Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Sarah Good

Sarah Good (1653 – July 19, 1692) was a marginalized and impoverished woman in Salem Village, , among the first accused of during the 1692 . Born to innkeeper John Solart, whose in 1672 left her family in financial ruin, Good first married Daniel Poole, who died indebted in 1686, then wed laborer William Good around 1691, resulting in destitution that forced the family to beg for shelter and provisions. On February 29, 1692, she was accused by afflicted girls and of spectral affliction, marking one of the initial triggers of the trials' hysteria. During her examination and trial, Good denied the charges, counter-accusing others like , but was convicted on May 30 primarily via unreliable and child testimonies, despite her husband's partial testimony against her. Hanged on Gallows Hill with four others, her final words defiantly proclaimed innocence to Reverend Nicholas Noyes: "You are a liar! I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my life God will give you blood to drink." Her young daughter was also imprisoned, suffering lifelong trauma, underscoring the trials' devastating impact on families.

Early Life and Family Background

Origins and Parentage

Sarah Good was born Sarah Solart circa 1653 in Wenham, Bay Colony, to John Solart, a prosperous innkeeper of origin who operated a successful establishment there, and his wife . The Solarts resided in Wenham, a small Puritan settlement near , where John Solart built an inn around 1670 that later became known as the Solart-Woodward House. John Solart died by via in 1672, when Sarah was approximately 17 years old, leaving an estate valued at roughly 500 pounds encompassing about 70 acres but without a will to guide its distribution. The ensuing process divided the property among Solart's widow Elizabeth and their seven children, but prolonged litigation—stemming from disputes over the intestate estate—resulted in Sarah receiving virtually no inheritance, a factor that precipitated her family's subsequent economic decline. Little is documented about Elizabeth Solart beyond her remarriage following John's death, possibly to Woodward, after which the family inn passed into new hands; she predeceased Sarah, leaving the daughter without further familial support. Sarah's early origins thus transitioned from relative affluence tied to her father's trade to destitution due to these legal entanglements, setting the stage for her vagrant status in adulthood.

Marriages and Offspring

Sarah Good's first marriage was to Daniel Poole, a poor indentured servant, in 1682. Poole died in 1686, leaving substantial debts that burdened Good and contributed to her subsequent impoverishment. The couple produced no offspring. After Poole's death, Good married William Good, a , sometime before 1688. With William, she bore two daughters: (also recorded as ), born circa 1687 in Village, and Mercy Good, born in 1692 during Sarah's imprisonment in and who died in infancy shortly after. , approximately four to six years old during the 1692 witchcraft accusations against her mother, was herself examined and imprisoned on suspicion of from March to May 1692, enduring over seven months of confinement that left her psychologically impaired.

Socioeconomic Status and Community Standing

Economic Decline and Poverty

Sarah Good was born around 1653 to John Solart, an innkeeper in whose estate provided his children with modest inheritance upon his death by drowning in 1672, though disputes over the will limited Sarah's share. Her economic fortunes declined sharply after her first marriage to Daniel Poole, an indentured servant, who died around 1682–1686 leaving substantial debts that Sarah was legally obligated to repay as his widow. To settle these obligations, Sarah married William Good, a with irregular employment, but the couple struggled to maintain stability, ultimately losing their home to creditors by the late 1680s. The persistent burden from Poole's , combined with William's inability to secure consistent work, reduced the Goods to destitution; by 1692, they had no fixed residence and relied on community charity for survival. Sarah Good became known locally as a beggar, often going door-to-door soliciting food and aid while quarreling with neighbors over perceived slights or refusals, which exacerbated her amid economic hardship. The family's poverty extended to their children, including daughter (born around 1687–1688), who shared in the , underscoring the depth of their decline from Sarah's relatively secure family origins to outright indigence.

Interpersonal Conflicts and Reputation

Sarah Good maintained a reputation in Village as a contentious and socially abrasive figure, often engaging in verbal altercations with neighbors over minor grievances, particularly when denied charity as a beggar. Her habit of muttering under her breath or openly scolding those who refused aid was interpreted by some as malevolent cursing, exacerbating community animosities in the tightly knit Puritan settlement. During her examination on March 1, 1692, her husband William Good testified to her poor character, stating that while he had observed no overt , her "bad carriage" toward him made her "an enemy to all good," a remark delivered "with " that underscored familial discord and her broader interpersonal strife. This testimony, drawn from court records, reflected not only marital tensions but also her perceived hostility toward societal norms of deference and restraint. Neighbors viewed the Goods as a persistent , with Sarah's defiant and quarrelsome nature alienating potential supporters amid their economic decline; those who occasionally housed the family later complained of her disruptive presence during proceedings, further tarnishing her standing. By early 1692, this accumulation of petty conflicts and her marginal, rebellious persona positioned her as an easy target for suspicion in a community rife with divisions.

Witchcraft Accusations

Initial Allegations from Afflicted Girls

In late January 1692, several young girls in Salem Village, including nine-year-old and eleven-year-old , began displaying erratic behaviors such as convulsions, screaming, throwing objects, and contorted postures, which local physician William Griggs diagnosed as resulting from affliction by rather than natural causes. Pressed by adults including Reverend to identify the source, the girls initially hesitated but by February 25, 1692, named Sarah Good—alongside and —as one of the witches tormenting them through spectral means, claiming Good's invisible spirit pinched, bit, and choked them, causing physical marks and ongoing fits. Warrants for Good's arrest were issued on February 29, 1692, by magistrates John Hathorne and Jonathan Corwin, based solely on these accusations from the afflicted girls, who by this point included Ann Putnam Jr. and Elizabeth Hubbard, expanding the claims to include Good's specter appearing as a wolf-like figure or beast with sharp teeth during their episodes. Good was apprehended the following day and examined on March 1, 1692, in the meetinghouse, where the girls' reactions intensified: upon Good's entry or when questioned about harming them, the accusers fell into violent fits, screaming that her apparition was biting their arms, choking their throats, and afflicting them anew, with one girl, Mary Warren, later corroborating spectral attacks by Good. Good vehemently denied the charges, insisting, "I do not hurt them, I scorn it," and attributing the girls' reactions to pretense or other causes, but she offered no confession and instead implicated Sarah Osborne after observing the girls' fits subside temporarily when Osborne was mentioned. The allegations relied entirely on —the purported actions of Good's spirit—without physical proof or prior grievances directly linking her to the girls, though her reputation for , , and occasional muttering prayers under her breath had marked her as suspicious in the . Additional afflicted girls, such as Susannah Sheldon, soon joined in claiming Good's specter stabbed or tormented them, producing items like a broken knife tip as supposed evidence, though such "proof" was later debunked as unrelated.

Examination and Supporting Testimonies

Sarah Good underwent preliminary examination on March 1, 1692, at the Village meeting house before magistrates and . She was accused of afflicting Elizabeth Parris, , Ann Putnam Jr., and through , with the girls present and falling into fits during the proceedings. Good consistently denied employing any evil or entering into a with the , responding to queries such as "What evil spirit have you familiarity with?" with "None" and "Have you made no contract with the devil?" with "No." When pressed on why she harmed the children, Good retorted, "I do not hurt them. I scorn it," attributing the afflictions instead to . The afflicted girls testified that Good's specter tormented them, pinching, choking, and urging them to sign the devil's book, with their convulsions intensifying as they identified her during the examination. Recorder Ezekiel Cheever noted these spectral accusations as key supporting evidence, though Good maintained she was "falsely accused" by no creature but human informants. Her husband, William Good, provided testimony against her, describing Sarah as "an enimy to all good" due to her contentious behavior and poor carriage toward neighbors. This interpersonal discord was cited to bolster suspicions of her malevolent character, though it offered no direct proof of witchcraft. Following the examination, Good was committed to Boston jail on March 7, 1692, on suspicion of . The proceedings relied heavily on the girls' subjective visions, which magistrates accepted as corroborative despite lacking physical evidence.

Trial Process

Pre-Trial Detention and Preliminary Hearings

Sarah Good was formally accused of witchcraft on February 29, 1692, by warrant issued on complaints from Thomas Putnam and John Putnam Jr., acting on behalf of afflicted girls Elizabeth Parris, Abigail Williams, Ann Putnam Jr., and others who claimed Good's specter had tormented them through pinching, choking, and spectral assaults. She was arrested and brought before magistrates John Hathorne and Jonathan Corwin for examination on March 1, 1692, in the Salem Village meetinghouse, serving as the preliminary hearing to assess probable cause for further proceedings. During this session, which included Good's co-accused Sarah Osborne and Tituba, the proceedings relied heavily on spectral evidence, with the afflicted girls falling into fits and accusing Good's apparition of immediate harm upon her entering the room. In the examination, Hathorne interrogated Good directly: "Sarah Good, what evil spirit have you familiarity with?" to which she replied, "None," maintaining her innocence throughout and attributing the girls' afflictions to their own or the devil's doing rather than hers. Supporting testimonies included depositions from the girls describing Good's specter signing the devil's book and urging them to do the same, alongside claims from others like Mary Warren that Good had appeared spectrally to threaten harm. Good's husband, William Good, provided ambivalent , stating he was "afraid that she was a witch" due to her frequent absences at night and refusal to attend church, though he did not directly witness acts of ; Good countered by accusing and of spectral attacks on her. The magistrates, interpreting the girls' reactions and Good's defiant demeanor as evidentiary, found sufficient grounds to bind her over for trial despite the absence of physical proof. Following the hearing, Good was committed to custody on March 1, 1692, and transferred to Boston's jail, as Salem lacked adequate facilities for female prisoners during the trials; this detention persisted under harsh conditions, including chains to prevent escape or spectral travel, inadequate food, and exposure to disease, until her execution four months later. No was granted, reflecting the Puritan judicial practice of pre-trial imprisonment based on magistrates' determinations, which prioritized community safety amid escalating accusations.

Formal Trial and Evidence Adduced

Sarah Good's formal trial took place before the Special Court of Oyer and Terminer in on June 29–30, 1692, as part of a session that also tried , , , and . The court, presided over by Chief Justice William Stoughton, accepted as admissible proof of , alongside depositions, confessions from alleged confederates, and testimonies regarding Good's character and disputes. Good maintained her innocence throughout, attributing apparitions to the Devil's deception rather than her actions. The core evidence consisted of spectral testimonies from the afflicted girls, including Elizabeth Hubbard, Ann Putnam Jr., Mary Walcott, and Susannah Sheldon, who claimed Good's had pinched, choked, and tormented them physically and spiritually. Hubbard specifically deposed that Good's specter appeared barefoot after her examination and afflicted her with pinching, while Putnam reported Good urging her to sign the Devil's book. These accounts were corroborated by multiple girls observing Good's shape alongside other witches or familiars like a yellow bird or . Confessions from self-proclaimed witches bolstered the case: testified that Good had joined her in afflicting children, ridden on a pole to torment victims, and possessed a yellow bird familiar; her four-year-old daughter also implicated Good in witchcraft acts, though under duress during imprisonment. Additional confessions from Deliverance Hobbs, , and Mary Warren echoed claims of Good's spectral assaults and pacts with the Devil. Character and focused on Good's reputed malice: Neighbors like Samuel and Mary Abbey deposed that their sickened and died after Good muttered threats following a quarrel over scraps; Sarah and Thomas Gadge similarly linked their cow's death to Good's spiteful words post-dispute. Witnesses including Joseph Herrick Sr., Mary Herrick, and William Good noted Good's quarrelsome nature, with claims of blood appearing on her arm during fits and a suspicious . Over twenty witnesses, including John Hughes and Samuel Sibley, provided depositions tying Good's behavior to harms. The court convicted Good on multiple indictments for afflicting Sarah Bibber, Elizabeth Hubbard, and Ann Putnam through witchcraft, relying heavily on the unchallenged spectral proofs despite her denials. No tangible physical evidence, such as tools of witchcraft, was presented, and the proceedings emphasized Puritan standards where refusal to confess reinforced guilt.

Execution and Familial Consequences

Sentencing and Hanging

Sarah Good was tried before the Court of in on July 5, 1692, where and witness testimonies alleging her affliction of the girls were presented as proof of . The court convicted her based on these accounts, deeming her guilty of covenanting with the and afflicting others through means. Upon conviction, Good was sentenced to death by hanging, the standard punishment under Puritan law for witchcraft as high treason against God. She steadfastly denied the charges, refusing to confess despite pressure from authorities and clergy, including Reverend Nicholas Noyes who attended the proceedings. The execution occurred on July 19, 1692, when Good was hanged alongside Rebecca Nurse, Elizabeth Howe, Sarah Wildes, and Susannah Martin at Gallows Hill (now identified as Proctor's Ledge) in Salem Village. Historical records confirm the sheriff's warrant authorized the hangings, carried out by public executioner George Corwin, with the bodies disposed in shallow graves or crevices nearby due to families' reluctance to claim them. Local tradition records that as Good mounted , she cursed her accusers, declaring that their would give them blood to drink—a statement attributed to her defiance in the face of death. Her infant child had perished in prison prior to the execution, underscoring the harsh conditions of confinement during the trials.

Impact on Surviving Relatives

Dorothy Good, Sarah Good's four-year-old daughter (also known as ), was arrested on March 24, , becoming the youngest person accused of in the trials. She was imprisoned alongside her mother in harsh conditions, including chains and a dungeon-like cell, for nearly eight months until her release in late following the abatement of the trials. The ordeal left her physically weakened and likely psychologically scarred, as her father later described her as "almost ruined in her health" due to the imprisonment. William Good, Sarah's husband, petitioned the court in 1692 for compensation, detailing the family's losses: his wife's four-month imprisonment followed by execution on July 19, 1692; the death of their newborn daughter Mercy shortly after birth in prison; and Dorothy's severe health decline. He received £30 from the Court of Oyer and Terminer as partial damages for the harm to his wife and daughter, though this amount was insufficient to alleviate their ongoing poverty and social ostracism. William remarried in June 1693, but the family remained destitute, with the stigma of the accusations persisting and contributing to their marginalization in Salem Village. Dorothy survived into adulthood, with records placing her in , as late as 1738, but her life was marked by the enduring effects of early and familial destitution, with no evidence of recovery to or . The broader familial legacy included limited restitution efforts; in 1710, provided some compensation to victims' families, but the Goods received only modest sums that failed to restore their pre-trial circumstances.

Causal Factors and Interpretations

Precipitating Social and Psychological Dynamics

Sarah Good's accusation stemmed from her entrenched marginalization in Village, where economic destitution and interpersonal frictions positioned her as a perennial outcast. Born in 1653 to innkeeper John Solart, Good inherited virtually nothing after her father's 1672 and ensuing estate disputes, which her stepfather controlled following her mother's remarriage. Her first husband, Daniel Poole, died deeply in debt in 1682, forcing Good and her second husband, William Good, into by ; the couple begged for shelter and firewood while residing temporarily with others, exacerbating resentments in a community strained by factional land disputes, ministerial salary conflicts, and rivalry with prosperous Town. Good's reputed ill temper—manifest in verbal rebukes toward neighbors denying charity—further alienated her, aligning with Puritan stereotypes of the disruptive poor as morally suspect and irreligious, as she infrequently attended church. These dynamics reflected broader social tensions in post-1689 , including fears of Native American raids, outbreaks, and economic scarcity from a brutal winter, which fostered of vulnerable individuals like the homeless beggar Good. Psychologically, the precipitating accusations against Good on February 25, 1692, by afflicted girls and arose amid contagious in the Parris household, where youthful suggestibility amplified under familial and communal pressure. among the accusers—initially a core group of girls—escalated claims through social and repeated reinforcement in echo chambers of gossip, transforming tentative suspicions into fervent spectral attributions against Good as a tormentor. This mechanism, driven by shared Puritan anxieties over invisible diabolical forces, projected collective insecurities onto Good's defiant demeanor during ; her vehement denials, rather than confessions, were interpreted as proof of guilt, while her husband William's that she was "certainly wicked" and prone to intensified the psychological validation of the charges. The coerced of her six-year-old daughter further embedded familial betrayal into the , illustrating how interpersonal animosities fused with fear-induced irrationality to target the socially isolated. These intertwined dynamics—social providing the target and psychological supplying the momentum—culminated in Good's arrest warrant on February 29, 1692, as community leaders like channeled factional grievances into explanations, prioritizing consensus over in a climate of escalating panic. Historians note that such outcasts were disproportionately accused early, as their deviance offered a causal outlet for unresolved village conflicts without challenging elite authority.

Puritan Beliefs and Legal Irregularities

Puritan settlers in 17th-century Massachusetts adhered to a theology that regarded witchcraft as a tangible spiritual assault orchestrated by Satan, drawing from biblical mandates like Exodus 22:18, which prescribed execution for witches. This belief system framed witchcraft not as superstition but as a covenantal pact with the devil, enabling spectral afflictions and physical harms, as articulated in Puritan treatises such as Increase Mather's Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits (1693), which affirmed the reality of demonic forces while cautioning evidentiary limits. Colonial authorities codified these views in the 1641 Body of Liberties, establishing witchcraft as a capital crime requiring proof of maleficium—tangible harm via supernatural means—mirroring English statutes but amplified by theocratic governance. Theological convictions intersected with legal proceedings in , where Puritan emphasis on providential signs and communal purity justified deviations from evidentiary norms, including reliance on : testimonies of afflicted persons claiming visions of the accused's spirit tormenting them, accepted despite theological debates over the devil's ability to masquerade as innocents. This innovation, defended by figures like in The Wonders of the Invisible World (1692), bypassed traditional requirements for two eyewitnesses to overt acts, allowing adolescent accusers' fits and visions to convict without corporeal proof. Such practices reflected a causal in Puritan thought—prioritizing observable effects like convulsions as demonic causation—but ignored alternative explanations, fueling 19 convictions based primarily on uncorroborated claims. Procedural irregularities compounded these doctrinal influences, as the ad hoc Court of Oyer and Terminer, convened May 27, 1692, by Governor , suspended and presumed guilt through leading examinations, hearsay from prior disputes, and coerced confessions via threats or isolation. Defendants like Sarah Good received no legal representation, could not confront accusers shielded behind screens, and faced juries drawn from biased locales, contravening English common law's adversarial safeguards. Even ministerial opposition, including Increase Mather's October 1692 treatise rejecting as unreliable, failed to halt the court until public skepticism and exonerations mounted, highlighting how theocratic urgency overrode judicial rigor in a system lacking appeals or impartial oversight.

Debates on Guilt Attribution and Victimhood Narratives

Historians universally reject attributions of supernatural guilt to Sarah Good, attributing her conviction instead to flawed evidentiary standards prevalent in the 1692 Salem trials, including —visions of the accused's spirit afflicting victims—which lacked empirical corroboration and was later repudiated even by Puritan authorities like in his 1692 treatise Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits. Trial records document accusations against Good primarily from the fits and testimonies of young girls like Ann Putnam Jr. and , who claimed her specter pinched and choked them, but no physical artifacts, maleficium (harmful acts provable by natural means), or independent witnesses substantiated ; one accuser, Mary Warren, admitted under to fabricating against Good, yet the court proceeded. This reliance on subjective, unverifiable claims reflects causal dynamics of communal paranoia and among Puritan examiners, who interpreted Good's , occasional muttering (perceived as incantations), and absenteeism as corroborative signs, though these were socioeconomic markers rather than proof of diabolical compact. Debates persist on the precise weighting of social marginality in guilt attribution, with some analyses emphasizing how Good's vagrant status—stemming from her 1692 impoverishment after her first husband's suicide and property disputes—positioned her as a scapegoat for frontier anxieties, including Anglo-Indian conflicts and economic strains in Essex County. Scholarly works argue that Puritan legal irregularities, such as admitting hearsay and coerced confessions (e.g., Tituba's under duress implicating Good), systematically favored prosecution over defense, rendering attributions of guilt causally invalid absent falsifiable evidence; contemporaries like Judge William Stoughton enforced these without dissent until post-execution reversals in 1711, when Massachusetts legislature acknowledged evidentiary failures in compensating victims' families, including Good's daughter. Counterperspectives from religiously conservative interpreters highlight selective application of theocracy, noting Good's defiance—such as her jailhouse retort to Reverend Nicholas Noyes, "You are a liar! I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my life God will give you blood to drink"—as exacerbating perceptions of guilt within the era's worldview, though this behavioral evidence proves only nonconformity, not occult practice. Victimhood narratives in modern scholarship frame Good as emblematic of gendered and class-based injustice, portraying her execution on July 19, 1692—while pregnant and separated from her infant—who died shortly after—as a tragic outcome of targeting nonconformist women; this view privileges her against spectral delusions, supported by archival petitions from survivors decrying the trials' overreach. However, truth-seeking critiques caution against romanticizing her solely as passive victim, noting causal realism in how her documented irascibility and alienated neighbors, fueling envy-driven accusations amid Village's factional disputes over land and ministry; primary Puritan sources, biased by theological presuppositions in witchcraft's reality, thus amplified these tensions into supernatural guilt, a interpretive error echoed in later exonerations but absent rigorous contemporary debunking until Robert Calef's 1700 More Wonders of the Invisible World. Balanced analyses, drawing from trial transcripts, underscore that while Good's marginality precipitated scrutiny, the attribution of guilt deviated from first-principles evidentiary norms, rendering victimhood narratives credible only when decoupled from unsubstantiated claims of her agency.

Enduring Impact

Postcolonial Remembrance and Exoneration Efforts

In 1711, the Massachusetts colonial legislature reversed the attainder of Sarah Good and 21 other convicted individuals, restoring their civil and providing compensation of £30 to her surviving family for the losses incurred during the trials. This act represented an early formal acknowledgment of judicial error, though it occurred within the colonial framework and did not prevent the enduring stigma on the victims' descendants. Twentieth-century efforts shifted toward broader public vindication and reflection. On July 22, 1957, the passed a resolution explicitly declaring that the Salem convicts, including Good, were innocent of witchcraft and exonerating them posthumously, framing the trials as a tragic driven by rather than evidence. This built on historical precedents but emphasized statewide amid growing historical critiquing Puritan legal irregularities. Commemorative sites emerged as focal points for remembrance. The Salem Witch Trials Memorial, dedicated on August 5, 1992, to mark the 300th anniversary, includes 20 granite benches encircled by a wall, each inscribed with the name and execution date of a victim, including "Sarah Good, July 19, 1692," inviting visitors to contemplate the human cost of unfounded accusations. Complementing this, the Proctor's Ledge Memorial—dedicated July 19, 2017, at the archaeologically confirmed execution site—features rough-hewn granite slabs etched with the names of the 19 individuals hanged there, prominently listing Good among the five executed that day, to honor their innocence and deter future injustices. Contemporary advocacy, led by organizations like the Massachusetts Witch-Hunt Justice Project, continues to highlight Good's case to ensure comprehensive exoneration of all accused, underscoring her as a symbol of socioeconomic prejudice in the trials— a homeless beggar whose defiance exacerbated suspicions—while promoting education on evidentiary flaws like spectral testimony. These initiatives, informed by primary trial records and psychological analyses of mass delusion, affirm the absence of verifiable witchcraft and attribute convictions to social tensions, without attributing guilt to Good.

Representations in Media and Scholarship

Sarah Good has been portrayed in literary works as a quintessential victim of Puritan , often emphasizing her poverty, social defiance, and marginal status to underscore themes of injustice. In Arthur Miller's 1953 play , she is depicted as a "half-crazed" homeless woman among the first accused, targeted for her erratic behavior and beggarly existence, which aligns with historical accounts of her scolding neighbors who denied her charity. Her role highlights the play's critique of mass accusation dynamics, appearing in early claims by the afflicted girls and later in a scene where she and , addled by confinement, fantasize about the Devil transporting them to . This representation, while dramatized, draws from trial records showing her vehement denials and refusal to confess, portraying her execution as a tragic outcome of coerced testimony rather than genuine maleficium. In film adaptations of , such as the 1996 version directed by , Good's character remains peripheral but reinforces the archetype of the vulnerable outcast, with her brief appearances amplifying the narrative of unchecked fear leading to the deaths of 19 individuals by hanging in 1692. Documentaries on the trials, including those produced by the and , frequently feature Good as one of the inaugural victims—arrested on February 29, 1692, alongside and —using archival reconstructions to illustrate how her impoverished widowhood and reputed cursing of livestock owners fueled suspicions without empirical proof of . These media often frame her as a symbol of socioeconomic , though some analyses note her trial testimony's combative tone as contributing to perceptions of guilt among contemporaries. Scholarly treatments position Good within broader interpretations of the trials' causal factors, privileging primary sources like examination records over speculative narratives. Carol F. Karlsen's The Devil in the Shape of a Woman (1987) examines her case as evidence of gendered economic tensions, arguing that childless or property-lacking women like Good—whose estate disputes and vagrancy predated accusations—were disproportionately targets in a viewing autonomy as diabolical. Bernard Rosenthal's Salem Story (1993) critiques romanticized victimhood by highlighting evidentiary irregularities, such as reliance on the four-year-old Good's coerced claims against her mother, yet concludes the accusations stemmed from communal rivalries rather than verifiable . Revisionist works, including Chadwick Hansen's Witchcraft at Salem (1969), occasionally attribute partial credence to Puritan fears of actual harm, portraying Good's defiance at her March 1, , examination—not confessing like —as exacerbating her fate, though modern consensus in peer-reviewed histories rejects explanations in favor of psychological contagion and legal overreach. These analyses, drawing from court documents preserved in the County archives, underscore source biases in colonial records, where accusers' visions lacked corroboration beyond testimony.

References

  1. [1]
    Sarah Good - Salem Witch Trials Documentary Archive
    The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England. New York: W. W. Norton, 1998. Rosenthal, Bernard. Salem Story: Reading the Witch Trials ...
  2. [2]
    Sarah Good - UMKC School of Law
    Sarah Good was the daughter of a prosperous Wenham innkeeper, John Solart. ... William Good was given one of the larger sums of compensation from the ...
  3. [3]
    The Salem Witch Trials According to the Historical Records
    Burns examines the witch trials through original-source documents in “The Capital Crime of Witchcraft: What the Primary Sources Tell Us,” a presentation ...
  4. [4]
    SWP No. 063: Sarah Good Executed July 19, 1692 - New Salem
    That Sarah Good is a Witch & brought her the booke to signe to. (Reverse) ... ( Essex County Court Archives, Salem Witchcraft, vol. 1, no. 18 ...Missing: historical | Show results with:historical
  5. [5]
    Sarah Good - Famous Trials
    Sarah Good was the daughter of a prosperous Wenham innkeeper, John Solart. Solart took his own life in 1672 when Sarah was 17, leaving an estate of 500 pounds ...
  6. [6]
    Solart-Woodward House - Salem Witch Museum
    Here, in this beautiful, three-story gray house, situated side-ways to the street, “The Frenchman” John Solart (alternative spelling Soulart) ran a successful ...
  7. [7]
    Sarah Good Biography - Salem Witch Trial Victim - ThoughtCo
    Nov 21, 2019 · Sarah Good Facts. Age at time of Salem witch trials: about 31; Birth: Exact date unknown; Death: July 19, 1692; Also known as: Sarah Goode ...Key Takeaways · Before The Salem Witch... · Sarah Good And The Salem...
  8. [8]
    Sarah (Solart) Good (abt.1653-1692) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree
    Jul 22, 2025 · against Sarah Good...for suspition of Witchcraft...and...much Injury ... william Good saith that the night before his s'd wife was ...
  9. [9]
    Biographies
    Born in 1653 to well-to-do innkeeper John Solart, Sarah Good¹s life was a struggle. Her father¹s estate was enmeshed in litigation after his death in 1672, and ...<|separator|>
  10. [10]
    Four-Year-Old Dorothy Good is Jailed for witchcraft, March 24, 1692
    Sep 24, 2023 · While she was in prison, Sarah Good gave birth to a daughter she named Mercy, but the infant died. Sarah was taken from her daughter, Dorothy, ...
  11. [11]
    Sarah Good and the Salem Witch Trials - Ghost City Tours
    Sarah Good and the Salem Witch Trials · Woman on the Margins · “Witches” Wanted for Arrest · Imprisoned While Pregnant · Sarah Good on Trial · The Execution of Sarah ...
  12. [12]
    Witch Hunt Victim Stories: Sarah Good
    Josh Hutchinson: Sarah's first husband, Daniel Poole, was an indentured servant. ... Her second husband, William Good, did not live up to his name. William ...Missing: offspring | Show results with:offspring<|control11|><|separator|>
  13. [13]
    https://salem.lib.virginia.edu/home.html
  14. [14]
    SALEM WITCH TRIALS CHRONOLOGY
    February 29- The girls name three women, alleging these are the witches who are harming them by invisible means. Warrants are issued for the arrests of Sarah ...
  15. [15]
    Chronology of Events Relating to the Salem Witchcraft Trial of 1692
    The girls later accuse Sarah Good and Sarah Osborne of witchcraft. February ... April 30, 1692: Several girls accuse former Salem minister George Burroughs of ...
  16. [16]
    The Examination of Sarah Good - Famous Trials
    MARCH 1, 1692 (Examination of Sarah Good). The examination of Sarah Good before the worshipfull Assts John Harthorn Jonathan Curren. (H.) Sarah Good what ...Missing: afflicted girls
  17. [17]
    Records Of The Trial And Execution Of Sarah Good, 1692
    That Sarah Good is a Witch & brought her the booke to sighe to. ... Other Resources. The Witchcraft Trials in Salem: An Account · Chronology of Events Relating To ...Missing: historical | Show results with:historical
  18. [18]
    Examinations of Sarah Good, Sarah Osburn, and Tituba, as ...
    Examinations of Sarah Good, Sarah Osburn, and Tituba, as Recorded by Ezekiel Cheever. SWT Restoring Justice · SWT 1692 · Salem Witch Trials Collection · SWT ...Missing: primary | Show results with:primary
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Examination of Sarah Good | English with Mrs. Lamp
    Sarah Good, the wife of William Good of Salem Village, Laborer. Brought ... Sarah Good for Suspicion of witchcraft by her Committed and thereby much Injury.
  20. [20]
    Boston Jail in 1692, Site of - Salem Witch Museum
    The first three accused of witchcraft, Sarah Good (along with her ... During the Salem witch trials, prisoners were frequently moved from jail to jail.Missing: detention | Show results with:detention
  21. [21]
    Salem Witch Trials Victims of July 19, 1692
    Jul 19, 2016 · Five people were found guilty of witchcraft during and hanged on July 19, 1692, Rebecca Nurse, Susanna Martin, Sarah Good, Elizabeth Howe, ...Missing: date | Show results with:date
  22. [22]
    Path from Jail to Execution - Salem Witch Museum
    Executed on June 10 was Bridget Bishop. Executed on July 19 were Sarah Good, Elizabeth Howe, Susannah Martin, Rebecca Nurse, and Sarah Wildes. One of the ...
  23. [23]
    The Untold Story of Dorothy Good, Salem's Youngest Accused Witch
    Jan 17, 2024 · At the age of just four years old, Dorothy was accused of practicing witchcraft and confined to a dungeon-like prison for nearly eight months.
  24. [24]
    Sarah Good and the Salem Witch Trials - Ghost City Tours
    According to Salem's Story Bernard Rosenthal, Sarah Good was the first placed on trial because she was, to Salem Village, the easiest to execute. Good was a ...
  25. [25]
    [PDF] The Untold Story of Dorothy Good, - Salem's Youngest Accused Witch
    Jan 17, 2024 · Her mother,. Sarah Good, was one of the first to be accused. Sarah, whose life had been shadowed by hardship, was an easy target in 1692. Born ...
  26. [26]
    Sarah Good's families: Dorothy Good, part 5
    May 27, 2024 · Her mother Sarah had been locked up in prison for witchcraft for weeks. ... After her father John died in June 1672, several events ...
  27. [27]
    Group Polarization: Did It Play a Role in the Salem Witch Trials?
    We discuss the concept of group polarization and how it may have played a role in the Salem Witch Trials of 1692.
  28. [28]
    [PDF] The Salem Witch Trials from a Legal Perspective - W&M ScholarWorks
    The Massachusetts legal system was put to its most severe test by the 1692 witchcraft prosecutions in Salem Village. Spawned by the hysteria of a group of young ...
  29. [29]
    Spectral Evidence - Salem Witch Museum
    Feb 15, 2013 · Spectral evidence refers to a witness testimony that the accused person's spirit or spectral shape appeared to him/her witness in a dream.
  30. [30]
    Spectral Evidence and the Salem Witch Trials - ThoughtCo
    Jun 9, 2025 · Thus, spectral evidence is testimony about what an accused person's spirit did, rather than actions of the accused person in the body. In the ...
  31. [31]
    A True Legal Horror Story: The Laws Leading to the Salem Witch Trials
    During the epidemic of witchcraft accusations in Salem, the legal process changed. The trials followed the temporary suspension of the Colony Charter due to ...
  32. [32]
    The Salem Witch Trials: Legal Resources - UChicago Library
    Courts allowed “causal relationship” evidence, for example, to prove that the accused possessed or controlled an afflicted girl. Prior conflicts, bad acts by ...
  33. [33]
    The Witchcraft Trial of Sarah Good - History of Massachusetts Blog
    Oct 20, 2011 · The Witchcraft Trial of Sarah Good. Rebecca Beatrice Brooks ... Salem Witchcraft: With an Account of Salem Village. Wiggin & Lunt ...Missing: poverty | Show results with:poverty<|control11|><|separator|>
  34. [34]
    The Trial and Execution of Sarah Good: A Case Study in Selective ...
    Jun 24, 2013 · Roughly twenty others in the Salem area were executed on charges of witchcraft—including some who opposed the witch-hunts, such as John Proctor ...<|separator|>
  35. [35]
    [PDF] THE MANY INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SALEM WITCHCRAFT ...
    In Salem, the first three witches accused,. Sarah Good, Sarah Osborne, and Tituba, were social outcasts. That Puritan Massachusetts was a typical patriarchal ...
  36. [36]
    Sarah Good - Innocents Database of Exonerations - Forejustice.org
    Conviction Caused By: Innocence Proved By: "On October 17, 1711 she was exonerated when her Bill of Attainder was reversed by the Massachusetts legislature.
  37. [37]
    Last Convicted Salem 'Witch' Is Finally Cleared
    Aug 3, 2022 · The colony passed a bill overturning the witchcraft convictions, mentioning 22 individuals by name, in 1711. Centuries later, in a 1957 ...
  38. [38]
    Proctor's Ledge Memorial - Salem Witch Museum
    A simple memorial, designed by landscape architect Martha Lyon, was dedicated on July 19, 2017, the 325th anniversary of the hangings of Sarah Good, Elizabeth ...
  39. [39]
    Massachusetts Witch-Hunt Justice Project – Exonerate the 8 people ...
    Some who housed Sarah complained about her during the witch trials, dragging her reputation down [00:02:00] even further.
  40. [40]
    Group aims to exonerate all accused of witchcraft in Massachusetts
    Oct 31, 2023 · The witch justice group helped successfully spearhead a similar effort in Connecticut, home of the first person executed for witchcraft in the ...
  41. [41]
    The Crucible Act 4 Summary & Analysis - LitCharts
    In a cell in the Salem prison a few months later, Sarah Good and Tituba think that the devil has come to take them to Barbados.
  42. [42]
    Sarah Good Character Breakdown from The Crucible - StageAgent
    Mid-40s to Mid-60s. One of the first women accused of witchcraft, Sarah Good is a homeless woman who confesses to witchcraft in order to save her own life.
  43. [43]
    The Story of Sarah Good and the Salem Witch Trials
    Oct 5, 2024 · In order to understand why Sarah Good was accused of witchcraft, it ... Frequently Asked Questions About Sarah Good. Life in Salem Village during ...