Nell Garlinge's case preserves, in stark and genuinely horrifying detail, the actual mechanics of the swimming test as it was practised during Kent's peak witch-hunting years, a supposedly scientific method of determining guilt that was in fact a coin flip between two equally fatal outcomes for anyone bound and thrown into open water. The logic held that water, as the medium of baptism, would reject a true witch, causing her to float, while accepting an innocent person, allowing her to sink, a test whose very structure meant that surviving it, floating, was treated as proof of guilt and almost certain subsequent execution, while genuine innocence could only be demonstrated by drowning.
Nell was bound according to the standard method, her thumbs and toes tied crosswise to prevent any possibility of swimming or otherwise influencing her own buoyancy, and thrown into Coldred's village pond before a watching community. She sank, and drowned, and was accordingly declared innocent of witchcraft, a verdict that came only after her death had already been ensured by the very test meant to determine it.
The case stands as one of the starkest illustrations available in this register of the fundamentally lethal nature of the swimming test itself, regardless of its stated outcome. Nell Garlinge was never actually convicted of witchcraft in any formal legal sense, her death coming entirely through the supposedly neutral testing process rather than through judicial sentence, a distinction that made no practical difference whatsoever to the fact of her death, and one that this register records honestly as a genuine and severe miscarriage of both justice and basic humanity, whatever verdict the water was ultimately read as delivering.
Comments