Witch hunts and gender-critical feminists

I should add that some accounts are even more graphic about the tortures that the accused were put to - fixed to walls with the scold's bridle or having pins driven under the finger nails. I'm not sue that we can ascribe these specifically, but they were definitely in use at the time. It would mean that these poor souls really were a bloody mess when they came to trial and execution.

Loving the lessons on witches. I have 4 books on witchcraft (worried my current husband when I set them up on the bookshelf when we moved in together!) A mix of history of witchcraft history and a bonkers one on "mastering witchcraft with actual spells and chants in it. I studied herbal medicine as well as normal medicine and at one point was the only NHS herbalist in Scotland hence the fascination.

The North Berwick trials are fascinating for so many reasons: cultural, political and social. Although people may not be familiar with the events themselves, they have passed into popular imagination as the standard by which we view witches in the UK. The report “News from Scotland” which sensationalized the events described the Sabbat, the spells etc. It influences literature, notably Macbeth in which the witches talk of sailing in sieves and raising storms as they were reported to have done in NB and also Burns’ Tam O’Shanter who stumbles on the night gathering at a kirk. It’s also important because we clearly see witchcraft allegations being used as a political tool to destroy rivals and as a way King James attempted to assert his personal authority and promote his version of monarchy. We don’t really know how many of the witches died, but it seems that the trials implicated around 70-100 people many of whom would have been executed.

The trials began in 1590 and, while there had been a few small witch trials before this, they really mark the start of a concentrated period of witch hunts in Scotland which continue for about 100 years. I've mentioned the difference between countries before and the disparity between Scotland and England is of especial note. It is estimated that Scotland - or more specifically lowland Scotland - executed approximately twice the number of witches as her southern neighbour despite her population being a fraction of England's. In fact the intensity of Scotland’s witch hunt years was possibly second only to the Holy Roman Empire. Some argue that the character of James and his interest in the subject was a contributing factor (to which I shall return) but the key elements we see elsewhere of economic hardship, political instability and religious turbulence are much more marked in Scotland than England. In the case of the East Lothian women, there is clear evidence of aspects of the old religion and superstitions coming into conflict with the new Calvinist kirk.

Events begin when the marriage of James VI and Anne of Denmark is arranged. Anne attempts to sail to Scotland in the Autumn of 1589 but is delayed by storms and driven back to Norway. Storms off Scotland, meanwhile, drown a Scottish lady-in-waiting. James then declares that he will go to Norway himself and fetch his bride. This is slightly unusual, but James was perhaps looking to asset some personal authority - he declares that he is “a true prince” and not “an irresolute ass”. Behind this may be the fear that some of his nobles had whispered that he was actually the illegitimate son of Rizzio, that his many years as a minor governed by his courtiers has left him vulnerable, and that his homosexuality is suspected. He leaves in charge his cousins Lennox and Bothwell.

James arrived in Norway despite more gales and he and Anne returned safely (if storm-tossed) to Scotland in the spring of 1590. Meanwhile, the Danish Admiral alleged that the storms which endangered Anne were caused by a Danish witch (specifically someone with whom he’d quarrelled): as James and Anne arrived in Edinburgh, executions took place in Denmark, news of which reached Scotland later in the summer. This then raises the question of whether witches were also working against the king in Scotland and in November a likely candidate is found in Geillis Duncan of Tranent, a servant who had suddenly acquired healing skills. According to News from Scotland, Geillis’ own master applied torture to force a confession and then searched her for the devil’s mark - she broke and began to implicate several other people.

Quick digression here: the use of torture was prohibited in England (although things like sleep deprivation etc were used) but not in Scotland. However, if Duncan’s master did take it upon himself to use thumbscrews, this was illegal. The official records of the confessions and depositions do not mention torture at all, but while News may be exaggerated and salacious, the author was in no doubt that it had been applied. We also have a letter stating that Robert Greyson, one of the accused, died from “the extremity of the tortures applied to him” and fear of the boot was alleged to have played a part in the testimony of Ritchie Graham.

Amongst those accused by Duncan were Agnes Sampson and John Fian (aka Cunningham) the schoolmaster of Prestonpans. The first is often said to have been a respected midwife, although her status may have been exaggerated. In the initial examination, she comes across as a traditional local cunning woman of some reputation: she admits to some folk cures - rubbing whisky on the laird’s son and saying a prayer over him for example. As her place as a central figure in the testimony of the other witches is magnified, she is ascribed a great deal of diabolical knowledge and a central role in the political plot. By this point, Agnes had already been executed, so she could not speak for herself.

News is clear that both of them were put to severe torture: Agnes initially refusing to confess until she was shaven (to reveal hidden marks) and had a rope tightened around her head. A mark was supposedly found on her genitals. The boot was used on Fian.

Under this pressure they both admitted to travelling to a gathering of witches at the kirk in North Berwick (the remains of which stand by the harbour near the new seabird centre) having sailed out into the Forth in sieves. Geillies Duncan played a jew’s harp and sang while they danced widdershins around the church, the doors of which were then blown open and they entered to meet the devil. The devil apparently suggested that they should kiss his buttocks as a sign of loyalty (they were cold and hard), he then inveighed against the king as his greatest enemy (which no doubt pleased James) and ordered them to raise spells against him. To do this they dug up some corpses and ground the joints to powder and also threw a black cat (to which the limbs of a man had been stitched) into the sea.

We don’t have the record of John Fian’s confession, but his dittay (indictment) is interesting as it has many more of the elements we recognise from the continental records (and works like Malleus and Summis Disiderantes) and is more reflective and religious in tone. His position as school teacher would account for this greater level of education and literacy. Fian spoke of the devil carrying him through the air to “many mountains” and, apparently, travelled in spirit to the Sabbat - “soughing athwart the earth” - while his body lay in bed unlike the others who, more prosaically, rode or went on foot. At his execution, Fian is said to have recanted and claimed innocence.

James took an extraordinary interest in the trials and apparently interviewed the suspects himself. Initially sceptical (because witches must be liars), he was said to have been persuaded of the power of the witches by Agnes Sampson recounting what passed between him and Anne on their wedding night. Perhaps, again, we detect James’s unease with allegations against his virility and there is also the flattering suggestion that he is the devil’s greatest adversary.

At this stage, the trials become political.

Francis Hepburn Earl of Bothwell was the nephew Mary Queen of Scots third husband and cousin to James. James had left him as Lennox’s deputy while he was in Norway and in charge of the fleet. Bothwell was clever and cultured but also arrogant and violent - he had a tendency to indulge in feuds and in the course of one he murdered several members of the Hume family. This was not entirely uncommon for Scottish nobles of the period and kings had long found their most powerful subjects hard to contain. Unsurprisingly, Bothwell had enemies and they saw the witch trials as an opportunity to snare him. In April 1591, it was alleged that Agnes Sampson had implicated him in the plot to murder the king. By this point, Agnes was dead - she was strangled and burnt in January - so another accused, Ritchie Graham was persuaded to testify and two women of higher social status, Barbara Napier and Euphame MacCalzean were implicated (again through the post mortem testimony of Sampson) as they had plausible links to Bothwell. The allegations of treason and the use of image-magic to kill the king become more pronounced. MacCalzean was well connected in the legal world and she had many defenders, nevertheless, she was sentenced to be burned alive.

It is ironic that the allegation that the devil worked through women because of their weakness in order to destroy the king was also the modus operandi of Bothwell’s enemies. I have mentioned the men implicated in the trial, but overall they were in a substantial minority and all of a poorer class. Once the accusations began to affect those of higher status, it was naturally the women who were most at risk.

Bothwell escaped and the next couple of years saw the power balance between him and the king shift several times. On one occasion Bothwell mounted a successful coup and he gained an acquittal and recovered his confiscated estates. James eventually managed to oust him, drive him into permanent exile and persuade the presbytery to excommunicate him. He died a broken man in Italy.

Using allegations of witchcraft to discredit rivals was not a new thing (see, for example Eleanor Cobham, Duchess of Gloucester) and would continue to feature in future trials but this gained such a traction that many would come to believe that the witches had indeed gathered at the kirk at the behest of Bothwell and it would later be said that he attended in person disguised as the devil with the bare buttocks.

For James, the event solidified many of his views of kingship as an office ordained by God. He wrote Demonology which becomes a standard witch-finder text in the British isles. In it, he harks back to the testimony of Fian when he speaks of witches “being carried by the force of the Spirit… either above the earth or above the sea”. He also says that there are 20 female witches for one man and gives the reason “that sex is frailer than man is, so it is easier to be entrapped in those gross snares of the devil, as was over-proved to be true by the serpent’s deceiving of Eva”. On ascending to the throne in England, James brought in harsher punishments for witchcraft: the mere act would now carry a hanging sentence whereas before this was reserved for murder by magic. Yet, for all this, James considered himself a rational man and many in his new kingdom like Reginald Scott were deeply sceptical of witches, arguing that to overstate their power reduced God’s. James also drew a line between attacks upon the Royal house (which were naturally dealt with harshly) and those between his subjects when he enjoyed acting as the impartial, wise judge. In fact, he had in his day a reputation for using his expertise to expose fraud in cases of witch-trials and he intervened to save several witches in Leicester as well as taking a great interest in debunking the case of Anne Gunter.

I think, perhaps, most crucially James and the Church of England didn’t need witches to the extent that he and the Kirk had done in Scotland. That is what is so fascinating and horrific: the death of women as a major political tool.

Right, I'm really sorry but I got a bit carried away. I'm afraid this is going to be long...

I sense some (possible but understandable) defence in your post. No one (GC) has actually ever said that, but the accusations have been along those lines.

Yes, that was my point. We are accused of being like the apartheid regime, but nobody has ever suggested that. It would be like men started saying that the idea of women's sports was man-hating and anti-men (to be fair, there probably are some idiots who do say that).

Interesting thread.

Just going back to what Pants said:
I am not like apartheid supporters because I do not want to segregate trans people from the rest of society.

I sense some (possible but understandable) defence in your post. No one (GC) has actually ever said that, but the accusations have been along those lines. It is a false claim though, because it relies on the parallel of those in power excluding those without power. Women still don't have equal representation in politics or the boardroom or in the pay packet - so we are hardly the ones 'in power' to discriminate against another group.

If the TRA had said "we want to wear frocks and be called Loretta", then they would hardly have been a blip on the feminist radar, more "go for it buddy, whatever floats your boat, it is harmless enough".

But what the TRA position actually is, is that "we want to be called women, actually, the default kind of women, and those other occupiers (formerly known as women) need to stfu about their biology and give up their spaces". We call that a hostile take-over, which is why no compromise solution will ever be reached.

That 80% of trans, and probably about 95% of TRAs are male born and socialised, gives a clue to their tactics and demands. I for one, am not going to budge. And sorry not sorry. I don't feel guilty for that position at all.

woman11017 you made me look for Jewish history in Scotland. There's a long history, but a small population (5000 or so just now) and pretty much all in Glasgow (4000 ish) and Edinburgh. As expected in this horrible atmosphere, anti semitism attacks have increased recently, but are still low (in the twenties, but that's a biggish percentage of a small population). It tickled me that in the first half of the 20th century, a new hybrid language developed, mixing lowland Scots and Yiddish. That, I love! I love when cultures languages mix. Alas, the new language has gone now....

heresy yes please. I'll wave too, I'm in Fife as well...

I learn so much from Mumsnet. I want to get all of you in a pub and put the world to rights. Actually I think we might just manage it!!

Posting as a shameless placemark!
This thread is fascinating.

anti-Semitism certainly does run very deep in European culture
In Britain there was a massacre of 150 in York and expulsion of Jews.
www.haaretz.com/jewish/1.5205561
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England_(1066%E2%80%931290)#Massacres_at_London_and_York_(1189%E2%80%931190)
Also in Oxford there was a murder and expulsion of the Jews: there's a little monument to it by the Botanical Gardens.
www.oxfordchabad.org/templates/articlecco_cdo/aid/450812/jewish/A-Brief-History-of-Jews-of-Oxford.htm

Oh, and yes, Heresy, I think there is a lot to untangle in that. Also a great deal of knowledge came to the west in the mediaeval period largely through the Arabic discoveries of lost Latin tracts and Jewish Cabbala (not the nonsense Madonna version!). There was a really uneasy relationship with this reality.

Sorry, now rather drunk, but the relationship to contemporary immigrants is really interesting and sad. I've mentioned that women turned on each other and I think it's a factor that a marginalised group will 'prove' loyalty by aligning to the powers that be to protect themselves. We saw that in brexit, where established immigrant communities voted leave. The awful thing is that those who actually drive this fear will exploit the division but will never actually make good on promises.

A relative told me she was seeing it in the British Indian community (the idea they'd integrated and others were taking advantage etc). I said that Farage and his ilk didn't really care, they'd exploit them and then throw then under a bus later as they didn't think they were really British.

Ironically, Jewish communities in Europe in the middle ages had most freedom in the Islamic part of southern Spain where there was considerable religious and intellectual freedom.

When I'm sober, is anyone interested in the North Berwick case (Rebecca, you can wave across the Forth!)? They're a favourite of mine...

Aren't many Jews in Fife I meant to add. It's not a very multicultural area. I know of several mosques around but no synagogues. In our GP practice we have several Brethren and Jehovahs witnesses but no Jews I can think of.

In my daily life I come across very little antisemitism, probably because there aren't many Jews. I come across more anti-Islam stuff (brewing terrorists)and anti-East European (taking all our jobs).

Thanks, I'll have a look in our library for her books.

Of course Goebbels and Magda killed those poor kids (because she didn't want them to face a world without national socialism). They were fanatical...

Sereny interviewed so many conflicted children of Nazi officials and some of their stories are so sad (and most of them insist on rejecting sympathy because they say they aren't the real victims). Some of the interviews are collected in The German Trauma, well worth a look.

Chilling is the right word. Goebbels springs immediately to mind. He was instrumental in the murders of millions of people, yet had six children who probably crawled into his lap for bedtime stories.

Heresy anti-Semitism certainly does run very deep in European culture. The outbreaks of violence against Jews really dwarfs some of the witch hunts - there was not even a pretence of trials etc, they were just wholesale massacres. I think there was certainly a fear of power - real or imagined - in both cases. There differences too: Jews were exempt from Christian restrictions on money lending and this allowed them to profit individually but was also useful to rulers who could leverage off this and tax them (so hypocritically benefited) and also made them useful scapegoats who had wholesale outsider status. Women, of course, couldn't be dismissed as a class to the same extent.

What is really interesting is that both fears are rooted in European Christian traditions but not in gospel. Jesus was very clearly of the Jewish tradition and women were important in his story: women were first at the tomb and first witnesses to the resurrection. I think there is any attempt to bury this (I blame Paul!) to make it attractive to the Roman audience. I wonder if this is the root of the matter?

Fascinating thread!