ABSTRACT
This gruesome tale of murder, dismemberment, and deception is written as if this is the midwife’s own confession and repentance. If this is true, it would have been unusual; not only is first-person narrative rare in this genre, but it is also uncommon for a woman to author such a tract. More likely, this story and the ballad that appears at its end were written by a man who had some knowledge of the case, possibly a minister who heard the midwife’s last confession. It is instructive that even after the murderess pleaded guilty to her brutal and bloody crime, the judge in her trial allegedly recommended that she put the matter to a jury. Presumably, this was because he believed there to be circumstances that might have mitigated her case. Even though this case would have been heard before an all-male jury, there is some suggestion that its members would have understood and have been sympathetic to her situation. Years of neglect and abuse, coupled with the high degree of provocation at the time of the crime, might have resulted in a lesser verdict of manslaughter. But the woman’s conscience would not allow her to take the case to trial, and her guilty plea was upheld, resulting in her being sentenced to being burned at the stake. This sentence was required because the midwife admitted to committing petty treason, the crime of a social inferior rising up against a social superior, in this case, a humble and hard-working wife against her cruel and lazy husband.
