Course:History 344 Nasty Families/Cultural Topics/Witchcraft

In Stuart England the presence of witchcraft was a highly contentious issue, and led to many executions of suspected witches for various crimes. The were brief spasms of intense persecution during periods of public anxiety; the last few years of Elizabeth and the first of James were dangerous times to be accused for witchcraft, and there was a brief and dreadful interlude during the 1640’s, when regular courts were suspended and England had a self appointed Witch-finder General.(1) But on average, four out of five of those accused were acquitted, or sentenced only to prison and pillory, however even if the accused party is found innocent their reputation would be largely tainted and further convictions of witchcraft would be taken very seriously.(2) One of the most common crimes suspected witches were charged with was the sudden death of an animal. (3) If an animal that had been perfectly healthy suddenly keeled over and died or suffered some strange injury, and a strange or unknown woman had been present recently, many people in England would suspect witchcraft. Also if an animal suffered from a “wasting illness” in which it would suddenly start wasting away, witchcraft was also a usual suspect.(4) In many cases the accused had come to either buy or sell something from the owner, and after they were refused, their livestock would suffer health issues. With the knowledge we have now we know there are natural causes for all these problems, usually related to the plants the animal had ingested that were poisonous.(5) There are over two hundred examined cases in the 17thcentury where witches were accused of bewitching animals, and almost all of them can be explained by modern science but unfortunately many of these witches were executed for the crimes of which they were accused. Witches were also commonly hung for crimes of theft and murder. One of the most famous witch trials was the trial at Pendle Hill in 1612 where nine witches were hung after a lengthy trial.(6) The most common punishment for guilty parties practicing witchcraft was hanging, unless the act involved treason. For witchcraft involving treason the sentence was as stated “ye shall be drawn through the open City of London upon hurdles to the place of execution, and there be hanged and let down alive, and your privy parts be cut off, and your entrails taken out and burnt in your sight; then your head to be cut off and your body divided into for parts, to be disposed of at her Majesty’s pleasure”.(7)

(1) Rosen, Barbara. Witchcraft in England, 1558-1618. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1991, 51. (2) Ibid, 51. (3) Hickey, Sally. "Fatal Feeds?: Plants, Livestock Losses and Witchcraft Accusations in Tudor and Stuart Britain." Folklore 101, no. 2 (1990): 131-142. MLA International Bibliography, EBSCOhost (accessed February 2, 2012). (4) Ibid. (5) Ibid. (6) "The Pendle Witches." British Heritage 18, no. 7 (October 1997): 12. MAS Ultra - School Edition, EBSCOhost (accessed February 2, 2012). (7) Rosen, Barbara. Witchcraft in England, 1558-1618. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1991, 52.

The resurgence of the Witchcraft trials in the 16th and 17th century is attributed to many different factors. Emily Oster's analysis of why the witch craft trials were conducted included things such as economic and weather conditions. After a mini ice age people were looking for a scapegoat to blame. Witches could be blamed for the weather and in result the crop failure and the food shortages, In Osters analysis she found that blaming the which drew out the conclusion that, " it is reasonable to conclude that, just as easily as they raise hailstorms, so can they cause lightning and storms at sea; and so no doubt at all remains on these points." The targeted women were usually poor widows and could have been possibly suffering from health and psychological issues such as syphilis, malnutrition, etc.. (1)Oster, Emily. Witchcraft, Weather and Economic Growth in Renaissance Europe. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 18, No. 1. (American Economic Association, 2004. pp 215-228)http://www.jstor.org/stable/3216882

<references>