Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:59, 15 August 2009

Samlesbury witches

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Samlesbury witches/archive1

This isn't the shortest FAC nomination ever, but neither is it the longest. Neverthless I believe it to be as complete an account as is now possible of the 17th-century trial of three women accused of witchcraft, apparently because they were not Catholics. Please be kind to Jane Southworth, Jennet Bierley, and Ellen Bierley, as kind as their judge was. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Wonderfully eccentric, and of course there were no problems as far as I could see. ceranthor 11:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Steve . Looks good for the most part, though I come bearing nit-picks:

Lead

• I'm not wild about the opening sentence. In trying to tell us too much it leaves a couple of ambiguities. As it's not explicitly stated at this point that one trial took place for the three together, the statement "in a series of witch trials that are among the most famous in English history" makes it sound as if they were tried separately, and that these trials are what we're calling "among the most famous" (rather than Lancashire trials as a whole). At the very least, changing "in a series of" to "as part of a series of" might help.

• I've rewritten the lead's opening to try and make it clearer that the three women were tried together, one trial in a series of trials. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at that again, it's not totally clear that the Samlesbury witches' trial was distinct from those called the "Pendle witch trials", partly because the linked Pendle witches article is more a summary of the "Lancashire witch trials" (indeed, it has that term as its alternate title), of which the Samlesbury witches' incident is a part.

• That Lancashire witch trials is redirected to Pendle witch trials is a historical accident to do with the original authors of those articles. Do you think it's worth a disambiguation page? There's also the interesting case of the Padiham witch, who was tried at the same assizes. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Do you think a more targeted redirect might help? I think that Lancashire witch trials could redirect to Pendle witch trials#Trials—which is enough of an overview of the wider context in which the Pendle trials took place—and the bolding removed from "Lancashire witch trials" in that article's lead, as it suggests that the phrase is synonymous with "Pendle witch trials". The lead of this article is probably fine if the ambiguity leading from "in a series of" can be resolved. Perhaps: "... tried at Lancaster Assizes in England on 19 August 1612 a series of witch trials that are among the most famous in English history ..." Suggestion only; you're likely able to come up with something better. Steve  13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm happy to go with your suggestions if that will solve the problem of ambiguity you've identified, so I've slightly rewritten the lead along the lines you suggest. In the longer run—i.e., not during this FAC—I think the best solution would be to write a proper Lancashire witch trials article, as there were more than just the trials of 1612; confusingly, the trials of 1634 are also often known as the Lancashire witch trials. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• "all three of the Samlesbury witches were acquitted."—have there been any discussions on whether to call them "women" or "witches"? Seeing as they got off, and y'know, because witchcraft doesn't exist, would it be more accurate to say "the three Samlesbury women were acquitted"?

• I've had this discussion on the article's talk page, but it's a good point nevertheless. I've referred to them here though as the "Samlesbury witches" because that's what Potts calls them. Elsewhere I've called them, for example "the women from Samlesbury". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• ... were accused of maleficium, or causing harm by witchcraft."—very, very slight ambiguity, as someone unfamiliar with the term might think that "causing harm by witchcraft" was a separate charge, despite the comma. Resolved by using an emdash? ("... were accused of maleficium—causing harm by witchcraft.")

• Altered as per your suggestion. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• "The trial of the Samlesbury witches has been described by some historians as 'largely a piece of anti-Catholic propaganda'"—some historians, or just one (Hasted)? What I mean is, are these Hasted's words or is she quoting the historical consensus?

• I've rewritten a little to make it clearer what's meant. It's certainly a widely held view that the witchcraft trials of the 16th and 17th centuries had their roots in the religious turmoil of the period, but that specific statement I quoted was of course expressed by Hasted, not by "some historians". Hopefully it's better now.

Background

• " keen interest in witchcraft"—comes across as too positive, almost enthusiastic, seeing as the next statement tells us he was actually suspicious of it. Unless it started out as such, perhaps it would be better to describe it as a "strong" or "intense" interest.

• James was keenly interested in witchcraft, as evidenced by his book, and he was keen to stamp it out, hence his introduction of the death penalty. But by 1612 he had apparently become a little more sceptical of some of the evidence produced in witchcraft trials. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Got that; I just thought that saying "keen" made it sound as if he started out enthusiastic about witchcraft (before becoming fearful of it), but if you don't think so, then fair enough. Steve  13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think that "though" after "By the time of the Lancashire witch trials" is doing much; the sentence seems to work just as well without it.

• Probably is redundant, I agree, so I've removed it. --Malleus
• I think "though" is needed there, as it suggests that James' attitude may have evolved. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fatuorum 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• "... each justice of the peace (JP) in Lancashire was ordered to compile a list of the recusants in their area—those who refused to attend the English Church and to take communion, a criminal offence at that time."—do you think that by the time we reach "a criminal offence at that time" the focus is lost enough that a reader might have to look twice to see that we're not saying that taking communion was a criminal offence?

• You may well be right. The "communion" thing doesn't seem all that relevant anyway, so I've changed it just to say "refused to attend the services of the Church of England". --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Trial

• The date of the trial is given in the lead, but not here.

• Added the date. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Bromley ordered the release of five before the trial began, after they had been given a warning about their future conduct."—given a warning by whom? If it was Bromley, it might as well say so.

• The source doesn't say who issued the warning, although it almost certainly was Bromley. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Thus were these poore Innocent creatures, by the great care and paines of this honourable Judge, delivered from the danger of this Conspiracie; this bloudie practise of the Priest laid open."—whose words are these? Potts'? The statement is planted at the end of the section without attribution. Was that deliberate?

• They are Potts' words, I'll make that clear. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster

• The section seems to repeat an awful lot of information from Pendle witch trials#The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster; might it be better instead to present more of a summary, using the {{main}} template or similar to point to the section in the Pendle article?

• I've moved all of The Discoverie stuff to a new article with just a short summary left in this one. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Modern interpretation

• "It may be that JP Robert Holden was at least partially motivated in his investigations by a desire to 'smoke out its Jesuit chaplain', Christopher Southworth."—that Southworth (aka Thompson) was Samlesbury Hall's chaplain is stated more unequivocally here than in the "Examinations" section, which hedges its bets a little.

• Good point. It's not absolutely certain that Christopher Southworth was the chaplain, although it's pretty likely that he was. The source is clear that Christopher Southworth was the chaplain, so I rephrase that a little. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• "The English experience of witchcraft was somewhat different from the European one. It has been estimated that between the early-15th and mid-18th centuries about 40,000 witches were executed in Europe, as compared to fewer than 500 in England during the same period."—the comparison (500 to 40,000) is presented as an example of how things differed in England compared to Europe, but I'm not sure that works without population statistics for context.

• It's a bit like comparing one American state with the USA; Europe is a much larger area with a much larger population, but I'll see if I can look out some comparative population figures for those readers who may not be sure where or what Europe is. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What I meant was that while most readers unfamiliar with the subject or the period can expect to know the rough sizes of England and Europe, I don't think the comparative population sizes in those centuries is something most can even guess, and so the execution figures alone don't give enough support to the English experience being much different. The conclusion could be drawn that the figure is about right—Europe executed 80 times more witches, but it's about 80 times the size too (ignoring historical border changes for a moment). Population sizes would lend much better support. It needn't be covered in the main text; perhaps a footnote would suffice. Steve  13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• "about 40,000 witches were executed"—same comment as the one I had about the lead really, that "witches" is being used as shorthand for "people accused/convicted of witchcraft". Fine if you want to do that, but it might sound odd to some.

• I understand the point you're making, but they were tried and found guilty of witchcraft, so they were legally considered to be witches, even though we might well not consider them to be witches today. In another article I tried to make the point that witchcraft is a crime that makes no sense to a modern reader anyway, but I was forced to remove that as being too pov. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

• More a general comment than anything that can be resolved, but it's a shame the aftermath only covers the clerk and the judges, and doesn't tell us what happened to the Samlesbury women and what the consequences were for the Southworths after their deception was uncovered. I guess if the sources don't say, there's nothing to be done about it.

• As you suggest, there's nothing more recorded about the women, and because they were acquitted Samlesbury hasn't used them build a tourist industry like nearby Pendle has. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And that's all the weather. Steve  12:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support An excellent and clear account of a fascinating episode in English history, well-presented and well-referenced. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Review - 1. Someone may be concerned with the uncited "the most famous in English history" in the lead, but I am not. 2. Phrasing - "These Lancashire witch trials were unusual for England at that time in two respects: the official publication of the proceedings by the clerk to the court, Thomas Potts, in his The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster; and in the number of the accused found guilty and hanged." You say "two respects" but you don't say respects. This is fixed by saying "in that they were officially described in a publication of the proceedings..." 3. Phrasing - "The charges against the women from Samlesbury included child murder and cannibalism, in contrast to the others being tried at the same assizes, who were accused of maleficium—causing harm by witchcraft". End the sentence at cannibalism. Start the next one - "In contrast, the others being tried at the same assizes were accused of ..." 4. "had come to the throne" - "came". 5. "and by the early 1590s" comma before "by" to separate out the parenthetical clause. 6. "a law was passed calling for the death penalty to be imposed" Why not "imposing the death penalty". "calling for" and "imposed" together makes it seem like there is no power within the law. 7. "where it was proven that harm had been caused through the use of magic, or corpses had been exhumed for magical purposes" - "where" "it was" "had been" "caused through" creates a rhetorical "wishy-washiness". How about "in cases where the use of magic or corpses had been exhumed for magical purposes was proven"? 8. "By the time of the Lancashire witch trials though, " not "Though by the time..."? 9. "attitude seems to have become more sceptical" - use of "seems" would not fit the tensing. 10. ", even to the extent of becoming personally involved" The comma is unnecessary and you would need a noun before "becoming". 11. "lawless region, an area" - semicolon would be more appropriate here. 12. "of Queen Mary, and the accession " the comma separates two connected phrases and divides a clause inappropriately. Remove the comma. 13. "priests had been forced into hiding" - "were". 14. "In early 1612" - this sentence should be moved to end the previous paragraph. 15. "had split the Southworth" just "split" is fine. 16. "recusant, and had been arrested" - the comma is inappropriate and separates two linked concepts of the same clause. 17. "did convert" - "converted". 18. "his father do not seem to have been amicable" - an odd phrasing. Use a negative word for "amicable" instead of "do not" and make sure it is in past tense ("seemed" or "appeared"). 19. "as Sir John was said" by whom? 20. "avoid it, and was reported" remove the comma and say by whom.

- Half way through and there doesn't appear to be sourcing issues so far. I will take a closer look when I have a chance. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)