Pricking Explained

During the height of the witch trials of the 16th and 17th centuries, common belief held that a witch could be discovered through the process of pricking their skin with needles, pins and bodkins – daggerlike instruments for drawing ribbons through hems or punching holes in cloth.

This practice derived from the belief that all witches and sorcerers bore a witch's mark that would not feel pain or bleed when pricked.[1] The mark alone was not enough to convict a person, but did add to the evidence. Pricking was common practice throughout Europe.[2] [3] [4] Professional witch finders earned a good living from unmasking witches, travelling from town to town to perform their services. Hollow wooden handles and retractable points have been saved from these finders, which would give the appearance of an accused witch's flesh being penetrated to the hilt without mark, blood, or pain. Other specially designed needles have been found with a sharp end and a blunt end. Through sleight of hand, the sharp end could be used on "normal" flesh, drawing blood and causing pain, while the unseen dull end would be used on a supposed witch's mark.[5]

In literature

The pricking of a witch forms significant plot points in John Buchan 1927 novel Witch Wood and in Robert Neill's 1967 novel Witch Bane.

See also

Bibliography

Notes and References

  1. Brian P. Levack, The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe (London: Pearson, 3rd edn., 2006),, p. 52.
  2. Web site: MacGowan. Doug. 2016-11-15. Witch Prickers of 17th Century Inquisition. 2020-12-30. Historic Mysteries. en-US.
  3. Web site: 2016-11-23. Pricking a Witch and the Politics of the Witch Trials - TheGypsyThread. 2020-12-30. The Gypsy Thread. en-US.
  4. Pihlajamäki. Heikki. 2000-08-01. 'Swimming the Witch, Pricking for the Devil's Mark': Ordeals in the Early Modern Witchcraft Trials. The Journal of Legal History. 21. 2. 35–58. 10.1080/01440362108539608. 143152072 . 0144-0365.
  5. Neill. W. N.. 1922. The Professional Pricker and His Test for Witchcraft. The Scottish Historical Review. 19. 75. 205–213. 25519442 . 0036-9241.