Hopkins’ and Stearne’s Influence and Power (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
Hopkins' and Stearne's Influence and Power
Matthew Hopkins: background and credentials
Matthew Hopkins was exceptionally well-positioned to take on the role of witchfinder. His background gave him both social credibility and ideological motivation that made him particularly effective in this work.
Personal background:
- Born around 1620, meaning he was approximately 25 years old when he began witch-hunting
- Died at no more than 28 years old (around 1647-48)
- Son of James Hopkins, a respected Puritan clergyman who served as minister at Great Wenham in Suffolk
- Came from a family of good social standing, which gave him authority and respect in East Anglian communities
- Raised according to strict Puritan principles and "the strictest ways of godliness"
- His father died in 1634 when Matthew was in his early teens
Hopkins' remarkably young age is striking—he began his witch-hunting career at approximately 25 and died by age 28. Despite his youth, his family background and Puritan upbringing gave him the credibility needed to be taken seriously by both common people and local authorities.
Career prospects and position:
Hopkins had two older brothers, which meant he would not inherit the family estate. This was significant because it meant he needed to establish his own career, likely in trade, law, or the clergy. In the early 1640s, he received some inheritance money which allowed him to establish himself as a gentleman in the town of Manningtree. This gave him the social status needed to be taken seriously by both common people and local authorities.
Hopkins' advantageous position in Manningtree
Historian Malcolm Gaskill has argued that Hopkins' position as a newcomer to Manningtree actually worked in his favour. As an outsider newly arrived in the town, Hopkins could:
- Investigate local memories and myths about witchcraft from an objective, neutral perspective
- Avoid being entangled in existing local disputes or prejudices
- Present himself as someone capable of making impartial judgements about suspected witches
Local people may have deliberately sought out Hopkins because they believed he could provide this neutral assessment. This outsider status, combined with his Puritan credentials and gentlemanly rank, made him an ideal candidate to lead witch-hunting activities.
Malcolm Gaskill's Interpretation
The historian Malcolm Gaskill's analysis challenges traditional assumptions about Hopkins' position. Rather than his newcomer status being a disadvantage, Gaskill argues it was actually a strategic advantage that allowed Hopkins to present himself as an unbiased judge in local witchcraft disputes.
Possible official backing from Parliament
There is evidence suggesting that Hopkins and Stearne may have had some form of official support from Parliament or its representatives, though this remains debated by historians.
Evidence for official backing:
- Contemporary people came to believe that Parliament (or someone acting on its behalf) had appointed Hopkins with an official commission to discover witches
- During the dangerous period of the Civil War, Hopkins and Stearne would have needed letters of safe-passage from a high authority to travel safely and avoid being detained by either Parliamentarian or Royalist forces
- Many of their activities occurred after they received written invitations from local authorities, suggesting some level of official sanction
- Their journey through East Anglia closely mirrored that of William Dowsing, who had been officially appointed as 'Iconoclast General' in 1643-44
The William Dowsing Connection
William Dowsing was a Parliamentarian soldier tasked with destroying statues, images, and other items associated with Catholicism. He travelled throughout East Anglia in 1643-44, seeking out what Puritans considered idolatry and superstition. Hopkins and Stearne may have had official backing to continue this work by seeking out witchcraft and evil. Importantly, Dowsing's earlier journey had already identified which areas would be receptive to such Puritan reforming work and which areas might resist it, providing Hopkins and Stearne with a ready-made map for their activities.
Uncertainty About Official Authority
The extent of any official backing remains unclear, and Hopkins may have exaggerated or benefited from people's assumptions about his authority. While there is suggestive evidence of parliamentary support, no definitive documentation of an official commission has been found.
The "Witchfinder General" title
The famous title Witchfinder General has an interesting origin that tells us something about Hopkins' actual authority. The title was first used only on the cover of Hopkins' book, The Discovery of Witches, which was published in 1647 (near the end of his career). Significantly, this title may have been an invention of Hopkins' publisher rather than an official appointment.
This suggests that Hopkins' power and influence came not from any formal government position, but rather from other factors. He was able to possess considerable influence and power primarily because he was "in the right place at the right time." Hopkins presented himself as a saviour figure during a period when East Anglia was suffering from severe economic hardship and political crisis caused by the Civil War. As a young Puritan with enthusiasm for tackling evil, he filled a need that local communities felt during this troubled time.
John Stearne: background and role
Even less is known about John Stearne's life than Hopkins', but what we do know reveals him as an important partner in the witch-hunting operation.
Personal details:
- Older than Hopkins, in his mid-30s during the witch-hunting craze (1645-47)
- Grew up in rural Suffolk
- Married to Agnes Cawston
- Had a daughter named Anne, baptised in 1644
- Spent considerable time away from his young family during the witch-hunting period
- Also a Puritan with good working knowledge of Scripture (evident from his written accounts)
- Lived significantly longer than Hopkins, dying in 1670
Stearne as the Initiator
Although Hopkins is usually remembered as the senior partner and main figure, the historical evidence shows that Stearne actually initiated the formal witch-hunting activities. It was Stearne who first received a warrant to search suspected witches from the Manningtree magistrates Sir Harbottle Grimston and Sir Thomas Bowes. Hopkins then volunteered to assist him in this work.
Stearne's role in the partnership:
The reason Stearne was in Manningtree in 1645 is unclear, but he maintained a house there, suggesting he was engaged in some form of business. From the outset, Stearne showed passionate commitment to witch-finding. He proposed that the elderly Elizabeth Clark be subjected to the swimming test (though the magistrates likely blocked this). This demonstrates that Stearne was not merely Hopkins' assistant, but an active and committed participant in developing witch-finding methods.
Hopkins and Stearne as facilitators rather than commanders
Modern historians, particularly Malcolm Gaskill, have challenged the traditional view of Hopkins and Stearne as all-powerful witch-hunters who imposed their will on communities. Instead, Gaskill argues that they acted as facilitators or catalysts who worked within existing structures of accusation and prosecution.
The facilitator role:
According to this interpretation, Hopkins and Stearne did not themselves accuse people of witchcraft. Instead, they:
- Only went to places where they received invitations from local communities
- Applied their claimed expertise to suspects who had already been identified by local inhabitants
- Gave accusers confidence by confirming their suspicions and beliefs
- Worked with local people (searchers, watchers, witnesses) who made the initial decisions about prosecution
Understanding the Wider System
Gaskill emphasises that witch-hunting involved many participants beyond Hopkins and Stearne:
- Searchers and watchers appointed by parishes decided whether there were grounds to prosecute
- Victims and their allies chose whether to pursue legal action
- Godly magistrates (and sometimes ministers) had to consider the cases
- Grand juries could block proceedings
- Trial juries under judges' guidance made final decisions about guilt or innocence
Even after conviction, the punishment was justified by reference to Scripture and the statute law established under King James I.
Hopkins and Stearne were therefore part of a much larger system of witch-finding that included many different roles and authorities. They may not have believed themselves to possess significant independent power, but rather saw themselves as skilled practitioners who helped communities identify and prosecute witches through proper legal channels.
This interpretation is important because it shows that the East Anglian witch-hunt was not simply imposed from above by two individuals, but rather emerged from widespread beliefs and fears at the local level, which Hopkins and Stearne channelled and organised.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Matthew Hopkins came from a respected Puritan background and good social standing, which gave him credibility as a witch-finder; he was the son of a Puritan clergyman and established himself as a gentleman in Manningtree around age 25.
-
Hopkins' position as a newcomer to Manningtree may have helped him appear neutral and objective, making locals more willing to seek his judgement on suspected witches.
-
Hopkins and Stearne may have had some form of official backing from Parliament, requiring letters of safe-passage during the Civil War, and their journey mirrored that of William Dowsing, the official 'Iconoclast General'.
-
The title "Witchfinder General" was likely invented by Hopkins' publisher in 1647 and was not an official government appointment; Hopkins' real power came from being "in the right place at the right time" during a period of crisis.
-
John Stearne was the older partner who actually received the first warrant from magistrates; Hopkins then volunteered to assist him, challenging the common view that Hopkins was always the senior figure.
-
Historian Malcolm Gaskill argues that Hopkins and Stearne acted as facilitators or catalysts rather than commanders, working within existing community accusations and legal structures rather than imposing witch-hunts from above.