Witch
Who/what was a witch in 17th century England?
It’s very easy to put one’s own viewpoint on this. Many have decreed the witch trials of England to be against women, or the elderly, or the poor. However, there is no one answer, I’m afraid. When you look across the various countries, some even found the vast majority of men guilty!
I had tried to narrow it down to people who were ‘othered’ - but not even this is universally true. Some folk were conveniently political dissenters and/or of noble birth.
So, I turned to one of the most damaging, vile, terrible books of all time: the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of the Witches). Written by the German inquisitor, Heinrich Kramer, published in 1486.
My biggest ‘take away’ from reading the entirety of his insane drivel was…
The world would have saved a lot of innocent lives if a certain little blue pill had been invented in the 17th century!
Seriously, the guy was obsessed with witches stealing “the male organ”. And/or impeding procreation.
He does state that more men than women are bewitched. And that women are more easily coerced into becoming witches - he has particular beef with midwives (I’m not even going to repeat the horrid accusations against them!).
There is a LOT of discussion on whether witches exist, whether it is against Catholic teachings to believe in them at all, how they unite with Lucifer (whose power and virtue were unequaled, btw, according to Heinrich! Just his grace was diminished by his fall).
It is full of contradictions. But the main one is that witches are the worst of all evils, yet all is a matter of Divine providence as nothing can be done without God’s will (so he sanctions their actions). Make it make sense!!!
Anyway, there are no clear cut answers in that book as to what a witch is. It’s a load of deluded waffle about their deeds.
NB The Malleus Maleficarum was not the only book against witches. It was perhaps the most influential. Certainly the most infamous.
So, maybe we should turn to the law. The Witchcraft Act of England 1604 as enacted by King James I, mentions:
People found guilty of the following shall be punished by death:
“…Use, practise, or exercise any invocation or conjuration of any evil and wicked spirit…”
One mustn’t consult or convene with wicked spirits either.
Nor dig up any bodies from their grave!
Or use any dead body parts: “in any manner of Witchcraft, Sorcery, Charme, or Inchantment, or shall use, practise, or exercise, any Witchcraft, Incantment, Charme or Sorcery, whereby any person shall be Killed, Destroyed, Wasted, Consumed, Pined, or Lamed, in His or Her body, or any part therof.”
Curiously, this Act then went on to ban anyone using witchcraft or charms to locate treasure or lost things. The guy was desperate for money, I would’ve thought that would have been a useful skill for him to employ. Hey ho. These folk, along with anyone provoking unlawful love, harming cattle, goods or humans, would be imprisoned for one year, and be placed in a pillory for 6 hours in a market town each quarter of that year. Repeat offenders would be executed, and their family disinherited!
But this is oddly vague, isn’t it? What constitutes as a “charme”? What is “witchcraft”? We still don’t know.
So, how does one tell if someone was a witch?
Well, you imprison them (in a local jail). A truly nasty place.
The disinheritance of anyone found guilty was a primary reason why those accused would refuse to confess. Let’s torture them then!? So, first they were starved, then made to suffer ‘peine forte et dure’ (the laying of increasingly heavy weights upon the body - could lead to being crushed to death!). Honestly, I’d maybe confess to anything to make the torture stop! As many did.
Then there was the tell-tale “Devil’s Mark” - witch hunters or physicians would intrusively look all over the accused’s body to see if there were any unusual markings or areas where pain could not be felt when pricked by a sharp object. Seriously? Who has zero flaws?
Later (from 1612), the ‘swimming’ test would be employed aka 'dunking’ - the guilty floated, the innocent would sink and possibly drown. ^Excellent^
Oh, or if someone weighed less than a Bible, they were guilty (and not horribly malnourished)!?
But what were they even confessing to?
Poor, old women may were accused of having a familiar. Heaven forbid a woman should have a cat!?
Causing injury or harm to livestock was a common accusation. Look, I love animals, but they can be rather dense - ask any vet today how many self-inflicted injuries they have to tend to!
In 1652, around 20 witches were accused of ruining crops. Most were hanged, but one requested to be burned, having confessed to producing a child with the devil! But famine was not unknown in these times. We had some sketchy weather - talking of…
King James VI of Scotland (later also King James I of England), brought a case against several nobles of the Scottish court. 70 people (mostly women) were tried for having caused the storms which forced his ship back to shore when he tried to sail to Copenhagen, to pick up his bride.
The infamous Pendle Witch Trials of 1612 firstly accused Alizon Device of cursing a shopkeeper who later became sick. Eventually, 10 people were hanged in that terrible case.
Also included in the Pendle Witch Trials was Alice Nutter - a wealthy landowner, noblewoman from a Catholic family. She was accused of attending a witch’s coven on Good Friday, 1612. And also for later causing the death of some chap named, Henry Milton. Her main accuser was a nine-year-old child named Jennet Device!
Causing illness was high on the list of accusations.
Eleanor of Cobham was accused of conspiring to produce a child who would be a rival for the throne in 1441!
But it really didn’t take much. Clement Baker and his wife were found guilty of “evil demeanour and behaviour” in 1558 - but were merely banished from their town for a year.
Perhaps the most would-be-amusing case (it would be funny except people died, so it’s more baffling than haha), was that brought against Joane Williford, Joan Cariden, Jane Hott and Elizabeth Harris in Faversham in 1645 (aka the Faversham Witches). It’s just the weirdest case of the frail male ego.
See, this guy, Thomas Gardener, fell out of a window (may have been a tree; there’s some confusion) and hurt his bum. He became the subject of ridicule. Of course, he couldn’t just laugh it off, and it wasn’t his fault at all. (*smacks head, calls him a bad name*). No, these three women and a dog (clearly Joane W’s familiar), obviously made him do it. All four confessed to a lesser or greater degree (following torture). Three of the women were ‘swum’ and floated. The really unfunny part is that those three were subsequently hanged. Nobody seems quite sure what happened to poor Elizabeth - sadly, I suspect she died in custody.
So, who was a witch?
Anyone! Men, spinsters, widows, married women, poor people, nobles. If you annoyed somebody, you could find yourself being accused of being a witch!!
On that not-so-comforting note, I’ll bid you adieu.
Sweet dreams!
Always in love and light,
TL