Life and education
Robert Calef, son of Joseph Calef, was baptized in Stanstead, Suffolk, England on 2 November 1648. The Calef family of Stanstead was "one of substantial yeoman and clothiers." The majority of what is known about the character of Robert Calef is what can be gleaned from his single book, and it contains almost no details about his own life. His writing displays broad education and it is possible that following grammar school he attended one of England's clandestine dissenting academies as evidenced by Cotton Mather's use of the title "Mr." ("Mr. R.C") and Calef's pride in having no proficiency in Latin. (In contrast to Oxford and Cambridge, the English language was generally preferred for instruction in dissenting academies, as Latin was viewed as having ties to Rome.) According to the tradition of Calef's descendants, he matriculated from "one of the English colleges" and showed sympathy for Quakers and sought asylum in New England. Calef emigrated to New England sometime before 1688. His children born in Boston were baptized in Boston's South Church, pastored by Samuel Willard. Calef's name does not come up in the records of the witchcraft trials of 1692-3 and, according to his book, his interactions with the Mathers began in Boston in September 1693, with most of the writing of the book and compilation of trial records complete by 1697. From 1702-04, Calef was an overseer of the poor. In 1707 he was chosen an assessor, and in 1710 a tithingman, which he declined. He retired to Roxbury, where he was a selectman. He died there on 13 April 1719.''More Wonders of the Invisible World''
In an effort to promote the ongoing Salem witchcraft trials, Cotton Mather (CM) wrote, ''Wonders of the Invisible World: Being an Account of the Tryals of Several Witches, Lately Executed in New-England'', in the summer and early fall of 1692, and his father Increase Mather published his own ''Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits'' around the same time. Robert Calef, after exchanging letters with Cotton Mather and many other area ministers, published his book ''More Wonders of the Invisible World'', with his title being a riff on Cotton Mather's own introduction to his account of M.Rule "yet more Wonders ..." Calef objected toContents
* Preface: Calef's argument that Christians should rely on scripture, not superstition or mythology. * Part I: Cotton Mather's own account of his visit to Margaret Rule in the autumn of 1693, which CM circulated in manuscript. * Part II: This is the most confusing and controversial portion of Calef's book. It begins with an alternate and skeptical view of CM's ministry to Margaret Rule, referred to as a "Narrative of a Visit". Confusingly, it is presented in the first person though Calef says he copied it from eyewitness/es (both CM and Calef seem to agree that Calef was not present) on September 13, 1693, as well as an "Appendix to the Narrative" from September 19, 1693. ** Calef's description of a lawsuit by CM and his father, against Calef, for libel, and a copy of a letter from Calef to CM November 24, 1693, (prior to their court date) requesting CM clarify his "doctrinal" beliefs on witchcraft. According to Calef, the case was dropped when neither Mather showed up in court. *** Calef states that the Mathers no-show led him to believe "all should have been forgotten" (p. 60) but Calef is soon given a copy of CM's account of M. Rule (i.e. Part I, above) which CM began circulating soon after their court date and containing lines Calef finds offensive. Calef now sends CM what he claims as "the first copy ever taken" of the above "Narrative" and "Appendix" from September 13 and 19. This exchange seems to take place about a month or more after their court date had passed. **** CM responds a few days later, on January 15, rejecting the portrayal of the September 13 "Narrative", and quibbling with particular details: who spoke first (he or his father), the duration of a prayer delivered by his father (30 minutes or merely 15), the location of the supposed "Imp" (on M. Rule's belly or on her pillow), and whether M. Rule's upper-body was covered by "bed-clothes" i.e. sheet and blankets, or merely by her own "cloaths." CM writes "For you cannot but know how much this representation hath contributed, to make people believe a smutty thing of me ..." ***** Calef in responding, considers any discrepancies minor, and shows great impatience with CM for not addressing the more important theological "doctrinals" underpinning his belief in witchcraft. CM sends a messenger to Calef to read a letter aloud and on another occasion CM sends Calef a letter but says it must be returned in a fortnight and "which he forbad to be Copyed." NOTE, this letter was later found, including marginalia in Calef's hand, and a typescript can be viewed beginning page 24Printing in London and reception in New England
For his own book, Calef used the same printer employed by Cotton Mather for his anonymous 1697 Life of Phips, perhaps in an effort to reach the same audience. Cotton Mather records a date when Calef's manuscript shipped to London, June 10, 1698, as well as when bound copies returned in print, November 15, 1700. With William Stoughton, the former chief justice of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, and one of the staunchest supporters of the witch trials and executions, maintaining the most powerful office in the province, including control over the printing press, it is unlikely Calef attempted to have his book printed in Boston. In early 1701, the Mathers responded withWriting style
It is remarkable that Robert Calef, a tradesman, possessed a well-developed writing style and intellect that enabled him to frequently get the better of the highly educated Cotton Mather. An example of Calef's rationalism and biting wit are provided by his response to ''Another Brand Pluckt Out of the Burning'', Cotton Mather's account of the possession of Margaret Rule. The first section of Mather's account is a long narrative about a proselytized Indian who was tempted into witchcraft by the devil and ultimately undone by his steadfast refusal to submit to the devil's temptations. Calef's terse response occurs in a postscript to one of his letters to Mather:''Postscript''. —Sir, I here send you the copy of a paper that lately came to my hands; which, though it contains no wonders, yet is remarkable, and runs thus:
''An account of what an Indian told Capt. Hill at Saco Fort.''
''The Indian told him, that the French ministers were better than the English; for before the French came among them there were a great many witches among the Indians; but now there were none; and there were witches among the English ministers, as Burroughs, who was hang'd for it.''
Were I disposed to make reflections upon it, I suppose you will judge the field large enough; but I forbear.
As above, R. C.
Legacy
18th- and 19th-century views
In 1718, Francis Hutchinson, a minister in Bury St Edmunds (a town infamous for other trials and eleven miles from Calef's birthplace) wrote20th-century revision
from Apologism to Neo-credulism
In 1924, TJ Holmes, wrote that the critical view of Cotton Mather was based on the "insignificant" case of Margaret Rule and his contact over it with Calef. "Mather opponents tuned their fiddle to Calef's key." TJ Holmes was a librarian at the William G. Mather library and his writing followed after work by Harvard English professor GL Kittredge, beginning in 1907, which seems to wish to exonerate the Mathers and the New England region. ( GL Burr draws this conclusion in a 1911 essay highly critical of Kittredge's 1907 essay.) Kittredge writes: "The record of New England in the matter of witchcraft is highly creditable, when considered as a whole and from the comparative point of view." In this essay, Kittredge is dismissive of Calef's lengthy book, saying "Calef came too late to be really significant to our discussion." This statement is difficult to reconcile considering Calef's interactions began in September 1693, as noted by TJ Holmes, as well as Kittredge's praise for Francis Hutchinson, who relied on Calef (see year 1718, above). TJ Holmes went on to publish bibliographies on both Mathers often citing the work of Kittredge or Kittredge's younger mentee in the Harvard English department, Kenneth B. Murdock, whose father worked closely with Kittredge in running the Harvard press. TJ Holmes views seem to have eventually become more nuanced. In an essay from 1985, Harold Jantz writes "TJ Holmes at times deeply regretted having descended into this 'vast Mather bog' ... and he earnestly warned a very young man to stay clear of it." The reflections by Jantz about TJ Holmes followed the discovery that a typescript copy of a September 2, 1692 letter from Cotton Mather to Chief Justice William Stoughton was authentic, and the heretofore missing "holograph" had been located and placed in the archives The September 2, 1692 letter strongly supports Robert Calef's view of Cotton Mather. Jantz had previously (in the same essay) dismissed this letter as a "nasty, psychopathological" forgery and in this view he seems to have perhaps been joined by other neo-credulous scholars of the mid 20th century, including K. Silverman, Chadwick Hansen (see below) and D. Levin. Jantz's essay, with his mistake frozen in time, could offer a clear window into the zeitgeist. Kenneth Silverman's biography of Cotton Mather, published in 1984, the year before this discovery, won Pulitzer and Bancroft awards. Writing in 1953, Perry Miller quotes SE Morison as saying "Robert Calef tied a tin can to Cotton Mather which has rattled and banged through the pages of superficial and popular historians ... My account is not popular and I strive to make it not superficial", and if qualified to the terms of his thesis, "the right can was tied to the proper tail, and through the pages of this volume it shall rattle and bang", Miller posits.Mather Hysteria-graphy
"I use the female pronoun here because in Western Civilization the overwhelming majority of witchcraft victims have been women, who are more subject to hysteria than men." Chadwick Hansen, 1972In 1969, Chadwick Hansen claimed Calef was guilty of libel and in 1972 expanded this to "the outrageous lie, 'the Big Lie' in Goebbels' phrase.'" Calef had been cleared of the charge of libel in 1693 when neither Mather showed up in court. Hansen writes, "I realize that in calling Calef a liar I differ from virtually every other person who has written about him since his own time." Hansen seems to base his accusations on the slim but charged portion of Calef's book making up the accounts of September 13 and 19, 1693. These events launched the interaction between Calef and Mather, but Calef relied on eyewitnesses and was not present on either occasion, as both Mather and Calef agree. A key part of Chadwick Hansen's analysis appears to be based on his misunderstanding of the archaic or less commonly used word "bed-clothes" which Oxford English Dictionary defines as "sheets and blankets" with examples from period literature. Thus Hansen misunderstands the distinction Calef makes between "bed-clothes" and "clothes". Other 20th-century historians were also keen to focus on this and followed Hansen in his mistake, including David Levin, who in 1978, referred to "the girls bare breast" and, in 1985, writes, "Even if we reject Robert Calef's libelous claim that he saw both Mathers fumbling under the young woman's bedclothes in search of demons (and the pleasure of fondling her breast and belly) and even if we reject the tradition that President Increase Mather had Calef's book burned in Harvard College Yard, we should hesitate to portray Increase Mather as the voice of unqualified reason and charity." Kenneth Silverman also echos Hansen's mistake, writing "Calef's account clearly implies that Rule was partly naked."Silverman, ''The Life and Times of Cotton Mather'', pg. 132 Portions of Hansen's book rely on the trial records compiled by Calef in Part 5 of his book.
Publications
*References
External links
* {{DEFAULTSORT:Calef, Robert 1640s births 1719 deaths Burials at Eliot Burying Ground 17th-century American merchants Critics of witch hunting Religion in the Thirteen Colonies English emigrants to Massachusetts Bay Colony People of the Salem witch trials People from colonial Boston Year of birth uncertain Merchants from colonial Massachusetts