2022/23
This journal is published by students and staff at the Department of History and Department of Classics, Ancient History, and Egyptology at Swansea University.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieved system, or in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the publisher, nor be otherwise circulated in any form or binging or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on subsequent publisher.
© Swansea University
Editorial Team
Editor-in-Chief Alex Hughes (History & English Literature)
Editors Rhiannon Hazell (History & Politics) Penelope Lodder (Classical Civilisation) Rhiannon Riding (History & English Literature) Freya Slatter (History & English Literature) Joe Sargent (History) Matthew Stevens (History & Politics) Megan Thomas (History)
Department Guidance Doctor Eugene Miakinkov
Introduction
The History and Classics, Ancient History, and Egyptology Departments at Swansea University have decided to relaunch the biannual undergraduate journal to showcase some of the excellent work produced by its students.
Both departments covers a wide range of subjects under the umbrellas of History, Medieval History, Ancient History, Classical Studies, and Egyptology. Gorffennol is the Welsh word for ‘the past’, which perfectly encapsulates all these varying subjects under one term.
In line with department policy, the MHRA Standard for referencing has been used throughout this journal. However, in the two Classics essays, the relevant Ancient Sources style has been used when referencing Ancient Sources.
Contents
Trace the evolution of the concept of ‘Holocaust’. What raises it up and above simple genocide? Maeve Silver
1
How and why have historians disagreed about the
9
Norman Conquest? Grace Simpson
How and why have historians disagreed about the
18
early modern witch hunts? Lauren Golding
Why did Wales and Scotland never gain home rule in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? Oliver Kindred
26
‘If the faile d plans of 1914 marked a strategic shift in the conduct of war, the great battles of 1916 marked a tactical one. ’ Luke Bundy
35
Transgender people in the UK: their history, the history of their healthcare, and what needs to change today. Stan Shaw
45
Monsters In the Bathhouse: Randy Shilts and Gaetan Dugas
58
Jacob Lively
What purpose has policing sexuality served? Use at least three examples from across time and place to make your argument.
66
Rhianedd Collins
The Page’s Conspiracy
84
Chelsea Oswald
What does the burning of Persepolis reveal about Alexander's
98
attitude towards Persia? Ben Miller
Trace the evolution of the concept of ‘Holocaust’. What raises it up and above simple genocide? Student: Maeve Silver, History
Most historians would agree that writing about the Holocaust is emotionally challenging. It is
difficult to do it justice, and adequately show those who were murdered the respect that
they deserve. But it is important to look back to the root of the word ‘Holocaust’, and
understand why the slaughter of six million Jews and other groups of people, has come to be
known as that. Writing in the Washington Post , Barbara Feinman traces the concept back to
‘at least to the 3 rd century B.C.E’. She explains that the word came from ‘Holokaustos – from
the Greek holos – meaning whole, plus kaustos – meaning burnt. Burnt whole’. She also
defines it as the ‘great or total destruction of life, esp. by fire’. 1 This is perhaps a reference to
the ‘crematorium ovens’ that were used to burn the bodies of those massacred in the Nazi
concentration camps. ‘Holocaust’ can be traced back to 1895 and was used to describe the
Hamidian Massacres (also known as the Armenian massacres), where hundreds of thousands
of people were killed by Ottoman troops. It is important to understand why the Holocaust
(1941-1945) has (rightly) had so much recognition and remembrance. Perhaps throughout
the last eighty years, Holocaust education has been used to show how easy it is for a
genocide, a ‘complex process of systematic persecution and annihilation of a group of
people by a government’, to happen. 2
1 Barbara Feinman, ‘ What the Term Holocaust Has Come to Mean ’, The Washington Post (1983) <https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1983/04/10/what-the-term-holocaust-has-come-to- mean/1c0dc753-3013-4209-ac72-425fc15595b1/> [Accessed 04/12/2022], para. 2 2 Uğur Ümit Üngör, Genocide: New Perspectives on Its Causes, Courses and Consequences (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2016), p. 16
1
An article was published on 10 September 1895 by the New York Times , entitled
‘Another Armenian Holocaust’. This key primary source was describing the Hamidian
Massacres, which were the brutal killings of Armenian and Assyrian Christians in the
Ottoman Empire. They took place between 1894 and 1897, and around one to three
hundred thousand people were slaughtered by Ottoman troops. There were also a series of
forced conversions and lootings, as the New York Times article writes: ‘A force of 1,000
Turkish troops was sent to Kemokh, and five villages were pillaged’. 3 Historians, like Selim
Der ingil, express their shock that ‘little [research] has focused on the massacres of 1894 -
1897’. As he reflects, ‘important research has been done on the mass conversions during the
genocide of 1915’. 4 The word ‘Holocaust’ was used in 1895 to describe these killings but
evidently, there is a lack of awareness concerning both Armenian massacres. Donald
Bloxham reflects that ‘one of the striking facts about the Armenian genocide is that it is so
little known’. Bloxham further writes, ‘With the advent of Britain’s first Holocaust Memorial
Day in January 2001, the Armenian genocide also raised its head a fraction there’. 5 It seems
that recognition of the Holocaust (also known as the ‘Shoah’ – Hebrew for ‘calamity’ or
‘catastrophe’), sparks recognition of other hor rendous genocides, because when Holocaust
education became normalised, this triggered the normalisation of these other events in
history.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) was founded in 1998 and
is an intergovernmental organisation that strives to unite governments around the world, to
3 ‘Another Armenian Holocaust’, The New York Times, 10 September 1895, p. 15 4 Selim Deringil, “The Armenian Question Is Finally Closed”: Mass Conversions of Armenians in Anatolia during the Hamidian Massacres of 1895- 1897’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 51. 2 (2009), pp. 344-371 (p. 344) 5 David Bloxham, The Great Game of Genocide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 6
2
promote and reinforce Holocaust education. They say that ‘teaching about mass suffering
only began after the Second World War, or to be specific, after the Holocaust’. 6 It has been
suggested that when the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed internationally, the world,
after it had just been involved in a six-year war, believed it had to then educate the next
generation. The Holocaust is clear proof of how easy it is for a mass killing on that scale to
occur. It can start from the point where there are divisions within a society.
The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust (HMDT), a charity that was set up in 2005 to
support Holocaust Memorial Day, argues that there are ‘ten Stages of Genocide’. They show
just how paramount it is to spread awareness about mass slaughter, for the sake of the next
generation. The HMDT states that they begin with the ‘Classification’. These are the
stereotypes of certain groups within a society. The HMDT writes ‘there’s a division of “us”
and “them”’. ‘Symbolism’ follows this. The Yellow Star of David was the symbol that Jewish
people were forced to wear. It was a ‘visual manifestation of hatred’. This then alienates an
entire group. This is accompanied by the next two steps: ‘Discrimination’ and
‘Dehumanisation’. This is where certain rights are denied to the alienated group of people
(Jews were stripped of their German citizenship) and their dignity is removed. Jews were
likened to rats. As the HMDT states under the fifth stage of ge nocide, ‘Organisation’,
‘Genocides are always planned. Regimes of hatred often train those who go on to carry out
the destruction of a people’. 7 This is how brutal events like Kristallnacht took place. The
violence was organised by an influential leader.
6 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, The Holocaust and Other Genocides (2022), <https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/educational-materials/holocaust-and-other-genocides> [Accessed 05/12/2022], para. 2 7 Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, The Ten Stages of Genocide (2019), <https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about- the-holocaust-and-genocides/what-is-genocide/the-ten-stages-of-genocide/> [Accessed 05/12/2022]
3
The next stage was ‘Polarisation’, which was propaganda. The Nazis spread libels
about Jewish people and gave them a demeaning public image. Jeffrey Herf reflects on the
role of the Nazi Party’s chief propagandist, Joseph Goebbels. He writes ‘Goebbels was
prolific’ and that his ‘anti - Semitic motifs were ubiquitous’. 8 Nazi propaganda incited hatred
against Jews who were stereotyped to have large, hooked noses; horns; and hoofs. They
were also stereotyped to be disloyal to Germany; and greedy, preoccupied with wealth. Nazi
propaganda against Jews was systematic. This is how Jews were dehumanised. The next
three stages of genocide are ‘Preparation’ of mass killing (in this case this was ‘The Final
Solution), ‘Persecution’ of the group based on their religion or ethnicity, and finaly,
‘Extermination’, which of course is slaughter.
‘Denial’ is the final stage. Holocaust denial is rife. There is no denial, it seems, of any
other mass killing in history, at least to such a degree. This is another reason as to why the
Holocaust can be viewed differently to other genocides. Stephen E Atkins writes that
Holocaust denial, which started after the Second World War, ‘has become an international
movement’. He adds that there are ‘Holocaust deniers active in almost every country’. This is
not the case for any of the other horrific genocides that have happened. Atkins further notes
that ‘Holocaust denial has become more acceptable to the European extreme Left’. 9 It is of
course anti-Semitic because it is an attempt to nullify the Nazi genocide, and also, Jewish
suffering. As Atkins says, it is found on the extreme Left that is supposedly forward-thinking.
Those of that mind-set have also been known to distort the Holocaust and claim that not so
many Jews were murdered. Such minimization of mass human suffering cannot be found in
8 Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), p. 21 9 Stephen E. Atkins, Holocaust Denial as an International Movement (Westport: Praeger, 2009), pp. 1-2
4
context of other genocides which is why the Holocaust can be singled out. As Robert
Solomon Wistrich writes, for those who deny the Holocaust ‘no testimony by Jews is
acceptable’, because Jews ‘invented the Holocaust’. Wistrich reflects that deniers make this
claim to push forward the anti- Semitic stereotype that Jews did so ‘to serve their own
financial and political ends’. 10 Deborah Lipstadt, an American historian famous for winning a
case against David Irving, an infamous Holocaust denier who sued her for characterizing him
and some of his works as such, reflects that Holocaust denial has even been perpetrated by
well-respected politicians and ambassadors. 11 No other massacre in history has ever been so
publicly challenged by such trusted members of our societies.
There has been much debate over how we can commemorate the killing of six million
Jews. It is an event in history that requires the utmost respect and sensitivity. But it can be
argued that such respect and sensitivity has not been shown to the victims, and also to the
survivors, who have proved with their presence that dialogue and first-hand education can
help the next generation, by providing them with the facts. But in so many parts of the
world, Holocaust education is not taught. This is for several reasons; one being that it is not a
requirement. In Wales, for example, the governance of education has been devolved since
the creation of the Welsh Assembly in May of 1999. This means that Holocaust education in
Welsh schools is not officially called for. Therefore, so many people only learn or hear about
the Holocaust through the media, which is a powerful weapon because of its ability to
influence ideas.
10 Robert Solomon Wistrich, Holocaust Denial: The Politics of Perfidy (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), p. 1 11 Deborah Lipstadt, ‘Holocaust Denial: An Antisemitic Fantasy’, Modern Judaism – A Journal of Jewish Ideas and Experience, 40. 1 (2020), pp. 71-86 (p. 76)
5
The Holocaust stands out from other massacres because of how much it has been
documented and written about on social media; in short films; in books; in articles; in
documentaries; and in Hollywood films. Henry Gonshak reflects that how Hollywood
represents the Holocaust should be taken note of by ‘anyone concerned about public
perceptions of the Holocaus t’. He writes beforehand that many people, including ‘the
average American’ learn about this monstrous atrocity ‘not through history books,
documentary films, or “serious” works of literature and cinema but rather through
Hollywood portrayals’. 12 Such a commonly portrayed historical event, with so much
coverage (as mentioned before, no other genocide has been documented so much), must be
taught accurately, and also, respectfully.
When most countries across the world first went into full-blown lockdowns, which
were put in place to save lives and stop the spread of COVID-19 in early 2020, many cruel
and insensitive comparisons were made between that, then-current, uncertain situation and
the Holocaust. The lockdowns were compared to the famous Anne Frank, who was forced
into hiding for over two years in Amsterdam to escape Nazi persecution. Unfortunately,
Anne and the other people in the annexe were discovered in August 1944. They were all sent
to camps. No other historical figure from another time period was used to make such a
heartless comparison. As Ben Zion Gad writes in the Jerusalem Post , ‘Holocaust trivialization
has become increasingly mainstream among many politicians, grassroots movements, in the
media and online’. He continues that it is ‘a gateway to outright Holocaust denial’. Gad
writes that he spoke with Vera Grossman Kriegel, a survivor of Joseph Mengele’s cruel
‘medical’ experiments in Auschwitz who said, ‘We received shots today to live, whereas in
12 Henry Gonshak, Hollywood and the Holocaust (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), p. 1
6
the Holocaust we received them to die’. 13 This was her response to those who protested
against the mandatory vaccinations. In the present day, antisemitism is increasing and
comes in many forms, on both the Right and Left, and is used in more ways than one to
attack Jewish people. As mentioned before, the denial of the Holocaust is justified by anti-
Semites who accuse Jews of creating a ‘myth’. They also accuse them of doing so for
monetary gain. No other survivors of a genocide have been accused of such fabrication. That
is why the Holocaust is different.
Whilst we focus on the etymology of ‘Holocaust’, it is more important today to look
at the happenings between 1941 and 1945. The Holocaust is different from other genocides
because of how it was systematically put in place by the Nazis, who used dehumanisation,
propaganda, and influence to separate an entire group of people from mainstream societies
across Europe. The events of this time have in turn triggered the normalisation of Holocaust
education, which has then led on to the respectful memorial of other massacres. Every year,
Holocaust Memorial Day is used to also reflect on the mass killings ‘that followed in
Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur’. 14 In the present day, those who honour victims must
look to the future, and at how they can fight Holocaust denial, which is ever-present.
Survivors of other horrendous killings do not have to face this. We must reflect on the
difference between the Holocaust which was, as John A. Drobinicki writes, ‘a sophisticated
machine, an industry developed to exterm inate first and foremost the Jews of Europe’, with
other horrendous murders to really see how easy it has been for them to happen. 15
13 Ben Zion Gad, ‘Survivors outraged at comparisons between Holocaust and COVID’, Jerusalem Post , 23 January 2022, p. 2 14 Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, What is Holocaust Memorial Day? (2019), <https://www.hmd.org.uk/what-is-holocaust-memorial-day/> [Accessed 09/12/2022], para. 1 15 John A. Drobinicki, ‘The Difference Between Holocaust and Genocide’, Polish-American Journal, (1994), p. 6
7
Bibliography Atkins, Stephen E., Holocaust Denial as an International Movement (Westport: Praeger, 2009)
Bloxham, David, The Great Game of Genocide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)
Deringil, Selim, ‘“The Armenian Question Is Finally Closed”: Mass Conversions of Armenians in Anatolia during the Hamidian Massacres of 1895- 1897’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 51. 2 (2009), pp. 344-371 Drobinicki, John A., ‘The Difference Between Holocaust and Genocide’, Polish-American Journal, (1994) Feinman, Barbara, ‘What the Term Holocaust Has Come to Mean’, The Washington Post (1983) <https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1983/04/10/what-the- term-holocaust-has-come-to-mean/1c0dc753-3013-4209-ac72-425fc15595b1/> [Accessed 04/12/2022] Gad, Ben Zion, ‘Survivors outraged at comparisons between Holocaust and COVID’, Jerusalem Post , 23 January 2022
Henry Gonshak, Hollywood and the Holocaust (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015)
Herf, Jeffrey, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006) Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, The Ten Stages of Genocide (2019), <https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/what-is- genocide/the-ten-stages-of-genocide/> [Accessed 05/12/2022] International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, The Holocaust and Other Genocides (2022), <https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/educational- materials/holocaust-and-other-genocides> [Accessed 05/12/2022] Lipstadt, Deborah, ‘Holocaust Denial: An Antisemitic Fantasy’, Modern Judaism – A Journal of Jewish Ideas and Experience, 40. 1 (2020), pp. 71-86
‘Another Armenian Holocaust’, The New York Times, 10 September 1895
Üngör, Uğur Ümit, Genocide: New Perspectives on Its Causes, Courses and Consequences (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2016)
Wistrich, Robert Solomon, Holocaust Denial: The Politics of Perfidy (Berlin: De Gruyte
8
How and why have historians disagreed about the Norman Conquest? Student: Grace Simpson, History & English Literature
In this essay, I will discuss the roots of the historiographical debate surrounding the Norman
Conquest, exploring the potential sources of disagreements, both within the academic field
and in society. Specifically, I will focus on the so-called F-word: feudalism. In this regard, I
will explore how disagreements stem from a lack of a unified definition of the term, with
many defining it in constricting boundaries only relevant to their specific research interest,
as well as the evolving nature of the academic field resulting from a century of social
change. Historians of the Norman Conquest disagree most often on the role it played in
feudalism's development in England, arguing whether elements had existed before 1066,
with the origins of the opposing beliefs found in two nineteenth-century historians. Since
then, changes to the world order resulting from two World Wars have led to a new
academic focus on relationships between specific groups and a growing recognition of the
need for interdisciplinary research.
The debate surrounding the application of the term feudalism, the definition of
which we will see later is a source of confusion itself, begins in the nineteenth-century with
historians Edward Augustus Freeman and J. Horace Round. Their interpretations of the
Norman Conquest are opposites: Freeman argues that it destroyed the English identity that
had formed during the time of the Anglo-Saxons, and Round, the reverse, that the Conquest
brought forth the beginning of a strong monarchy, the central point of English identity and
history. As society and the academic world have developed since, a middle ground is
typically taken by modern historians, recognising that historical development was rarely so
straightforward, likely influenced by the upheaval of two World Wars and the growth and
9
decline of imperialism since the nineteenth-century. Freeman and Round's interpretations
have been built upon since, producing a moderate middle point on the spectrum, evidenced
in the three historians discussed below.
Frank Stenton, publishing work based on the Ford Lectures he gave at the University
of Oxford in 1929, leans more towards Round's position, favouring the influence of the
Normans for the introduction and development of English feudalism over England's Anglo-
Saxon history. He argues that whilst William brought feudalism into England, it was vastly
different from Norman feudalism, with any similarities between the two ‘superficial’, citing
contrasting attitudes towards knights and their service to their lord(s). 1 The reasons behind
the differing roles of knights and their services, as discussed by Stenton, are expanded upon
by David C. Douglas in 1964, exploring the intertwined relationship between English and
Norman feudalism.
In Normandy, feudalism had begun to emerge before William's accession,
incorporating irreversible traditions, such as the need for private war between the nobility,
that were no longer present in England after the Conquest, with William codifying private
warfare as a treasonous offence. 2 The analysis of William establishing ‘ a completed feudal
organization by means of administrative acts’ by Douglas, expanding Stenton's argument,
may have differed due to thirty years of social change (including a second World War), but
most likely the academic focus of their texts. 3 Stenton focused on a century of change,
looking at the short-term consequences of the Norman Conquest and its introduction of
1 F. M. Stenton, The First Century of English Feudalism, 1066-1166: Second Edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), p.15 2 David C. Douglas, William the Conqueror: the Norman Impact on England (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1964), p. 281; Stenton, p.14 3 Douglas, p. 281
10
feudalism to England. In contrast, Douglas' work focused on William, providing background
to the conqueror, and exploring potential links between his time as Duke and King, including
his development of feudalism in both territories. Another thirty years later, Susan Reynold's
work on an even more specific topic, those classed as fiefs and vassals, further examines
feudalism, exploring its development across Europe, looking in depth at France, Italy,
England and Germany. Regarding England, Reynold takes a middle point between the old
arguments of Freeman and Round, recognising that certain elements of feudalism had
already begun to emerge in England before the Conquest, specifically customs and traditions
imposed upon the aristocracy and their properties, which continued after 1066. 4
Around a hundred years of historiographical change, the disagreements surrounding
the Norman Conquest have appeared to find a mutual middle point in the development of
feudalism in England, agreeing that it was a mix of Anglo-Saxon traditions and new Norman
introductions. However, as expected, there are still some disagreements on more nuanced
aspects of categorising English feudalism. Elizabeth Brown, when examining the existing
historiography of feudalism in Europe, identified possible roots for these disagreements,
with the ‘prime source of confusion’ being individuals' definition of feudalism. 5 Brown
believes that as most historians provide their own definitions, interpreting the term in a way
relevant to their research topic, the ‘absence of consensus’ has expanded the term beyond
recognition, with J.C. Holt later stating in 1987 that ‘we seem no longer to believe in
feudalism…’ as a result. 6 However, this was not a new opinion in the academic field, as
4 Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 387 5 Elizabeth Brown, ‘The Tyranny of a construct: feudalism and historians of Medieval Europe’, American Historical Review , 79. 4 (1974), pp. 1063-88 (p. 1070) 6 Brown, p. 1070; J.C. Holt, ‘1086’, Domesday Studies , Ed. J. C. Holt (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1987), pp. 41- 64 (pp. 42-3)
11
Chibnall quotes nineteenth- century historian, F. W. Maitland, that ‘feudalism is a good
word, and will cover a multitude of ignorances’ suggesting a long -understood need to better
conceptualise such a broad area of study. 7
Another later examination of the historiography of feudalism by Reynolds in 1994
suggests a cause for this confusion. She points towards sixteenth-century French historians
as the culprits due to their preoccupation with Roman Law in France. Their subsequent use
and interpretation of the Libri Feudorum , a work from twelfth-century Italy, Reynolds
argues, is the source of the blurred lines between ‘this academic law about fiefs...[and] the
customary law of the middle ages...often called feudal law’. 8 By providing an analysis of the
historiography of feudalism before continuing into her interpretation of European
feudalism, Reynolds demonstrates a modern recognition of accountability, acknowledging
the origins of contemporary debates.
Although usually reserved for subjects like sociology and politics, the increasingly
interdisciplinary nature of history in an academic context suggests a need for consideration
of all three levels of causation: direct, background and latent (the influence of sixteenth-
century French historians on modern analysis of feudalism being the second). As included by
Phillipp Schofield when looking at the breakdown of feudalism in England in the fourteenth-
century, such interdisciplinary developments also provide new perspectives, such as the
sociological use of quantitative research, highlighting the importance of measurable data
found in primary sources. 9
7 Marjorie Chibnall, The Debate on the Norman Conquest (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), p. 79 8 Reynolds, p. 3 9 Phillipp Schofield, Peasants and Historians: Debating the Medieval English Peasantry (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016), p. 104
12
Beyond the debate over the extent of the Norman Conquest's impact on England is
the different analyses of the class relationships, with many recognising that William did not
establish 'a perfect feudal pyramid'. As discussed by the historians below, the connections
between the classes were not as straightforward as thought. Christopher Daniell focuses on
the relationship between a lord and his tenant, with a ‘looser, less formal, bond’ between
the two present prior to the Norman Conquest, but formalised into stricter terms after
1066, including ‘no tenure without service’. 10 Commonly, this service was an agricultural
labourer on the land, but may have involved military service as a knight, the occurrence of
which waned by the late twelfth-century (although subservience to the lord did continue
throughout the Middle Ages).
As referenced above, the 'perfect feudal pyramid' is not an accurate portrayal of
English feudalism, with this ‘idealistic’ chain of command uncommon as many tenants may
be the subject of several lords. 11 As stated by Phillipp Schofield, the focus on class
relationships became significant post-Second World War. 12 The breakdown of rigid
boundaries between the classes in England, that had begun in the First World War and
continued by the Second World War, was now flowing into other areas of academic study,
including the medieval. Therefore, a likely explanation for disagreements in interpretations
is the historian's proximity to such social upheaval, particularly for English historians
studying the country's past, as brought about by the two World Wars. Schofield's reference
to social upheaval is apt in his broader focus on the decades between the Black Death (1348)
and the Peasants' Revolt (1381). Here, he examines the debates over the extent to which
10 Christopher Daniell, From Norman Conquest to Magna Carta: England 1066-1215 (London: Routledge, 2003), p. 88
11 Daniell, p. 89-90 12 Schofield, p. 103
13
the changing social hierarchy may have reverted to the original rigidity of the eleventh
century immediately following the Norman Conquest in 1066. As explored above regarding
Freeman and Round, time aided the development of this debate into many historians,
primarily in the latter half of the twentieth-century, taking a more mixed opinion,
recognising that there was a sporadic reversion to intense serfdom. 13
Within the historical literature on the Norman Conquest and feudalism in England
(and, to some extent, in Normandy too), analysis of class relationships can be further broken
down into specific spheres of focus: service to lords in the agricultural and military sectors.
Although Chibnall focuses on the differing debates over the military aspect of feudalism, she
does put forward that despite the rejection of using such a hypernym as feudalism has
become, it ‘has not involved the rejection of the adjective 'feudal'’. 14 Instead, it is generally
agreed by those leaning more towards Round's interpretation that the basis of English
society after the Conquest was the introduction of lordship and tenure.
Despite both agricultural labour and military service being important features of
English feudalism, the latter are often dealt with less, as Garnett explains, one of his primary
sources, Eadmer, a twelfth-century historian, says very little about it, and so does the
Domesday Survey, the number one primary source for any historian of the Norman
Conquest. Eadmer, according to Garnett, views the introduction of ‘immediate dependency
on the king...as the primary novelty of the Conquest’ suggesting that, as is expected by a
new monarch of a conquered land, William was preoccupied with ensuring obedience to his
new regime by all subjects. 15 He attempted to do so partially through the service of knights
13 Schofield, pp. 102-3 14 Chibnall, p. 83 15 George Garnett, The Norman Conquest: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 80
14
required from tenants-in- chief, but the application of this tactic was ‘imposed quickly,
artifi cially, and often quite arbitrarily’. 16 Therefore, it can be easily understood that the
availability of primary sources (and arguably the choice of secondary literature read too) is a
significant influence on a historian's research, with new archaeological discoveries possibly
changing the research field drastically.
As demonstrated by two of the most prominent primary sources used by historians
debating the Norman Conquest, the Domesday Survey (more commonly called the
Domesday Book) and the Salisbury Oath, William intended to elicit subordination from all
subjects, the conquered English and the emigrated Normans. To Holt, the relationship
between the two has not been thoroughly explored, stating that previous historians merely
treated them both happening i n 1086 as coincidental. Having already ascertained that ‘we
seem to no longer believe in feudalism…’, Holt continues ‘...let alone the notion that it was
established at a stroke in 1086’, recognising the modern interpretation that the
development of society takes a long time to emerge 17
However, as we have seen, there are still some minute disagreements over the
extent that feudalism previously existed in England before the Conquest. Instead, the
Domesday Survey and Salisbury Oath are evidence of the differences between Norman and
English feudalism, as William was able to impose ‘a more logical order’ in England, placing
himself firmly at the top of the pyramid. 18 Therefore, the interpretation of primary sources is
evidently a notable contributing factor in disagreements between historians, with modern
interdisciplinary research recognising potential unconscious personal bias towards texts, but
16 Garnett, p. 79 17 Holt, pp. 42-43 18 Chibnall, p. 80
15
even on a more surface level, the research topics will impact their understanding of a source
as they unintentionally only search for what supports their arguments.
As this essay has demonstrated, the disagreements of historians on the topic of the
Norman Conquest, and more specifically, the issue of defining and applying 'feudalism' to
England in the period, stem from a variety of sources, often intermingling with one another.
The choice of primary sources and the changing nature of the study of history are two of the
academic reasons for disagreements between historians, with time always a significant
contributing nature to evolving arguments. Social factors, such as the growth of movements
and fluctuations in politics, particularly since the Second World War, impact the unconscious
influences on a historian's interpretation of the past, even so far back as the medieval.
Bibliography Brown, Elizabeth, ‘The Tyranny of a construct: feudalism and historians of Medieval Europe’, American Historical Review , 79. 4 (1974), pp. 1063-88 Chibnall, Marjorie, The Debate on the Norman Conquest (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999) Daniell, Christopher, From Norman Conquest to Magna Carta: England 1066-1215 (London: Routledge, 2003) Douglas, David C., William the Conqueror: the Norman Impact on England (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1964) Garnett, George, The Norman Conquest: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) Holt, J.C., ‘1086’, Domesday Studies , Ed. J. C. Holt (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1987), pp. 41- 64 Reynolds, Susan, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) Schofield, Phillipp, Peasants and Historians: Debating the Medieval English Peasantry (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016) Stenton, F.M., The First Century of English Feudalism, 1066-1166: Second Edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961)
16
How and why have historians disagreed about the early modern witch hunts? By Lauren Golding, Medieval Studies
Historians of the early modern witch-hunts have disagreed on many aspects of the witch-
trials. This essay will discuss some of the disagreements surrounding the identities of those
accused, and the underlying factors that rendered certain people more vulnerable to
accusations of witchcraft. These disagreements stem from misinterpreted evidence,
insufficient research, and in-depth analysis of specific themes and ideas, micro versus macro
studies, the application of different disciplines and approaches to the witch-trials, and the
pre-existing personal convictions of those studying them.
Contemporary beliefs surrounding witchcraft in the early modern world centred on
the ideas that witches made a pact with the Devil and worshipped him at witches’ sabbats,
and that they practiced maleficium , causing harm to others by magical means. Whilst it is
now widely regarded by historians that witches as described by contemporary sources did
not exist, some early scholars of witchcraft believed in the reality of witches. Among these
were writer and religious fanatic, Montague Summers, and Margaret Murray, a folklorist and
anthropologist, who both studied witchcraft in the early twentieth-century. Summers was
convinced of the existence of an organized cult of devil-worshippers who indeed attended
the witches’ sabbat, while Murray beli eved the witches to be practitioners of an ancient
fertility religion who worshipped a horned god, misinterpreted by Christians as Satan. 1
1 James Sharpe , Instruments of Darkness: Witchcraft in Early Modern England, 1550-1750 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997), pp. 7-8; Malcolm Gaskill, Witchcraft: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 24-25; Brian P. Levack, The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe (Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2006), pp. 17-18; Thomas A. Fudge, 'Traditions and Trajectories in the Historiography of European Witch Hunting', History Compass , 4. 3 (2006), pp. 488-527
17
Murray studied mainly English and Scottish sources including legal records of witch
trials, pamphlets, and the works of contemporary writers. However, her focus was only on
statements that suggested beliefs and rituals of an organized cult, omitting references to the
acts of singular witches. Her distortion of the evidence led Murray to argue that the records
revealed an ancient, pre-Christian religion, the Dianic cult, and that the similarities in the
beliefs and confessions of the accused witches are a key indication of the cult’s existence. 2
Murray’s views have since been discredited, and more careful analysis of the records has led
modern historians to reach the consensus that those accused of witchcraft were not, in the
most part, devil-worshippers or members of an ancient fertility religion, but simply ordinary
people who were believed by their neighbours to be witches. 3
Although such theories have now been widely disregarded, there is still disagreement
among historians as to the types of ‘ordinary’ people who were more vulnerable to
accusations of witchcraft, as well as the causes behind these accusations. As pointed out by
Brian Levack, the witches of early modern Europe did not conform to a single social profile,
even within smaller regions. 4 Yet historians have argued that people of a certain gender,
occupation, or age were more likely than others to be accused of witchcraft.
In his study of 700 witchcraft cases in Essex, Alan Macfarlane observed that a high
percentage of suspected witches were women, and studies of witchcraft across different
regions throughout Europe have also revealed similar statistics. 5 This female majority has led
2 Margaret A. Murray, The Witch-Cult in Western Europe: A Study in Anthropology , (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921), pp. 12-13; Malcolm Gaskill, ‘The Pursuit of Reality: Recent Research into the History of Witchcraft’ , The Historical Journal , 51. 4 (2008), pp. 1069-1088 3 Fudge, pp. 493-497 4 Brian P. Levack , ‘Introduction’, in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America , Ed. Brian P. Levack (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 1-10 5 Alan Macfarlane, 'Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart Essex', in Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations , Ed. Mary Douglas (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 81-99
18
some historians to explore the role of gender in the early modern witch-hunts. Feminist
historian, Anne Barstow, proposed that the witch-hunts were an attack on women and
accused other historians of witchcraft of having ‘no awarene ss of traditional misogyny or
traditional oppression of women.’
Rather than seeing the witch-hunts as evidence of female oppression, Barstow
claimed that other historians have instead concluded that women were accused of
witchcraft through some fault of their own. To support her argument, Barstow drew on
studies where a high majority of those accused were women, such as Macfarlane’s study on
Essex. 6 However, as observed by Robin Briggs in his book Witches & Neighbours , this was not
always the case, with men making up the majority of the accused in places such as Paris and
Iceland, and relatively high proportions of men were accused in places such as south-west
Germany. 7 Despite this, Barstow argued that the men who were accused of and tried for
witchcraft were so due to other crimes that they had committed or to their association with
suspected female witches, and she maintained that women were ‘overwhelmingly singled
out’. 8
Further disagreement has emerged regarding the types of women who were accused
of witchcraft, with arguments advanced by some historians that women with certain
occupations were more vulnerable to accusations. In addition to ‘black’ magic performed by
witches, there were contemporary beliefs in ‘white’ magic, performed by folk healers, a lso
known as cunning folk or wise women and wise men. Research has shown that wise women
6 Anne L. Barstow, 'On Studying Witchcraft as Women's History: A Historiography of the European Witch Persecutions', Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion , 4. 2 (1988), p. 7-19 7 Robin Briggs, Witches and Neighbours: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002), pp. 225-226 8 Barstow, p. 9
19
did make up a substantial percentage of those accused of witchcraft in early modern Europe,
which has been attributed by Barstow to be an attack on female folk healers by male
doctors. 9 However, drawing on evidence produced by Keith Thomas and Etienne Delcambre,
Richard Horsley suggested instead that cunning folk and witches were seen as separate by
contemporary people, and he reiterated Macfarlane’s conclusion from his study of the Essex
trials that cunning folk were often involved in the identification of witches rather than
themselves being accused. 10
Another occupation believed to have rendered certain women more likely to be
accused of witchcraft is midwifery. David Harley argued that while some historians, such as
Richard Kieckhefer and Norman Cohn, have pointed to midwives being among the accused,
they failed to provide any examples of a midwife being prosecuted as a witch to support
their statements. Harley goes on to argue that in the few instances where midwives were
tried as witches, detailed examination suggests that these trials were the result of ‘a zealous
prosecutor’ rather than popular belief of midwife -witches. Harley has suggested that the
notion of midwives as witches stems from the Malleus Maleficarum and the writings of
demonologists, believed by some historians to have influenced contemporary popular
belief. 11 However, as suggested by Horsley, the association with midwives and the Devil was
the belief of the literate and elite and was not one shared by the peasantry. He therefore
claimed that further research is required before the role and significance of midwives in the
witch-trials of early modern Europe can fully be established. 12
9 Barstow, p. 8 10 Richard A. Horsley, 'Who Were the Witches? The Social Roles of the Accused in the European Witch Trials', The Journal of Interdisciplinary History , 9 (1979), pp. 689-715 11 David Harley, 'Historians as Demonologists: The Myth of the Midwife-Witch', Social History of Medicine: The Journal of the Society for the Social History of Medicine , 3 (1990), pp. 1-26 12 Horsley,
20
The difference in views regarding the reasons behind the female majority of accused
witches may have arisen due to the interpretations by some historians having been
influenced by their own pre-existing convictions, as asserted by Robin Briggs. 13 Similarly,
James Sharpe has argued that feminist scholars and writers have made such interpretations
‘with scant regard for historical evidence and with little idea of the broader historical
context.’ 14
A common stereotype of witches is that they were old women, often widows.
Historians have disagreed on why these women in particular were more vulnerable to
accusations of witchcraft. Alison Rowlands has addressed the suggestion by some historians
that older women were more often accused due to antisocial and hostile behaviour which
was then perceived by their neighbours as the characteristics of a witch. This behaviour may
have been caused by mental disorders as result of female old age, as suggested by Sona Rosa
Burstein, or due to the social and economic difficulties faced by older women and the
biological and psychological changes of the menopause, as suggested by Edward Bever.
Rowlands, however, argued that there is little evidence to support either theory in her own
studies of the witch-trials of Rothenburg. She argued that the records suggest the opposite,
that suspected witches often exhibited friendly and helpful behaviour towards their
neighbours, prior to being openly accused of witchcraft. Rowlands also observed that the
individuals who appeared in these trials whose described behaviour was reminiscent of
mental disorders were those making the accusations rather than the accused. 15
13 Robin Briggs , ‘Many Reasons Why: Witchcraft and the Problem of Multiple Explanation' , in Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief , Ed. Gareth Roberts, Jonathan Barry and Marianne Hester (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 49-63 14 Sharpe, p. 9 15 Alison Rowlands, 'Witchcraft and Old Women in Early Modern Germany', Past & Present , 173 (2001), pp. 50- 89
21
The belief held by some historians that an old woman’s status as a widow may have
made her more vulnerable to accusations of witchcraft has been explored by Rowlands, who
drew on the statistics produced by other historians, such as Briggs for the duchy of Lorraine,
and Eva Labouvie for the Saar region, which show that a high percentage of accused women
were widows. In contrast, Rowlands stated that her own research of the Rothenburg trials
where marital status of the accused was known, widows make up only a small percentage. 16
In his study of witchcraft in Essex, Macfarlane concluded that marital status was not
necessarily a contributing factor of witchcraft accusations. 17 The witch-trial procedures often
varied according to locality. The diversity of the trials and individual conclusions drawn from
micro studies relating only to small regions of early modern Europe may be one root of
disagreement regarding widowhood as a factor of witch-accusations.
Rowlands argued that many older women accused of witchcraft already had an
existing reputation of being a witch before they were formally accused. She suggested that a
contributing factor behind accusations of older widows was the loss of the protection of
their husbands. 18 A similar observation was made by Briggs, however he noted that the ages
of those accused often overlapped with the age of menopause. While he implied that this
may be coincidental, Briggs also suggested that this transition may have been alienating for
some women, particularly for those who did not have children, causing resentment which
was then noticed by their neighbours. 19 Another historian identified by Rowlands to have
attributed the menopause as a factor behind witchcraft accusations is Lyndal Roper. Analysis
of how women and witches were represented artistically in early modern Germany led
16 Rowlands, pp. 63-65 17 Macfarlane, pp. 85-87 18 Rowlands, pp. 63-65 19 Briggs, Witches and Neighbours , pp. 228-229
22
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115Made with FlippingBook HTML5