Historians have disagreed about the significance of gender in witch trials in the 16th and 17th centuries.
What is your view about this issue?
With reference to three chosen works:
● Analyse the ways in which interpretations of the question, problem, or issue differ.
● Explain the differences you have identified.
● Evaluate the arguments, indicating which you found most persuasive and explaining your judgements.
● Make use of supplementary reading as appropriate.
The witch trials of the 16th and 17th century have been an area of great debate for historians in recent years. Many
historians disagree on what the overriding factor behind the witch hunts was; some argue it was down to religion, some
argue it was a political movement however a lot of historians believe gender was a key motive. The most popular
interpretations of the witch hunts touch on gender, even if they disagree that it was significant, it is a factor that cannot be
ignored. Levack1 focuses closely on sociological aspects in Europe, the structure of society, the views within it and how
this links to gender, Barstow2 zooms in to the legislation behind witchcraft and tracks its changes, discussing how
legislation was introduced to target women specifically, mirroring societies bias against women and the significance of
legislation and the effects that it had on the witch hunts. Apps and Gow 3 take a seemingly radical approach to weighing up
how important gender was by criticising and challenging the views of other historians in order to convey their own points.
Barstow and Levack take a similar stance throughout their works, discussing gender as its own factor as well as linking
and ranking it against others; Apps and Gow, on the other hand, centralise their analysis on the significance from a less
conventional angle through the use of male witch trials. Gender is so highly appraised by some historians as it interlinks to
many other explanations behind the witch-hunts, these connections are explored in detail by Barstow and Levack. Gender
might not be the most critical factor but it is undeniable that it was significant to some extent.
Misogyny and female oppression is a common theme that historians explore when evaluating the importance of gender in
the witch trials, Apps and Gow however, argue that this is too highly valued by historians and it allows for the neglect of
other causes. ‘Invisible men’ presents the interpretation that gender has not been properly evaluated and, in order to draw
a conclusion, both of the sexes and their roles in the witch hunts must be looked at. Barstow’s work provides a counter
argument, Unlike Gow and Apps, Barstow believes that the witch hunts were specifically set up to target and oppress
women. Barstow goes as far as to say that the spike in the persecution of witches around the 1560s was the patriarchy's
attempt to put rebelling women back into their place. Apps and Gow state that the witch hunts could not be gender
oriented as men were also accused of witchcraft and charged accordingly, they build on this by supporting their view that
in some countries, male witchcraft persecutions were dominant over female ones. The article also briefly discusses the
role that women had in accusing other women, essentially rejecting the argument that the witch hunts were a way of
further oppressing females as, if this was the case, it would only be men accusing women; this conclusion made by Apps
and Gow is where these two works begin to differ. Barstow uses Essex statistics where 92% of those charged with
witchcraft were female. Barstow also touches on the statistics surrounding male witch hunts but dismisses them as a
general minority across Europe as a whole. Apps and Gow use the letters and testimony made by male witches, including
1
Levack, Brain; ‘The witch-hunt in Early Modern Europe’- Longman 1995, pages 133-141
2
Barstow, Anne; ‘A Historiography of the European witch persecutions’-Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion Vol 4
1988.
3
Apps, Lara and Gow, Andrew; ‘Invisible men: The Historian and the male witch’- Manchester University press 2003
What is your view about this issue?
With reference to three chosen works:
● Analyse the ways in which interpretations of the question, problem, or issue differ.
● Explain the differences you have identified.
● Evaluate the arguments, indicating which you found most persuasive and explaining your judgements.
● Make use of supplementary reading as appropriate.
The witch trials of the 16th and 17th century have been an area of great debate for historians in recent years. Many
historians disagree on what the overriding factor behind the witch hunts was; some argue it was down to religion, some
argue it was a political movement however a lot of historians believe gender was a key motive. The most popular
interpretations of the witch hunts touch on gender, even if they disagree that it was significant, it is a factor that cannot be
ignored. Levack1 focuses closely on sociological aspects in Europe, the structure of society, the views within it and how
this links to gender, Barstow2 zooms in to the legislation behind witchcraft and tracks its changes, discussing how
legislation was introduced to target women specifically, mirroring societies bias against women and the significance of
legislation and the effects that it had on the witch hunts. Apps and Gow 3 take a seemingly radical approach to weighing up
how important gender was by criticising and challenging the views of other historians in order to convey their own points.
Barstow and Levack take a similar stance throughout their works, discussing gender as its own factor as well as linking
and ranking it against others; Apps and Gow, on the other hand, centralise their analysis on the significance from a less
conventional angle through the use of male witch trials. Gender is so highly appraised by some historians as it interlinks to
many other explanations behind the witch-hunts, these connections are explored in detail by Barstow and Levack. Gender
might not be the most critical factor but it is undeniable that it was significant to some extent.
Misogyny and female oppression is a common theme that historians explore when evaluating the importance of gender in
the witch trials, Apps and Gow however, argue that this is too highly valued by historians and it allows for the neglect of
other causes. ‘Invisible men’ presents the interpretation that gender has not been properly evaluated and, in order to draw
a conclusion, both of the sexes and their roles in the witch hunts must be looked at. Barstow’s work provides a counter
argument, Unlike Gow and Apps, Barstow believes that the witch hunts were specifically set up to target and oppress
women. Barstow goes as far as to say that the spike in the persecution of witches around the 1560s was the patriarchy's
attempt to put rebelling women back into their place. Apps and Gow state that the witch hunts could not be gender
oriented as men were also accused of witchcraft and charged accordingly, they build on this by supporting their view that
in some countries, male witchcraft persecutions were dominant over female ones. The article also briefly discusses the
role that women had in accusing other women, essentially rejecting the argument that the witch hunts were a way of
further oppressing females as, if this was the case, it would only be men accusing women; this conclusion made by Apps
and Gow is where these two works begin to differ. Barstow uses Essex statistics where 92% of those charged with
witchcraft were female. Barstow also touches on the statistics surrounding male witch hunts but dismisses them as a
general minority across Europe as a whole. Apps and Gow use the letters and testimony made by male witches, including
1
Levack, Brain; ‘The witch-hunt in Early Modern Europe’- Longman 1995, pages 133-141
2
Barstow, Anne; ‘A Historiography of the European witch persecutions’-Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion Vol 4
1988.
3
Apps, Lara and Gow, Andrew; ‘Invisible men: The Historian and the male witch’- Manchester University press 2003
