Elizabeth Sawyer

Eva Strazek

The Real Elizabeth Sawyer:

What we can find in The Goodcole Pamphlet, and what we assume can based on historical research.

What does Goodcole say about Elizabeth Sawyer, and why should we take it with a grain of salt? What was life like for this woman, and, by proxy, most of the other characters in the show, based on actual research of the 1620s?

An artist's rendition of Sawyer

Goodcole’s Pamphlet:

We do not know much of Elizabeth’s life outside of her trial, because, as a poor, elderly, disabled woman– she was not deemed necessary to society. Goodcole’s pamphlet is one of the only glimpses we get into Elizabeth’s life– yet, its validity can be questioned. 

We know that Elizabeth was born in a small, rural village in Edmonton, North London, and was a broom maker– someone who constructed Beesom brooms from birch and wood and sold them to homeowners. Typically, this was a male-dominated profession, but there were some women in the trade, outside the main birch-broom areas where male "broom squires" were predominant. The Goodcole pamphlet states that Elizabeth had grievances with her neighbors, as they would not buy her brooms. 

In the Goodcole pamphlet, Elizabeth is described as “a woman with a face ‘most pale & ghost-like without any bloud at all, and her countenance was still detected to the ground’”, but we have to question the validity of this description. He says that Elizabeth often exhibited a “quarrelsome character and difficult temper.”[1] Goodcole professed in his pamphlet that he thanked God for letting Elizabeth’s “tongue to be the meanes of her owne destruction, which had destroyed many before.”  

We have to question the validity of many things Goodcole says about Elizabeth within his pamphlet– prosecutors of suspected witches were known to fabricate facts, and contradict themselves when questioning the accused.[2] 

It is important to note that although Elizabeth is portrayed as a single woman in both Witch and The Witch of Edmonton, the Goodcole pamphlet mentions a husband twice in the records of Elizabeth’s interrogation. As men had most of the power in these interrogation rooms, Goodcole could have been mocking the notion that Elizabeth had no male counterpart– or, he could have possibly been mistaken, as the men who persecuted women for witchcraft often had little knowledge about the woman’s personal life outside of their allegations.

Do you think Elizabeth really looked and acted like Goodcole described? Or was he fabricating and sensationalizing the story, since she was already known as a witch? 

[1] “Who Is Elizabeth Sawyer and Why Is She Considered One of the Most Infamous Witches of the Stuart Age?” The London Dungeon Archives. https://www.thedungeons.com/london/information/news/who-was-elizabeth-sawyer-anniversary-of-her-death/.

[2] Marilynne Roach. Six Women of Salem: The Untold Story of the Accused and Their Accusers in the Salem Witch Trials (2013), 60.

Historical Research:

Food

According to Joan Thirsk’s Food In Early Modern England, “The human diet in Early Modern England coined 225 different foods, while today 90% of our average calorie intake comes from only 18."[1]

Grains such as rye, barley, and oats were all consumed regularly– while more parts of the meat– kidney, liver, tripe, brain, tongue, or the nose of an animal were the main course in a meal. Hardly a bird in the sky was not eaten, especially by the peasant stock– mainly quails, plovers, sparrows, larks, blackbirds, and woodcock. Crispy roasted sheep’s heads were a special treat, and large roast animals were a staple in wealthier households. 

In banquet times, Shakespeare gives us a clue into the world of noble eatery in one of his poems: “Mutton, beef, veal, rabbits, partridges, fish from the river Medway, as well as fruit from the orchard”[2] were food items commonly brought as gifts to a banquet.

Robert Herrik’s poems about dining as peasantry are one of the best views we can get into what a poor man’s meal looked like in early modern England. You can read them here. The most heavily mentioned items in Herik’s poems, and the most similar to what Elizabeth Sawyer would have actually been eating, are vegetables such as peas, carrots, purslane, watercress, and root vegetables– along with “small bits'' of mutton, veal, or pigeon meat. 

Cheese was heavily regarded as “peasant food”-- nobility did not eat it unless it was some of the “finest in the land”-- usually imported from another country, and not farmed in England by poor dairy farmers. 

[1] Joan Thirsk. Food in Early Modern England: Phases, Fads, Fashions, 1500-1760 (2007), xi.

[2] Thirsk, 47.

Noble dress

Most men wore a sword on their hip and lacy collar ruffs. Knee-length breeches grew to replace the combinations of trunk hose and canions seen in traditional portraits.

There was a surge in interest in coordinated ensembles within the noble menswear community: “During the first half of the century a gentleman’s suit consisted of doublet, hose or breeches, mandilion or cloak, all made to match or harmonize, with trimmings en suite.”[3] Both noble and peasant men also tied their britches up with ribbons. 

This would have been the style that men like Sir Arthur and Cuddy would have donned in 1620. Scratch, although not a human character, most likely would dress in this manner as well– as he mentions in the script, he is attempting to imitate whatever would make people respect him the most. 

[3] Cecil Willett Cunnington and Phillis Cunnington. Handbook of English Costume in the Seventeenth Century (1972), 11.

Working-class Dress

The fit of clothes is one of the most noticeable differences between the upper and lower classes. Peasants wore much baggier clothes. Linen was the most common material used in clothes worn by the peasantry, and fashion such as coordinating ensembles and ruff collars was much less common among the working classes.

 Elizabeth Sawyer herself most likely would have worn a gown made of linen, a smock, and an unwired “flemish hood”. Peasant women rarely showed their hair. She also would wear a handkerchief, usually made of linen, and her clothes would be subtly taken in at the waist, but nothing like the silhouettes of noblewomen. She also walked with a walking stick as a de facto cane, as shown in the artist's rendition displayed further up on this page. 

Hygiene and Self-care

Water was available from nearby springs, rivers, lakes, and wells. Castles often had water inside mason-made wells and moats for protection and water supply.

Rural areas, like Edmonton, suffered from a water shortage, especially as major cities grew and flourished around coasts and waterways– where trade was booming. The water supply for rural villages diminished as trade grew.

Running water was non-existent in rural areas such as Edmonton, therefore, it was 2-3 times a year that baths taken in large wooden basins, or even a rinse with hot water, would occur at all.

Since most people ate without knives, forks, or spoons– it was commonplace to wash hands before or after a meal.

Soap was used scarcely, and hair was washed with a combination of lime and salt. Teeth were cleaned using twigs, and shaving rarely occurred. For nobility, a visit to the barber was commonplace– but for the peasantry, the care and keeping of the hair was done all at home, and not often. 

Everything in this world, even hygiene, depended on access. The characters in Witch lived through very hard times. Peasants who did hard labor were forced to sleep in the grime they had collected over the day. Elizabeth would have been bathing scarcely, and judged based on her hygiene habits by nobility– but the other characters in Witch most likely weren’t the cleanest either. 

However, that is not to say the general standard of hygiene and self-keeping wasn’t higher in the home of a noble. Frank Thorney would have probably become significantly cleaner and more well-mannered due to his newfound access to better bathing and grooming items and acquired knowledge of the upper-class standards for self-keeping.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse