Over the past few years, there has been an increasing fascination with the history of the witch trials (and witches in general). This might simply be my own perception since I curated the exhibition Wicked Spirits in 2022 and have had countless people get in touch since. There has also been a legacy of events held at Colchester Castle, inspired by the exhibition, which have consistently been very popular with many selling out entirely. However, the rise in “witchy shops” and Tik Tok makes me think there is something more to it than my own brilliant exhibition, no matter how much I'd like to believe that.
Although I feel more people than ever have an accurate awareness of the “true” nature of the witch trials and the history of witchcraft, at least here in Britain where I live, there are still many glaring inaccuracies and misconceptions that are circulated. I find this especially on social media, but even in TV and film where the witch has become a staple of horror and fantasy.
So as an end of year treat, I thought I would pull together a few of the most common ones and share some of my own thoughts and perceptions on what actually happened from the 1500s into the 1800s. This is all based on my own research and conversations I have had with academics, modern day magical practitioners and a vast array of books, documentaries and podcasts I have absorbed over the past few years. In fact, I am convinced to this day I was kicked out of Jury Duty because I was reading a book in the waiting room about the witch trials...
The Burning Times
Witches were not always burnt at the stake. At least not in England or North America where arguably the most famous cases of witchcraft occurred. In England, someone found “guilty” of witchcraft under one of the four Witchcraft Acts (a subject for another time) would be hung. I use air quotes here as there was no guilt as far as I am concerned, as not only should the laws have not existed but many people accused did not even believe themselves to be magical practitioners.
Based on pamphlets and accounts at the time, especially in the late 1500s, here is a fairly standard series of events that would happen for someone accused of and found guilty of witchcraft:
- Most accusations started when someone upset a neighbour or relative. Usually the reason given was that they had not helped when asked or, quite often, they just happened to be living on the fringes of society and were perceived to not be contributing to the wider community, most often elderly and disabled widows (because of course a woman living alone couldn't possibly survive late into life, it must be witchcraft?!)
- The accusation would brought to a local official and the individual would then be taken to the nearest gaol, a place where people were kept whilst awaiting a sentence for their crime. Sometimes they were tested, by which I mean tortured (more on that later), to try and determine guilt before they were actually taken to court. They didn't want to waste the time of the judges by bringing a clearly innocent person to court.
- Whilst waiting in gaol, many people died of starvation and illness. The way the law worked at this time is that criminal cases were brought to the assizes courts. These were itinerant courts that would be held several months apart. This meant a person sent to gaol the day after the last assizes could be waiting in there half a year before their trial. The conditions of most gaols were so bad, inmates died before they could even defend themselves. Matthew Hopkins specifically chose the gaol in Colchester Castle due to its poor reputation, knowing that victims would rather give a guilty confession than spend much time there.
- If they made it to the assizes, witnesses would give evidence and the accused would have the chance to defend themselves. This is often the point where victims would throw loved ones under the bus, suggesting they were witches themselves who had put the defendant under some sort of spell. Actually, many of the cases of witchcraft accusation ended in a not guilty verdict. It was incredibly difficult to prove guilt under the Witchcraft Acts, which is why torturous techniques were developed to try and shoehorn in guilt where there clearly was none.
- In order to act as a deterrent to others, mainly friends and family, the execution of those found "guilty" would usually take place in the town or village they came from. On top of this, in a few examples, pamphlets were produced detailing the events that took place. Due to low literacy rates at the time, many of these pamphlets also included illustrations, either of the accused or of their supposed crimes. This was in order to ensure the maximum amount of fear and paranoia around the existence of witches. Of course, even those found not-guilty would possibly be shunned by neighbours, friends and family. Could the judge have got it wrong or did they bewitch him to get a not-guilty verdict?! Whatever happens, even being accused of being a witch throughout the 1500s and 1600s would likely make you even more of a social outcast than you potentially already were.
By the pricking of my thumbs
In a time when torture was illegal and the actual evidence for witchcraft was pretty non-existent, those seeking to punish suspected witches and find proof of their guilt had to seek alternative methods. Although these methods were not all considered torture, due to semantics and the law at the time, they were certainly torturous for anyone who had to face them.
Pricking is one of the most well known witchcraft tests. It involved the use of sharp objects to poke a victim until they found a mark on the body that did not bleed or cause pain. The idea was that this was a mark given by the devil. This was such a widely credited test for witchcraft that people eventually resorted to trick blades in attempts to ensure a victim was found guilty. Reginald Scot in his book "The Discoverie of Witchcraft" mentions several of these fake tools used by witchfinders to get a guilty verdict.
Another form of torture was walking or standing, where the victim would be forced to either walk or stand still continuously whilst a changing guard would prevent them from resting. Many were driven to plead not guilty, simply to make the pain stop. Others were delusional through sleep deprivation and would have agreed to anything asked of them. In other case, all pleas of guilt would not hold in a court of law today.
The final common method of torture I will mention (because there are more...) is "swimming" or "ordeal by water". Now this is not to be confused to ducking or cucking, where the accused was placed in a stool and ducked under water. In fact, the use of a stool was not really used on suspected witches at all, but rather as a form of humiliating punishment for drunks, gossips and scolds, which were essentially women that men happened to not like. Swimming was where a victim's opposing big toes and thumbs were tied together and they were thrown into water. If they floated, the water was rejecting the devil inside them and they were guilty. If they drowned, then they were innocent but at least they went to heaven which I am sure was some consolation for their loved ones. This was quickly recognised for the farce it is and was not recommended by officials. However, cases goes as recently as the 1800s where people attempted this practice on suspected witches. An elderly man in Sible Heddingham was thrown into a river in 1863 after being accused of witchcraft. Although he survived the ordeal, sadly he died of pneumonia not long afterwards.
You're a *itch!
Something I have come to realise through my research into the history of the witch trials and the development and boom of pagan practices in the modern era is that the term "witch" was essentially a slur throughout the 1500s and 1600s. I mean this in the sense that it was a word created to vilify and marginalise a particular group of people. Although the word has it's origins in Old English words that meant witch or wizard, Wicce or Wicca respectively, the word witch was predominantly used by non magical practitioners. It was especially used in accounts that attempted to portray them as evil and an enemy of "good Christians".
Throughout the period of the witch trials, magical practitioners would not have called themselves "witches". It is difficult to really know what they did call themselves as most accounts about them come in the form of pamphlets and books that were trying to show their guilt. "Cunning folk" is perhaps the most widely recognised term for the people who were offering healing and other magical services at this time. This is a term that persisted well into the 1900s, where a revival in magical practice saw people drawing on much older traditions. This gives strong support for this being the preferred term in the past, even as far back as the 1500s.
In more recent times, the word witch has been adopted by those who believe themselves to be connected to the women branded as such in the past. Like with others slurs that have been co-opted by communities that have had the term used against them historically, the idea behind doing this is to take away power from the word and "own it" as a community. Unlike some slurs adopted by other communities, perhaps due to the fact that centuries separate the original use of the word as a slur and its acceptance amongst modern practitioners, it is a word that the general public feel comfortable using and most who consider themselves to be witches are happy with non-witches using that term to describe them.
One thing that is happening more and more, is that sub groups within the community are developing and new terms are being used. Pagans, druids and wiccans are some of the many terms that modern day magical practitioners chose to call themselves. Many of these names also have deep roots in the history of witchcraft, while some are choosing to look to the future and include technology in their craft. I even remember early savants of the internet being called "web wizards" in the 1990s.
Related Posts
