which began the flood of story after story of white Christian women held in captivity. The white Christian woman became of symbol of the social and psychological situation America found itself in. She was a symbol of innocence, purity, and sexual vulnerability. The texts also hinted at the hypocritical people of the time and was often written with an eroticism subtext. These images would have been seen with horror because sexuality would have been seen as a nightmare. My... how times have changed!!! Anyway, back to my main point...Mary, like the other women captives, gained power from this situation. Captivity expanded a woman's experience. These women would have never experienced any of these situations in their daily lives. They also broke this barrier of the "quiet woman," "the subservient woman," "the perfect woman." Through these narratives women found their voices and used their power to make their stories heard. It is about time!

Nathaniel Hawthorne: Spirits of Ancestors and Faith in the Wilderness

Nathaniel Hawthorne believed that each of his children were products of guilt and grief. His eldest daughter died mysteriously at a very young age. His son, Julian, was arrested and put in prison for being a conman. The youngest daughter, Rose, was constantly at war with her siblings and her husband. She also lost a child. Rose soon "gave up the world as if [I were] dead." I can't imagine the angst that this would bring to a father. Thinking of my own father I know that it would break his heart to see so much unhappiness and suffering in his family.

Nathaniel's grandfather, William Hawthorne, and his father, John were strong men, known to be harsh and brutal legislatures. Nathaniel believed that his family was cursed due to the fact that his father judged over the Salem Witch Trials. John judged, found guilty, and watched the executions of the accused. Nathaniel came to believe that one of the accused cursed his family. Nathaniel must have been in a constant state of confusion, angst, and depression due to what his father and his grandfather did before him. This brings us to the idea of the family history and what is known, and what is not known, and why it even matters at all.

Before this class I didn't realize how many family secrets I had in my own family! I'll tell what I know of my family history and the "secrets" that were kept hushed and locked away. My great-great-grandmother came from Hungary. Gyuras, if you didn't know, is in fact, a Hungarian name. She was not married and at a young age was raped! She came to America just before World War I. However, she did not bring her son, Alexander, with her. She left him in Hungary with family. I'm certain that she felt a deep sense of guilt for leaving her child behind. However, it must also have been difficult to live with such a reminder of a tragic event that occurred. Not to mention the way she had been seen in society at that time!!! Unmarried, pregnant, and seemingly in a hopeless position! She, a devout Catholic, prayed every day for comfort in her pain and to keep her child safe in Hungary. She raised a family of twelve children and never did return to Hungary. She never saw Alexander again.

There are other secrets in my family which are not talked about AT ALL. I will not go into details because of how sensitive the material is. I will say that there are secrets about a mysterious drowning, a rape that went without justice, molestation, drug problems, marriage problems, and a pregnancy out of wedlock. There are others but I won't mention them here. These secrets have led to severe guilt and depression which have been passed down from generation to generation. These are the things that no one talks about. My own mother thinks I don't know any of these secrets but I have learned somehow. We don't talk about it. I suppose I understand where Nathaniel Hawthorne's severe guilt and depression came from, even though he himself had nothing to do with the past events.

In the short story, Young Goodman Brown, reflections of Nathaniel's depression, guilt, and angst can be read between the lines. The story begins with a young man; a young good-man, leaving his wife, Faith for some kind of trip. She begs for him to stay with her but fails at changing his mind. Right away we can see that the wife, Faith, is a symbol of faith in general. Young Goodman Brown abandons both his wife and his "faith" as he goes into the forest. While in the forest he meets a man who carries a staff that looks like a great black snake. It can be concluded that these two men have some kind of deal and Young Goodman Brown tries to say he will do this evil deed but must immediately return to his "goodness" afterwards. However, he seems worried and says: "My father never went into the woods on such an errand, nor his father before him. We have been a race of honest men and good Christians since the days of the martyrs; and shall I be the first of the name of Brown that ever took this path and kept...(67)." The man that looks like him interrupts and says: "I have been as well acquainted with your family as with ever a one among the Puritans...(67)." Young Goodman Brown tries to argue that his family are a "people of prayer" and do not live by wickedness. The other man tells him it doesn't matter what he says or thinks; he knows all these people in the church and government who should be good, honest, Christians but have "drunk the communion wine [with me]." Therefore this man, or the Devil, is trying to get Young Goodman Brown to see that all these "good" people are just illusions and they have all sinned to some extent. I also believe that this shows Nathaniel's guilt about what his father and grandfather did before him.

As the story continues he sees people that he knows and believes to be good. They have all come to meet for ceremony of the new converts. Young Goodman Brown hears a woman screaming and knows it to be his wife, Faith. He cries out: "My Faith is gone!...There is no good on earth; and sin is but a name. Come, devil; for to thee is this world given (71)." Here, Young Goodman Brown has not only lost his wife but we are also led to believe that he has lost his faith in God and in humanity. I can't imagine what it would be like to be at some kind of evil ceremony surrounded by people that you thought you knew and could trust. "Among them, quivering to and fro between gloom and splendor, appeared faces that would be seen next day at the council board of the province, and others which, Sabbath after Sabbath, looked devoutly heavenward, and benignantly over the crowded pews, from the holiest pulpits in the land...But irreverently consorting with these grave, reputable, and pious people, these elders of the church, these chaste dames and dewy virgins, there were men of dissolute lives and women of spotted fame, wretches given over to all mean and filthy vice, and suspected even of horrid crimes. It was strange to see that the good shrank not from the wicked, nor were the sinners abashed by the saints (72)." It appears that everyone from the village is there!!!

As Young Goodman Brown is brought forward as a convert so is a veiled female that turns out to be his wife, Faith. They are told at the ceremony: "Depending upon one another's hearts, ye had still hoped that virtue were not all a dream. Now are ye undeceived. Evil is the nature of mankind. Evil must be your only happiness. Welcome again, my children, to the communion of your race (74)." Just as they are about to be baptised with what appears to be blood, Young Goodman Brown tells Faith to resist the wicked one. The next thing we know Young Goodman Brown is alone again in the forest. The next morning he comes into the Salem village and all he can see are the people that he believed to be good as evil: the minister, Deacon Gookin, and Goody Cloyse. The story ends sadly with him never regaining his faith and living a dark and depressing life with no happiness, ending with his death. I wonder if Young Goodman Brown's guilt was passed on to his children like it was in the case of Nathaniel Hawthorne's history and in my own family history.

One interesting aspect of this short story would be the fact that it takes place in the wilderness. At this time the wilderness was the Devil's playground. I have noticed in all the material written at this time in our history that there seems to be something about the land that haunts. The Puritans lived in a constant and chronic state of uncertainty. I think that it was very clever of Nathaniel to take Young Goodman Brown and put him into this forest of uncertainty. At the end of the story Young Goodman Brown takes this forest of uncertainty back with him into the village. Maybe he believed that his village was still set upon the Devil's playground and he could never truly escape from this idea.

The most interesting aspect of this story is this concept of faith. Through his own free will Young Goodman Brown chooses to leave Faith at home. He was faced with this choice: to stay true to faith or to abandon it. He chose to abandon it as he chose to abandon his wife! Later in the story, however, we find that Faith is the woman beneath the veil. What is Faith doing in the forest?! In the middle of the Devil's Playground?! I have pondered over this for some time. I believe that she, as a symbol of Young Goodman Brown's faith, is constantly with him. She does not leave his side just because he chooses to abandon her. HE CANNOT ABANDON HIS FAITH!!! He may believe that he has but it hides in his shadow and in the smallest corner of his heart.

What it all boils down to is Young Goodman Brown's inability to accept that he wasn't pure. He had been tempted. His family before him had been tempted and there choices run in the blood of his veins. I believe that this is exactly how Nathaniel Hawthorne felt about his own family. Young Goodman Brown also saw a people who had forgot their place in front of God. This is probably what contributed to his choice to abandon his faith. Perhaps he saw all these good Christians who had lost their place in front of God; maybe making him doubt his faith and in the end completely obliterating it in his mind. Despite this, I don't think it ever really left his side.

What is Evil?

What is Evil? How do you define it? Surely, Evil can be recognized, but is it possible to define such a concept? Can we protect ourselves against Evil? Work towards preventing it? Is that possible? Is Evil a permanent position? Can Evil redeem itself? What does the face of Evil even look like? How does it think? Does Evil use the human body as its instrument to destroy? The questions seem to be as diverse in nature as they are endless. The answers are limitless as well.

As an exercise in class we were to define the word Evil. I was surprised at how many different definitions there were for such a small word. We filled the chalkboard with different ideas and perspectives on Evil, whether its internal, external, or both; where it came from, why it survives, or the entirely new question of whether Evil even exists at all. I defined Evil as...the absence of love...empathy, charity...hope and faith. I believe that Evil flourishes in areas of emptiness where these ideas are not present.

In class we also discussed Cotton Mathers and the New England community that he lived in. In his work, On Witchcraft, Cotton Mather's creates a persona for his community. Mathers states on page fourteen: "The New-Englanders are a People of God settled in those, which were once the Devil's Territories; and it may easily be supposed that the Devil was exceedingly disturbed, when he perceived such a People here accomplishing the Promise of old made unto our Blessed Jesus, That He should have the Utmost parts of the Earth for his Possession." They are God's people or a "chosen" people. Mather's saw their community as one body, not a community made up of individuals. These chosen ones were to work throughout their life to claim a landscape that belonged to the Devil. They had to battle him for this land.

Mather's characterizes the Devil as trying to destroy these chosen people. He will try anything to get his land back. Satan needs to take on the strongest, not the weak and vulnerable, in order to feel powerful. We learn that Satan also has soldiers as Mathers observes in his book on page sixteen: "...'tis Agreed, That the Devil has made a dreadful knot of Witches in the Country, and by the help of Witches has dreadfully increased that Knot: That these Witches have driven a Trade of Commissioning their Confederate Spirits, to do all sorts of Mischiefs to the Neighbours, whereupon there have ensued such Mischievous consequences upon the Bodies and Estates of the Neighbourhood, as could not otherwise be accounted for: yea, That at prodigious Witch-Meetings, the Wretches have proceeded so far, as to Concert and Consult the Methods of Rooting out the Christian Religion from this Country..." This idea that the Devil had an army helping him to destroy their pure community, handpicked by God, led to the paranoia that would cost so many their lives.

The Puritans believed that Satan attacked the soul through its vehicle, or actual physical body. This led to the belief that the body was the primary playground for Satan. The weaknesses of the flesh such as sex, gluttony, and drunkenness could all potentially allow Satan to defeat the physical body and claim the soul for his own purposes. Women were more likely to fall to the Devil because they had weaker physical bodies than men. Men were stronger and therefore did not appeal to the Devil. On page twenty-two Mather discusses the soul: "I would most importunately in the first place, entreat every Man to maintain an holy Jealousie over his Soul at this time, and think; May not the Devil make me, though ignorantly and unwillingly, to be an Instrument of doing something that he would have to be done?" Mather's wanted the Puritan people to do all that they could to ensure that their bodies were strong enough to protect their souls from the Devil. They believed in moments of dissatisfaction, anger, sadness, and frustration, that the Devil could approach and claim the body and soul of that person for himself. In class we discussed how there was a great pressure to be unified and harmonious because tension was the moment that one could succumb to Satan's powers.

This opens another area of interest in the lives of these people. They must have been extremely terrified of their own bodies! At any time they could possibly fall ill, get a rash, or find a mysterious looking mole, all which could be interpreted as working with Satan or potentially working with Satan. I think at that time if one would fall ill others would not want to care for that person in fear that their own Soul would be put in jeopardy. This idea of the body is very different from the ideas of today. Today we are taught to embrace our bodies and take care of them. Many people may still view the body as the vehicle to the soul but they most likely do not believe to such extremes as the Puritans believed.

I was fascinated by the actual trials that were discussed at the end of the book. It really made me stop and wonder what made these trials possible?! How could these people believe all of these outlandish accusations?! After reading, I came to the conclusion that they needed to have reasons that would be able to explain the unknown. Unfortunately, this led to the death of many innocent victims. The Puritans lived a community where there was no separation between church and state. I believe that this also may have been a major factor in the Salem Witch Trials. People who were accused were to confess for redemption. They would be saved souls. Those that refused to confess were guilty and would not be saved, even if they were perfectly innocent. Therefore, these people were executed.

In all these trials the victims were people who went against the grain, if you will. These people were just different and stood out from the rest of the Puritan crowd. I find that the Puritans had become hypocrites by "practicing" their religion and yet, going against it at the same time. All the accused were said of having done horrible things to their fellow neighbors.

Almost all of the victims were accused of causing the deaths of animals and livestock, such as cows or pigs. In the trial of Bridget Bishop she was accused by: "...John Bly and his Wife testifi'd, That he bought a Sow of Edward Bishop, the Husband of the Prisoner...the Sow was taken with strange Fits; Jumping, Leaping, and Knocking her Head against the Fence; she seem'd Blind and Deaf, and would neither Eat nor be Suck'd." Similarly, in the trial of Susanna Martin she was accused by: "...John Allen of Salisbury...put his Oxen, with many more, upon Salisbury Beach, where Cattle did use to get Flesh. In a few days, all the Oxen upon the Beach were found by their Tracks, to have run unto the Mouth of Merrimack-River, and not returned...of fourteen good Oxen, there was only this saved: The rest were all cast up, some in one place, and some in another, Drowned." And for another example, in the trial of Martha Carrier: "...Samuel Preston, testify'd, that about two years ago, having some difference with Martha Carrier, he lost a Cow in a strange Preternatural unusual manner." Clearly, animals at this time were extremely important for the livelihood of many Puritans so it can be understood why they were upset by these strange happenings. It is unfortunate, however, that humans were blamed for the unexplained behaviors of the animals.

Many were accused of causing pain and death to the children of the community. It is hard for me to fathom the idea of anyone hurting an innocent child, although I know that it continue to happen to this day. Bridget Bishop was accused of inflicting pain on children during her trial. "Samuel Shattock testify'd, That in the Year, 1680, this Bridget Bishop, often came to his House...his eldest Child, which was of as promising Health and Sense, as any Child of its Age, began to droop exceedingly; and the oftner that Bishop came to the House, the worse grew the Child...Ever after the Boy was follow'd with grievous Fits, which the Doctors themselves generally ascribed unto Witchcraft, and wherein he would be thrown still unto the Fire or the Water, if he were not constantly look'd after; and it was verfily believed that Bishop was the cause of it" (109-110). I believe that in most of these cases the child had some kind of disease or ailment that was yet to be discovered at that time, and today would have been diagnosed. It was mere coincidence that the child grew worse every time that Bishop went to the house.

The most shocking aspect of the trials was the sexual and erotic subtext. Almost all the women in this book were accused of entering a man's bedchamber and assaulting him! This makes me think that maybe some of the men were sexually frustrated OR they were having affairs and rather than be found guilty of such a crime, were quickly to accuse. "John Cook testifi'd, That about five or six Years ago, one Morning, about Sun-Rise, he was in his Chamber assaulted by the Shape of this Prisoner..." Another, "Richard Coman testifi'd, That eight Years ago, as he lay awake in his Bed, with a Light burning in the Room, he was annoy'd with the Apparition of this Bishop, and of two more that were strangers to him, who came and oppressed him so, that he could neither stir himself, nor wake any one else, and that he was the night after, molested again in the like manner." Bridget Bishop was not the only one accused of entering a man's bedchamber at night. Susanna Martin was accused by several men as well: "Bernard Peache testifi'd, That being in Bed, on the Lord's day Night, he heard a scrabbling at the Window, whereat he then saw Susanna Martin come in, and jump down upon the Floor. She took hold of the Deponent's Feet, and drawing his Body up into an Heap, she lay upon him near Two Hours; in all which time he could neither speak nor stir. At length, when he could begin to move, he laid hold on her Hand, and pulling it up to his Mouth, he bit three of her Fingers, as he judged, unto the Bone." Another man also accused Susanna Martin of visiting him late at night: "Jervis Ring testify'd, That about seven years ago, he was oftentimes and grievously oppressed in the Night, but saw not who troubled him; until at last he Lying perfectly Awake, plainly saw Susanna Martin approach him. She came to him and forceably bit him by the Finger; so that the Print of the bite is now, so long after, to be seen upon him." I'm not really sure what to think of all these accusations but can only conclude that these men had lots of sexual frustrations. Along the same subject we discussed in class how women were to be stripped naked so that witchmarks could be located. The religious leaders would feel the women's breasts and stomachs "looking for evil" within their bodies. I feel that this is extremely disgusting and I can only conclude that it was some kind of sexual molestation, especially in the case where there were young girls.

What makes this so hard to swallow is the lack of hard proof there was for all of these trials. I guess we can't really say what did or what did not happen during that time. I'll end this post with a quote from Mathers: "...let us more generally agree to maintain a kind Opinion one of another. That Charity without which, even our giving our Bodies to be burned would profit nothing, uses to proceed by this Rule; It is kind, it is not easily provok'd, it thinks no Evil, it believes all things, hopes all things. But if we disregard this Rule of Charity, we shall indeed give our Body Politick to be burned" (22). This goes back to my definition of Evil: the absence of love...empathy and charity...hope and faith. Though they believed in these ideas I can't stop wondering: Were the Puritans almost Evil?