Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

CHANGING ATTITUDES TO WITCHCRAFT IN BRITAIN - Coggle Diagram

- - - - John Darling accuses Alice Goodridge of having bewitched him when he was 13 years old, causing him to have fits. Goodridge was arrested, along with her elderly mother. They were searched for witch marks and then imprisoned. In prison, she confessed to bewitching Darling (most likely after much sleep deprivation) as well as having a familiar. She was tried and found guilty but died before being executed. Darling continued to have fits after her death, and so exorcist John Darrel was brought in. He recommended prayer and fasting to cast out the Devil. Darrell's exorcism techniques appeared to work on Darling, Darrell then exorcized his apprentice William Sommers, who claimed to have been bewitched by 13 women. Darrell began to attract suspicion, with people believing him to be fraudulent. William Sommers and Thomas Darling were later questioned and both confessed that they had faked possession - Darrell was imprisoned for a year. A canon was drawn up in 1604 that forbade ministers to practice without a licence. Samuel Harsnett (present at the examinations) published A Discovery of the Fraudulent Practices of
        John Darrell in 1599
    - - • Darrell’s reputation lent the case significance - a well-known exorcist was proved to have been committing fraudulent practices, and this may have influenced skepticism about exorcism itself.
      - • The exposure of Darling’s lie was also evidence of the unreliability of witness testimonies and proved that children, thought of at the time as pure and innocent, were capable of lying.
      - • The involvement of the Archbishop of Canterbury also shows the gravity of the case, it involved the most senior bishop of the Church of England.
      - • The case did provoke change within the church - a canon was drawn up in 1604 forbidding the practice of exorcism without a license - although this change is not in itself evidence of skepticism, it is more likely the Church was simply taking steps to protect its reputation.
      - • A Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel (1599) made knowledge of the case more widespread and lead to the pamphlet war - a theological debate which centered around the power of the Devil and the reliability of exorcisms.
    - - • The Boy of Burton case did not lead to overall disbelief in witchcraft, the case was viewed more as a one-off discovery of fraudulence, and overall belief in witches and exorcism continued. - e.g. 1604 Act
      - • The key debate over the case was more about the validity of exorcism, rather than of witchcraft - as can be seen in the pamphlet war
    - - It cannot be said that The Boy of Burton case led to a disbelief in witchcraft as the case but the case still holds importance as it served as evidence that accusers can and will lie in witchcraft trials - something which would have contributed to scepticism and a more critical approach to evidence in later cases.
  - - - 10-year-old Edmund Robinson claimed that he came across two greyhounds in the wood who transformed into witches and then led him to a coven meeting. He made the accusation as a diversion tactic, looking to avoid punishment from his father for not looking after their cattle when he was meant to. Robinson’s father went to the magistrates 3 months after hearing this story. The magistrates then lead Robinson around a number of churches, where he identified witches. In total 25 witches were identified and trialed - 17 were found guilty. The magistrates were skeptical, and immediately sent a report of the trial to the Privy Council in London, along with a statement saying they had doubts about the evidence and testimony. Bishop of Chester, Henry Bridgman, investigated the women and concluded that Robinson’s testimony was fraudulent. Robinson and his father were sent to London to be interrogated, along with four of the accused women. When separated from his father and interrogated Robinson admitted to making up his story, saying his father had forced him to lie, motivated for a desire for revenge against a woman with who he’d had an argument. The women was examined by surgeons (including famous surgeon William Harvey) for the Devil’s mark, but no mark was found. King Charles also personally questioned the women. Despite this scepticism a number of the accused were still held in prison three years later. Edmund Robinson became a witch hunter, encouraged by his father and uncle, and was able to earn money for the family doing this. The case was mentioned much later in John Webster’s The Displaying of Supposes Witchcraft (1677)
    - - • The involvement of the Privy Council and King Charles shows the case gained relevance amongst the powerful elites - may have influenced the scepticism of the King
      - • There were relatively few witchcraft prosecutions in the 30s
      - • The evidence based approach, through further questioning and the involvement of surgeons, does show a more careful, sceptical approach to witchcraft trials
      - • There is scepticism of Robinson’s claims throughout the entire trial
      - • The trial proved that witchcraft accusations can be motivated by reasons that have nothing to do with the supernatural, and accusers should be viewed sceptically
      - • John Webster personally met Robinson, he was influenced by the case and went on to write and influential sceptical publication on witchcraft in 1677
    - - • The Pendle Swindle case provoked little change; there was no justice for the accused women, with many of them still held in custody three years after the trial
      - • The Pendle Swindle case provoked little change; there was no justice for the accused women, with many of them still held in custody three years after the trial
      - • There were no significant publications of this case at the time so its impact on the opinions of those outside of the trial was very limited
      - • Edmund Robinson went on the be a professional witch-hunter - proof that the case did not impact his credulity of cause people to doubt witches existed
    - - The case did not have a wide influence, and despite being proved fraudulent provoked little change.
  - - - William Drury was arrested by JP John Mompesson for attempting to raise alms for the poor with a forged pass. Drury was arrested and his drum (which he had been using to draw attention to his cause) was sent to Mompesson's house. Mompesson then began to witness strange disturbances in his house; hearing thumping noises and drum beats, strange lights, objects thrown about, his mother’s bible is found in the ashes of the heart on Christmas day. The house began to attract attention - representatives of King Charles were sent to investigate. Two newspapers of the time - Mercurius Publicus and The Kingdom’s Intelligencia - reported on the case; both were widely read in London and among the gentry. Joseph Glanville visited the house and talked to locals, publishing his account in A Blow at Modern Sudducism, In some Philosophical Considerations about Witchcraft. Glanville claimed he too heard noises, and he reported that many eyewitnesses claimed Drury was responsible for the disturbances. The disturbance apparently continued for some years. Glanville hoped to interest the Royal Society in the study of witchcraft, but he was met with
        skepticism. In response, John Webster, publisher of The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, claimed the entire case was fraudulent. The case was further criticized as fraudulent in Balthasar Bekker’s The World Bewitched (1692-1694) and John Beaumont’s Historical, Physiological and Theological Treatise of Spirits, Apparitions, Witchcrafts and other Magical Practices (1705), the latter suggested that the disturbances were in fact caused by servants.
    - - • The case was continually revisited throughout the 17th century and used as an argument for scepticism
      - • The numerous publications and involvement of the Royal Society elevated the notoriety of the case and spread scepticism
      - • The case provoked debate on the reality of supernatural forces - key members of the intelligencia where involved e.g. Glanville, Webster, and VP of Royal Society
      - • A logical, empirical approach was taken towards the case, with sceptics investigating Mompesson and looking for other causes of the disturbances
    - - The overall consensus at the time was that supernatural forces were to blame - little disbelief in witchcraft
    - - A highly significance case due to the debate it provoked and the way it was revisited by later sceptics.