What Happened to someone belived to a witch in the 17th century?

Question

What happened to them

Answer 1

Many answers given so far repeat stereotypes (esp. about the "water ordeal" or "swimming") -- things that did NOT happen, or when they did, not in the way popularly presented today.

Briefly -- generally in England and New England, they would be tried in court., usually WITHOUT abuse or torture to compel testimony. And MANY would be acquitted (that was, in fact, increasingly the case). IF convicted, they would usually be HANGED (no, NOT burned), the standard penalty for murder or treason (and witchcraft, as a "pact with the devil" was regarded as treason).

_________________

More details.


To begin with, note that "what happened in the 17th century" is a bit wide. These things varied GREATLY from place to place, esp. since the regions where witch trials took place were almost entirely "border regions" or those where the central power was not very strong. Thus the local people had a lot of control over matters (it was NOT something "run from above").

Also note that England and New England were somewhat different from other parts of Europe in their practices. the practice of "swimming" a witch was very much looked down on by the elites and often strongly condemned by the clergy (though again it might be practiced LOCALLY). I do not believe it was EVER practiced in New England.

Increase Mather, who had an influence on the course of the Salem Witch Trials (see more below), condemned th practice as follows:

"This practice has no foundation in nature, nor in Scripture. If the water will bear none but witches, this must need proceed either from some natural or some supernatural cause. No natural cause is, or can be, assigned why the bodies of such persons should swim rather than of any other. The Bodies of Witches have not lost their natural properties; they have weight in them as well as others. Moral changes and viciousness of mind, make no alteration as to these natural properties which are inseparable from the body. .lt is not devine, for the Scripture does no where appoint any such course to be taken to find out whether persons are in league with the devil or no. It remains, then, that the experiment is diabolical."

http://rootsweb.com/~ctfairfi/stamford/trial.htm

See also:
http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft4m3nb2h2&doc.view=content&chunk.id=d0e576&toc.depth=1&anchor.id=0&brand=eschol

But since so many keep bringing it up, we should get straight how it worked when it WAS used. In MOST places "swimming" a witch involved tying her up with a rope AND attaching a rope to her so that they could easily pull her out of the water. This last part is very important, because the idea was NOT, as many keep saying, that if she drowned she was innocent, but it did her no good. That is a silly caricature. Rather, if she floated it proved she was a witch (and realize this would be much more difficult to do if you are tied up in particular ways, so floating might well be rather difficult/unusual), but if she did NOT, they would use the rope to pull her OUT, judging she (or yes, in some cases, he) was innocent. Doubtless there were cases of abuse or mistake, and some may have drowned, but that was not part of the METHOD.

Explanation of how this "water ordeal" worked
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ordeal

Anyway, as I mentioned, this sort of trial by ordeal was not favored in England (nor many other places) by the 17th century. ALSO, torture to compel testimony or try to get confessions was not widely practiced, and particularly not in England. (Again, there were certainly abuses, and people, including leaders, who violated accepted procedure. But it's important to recognize that these WERE violations.)
______________

Now I suspect you are thinking of (or mainly of) the Salem witch trials of 1692. For these keep in mind that the way these were conducted was NOT "the norm". The very reason they stand out is that they were so unusual in the number of accusations and (initial) guilty verdicts. I know of a recent doctoral dissertation which studies ANOTHER series of witch trials going on in New England at almost the same time, but with quite different --and apparently more 'usual' results-- in that the evidence was not deemed enough and people were acquitted.


Instead, by this time, the standard method was to use the regular law courts to try accusations of witchcraft. The history of this, particularly the later stages (late 17th century), is interesting in that this was a time in which standards of legal proof needed to convict were becoming STRONGER (certainly in England and its colonies).

In fact, for quite some time, in many areas (certainly in England), the rate of convictions was rather LOW, because it was difficult to prove the charges. (This itself may have contributed to local pressures in some instances to use the ordeal to get a clear "proof" one way or the other.) But as the legal process became more consistent, and legal safeguards more reliable (including the central government having MORE control to prevent local abuses 'in the heat of the moment') the whole ENTERPRISE

The Salem story is interesting in this regard as an example of how, once STRONGER evidence was required, the cases fell apart and the whole effort came to an end. (That was not the ONLY reason this whole sad affair ended, but it DID play a key role.)

In particular, "spectral evidence", which had been admitted in earlier trials, was NOT allowed any longer as evidence for conviction. This was by order of Governor Phips, under the influence of a letter by Thomas Brattle criticizing the trials and a publication by Puritan pastor Increase Mather ("Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits Personating Men, Witchcrafts, Infallible Proofs of Guilt in Such as are Accused With That Crime" -- typical detailed title of that era!) which argued against the admissibility of such evidence. (Mather argued, as the title suggests, that if Satan were involved, he could just as easily produce apparitions of innocent people that would trick people into making false accusations. He also insisted that it were better for numerous witches to go free than for one innocent to be convicted.)


In all of this, keep in mind that a major question is what causes the ACCUSATIONS in the first place. Much research on the Salem Witch Trials, for instance, has attempted to answer this question by examining not just belief systems, but social and political divisions, economic circumstances, local fears (in the period after King Philip's War), etc. (Note that the nature of these other factors/circumstances may shape HOW the community ACTS on the accusations, including whether or how much they follow accepted procedure . . .)

__________________

Some more sources --

An examination of the 'witch crazes', esp. the later ones, that I have found helpful:
chapter 3 of Rodney Stark's *For the Glory of God: How Monotheism led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts and the End of Slavery* (Princeton University Press, 2003)

If you are looking for a good overview of what happened with the SALEM witch trials (for which some unfortunately seem to think Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible" is a solid scholarly resource), here are a couple to check out


a) a quick overview -
"The Witchcraft Trials in Salem: A Commentary" by Douglas Linder
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM

timeline -- http://www.salemweb.com/memorial/index.shtml

b) *The Devil in Massachusetts* by Marion L. Starkey, 1949 -- a book that I think tries to take a sympathetic look at the various people involved, and unlike many studies, looks at what people did to correct, forgive and heal afterwards. Iit's dated (more recent research can counterbalance that), but it tells the basic story well and gives you a sense of the people

c) If you want to look at a lot of other material, including actual trial testimony. . . the article mentioned in (a) is part of a web site collection of such:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/salem.htm **

see also: http://www.salemwitchtrials.org/home.html

"Teaching the Salem Witch Trials -
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/~bcr/maps_esri/Ray_ch02.pdf

d) perhaps THE current scholarly standard (heavy, but thorough)
*In the Devil's Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692*by Mary Beth Norton (2002)

Answer 2

These days most people scoff at the idea that witches exist, or if they do, that they have real supernatural powers. It is important to remember, however, that in 1692 almost everybody, from the most uneducated slave to the president of Harvard, believed witchcraft was widely practiced and was a real threat to the community. Cotton Mather, a respected Puritan minister who was present at the time of the trials, wrote an account of them for the governor. His essay clearly shows that he believed that some of the people who were hung in Salem were indeed guilty of using black magic to torment the "afflicted" girls. Though very much in the minority, there are probably a few people even today who take the position that this was indeed the case.

While many people in the period believed that witches had supernatural powers given to them by the devil, many of the better-educated people, such as philosopher Thomas Hobbes, acknowledged that witchcraft was practiced but any spells that were cast only had power in the minds of the witch and those that thought themselves bewitched. It is important to note, however, that even Hobbes thought that this kind of witchcraft, though it had no physical power, brought real harm to a community and should be punished. What caused this sudden fear of witches and ripped the small community apart? Nobody knows. The past three centuries, however, have seen no end of books and articles filled with all kinds of theories and speculation about the reasons behind the terror. Today, scholars and pundits still look for meaning in what happened,
all the best.........

Answer 3

The English would normally hang a "witch"

There were many methods of testing if someone was a witch, called "trial by ordeal". The ordeal varied around the country but usually involved something which had more than a 50/50 chance of killing the accused. One method was to submerge them in a pond, weighted down. They inevitably drowned (which indicated innocence!) and since only a witch could survive, survivors were hanged for witchcraft. It was normal to torture a confession first before resorting to ordeal.

Do not confuse this ordeal with the ducking stool, which involved temporarily submerging a prisoner on a stool. This was a non-lethal punishment used mainly for "gossipping women!" Oh, the good old days....

Answer 4

They were questioned and usually tortured by an "Inquisitor"... which is actually a priest appointed by the Church to "Protect the Faith". The Church wanted the accused to admit their crime in writing; at which time they would be executed... often by hanging, stoning, and/or burning at the stake.

Women were often targeted; but often people that were handicapped in some way or people that were disliked by others in their communities were accused of witchcraft. The accused would have no opportunity to prove their innocence. Methods of torture would include mechanicle devices called "The Rack" or "Thumbscrews"... actually, there were a wide assortment of torture devices. Often the accused would be drowned while they were being "tested" in water. (Witches supposedly could not swim; however, "ladies" in that century were not taught to swim either).

This is an area that has always interested me so I happen to know a lot about it; however, you can go to so many places on the web to gain info. Just type in 17th century witchcraft. It is interesting, if not distressing, reading.

And... just an extra note... Most accused of witchcraft were actually NOT burned. This is a popular myth. Many were burned but most were killed by other means including hanging, stoning, beheading, and even firing squad.

Answer 5

i anticipate you're speaking on the topic of the Salem witch trials? This become a textbook case of Mass Hysteria. there has been a brilliant form of historic examination which has desperate that there become additionally an ulterior reason, too: land! the girls who started all of it have been actually bored toddlers who needed something to do. In a fashion, you are able to basically approximately sympathize with them. A 14 or 15 year-previous woman did no longer have lots to do in a Puritan village. Her chores have been by no skill ending drudgery like mending outfits, slopping hogs, looking after youngsters, and analyzing the Bible. She become predicted to marry at 17 and then the technique started throughout lower back while she had her own crop of youngsters. So, the belief of scaring those with talk of witches in all risk gave the impression of candy revenge. The prosecutors have been given into the act while they observed how ordinary it become to convict human beings, and unsurprisingly a brilliant form of the individuals accused later grew to become out to be wealthy landowners. After conviction, the valuables fell into the arms of their accusers and judges. fascinated by the solid of the traditional public, of course. Uh-huh! It has additionally been speculated that the girls who claimed to be seeing issues won't have been faking. there's a mildew whI h grows on bread and grain stated as ergot, which has the same chemical composition to LSD! those females would have been tripping on drugs, no longer bewitched. For better innovations on the witch trials, study The Crucible. i think of it fairly is by way of Arthur Miller.

Answer 6

Everybody has given you the answer you need but i'd just like to say to katie30 and anybody else who believes it was just women that were persecuted as witches- it wasn't documentary evidence proves that men and children were also subjected to the ducking stool with the same outcome.

Captbullshot- it was religious belief that witches were servants of Satan, and not only in Britain. The puritans took it to the New World with them (the Salem Witch-Hunts).

Answer 7

They had trial by water. If they floated, they were a witch. If not, they weren't, but were dead anyway. The witches were then all thrown in jail together. Those who admitted being a witch were hung. Those who didn't, but found guilty, were tortured and then burnt. The people who were mainly thought to be witches were old or deformed, and owned a broom and a black cat.

Answer 8

Those who survived the ducking stool test were hanged. I have not heard of witches being burned and, as far as I know, the only people burned at the stake were those accused of heresy.

Answer 9

I think they were given an impossible test to see if they were...like they were tied up and thrown in the water. If they lived they were a witch and if they didn't they were not. If they lived they were declaired a witch and tied to a stake and burned alive.
Either way, the accuser was rid of the person.

Answer 10

Their lot was not a happy one, to be brief about it, at least not once they were discovered. An accused witch would be tried and very likely not permitted to defend himself or herself (at least not by today's standards). An accused witch could very well find himself or herself burning at the stake.

Answer 11

Hi,
You can get King Arthur Gold for free from this link: http://bit.ly/1qXIn0T

it's a perfectly working link, no scam !
King Arthur’s Gold is a game set in the time of legends. There are castles that need to be built, and he meets that need to be destroyed, and of course gold that must be mined.