the trials of Martha and Giles Cory, Elizabeth and John Proctor, Rebecca Nurse, among numerous others. Throughout his analysis and research he continually comes back to the Putnam vs. Porter conflict and the effect of Reverend Parris' poor leadership. His book gave much more actual transcripts and quotes to help lend credit to his explanation than Boyer and Nissenbaum. Throughout the book, he tried to let the characters speak for themselves on the events that took place. This helped give more weight to his argument. Finally, Carol Karlsen took a completely different side. She used the explanation that the witch trials were more of an attack on women trying to escape social and religious norms. She too used numerous primary sources to lend weight to her argument as well as extensive examples, like the Hibbens example. If her argument did nothing else, it proved that there is still room for study surrounding the witchcraft issue in New England. It provided an excellent basis for analysis on women and the roles they played during the period.Overall, after reading each of the books as well as many primary sources in the textbooks, I am inclined to believe to first argument. I feel that the best explanation for the hysteria and witch-hunt was that it was a calculated attack aimed at eliminating one faction from control and influence in Salem Village. I think there is substantial evidence to back this up, including first hand records and accounts. I don't entirely dismiss Karlsen's argument. I think it is definitely an area that needs more analysis and research done to it. It to may have played a role in the hysteria, but I feel that Boyer and Nissenbaum as well as Le Beau did a much better job of proving their argument was the overwhelming factor in 1692. The conflict argument not only proved the outbreak of accusations was part of a larger pattern of conflict, but also warned of the potential such divisive powers have to crea...
