Carter 1

Sophie Carter
March 5, 2020
HSTAA 402
Dorcas Hoar: The Usual Suspect

Although historians continue to speculate on the myriad reasons a Essex County Puritan

would be accused of witchcraft, John Demos’ collective portrait of an accused witch covers a

range of factors that describe central elements of the majority of cases.1 In the case of Dorcas

Hoar, the inherent characteristics associated with a witch all suit her: she was a woman past her

child-bearing years who was not of high status.2 The complexities of her case lie primarily in her

criminal behavior, her familial conflict, and her rebellious character. As a woman of

marginalized identity and fraught with tumultuous social factors, Dorcas Hoar exemplifies all of

Demos’ nine characteristics of an accused witch to varying extents, as supported not only by her

legacy demonstrated in contemporary records as well as by Carol Karlsen’s arguments about the

ways in which women who suited Demos’ characteristics further challenged the hierarchical

nature of Puritan society.

As the daughter of parents who caused some tensions in their community, Dorcas Hoar’s

background suits that typical of an accused witch to a limited extent. Born Dorcas Galley in

approximately 1634 in Beverly, Dorcas Hoar was the daughter of John and Florence Galley.

Dorcas’ parents had their own earlier troubles in the community; her mother, Florence Galley,

was known to be an angry and at times violent woman. Florence was accused of participating in

a spat at church in which she pulled another woman by the arm—an act to which Dorcas herself

1
John Demos, Entertaining Satan (New York: American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc., 1978).
2
Demos, 3–22.
 Carter 2

testified in court documents.3 More damningly, however, Florence was later charged with

abusing a man named John Giles by scratching him in the face, drawing blood.4 These incidents

were particularly destructive merely because Florence was a woman, as she was challenging the

image of the ideal Puritan mother and wife by demonstrating aggression. Though her parental

background involved these notable community conflicts, Florence Galley was not accused of

witchcraft, which would have had a much greater impact on the likelihood of Dorcas’

accusation; however, her reputation would still have impacted the community’s perception of

Dorcas and their family as a whole, meaning that Hoar’s upbringing partially conforms to

Demos’ portrait of an accused witch’s background.5

Dorcas later became the wife of William Hoar, with whom she would have daughters

Elizabeth, Annis (“Nancy”), Mary, and Tabitha, each of whom would prove crucial to explaining

how Dorcas came to be accused of witchcraft during the Salem trials of 1692. In her later years,

Dorcas and those four daughters were at the center of significant criminal conflict in Beverly,

alienating Hoar from the community and warranting anger and suspicion. The most

consequential of these conflicts pertained to Reverend John Hale, the minister of Beverly’s

Puritan congregation. Margaret Lord, the Hale family’s maidservant, was particularly close with

the Hoar family, so much so that she reportedly referred to Dorcas as “mother” and Annis as

“sister.”6 As another “sister” of the Hoar family, Margaret participated in the extended series of

crimes detailed in Essex County court records: Dorcas’ daughters, along with Margaret Lord,

3
George Francis Dow, ed., Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County (Salem, Massachusetts:
Essex Institute, 1916), 5: 216.
4
Dow, RFQCEC, 7: 565.
5
Demos, 11.
6
Dow, RFQCEC, 7: 50.
 Carter 3

were accused of participating in repeated thefts of the Hales’ goods (1678).7 Margaret

individually was accused of stealing food, cloth, and jewelry from the Hales (1678).8 This

tension between the Hales and their maid servant’s troublesome group escalated quickly:

Rebecca Hale accused Annis of wishing for Mrs. Hale’s death, threatening to kill Rebecca if she

spoke of it.9 Later that year, Robert Hale (son of John Hale) accused Annis of dancing while

laughing about their hope that the Lord will have mercy on them for their various crimes.10 Just

the next year, Elizabeth and Annis Hoar were accused of beating and killing John Hale’s cattle;

Hale attributed this to the sisters’ vengeful attitude toward himself and his family.11 This

escalation resulted in a court-reported scuffle between William Hoar and Hale and, later on,

Annis’ conviction and sentencing to public whippings for the beating and killing of the cattle.12

Outside of the Hales’ residence, however, the group was also accused on multiple occasions of

thefts from various townsfolk, reportedly bringing their stolen goods (of all types) back to

Dorcas, seemingly the leader of their criminal enterprise (1678).13 Dorcas herself was accused

over the same period of stealing food and pigs from the Hales’ land, threatening to brand

multiple people with a hot iron if they spoke of her stealing.14 These extensive crimes committed

by the group of women made them significantly more vulnerable to accusation, with theft being

the second most common crime among accused witches.15 This fraught criminal history, tied into

7
Dow, RFQCEC, 7: 43–46.
8
Dow, RFQCEC, 7: 53.
9
Dow, RFQCEC, 7: 47–50.
10
Dow, RFQCEC, 7: 49–50.
11
Dow, RFQCEC, 7: 181.
12
Dow, RFQCEC, 7: 181–183.
13
Dow, RFQCEC, 7: 50–55.
14
Dow, RFQCEC, 7: 50–52.
15
Demos, 16.
 Carter 4

her role as a mother being perverted by teaching her daughters to lie and steal, perfectly suits the

criminal and familial elements of Demos’ portrait of an accused witch.16

Dorcas Hoar’s criminal offenses were soon followed by suspicious behavior in the eyes

of the Puritan community relating to her marriage to William Hoar and their family life. William

died unexpectedly, and only shortly before the outbreak of accusations, after which there began

town gossip accusing her of having killed (“choked”) William herself.17 John Richards and

Joseph Morgan would later testify that Dorcas reacted in a strange and violent fashion, stomping

her feet and yelling, when the two men came to examine her husband’s body after his sudden and

unexplained death.18 The suspicious nature of her husband’s death was particularly damning for

Dorcas, as maleficium, the evil deeds done by witches, was most often seen in the form of illness

and death, and most maleficium was familial.19 Considering that women were often accused

shortly after the death of male relatives, Dorcas’ situation was doubly precarious.20 As was

testified to in Dorcas’ 1692 trials, Dorcas also showed signs of rebelling against the patriarchal

social order: long prior to her husband’s death, she allegedly told John Hale that she should “live

poorly” while her husband was alive and would live better if he should die before her.21 This

would be particularly damning in Salem’s Puritan society—by seeming to rebel against the

expectation that women be under the patriarchal leadership of her husband, Hoar is bound to face

scrutiny from her community for apparently desiring to be a widow. Women who were not under

the authority of a husband would have significantly more autonomy, making them outliers who

16
Demos, 15.
17
“Examination of Dorcas Hoar,” in Records of the Salem Witch-Hunt, ed. Bernard Rosenthal (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2009), 225–226.
18
“Deposition of John Richards & Joseph Morgan v. Dorcas Hoar,” in RSWH, ed. Rosenthal, 315, 595.
19
Carol F. Karlsen, The Devil in the Shape of a Woman (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998), 6.
20
Karlsen, 104.
21
“Testimony of John Hale v. Dorcas Hoar,” in RSWH, ed. Rosenthal, 593.
 Carter 5

defied the social order who would then be more vulnerable to accusation.22 Further, women who

were childless or had adult children could be determined less crucial to their families and to

society, as they were not performing their role as a procreator and caregiver.23 This instance of

Dorcas expressing optimism for her own widowhood epitomizes Carol Karlsen’s claim that a

woman showing discontent could lead to her being accused of being a witch.24 Thus, though she

exhibited some traits in her marriage and family that do not suit Demos’ portrait (e.g., having

multiple children who survived into adulthood), Dorcas Hoar’s visibly antagonistic relationship

with her husband does suit Demos’ portrait of the accused.25

Dorcas Hoar also had a long track record, according to John Hale, with magical tradition,

which constituted sinful and dangerous occupation in her Puritan community. Interwoven with

Hale’s story of Dorcas’ 1678–79 series of thefts and threats is another element of their

relationship, not referenced in the contemporary court records but rather attested to by Hale

during Hoar’s trial in 1692. In his testimony, Hale recounts that he had heard stories of Hoar

being a fortune teller early on.26 In fact, he was confronted with Hoar’s past work in palmistry

when she repented to him twenty-two years before the trial, in approximately 1670. He continues

by saying that fourteen years before (1678), she and her children and stolen from him, as

aforementioned and as described in Essex County’s court documents from that year. In his 1692

testimony, however, Hale adds a new element to his story, claiming that his daughter Rebecca

(eleven or twelve years of age at the time) knew of would not speak to him about the Hoars’

stealing, as the Hoars had threatened to have the devil kill or bewitch her. Hale testified that

22
Karlsen, 165.
23
Karlsen, 75.
24
Karlsen, 125.
25
Demos, 12–14.
26
“Testimony of John Hale v. Dorcas Hoar,” in RSWH, ed. Rosenthal, 593.
 Carter 6

Rebecca said she had seen Dorcas Hoar’s witchcraft book and had fallen into fits upon being

presented with it. This testimony was uniquely damning for Hoar, reflecting the contemporary

witchcraft panic with Rebecca's undeniably similar case that Hale claims occurred long before

the present outbreak. Hoar’s relationship with fortune-telling prior to the 1692 accusations,

therefore, establishes another element of her background, suiting Demos’ portrait of a witch as

having an especially powerful or mystical occupation.

As a result of these myriad vulnerabilities, Dorcas Hoar’s formal accusation was reported

to Salem’s court on April 30, 1692, leading to her May 2nd apprehension for examination on

suspicion of “Sundry acts of Witchcraft done or Committed by [her] upon the Bodys of Mary

Walcott, Marcy Lewis, Abigail Williams, Ann Putnam, Elizabeth Hubert, and Susanah [Susan]

Shelden.”27 The court report details that “several of the afflicted fell into fits as soon as [Hoar]

was brought in,” setting the tone for the following testimonies.28 Elizabeth Hubbard, Ann

Putnam, and Mary Walcott testified that Hoar has been hurting them for days now, with

Elizabeth also citing the rumors that Hoar was responsible for the death of her husband. This

echoes Mary Beth Norton’s claim that accusers tended to incorporate existing gossip into their

testimonies, illegitimately corroborating those rumors and perpetuating a vicious cycle of gossip.
29
By invoking this rumor in her testimony, Elizabeth drew upon the existing suspicion of Hoar

preceding the trials, lending credence also to Demos’ portrait of an accused witch’s background.

Elizabeth continues by accusesing Hoar of pinching her from across the courtroom, leaving a

27
“Examination of Dorcas Hoar,” in RSWH, ed. Rosenthal, 221–223.
28
“Examination of Dorcas Hoar,” in RSWH, ed. Rosenthal, 225–226.
29
Mary Beth Norton, In the Devil’s Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692 (New York: Vintage Books, 2002),
113.
 Carter 7

visible mark, and the Marshall claims that Hoar had in fact pinched her fingers.30 As the trial

progresses, Abigail claims that “this is the woman that she saw first before ever Tituba Indian or

any else,” another claim drawing on existing accusations and rumor to the same effect (though

this is not corroborated by previous evidence). Further, Mary Walcott, Abigail Williams, and

Susan Sheldon all testified that they witnessed the spectre of a “black man,” the devil,

whispering in Hoar’s ear during the trial that she should never confess. Williams and Sheldon

soon after report seeing a blue bird “gone into [Hoar’s] back” in the courtroom, Sheldon adding

that she had seen Hoar with two cats as her familiars.

Hoar’s trial itself clearly reflected many of the courtroom tropes that have come to be

associated with the Salem witch trials, but Hoar’s own courtroom testimony in response to these

accusations also revealed traits that Demos would define as characteristic of an accused witch.

Hoar consistently denied having ever hurt a child in her life, having killed her husband, or

having any animal familiars. However, Hoar also becomes upset at times during the girls’

testimony against her, notably calling the girls liars and telling them that “God will stop the

mouth of liars.” The examiner chides her for speaking like this in the court, to which Hoar

defiantly responds that she “will speak the Truth as long as [she] live[s].” These responses,

which at times reflect her frustration with the trial at hand, would likely be interpreted as

evidence of her rumored temper, and as Carol Karlsen argues, “it was evidence enough to testify

that a given woman was often angry.”31 Demos’ statistical evidence supports this claim, with the

most common previous crime of accused witches being “assaultive speech.”32 Despite

30
“Complaint of Jonathan Walcott & Thomas Putnam v. George Burroughs, Lydia Dustin, Susannah Martin, Dorcas
Hoar, Sarah Morey, & Philip English,” in RSWH, ed. Rosenthal, 225–226.
31
Karlsen, 129.
32
Demos, 16.
 Carter 8

maintaining her plea of innocence, Hoar’s responses were seen by the Magistrate as evidence of

Hoar’s defiant character, which she had already been demonstrated by her conflicts with her

family and neighbors, suiting yet another element of Demos’ portrait of an accused witch.33

Having maintained her innocence, Dorcas Hoar was sentenced to be executed on

September 22, 1692. However, on the eve of her execution, Hoar confessed to being a witch and

substantiates her claim by accusing others, resulting in a petition to delay her execution in order

for her to properly repent for her sins.34 According to the September 21st entry in The Diary of

Samuel Sewall, Hoar was “the first condemned person who [had] confessed.” By granting this

petition, Dorcas Hoar’s life was saved: executions ceased as the crisis ebbed, and Hoar was

finally released in approximately February of 1693.35 Seventeen years after the trials, on

September 13, 1710, Dorcas Hoar’s daughter Annis and her husband petitioned the court for

restitution for her late mother’s months in Salem prison and their journeys having to do with her

imprisonment and trial.36 Yet another year later, on October 17, 1711, the court officially

reversed Hoar’s conviction, acknowledging the illegitimacy of the infamous trials of 1692. Her

wrongful conviction, as demonstrated by Demos’ portrait, was by no means random; rather, Hoar

displayed all the common characteristics of an accused witch, to varying degrees. Though she

only partially suited Demos’ predicted background and motherhood status, Hoar exemplifies the

criminal, social, familial, and occupational elements of Demos’ portrait, demonstrating the

significance of those factors as identifiers of a witch in the Puritan mind.

33
Demos, 24–25.
34
“Petition of John Hale, Nicholas Noyes, Daniel Epps Jr., & John Emerson Jr. for Dorcas Hoar” in RSWH, ed.
Rosenthal, 673.
35
“Petition of John Hale, Nicholas Noyes, Daniel Epps Jr., & John Emerson Jr. for Dorcas Hoar” in RSWH, ed.
Rosenthal, 674.
36
“Petition of John King &Annis King for Restitution for Dorcas Hoar” in RSWH, ed. Rosenthal, 873–874.