In looking at the witch trials of Europe it becomes clear that the stereo-type of the Halloween hag, with her age, her ugly looks and her tendency to eat young children caught munching on the eaves of her hourse, is not so far off the mark. The section of the population that was most often accused of witchcraft was the local strange old woman, who by some fate, was widowed or forced to live alone. These, of course would also be the most helpless people in society with no one to defend them, and no financial means of obtaining help. Men were occasionally charged with witchcraft, and they were more often charged when the countryside was tightly gripped in a paranoia of witches. But, this was the exception to the rule. In Essex County for example, less than 5% of those accused between 1560 and 1700 were men; most of them were women between the ages of fifty and seventy.¹ A reason for this sexual bias has been suggested by Erik Midelfort in his book on the witch trials of southwestern Germany. Rather than blame it on misogynism arising from anti-feminine attitudes of the Renaissance or the Reformation as others have, he considers a change in the marriage pattern of European society:

"For the first time in all Western history, it seems, men's ages at first marriage rose to 25 or even 30, whereas women's ages at marriage rose to 23 and up to 27. The proportion remaining single probably rose from about 5% to 15% or even 20%... In a society accustomed to placing 95% of all women in marriage, the identity problems and role conflict of perhaps 20% of all women might prove enormous."²

Legally and theoretically, the basis of society was the patriarchal family. This growing number of unmarried women may well have appeared as a seditious element. Furthermore, when a woman's father died, she would have no husband to support her, and in her old age, no children to care for her. If we add this to the decline of the nunneries during the 16th century, we would find that there was no recognized place for the unmarried woman in society, and thus, she would be most subject to attack. The attack might come all that much sooner as she became aged, or senile.

The witch trials, as they appear in the history of England, are in a sense both unique and conventional. They are conventional in the sense that they show the basic elements of witchcraft that are prevelent in the history of all countries, if not all cultures. They were unique in that for much of their history, the English witch trials were free from characteristics which were the hallmarks of the trials in the rest of Europe. The essence of the witch phenomenon is the doctrine of maleficium; the concept that through un, sub, or supernatural means, it is possible to cause injury to goods, body, or life. "We may hear of compacts with Satan, of flights through the air, of sordid and hideous revels at the witches? sabbath, but such things are mere confirmatory details."³ It is the accusation that injury has been done which brought the witch to trial in England.

In his book Witchcraft in Old and New England, George Kittredge presents a case which he terms maleficium in its "pure form," because it consists of only the testimony of the witnesses, with no confessions, or comments from the bench. Although the case never came to trial, it gives a clear picture of the witch creed as believed by the common people. The villagers appealed directly to the magistrates with no apparent influence from the clergy or gentry. Three people from the village of Hardness were the accused: a fisherman - Michael Trevisard, his wife Alice, and their son Peter. The twelve witnesses were of roughly the same socio-economic status as the Trevisards, and told how they, or their relations had been harmed by them. The pattern of the accusations is simple; the accused party was once overheard to say something threatening or spiteful, and when something does happen to the person that the remark was directed at, the illness or injury is blamed upon this "spell." The testimony against the Trevisards shows this clearly:

"This examinate saith that she, sitting at a door or bench in Hardness aforesaid about Christide last was twelve-month with Michael Trevisard of Hardness aforesaid, used these words: 'I would that my child were able to run as well as these children that run here in the street!' The said Trevisard 'It shall never run!' 'No? That's hard!' says this examinate again. 'No it shall never run,' answered Trevisard, 'till thou hast another,' repeating the same words a dozen times at the least with great vehemency. Whereupon the examinate, being much troubled in mind, especially upon a fear conceived by her before through the general bad report that went of him, departed from him. And the very same week the same child sickened, and consumed away, being well one day and ill another, for a space of seveteen weeks or thereabout then died.
"This examinate further saith that Peter Trevisard, son of the said Michael Trevisard, came to this examinate's house to borrow a hatchet, which Alice Beere, servant to this examinate, denied, to whom the said Michael answered, 'shall I not have it? I will do thee a good turn 'ere twelvemonth be at an end.' And shortly the said Alice Beere sickened, continuing one day well and another day ill, for the space of eleven weeks, and then died."⁴

Thus, it was that the witch trials in their most basic form in England were part of the universal theory of maleficium. The ideas upon which they were based would be understood by probably every primitive culture down through history.

However, as it has been stated, the English witch trial is unique when taken in a purely European context. For the larger part of its history the English witch trial lacked an official doctrine similar to those on the continent. There were no major tracts writtenin England on the subject of witchcraft before 1584. Further, the first witch trial to occur in England did not take place until 1565. Whereas, continental Europe had produced books on witches as early as 1450. Tractatus contra Demonum Invocatores was written in that year and is the first work to describe witchcraft as heresy. The infamous Malleus Maleficarum, or "Hammer of Witches," provided much of the dogma of the continental witch hunters for three hundred years after it was first published in 1486. Therefore, the English trials were simply a matter of maleficium; it was a case of the common people attempting to protect themselves from someone they believed was dangerous. Goodwife Baddaford's son was killed by a witch, and the same witch spoiled my cheese, so I had better tell the magistrates. There were no "official" witchcraft beliefs, just those of the common people.

Furthermore, the English trials did not contain any concept of the witches' sabbath until it appeared in the Lancashire trials of 1612. And even in that case it was found that the details of the sabbath had been taught to one of the main witnesses by a Catholic priest. Thus, it was not an English concept, but one which had been imported from the continent. This idea of a witches' sabbath was conceived in a highly developed form on the continent from 1450 in the book Errores Gazoriorum. Its absence from England is one of the main themes of Kittredge's book and is made more striking by two facts which he presents:
1) English scholars were aware of the concept of the sabbath, but they considered it purely a continental phenomenon. Reginald Scot, for instance, deals with the matter in his work Discoverie of Witchcraft, but no where does he refer to it as being known to the English witch.
2) The concept of the witches' sabbath was present in Scottish trials from at least as far back as the confessions in Newes in 1591.

The witches' sabbath in its advanced form combines a religious service and a business meeting, ending in wild debauchery. Satan is, in belief, present as a man or a demonic goat, and the rites are a perverse parody of Christian ceremonies whereby the witches deny God and church in a formal pact with the devil. Such are the descriptions given of the sabbath as systematized in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries by theologians. Such, were also wrung from superstitious defedants by inquisitors in response to, often, leading questions framed by the inquisitors, who already had formed a picture, as described, in their minds before the trial began.

The orthodox church has a long history of hunting down non-conformist groups. The Manicheasn, Paulacians, the Cathari, and the Waldenses were all persecuted in their time. In the 14 century, the Papal inquisitors discovered what they thought to be a new group of heretics -Satan-worshipping witches. The belief in witchcraft is ancient and universal, and can still be seen in primitive cultures, or on late night television. The sabbath of witches, however, is neither ancient nor universal. It was merely a transference. That which was already firm in the minds of the inquisitors with regard to the earlier hereitics was shifted to the supposed witches. Thus originated a theory of witchcraft that formed the basis for the brutal murder of thousands of innocent Europeans. (3,229 persons in the German southwest alone between 1561 and 1670.)⁶ The theory of the witches' sabbath meant that far more people would be accused because a defendant would naturally be forced to reveal the names of all others who had taken part in the supposed revels.

Why then, did the sabbath not appear in the English trials until so late? One reason is that the English witch theory that evolved seems to have favored the doctrine of the Canon EpiscopiCanon Episcopi is first recorded in A.D. 906, and is of unknown authorship, but it is believed to have originated at the Synod of Ancyra (A.D. 3l4). It denounced the beliefs of certain women as being "seduced by illusions and phantasms of demons, (who) believe and openly confess that, in the dead of night, they ride upon certain beasts with the goddess Diana, with a horde of countless women... such phantasms are sent by the devil who deludes them in their dreams. "⁷

A more important reason for the lack of the witches' sabbath is that the Papal inquisitions never gained a secure place in England. Therefore there was no intensive persecution of heretics comparable to those on the continent. There simply was no official mechanism responsible for disposing of heretics and demonalaters. And thus, the English witch was brought to trial on specific charges: destroying crops or livestock, or inflicting her neighbors with disease. Since the English witch was viewed simply as a criminal, and not an abominable heretic, this would explain why she was hanged, rather than burned as she would have been on the continent.

The eventual appearance of the witches' sabbath in English trials has been explained in the past by claiming that the Protestants who were in exile on the continent during the reign of Queen Mary, brought back with them the fears and theories of continental witchcraft when they returned after the coronation of Elizabeth. But, through detailed examination of cases Kittredge counters this suggestion. "There simply is no single detail of witchcraft that emerges in Elizabethan trials which was not an article of English belief before 1558."⁸ Thus the question of who imported the concept of the witches' sabbath to England is, as yet, unanswered. But, it would be my assumption that it was not introduced by one person or group, rather it was an idea that was slowly assimilated into the English system of beliefs over a period of many years.

"(a)If any person or persons after the first day of June next coming, use, practise, or exercise, any invocations or conjurations of evil and wicked spirits, to or for any intent or purpose, or else,
(b) if any person or persons after the said first day of June shall use, practise, or exercise any witchcraft, enchantment, charm, or sorcery, whereby any person shall happen to be killed or destroyed, that then as well every such offender or offenders in invocations or conjurations as is aforesaid, their counselors and aiders, as also every such offender or offenders in witchcraft, enchantment, charm or sorcery whereby the death of any person doth ensue, their aiders and counselors, being of either of the said offences lawfully convicted and attained, shall suffer pains of death as a felon or felons, and shall lose the privilage and benefit of sanctuary and clergy. Saving to the wife of such person her title of dower, and also to the heir and successor of such person his or their titles of inheritence, succession and other rights as though no such attainder of the ancestor or predecessor had been had or made... "⁹

This law is in part blamed upon a concern of the government that certain treasonous activities were taking place in the form of magic. In 1562 the Countess of Lennox and four others were condemned for treason for having "consulted with some pretended cheating wizards to know how long the queen should live."¹⁰ And in 1563 when Arthur and Edmund Pole were indicted on charges of treason, they claimed "they had meant to attempt nothing in the queen's lifetime, who by conjuration they had found should not live passing the next spring."¹¹ The worry seems to have been that a prophesy of the coming demise of the queen could lead to a rebellion. Thus, in 1581 another law was enacted specifically against persons who sought to find out the date of the queen's death. The sentence for the crime of witchcraft was death, or a year's imprisonment, depending upon the actual crime. (A year's imprisonment also included a public confession and four appearances on the pillory.) Because of the difficulty of proving a person guilty of witchcraft, witnesses that were normally not acceptable were permitted in witch trials. A suspect's spouse, and even her children were allowed to testify against her. Generally, the English witches were not tortured to obtain a confession to the extent they were on the continent. England lacked the German law which required confessions from defendants before they could be punished for capital crimes. This would also added another reason why the sabbath did not appear in the English trials until so late. A witch would be less likely to tell wild tales if she were not tortured.

"Doubtleslie who denyeth the power of the devill, would likewise deny the power of God, if they could for shame. For since the devill is the verie contrarie opposite to God there can be no better way to know God than by the contrarie; as by the one's power (through a creature) to admire the power of the great Creator: by the falshood of the one to considder the trueth of the other."¹⁴

James continues Daemonologie by describing the ways that witches harm their neighbors through the use of poppets and image magic. He agrees with the opinion of the Canon Episcopi that witches are merely deluded by the devil into believing that they fly through the air or travel to faery kingdoms. James ended the book by calling for a sentence of death for all those who were guilty of witchcraft and provided two means by which the guilty could be identified. First was the devil's mark somewhere on the witch's body a spot that was "ever insensible, howsoever it br nipped or pricked by any." And secondly was that "God hath appointed that the water shall refuse to receive them in her bosom, that have broken off them the sacred Water of Baptisme."¹⁵ Thus, the king of England himself gave his country a guide for the prosecution of witches that was used and quoted in contemporary trials in Dorset (1602) and as a justification of the Lancashire trials of 1612.¹⁶ Although swimming" witches to determine guilt as James suggested seems to have seldom been used unless the suspect requested the test.

James "had parliament pass a new witchcraft act which was considerably more severe than that of Elizabeth - and undoubtedly contributed to the increase of accusations which were being made against supposed witches. If the king needed any approbation for his work from his new subjects he did not have to wait long, for not only did the persecution of witches redouble, but a new book was published.. .that came out on the side of the king."¹⁷

And in the words of Ronald Holmes:

"As a result from such pressure (from the revised law, and Daemonologie) the common people became so engulfed in witch mania that appeals to reason were useless... James' beliefs strengthened popular opinion as popular opinion strengthened his beliefs, and the continual slaughter of alleged witches grew."¹⁸

Just what these claims are based upon is not clear. It is to be noted that the authors above had no reference in their books to Kittredge's work Witchcraft in Old and New England. This is a book that seems to be considered one of the most respected works on witchcraft written in this century. Kittredge devoted most of a chapter to defending James from similar charges, some of which apparently boardered on the absurd:

"For forty years Scotland had been engaged in witch hunting with the result that 8,000 human beings are believed to have been burnt between 1560 and 1600; and for the last ten years of the century the king had been at the head of the hunt... In the first Parliament of James, the more merciful act of Elizabeth was repealed; a new and exhaustive one was enacted.. Under this act 70,000 persons were executed up to 1680."¹⁹

Kittredge's reply to this is that no records have been published that would account for even one-seventieth of this number, and he suggests that perhaps the person who wrote this was accidentally using statistics of mortality from the plague as witchcraft statistics.

These claims about the effect of James I on the witch trials are incorrect. As for the Scottish trials the worst periods did not fall during his reign. They were 1660 to 1663 and 1640 to 1650.²⁰ The third worst period however, was during his reign and lasted from 1590-97, and James himself is personally connected with these trials. But he cannot personally be blamed for these trials. First, these trials came just after a period when the Scottish clergy had been calling for sharper enforcement of witchcraft laws. Second, as Kittredge contends, James was not a part of the trials from the beginning, but rather, "his intellectual curiosity - well known to be one of his most salient characteristics - led him to attend the examinations... he cannot be said to have encouraged it, for no encouragement was needed. The clergy were eager, and the people lived in constant terror of witches. If ever there was a spontaneous panic, this was such an outbreak. James and his council had only let the forces work."²¹ Jn addition, it was James himself who put an end to the craze in 1597 by revoking the commissions of justiciary for witchcraft. What is more, Daemonologie cannot have had any increasing effect on the trials because it was not printed until 1597, at the end of the panic.

As for the English witch trials, James did not cause an increase there either. In fact, I shall contend that there was a general decline in the number of witch trials starting at the end of the 16th century, and continuing through the 17th century. Peter Haining, as stated, was one of those who accuse James of increasing the number of witch trials. Yet, in his same book he includes the following table:

Go to Part 2
Bibliography