The witch craze in Britain, Europe and North America, c1580–c1750 - 2 The…

The idea

Pendle in the early 1600s was a scattered upland parish of small farmers, weavers and cattle dealers, where poverty, poor harvests and disputed boundaries bred tension. Socially, reputation and neighbourly obligation mattered: a refused beggar might curse, and illness afterwards was read as maleficium. Economically, enclosure, rent pressure and dearth sharpened envy between households such as the Devices and the Chattoxes. Religiously, the area was a conservative, partly recusant region where Catholic survival and Protestant reform competed, so religious nonconformity could be recast as devilish. Legally, the 1604 statute made a pact with a familiar spirit a capital felony without benefit of clergy, so a confession of a familiar, not just harm, could hang a suspect.

What earns the marks

• Explains how upland farming, weaving and cattle dealing produced fragile household economies in which a sudden death of livestock or a child's illness could be blamed on a neighbour's curse.
• Shows that social reputation and the duty of neighbourly charity shaped accusations: refusing alms to a poor woman such as Alizon Device could be presented as the provocation for maleficium.
• Uses economic pressure, including enclosure, rents and dearth, to explain why envy and disputes over property or grazing fed local witchcraft suspicions.
• Analyses the religious context: a conservative, partly recusant area where Catholic survival and Protestant reform coexisted, allowing religious difference to be linked to diabolical influence.
• Explains the significance of the 1604 statute: it made a covenant with an evil spirit a capital offence without benefit of clergy, so evidence of a familiar or pact could be enough to convict.
• Weighs the statute against local context, arguing whether the law created the prosecutions or merely gave local tensions a sharper legal weapon.

Common mistakes and how to put them right

• Treating Pendle as uniformly Catholic or uniformly Protestant.

  Put it right: Describe a mixed, contested religious landscape in which both recusancy and conformity existed.

• Assuming the 1604 statute simply repeated earlier laws.

  Put it right: Explain that it specifically criminalised pacts with evil spirits and removed benefit of clergy for that offence.

• Reducing the case to poverty alone.

  Put it right: Combine social reputation, economic pressure and religious tension, and show how the statute converted suspicion into a capital charge.

Exam tips

• Anchor each contextual point to a named person or episode, such as Alizon Device cursing John Law, so context explains evidence rather than floating free.
• When discussing the 1604 statute, state precisely what it changed and then test its impact against the timing and conduct of the 1612 assizes.
• Plan an argument about relative significance: decide whether local context or the new law was the stronger driver, and sustain that judgement throughout.