Talk:Samlesbury witches/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Undertaking review

I will undertake this review. The article is fascinating and well researched, and just what one would expect from main editor Malleus :-) It appears stable and neutral. All images appear to be in order. will have some minor suggestions for clarity, but it appears in good shape otherwise. I may undertake a few copyedits along the way. Feel free to check them to ensure I have not detrimentally affected the intended sense of things.

• "...Jane Southworth, Jennet Bierley, and Ellen Bierley—were accused of practising witchcraft on Grace Sowerbutts..." I had a little difficulty with the sequence in which information is presented around this part of the article. I thought it would be more appropriate to name the Samlesbury witches and the key allegation against them in the previous 'investigations' section. Something along the lines of the last sentence of the section reading "Three of these-Jane Southworth, Jennet Bierley, and Ellen Bierley—were accused of practising witchcraft on Grace Sowerbutts, Jennet Bierley's grand-daughter and Ellen Bierley's niece." The next section would read in part "Of the eight defendants from Samlesbury, Bromley ordered the release of five before the trial began, after they had been given a warning about their future conduct.[18] The remainder—Jane Southworth, Jennet Bierley, and Ellen Bierley—went to trial, with fourteen-year-old Grace Sowerbutts as the chief prosecution witness."

• I've switched a few bits around, hopefully it's OK now. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• What is a sabbat?

• I've elaborated slightly and added a wikilink. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Potts records that after hearing the evidence..." We are quite a long way from the lead here, and this is the first mention of Potts in the body text, so it should say something of who he was. Could be done simply by shifting the opening phrase of the next section up to here ("Thomas Potts, the clerk to the Lancaster Assizes,..."

• Altered as per your suggestion. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think the following text belongs either near end of 'investigations' section, near start of 'trial' section, or as a footnote to trial section: "In the early 17th-century English legal process, all indictments were initially submitted to a grand jury, whose task was to decide whether there was a prima facie case against the accused. Once a batch of indictments had been found, then that group of prisoners was taken into the courtroom to be tried by the petty jury, the forerunner of the modern jury,[36] so the three accused Samlesbury witches were tried together, not separately.[37]"

• Potts doesn't mention the grand jury, that's one of the discrepancies between his account of the trial and what really happened. Another is that he writes as if the witnesses actually gave evidence in court, but more likely the statements they had made to the examining JPs were simply read out in court. I'm not sure on reflection that it's an important point that the three were tried together, as that's what Potts says anyway, so I'll rewrite this bit and try to deal with your point immediately below at the same time. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Gibson argues that Potts (and others) were "subjugating what really happened to what ought to have happened". This immediately made this reader interested in what was in Potts account that scholars believe did not actually happen, as well as calling into question the account of the trial, if Potts is the source for the secondary sources. Can anything be said about this? Does Gibson give examples of such discrepancies?

• I've expanded on this a little while dealing with the point immediately above. Hopefully it's satisfactory now. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Modern interpretation

The article is fine until this final section, which needs work. It may take me a couple of goes to try and explain issues here and work out possible solutions, so bear with me.

• First, am I right in assuming the intention is for the section to be about the modern interpretation of Potts' account, or is it about interpration of the witches' trial? The heading should be revised either way.

• The section is intended to be about the interpretation that a modern historian would put on the events of 1612. Not just Potts' account or the trials, but also the wider context of the motivation of the authorities to press ahead with what to some looks suspiciously like a show trial to impress King James. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• The section begins by quoting Potts. Since the section is about modern interpretations, it should begin with a sentence that introduces us to these interpretations or to the subject of interpreting Potts. It might be something like "Potts' account of the Samlesbury witches trial has been used by modern scholars to provide insights into [whatever the insights are about insert here]". Also, in this section I would consider introducing the 'voice' of the analysts in a way not needed elsewhere, particularly if the analysts differ in their interpretation of the trials, but I would be interested in editors' views on this.

• I'm not sure I agree with this. The important theme in these trials is the Jesuit priest's trumped up charges of witchcraft against three women Potts is at pains to point out used to be Catholics but are now devout Anglicans, so I think it's important to make that point right away. Bear in mind as well, that Potts is the only source for any of this, every scholar is simply interpreting what he says and the context in which he says it. So I think it's reasonable for this section to begin with one of the few relevant things we know for sure. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is Catholicism "a recurring theme" in the trials, or can this be expressed more precisely "the role of Catholicism in religious life", or "the dangers of Catholicism" or something? Catholicism per se seems more general than what is intended here.

• No it's not really, you're right. It's simply a likely motivation behind the trial. I've reworded to hopefully make that clearer. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...and it had been under secret government surveillance for some considerable time before the trial of 1612." A significant claim needing an in-line cite.

• The later citation (#4) covers it, but I've repeated it anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• The second para starts well, but I had difficulty following it. It indicates that interpreting Potts "gives an insight into the discrepancies during the early 17th century between the Protestant and Catholic views of witchcraft, and the beliefs of the common people". This leads me to expect that the rest of the para will set out examples of the portrayal of Protestant views on witchcraft, Catholic views on witchcraft, and common beliefs about witchcraft, and, as I read, each of these will be 'signposted' by the text. That does not happen at all at present.

• It may be best to attempt a revision of this section based on the above comments, and then I will have another look at it.

Conclusion for now

• I will put this on hold. The main issues as I see it pertain to the final section, which needs thinking through and some clarity. The other issues are obviously more minor. I am sure it is all readily sorted. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've added a paragraph that attempts to link the existing two paragraphs together more clearly. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Concluding review

Those changes are excellent, and deal with just about everything. I intend to pass this at GA shortly, but wanted to raise four points here:

• I think the article needs an explicit statement somewhere of what you remarked here on the GA review talk page: that Potts is the sole source for events at the trials (if I have read you correctly). I am currently hunting for a place to put that, but you might also like to consider this. You may be aware that I have done a couple of reviews of Deacon's articles lately, and one of their great strengths is the explicit discussion of sources in the course of the text, including the effects / limitations created by the nature of sources. I think this article (and possibly Pendle witch trials) might benefit from a statement about the centrality of Potts' book to subsequent analysis.

• That's a fair point, I'll have a think about that. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• While everything else about the "Modern interpretation" section is improved, I still feel the lay reader would benefit from an introductory sentence, whatever its nature, that signals explicitly what is being discussed here. I still don't feel there is a seamless transition as we launch straight into Potts.
• Until this morning I hadn't had the wit to visit Pendle witch trials to see how that was done. That made me think that the Samlesbury article does not have an aftermath / legacy section. The obvious thing it might cover is whether anything happened to Christopher Southworth as a result, but there may be other material (see next point).

• The story of Christopher Southworth just peters out; he was a Jesuit priest in hiding and apparently never caught. You're right that there's no legacy section, but that's because there's no legacy. It was a show trial and the women were acquitted. I've added an Aftermath subsection, which is all that I think can be said. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Again, building on the Pendle article, that article talks about Altham and Bromley's subsequent fates, but this one does not. Now, it was only when I visited the Pendle article that I properly realised that Potts' book was not only about the Samlesbury trials, but also Pendle. Presumable, if it is the only source, we cannot attribute legacies (if I can put it that rather clumsy way), in relation to thejudges etc who were involved with both trials, to one st of trials and not the other. So I suggest this material should be drafted to be similar in both articles, and make reference to both sets of trials in both WP articles. (I assume my interpretation is consistent with the secondary sources, but if not, then that itself might be worthy of comment - if Potts is the only primary source, how have the secondary sources discriminated between the effects of each set of trials?). This will also ensure the Samlesbury article is as comprehensive as possible.

Hmm, that was more than I thought. Well, I wouldn't want you to be idle. Ottava may have to wait a day. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)