SALEM-WITCH-L Archives

From: <>
Subject: [SALEM-WITCH-L] Encephalitis Theory
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 22:00:00 EST

A flurry of interest has again surfaced on Laurie Winn Carlson's
encephalitis theory. Last time I held my peace, but this time I'll offer some
observations. Clearly, people will disagree as to how one assesses evidence,
and I recognize that it is not possible to prove that encephalitis was not a
factor in the Salem witch trials. But it is certainly possible to observe
that Carlson is not deeply informed about what actually happened there, and
her conclusions rest on this underlying lack of knowledge.

Just a few examples. On p. 4 she refers to the twenty people hanged
there. A small error, but symptomatic. On p. 29 she has Mary Warren tried for
witchcraft. She was not. On p.54 she refers to Abigail Williams and John
Indian being tried as witches, and she cites two very reputable and informed
scholars, James F. Cooper, Jr. and Kenneth P. Minkema. Without even checking
I knew they could not possibly have said that, but I checked anyway. Of
course, they did not. I have no idea why she cited them. Neither Abigail
Williams nor John Indian were tried as witches. They were both among the
accusers. On p.29 she gives an account, an accurate one of Samuel Gray's
testimony against Bridget Bishop. But she does not seem to be aware of the
claim that on his deathbed Gray retracted this accusation.

\ Such issues, at the very least, undermine one's confidence in the
author's knowledge of what actually happened in Massachusetts Bay in
1692(there is a tendency in her book to assume that most people involved were
from the Salem area, when in fact they were from all over the colony). These
examples of factual difficulties, and there are others, are symptomatic of a
lack of rigor in the analysis of events. Going more directly to the broader
argument of encephalitis as a cause, one may note on p. 18 the assertion that
"events intensified on the Salem area in 1692 because of the high death rate
due to fits." This might seem like an important piece of evidence, but there
is not even a footnote to support the notion that such a high death rate
existed. A few anecdotal cases are cited, but they are either not in 1692 or
not in the Salem area, unless one considers Marblehead as part of that
"area," in which case we may wonder why the outbreak did not begin there.

Another kind of problem with the book is that there is insufficient
logical consistency. For example, Carlson cites on p. 40, again with no
documentary support, that there was a large outbreak of "influenza-like
disease" that killed many children in 1675. Assuming this to be accurate, why
no witchcraft outbreak then if her theory is sound? Or. more powerfully as an
argument against her theory, one might look at p. 131. Carlson argues that a
major reason for accusations was the hope that the accused people could cure
those who were ill. She then claims that things got"muddled" when the accused
failed at this. What she does not address was the fact that over and over in
1692 people in fits (or claiming to be in fits) were indeed immediately
calmed and made better by such touches. If they were suffering from diseases,
the touch would scarcely have cured them. And perhaps the heart of her theory
dies on this business of what happened to the afflicted. On p. 123, she tells
us they wasted away, as she echoes the claims against the accused that
appeared in the indictments. But as Thomas Brattle noted in 1692, the
afflicted accusers (the "girls" as they are popularly known) were remarkably
healthy. People with encephalitis can scarcely be expected to be spending
their summer accusing people and winding up in excellent health at the end of
that season, and, for that matter, during that season(once they got the
healing touch that seemed to hold them over till the next accusation).

I do not mean here to say that there is nothing valuable in the book.
Carlson is effective in debunking "midwife" theories (p. 46) and village
quarrel theories (P.115), although I am not competent to judge much of her
data on disease independent of the Salem trials. I can say from personal
experience that I am medically skeptical of her wanting to consider Lyme
disease as a culprit (p.145). I am a Lyme disease survivor, and I assure all
that however uncomfortable my bout with that disease was, it never led to
fits. But such anecdotal evidence is, of course, bad evidence. And in relying
so heavily on anecdotal evidence, as well as on relying on too many inductive
leaps, Carlson has given us a book that may indeed tell us a lot about
encephalitis, but one which does not further our understanding of the Salem
witch trials.

This thread:

• [SALEM-WITCH-L] Encephalitis Theory by <>

  • Re: [SALEM-WITCH-L] Encephalitis Theory by <>