This is my first time attempting at writing a novel, and I'm already finding a plot hole that needs a bit of filling in. First of, a bit of backstory to my novel; It's a fantasy novel set in the 18th century England. My lead characters have Witchcraft, his mother (one of the mc's) was burned at the stake, despite being immortal and I was wondering if there was a way around this with facts? Or can I, for example, say that burning is the only way to kill an immortal person with Witchcraft, maybe it released the "evil" within them? I just wonder if because it is Fantasy, I can bend the rules a little. The novel is set in 1732, but the one who was burned was born in 1552, and stopped aging when she was about 41.
background here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_Acts and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_England your book is set about 50-100 years too late... witch trials waned in the 1700s being outlawed completely in 1735 that aside you can say anything you want because its fiction, but if you want a historically accurate novel you'll need to do a bunch of research... in essence there are two theories about burning , the high road says that it was theologically necessary because those who were the instrument of the devil could otherwise return from the grave (witches that were not burnt were usually pinned in the grave with iron stakes for the same reason), the low road says that it is a deeply unpleasant way to die and thus helps spread terror and thus increase the authority of the witchfinders
Witches, were burned, because they, were weird for their times. As, for Why? The stake it's just because at that time it was the most guaranteed way to kill someone, the best punishment for rulebreakers. It's, also a good way to force confessions out of people because of the fear and pain that sets in when they are burned alive. Studies also show that witches were killed because of bad weather since in that time people lacked the required knowledge to know why the sky was dark. Folks just assumed that witches made the weather that way with their experiments and contraptions. There is another reason for the burning. The high market competition between churches. Protestantism emerged as a challenger to the church's hold on the population. As for the bending yes you can bend the rules for the fantasy genre just make those rules with context and logic in mind. You could make the Protagonist hate the church so much that he stops at nothing to completely overthrow their hierarchy.
I think the idea of burning, cutting off the head, driving a stake through the heart etc, are ways of making sure something immortal or magical is really dead. Just like cutting a zombie into little pieces and burning it (Return of the Living Dead). If you do any of those things, even if they're immortal, they can't hurt anybody anymore. Of course if the superstition also allows for ghosts and spirits, then I guess that's another problem, but people were pretty literal in those times, and they figured if you destroy the body it can't get you. I think fire was also seen as having magical properties. They used to burn sacrifices because the smoke goes up into the sky, and would carry the sacrifice on up to God. But not only that, fire is really strange mysterious stuff! What the heck is it made of? You can't pick it up, cut it, or carry it, not directly. It's either pure spirit itself or halfway between the physical and the spiritual. So of course they would see it as powerfully symbolic of spirit. And it destroys. It burns things up until there's nothing left but some ash and smoke. I mean, what better way to completely obliterate something you're afraid of that you think is immortal?
I would find some books on witches, burning of heretics, and read up to maybe help a little more with the book. Maybe 99% won't impact your book at all, but that 1% may provide some important details or views that may help. There are some free ones on gutenberg online but you may have to sift through a lot to find something helpful. If I'm understanding your question, you are also wanting a way that these begins can be 'immortal' yet the mother or ancestor was killed? There are an infinite ways of dealing with this and as the writer you can choose whatever is the most appropriate. You could maybe make them 'almost immortal', maybe going the route of Twilight, or even like the Vampire Diaries where a witch or immortal can only be permanently killed by the wood or ash from a special type of tree. Maybe this knowledge was lost during the centuries when everyone thought these abominations were gone forever, but now a mysterious traveler has taken a special interest in this tree...
To be serious, maybe they can only be killed by the pure elements? Which is why you can drown them too. Or stone them to death, that sort of thing.
Cutting heads off tended to be quite reliable. How does this lead specifically to burning? In England, at least, women were customarily strangled before being burnt, so they weren't actually burned alive. The preferred punishment for witchcraft was hanging, rather than burning at the stake (Monty Python notwithstanding).
The gist of it would be they were big on punishment matching the crime; that whole eye for an eye thing. So in many cases the punishment was to be as gruesome as the crime, and there’s not much more gruesome a punishment than burning someone alive. However, I don’t think there’s many records of witches actually being burned at the stake. More frequently they were drown on dunking chairs, or pressed under rocks. Even then, most accusations of witchcraft were bogus camouflage for the- old-woman-has-land-I-want conspiracies, so let’s call her a witch, kill her off, and take her property for ourselves.
Yeah! That could be the surprise ending. They inflate the witch with a bellows. * POP! * See, if you don't kill them with a pure element, then they just Evil Dead themselves back together.
Witches weren't burned in England, they were hanged by the neck. Same in New England; they died at Gallow's Hill. "Burn by the stake" is a largely ahistorical trope. Think about it. Why would you waste a week's worth of firewood on an execution, when you can grab a rope?
nope... numerous witches were burned at the stake both in england and elsewhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_for_witchcraft in answer to the other question the authorities conducting these trials had no need to buy firewood they just requisitioned it to do the 'lords work' any one who objected was likely to find themselves accused so people didnt
England and New England I quoted; no witch was burned during the Salem trials - all were hanged. Same during the Connecticut trials. Burning at the stake was an execution reserved for heresy & treason in England (stipulated by law). Mind England, not Scotland (note later) or mainland Europe. There was one single woman/witch burnt at the stake in England, Margery Jordemaine. Her crime wasn't witchcraft though, but conspiracy against King Henry VI. through means of magic (thus treason). The rest were hanged, including the dozens of women during the East Anglia trials. A note on Scotland, the Scots burned bodies of witches, and did not usually use burning as an execution. They strangled the witches or hanged them before burning them.
There was more than one woman burned at the stake in England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_women_in_England
513* people (mostly women) were tried for witchcraft in England during the period in which the witchcraft acts were operable... 112 of these were executed, 23 by burning, 76 by hanging and 13 by other means (which means either execution with a blade or stoning) (* that figure is for those with definitive records, there is some supposition that it may have been higher as records are not complete) These figures do not include those who died before trial while being swum or who died under torture, nor do they include those who died as matter of informal persecution without formal trial... the total number thought to have died is in the region of 1000 Saying that burning was reserved for heresy and treason in this context is meaningless because anyone convicted of practicing any kind of devil worship or dark arts was automatically also guilty of heresy (the 1604 witchcraft act expanding the definition of witchcraft to include anyone who had made a pact with satan) and could therefore be burnt if ordered
I'm not sure on the timeline or who was in charge, however the Roman Catholic church had a longstanding prohibition against cremation as it was believed to interfere with the bodily resurrection of the dead at the Last Judgment. Apparently this would cause some difficulties for an omnipotent god, but it's not for me to question. But if we extrapolate from that, a witch (wizard, heretic, whatever) who has been burned can never be resurrected and is thus denied the chance at Heaven. I know when the head of the order of the Knights Templar was burned for heresy the executioners made sure the wood was well seasoned (dried) as people "burned" at the stake often died of smoke inhalation before the pain really set in. There's a science to inflicting maximum suffering on a person for the longest time before they die, and they wanted to make sure that Jacques de Molay didn't shuffle off his mortal coil too quickly or painlessly...
That very article starts quoting the same thing I wrote. Untrue. The main difference is that heresy & treason judgements were reserved for holders of respective high offices (church & state). Witchcraft was instead defined as a felony (by the Witchraft acts of 1542, 1563). The act you quote retained witchcraft as a felony. Felony was under the jurisdiction of common law and allowed local communities to conclude full legal proceedings (thus permitting witch hunts). The only "drawback" was the inability to burn witches, as felony's death penalty was hanging. Scottish law defined witchcraft as a capital offence, hence the different treatment. Ergo, a case/accusation of witchcraft had to be prominent enough to make it to the bishopric courts or the royal court. Which seldom was the case, especially for the witch hunters. Could you quote the specific cases of burnings you mentioned? I will quote the hangings I have found which is 72 in total; only four missing compared to the number you quoted which I'm sure I could find with some research & digging. Medieval trials - 5 women hanged in total. 1441 - Margery Jordemaine burned, her accomplice hanged drawn & quartered. 1579 - Agnes Waterhouse, convicted second time & hanged. 1579 - Chelmsford trials, two women hanged. 1582 - Ursula Kempe and Elizabeth Bennet, both hanged. 1589 - Joan Coney, Joan Upney, Joan Prentice - all hanged. 1612 - Pendle Witches of Lancashire, 10 women hanged. 1612 - Janet Preston hanged in York. 1645 - Matthew Hopkins' witch hunt in Chelmsford, 14 women hanged. 5 additional women hanged later (one dying on the way to the gallows). 1645 - Matthew Hopkins' witch hunt in Bury St. Edmunds, 16 women and two men hanged. 1645 - Kent Witchhunt, Joan Cariden, Jane Holt and Joan Williford hanged. 1652 - Penenden Heath, 5 women hanged. 1682 - Bideford Witches, 3 women hanged. 1716 - Huntingdon Witch Trial, Mary Hicks hanged. 1809 - Yorkshire witch, Mary Bateman hanged along with two men (not accused of witchcraft, but murder through witchcraft).
I'm not going to pursue this silly argument lets get back on topic which was the question of why witches were burned (when they were).
This information is easy enough to find on the internet. According to christian religion witchcraft was the work of the devil and burning was often seen as a way to purify the soul of corruption and darkness. Before christianity emerged it was just another form of public death and punishment. I haven't ever researched that far back in history, but it wasn't used that often, and it wasn't as popular as it became. It was such a long time ago I researched it but another belief was also about preventing the soul from leaving the body as they believed it would become an evil spirit and somehow burning prevented the soul leaving so it was destroyed with the body. But like I said, the information is really easy to find.
Are you thinking of that classic Leonard Cohen song: This, I think, will always be the definitive version of this. I warn you, though: it will haunt you.
A lot of the replies have some good information but I think the thread has strayed from the OP's original question: when burning was used as a form of capital punishment, what was the reason? As @https://www.writingforums.org/members/cosmic-lights.87656/ said, there is a lot of information online. I suggested the OP read some books on the subjects, there may be a few details they pick up inadvertently that may be useful. It seems to me that burning could serve at least two purposes: in some cases it was just an excruciating way to kill someone (so could act as a deterrent to the public), and it could also be done for spiritual/ritualistic reasons (sometimes both). Hanging that preceded burning may have been done to kill the person completely but it's also possible in some cases to have been done to reduce the person's consciousness as an act of mercy (I'm assuming either a hangman's noose wasn't used or the little drop). Off topic, but Guy Fawkes strategically jumped and snapped his neck preventing him from experiencing the gruesome punishment of being quartered, but it is reported that one of his co-conspirators tried the same thing but the rope broke making him fully conscious for the rest of the punishment! Of course, there are many different possibilities and I think if the story is in the fantasy genre, the OP doesn't need complete historical accuracy and has a lot of artistic license.
Human beings are historically stupid. Nothing more to add to that. Other than, good luck with the book. Hopefully you plug the hole in the plot.
Perhaps it all arose from a misunderstanding. When MacBeth was asked where the witches should be taken, he responded, "Birnam." (with apologies to Shakespeare)
