The Palgrave Handbook of Paralympic

Studies 1st Edition Ian Brittain

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-paralympic-studies-1st-edit
ion-ian-brittain/
THE PALGRAVE HANDBOOK
OF PARALYMPIC STUDIES

Edited by
Ian Brittain and Aaron Beacom
The Palgrave Handbook of Paralympic Studies
 Ian Brittain • Aaron Beacom
Editors

The Palgrave
Handbook of
Paralympic Studies
Editors
Ian Brittain Aaron Beacom
Centre for Business in Society University of St Mark and St John
Coventry University Plymouth, United Kingdom
Coventry, United Kingdom

ISBN 978-1-137-47900-6    ISBN 978-1-137-47901-3 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47901-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017961160

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work in accordance with
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the
whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or informa-
tion storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does
not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective
laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are
believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors
give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions
that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: HelloWorld Images/Alamy Stock Photo

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
The registered company address is: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW, United Kingdom
Also by Ian Brittain
Legacies of Mega-Events: Fact or Fairy Tales? (co-edited)
The Paralympic Games Explained (Second Edition)
From Stoke Mandeville to Sochi: A History of the Summer and Winter
Paralympic Games
Disability Sport: A Vehicle for Social Change? (edited)
From Stoke Mandeville to Stratford: A History of the Summer Paralympic
Games
The Paralympic Games Explained (First Edition)

Also by Aaron Beacom

International Diplomacy and the Olympic Movement: The New Mediators
Sport and International Development (co-edited)

v
 Contents

1 Introduction   1
Ian Brittain and Aaron Beacom

Part I Conceptualising Disability Sport   13

2 Disability Models: Explaining and Understanding

Disability Sport in Different Ways  15
Brett Smith and Andrea Bundon

3 Multiple Oppression and Tackling Stigma Through Sport  35

Anjali J. Forber-Pratt

4 Disability and Barriers to Inclusion  55

Hayley Fitzgerald

5 Sport and Social Movements by and for Disability and Deaf

Communities: Important Differences in Self-Determination,
Politicisation, and Activism  71
Danielle Peers

6 Game Changer? Social Media, Representations of Disability

and the Paralympic Games  99
Liam French and Jill M. Le Clair

vii
viii Contents

Part II Structure and Development of the Paralympic

Movement 123

7 Key Points in the History and Development of the Paralympic

Games 125
Ian Brittain

8 Development of the IPC and Relations with the IOC

and Other Stakeholders 151
David Legg

9 The International Paralympic Committee as a Governing

Body 173
Mary A. Hums and Joshua R. Pate

10 Organising and Delivering the Modern Paralympic Games:

Contemporary Debates Relating to Integration and
Distinction 197
Laura Misener and Kristina Molloy

11 The Paralympic Movement: A Small Number of Behemoths

Overwhelming a Large Number of Also-Rans—A Pyramid
Built on Quicksand? 221
Simon Darcy

Part III Paralympic Sport: Political and Strategic Perspectives 247

12 Comparative Sport Policy Analysis and Paralympic Sport 249

Mathew Dowling, David Legg, and Phil Brown

13 The Paralympic Movement and the International

Development Agenda 273
Amy Farkas Karageorgos and Colin Higgs

14 The Rise of China as a Paralympic Superpower 295

Ailin Mao and Shuhan Sun
 Contents
   ix

15 The Paralympic Movement and the Boycott Agenda:

South Africa, Apartheid and the Paralympic Games 321
Ian Brittain

16 The Paralympic Movement and Diplomacy: Centring

Disability in the Global Frame 345
Aaron Beacom

Part IV The Paralympic Movement: Governance Perspectives 369

17 Women and Athletes with High Support Needs in

Paralympic Sport: Progress and Further Opportunities
for Underrepresented Populations 371
Chloe Slocum, Suzy Kim, and Cheri Blauwet

18 Evolution and Development of Best Practice in Paralympic

Classification 389
Mark J. Connick, Emma Beckman, and Sean M. Tweedy

19 Intellectual Disability, Special Olympics and Parasport 417

Jan Burns

20 Prostheses and Other Equipment: The Issue of the

Cyborg Athlete—Interrogating the Media Coverage
of the Cybathlon 2016 Event 439
Gregor Wolbring

21 Paralympic Philosophy and Ethics 461

Mike J. McNamee and Richard J. Parnell

Part V Paralympic Games Case Studies 479

22 The London 2012 Paralympic Games 481

Shane Kerr
x Contents

23 Sochi 2014 507
Evgeny Bukharov

24 The Rio 2016 Paralympic Games 531

Ian Brittain and Leonardo Jose Mataruna Dos Santos

25 2018 PyeongChang Paralympic Games and the

South Korean Political Intention 555
Kyoungho Park and Gwang Ok

26 Visions on the Legacy of the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games 579

Kazuo Ogura

Part VI Contemporary Paralympic Legacies and Challenges 603

27 Marketing of Paralympic Sports: Attracting Spectators

and Sponsors 605
Michael Cottingham and Renan Petersen-Wagner

28 Developing Disability Sport: The Evolving Role of the

University Sector 625
Aaron Beacom and Gill Golder

29 Paralympic Legacies: A Critical Perspective 647

Athanasios (Sakis) Pappous and Christopher Brown

30 Concluding Thoughts 665
Aaron Beacom and Ian Brittain

Index 673
 List of Figures

Fig. 6.1 Tree map of attitudes expressed through tweets including the
hashtag #Paralympics on September 13, 2016—visualised
through Netlytic categories 112
Fig. 6.2 Tree map of ‘positive’ attitudes expressed through tweets
including the hashtag #Paralympics on September 13,
2016—visualised through Netlytic categories 113
Fig. 6.3 Social network visualisation of #Paralympics Twitter
conversation114
Fig. 7.1 Participation at the summer Paralympic Games 139
Fig. 9.1 IPC governance chart 174
Fig. 10.1 Organising committee structure 204
Fig. 12.1 The SPLISS model: theoretical model of nine pillars of sports
policy factors influencing international success (De Bosscher
et al. 2006, 2015) 256
Fig. 14.1 Number of athletes attending the National Games for Disabled
Persons by games 309
Fig. 14.2 Main Chinese economic indicators (1986–2014)  310
Fig. 14.3 Mass sports data (by province) 313
Fig. 23.1 Organisation chart of the Paralympic Games Integration and
Coordination Department 513
Plate 1 IPC seminar in South Korea (PyeongChang Winter Olympics
Organising Committee) 563

xi
 List of Tables

Table 4.1 Disabled people and attitudes to sport 63

Table 4.2 Impairment and barriers to participation in sport 66
Table 7.1 The growth and development of the Stoke Mandeville Games 128
Table 7.2 Additions to the Paralympic programme (1960–1972) 132
Table 7.3 Development of the early Paralympic Games (1960–1972) 133
Table 7.4 Participation in the early Paralympic Games by continent
(1960–1972)133
Table 7.5 Development of the summer Paralympic Games (1976–1984) 137
Table 7.6 Participation in the summer Paralympic Games by continent
(1976–1984)137
Table 7.7 Development of the early winter Paralympic Games
(1976–1984)138
Table 7.8 Participation in the winter Paralympic Games by continent
(1976–1984)138
Table 7.9 Development of the summer Paralympic Games (1988–2016) 146
Table 7.10 Participation in the summer Paralympic Games by continent
(1988–2016)147
Table 7.11 Development of the winter Paralympic Games (1988–2014) 147
Table 7.12 Participation in the winter Paralympic Games by continent
(1988–2014)147
Table 9.1 IPC committees 177
Table 9.2 IPC councils 178
Table 9.3 Paralympic sports and their governing bodies 180
Table 10.1 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Games candidature timeline
(IPC 2015) 198
Table 11.1 The number and gender of athletes at the Paralympic
Games from 1972 to 2016 224

xiii
xiv List of Tables

Table 11.2 The number and gender of athletes at the Olympic Games
from 1960 to 2016 225
Table 11.3 Sports open to women at the Paralympic Games from
1960 to 2016 226
Table 11.4 Sports, year introduced and disability category 1960–2016 227
Table 11.5 Disability disparity between high- and low-income countries 233
Table 13.1 Overview of the IPC’s/PM involvement and relationship
with the UN with regard to the Sport for Development
Movement since 2000 283
Table 14.1 Results of Statistics on China’s participation in Summer
Paralympics296
Table 14.2 National Games for disabled persons in China 305
Table 14.3 National Special Olympics Games 305
Table 14.4 Per capita disposable income of urban residents
(grouped by regions) 311
Table 14.5 Per capita disposable income of rural residents
(grouped by regions) 311
Table 14.6 Development of sports for people with disabilities (by province) 313
Table 14.7 Organisational structure of disabled sports in China 315
Table 15.1 African nations participating by year (excluding South Africa) 335
Table 16.1 Olympic and Paralympic diplomacy: structure and agency
(adapted from Beacom and Brittain 2016) 351
Table 18.1 A history of important events in Paralympic classification 392
Table 18.2 Descriptions of the physical impairment types eligible to
compete in Paralympic sport 395
Table 18.3 The general structure of the current Paralympic classification
process396
Table 18.4 Descriptions of the research required in each step towards
the development of evidence-based systems of classification 400
Table 18.5 An abridged version of the Oxford Centre of Evidence-based
Medicine—Levels of evidence hierarchy 401
Table 19.1 Comparison of INAS world records and non-impaired
world records 427
Table 22.1 Scale of development of the Paralympic Games (1960–2012) 486
Table 23.1 Main parameters (estimated) of the 2014 Paralympic Games 514
Table 24.1 A comparison of Brazil’s final position in the medal table
at the last eight Olympic and Paralympic Games 535
Table 25.1 IPC excellence programme (Special Olympics Korea n.d.) 565
 1
Introduction
Ian Brittain and Aaron Beacom

The expansion of the international sports infrastructure forms part of the

social history of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. This expansion
has been linked by a succession of authors to a series of technological revolu-
tions in transport, communications and industrial production, as well as
attendant social and political changes (Guttmann 1978; Mandell 1984;
Wavlin 1984; Holt 1989; Allison 1993; Maguire 1999; Jarvie 2012).
Notwithstanding arguments concerning structure and agency, and the impact
of contrasting cultural contexts, shifts in our interpretation of social phenom-
ena, such as gender, race and ethnicity, have, for example, been articulated
through the changing configuration of global sport (Cashmore 2000; Malcolm
2012; Adair 2013; Pfister and Sisjord 2013). More recently, enhanced aware-
ness of disability rights and increased prominence of disability in the public
policy sphere have been linked by writers and commentators to the expansion
of disability sport (Brittain 2004; LaVaque-Manty 2005; Howe 2008; Bundon
and Clark 2014; Active Policy Solutions n.d.; Laureus n.d.). The most promi-
nent elements of this expanded infrastructure—the International Paralympic
Committee with its attendant governance and development organisations,
National Paralympic Committees, emerging parasport federations and organ-
ising committees for regional and international competitions including the

I. Brittain (*)
Coventry University, Coventry, UK
A. Beacom
University of St Mark and St John, Plymouth, UK

© The Author(s) 2018 1

I. Brittain, A. Beacom (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Paralympic Studies,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47901-3_1
2 I. Brittain and A. Beacom

Paralympic Games—constitute what has come to be known as the Paralympic

Movement. It is the development of this movement, borne as it was, out of
inter-organisational tensions and rivalries that provide the focus for this
Handbook.
Disability sports generally and parasports more specifically are a very recent
phenomenon—so recent indeed that as explored in the Handbook, the insti-
tutional trappings of national and international federations have yet to be
established in the context of a number of parasports. The first Stoke Mandeville
Games in 1948 (widely associated with the emergence of the Paralympic
Movement), took place 69 years ago and so the early Stoke Mandeville Games
and the first Paralympic Games (1960) are still within the lifetime of some. A
number of athletes who participated in the early Paralympic Games are still
alive today (e.g. Margaret Maughan from Great Britain who won Britain’s
first ever Paralympic gold medal in Rome in 1960 and was given the honour
of lighting the cauldron at the London 2012 Paralympic Games opening cer-
emony). At the same time, the growth in breadth and depth of what became
known as the Paralympic Games was very rapid. With 328 athletes from 21
countries competing across nine sports in 1960 (Brittain 2014), this has
increased to 4328 athletes from 157 countries competing across 22 sports in
2016 (IPC Website 2017). Yet despite this sharp upward trajectory and a cor-
responding expansion of public interest in the Games, there was, until
recently, a surprising scholarly vacuum surrounding the topic. Since the start
of the twenty-first century, this began to change. The sharpening of interna-
tional interest in disability rights reflected for example in negotiations leading
to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(UN 2006), the increasing (albeit unevenly distributed globally) resourcing of
disability sport and the expansion of academic programmes associated with
the study of sport, have all contributed to a marked increase in research and
publications associated with disability sport and the Paralympic Games
(DePauw and Gavron 1995; Bailey 2008; Howe 2008; Thomas and Smith
2008; Legg and Gilbert 2011; Schantz and Gilbert 2012; Brittain 2016).
Research and development in adaptive training techniques and prosthetics
associated with enhanced performance of Paralympic athletes contributed to
a further increase in scholarly outputs (Swartz and Watermeyer 2008; Zettler
2009; Burkett 2010). Notwithstanding the rapid increase of published mate-
rial, while chapters on disability sport and the Paralympic Games have
appeared in a number of sports studies Handbooks, to date there has not been
a Handbook devoted solely to the study of Paralympic sport and the develop-
ment of the Paralympic Movement. This Handbook is an attempt to address
this deficit.
 Introduction 3

It is perhaps inevitable that the terms of reference for the development of

the Paralympic Movement can be found in the ‘parallel’ narrative of the
Olympic Movement. The modern Olympic Games were conceived in the
twilight of the nineteenth century after a long period of gestation (MacAloon
2007). The organisation of the Games reflected in large part, the social and
political mores of the era. Initially dominated by white males from Western
Europe and North America, drawn from a particular socio-economic class, its
expansion over time began to reflect changing social attitudes and the shifting
global balance of power. In contrast to the Paralympic Movement, the devel-
opment of the Olympic Movement has long been the basis of a significant
and expanding body of literature (partly generated through the various
Olympic Studies Centres globally) from many disciplinary perspectives (e.g.
Espy 1979; Kanin 1981; Hazan 1982; Hoberman 1986; Guttmann 1992;
Hill 1996; Kaplanidou and Karadakis 2010; Beacom 2012; Jefferson Lenskji
and Wagg 2012; Girginov 2013; IOC 2015). From a socio-political perspec-
tive, this has included a debate regarding the potential of the Olympic
Movement to have a measure of agency, influencing wider social and political
development (Kidd 2008; Spaaij 2012). Certainly at the time of initiation,
the Movement was primarily an educational one (Müller 2000). This has
remained an important element of its work, reflected in the growth of Olympic
Education initiatives. Lately, the Movement has become increasingly engaged
with international development and more specifically, the so-called sport for
development and peace (SDP) agenda. While it would be over-simplistic to
present the development of the much younger Paralympic Movement as fol-
lowing the same trajectory, there are similar characteristics and the Handbook
addresses these in some detail. In this respect, it can be considered as a com-
panion resource to the Palgrave Handbook of Olympic Studies (Jefferson
Lenskji and Wagg 2012).
This Handbook is particularly timely given the experiences of the Rio
Games of 2016 and preparations for the 2018 Winter Games in PyeongChang
and 2020 Summer Games in Tokyo, all of which are taking place outside the
European—North American axis traditionally associated with the Olympic
Movement. While all Olympic and Paralympic Games are characterised by
pressures peculiar to their historical and geo-political setting, in recent years,
tensions have been mounting on a number of fronts. The bidding process for
Olympic and Paralympic Games has, in recent years, been on a downward
trajectory in terms of the number of bidding cities as municipal authorities, as
well as a range of other key national and regional stakeholders, look increas-
ingly critically at the balance between costs and benefits associated with host-
ing (Beacom 2012). At the same time, the experience of the Rio Games
4 I. Brittain and A. Beacom

exhibited particular organisational, resourcing and ethical tensions that

­present a new set of challenges for the management of the relationship between
the IOC and the IPC.

1.1 The Organisation of This Book

A key element of any good Handbook is a combination of depth and breadth
of subject area coverage. The Handbook set out to achieve this through engag-
ing with a broad and internationally diverse range of authors from a range of
backgrounds. It incorporates chapters written or co-written by practitioners
from within the Paralympic Movement and so provides at times unique
insights into key issues and concerns raised from both a practical and an aca-
demic perspective. The Handbook, divided into six sections, provides a criti-
cal assessment of contemporary issues that define the contours of the
Paralympic Movement generally and the Paralympic Games more
specifically.
Section one of the book explores a range of issues concerning the concep-
tualising of disability sport. In the second chapter, Brett Smith and Andrea
Bundon set the scene by enabling readers to gain a greater understanding of
what it means to be ‘disabled’. This, they consider as critical to an understand-
ing of how decisions are reached on the organisation, governance and devel-
opment of Paralympic sport. Their approach is to explore disability as it is
presented through a series of contending ‘models’, in particular, the medical,
social, social relational and human rights models of disability. Anjali Forber
Pratt then expands on a consideration of conceptual issues by exploring rela-
tionships between disability and gender, race, sexuality, class and religious
beliefs in the context of Paralympic sport. It is noteworthy that these areas are
only recently emerging as part of disability sport discourses, yet are central to
continuing challenges associated with access to sport development opportuni-
ties by groups who have historically experienced marginalisation. Building
upon the first two chapters, Hayley Fitzgerald then examines how the issues
of disability and stigma can lead to both attitudinal and structural barriers to
inclusion, both in sport and within society itself, and how barriers to sports
participation are inextricably linked to wider societal views and expectations
of people with impairments. This is followed by Danielle Peers, who cri-
tiques the claim that the Paralympic Movement is widely constructed as part
of the global movement for empowering people with disabilities by offering
an historical overview of the relationships amongst disability and deaf move-
ments, disability sports movements and the Paralympic Movement—across a
 Introduction 5

range of global contexts—from the late nineteenth century until ­contemporary

times. Section one concludes with a chapter by Liam French and Jill Le
Clair, who focus on the ways in which broadcast media frame Paralympic
sport and the extent to which new and emerging social media technologies
and platforms potentially offer new modes of consumption and ways of
engaging with disability sport that challenge traditional dominant main-
stream mass media representations, many of which are underpinned by the
negative views of disability outlined in the preceding chapters.
Section two considers the developing structure of the Paralympic
Movement. In order to better understand how the Paralympic Movement has
developed, it begins with Ian Brittain highlighting some of the key points in
the history and development of the Paralympic Games from their early begin-
nings as a rehabilitation and awareness-raising event as the Stoke Mandeville
Games to their establishment as the second-largest multi-sport event globally
after the Olympic Games. This is followed by an explanation by David Legg
of the evolving relationship of the International Olympic Committee (IOC)
with the International Paralympic Committee (IPC). He considers how the
IOC has influenced the development of the IPC, the governance of the
Paralympic Games and associated debates including regulations concerning
participation of athletes with disability in the Olympic Games. Mary Hums
and Josh Pate then explore more specifically the governance structure of the
IPC including its management of parasports and maintenance of relation-
ships with the IOC and various sport governing bodies that work with sports
for people with disabilities, but are not represented at the Paralympic Games.
Laura Misener and Kristina Molloy then address the philosophical debate
about an inclusive society in relation to the organisation of an event that aims
to build accessible sport facilities, develop sport pathways and influence soci-
etal understandings of disability. This is explored primarily through their
involvement with, and critical appreciation of, the Vancouver 2010 winter
Paralympic Games. Simon Darcy concludes this section by highlighting the
fact that since its inception, the Paralympic Movement has been constrained
by a series of inherent weaknesses and examining how structural issues such as
the underrepresentation of some countries, gender bias and a split between
the resource-rich and resource-poor regions contribute towards these
weaknesses.
Section three considers the Paralympic Games from a political and strategic
perspective. Mathew Dowling, David Legg and Phil Brown introduce the
reader to discussions surrounding cross-comparative sport policy literature
and begin to reflect upon how comparative sport policy research might be
informed by, and applied to, the Paralympic sporting context. In doing so, the
6 I. Brittain and A. Beacom

chapter identifies a number of challenges in applying what have historically

been non-disabled-centric comparative models to examine the Paralympic
sporting domain and the problems that derive from such an approach. Amy
Farkas Karageorgos and Colin Higgs claim that the Paralympic Movement
and the United Nations share a similar aspiration of creating a more inclusive
and accessible society and set about examining the role that the Paralympic
Movement, and more specifically the International Paralympic Committee,
have played in advancing the International Development Agenda. Chapter 14
then turns the focus towards an investigation of how China has risen over the
last 10 to 15 years to become the most powerful summer Paralympic Games
nation by far, which Ailin Mao and Shuhan Sun attempt to answer through
a discussion of possible indicators such as Chinese economic development,
legal framework and organisational structure. Sport, politics and sporting
boycotts have formed part of the literature of non-disabled international sport
for many years, but are rarely discussed in terms of disability sport and the
Paralympic Movement. Ian Brittain then highlights the fact that even the
Paralympic Movement is not immune to international politics and in particu-
lar the boycott agenda by outlining the case of South Africa during the
Apartheid regime of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Aaron Beacom concludes
this section by continuing the theme of sport and politics with a discussion of
the evolving engagement of Paralympic Movement actors with international
diplomacy in the context of events relating to the London, Sochi and Rio
Paralympic Games. He concludes by outlining the possible future trajectory
for diplomacy as it relates to various actors within the Paralympic Movement.
Section four focuses down on specific governance challenges facing paras-
ports as they continue to move through their formative years. Chloe Slocum,
Suzy Kim and Cheri Blauwet claim that despite the rapid growth of the
Paralympic Movement over the last 30 years, women and athletes with high
support needs (AHSN) have remained underrepresented. They claim that
both groups of athletes have historically faced distinct barriers to sports par-
ticipation and underrepresentation at elite levels of competition in Paralympic
sport and set about examining why this might be the case. Mark Connick,
Emma Beckman and Sean Tweedy state that athlete classification is central
to the existence of Paralympic and disability sport as it defines who is eligible
to compete and promotes participation by controlling for the impact of
impairment on the outcome of competition. The authors explain these claims
through a description of some of the key practical issues relating to the devel-
opment of evidence-based classification systems, such as the levels of evidence
and types of research studies that are required. Jan Burns then traces the his-
tory of the involvement of athletes with intellectual disabilities within
 Introduction 7

parasport by describing the origins and different purposes of the two main
organisations supporting these athletes, the Special Olympics organisation
and the International Association for Para-athletes with Intellectual Disabilities
(INAS). She also highlights the reasons for the exclusion, and then re-­
inclusion, of athletes with intellectual disabilities in the Paralympic Games.
Gregor Wolbring states that one of the most consequential advances in sci-
ence and technology is the increasing generation of human bodily enhance-
ment products in many shapes and forms that enable a culture of, demand
for, and acceptance of improving and modifying the human body. In 2016, a
Cyborg Olympics, a Championship for Athletes with Disabilities, took place
in Zurich, Switzerland. Wolbring interrogates the media coverage of the
Cybathlon and highlights how the narrative around the event poses various
problems for Paralympic values. Mike McNamee and Richard J Parnell con-
clude this section by examining the four stated values of the International
Paralympic Committee, namely courage, determination, equality and inspira-
tion, and challenging them by reference to a number of prominent ethical
issues in Paralympic sport. They conclude by endeavouring to offer a tentative
definition of ‘Paralympism’ based on the discussion and interrelation between
ethics and Paralympic values, something that so far no author has really
attempted, despite fairly regular use of the term by several authors.
Section five adopts a case study approach to analyse the experience of a suc-
cession of recent and impending Paralympic Games. A broadly similar frame-
work is used for each chapter, enabling some degree of comparison of
experiences within the 2012, 2014 and 2016 Games. In the case of the 2018
and 2020 Games, the approach enables consideration of common problems
and issues faced during the preparatory phases. The chapters provide unique
insights provided by senior practitioners and academics, of experiences on the
ground. Collectively, they provide pointers to the trajectory and learning
experience of the Paralympic Games generally and what lessons can be learned
from that process. Based upon his completed PhD studies, Shane Kerr claims
that London 2012 has reached paradigmatic status for the way that it organ-
ised the Paralympic Games and sought to leverage its legacy potential.
Beginning with an analysis of London 2012’s bid, the chapter examines the
position and role of key stakeholders including the organising committee, the
UK government, corporate sponsors and Channel 4, the television broad-
caster in the perceived success of the London 2012 Paralympic Games. From
his perspective as the Paralympic Games Integration & Coordination Director
for the Sochi 2014 winter Paralympic Games, Evgeny Bukharov describes
the preparation and staging of the first ever Paralympic Winter Games in
Russia, which he claims has brought positive changes in the social perception
8 I. Brittain and A. Beacom

of people with impairments and created a long-term legacy for them—­tangible

and intangible—not only in the host city, but in the region and the country as
well. He concludes that the Games in Sochi were the best ever winter
Paralympic Games in the history of the Paralympic Movement. In contrast,
Ian Brittain and Leonardo Jose Mataruna Dos Santos highlight the issues
that arose at the Rio 2016 Paralympics Games, the impact of the ever-­
worsening economic and political situation within Brazil upon the planning
and organisational decisions made by the Rio Organising Committee and how
these appeared to prioritise the Olympic Games over the Paralympic Games.
The chapter also highlights how these events and other outside issues such as
the Russian doping scandal may have impacted upon the IPC—IOC relation-
ship and how the massively skewed power relationship between the two organ-
isations may mean that the Olympic Games will always take precedence over
the Paralympic Games in the planning and organisational decisions made by
host cities. In the first of two forward-looking case studies, Kyoungho Park
and Gwang Ok highlight how despite the existence of problems, the success-
ful hosting of the PyeongChang 2018 winter Paralympic Games can be
achieved through drawing from South Korea’s past experience in hosting sport
events and through the historical lessons provided by experiences from other
countries. Finally, Kazuo Ogoura, president of the Nippon Foundation
Paralympic Support Centre and former secretary general of the Tokyo 2020
bid committee, discusses the possible legacy of the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic
Games by dividing it into two parts: domestic impact and legacy, and interna-
tional legacy and outlining some of the work that is being done in each area.
The final section of this Handbook explores particular challenges facing the
Paralympic Movement as it continues to expand both in terms of the
Paralympic Games and its wider development and advocacy remit. Michael
Cottingham and Renan Petersen-Wagner explore the promotion of market-
ing in the Paralympic Games and in related disability sport contexts by con-
sidering how athletes with disabilities are perceived and how these perceptions
impact the promotion of Paralympic sport in unique ways. Aaron Beacom
and Gill Golder then discuss the evolving role of the university sector in
developing disability sport by considering universities as not just centres for
knowledge production, but also as focal points for promoting a critical peda-
gogy, forming the basis for developing disability sports coaches, scientists and
administrators as critically reflective practitioners. They explore ways in which
university portfolios can contribute to the development of athletes with a dis-
ability through, for example, expanding the disability sport coaching base,
adaptive strength and conditioning programmes, supporting the work of fed-
erations and engagement with research and development. Finally, Sakis
 Introduction 9

Pappous and Chris Brown introduce the concept of legacy in relation to the
Paralympic Games through a critical review of the legacy themes from the
2004 to 2016 Summer Paralympic Games.

References
Active Policy Solutions. n.d. Know Your Rights: Disability in Sports. www.activepoli-
cysolutions.com/know-your-rights-in-disability-sports/. Accessed 16 March
2017.
Adair, Daryl. 2013. Sport Race, Ethnicity and Identity: Building a Global Understanding.
London: Routledge.
Allison, L., ed. 1993. The Changing Politics of Sport. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Bailey, S. 2008. Athlete First: A History of the Paralympic Movement. Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Beacom, Aaron. 2012. International Diplomacy and the Olympic Movement: The New
Mediators. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brittain, I. 2004. Perceptions of Disability and Their Impact upon Involvement in
Sport for People with Disabilities at All Levels. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 28
(4): 429–452.
———. 2014. From Stoke Mandeville to Sochi: A History of the Summer and Winter
Paralympic Games. Champaign, IL: Common Ground Publishing.
———. 2016. The Paralympic Games Explained (Second Edition). London: Routledge.
Bundon and Clark. 2014. Honey or Vinegar? Athletes with Disabilities Discuss
Strategies for Advocacy Within the Paralympic Movement. Journal of Sport and
Social Issues 30 (5): 351–370.
Burkett, B. 2010. Technology in Paralympic Sport: Performance Enhancement or
Essential for Performance? British Journal of Sports Medicine 44: 215–220.
Cashmore, Ellis. 2000. Making Sense of Sport. London: Routledge.
DePauw, K.P., and S.J. Gavron. 1995. Disability and Sport. 1st ed. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Espy, Richard. 1979. The Politics of the Olympic Games. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Girginov, Vassil, ed. 2013. Handbook of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic
Games, Volume One: Making the Games. London: Routledge.
Guttmann, Alan. 1978. From Ritual to Record. New York, NY: Columbia University
Press.
———. 1992. The Olympics: A History of the Modern Games. Champaign, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Hazan, Baruch. 1982. Olympic Sports and the Propaganda Games. New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers.
10 I. Brittain and A. Beacom

Hill, Christopher. 1996. Olympic Politics: Athens to Atlanta. 2nd ed. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Hoberman, John. 1986. The Olympic Crisis: Sport, Politics and the Moral Order.
New York, NY: A. D. Caratzas.
Holt, Richard. 1989. Sport and the British: A Modern History. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Howe, David. 2008. The Cultural Politics of the Paralympic Movement: Through an
Anthropological Lense. London: Routledge.
IOC. 2015. Academic Olympic Papers. Available Online. Olympic Studies Centre.
https://stillmed.olympic.oorg/AssetsDocs/OSC%20Section/pdf/Annex%20
5%20-%202011%Academic%20papers%20available%20online.pdf. Accessed
16 March 2017.
IPC Website. 2017. Rio 2016 Paralympic Games. https://www.paralympic.org/rio-
2016. Accessed 16 March 2017.
Jarvie, G. 2012. Sport, Culture and Society: An Introduction. second ed. London:
Routledge.
Jefferson Lenskji, Helen, and Stephen Wagg, eds. 2012. The Palgrave Handbook of
Olympic Studies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kanin, David. 1981. A Political History of the Olympic Games. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Kaplanidou, Kiki, and Kostas Karadakis. 2010. Understanding the Legacies of a Host
Olympic City: The Case of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games. Sport Marketing
Quarterly 19 (2): 110–117.
Kidd, B. 2008. A New Social Movement: Sport for Development and Peace. Sport in
Society 11 (4): 370–380.
Laureus. n.d. Development of Sports and Rights for People with Disabilities. https://
www.laureus.com/projects/africa/development-sports-and-rights-people-
disabilities. Accessed 16 March 2017.
LaVaque-Manty, M. 2005. Equal Opportunity to Meaningful Competitions:
Disability Rights and Justice in Sports. Disability Studies Quarterly 25 (3). http://
www.dsq-sds.org/article/view/573/750.
Legg, D., and K. Gilbert. 2011. Paralympic Legacies. Champaign, IL: Common
Ground Publishing.
MacAloon, J. 2007. This Great Symbol: Pierre de Coubertin and the Origins of the
Modern Olympic Games. London: Routledge.
Maguire, J. 1999. Global Sport: Identities, Societies, Civilizations. Oxford: Polity.
Malcolm, Dominic. 2012. Sport and Sociology. London: Routledge.
Mandell, Richard. 1984. Sport: A Cultural History. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Müller, N., ed. 2000. Pierre de Coubertin (1867–1937): Olympism (Selected Writings).
Lausanne: IOC.
Pfister, Gertrud, and Mari Sisjord. 2013. Gender and Sport: Changes and Challenges.
Münster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.
 Introduction 11

Schantz, O.J., and K. Gilbert. 2012. Heroes or Zeroes? The Media’s Perceptions of
Paralympic Sport. Champaign, IL: Common Ground Publishing.
Spaaij, R. 2012. Olympic Rings of Peace? The Olympic Movement, Peacemaking
and Intercultural Understanding. Sport in Society 15 (6): 761–774.
Swartz, L., and B. Watermeyer. 2008. Cyborg Anxiety: Oscar Pistorius and the
Boundaries of What It Means to Be Human. Disability and Society 23 (2):
187–190.
Thomas, N., and A. Smith. 2008. Disability, Sport and Society: An Introduction.
London: Routledge.
United Nations. 2006. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-
persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.
html. Accessed 16 March 2017.
Wavlin, T. 1984. Sport, Social History and the Historian. The International Journal of
the History of Sport 1 (1): 5–13.
Zettler, P.J. 2009. Is It Cheating to Use Cheetahs? The Implications of Technologically
Innovative Prostheses for Sports Values and Rules. Boston University International
Law Journal 27: 367–409.

Ian Brittain, PhD, is a Research Fellow in the Centre for Business in Society,
Coventry University, UK. He is an internationally recognised expert in the study of
disability and Paralympic sport. He is also the Heritage Advisor to the International
Wheelchair and Amputee Sports Federation, who, in a former guise, founded the
Paralympic Games, and he has attended every summer Paralympic Games since
Sydney 2000.

Aaron Beacom, PhD, is Reader in Sport and International Relations at the

University of St Mark & St John (Plymouth, UK). He leads the sport and disability
Degree route and is actively involved with local and regional disability sport develop-
ment forums. His research has recently focused on the engagement of the IPC and
other disability advocacy groups in multi-­stakeholder diplomacy.
 Part I
Conceptualising Disability Sport
 2
Disability Models: Explaining
and Understanding Disability Sport
in Different Ways
Brett Smith and Andrea Bundon

The purpose of this chapter is to critically examine how we might explain and
understand disability. Having a grasp on how disability can be explained and
understood is vital for anyone working with disabled people in sport. This is
because there are numerous ways to explain and understand disability and
each way can, in turn, have profoundly different implications for sport, the
lives of disabled people, and society at large. For example, how someone
understands disability will, either implicitly or explicitly, inform what is pri-
oritised to enhance athletic performance, what is left out in the pursuit of
Paralympic medals, how athletes are supported over their life course, how
research is carried out, how impaired bodies are represented in sporting organ-
isations, the media, policy, and research, who and what is targeted in efforts
to improve health, equity and equality, and how the damage often done to
disabled people is undone.
Having an informed grasp on how disability can be understood is not,
however, easy or straightforward. In part, this is because there are an increas-
ing variety of ways to understand disability and no consensus on a way for-
ward. Given this, we concentrate efforts by first outlining four models of
disability. These are the medical model, the UK social model, the social rela-
tional model, and the human rights model of disability. The medical model

B. Smith (*)
University of Birmingham, School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences,
Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
A. Bundon
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

© The Author(s) 2018 15

I. Brittain, A. Beacom (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Paralympic Studies,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47901-3_2
16 B. Smith and A. Bundon

and the social model are selected because, as Fitzgerald (2012) noted in her
sport research, “contemporary understandings of disability have come to be
understood through two key models of disability, the medical and social mod-
els” (p. 244). The social relational model and the human rights model are
focused on as together they begin to map some of the more emerging ways
that disability might be productively understood within the context of sport
and physical activity. After attending to each of the four models in turn, the
chapter offers additional future directions for understanding disability, sport,
and physical activity.

2.1 Medical Model

The medical model, or what is sometimes referred to as the individual model
of disability, has historically been a dominant way of understanding disability.
It defines disability as any lack of ability resulting from impairment to per-
form an activity within the range considered normal for a person (Thomas
2007). Thus, in the medical model, disability is understood as ‘caused’ by
parts of the body that are lacking or do not work ‘properly’. A medical model
has often, either knowingly or unknowingly, underpinned how disability is
perceived, described, and depicted in various sporting contexts. For example,
Brittain (2004) observed that disability sport is dominated by medical con-
ceptualisations that affect disabled people at all levels, as disability sport
administration is dominated by medical-related practitioners and disability
sport classifies participants along medical lines. Howe (2008) further argued
that perhaps the most important manner in which athletes are understood
and governed is via the classification of disability sports, which is a largely
medical practice conducted mostly by able-bodied people “that can lead to
stigmatisation and alienation because it ultimately creates a hierarchy of bod-
ies” (pp. 64–65). More recently in a broad overview of the history of the
Paralympic Games, Legg and Steadward (2011) suggested that “a medical
model in which sport was used for the purposes of rehabilitation” (p. 1099)
dominated understandings of disabled people within contexts like the
Paralympic Movement.
Despite historically being a common way to understand disability, the
medical model has been heavily criticised. These critiques largely emerged
from those within disability rights movements and were subsequently taken
up and developed by academics working in disability studies. One problem of
the medical model is that it relies on bio-physical assumptions of ‘normality’
to define disability. In relying on this, the socio-cultural forces that play a
 Disability Models: Explaining and Understanding Disability Sport… 17

major part in defining—constructing—what is ‘normal’ are overlooked and

left unchallenged. This can have dangerous consequences including perpetu-
ating a ‘normal’/‘abnormal’ binary. There is the danger of defining disabled
people as defective (i.e. ‘not normal’) and others (‘the normals’) as definitive
or superior human beings who can assume authority and exercise power. As
Meekosha and Shuttleworth (2009) pointed out:

How societies divide ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ bodies is central to the production
and sustenance of what it means to be human in society. It defines access to
nations and communities. It determines choice and participation in civic life. It
determines what constitutes ‘rational’ men and women and who should have
the right to be part of society and who should not. (p. 65)

Another criticism of the medical model of disability is that is locates the

‘problem’ of disability squarely within the body of the individual, rather than
explaining disability as an artefact of society and challenging oppressive soci-
etal attitudes and structures (Goodley 2012; Thomas 2007). It has also been
critiqued for depicting disability as inevitably a personal physical tragedy and
a psychological trauma that should be overcome. In so doing, it paints a very
negative picture of disability. For example, although disabled athletes do not
necessarily see themselves in such ways and the picture is more complicated
than presented by academics (Berger 2009), it has been argued that
Paralympians are often depicted in the media either as tragic victims of per-
sonal misfortune inspiring pity or as inspirational ‘supercrips’ who transcend
their impairments through sport (Hardin and Hardin 2004). The supercrip
stereotype has been criticised as oppressive because it places the onus on dis-
abled people to make heroic efforts to triumph over their physical or mental
limitations, thereby casting disability as an individual problem (Brittain 2010;
Howe 2011; Peers 2009). In light of such problems with a medical model
understanding of disability and the growing criticisms of it, alternative under-
standings have been developed. One of these can broadly be labelled the social
model of disability.

2.2 The UK Social Model

The social model is sometimes talked about in the singular as ‘the social
model’. However, it is worth briefly noting that there are different forms of
the model. For example, there is the Nordic social relative model of disability.
This model rejects the medical model dichotomy between illness and health.
18 B. Smith and A. Bundon

It sees the individual as interacting with their environment and, importantly,

impairment and disability as interacting with one another on a continuum.
The North American social model of disability, often referred to as the social
minority model, sees disability not so much as the inability of the disabled
individual to adapt to the demands of the environment or linked to impair-
ment but rather as the failure of the social environment to adjust to the needs
and aspirations of citizens with disabilities.
Derived from the Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation
(UPIAS), and underpinned by Marxism, the UK social model1 understands
disabled people as socially oppressed. It asserts that disability is not caused
by impairment but by the social barriers (structural and attitudinal) that
people with impairments (e.g. physical, sensory, and intellectual) come up
against in every arena. In this regard, having a bodily impairment does not
equate with disability. As Oliver (1996) famously stated, “disablement has
nothing to do with the body” (pp. 41–42). Instead, and severing the causal
link between the body and disability that the medical model created, dis-
ability is wholly and exclusively social. It is a consequence and problem of
society. The ‘solution’, therefore, lay not in cures, psychological interven-
tions, or physical adjustments to the impaired body. Rather improvements
in disabled people’s lives necessitate the sweeping away of social barriers that
oppress people, and the development of social policies that facilitate full
social inclusion and citizenship. Accordingly, as Owens (2015) notes, the
UK social model is different from the Nordic social relative model in terms
of links between disability and impairment. Whereas the former severs any
link between impairment and disability, the latter sees impairment and dis-
ability as interacting with one another. The difference between the UK social
model and the North American model of disability is that the latter uses a
minority group rights-based approach, with political action being grounded
on the individualisation of disability and identity politics rather than, as in
the UK social model, a materialist focus on oppression at a more structural
level than individual level.
Despite such differences, the social models of disability have in varying
degrees been useful for many disabled people. For example, the social model
has in many instances been used to successfully challenge discrimination and
marginalisation, link civil rights and political activism, and enable disabled
people to claim their rightful place in society. It has been a powerful tool for
producing social and political change, for challenging the material problems
experienced by many disabled people, and for driving emancipatory types of
research, such as participatory action research. It has also been influential in
producing anti-discrimination legislation in the form of various disability
 Disability Models: Explaining and Understanding Disability Sport… 19

­ iscrimination acts around the world, including in the UK, France, and
d
America. Although certainly not perfect or always followed, these acts mean
that disabled people in numerous countries should now legally have equal
access to gyms, sport clubs, sporting stadiums, employment, and so on. When
disabled people encounter the social model, the effect can also be revelatory
and liberatory. Rather than seeing themselves as the ‘problem’ and the ‘solu-
tion’ traced to their own individual body, disabled people have been empow-
ered by the social model to recognise that society is often the problem and
that the removal of social barriers to their inclusion and participation in social
life is what is needed.
Within the context of sport, physical activity and leisure studies, the social
model has been drawn on to explain and understand disability. For example,
Tregaskis (2004) provided some practical examples of how the social model
can and has been used by disabled people to engage mainstream organisations
and practitioners that were operating within individualised (medicalised)
models of disability. She suggested that, because the social model focuses on
external barriers to access and inclusion, it can depersonalise access issues and
thus create an environment where the disabled and the non-disabled can work
collaboratively to design more inclusive programmes without resorting to fin-
ger pointing, blaming or an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality. In their research,
Huang and Brittain (2006) likewise highlighted that many of the athletes
they interviewed drew on social model understandings of disability and com-
mented on various externally imposed barriers, be they environmental restric-
tions or those brought about by prejudice, that served to shape their sport
experiences. More recently, in a review of disability sport literature, Smith and
Sparkes (2012) noted that the ideas supporting the social model had been
evoked to explain limited participation rates in disabled sport at community
and recreational levels.
The social model also appears in the literature pertaining to the Paralympic
Games and the Paralympic Movement. For example, Howe (2008) explained,
that at least in the early years of the event, the Paralympic Games were often
portrayed as regressive in the context of the disability rights movements that
helped to create and advance the social model. The criticism was that sport,
with its unapologetic emphasis on bodily perfection, reproduced rather than
challenged the medicalised view of disability that the disabled people’s organ-
isations had fought so hard to reject. The result is what Purdue and Howe
(2012) have termed the “Paralympic paradox” (p. 194). This refers to the
tenuous position occupied by impaired athletes as they are pressured to show-
case their athleticism (distancing themselves from devalued, disabled identi-
ties) to able-bodied audiences and to simultaneously perform as athletes with
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The officer now drew near the individual he was ordered to remove;
but he did so as if a little afraid of his man—who stood up face to
face with the judge, and planted his foot as if he knew of no power
on earth able to move him, declaring he would’nt budge a peg, now
they’d come to that; for the house they were in had been paid for out
of the people’s money, and he’d as much right there as they had; but
havin’ said what he had to say on the subject, and bein’ pooty
considr’ble easy on that score now, if they’d mind their business he’d
mind his; and if they’d behave, he would.
Very well, said the chief judge, who knew the man to be a soldier of
tried bravery. Very well! you may stay where you are; I thought we
should bring you to your senses, neighbour Joe.
Here the stranger broke away from the crowd and leaped upon the
platform, and setting his teeth and smiting the floor with a heavy iron-
shod staff, he asked the judges why they did not enforce the order?
why with courage to take away life, they had no courage to defend
their authority. How dare ye forgive this man! said he; how dare you
bandy words with such a fellow! What if you have been to the war
with him? Have ye not become the judges of the land? With
hardihood enough to undertake the awful representation of majesty,
have ye not enough to secure that majesty from outrage?
We know our own duty sir.
No such thing sir! you do not—if you do, it shall be the worse for you.
You are afraid of that man—
Afraid sir!—Who are you!
Yes—you are afraid of that man. If you are not, why allow him to
disturb the gravity of such an hour as this? Know your own power—
Bid the High-sheriff take him into custody.
A laugh here from the sturdy yeoman, who having paid his quota for
building the house, and fought his share of the fight with the Indians,
felt as free as the best of them.
Speak but the word, Sirs, and I will do what I see your officer hath
not valor enough to do. Speak but the word, Sirs! and I that know
your power, will obey it, (uplifting the staff as he spoke, while the fire
flashed from his eyes, and the crowd gave way on every side as if it
were the tomahawk or the bow of a savage)—speak but the word I
say! and I will strike him to the earth!
George Burroughs—I pray thee! said a female, who sat in a dark
part of the house with her head so muffled up that nobody could see
her face—I pray thee, George! do not strike thy brother in wrath.
Speak but the word I say, and lo! I will stretch him at your feet, if he
refuse to obey me, whatever may be the peril to me or mine.
I should like to see you do it, said the man. I care as little for you, my
boy,—throwing off his outer-garb as he spoke, and preparing for a
trial of strength on the spot—as little for you, George Burroughs, if
that is your name, as I do for your master.
Will you not speak! You see how afraid of him they all are, judges;
you know how long he has braved your authority—being a soldier
forsooth. Speak, if ye are wise; for if ye do not—
George! George!... No, no, George! said somebody at his elbow,
with a timid voice, that appeared to belong to a child.
The uplifted staff dropped from his hand.
 CHAPTER VI.
Here the venerable Increase Mather stood up, and after a short
speech to the people and a few words to the court, he begged to
know if the individual he saw before him was indeed the George
Burroughs who had formerly been a servant of God.
Formerly, sir! I am so now, I hope.
The other sat down, with a look of inquietude.
You appear to be much perplexed about me. You appear even to
doubt the truth of what I say. Surely ... surely ... there are some here
that know me. I know you, Doctor Mather, and you, Sir William
Phips, and you ... and you ... and you; addressing himself to many
that stood near—it is but the other day that we were associated
together; and some of us in the church, and others in the ministry; it
is but the other day that—
Here the Judges began to whisper together.
—That you knew me as well as I knew you. Can I be so changed in
a few short years? They have been years of sorrow to be sure, of
uninterrupted sorrow, of trial and suffering, warfare and wo; but I did
not suppose they had so changed me, as to make it over-hard for my
very brothers in the church to know me—
It is Burroughs, I do believe, said another of the judges.—But who is
that boy with you, and by what authority are you abroad again, or
alive, I might say, if you are the George Burroughs that we knew?
By what authority, Judges of Israel! By authority of the Strong Man
who broke loose when the spirit of the Lord was upon him! By
authority of one that hath plucked me up out of the sea, by the hair of
my head, breathed into my nostrils the breath of new life, and
endowed me with great power—
The people drew back.
You have betrayed me; I will be a hostage for you no longer.
Betrayed you!
Yes! and ye would have betrayed me to death, if I had not been
prepared for your treachery—
The man is mad, brother Sewall.
You have broken the treaty I stood pledged for; you have not been at
peace for a day. You do not keep your faith. We do keep ours. You
are churchmen ... we are savages; we I say, for you made me
ashamed years and years ago of my relationship to the white man;
years and years ago! and you are now in a fair way to make me the
mortal and perpetual foe of the white man. The brave Iroquois are
now ready for battle with you. War they find to be better than peace
with such as you—
Who is that boy?
Ask him. Behold his beauty. Set him face to face, if you dare, with
the girl that spoke to the knife just now.
And wherefore? said one of the jury.
Wherefore, Jacob Elliot—wherefore! Stay you in that box, and watch
the boy, and hear what he has to say, and you shall be satisfied of
the wherefore.
Be quick Sir. We have no time to lose—
No time to lose—How dare ye! Is there indeed such power with you;
such mighty power ... and you not afraid in the exercise of it! No time
to lose! Hereafter, when you are upon your death-bed, when every
moment of your life is numbered as every moment of her life is now
... the poor creature that stands there, what will you say if the words
of that very speech ring in your ears? Believe me—there is no such
hurry. It will be time enough to-morrow, judges, a week hence or a
whole year to shed the blood of a miserable woman for witchcraft.
For witchcraft! alas for the credulity of man! alas for the very nature
of man!
Master Burroughs! murmured a compassionate-looking old man,
reaching over to lay his hand on his arm, as if to stop him, and
shaking his head as he spoke.
Oh but I do pity you; sages though you are—continued Burroughs,
without regarding the interposition.—For witchcraft! I wonder how
you are able to keep your countenances! Do you not perceive that
mother Good, as they call her, cannot be a witch?
How so? asked the judge.
Would she abide your search, your trial, your judgment, if she had
power to escape?
Assuredly not brother, answered a man, who rose up as he spoke as
if ready to dispute before the people, if permitted by the judges ...
assuredly not, brother, if she had power to escape. We agree with
you there. But we know that a period must arrive when the power
that is paid for with the soul, the power of witchcraft and sorcery shall
be withdrawn. We read of this and we believe it; and I might say that
we see the proof now before us—
Brother, I marvel at you—
—If the woman be unexpectedly deserted by the Father of lies, and if
we pursue our advantage now, we may be able both to succeed with
her and overthrow him, and thereby (lowering his voice and stooping
toward Burroughs) and thereby deter a multitude more from entering
into the league of death.
Speak low ... lower—much lower, deacon Darby, or we shall be no
match for the Father of lies: If he should happen to overhear you, the
game is up, said another.
For shame, Elder Smith—
For shame! cried Burroughs. Why rebuke his levity, when if we are to
put faith in what you say, ye are preparing to over-reach the Evil One
himself? You must play a sure game, (for it is a game) if you hope to
convict him of treachery in a case, where according to what you
believe, his character is at stake.
Brother Burroughs!
Brother Willard!
Forbear, I beseech you.
I shall not forbear. If the woman is a witch, how do you hope to
surprise her? ... to entrap her? ... to convict her? And if she is not a
witch, how can she hope to go free? None but a witch could escape
your toils.
Ah Sir.... Sir! O, Mr. Burroughs! cried the poor woman. There you
have spoken the truth sir; there you have said just what I wanted to
say. I knew it.... I felt it.... I knew that if I was guilty it would be better
for me, than to be what you know me to be, and what your dead wife
knew me to be, and both of your dead wives, for I knew them both—
a broken-hearted poor old woman. God forever bless you Sir!
whatever may become of me—however this may end, God forever
bless you, Sir!
Be of good faith Sarah. He whom you serve will be nigh to you and
deliver you.
Oh Sir—Sir—Do not talk so. They misunderstand you—they are
whispering together—it will be the death of me; and hereafter, it may
perhaps be a trouble to you. Speak out, I beseech you! Say to them
whom it is that you mean, whom it is that I serve, and who it is that
will be nigh to me and deliver me.
Who it is, poor heart! why whom should it be but our Father above!
our Lord and our God, Sarah? Have thou courage, and be of good
cheer, and put all thy trust in him, for he hath power to deliver thee.
I have—I do—I am no longer afraid of death sir. If they put me to
death now—I do not wish to live—I am tired and sick of life, and I
have been so ever since dear boy and his poor father—I told them
how it would be if they went away when the moon was at the full—
they were shipwrecked on the shore just underneath the window of
my chamber—if they put me to death now, I shall die satisfied, for I
shall not go to my grave now, as I thought I should before you came,
without a word or a look of pity, nor any thing to make me
comfortable.
Judges—may the boy speak?
Speak? speak? to be sure he may, muttered old Mr. Wait Winthrop,
addressing himself to a preacher who sat near with a large Bible
outspread upon his knees. What say you? what say you Brother
Willard, what says the Book?—no harm there, I hope; what can he
have to say though, (wiping his eyes) what can such a lad have to
say? What say you major Gidney; what say you—(half sobbing)
dreadful affair this, dreadful affair; what can he possibly have to say?
Not much, I am afraid, replied Burroughs, not very much; but enough
I hope and believe, to shake your trust in the chief accuser. Robert
Eveleth—here—this way—shall the boy be sworn, Sir?
Sworn—sworn?—to be sure—why not? very odd though—very—
very—swear the boy—very odd, I confess—never saw a likelier boy
of his age—how old is he?
Thirteen Sir—
Very—very—of his height, I should say—what can he know of the
matter though? what can such a boy know of—of—however—we
shall see—is the boy sworn?—there, there—
The boy stepped forth as the kind-hearted old man—too kind-
hearted for a judge—concluded his perplexing soliloquy, one part of
which was given out with a very decided air, while another was
uttered with a look of pitiable indecision—stepped forth and lifted up
his right hand according to the law of that people, with his large grey
eyes lighted up and his fine yellow hair blowing about his head like a
glory, and swore by the Everlasting God, the Searcher of Hearts, to
speak the truth.
Every eye was riveted upon him, for he stood high upon a sort of
stage, in full view of everybody, and face to face to all who had
sworn to the spectre-knife, and his beauty was terrible.
Stand back, stand back ... what does that child do there? said
another of the judges, pointing to a poor little creature with a pale
anxious face and very black hair, who had crept close up to the side
of Robert Eveleth, and sat there with her eyes lifted to his, and her
sweet lips apart, as if she were holding her breath.
Why, what are you afeard of now, Bridgee Pope? said another voice.
Get away from the boy’s feet, will you ... why don’t you move? ... do
you hear me?
No ... I do not, she replied.
You do not! what did you answer me for, if you didn’t hear me?
Why ... why ... don’t you see the poor little thing’s bewitched?
whispered a bystander.
Very true ... very true ... let her be, therefore, let her stay where she
is.
Poor babe! she don’t hear a word you say.
O, but she dooze, though, said the boy, stooping down and
smoothing her thick hair with both hands; I know her of old, I know
her better than you do; she hears every word you say ... don’t you be
afeard, Bridgee Pope; I’m not a goin’ to be afeard of the Old Boy
himself....
Why Robert Eveleth! was the reply.
Well, Robert Eveleth, what have you to say? asked the chief-judge.
The boy stood up in reply, and threw back his head with a brave air,
and set his foot, and fixed his eye on the judge, and related what he
knew of the knife. He had broken it a few days before, he said, while
he and the witness were playing together; he threw away a part of
the blade, which he saw her pick up, and when he asked her what
she wanted of it, she wouldn’t say ... but he knew her well, and being
jest outside o’ the door when he heard her screech, and saw her pull
a piece of the broken blade out of her flesh and hold it up to the jury,
and say how the shape of old mother Good, who was over tother
side o’ the house at the time, had stabbed her with it, he guessed
how the judge would like to see the tother part o’ the knife, and hear
what he had to say for himself, but he couldn’t get near enough to
speak to nobody, and so he thought he’d run off to the school-house,
where he had left the handle o’ the knife, an’ try to get a mouthful o’
fresh air; and so ... and so ... arter he’d got the handle, sure enough,
who should he see but that are man there (pointing to Burroughs)
stavin’ away on a great black horse with a club—that very club he
had now.—“Whereupon,” added the boy, “here’s tother part o’ the
knife, judge—I say ... you ... Mr. judge ... here’s tother part o’ the
knife ... an’ so he stopped me an’ axed me where the plague I was
runnin to; an’ so I up an’ tells him all I know about the knife, an’ so,
an’ so, an’ so, that air feller, what dooze he do, but he jounces me up
on that air plaguy crupper and fetches me back here full split, you
see, and rides over everything, and makes everybody get out o’ the
way, an’ will make me tell the story whether or no ... and as for the
knife now, if you put them are two pieces together, you’ll see how
they match.... O, you needn’t be makin’ mouths at me, Anne
Putnam! nor you nyther, Marey Lewis! you are no great shakes,
nyther on you, and I ain’t afeard o’ nyther on you, though the grown
people be; you wont make me out a witch in a hurry, I guess.
Boy ... boy ... how came you by that knife?
How came I by that knife? Ax Bridgy Pope; she knows the knife well
enough, too—I guess—don’t you, Bridgy?
I guess I do, Robert Eveleth, whispered the child, the tears running
down her cheeks, and every breath a sob.
You’ve seen it afore, may be?
That I have, Robert Eveleth; but I never expected to see ... to see ...
to see it again ... alive ... nor you neither.
And why not, pray? said one of the judges.
Why not, Mr. Major! why, ye see ’tis a bit of a keep-sake she gin me,
jest afore we started off on that are vyage arter the goold.
The voyage when they were all cast away, sir ... after they’d fished
up the gold, sir....
Ah, but the goold was safe then, Bridgy—
But I knew how ’twould be Sir, said the poor girl turning to the judge
with a convulsive sob, and pushing away the hair from her face and
trying to get up, I never expected to see Robert Eveleth again Sir—I
said so too—nor the knife either—I said so before they went away
——.
So she did Mr. Judge, that’s a fact; she told me so down by the
beach there, just by that big tree that grows over the top o’ the new
school-house there—You know the one I mean—that one what
hangs over the edge o’ the hill just as if ’twas a-goin’ to fall into the
water—she heard poor mother Good say as much when her Billy
would go to sea whether or no, at the full o’ the moon——.
Ah!
That she did, long afore we got the ship off.
Possible!
Ay, to be sure an’ why not?—She had a bit of a dream ye see—such
a dream too! such a beautiful dream you never heard—about the
lumps of goold, and the joes, and the jewels, and the women o’ the
sea, and about a—I say, Mr. Judge, what, if you ax her to tell it over
now—I dare say she would; wouldn’t you Bridgy? You know it all
now, don’t you Bridgy?
No, no Robert—no, no; it’s all gone out o’ my head now.
No matter for the dream, boy, said a judge who was comparing the
parts of the blade together—no matter for the dream—these are
undoubtedly—look here brother, look—look—most undoubtedly
parts of the same blade.
Of a truth?
Of a truth, say you?
Yea verily, of a truth; pass the knife there—pass the knife. Be of
good cheer woman of sorrow——.
Brother! brother!——.
Well brother, what’s to pay now?
Perhaps it may be well brother—perhaps I say, to have the judgment
of the whole court before we bid the prisoner be of good cheer.
How wonderful are thy ways, O Lord! whispered Elder Smith, as they
took the parts of the blade for him to look at.
Very true brother—very true—but who knows how the affair may turn
out after all?
Pooh—pooh!—if you talk in that way the affair is all up; for whatever
should happen, you would believe it a trick of the father of lies—I
dare say now—.
The knife speaks for itself, said a judge.
Very true brother—very true. But he who had power to strive with
Aaron the High Priest, and power to raise the dead before Saul, and
power to work prodigies of old, may not lack power to do this—and
more, much more than this—for the help of them that serve him in
our day, and for the overthrow of the righteous——.
Pooh, pooh Nathan, pooh, pooh—there’s no escape for any body
now; your devil-at-a-pinch were enough to hang the best of us.
Thirteen pence for you, said the little man at the desk.
Here a consultation was held by the judges and the elders which
continued for half the day—the incredible issue may be told in few
words. The boy, Robert Eveleth, was treated with favor; the witness
being a large girl was rebuked for the lie instead of being whipped;
the preacher Burroughs from that day forth was regarded with
unspeakable terror, and the poor old woman—she was put to death
in due course of law.
 CHAPTER VII.
Meanwhile other charges grew up, and there was a dread
everywhere throughout the whole country, a deep fear in the hearts
and a heavy mysterious fear in the blood of men. The judges were in
array against the people, and the people against each other; and the
number of the afflicted increased every day and every hour, and they
were sent for from all parts of the Colony. Fasting and prayer
preceded their steps, and whithersoever they went, witches and
wizards were sure to be discovered. A native theologian, a very
pious and very learned writer of that day, was employed by the
authorities of New England to draw up a detailed account of what he
himself was an eye witness of; and he says of the unhappy creatures
who appeared to be bewitched, all of whom he knew, and most of
whom he saw every day of his life, that when the fit was on, they
were distorted and convulsed in every limb, that they were pinched
black and blue by invisible fingers, that pins were stuck into their
flesh by invisible hands, that they were scalded in their sleep as with
boiling water and blistered as with fire, that one of the afflicted was
beset by a spectre with a spindle that nobody else could see, till in
her agony she snatched it away from the shape, when it became
instantly visible to everybody in the room with a quick flash, that
another was haunted by a shape clothed in a white sheet which
none but the afflicted herself was able to see till she tore a piece of it
away, whereupon it grew visible to others about her, (it was of this
particular story that Sarah Good spoke just before she was turned
off) that they were pursued night and day by withered hands—little
outstretched groping hands with no bodies nor arms to them, that
cups of blue fire and white smoke of a grateful smell, were offered
them to drink while they were in bed, of which, if they tasted ever so
little, as they would sometimes in their fright and hurry, their bodies
would swell up and their flesh would grow livid, much as if they had
been bit by a rattle snake, that burning rags were forced into their
mouths or under their armpits, leaving sores that no medicine would
cure, that some were branded as with a hot iron, so that very deep
marks were left upon their foreheads for life, that the spectres
generally personated such as were known to the afflicted, and that
whenever they did so, if the shape or spectre was hurt by the
afflicted, the person represented by the shape was sure to be hurt in
the same way, that, for example, one of the afflicted having charged
a woman of Beverly, Dorcas Hoare, with tormenting her, and
immediately afterwards, pointing to a far part of the room, cried out,
there!—there! there she goes now! a man who stood near, drew his
rapier and struck at the wall, whereupon the accuser told the court
he had given the shape a scratch over the right eye; and that Dorcas
Hoare being apprehended a few days thereafter, it was found that
she had a mark over the right eye, which after a while she confessed
had been given her by the rapier; that if the accused threw a look at
the witnesses, the latter, though their eyes were turned another way,
would know it, and fall into a trance, out of which they would recover
only at the touch of the accused, that oftentimes the flesh of the
afflicted was bitten with a peculiar set of teeth corresponding
precisely with the teeth of the accused, whether few or many, large
or small, broken or regular, and that after a while, the afflicted were
often able to see the shapes that tormented them, and among the
rest a swarthy devil of a diminutive stature, with fierce bright eyes,
who carried a book in which he kept urging them to write, whereby
they would have submitted themselves to the power and authority of
another Black Shape, with which, if they were to be believed on their
oaths, two or three of their number had slept.
In reply to these reputed facts however, which appear in the grave
elaborate chronicles of the church, and are fortified by other facts
which were testified to about the same time, in the mother country,
we have the word of George Burroughs, a minister of God, who met
the accusers at the time, and stood up to them face to face, and
denied the truth of their charges, and braved the whole power of
them that others were so afraid of.
Man! man! away with her to the place of death! cried he to the chief
judge, on hearing a beautiful woman with a babe at her breast, a
wife and a mother acknowledge that she had lain with Beelzebub.
Away with her! why do you let her live! why permit her to profane the
House of the Lord, where the righteous are now gathered together,
as ye believe? why do ye spare the few that confess—would ye
bribe them to live? Would ye teach them to swear away the lives and
characters of all whom they are afraid of? and thus to preserve their
own? Look there!—that is her child—her only child—the babe that
you see there in the lap of that aged woman—she has no other hope
in this world, nothing to love, nothing to care for but that babe, the
man-child of her beauty. Ye are fathers!—look at her streaming eyes,
at her locked hands, at her pale quivering mouth, at her dishevelled
hair—can you wonder now at anything she says to save her boy—for
if she dies, he dies? A wife and a mother! a broken-hearted wife and
a young mother accused of what, if she did not speak as you have
now made her speak, would separate her and her baby forever and
ever!
Would you have us put her to death? asked one of the judges. You
appear to argue in a strange way. What is your motive?—What your
hope?—What would you have us do? suffer them to escape who will
not confess, and put all to death who do?
Even so.
Why—if you were in league with the Evil One yourself brother
George, I do not well see how you could hit upon a method more
advantageous for him.
Hear me—I would rather die myself, unfitted as I am for death, die by
the rope, while striving to stay the mischief-makers in their headlong
career, than be the cause of death to such a woman as that,
pleading before you though she be, with perjury; because of a truth
she is pleading, not so much against life as for life, not so much
against the poor old creature whom she accuses of leading her
astray, as for the babe that you see there; for that boy and for its
mother who is quite sure that if she die, the boy will die—I say that
which is true, fathers! and yet I swear to you by the—
Thirteen-pence to you, brother B. for that!
—By the God of Abraham, that if her life—
Thirteen-pence more—faith!
The same to you—said the outlandishman. Sharp work, hey?
Fool—fool—if it depended upon me I say, her life and that of her boy,
I would order them both to the scaffold! Ye are amazed at what you
hear; ye look at each other in dismay; ye wonder how it is that a
mortal man hath courage to speak as I speak. And yet—hear me!
Fathers of New-England, hear me! beautiful as the boy is, and
beautiful as the mother is, I would put the mark of death upon her
forehead, even though his death were certain to follow, because if I
did so, I should be sure that a stop would be put forever to such
horrible stories.
I thought so, said major Gidney—I thought so, by my troth, leaning
over the seat and speaking in a whisper to judge Saltanstall, who
shook his head with a mysterious air, and said—nothing.
Ye would save by her death, O, ye know not how much of human
life!
Brother Burroughs!
Brother Willard!—what is there to shock you in what I say? These
poor people who are driven by you to perjury, made to confess by
your absurd law, will they stop with confession? Their lives are at
stake—will they not be driven to accuse? Will they not endeavor to
make all sure?—to fortify their stories by charging the innocent, or
those of whom they are afraid? Will they stop where you would have
them stop? Will they not rather come to believe that which they hear,
and that of which they are afraid?—to believe each other, even while
they know that what they themselves do swear is untrue?—May they
not strive to anticipate each other, to show their zeal or the sincerity
of their faith?—And may they not, by and by—I pray you to consider
this—may they not hereafter charge the living and the mighty as they
have hitherto charged the dead, and the poor, and the weak?
Well—
Well!
Yes—well!—what more have you to say?
What more! why, if need be, much more! You drive people to
confession, I say—you drive them to it, step by step, as with a
scourge of iron. Their lives are at stake, I will say—yet more—I mean
to say much more now; now that you will provoke me to it. I say now
that you—you—ye judges of the land!—you are the cause of all that
we suffer! The accused are obliged to accuse. They have no other
hope. They lie—and you know it, or should know it—and you know,
as well as I do, that they have no other hope, no other chance of
escape. All that have hitherto confessed are alive now. All that have
denied your charges, all that have withstood your mighty temptation
—they are all in the grave—all—all—
Brother—we have read in the Scriptures of Truth, or at least I have,
that of old, a woman had power to raise the dead. If she was upon
her trial now, would you not receive her confession? I wait your reply.
Receive it, governor Phips! no—no—not without proof that she had
such power.
Proof—how?
How! Ye should command her to raise the dead for proof—to raise
the dead in your presence. You are consulting together; I see that
you pity me. Nevertheless, I say again, that if these people are what
they say they are, they should be made to prove it by such awful and
irresistible proof—ah!—what are ye afraid of, judges?
We are not afraid.
Ye are afraid—ye are—and of that wretched old woman there!
What if we call for the proof now—will you endure it?
Endure it! Yes—whatever it may be. Speak to her. Bid her do her
worst—I have no fear—you are quaking with fear. I defy the Power of
Darkness; you would appear to tremble before it. And here I set my
foot—and here I call for the proof! Are they indeed witches?—what
can be easier than to overthrow such an adversary as I am? Why do
ye look at me as if I were mad—you are prepared to see me drop
down perhaps, or to cry out, or to give up the ghost? Why do ye
shake your heads at me? What have I to fear? And why is it I
beseech you, that you are not moved by the evil-eye of that poor
woman? Why is it, I pray you, fathers and judges, that they alone
who bear witness against her are troubled by her look?
Brother Sewall, said one of the judges who had been brought up to
the law; Master Burroughs, I take it, is not of counsel for the prisoner
at the bar?
Assuredly not, brother.
Nor is he himself under the charge?
The remark is proper, said Burroughs. I am aware of all you would
say. I have no right perhaps to open my mouth—
No right, perhaps?—no right brother B., said Winthrop—no right, we
believe?—but—if the prosecutors will suffer it?—why, why—we have
no objection, I suppose—I am sure—have we brother G.?
None at all. What say you Mr. Attorney-general?
Say Sir! What do I say Sir! why Sir, I say Sir, that such a thing was
never heard of before! and I say Sir, that it is against all rule Sir! If
the accused require counsel, the court have power to assign her
suitable counsel—such counsel to be of the law, Sir!—and being of
the law Sir, he would have no right Sir, you understand Sir,—no right
Sir—to address the jury, Sir—as you did the other day Sir—in Rex
versus Good, Sir,—none at all Sir!
Indeed—what may such counsel do then?
Do Sir! do!—why Sir, he may cross-examine the witnesses.
Really!
To be sure he may Sir! and what is more, he may argue points of law
to the court if need be.
Indeed!
Yes—but only points of law.
The court have power to grant such leave, hey?
Yes, that we have, said a judge. You may speak us a speech now, if
you will; but I would have you confine yourself to the charge.—
Here the prosecutor stood up, and saying he had made out his case,
prayed the direction of the court—
No, no, excuse me, said Burroughs; no, no, you have taught me how
to proceed Sir, and I shall undertake for the wretched woman,
whatever may be thought or said by the man of the law.
Proceed Mr. Burroughs—you are at liberty to proceed.
Well Martha, said Burroughs—I am to be your counsel now. What
have you to say for yourself?
The lawyers interchanged a sneer with each other.
Me—nothin’ at all, Sir.
Have you nobody here to speak for you?
For me!—Lord bless you, no! Nobody cares for poor Martha.
No witnesses?
Witnesses!—no indeed, but if you want witnesses, there’s a power of
witnesses.
Where?—
There—there by the box there—
Poor Martha! You do not understand me; the witnesses you see
there belong to the other side.
Well, what if they do?
Have you no witnesses of your own, pray?
Of my own! Lord you—there now—don’t be cross with me. How
should poor Martha know—they never told me;—what are they good
for?
But is there nobody here acquainted with you?
And if there was, what would that prove? said a man of the law.
My stars, no! them that know’d me know’d enough to keep away,
when they lugged me off to jail.
And so there’s nobody here to say a kind word for you, if your life
depended on it?
No Sir—nobody at all—nobody cares for Martha. Gracious God—
what unspeakable simplicity!
O, I forgot Sir, I forgot! cried Martha, leaning over the bar and
clapping her hands with a cry of childish joy. I did see neighbor Joe
Trip, t’other day, and I told him he ought to stick by me—
Well where is he—what did he say?
Why he said he’d rather not, if ’twas all the same to me.
He’d rather not—where does he live?
And I spoke to three more, said a bystander, but they wouldn’t come
so fur, some was afeared, and some wouldn’t take the trouble.
Ah! is that you, Jeremiah?—how d’ye do, how d’ye do?—all well I
hope at your house?—an’ so they wouldn’t come, would they?—I
wish they would though, for I’m tired o’ stayin’ here; I’d do as much
for them—
Hear you that judges! They would not come to testify in a matter of
life and death. What are their names?—where do they live?—they
shall be made to come.
You’ll excuse me, said the prosecutor. You are the day after the fair;
it’s too late now.
Too late! I appeal to the judges—too late!—would you persuade me
Sir, that it is ever too late for mercy, while there is yet room for
mercy? I speak to the judges—I pray them to make use of their
power, and to have these people who keep away at such a time
brought hither by force.
The court have no such power, said the Attorney-General.
How Sir! have they not power to compel a witness to attend?
To be sure they have—on the part of the crown.
On the part of the crown!
Yes.
And not on the part of a prisoner?
No.
No! can this be the law?
Even so, said a judge.
Well, well—poor Martha!
What’s the matter now?—what ails you, Mr. Burroughs?
Martha—
Sir!
There’s no hope Martha.
Hope?
No Martha, no; there’s no hope for you. They will have you die.
Die!—me!—
Yes, poor Martha—you.
Me!—what for?—what have I done?
O that your accusers were not rock, Martha!
Rock!
O that your judges could feel! or any that anybody who knows you
would appear and speak to your piety and your simplicity!
Law Sir—how you talk!
Why as for that now, said Jeremiah Smith, who stood by her, wiping
his eyes and breathing very hard; here am I, Sir, an’ ready to say a
good word for the poor soul, if I die for it; fact is, you see, Mr. Judge
Sewall I’ve know’d poor Martha Cory—hai’nt I Martha?—
So you have Jerry Smith.
—Ever since our Jeptha warn’t more’n so high,—
Stop Sir, if you please, you are not sworn yet, said one of the judges.