Talk:Bury St Edmunds witch trials

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBury St Edmunds witch trials has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 16, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Untitled[edit]

This article needs a lot of work, but much of the content can be found at the webpage in the external links, because it goes to the primary source text about the trials. Ogram 17:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

progress[edit]

beginning to take shape, a few hard to get reference / history books to find and hopefully more on its way. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 21:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help you with some cleanup in the article- I'll try my best to leave as much of your text as I can. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 13:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

Just a few thoughts after looking at your article-

  1. You need a beginning lead paragraph (see WP:LEAD). Examine a lot of other featured articles and see how it is done.
  2. Get rid of the timeline and replace it with paragraphs outlining in chronological order as you have done during the trials you talk about in depth. Timelines are great, but you can't substitute words for them.
  3. Make sure all links are used under the ref tags- you http linked your reference to http://www.lowestoftwitches.com/report_notes.htm rather than use ref tags, which explains the awkward 2 link after your note 3.
  4. Use the best possible sources- watch out for suspect internet sites that may lead you astray. Take advantage of Google books if you cannot find library books or can't buy references.
  5. When positioning your pictures, make sure they are in the right places. When one bleeds over into another section, make it smaller or move it to the other side. Once again, look at the featured articles to see how to do it.

I really hope this feedback helps- I had never heard of witch trials in England at that time. Very cool! Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

More detail later, just first impression

  1. The heading system is very odd - why a "history" heading (wrongly capitalised too), when it's all history? Why has "later trials" got a higher level heading than its predecessors?
  2. I don't like the lead. I'd move the detail about jurisdiction to the text, as a new first heading, add a bit about legacy (see next comment)
  3. The nom comment said influential and changed the law -I can't see any mention of this.
  4. needs copyediting and link checking. cooper is a disamb page, double full stop in ref 1, "mother and daughter" capitalised incorrectly in "later trials" (if it's a quote, used quotation marks). Second sentence of Thomas Browne bit is garbled.
  5. Was Hopkins officially the witch finder general?
  6. The Intelligencer paper - "published" rather than "existed"?

maybe more on a detailed read through, but the above should give a start. Jimfbleak (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

first replies

  • (1) it was to highlight and seperate the two more well known trials but  Done
  • (4) stupid, thought I had checked everything, sorry.. Done

Second sentence of Thomas Browne bit is garbled. - sorry not sure what you mean - the layout was decided by someone else reviewing it, the italics are the modern translations of his quote.

  • (5 and 6)  Done
I've fixed the Browne sentence, tweaked some other minor issues. I've reformatted the headings and removed surplus white space. Note that headings shouldn't repeat the title, so I've done that too Thanks
There doesn't appear to be a verb in the Intelligencer sentence prior to the quote  Done
The parenthesis at the end of the Browne quote, together with the preceding colon unfortunately looks like a smiley :)hopefully sorted, I know I had noticed that as well.
Legacy I think is still the main issue. At present, this article has some limited back-context, although that could be expanded, but no commentary on its relevance to subsequent developments. Jimfbleak (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)more research to be undertaken then. Thanks Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the rambling and repetitive Salem bit, moved it, and made some other minor tweaks

Good Article nomination[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A few more Facts[edit]

Although the accuracy of his scholarship was challenged and his reputation as a critic in 1885 seriously damaged, it was Edmund Gosse's 1905 biography of Browne which was responsible for instigating the defamation of character which Browne has suffered from throughout the twentieth century, namely that through his attendance of a public trial, he was somehow responsible for the deaths of two women accused of witch-craft. Nothing could be more further from the truth. Gosse committed great damage to Browne's reputation and nowadays its often questioned as to why such a hateful and spiteful book was written. An example of Gosse's repeated 'sour grapes' towards his subject may be seen in his statement that Sir Thomas was, 'well pleased, in spite of the attractions of a great centre like London, to make a little country-town his home and its parish bounds the limit of his ambition' whereas in fact the city of Norwich was in the seventeenth century England's second City which weekly sent down to London several thousand pounds worth of trade and goods.

One scholar who recognised that Gosse had seriously got his facts upon Browne's involvement in the Bury St. Edmund's Witch-trial wrong was Malcolm Letts. Letts's scholarship identified the Reverend Hutchinson and his 1718 Essay concerning Witchcraft as the first to put forward the suggestion that Sir Thomas was responsible for the hanging of two Lowestoft women and that 'since then biographers have been content to keep the accussation alive, on Hutchinson's authority without attempting to justify it'. Letts also realized that a full account by a court reporter present at the trial which appears in Cobbett and Howell's State Trials differs in important respects from this secondary source which Browne's biographers have invariably relied upon.

Because Hutchinson placed Browne's testimony at the end of the account of the trial, the reader is allowed to gather the impression that his testimony was actually given at the close of the trial and thus affected the verdict. After Browne's remarks, non-commital at best, the trial broke down completely; tests made upon the children's supposed bewitchment by the defendants, showed the children to be fraudulent and thus the testimony of the remaining witnesses made scandalously worthless .What in fact the Bury St Edmunds Witch-Trial really represents is one of the last times in legal history in which it was possible for unscrupulous members of a local society to abuse the legal system and rid itself of undesirables. By accusing individuals from their community of Witchcraft unpopular members of society became scape-goats for various accidents.'

Robert Sencourt was another who understood that- 'Care must be taken to distinguish between what is said in Hutchinson's Essay on Witchcraft written in 1718 which the writer on Browne in the Dictionary of National Biography takes as his authority.' and Robert accurately placed Browne's beliefs in context stating - ' Not to believe in witchcraft would have appeared to him to show a contempt not only for the Church, the Bible and the laws of England , but also for commonsense'. However the words of these two critics have not been heeded by later commentators.

As late as 1675 leading members of the Royal society entertained a belief in witches for witches were viewed as part of the scaled ladder of spirits. The logic being were there no witches, there would be no angels or God either. Only those who have succumbed to the prevailing modern trend of zealous 'political correctness' and are ignorant of the intellectual beliefs of the seventeenth century have succumbed to the grossly inaccurate allegation that Browne was responsible for the deaths of two Lowestoft women. Defendants are sentenced by Judge and Jury, not those offering vague remarks upon the subject of Witchcraft. Sadly, however, when mud is thrown it often sticks for a very long time. Gosse's 'vulgar error' resulted in the philosopher Bertrand Russell along with many other notable figures believing on hearsay that Browne was involved in witch-trials, plural; the historian Keith Thomas' erroneously supposed that Browne's remarks 'turned the scale against the accused'; even Browne's editor C.A.Patrides in 1969 stated that 'We are shocked to learn that Sir T.B. was involved in witch-trials'. All of which are examples of prejudiced academic thinking which has relied upon the erroneous evidence of one ecclesiastic figure from the eighteenth century and has failed to consult primary sources available upon the events of 1665.

'To do him justice we ought to turn to the normal events of his life at Norwich, where he was loved and venerated for long years as a friend and physician and distinguished citizen, where he brought up his large and attractive family of children, where he tended his garden and collected his specimens of plants and birds and beasts, and pored over his books.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Obviously this is new and important information which should be added to the article along the lines of ... originally it is thought that... but research has shown.... To assist in this Norwikian (I assume it is you this is unsigned (apologies if not)) can you provide references. If you have found reference to a report of the trial (especially by a court reporter) other that in A Tryal of Witches, (by a person attending the trial) then can you please reference as soon as possible as this and quite a few other articles will have to undergo a bit of a rewrite. Many (me included) have assumed that A Tryal of Witches was the only contemporary record. I have like yourself searched through Cobbett and Howell's State Trials VolVI (within the limitations of the internet, it will be added to my library reading list) which lists the trial, but I share your concern about a publication (any publication) written so long after the event. Can you point editors in the right direction please. I agree that as far as I have read he only attended one witch trial and Thomas (see point to reply section) was quoting a publication of 1658 not evidence of one ecclesiastic figure from the eighteenth century. Obviously if you feel the article reads as ...Browne was responsible for the women's death... then change the English not the facts. He attended the trial, he spoke, and because of his reputation as a physician / philospher his words were given added value, maybe out of respect and admiration, and the jury decided and the judge sentenced. The rest is not, IMHO, offering anything that could improve / enhance / correct the article, which is the function of all talk pages. Edmund Patrick – confer 17:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Hmm, Gosse is not directly referenced in the article, so assuming for now that your assertions are correct, if you have an issue with anything said in the article, you would need to prove that the sources used were derived from Gosse. The writers of the sources used in the article may have weighed up Gosse's biography and found it to be fine. The article does not say that Browne was responsible for the death of the witches but that he attended the trial and that he said the accusers had been bewitched, but not that it was Denny and Cullender who had done the bewitching (ie: that they were witches). As such, there seems to be little to support your implication that the article defames Browne. Although I'm not sure what is meant by "The reporting of similar events that had occurred in Denmark by someone as eminent as Browne seemed to confirm the guilt of the accused". Was it the trial in Denmark where the guilt of the accused were confirmed, or is it that Browne's presence meant the accused were guilty? The later seems odd logic, and the first seems tangential as it's currently written. If you're just making a point, please be aware that Wikipedia talk pages are for the discussion of the article. Nev1 (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

apologies for any misunderstanding, please do change the wording if that change makes the point clearer for others. The reporting of similar events that had occurred in Denmark by someone as eminent as Browne seemed to confirm the guilt of the accused". ... is to make the point from Thomas (p524 – 525) Religon and the decline of magic where he states ..., while Sir Thomas Browne's citation of a parallel case in Denmark turned the scale against the accused in the trial of Rose Cullender and Amy Dury at Bury St Edmunds in 1665. He references this point from ... preface to The Devil of Mascon, trans. P. du Moulin (2nd edition Oxford, 1658); and Ewen ii p 350. (endquote) (C. L'Estrange Ewen from his book witchcraft and demonianism (1933) my note) he then goes on to list other instances of reliance upon continental witch – cases that influences various trials. Edmund Patrick – confer 15:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point[edit]

Thanks for your thoughtful observations and comments. I'm fairly confident that Gosse is the erroneous source of these thinly veiled allusions simply because Hutchinson, who after all is the ultimate source of all these repeated allegations, and who wrote some fifty odd years after the event, is not cited whatsoever. But as with the criticisms of Alexander Ross and his absurd diatribes against Browne, just who is it who remains the more famous and respected writer? Just seems to be a very odd agenda to need to perpetuate this myth towards someone that's all and one queries the motivation as with Gosse. While respecting wikipedia talk guidelines, the image of intellectual pygmies and giants springs to mind. Norwikian (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bury St Edmunds witch trials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bury_St_Edmunds_witch_trials&oldid=1204839060"