Dorothy Cooke and Katherine Greetham

Dorothy Cooke, wife of George Cooke, sued Katherine Greetham, wife of Robert Greetham, for defamation at York. Her libel alleged that Katherine called her a witch and accused her of murdering a person provisionally read as Katherine’s child by bewitching it to death. It also alleged Katherine had acknowledged the words and that Dorothy’s reputation was harmed. Katherine’s personal answers dated 30 May 1678 denied the substantive allegations. The collected papers contain no witness deposition or sentence, so the result is not established.

Scope

All independent case text in four saved images of two catalogued pieces; original and English, critical case-specific scholarship, procedural context and explicit uncertainties. No missing witness evidence or sentence supplied.

Editorial conventions

Expanded provisional transcription with source spelling retained. Paragraphs follow articles rather than certified physical manuscript lines. Brackets mark expansions, cancellations, unread writing and tentative readings; question marks remain explicit. Latin is translated and English modernised in the separate English layer. Image positions are not archival folios. Dates retain the historical calendar; no Gregorian conversion is imposed. The original 1677/1678 month sequence is preserved without turning it into a certain continuous date range.

Notes on the edition

Comparison of sources: Later scholarship and the absent sentence

Quoted passage: “The case concluded with ‘no sentence’, a verdict”

Harrington discusses this cause in a chapter on gender and reputation, citing CP.H.3335 at note 53. Her phrase “no sentence” is treated as a verdict and used to infer deficient evidence. The saved catalogue and collected papers establish absence of a surviving sentence, not such a judicial decision. Her inference is therefore not adopted. The dissertation supplies no independent witness deposition for this case. Its discussion of marriage is interpretive context, not a documented explanation of an unknown outcome.

Image Title: CP.H.3335 Court: Consistory Case: Defamation (witchcraft) Details: 2 Pieces; No deposition; Has libel; No sentence Date: 30/5/1678 — 30/5/1678 Abstract: Dorothy claimed that Catherine had defamed her by accusing her publically of witchcraft. The libel states that the ‘said Katherine Greetham speaking to or of the said Dorothy Cooke said and reported (though falsely) that the said Dorothy was a witch & had murdered the said Katherines child & bewitched it to death’. Responding, Catherine denied these allegations but the case contains no sentence. Parties Mentioned: Dorothy Cook [Cooke], plaintiff, female; wife of George Cook Katherine Greatham [Greetham], defendant, female; wife of Robert Greatham

York Cause Papers catalogue CP.H.3335, n.d., Saved complete repository manifest metadata, CP.H.3335; date 30 May 1678; two pieces, no deposition, libel present, no sentence., Saved CP.H.3335 manifest metadata

30 May 1678. [The preceding procedural word may mean that the answers were repeated or confirmed; its reading remains uncertain.] Before me, Henry Watkinson. The personal answers of Katherine, wife of Robert Greetham, made to the propositions and articles of the libel presented and exhibited against her on behalf of Dorothy, wife of George Cooke. To the first proposition she answers that she believes it to be true. To the second proposition she refers herself to the [canonical?] provisions pleaded and otherwise does not believe it to be true in any respect. [This apparent reference to canonical provisions occurs under the numeral for the second answer; it has not been silently moved to another answer to make the sequence more logical.] To the third proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the fourth proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the fifth proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the sixth proposition she answers that she believes it to be true. To the seventh proposition she answers that she believes what she has admitted and denies what she has denied. The mark of Katherine Greetham. [Subscription] William [uncertain intervening strokes] Walker.

CP.H.3335 manuscript, Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.3335. Libel on images 2–3; answers and docket on image 4; covered duplicate on image 1., Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York CP.H.3335, CP.H.3335; image 4 right

The case concluded with ‘no sentence’, a verdict

Helen Harrington, Harrington 2015, Northumbria University, 2015, Helen Harrington, Gender and ‘Crimes of Speech’ in Seventeenth-Century York, BA Hons History dissertation, Northumbria University, 2015; chapter 1, printed pp.16–17 (PDF pages 16–17), note 53; title page PDF page 1. Public text retrieved 25 October 2026; screenshot fetch and direct download unavailable., Chapter 1 printed p.16, note 53; continued p.17 · qualifies

30mo Maij 1678. [repetit... ?] coram me Hen: Watkinson. Responsiones personales Catherinae uxoris Roberti Greetham factae positionibus et Articulis Libelli ex parte et pro parte Dorotheae uxoris Georgii Cooke contra eam dati et exhibiti. Ad primam positionem respondet Credit Eandem esse veram. Ad secundam positionem respondet refert se ad [Canonicas?] sanctiones [inserted: articulatas] et [cancelled word unread] aliter non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad tertiam positionem Respondet non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad Quartam positionem Respondet non Credit Eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad Quintam positionem Respondet non Credit Eandem esse veram in aliquo. [An ordinal letter is inserted above a cancelled or overwritten ordinal.] Ad sextam positionem respondet Credit eandem esse veram. Ad septimam positionem respondet Credit Credita et negat Negata. Signum Catherinae [mark] Greetham. [Lower left subscription] Wm [uncertain intervening strokes] Walker.

Context: Reputation litigation and mediated speech

Quoted passage: “the legal procedures of courts and clerks”

Brown’s account concerns the different Alcock–Atkinson case. His discussion of procedural mediation is relevant to reading Cooke’s libel as pleaded allegations, and Greetham’s answers as a separate response. It does not corroborate Cooke’s allegation or establish that a child died.

the legal procedures of courts and clerks

James Brown, Margaret Alcock’s Evil Eye: Witchcraft Defamations in Early Modern England, 2016-10-31, James Brown, Margaret Alcock’s Evil Eye: Witchcraft Defamations in Early Modern England, Inner Lives, 31 October 2016; section The Bewitching of Richard Malham and paragraphs beginning Mary’s husband, Although Mary, And saith, As is now well established and As is so often. Retrieved 26 October 2026., Brown 2016; paragraph beginning As is now well established · context

Context: Procedural documents and final outcomes

Quoted passage: “Definitive sentences are those which are intended to be permanent and which end the case.”

The archive’s guide distinguishes answers to pleaded claims from definitive sentences. Here the collected libel requests correction and costs; that request is not an award. No sentence is present from which to determine a final result.

[Marginal subscription] Robert Medley. In the name of God, Amen. Before you, the venerable Henry Watkinson, Doctor of Laws, [the following abbreviated description of his judicial office at York has not been fully read], or another competent judge in this matter. [Some connecting words are unresolved.] The pleading is on behalf of Dorothy, wife of George Cooke, against Katherine, wife of Robert Greetham, of Whitby in the diocese of York. “George” was first written for Katherine's husband's name and then cancelled and replaced by “Robert”. The opening also refers to anyone intervening for her in the proceedings [the complete formula remains partly unread]. For every legal and factual effect that may follow, and by every better legal means and form available, the party says, alleges and proposes in writing, jointly, separately and article by article, as follows. 1. First, the party pleads that all those who utter reproaches, insults and scandalous, quarrelsome or defamatory words, maliciously and from hatred, contrary to good morals and the rules of charity, so as to bring another's standing and good reputation into disrepute or diminish them, and who say, proclaim or publish them in any manner, thereby harming that person's good reputation and honest estimation, are to be corrected and punished according to canon law. They are also to be restrained and compelled under the canonical provisions made for that purpose to abstain from uttering such injurious words in future. [Several descriptive or formula words in the Latin remain unresolved; they have not been replaced with invented equivalents.] The allegation is made jointly, separately and concerning each part. 2. Dorothy Cooke is pleaded to have been, and still to be, a very honest woman, of good reputation and honest life and conduct, unstained or defamed by any crime, at least any notorious crime, and free of adverse reputation [a phrase is uncertain]. She has been and is openly and publicly held, called and reputed as such in Whitby parish and neighbouring places. This is pleaded as above. 3. Notwithstanding that, Katherine Greetham is alleged, in November and December and January, February and March of the year written 1677, and also in March and April of the year written 1678, on one or more occasions within those months and years, in Whitby parish or neighbouring places, maliciously and intending to defame and injure Dorothy Cooke, to have defamed her and uttered reproachful, quarrelsome, insulting, contemptuous, scandalous and defamatory words about her, repeatedly or at least once. [A few connecting words remain uncertain.] The pleading particularly alleges the following English words, or others to the same effect: “Katherine Greetham, speaking to or of Dorothy Cooke, said and [deposed?]—although falsely—that Dorothy was a witch and had murdered Katherine's [child?] and bewitched it to death.” [The reading “child” needs confirmation.] The pleading reserves the precise manner, wording and date to what can be proved during the litigation, jointly, separately and concerning each part. 4. After the foregoing, Katherine Greetham is alleged to have admitted and acknowledged before trustworthy witnesses, both in Dorothy Cooke's presence when Dorothy reproved her and outside her presence, that she had repeatedly, or at least once, uttered, said and proclaimed those offensive, scandalous and defamatory words about Dorothy Cooke. [A short introductory reading and the phrase adjoining “without cause” remain uncertain.] This is pleaded as above. 5. Through these offensive, scandalous and defamatory words, Dorothy Cooke's standing, good reputation and estimation among respectable people who previously held a favourable opinion of her are alleged to have been unlawfully, grievously and enormously harmed and diminished, and likely to suffer more harm in future. This is pleaded as above. 6. Katherine Greetham was and is of Whitby parish, in the diocese of York, and is therefore subject to the judge's jurisdiction in this matter [the final contraction requires checking]. This is pleaded as above. 7. There was and is public report and reputation concerning all these matters in Whitby parish in the diocese of York and neighbouring places. This is pleaded as above. Once legally sufficient proof of the foregoing has been made, Dorothy Cooke's side asks that Katherine Greetham be corrected and punished for her alleged wrongful conduct and the offences committed in these matters. [The deleted words have not been recovered and cannot be translated.] Dorothy's side also asks that Katherine be condemned in the costs incurred and to be incurred on Dorothy's behalf in this cause, and that she be effectively compelled to pay them by the judge's definitive sentence. Dorothy's side requests these things jointly and separately, without binding itself to prove every alleged point or assuming a superfluous burden of proof, protesting that it should obtain relief to the extent that it proves its case, with the benefit of law always reserved in every respect, and humbly invoking the judge's office. Saving the party's rights, etc. And the party protests, etc.

Definitive sentences are those which are intended to be permanent and which end the case.

What are the cause papers, University of York, n.d., Borthwick Institute for Archives, What are the cause papers?, sections Admission by the defendant and The Sentence; search-accessed guide text 25 October 2026; direct page returned 403., The Sentence; definition of definitive sentences · context

[Left margin subscription] Rob: Medley. In dei nomine Amen coram vobis venerabili viro Henrico Watkinson Legum doctore [Almo?] Curiae [Consistorii?] Ebor[acensis] [abbreviated description of judicial office unread], [deputato?] aut alio [unread] Judici in hac parte competenti quomodolibet. [Opening connecting words unread] discretae mulieris Dorotheae uxoris Georgii Cooke, [unread] et adversus Catherinam uxorem [deleted: Georgii] Roberti Greetham de Whitby diocesis Ebor[acensis], [unread] quemcumque alium pro eadem [unread] in judicio [unread] intervenientem. Et ad omnem tam juris quam facti effectum exinde quobismodo sequi [valentem?], omni meliori via modo et juris forma quibus melius aut efficacius de jure poterit vel potest debuitque debet dicit allegat et in hiis scriptis in jure proponit conjunctim divisim et articulatim prout sequitur. 1. In primis ponit et articulat Quod omnes et singuli qui probiteria [reading uncertain: probably a term for reproaches] vituperia verbaque scandalosa rixosa et diffamatoria ad infamiam seu diminutionem status et bonae famae cujuspiam [unread abbreviated word] [sinistre?] [unread] malitiose ex causa odii et contra bonos mores et regulas charitatis de aliquo proferunt dicunt praedicant seu quoquomodo in lucem edunt, unde ejus bona fama et opinio honesta in aliquo laedatur vel gravetur, fuerunt et sunt juxta juris exigentiam canonice corrigendi et puniendi utque ab ejusmodi verborum injuriosorum prolatione in posterum abstineant per canonicas sanctiones in ea parte salubriter editas et praefatas etiam coercendi et compellendi et ponit conjunctim divisim et de quolibet. 2. Item ponit et articulat Quod dicta Dorothea Cooke fuit et est mulier valde honesta bonae famae vitaeque et conversationis honestae nulloque crimine (saltem notorio) aspersa diffamata seu aliqua illaborans [word requires collation] sinistrae [unread] famae ex tali et ut talis fuit et est prout antea habita vocata et reputata palam publice et notorie in dicta parochia de Whitby aliisque locis vicinis et ponit ut supra. 3. Item ponit et articulat Quod praemissis non obstantibus dicta Catherina Greetham seu adversus eandem in aliquibus Mensibus Novembris Decembris Januarii Februarii et Martii Anno domini 1677; necnon Mensibus Martii et Aprilis Anno domini 1678; cum [quodam?] eorundem Mensium et annorum quolibet uno junctim aliquo intra parochiam de Whitby praedictam aliisque loca vicina malitiose an[imo; continued on image 3]. -imo diffamandi et injuriandi eandem Dorotheam Cooke ipsam diffamavit et injuriis [unread] nonnullaque verba opprobriosa rixosa vituperiosa contumeliosa scandalosa et diffamatoria ejusdem Dorotheae sine [de?] causa [reading uncertain] saepius et iteratis vicibus seu saltem semel emisit dixit asseruit protulit et praedicavit et praecipue haec verba Anglicana sequentia seu alia eis in effectu consimilia vizt: “The said Katherine Greetham speaking to or of the said Dorothy Cooke said & [deposed?] (licet falso) that the said Dorothy was a witch & had murdered the said Katherine [child?] & bewitched it to death” Prout tamen de tali modo et forma verborum diffamatoriorum praedictorum ac de tali et tanto tempore quibus et quantum in eventu hujus litis probabitur est conjunctim divisim et de quolibet. 4. Item ponit et articulat Quod post praemissa praefata Catherina Greetham [unread] testibus fidedignis tam in praesentia dictae Dorotheae Cooke inde correptante quam extra se hujusmodi verba odiosa scandalosa et diffamatoria ejusdem Dorotheae Cooke sine [de?] causa emisisse dixisse et tulisse et praedicasse saepius et iteratis vicibus seu saltem semel confessa fuit et est et recognovit et ponit ut supra. 5. Item ponit et articulat Quod praetextu praemissorum hujusmodi verborum odiosorum scandalosorum et diffamatoriorum status bona fama et opinio ipsius Dorotheae Cooke apud bonos et graves plures quos prius extiterat bonae famae et opinionis illicite gravabiliter et enormiter laeduntur et diminuuntur ac de verosimili plus laedi possunt in futurum et ponit ut supra. 6. Item ponit et articulat Quod dicta Catherina Greetham fuit et est parochiae de Whitby diocesis Ebor[acensis] ac sic vobis in hac parte jurisdictioni [subjecta?; contracted] et ponit ut supra. 7. Item ponit et articulat Quod de et super praemissis omnibus et singulis praedictis fuit et est publica vox et fama in dicta parochia de Whitby diocesis Ebor[acensis] aliisque locis vicinis et ponit ut supra. Unde facta fide de praemissis quantum de jure sufficit petit pars dictae Dorotheae Cooke praefatam Catherinam Greetham pro tanto temeritatis suae excessu in praemissis et ea committendis delictis [cancelled words, approximately four, not securely read] corrigendam et puniendam necnon in expensis ex parte et per partem dictae Dorotheae Cooke in hac causa factis et fiendis condemnari, condemnandamque ad debitam solutionem earundem efficacem coerceri et compellendam per vos et vestram sententiam definitivam domine Judex antedicte. Quo petit et fieri petit pars dictae Dorotheae Cooke conjunctim et divisim non arctans se ad omnia et singula praemissa probanda vel ad onus superfluae probationis de quo protestatur sed quatenus probavit in praemissis tantum obtineat in petit[i]s juris beneficio in omnibus semper salvo, vestrum officium domine Judex antedicte humiliter implorando. Salvo jure &c. Et protestatur &c.

Comparison of sources: The month sequence and the English year

Article three writes November, December, January, February and March 1677, then March and April 1678. Preserve the written sequence. A year beginning on 25 March can place January to 24 March written 1677 in 1678 under January year numbering, but March straddles the boundary. These are alternative pleading dates, not proof of continuous events or a precise day. The personal answers are separately dated 30 May 1678.

[Marginal subscription] Robert Medley. In the name of God, Amen. Before you, the venerable Henry Watkinson, Doctor of Laws, [the following abbreviated description of his judicial office at York has not been fully read], or another competent judge in this matter. [Some connecting words are unresolved.] The pleading is on behalf of Dorothy, wife of George Cooke, against Katherine, wife of Robert Greetham, of Whitby in the diocese of York. “George” was first written for Katherine's husband's name and then cancelled and replaced by “Robert”. The opening also refers to anyone intervening for her in the proceedings [the complete formula remains partly unread]. For every legal and factual effect that may follow, and by every better legal means and form available, the party says, alleges and proposes in writing, jointly, separately and article by article, as follows. 1. First, the party pleads that all those who utter reproaches, insults and scandalous, quarrelsome or defamatory words, maliciously and from hatred, contrary to good morals and the rules of charity, so as to bring another's standing and good reputation into disrepute or diminish them, and who say, proclaim or publish them in any manner, thereby harming that person's good reputation and honest estimation, are to be corrected and punished according to canon law. They are also to be restrained and compelled under the canonical provisions made for that purpose to abstain from uttering such injurious words in future. [Several descriptive or formula words in the Latin remain unresolved; they have not been replaced with invented equivalents.] The allegation is made jointly, separately and concerning each part. 2. Dorothy Cooke is pleaded to have been, and still to be, a very honest woman, of good reputation and honest life and conduct, unstained or defamed by any crime, at least any notorious crime, and free of adverse reputation [a phrase is uncertain]. She has been and is openly and publicly held, called and reputed as such in Whitby parish and neighbouring places. This is pleaded as above. 3. Notwithstanding that, Katherine Greetham is alleged, in November and December and January, February and March of the year written 1677, and also in March and April of the year written 1678, on one or more occasions within those months and years, in Whitby parish or neighbouring places, maliciously and intending to defame and injure Dorothy Cooke, to have defamed her and uttered reproachful, quarrelsome, insulting, contemptuous, scandalous and defamatory words about her, repeatedly or at least once. [A few connecting words remain uncertain.] The pleading particularly alleges the following English words, or others to the same effect: “Katherine Greetham, speaking to or of Dorothy Cooke, said and [deposed?]—although falsely—that Dorothy was a witch and had murdered Katherine's [child?] and bewitched it to death.” [The reading “child” needs confirmation.] The pleading reserves the precise manner, wording and date to what can be proved during the litigation, jointly, separately and concerning each part. 4. After the foregoing, Katherine Greetham is alleged to have admitted and acknowledged before trustworthy witnesses, both in Dorothy Cooke's presence when Dorothy reproved her and outside her presence, that she had repeatedly, or at least once, uttered, said and proclaimed those offensive, scandalous and defamatory words about Dorothy Cooke. [A short introductory reading and the phrase adjoining “without cause” remain uncertain.] This is pleaded as above. 5. Through these offensive, scandalous and defamatory words, Dorothy Cooke's standing, good reputation and estimation among respectable people who previously held a favourable opinion of her are alleged to have been unlawfully, grievously and enormously harmed and diminished, and likely to suffer more harm in future. This is pleaded as above. 6. Katherine Greetham was and is of Whitby parish, in the diocese of York, and is therefore subject to the judge's jurisdiction in this matter [the final contraction requires checking]. This is pleaded as above. 7. There was and is public report and reputation concerning all these matters in Whitby parish in the diocese of York and neighbouring places. This is pleaded as above. Once legally sufficient proof of the foregoing has been made, Dorothy Cooke's side asks that Katherine Greetham be corrected and punished for her alleged wrongful conduct and the offences committed in these matters. [The deleted words have not been recovered and cannot be translated.] Dorothy's side also asks that Katherine be condemned in the costs incurred and to be incurred on Dorothy's behalf in this cause, and that she be effectively compelled to pay them by the judge's definitive sentence. Dorothy's side requests these things jointly and separately, without binding itself to prove every alleged point or assuming a superfluous burden of proof, protesting that it should obtain relief to the extent that it proves its case, with the benefit of law always reserved in every respect, and humbly invoking the judge's office. Saving the party's rights, etc. And the party protests, etc.

30 May 1678. [The preceding procedural word may mean that the answers were repeated or confirmed; its reading remains uncertain.] Before me, Henry Watkinson. The personal answers of Katherine, wife of Robert Greetham, made to the propositions and articles of the libel presented and exhibited against her on behalf of Dorothy, wife of George Cooke. To the first proposition she answers that she believes it to be true. To the second proposition she refers herself to the [canonical?] provisions pleaded and otherwise does not believe it to be true in any respect. [This apparent reference to canonical provisions occurs under the numeral for the second answer; it has not been silently moved to another answer to make the sequence more logical.] To the third proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the fourth proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the fifth proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the sixth proposition she answers that she believes it to be true. To the seventh proposition she answers that she believes what she has admitted and denies what she has denied. The mark of Katherine Greetham. [Subscription] William [uncertain intervening strokes] Walker.

[Left margin subscription] Rob: Medley. In dei nomine Amen coram vobis venerabili viro Henrico Watkinson Legum doctore [Almo?] Curiae [Consistorii?] Ebor[acensis] [abbreviated description of judicial office unread], [deputato?] aut alio [unread] Judici in hac parte competenti quomodolibet. [Opening connecting words unread] discretae mulieris Dorotheae uxoris Georgii Cooke, [unread] et adversus Catherinam uxorem [deleted: Georgii] Roberti Greetham de Whitby diocesis Ebor[acensis], [unread] quemcumque alium pro eadem [unread] in judicio [unread] intervenientem. Et ad omnem tam juris quam facti effectum exinde quobismodo sequi [valentem?], omni meliori via modo et juris forma quibus melius aut efficacius de jure poterit vel potest debuitque debet dicit allegat et in hiis scriptis in jure proponit conjunctim divisim et articulatim prout sequitur. 1. In primis ponit et articulat Quod omnes et singuli qui probiteria [reading uncertain: probably a term for reproaches] vituperia verbaque scandalosa rixosa et diffamatoria ad infamiam seu diminutionem status et bonae famae cujuspiam [unread abbreviated word] [sinistre?] [unread] malitiose ex causa odii et contra bonos mores et regulas charitatis de aliquo proferunt dicunt praedicant seu quoquomodo in lucem edunt, unde ejus bona fama et opinio honesta in aliquo laedatur vel gravetur, fuerunt et sunt juxta juris exigentiam canonice corrigendi et puniendi utque ab ejusmodi verborum injuriosorum prolatione in posterum abstineant per canonicas sanctiones in ea parte salubriter editas et praefatas etiam coercendi et compellendi et ponit conjunctim divisim et de quolibet. 2. Item ponit et articulat Quod dicta Dorothea Cooke fuit et est mulier valde honesta bonae famae vitaeque et conversationis honestae nulloque crimine (saltem notorio) aspersa diffamata seu aliqua illaborans [word requires collation] sinistrae [unread] famae ex tali et ut talis fuit et est prout antea habita vocata et reputata palam publice et notorie in dicta parochia de Whitby aliisque locis vicinis et ponit ut supra. 3. Item ponit et articulat Quod praemissis non obstantibus dicta Catherina Greetham seu adversus eandem in aliquibus Mensibus Novembris Decembris Januarii Februarii et Martii Anno domini 1677; necnon Mensibus Martii et Aprilis Anno domini 1678; cum [quodam?] eorundem Mensium et annorum quolibet uno junctim aliquo intra parochiam de Whitby praedictam aliisque loca vicina malitiose an[imo; continued on image 3]. -imo diffamandi et injuriandi eandem Dorotheam Cooke ipsam diffamavit et injuriis [unread] nonnullaque verba opprobriosa rixosa vituperiosa contumeliosa scandalosa et diffamatoria ejusdem Dorotheae sine [de?] causa [reading uncertain] saepius et iteratis vicibus seu saltem semel emisit dixit asseruit protulit et praedicavit et praecipue haec verba Anglicana sequentia seu alia eis in effectu consimilia vizt: “The said Katherine Greetham speaking to or of the said Dorothy Cooke said & [deposed?] (licet falso) that the said Dorothy was a witch & had murdered the said Katherine [child?] & bewitched it to death” Prout tamen de tali modo et forma verborum diffamatoriorum praedictorum ac de tali et tanto tempore quibus et quantum in eventu hujus litis probabitur est conjunctim divisim et de quolibet. 4. Item ponit et articulat Quod post praemissa praefata Catherina Greetham [unread] testibus fidedignis tam in praesentia dictae Dorotheae Cooke inde correptante quam extra se hujusmodi verba odiosa scandalosa et diffamatoria ejusdem Dorotheae Cooke sine [de?] causa emisisse dixisse et tulisse et praedicasse saepius et iteratis vicibus seu saltem semel confessa fuit et est et recognovit et ponit ut supra. 5. Item ponit et articulat Quod praetextu praemissorum hujusmodi verborum odiosorum scandalosorum et diffamatoriorum status bona fama et opinio ipsius Dorotheae Cooke apud bonos et graves plures quos prius extiterat bonae famae et opinionis illicite gravabiliter et enormiter laeduntur et diminuuntur ac de verosimili plus laedi possunt in futurum et ponit ut supra. 6. Item ponit et articulat Quod dicta Catherina Greetham fuit et est parochiae de Whitby diocesis Ebor[acensis] ac sic vobis in hac parte jurisdictioni [subjecta?; contracted] et ponit ut supra. 7. Item ponit et articulat Quod de et super praemissis omnibus et singulis praedictis fuit et est publica vox et fama in dicta parochia de Whitby diocesis Ebor[acensis] aliisque locis vicinis et ponit ut supra. Unde facta fide de praemissis quantum de jure sufficit petit pars dictae Dorotheae Cooke praefatam Catherinam Greetham pro tanto temeritatis suae excessu in praemissis et ea committendis delictis [cancelled words, approximately four, not securely read] corrigendam et puniendam necnon in expensis ex parte et per partem dictae Dorotheae Cooke in hac causa factis et fiendis condemnari, condemnandamque ad debitam solutionem earundem efficacem coerceri et compellendam per vos et vestram sententiam definitivam domine Judex antedicte. Quo petit et fieri petit pars dictae Dorotheae Cooke conjunctim et divisim non arctans se ad omnia et singula praemissa probanda vel ad onus superfluae probationis de quo protestatur sed quatenus probavit in praemissis tantum obtineat in petit[i]s juris beneficio in omnibus semper salvo, vestrum officium domine Judex antedicte humiliter implorando. Salvo jure &c. Et protestatur &c.

30mo Maij 1678. [repetit... ?] coram me Hen: Watkinson. Responsiones personales Catherinae uxoris Roberti Greetham factae positionibus et Articulis Libelli ex parte et pro parte Dorotheae uxoris Georgii Cooke contra eam dati et exhibiti. Ad primam positionem respondet Credit Eandem esse veram. Ad secundam positionem respondet refert se ad [Canonicas?] sanctiones [inserted: articulatas] et [cancelled word unread] aliter non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad tertiam positionem Respondet non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad Quartam positionem Respondet non Credit Eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad Quintam positionem Respondet non Credit Eandem esse veram in aliquo. [An ordinal letter is inserted above a cancelled or overwritten ordinal.] Ad sextam positionem respondet Credit eandem esse veram. Ad septimam positionem respondet Credit Credita et negat Negata. Signum Catherinae [mark] Greetham. [Lower left subscription] Wm [uncertain intervening strokes] Walker.

Comparison of sources: Catalogue comparison and names

The catalogue identifies the court as Consistory, the women as wives of George Cook and Robert Greatham, and two pieces without deposition or sentence. The manuscript opening cancels Georgii before Roberti for Katherine’s husband; the corrected Robert is also supported by the answer heading. Catalogue child and reported are not silently substituted for the provisional manuscript readings. Cook/Cooke, Greatham/Greetham and Katherine/Catherine remain source forms rather than separate identities.

Image Title: CP.H.3335 Court: Consistory Case: Defamation (witchcraft) Details: 2 Pieces; No deposition; Has libel; No sentence Date: 30/5/1678 — 30/5/1678 Abstract: Dorothy claimed that Catherine had defamed her by accusing her publically of witchcraft. The libel states that the ‘said Katherine Greetham speaking to or of the said Dorothy Cooke said and reported (though falsely) that the said Dorothy was a witch & had murdered the said Katherines child & bewitched it to death’. Responding, Catherine denied these allegations but the case contains no sentence. Parties Mentioned: Dorothy Cook [Cooke], plaintiff, female; wife of George Cook Katherine Greatham [Greetham], defendant, female; wife of Robert Greatham

[Marginal subscription] Robert Medley. In the name of God, Amen. Before you, the venerable Henry Watkinson, Doctor of Laws, [the following abbreviated description of his judicial office at York has not been fully read], or another competent judge in this matter. [Some connecting words are unresolved.] The pleading is on behalf of Dorothy, wife of George Cooke, against Katherine, wife of Robert Greetham, of Whitby in the diocese of York. “George” was first written for Katherine's husband's name and then cancelled and replaced by “Robert”. The opening also refers to anyone intervening for her in the proceedings [the complete formula remains partly unread]. For every legal and factual effect that may follow, and by every better legal means and form available, the party says, alleges and proposes in writing, jointly, separately and article by article, as follows. 1. First, the party pleads that all those who utter reproaches, insults and scandalous, quarrelsome or defamatory words, maliciously and from hatred, contrary to good morals and the rules of charity, so as to bring another's standing and good reputation into disrepute or diminish them, and who say, proclaim or publish them in any manner, thereby harming that person's good reputation and honest estimation, are to be corrected and punished according to canon law. They are also to be restrained and compelled under the canonical provisions made for that purpose to abstain from uttering such injurious words in future. [Several descriptive or formula words in the Latin remain unresolved; they have not been replaced with invented equivalents.] The allegation is made jointly, separately and concerning each part. 2. Dorothy Cooke is pleaded to have been, and still to be, a very honest woman, of good reputation and honest life and conduct, unstained or defamed by any crime, at least any notorious crime, and free of adverse reputation [a phrase is uncertain]. She has been and is openly and publicly held, called and reputed as such in Whitby parish and neighbouring places. This is pleaded as above. 3. Notwithstanding that, Katherine Greetham is alleged, in November and December and January, February and March of the year written 1677, and also in March and April of the year written 1678, on one or more occasions within those months and years, in Whitby parish or neighbouring places, maliciously and intending to defame and injure Dorothy Cooke, to have defamed her and uttered reproachful, quarrelsome, insulting, contemptuous, scandalous and defamatory words about her, repeatedly or at least once. [A few connecting words remain uncertain.] The pleading particularly alleges the following English words, or others to the same effect: “Katherine Greetham, speaking to or of Dorothy Cooke, said and [deposed?]—although falsely—that Dorothy was a witch and had murdered Katherine's [child?] and bewitched it to death.” [The reading “child” needs confirmation.] The pleading reserves the precise manner, wording and date to what can be proved during the litigation, jointly, separately and concerning each part. 4. After the foregoing, Katherine Greetham is alleged to have admitted and acknowledged before trustworthy witnesses, both in Dorothy Cooke's presence when Dorothy reproved her and outside her presence, that she had repeatedly, or at least once, uttered, said and proclaimed those offensive, scandalous and defamatory words about Dorothy Cooke. [A short introductory reading and the phrase adjoining “without cause” remain uncertain.] This is pleaded as above. 5. Through these offensive, scandalous and defamatory words, Dorothy Cooke's standing, good reputation and estimation among respectable people who previously held a favourable opinion of her are alleged to have been unlawfully, grievously and enormously harmed and diminished, and likely to suffer more harm in future. This is pleaded as above. 6. Katherine Greetham was and is of Whitby parish, in the diocese of York, and is therefore subject to the judge's jurisdiction in this matter [the final contraction requires checking]. This is pleaded as above. 7. There was and is public report and reputation concerning all these matters in Whitby parish in the diocese of York and neighbouring places. This is pleaded as above. Once legally sufficient proof of the foregoing has been made, Dorothy Cooke's side asks that Katherine Greetham be corrected and punished for her alleged wrongful conduct and the offences committed in these matters. [The deleted words have not been recovered and cannot be translated.] Dorothy's side also asks that Katherine be condemned in the costs incurred and to be incurred on Dorothy's behalf in this cause, and that she be effectively compelled to pay them by the judge's definitive sentence. Dorothy's side requests these things jointly and separately, without binding itself to prove every alleged point or assuming a superfluous burden of proof, protesting that it should obtain relief to the extent that it proves its case, with the benefit of law always reserved in every respect, and humbly invoking the judge's office. Saving the party's rights, etc. And the party protests, etc.

30 May 1678. [The preceding procedural word may mean that the answers were repeated or confirmed; its reading remains uncertain.] Before me, Henry Watkinson. The personal answers of Katherine, wife of Robert Greetham, made to the propositions and articles of the libel presented and exhibited against her on behalf of Dorothy, wife of George Cooke. To the first proposition she answers that she believes it to be true. To the second proposition she refers herself to the [canonical?] provisions pleaded and otherwise does not believe it to be true in any respect. [This apparent reference to canonical provisions occurs under the numeral for the second answer; it has not been silently moved to another answer to make the sequence more logical.] To the third proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the fourth proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the fifth proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the sixth proposition she answers that she believes it to be true. To the seventh proposition she answers that she believes what she has admitted and denies what she has denied. The mark of Katherine Greetham. [Subscription] William [uncertain intervening strokes] Walker.

[Left margin subscription] Rob: Medley. In dei nomine Amen coram vobis venerabili viro Henrico Watkinson Legum doctore [Almo?] Curiae [Consistorii?] Ebor[acensis] [abbreviated description of judicial office unread], [deputato?] aut alio [unread] Judici in hac parte competenti quomodolibet. [Opening connecting words unread] discretae mulieris Dorotheae uxoris Georgii Cooke, [unread] et adversus Catherinam uxorem [deleted: Georgii] Roberti Greetham de Whitby diocesis Ebor[acensis], [unread] quemcumque alium pro eadem [unread] in judicio [unread] intervenientem. Et ad omnem tam juris quam facti effectum exinde quobismodo sequi [valentem?], omni meliori via modo et juris forma quibus melius aut efficacius de jure poterit vel potest debuitque debet dicit allegat et in hiis scriptis in jure proponit conjunctim divisim et articulatim prout sequitur. 1. In primis ponit et articulat Quod omnes et singuli qui probiteria [reading uncertain: probably a term for reproaches] vituperia verbaque scandalosa rixosa et diffamatoria ad infamiam seu diminutionem status et bonae famae cujuspiam [unread abbreviated word] [sinistre?] [unread] malitiose ex causa odii et contra bonos mores et regulas charitatis de aliquo proferunt dicunt praedicant seu quoquomodo in lucem edunt, unde ejus bona fama et opinio honesta in aliquo laedatur vel gravetur, fuerunt et sunt juxta juris exigentiam canonice corrigendi et puniendi utque ab ejusmodi verborum injuriosorum prolatione in posterum abstineant per canonicas sanctiones in ea parte salubriter editas et praefatas etiam coercendi et compellendi et ponit conjunctim divisim et de quolibet. 2. Item ponit et articulat Quod dicta Dorothea Cooke fuit et est mulier valde honesta bonae famae vitaeque et conversationis honestae nulloque crimine (saltem notorio) aspersa diffamata seu aliqua illaborans [word requires collation] sinistrae [unread] famae ex tali et ut talis fuit et est prout antea habita vocata et reputata palam publice et notorie in dicta parochia de Whitby aliisque locis vicinis et ponit ut supra. 3. Item ponit et articulat Quod praemissis non obstantibus dicta Catherina Greetham seu adversus eandem in aliquibus Mensibus Novembris Decembris Januarii Februarii et Martii Anno domini 1677; necnon Mensibus Martii et Aprilis Anno domini 1678; cum [quodam?] eorundem Mensium et annorum quolibet uno junctim aliquo intra parochiam de Whitby praedictam aliisque loca vicina malitiose an[imo; continued on image 3]. -imo diffamandi et injuriandi eandem Dorotheam Cooke ipsam diffamavit et injuriis [unread] nonnullaque verba opprobriosa rixosa vituperiosa contumeliosa scandalosa et diffamatoria ejusdem Dorotheae sine [de?] causa [reading uncertain] saepius et iteratis vicibus seu saltem semel emisit dixit asseruit protulit et praedicavit et praecipue haec verba Anglicana sequentia seu alia eis in effectu consimilia vizt: “The said Katherine Greetham speaking to or of the said Dorothy Cooke said & [deposed?] (licet falso) that the said Dorothy was a witch & had murdered the said Katherine [child?] & bewitched it to death” Prout tamen de tali modo et forma verborum diffamatoriorum praedictorum ac de tali et tanto tempore quibus et quantum in eventu hujus litis probabitur est conjunctim divisim et de quolibet. 4. Item ponit et articulat Quod post praemissa praefata Catherina Greetham [unread] testibus fidedignis tam in praesentia dictae Dorotheae Cooke inde correptante quam extra se hujusmodi verba odiosa scandalosa et diffamatoria ejusdem Dorotheae Cooke sine [de?] causa emisisse dixisse et tulisse et praedicasse saepius et iteratis vicibus seu saltem semel confessa fuit et est et recognovit et ponit ut supra. 5. Item ponit et articulat Quod praetextu praemissorum hujusmodi verborum odiosorum scandalosorum et diffamatoriorum status bona fama et opinio ipsius Dorotheae Cooke apud bonos et graves plures quos prius extiterat bonae famae et opinionis illicite gravabiliter et enormiter laeduntur et diminuuntur ac de verosimili plus laedi possunt in futurum et ponit ut supra. 6. Item ponit et articulat Quod dicta Catherina Greetham fuit et est parochiae de Whitby diocesis Ebor[acensis] ac sic vobis in hac parte jurisdictioni [subjecta?; contracted] et ponit ut supra. 7. Item ponit et articulat Quod de et super praemissis omnibus et singulis praedictis fuit et est publica vox et fama in dicta parochia de Whitby diocesis Ebor[acensis] aliisque locis vicinis et ponit ut supra. Unde facta fide de praemissis quantum de jure sufficit petit pars dictae Dorotheae Cooke praefatam Catherinam Greetham pro tanto temeritatis suae excessu in praemissis et ea committendis delictis [cancelled words, approximately four, not securely read] corrigendam et puniendam necnon in expensis ex parte et per partem dictae Dorotheae Cooke in hac causa factis et fiendis condemnari, condemnandamque ad debitam solutionem earundem efficacem coerceri et compellendam per vos et vestram sententiam definitivam domine Judex antedicte. Quo petit et fieri petit pars dictae Dorotheae Cooke conjunctim et divisim non arctans se ad omnia et singula praemissa probanda vel ad onus superfluae probationis de quo protestatur sed quatenus probavit in praemissis tantum obtineat in petit[i]s juris beneficio in omnibus semper salvo, vestrum officium domine Judex antedicte humiliter implorando. Salvo jure &c. Et protestatur &c.

30mo Maij 1678. [repetit... ?] coram me Hen: Watkinson. Responsiones personales Catherinae uxoris Roberti Greetham factae positionibus et Articulis Libelli ex parte et pro parte Dorotheae uxoris Georgii Cooke contra eam dati et exhibiti. Ad primam positionem respondet Credit Eandem esse veram. Ad secundam positionem respondet refert se ad [Canonicas?] sanctiones [inserted: articulatas] et [cancelled word unread] aliter non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad tertiam positionem Respondet non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad Quartam positionem Respondet non Credit Eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad Quintam positionem Respondet non Credit Eandem esse veram in aliquo. [An ordinal letter is inserted above a cancelled or overwritten ordinal.] Ad sextam positionem respondet Credit eandem esse veram. Ad septimam positionem respondet Credit Credita et negat Negata. Signum Catherinae [mark] Greetham. [Lower left subscription] Wm [uncertain intervening strokes] Walker.

Evidence gap: Survival and evidential limits

The saved catalogue describes two pieces, a libel and no deposition or sentence. Four images include a covered duplicate. The absence of a sentence is not an acquittal, dismissal or finding of insufficient evidence. No independent death record or account of supernatural harm is represented. The term provisionally read child, some opening and legal contractions, cancellations, the procedural endorsement and intervening strokes in Walker’s subscription remain uncertain. No witness testimony is manufactured from a libel’s allegations about witnesses.

[Marginal subscription] Robert Medley. In the name of God, Amen. Before you, the venerable Henry Watkinson, Doctor of Laws, [the following abbreviated description of his judicial office at York has not been fully read], or another competent judge in this matter. [Some connecting words are unresolved.] The pleading is on behalf of Dorothy, wife of George Cooke, against Katherine, wife of Robert Greetham, of Whitby in the diocese of York. “George” was first written for Katherine's husband's name and then cancelled and replaced by “Robert”. The opening also refers to anyone intervening for her in the proceedings [the complete formula remains partly unread]. For every legal and factual effect that may follow, and by every better legal means and form available, the party says, alleges and proposes in writing, jointly, separately and article by article, as follows. 1. First, the party pleads that all those who utter reproaches, insults and scandalous, quarrelsome or defamatory words, maliciously and from hatred, contrary to good morals and the rules of charity, so as to bring another's standing and good reputation into disrepute or diminish them, and who say, proclaim or publish them in any manner, thereby harming that person's good reputation and honest estimation, are to be corrected and punished according to canon law. They are also to be restrained and compelled under the canonical provisions made for that purpose to abstain from uttering such injurious words in future. [Several descriptive or formula words in the Latin remain unresolved; they have not been replaced with invented equivalents.] The allegation is made jointly, separately and concerning each part. 2. Dorothy Cooke is pleaded to have been, and still to be, a very honest woman, of good reputation and honest life and conduct, unstained or defamed by any crime, at least any notorious crime, and free of adverse reputation [a phrase is uncertain]. She has been and is openly and publicly held, called and reputed as such in Whitby parish and neighbouring places. This is pleaded as above. 3. Notwithstanding that, Katherine Greetham is alleged, in November and December and January, February and March of the year written 1677, and also in March and April of the year written 1678, on one or more occasions within those months and years, in Whitby parish or neighbouring places, maliciously and intending to defame and injure Dorothy Cooke, to have defamed her and uttered reproachful, quarrelsome, insulting, contemptuous, scandalous and defamatory words about her, repeatedly or at least once. [A few connecting words remain uncertain.] The pleading particularly alleges the following English words, or others to the same effect: “Katherine Greetham, speaking to or of Dorothy Cooke, said and [deposed?]—although falsely—that Dorothy was a witch and had murdered Katherine's [child?] and bewitched it to death.” [The reading “child” needs confirmation.] The pleading reserves the precise manner, wording and date to what can be proved during the litigation, jointly, separately and concerning each part. 4. After the foregoing, Katherine Greetham is alleged to have admitted and acknowledged before trustworthy witnesses, both in Dorothy Cooke's presence when Dorothy reproved her and outside her presence, that she had repeatedly, or at least once, uttered, said and proclaimed those offensive, scandalous and defamatory words about Dorothy Cooke. [A short introductory reading and the phrase adjoining “without cause” remain uncertain.] This is pleaded as above. 5. Through these offensive, scandalous and defamatory words, Dorothy Cooke's standing, good reputation and estimation among respectable people who previously held a favourable opinion of her are alleged to have been unlawfully, grievously and enormously harmed and diminished, and likely to suffer more harm in future. This is pleaded as above. 6. Katherine Greetham was and is of Whitby parish, in the diocese of York, and is therefore subject to the judge's jurisdiction in this matter [the final contraction requires checking]. This is pleaded as above. 7. There was and is public report and reputation concerning all these matters in Whitby parish in the diocese of York and neighbouring places. This is pleaded as above. Once legally sufficient proof of the foregoing has been made, Dorothy Cooke's side asks that Katherine Greetham be corrected and punished for her alleged wrongful conduct and the offences committed in these matters. [The deleted words have not been recovered and cannot be translated.] Dorothy's side also asks that Katherine be condemned in the costs incurred and to be incurred on Dorothy's behalf in this cause, and that she be effectively compelled to pay them by the judge's definitive sentence. Dorothy's side requests these things jointly and separately, without binding itself to prove every alleged point or assuming a superfluous burden of proof, protesting that it should obtain relief to the extent that it proves its case, with the benefit of law always reserved in every respect, and humbly invoking the judge's office. Saving the party's rights, etc. And the party protests, etc.

30 May 1678. [The preceding procedural word may mean that the answers were repeated or confirmed; its reading remains uncertain.] Before me, Henry Watkinson. The personal answers of Katherine, wife of Robert Greetham, made to the propositions and articles of the libel presented and exhibited against her on behalf of Dorothy, wife of George Cooke. To the first proposition she answers that she believes it to be true. To the second proposition she refers herself to the [canonical?] provisions pleaded and otherwise does not believe it to be true in any respect. [This apparent reference to canonical provisions occurs under the numeral for the second answer; it has not been silently moved to another answer to make the sequence more logical.] To the third proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the fourth proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the fifth proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the sixth proposition she answers that she believes it to be true. To the seventh proposition she answers that she believes what she has admitted and denies what she has denied. The mark of Katherine Greetham. [Subscription] William [uncertain intervening strokes] Walker.

Image Title: CP.H.3335 Court: Consistory Case: Defamation (witchcraft) Details: 2 Pieces; No deposition; Has libel; No sentence Date: 30/5/1678 — 30/5/1678 Abstract: Dorothy claimed that Catherine had defamed her by accusing her publically of witchcraft. The libel states that the ‘said Katherine Greetham speaking to or of the said Dorothy Cooke said and reported (though falsely) that the said Dorothy was a witch & had murdered the said Katherines child & bewitched it to death’. Responding, Catherine denied these allegations but the case contains no sentence. Parties Mentioned: Dorothy Cook [Cooke], plaintiff, female; wife of George Cook Katherine Greatham [Greetham], defendant, female; wife of Robert Greatham

[Left margin subscription] Rob: Medley. In dei nomine Amen coram vobis venerabili viro Henrico Watkinson Legum doctore [Almo?] Curiae [Consistorii?] Ebor[acensis] [abbreviated description of judicial office unread], [deputato?] aut alio [unread] Judici in hac parte competenti quomodolibet. [Opening connecting words unread] discretae mulieris Dorotheae uxoris Georgii Cooke, [unread] et adversus Catherinam uxorem [deleted: Georgii] Roberti Greetham de Whitby diocesis Ebor[acensis], [unread] quemcumque alium pro eadem [unread] in judicio [unread] intervenientem. Et ad omnem tam juris quam facti effectum exinde quobismodo sequi [valentem?], omni meliori via modo et juris forma quibus melius aut efficacius de jure poterit vel potest debuitque debet dicit allegat et in hiis scriptis in jure proponit conjunctim divisim et articulatim prout sequitur. 1. In primis ponit et articulat Quod omnes et singuli qui probiteria [reading uncertain: probably a term for reproaches] vituperia verbaque scandalosa rixosa et diffamatoria ad infamiam seu diminutionem status et bonae famae cujuspiam [unread abbreviated word] [sinistre?] [unread] malitiose ex causa odii et contra bonos mores et regulas charitatis de aliquo proferunt dicunt praedicant seu quoquomodo in lucem edunt, unde ejus bona fama et opinio honesta in aliquo laedatur vel gravetur, fuerunt et sunt juxta juris exigentiam canonice corrigendi et puniendi utque ab ejusmodi verborum injuriosorum prolatione in posterum abstineant per canonicas sanctiones in ea parte salubriter editas et praefatas etiam coercendi et compellendi et ponit conjunctim divisim et de quolibet. 2. Item ponit et articulat Quod dicta Dorothea Cooke fuit et est mulier valde honesta bonae famae vitaeque et conversationis honestae nulloque crimine (saltem notorio) aspersa diffamata seu aliqua illaborans [word requires collation] sinistrae [unread] famae ex tali et ut talis fuit et est prout antea habita vocata et reputata palam publice et notorie in dicta parochia de Whitby aliisque locis vicinis et ponit ut supra. 3. Item ponit et articulat Quod praemissis non obstantibus dicta Catherina Greetham seu adversus eandem in aliquibus Mensibus Novembris Decembris Januarii Februarii et Martii Anno domini 1677; necnon Mensibus Martii et Aprilis Anno domini 1678; cum [quodam?] eorundem Mensium et annorum quolibet uno junctim aliquo intra parochiam de Whitby praedictam aliisque loca vicina malitiose an[imo; continued on image 3]. -imo diffamandi et injuriandi eandem Dorotheam Cooke ipsam diffamavit et injuriis [unread] nonnullaque verba opprobriosa rixosa vituperiosa contumeliosa scandalosa et diffamatoria ejusdem Dorotheae sine [de?] causa [reading uncertain] saepius et iteratis vicibus seu saltem semel emisit dixit asseruit protulit et praedicavit et praecipue haec verba Anglicana sequentia seu alia eis in effectu consimilia vizt: “The said Katherine Greetham speaking to or of the said Dorothy Cooke said & [deposed?] (licet falso) that the said Dorothy was a witch & had murdered the said Katherine [child?] & bewitched it to death” Prout tamen de tali modo et forma verborum diffamatoriorum praedictorum ac de tali et tanto tempore quibus et quantum in eventu hujus litis probabitur est conjunctim divisim et de quolibet. 4. Item ponit et articulat Quod post praemissa praefata Catherina Greetham [unread] testibus fidedignis tam in praesentia dictae Dorotheae Cooke inde correptante quam extra se hujusmodi verba odiosa scandalosa et diffamatoria ejusdem Dorotheae Cooke sine [de?] causa emisisse dixisse et tulisse et praedicasse saepius et iteratis vicibus seu saltem semel confessa fuit et est et recognovit et ponit ut supra. 5. Item ponit et articulat Quod praetextu praemissorum hujusmodi verborum odiosorum scandalosorum et diffamatoriorum status bona fama et opinio ipsius Dorotheae Cooke apud bonos et graves plures quos prius extiterat bonae famae et opinionis illicite gravabiliter et enormiter laeduntur et diminuuntur ac de verosimili plus laedi possunt in futurum et ponit ut supra. 6. Item ponit et articulat Quod dicta Catherina Greetham fuit et est parochiae de Whitby diocesis Ebor[acensis] ac sic vobis in hac parte jurisdictioni [subjecta?; contracted] et ponit ut supra. 7. Item ponit et articulat Quod de et super praemissis omnibus et singulis praedictis fuit et est publica vox et fama in dicta parochia de Whitby diocesis Ebor[acensis] aliisque locis vicinis et ponit ut supra. Unde facta fide de praemissis quantum de jure sufficit petit pars dictae Dorotheae Cooke praefatam Catherinam Greetham pro tanto temeritatis suae excessu in praemissis et ea committendis delictis [cancelled words, approximately four, not securely read] corrigendam et puniendam necnon in expensis ex parte et per partem dictae Dorotheae Cooke in hac causa factis et fiendis condemnari, condemnandamque ad debitam solutionem earundem efficacem coerceri et compellendam per vos et vestram sententiam definitivam domine Judex antedicte. Quo petit et fieri petit pars dictae Dorotheae Cooke conjunctim et divisim non arctans se ad omnia et singula praemissa probanda vel ad onus superfluae probationis de quo protestatur sed quatenus probavit in praemissis tantum obtineat in petit[i]s juris beneficio in omnibus semper salvo, vestrum officium domine Judex antedicte humiliter implorando. Salvo jure &c. Et protestatur &c.

30mo Maij 1678. [repetit... ?] coram me Hen: Watkinson. Responsiones personales Catherinae uxoris Roberti Greetham factae positionibus et Articulis Libelli ex parte et pro parte Dorotheae uxoris Georgii Cooke contra eam dati et exhibiti. Ad primam positionem respondet Credit Eandem esse veram. Ad secundam positionem respondet refert se ad [Canonicas?] sanctiones [inserted: articulatas] et [cancelled word unread] aliter non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad tertiam positionem Respondet non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad Quartam positionem Respondet non Credit Eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad Quintam positionem Respondet non Credit Eandem esse veram in aliquo. [An ordinal letter is inserted above a cancelled or overwritten ordinal.] Ad sextam positionem respondet Credit eandem esse veram. Ad septimam positionem respondet Credit Credita et negat Negata. Signum Catherinae [mark] Greetham. [Lower left subscription] Wm [uncertain intervening strokes] Walker.

Evidence gap: Bounded source search and access

Public searches on 25 October 2026 for Dorothy Cooke with Greetham and for CP.H.3335 located Harrington’s case-specific dissertation discussion. The PDF text supplied the title-page date and pp.16–17 passage; screenshot retrieval failed and a direct download could not resolve the host. No visual inspection of those PDF pages is claimed. This is a bounded search, not an exhaustive literature or archive search.

The case concluded with ‘no sentence’, a verdict

Comparison of sources: About this case and its sources

Reference: CP.H.3335

Repository: Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York

Court: York Consistory, according to the saved catalogue

Case: Defamation concerning alleged witchcraft language

Record dates: Personal answers dated 30 May 1678. Libel alleges alternative months written 1677 and 1678; the precise speech date is not established.

Surviving material: Two catalogued pieces; libel and personal answers. No deposition or sentence. Four images include a covered duplicate.

Languages: Latin with an English allegation in the libel

Parties: Dorothy Cooke [catalogue Cook], wife of George Cooke, plaintiff; Katherine Greetham [catalogue Greatham], wife of Robert Greetham, defendant

Other people: George Cooke and Robert Greetham, named husbands; Henry Watkinson, judge addressed and endorsing official; Rob: Medley and Wm Walker, subscribers; an unnamed [child?] in the alleged words

Outcome: Not established. Absence of a surviving sentence is not a verdict.

Coverage: All independent case text in the four saved images is represented in three units: libel, docket and personal answers. Unread and altered writing remains marked.

Edition: 25 October 2026 version 1.0; prepared for review

Reading conventions: Expanded provisional transcription with source spelling retained. Paragraphs follow articles rather than certified physical manuscript lines. Brackets mark expansions, cancellations, unread writing and tentative readings; question marks remain explicit. Latin is translated and English modernised in the separate English layer. Image positions are not archival folios. Dates retain the historical calendar; no Gregorian conversion is imposed. The original 1677/1678 month sequence is preserved without turning it into a certain continuous date range.

Suggested citation: Dorothy Cooke against Katherine Greetham, CP.H.3335, 1678, reading edition version 1.0, 25 October 2026; Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York.

Image Title: CP.H.3335 Court: Consistory Case: Defamation (witchcraft) Details: 2 Pieces; No deposition; Has libel; No sentence Date: 30/5/1678 — 30/5/1678 Abstract: Dorothy claimed that Catherine had defamed her by accusing her publically of witchcraft. The libel states that the ‘said Katherine Greetham speaking to or of the said Dorothy Cooke said and reported (though falsely) that the said Dorothy was a witch & had murdered the said Katherines child & bewitched it to death’. Responding, Catherine denied these allegations but the case contains no sentence. Parties Mentioned: Dorothy Cook [Cooke], plaintiff, female; wife of George Cook Katherine Greatham [Greetham], defendant, female; wife of Robert Greatham

30 May 1678. [The preceding procedural word may mean that the answers were repeated or confirmed; its reading remains uncertain.] Before me, Henry Watkinson. The personal answers of Katherine, wife of Robert Greetham, made to the propositions and articles of the libel presented and exhibited against her on behalf of Dorothy, wife of George Cooke. To the first proposition she answers that she believes it to be true. To the second proposition she refers herself to the [canonical?] provisions pleaded and otherwise does not believe it to be true in any respect. [This apparent reference to canonical provisions occurs under the numeral for the second answer; it has not been silently moved to another answer to make the sequence more logical.] To the third proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the fourth proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the fifth proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the sixth proposition she answers that she believes it to be true. To the seventh proposition she answers that she believes what she has admitted and denies what she has denied. The mark of Katherine Greetham. [Subscription] William [uncertain intervening strokes] Walker.

30mo Maij 1678. [repetit... ?] coram me Hen: Watkinson. Responsiones personales Catherinae uxoris Roberti Greetham factae positionibus et Articulis Libelli ex parte et pro parte Dorotheae uxoris Georgii Cooke contra eam dati et exhibiti. Ad primam positionem respondet Credit Eandem esse veram. Ad secundam positionem respondet refert se ad [Canonicas?] sanctiones [inserted: articulatas] et [cancelled word unread] aliter non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad tertiam positionem Respondet non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad Quartam positionem Respondet non Credit Eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad Quintam positionem Respondet non Credit Eandem esse veram in aliquo. [An ordinal letter is inserted above a cancelled or overwritten ordinal.] Ad sextam positionem respondet Credit eandem esse veram. Ad septimam positionem respondet Credit Credita et negat Negata. Signum Catherinae [mark] Greetham. [Lower left subscription] Wm [uncertain intervening strokes] Walker.

Comparison of sources: Edition references and source inventory

Findings and surviving sources

Primary source edition

Secondary discussion and source comparison

People and documentary events

Uncertainty and limits

page_01.jpg 1667 × 2617 pixels. Covered duplicate of first libel sheet; no additional historical document.

page_02.jpg 1660 × 2596 pixels. Uncovered first libel sheet: opening and articles 1–3 begin.

page_03.jpg 3154 × 2617 pixels. Libel continuation: article 3 alleged words, articles 4–7 and prayer.

page_04.jpg 3253 × 2553 pixels. Left outer docket; right personal answers, dated endorsement, mark and subscriptions.

Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.3335; image 2 and image 3 left and right

Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.3335; image 4 left

Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.3335; image 4 right

Later scholarship and the absent sentence: Helen Harrington, Gender and ‘Crimes of Speech’ in Seventeenth-Century York, BA Hons History dissertation, Northumbria University, 2015; chapter 1, printed pp.16–17 (PDF pages 16–17), note 53; title page PDF page 1. Public text retrieved 25 October 2026; screenshot fetch and direct download unavailable.; Chapter 1 printed p.16, note 53; continued p.17 | Saved complete repository manifest metadata, CP.H.3335; date 30 May 1678; two pieces, no deposition, libel present, no sentence.; Saved CP.H.3335 manifest metadata | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.3335. Libel on images 2–3; answers and docket on image 4; covered duplicate on image 1.; CP.H.3335; image 4 right

Reputation litigation and mediated speech: James Brown, Margaret Alcock’s Evil Eye: Witchcraft Defamations in Early Modern England, Inner Lives, 31 October 2016; section The Bewitching of Richard Malham; paragraph beginning As is now well established. Public text retrieved 25 October 2026.; The Bewitching of Richard Malham; paragraph beginning As is now well established

Procedural documents and final outcomes: Borthwick Institute for Archives, What are the cause papers?, sections Admission by the defendant and The Sentence; search-accessed guide text 25 October 2026; direct page returned 403.; The Sentence; definition of definitive sentences | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.3335. Libel on images 2–3; answers and docket on image 4; covered duplicate on image 1.; CP.H.3335; images 2 and 3

The month sequence and the English year: Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.3335. Libel on images 2–3; answers and docket on image 4; covered duplicate on image 1.; CP.H.3335; images 2 and 3 | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.3335. Libel on images 2–3; answers and docket on image 4; covered duplicate on image 1.; CP.H.3335; image 4 right

Catalogue comparison and names: Saved complete repository manifest metadata, CP.H.3335; date 30 May 1678; two pieces, no deposition, libel present, no sentence.; Saved CP.H.3335 manifest metadata | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.3335. Libel on images 2–3; answers and docket on image 4; covered duplicate on image 1.; CP.H.3335; images 2 and 3 | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.3335. Libel on images 2–3; answers and docket on image 4; covered duplicate on image 1.; CP.H.3335; image 4 right

Survival and evidential limits: Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.3335. Libel on images 2–3; answers and docket on image 4; covered duplicate on image 1.; CP.H.3335; images 2 and 3 | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.3335. Libel on images 2–3; answers and docket on image 4; covered duplicate on image 1.; CP.H.3335; image 4 right | Saved complete repository manifest metadata, CP.H.3335; date 30 May 1678; two pieces, no deposition, libel present, no sentence.; Saved CP.H.3335 manifest metadata

Bounded source search and access: Helen Harrington, Gender and ‘Crimes of Speech’ in Seventeenth-Century York, BA Hons History dissertation, Northumbria University, 2015; chapter 1, printed pp.16–17 (PDF pages 16–17), note 53; title page PDF page 1. Public text retrieved 25 October 2026; screenshot fetch and direct download unavailable.; Chapter 1 printed p.16, note 53; continued p.17

About this case and its sources: Saved complete repository manifest metadata, CP.H.3335; date 30 May 1678; two pieces, no deposition, libel present, no sentence.; Saved CP.H.3335 manifest metadata | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.3335. Libel on images 2–3; answers and docket on image 4; covered duplicate on image 1.; CP.H.3335; image 4 right

Evidence: CP.H.3335; images 2 and 3, CP.H.3335; image 4 right

Evidence: CP.H.3335; images 2 and 3

Evidence: CP.H.3335; image 4 right

Evidence: CP.H.3335; images 2 and 3

Dorothy Cooke against Katherine Greetham
Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.3335. Libel on images 2–3; answers and docket on image 4; covered duplicate on image 1.
https://discover.york.ac.uk/collections/york-cause-papers/?manifest=CP_H_3335&canvas=CP_H_3335_0001

York Cause Papers catalogue CP.H.3335
Saved complete repository manifest metadata, CP.H.3335; date 30 May 1678; two pieces, no deposition, libel present, no sentence.
https://discover.york.ac.uk/ark:/36941/CP_H_3335/presentation/3/manifest

Gender and Crimes of Speech in Seventeenth Century York
Helen Harrington, Gender and ‘Crimes of Speech’ in Seventeenth-Century York, BA Hons History dissertation, Northumbria University, 2015; chapter 1, printed pp.16–17 (PDF pages 16–17), note 53; title page PDF page 1. Public text retrieved 25 October 2026; screenshot fetch and direct download unavailable.
https://corp.northumbria.ac.uk/-/media/documents/pdfs/departments/humanities/history/history-research/ug-dissertations/helen-harrington-gender-and-crimes-of-speech-in-seventeenth-century-york.pdf?modified=20190128193825

Margaret Alcock’s Evil Eye Witchcraft Defamations in Early Modern England
James Brown, Margaret Alcock’s Evil Eye: Witchcraft Defamations in Early Modern England, Inner Lives, 31 October 2016; section The Bewitching of Richard Malham; paragraph beginning As is now well established. Public text retrieved 25 October 2026.
https://innerlivesblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/margaret-alcocks-evil-eye-witchcraft-defamation-suits-in-early-modern-england/

What are the cause papers
Borthwick Institute for Archives, What are the cause papers?, sections Admission by the defendant and The Sentence; search-accessed guide text 25 October 2026; direct page returned 403.
https://www.york.ac.uk/borthwick/holdings/research-guides/what-are-causepapers/

Image Title: CP.H.3335 Court: Consistory Case: Defamation (witchcraft) Details: 2 Pieces; No deposition; Has libel; No sentence Date: 30/5/1678 — 30/5/1678 Abstract: Dorothy claimed that Catherine had defamed her by accusing her publically of witchcraft. The libel states that the ‘said Katherine Greetham speaking to or of the said Dorothy Cooke said and reported (though falsely) that the said Dorothy was a witch & had murdered the said Katherines child & bewitched it to death’. Responding, Catherine denied these allegations but the case contains no sentence. Parties Mentioned: Dorothy Cook [Cooke], plaintiff, female; wife of George Cook Katherine Greatham [Greetham], defendant, female; wife of Robert Greatham

30 May 1678. [The preceding procedural word may mean that the answers were repeated or confirmed; its reading remains uncertain.] Before me, Henry Watkinson. The personal answers of Katherine, wife of Robert Greetham, made to the propositions and articles of the libel presented and exhibited against her on behalf of Dorothy, wife of George Cooke. To the first proposition she answers that she believes it to be true. To the second proposition she refers herself to the [canonical?] provisions pleaded and otherwise does not believe it to be true in any respect. [This apparent reference to canonical provisions occurs under the numeral for the second answer; it has not been silently moved to another answer to make the sequence more logical.] To the third proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the fourth proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the fifth proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the sixth proposition she answers that she believes it to be true. To the seventh proposition she answers that she believes what she has admitted and denies what she has denied. The mark of Katherine Greetham. [Subscription] William [uncertain intervening strokes] Walker.

30mo Maij 1678. [repetit... ?] coram me Hen: Watkinson. Responsiones personales Catherinae uxoris Roberti Greetham factae positionibus et Articulis Libelli ex parte et pro parte Dorotheae uxoris Georgii Cooke contra eam dati et exhibiti. Ad primam positionem respondet Credit Eandem esse veram. Ad secundam positionem respondet refert se ad [Canonicas?] sanctiones [inserted: articulatas] et [cancelled word unread] aliter non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad tertiam positionem Respondet non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad Quartam positionem Respondet non Credit Eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad Quintam positionem Respondet non Credit Eandem esse veram in aliquo. [An ordinal letter is inserted above a cancelled or overwritten ordinal.] Ad sextam positionem respondet Credit eandem esse veram. Ad septimam positionem respondet Credit Credita et negat Negata. Signum Catherinae [mark] Greetham. [Lower left subscription] Wm [uncertain intervening strokes] Walker.

Comparison of sources: Alleged acknowledgment and formal denial

Libel article 4 alleges that Katherine acknowledged speaking the words. Her answer to article 4 rejects that position. The sources preserve competing statements, not an established confession followed by retraction. The affected-person reading remains [child?]. George Cooke is identified as Dorothy’s husband; Katherine’s husband is Robert Greetham, after correction of a cancelled George. No witness depositions or sentence are represented in the examined material.

To the third proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the fourth proposition she answers that she does not believe it to be true in any respect.

4. After the foregoing, Katherine Greetham is alleged to have admitted and acknowledged before trustworthy witnesses, both in Dorothy Cooke's presence when Dorothy reproved her and outside her presence, that she had repeatedly, or at least once, uttered, said and proclaimed those offensive, scandalous and defamatory words about Dorothy Cooke. [A short introductory reading and the phrase adjoining “without cause” remain uncertain.] This is pleaded as above.

Ad tertiam positionem Respondet non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad Quartam positionem Respondet non Credit Eandem esse veram in aliquo.

[Left margin subscription] Rob: Medley. In dei nomine Amen coram vobis venerabili viro Henrico Watkinson Legum doctore [Almo?] Curiae [Consistorii?] Ebor[acensis] [abbreviated description of judicial office unread], [deputato?] aut alio [unread] Judici in hac parte competenti quomodolibet. [Opening connecting words unread] discretae mulieris Dorotheae uxoris Georgii Cooke, [unread] et adversus Catherinam uxorem [deleted: Georgii] Roberti Greetham de Whitby diocesis Ebor[acensis], [unread] quemcumque alium pro eadem [unread] in judicio [unread] intervenientem. Et ad omnem tam juris quam facti effectum exinde quobismodo sequi [valentem?], omni meliori via modo et juris forma quibus melius aut efficacius de jure poterit vel potest debuitque debet dicit allegat et in hiis scriptis in jure proponit conjunctim divisim et articulatim prout sequitur. 1. In primis ponit et articulat Quod omnes et singuli qui probiteria [reading uncertain: probably a term for reproaches] vituperia verbaque scandalosa rixosa et diffamatoria ad infamiam seu diminutionem status et bonae famae cujuspiam [unread abbreviated word] [sinistre?] [unread] malitiose ex causa odii et contra bonos mores et regulas charitatis de aliquo proferunt dicunt praedicant seu quoquomodo in lucem edunt, unde ejus bona fama et opinio honesta in aliquo laedatur vel gravetur, fuerunt et sunt juxta juris exigentiam canonice corrigendi et puniendi utque ab ejusmodi verborum injuriosorum prolatione in posterum abstineant per canonicas sanctiones in ea parte salubriter editas et praefatas etiam coercendi et compellendi et ponit conjunctim divisim et de quolibet. 2. Item ponit et articulat Quod dicta Dorothea Cooke fuit et est mulier valde honesta bonae famae vitaeque et conversationis honestae nulloque crimine (saltem notorio) aspersa diffamata seu aliqua illaborans [word requires collation] sinistrae [unread] famae ex tali et ut talis fuit et est prout antea habita vocata et reputata palam publice et notorie in dicta parochia de Whitby aliisque locis vicinis et ponit ut supra. 3. Item ponit et articulat Quod praemissis non obstantibus dicta Catherina Greetham seu adversus eandem in aliquibus Mensibus Novembris Decembris Januarii Februarii et Martii Anno domini 1677; necnon Mensibus Martii et Aprilis Anno domini 1678; cum [quodam?] eorundem Mensium et annorum quolibet uno junctim aliquo intra parochiam de Whitby praedictam aliisque loca vicina malitiose an[imo; continued on image 3]. -imo diffamandi et injuriandi eandem Dorotheam Cooke ipsam diffamavit et injuriis [unread] nonnullaque verba opprobriosa rixosa vituperiosa contumeliosa scandalosa et diffamatoria ejusdem Dorotheae sine [de?] causa [reading uncertain] saepius et iteratis vicibus seu saltem semel emisit dixit asseruit protulit et praedicavit et praecipue haec verba Anglicana sequentia seu alia eis in effectu consimilia vizt: “The said Katherine Greetham speaking to or of the said Dorothy Cooke said & [deposed?] (licet falso) that the said Dorothy was a witch & had murdered the said Katherine [child?] & bewitched it to death” Prout tamen de tali modo et forma verborum diffamatoriorum praedictorum ac de tali et tanto tempore quibus et quantum in eventu hujus litis probabitur est conjunctim divisim et de quolibet. 4. Item ponit et articulat Quod post praemissa praefata Catherina Greetham [unread] testibus fidedignis tam in praesentia dictae Dorotheae Cooke inde correptante quam extra se hujusmodi verba odiosa scandalosa et diffamatoria ejusdem Dorotheae Cooke sine [de?] causa emisisse dixisse et tulisse et praedicasse saepius et iteratis vicibus seu saltem semel confessa fuit et est et recognovit et ponit ut supra. 5. Item ponit et articulat Quod praetextu praemissorum hujusmodi verborum odiosorum scandalosorum et diffamatoriorum status bona fama et opinio ipsius Dorotheae Cooke apud bonos et graves plures quos prius extiterat bonae famae et opinionis illicite gravabiliter et enormiter laeduntur et diminuuntur ac de verosimili plus laedi possunt in futurum et ponit ut supra. 6. Item ponit et articulat Quod dicta Catherina Greetham fuit et est parochiae de Whitby diocesis Ebor[acensis] ac sic vobis in hac parte jurisdictioni [subjecta?; contracted] et ponit ut supra. 7. Item ponit et articulat Quod de et super praemissis omnibus et singulis praedictis fuit et est publica vox et fama in dicta parochia de Whitby diocesis Ebor[acensis] aliisque locis vicinis et ponit ut supra. Unde facta fide de praemissis quantum de jure sufficit petit pars dictae Dorotheae Cooke praefatam Catherinam Greetham pro tanto temeritatis suae excessu in praemissis et ea committendis delictis [cancelled words, approximately four, not securely read] corrigendam et puniendam necnon in expensis ex parte et per partem dictae Dorotheae Cooke in hac causa factis et fiendis condemnari, condemnandamque ad debitam solutionem earundem efficacem coerceri et compellendam per vos et vestram sententiam definitivam domine Judex antedicte. Quo petit et fieri petit pars dictae Dorotheae Cooke conjunctim et divisim non arctans se ad omnia et singula praemissa probanda vel ad onus superfluae probationis de quo protestatur sed quatenus probavit in praemissis tantum obtineat in petit[i]s juris beneficio in omnibus semper salvo, vestrum officium domine Judex antedicte humiliter implorando. Salvo jure &c. Et protestatur &c.

Reading register: Full reading edition held on the source record

The full English-first reading-edition body is supplied in the linked edition source’s full_text field. Original texts, English renderings, citations, uncertainty and source-layer distinctions are retained. This source is the project reading edition, not a newly recovered primary manuscript. Database storage does not by itself certify publication.

Cooke–Greetham · reading edition, Witching reading edition; prepared 2026-10-25; edition version 1.0; reading identifier cooke_greetham-reading-v1. · context

People

Dorothy Cooke: Plaintiff, named as wife of George Cooke.
George Cooke: Named as Dorothy’s husband in the pleading and answer heading.
Henry Watkinson: Doctor of Laws addressed in the libel and named in the procedural endorsement beside the personal answers dated 30 May 1678.
Katherine Greetham: Defendant, wife of Robert Greetham.
Robert Greetham: Named as Katherine’s husband.
Robert Medley: Rob: Medley appears as the marginal subscription on the libel.
Unnamed child attributed to Katherine Greetham: The libel’s alleged speech refers to Katherine’s [child?] as the person supposedly murdered and bewitched to death.
William Walker: Wm with uncertain intervening strokes and Walker is the subscription below the personal answers.

Events

Dorothy Cooke’s libel alleges that she bewitched Katherine Greetham’s [child?] to death. The affected-person reading remains uncertain. This records alleged supernatural causation, not proof that a child died or that murder or witchcraft occurred.
Dorothy Cooke’s libel attributes to Katherine Greetham the accusation that Dorothy was a witch and had murdered Katherine’s [child?] by bewitching it to death. This is an alleged utterance; Greetham denies the relevant positions in her answers.
In her answers dated 30 May 1678, Katherine Greetham rejects articles 3 and 4. Dorothy’s libel alleges that Katherine spoke the defamatory words and subsequently acknowledged them; the answers deny those positions. Neither an established confession nor a retraction follows from these conflicting statements. (a documentary entry)
1678: Dorothy Cooke, wife of George Cooke, sued Katherine Greetham, wife of Robert Greetham, for defamation at York. Her libel alleged that Katherine called her a witch and accused her of murdering a person provisionally read as Katherine’s child by bewitching it to death. It also alleged Katherine had acknowledged the words and that Dorothy’s reputation was harmed. (a documentary entry)
1678-05-30: Katherine Greetham’s personal answers dated 30 May 1678 deny the substantive allegations in Dorothy Cooke’s libel. She accepts the first and sixth answers and concludes by admitting what she has admitted and denying what she has denied. The apparently displaced canonical reference is retained under answer two. The document bears her mark and subscriptions. No final sentence survives in the represented file. (a documentary entry)

Sources

James Brown, Margaret Alcock’s Evil Eye: Witchcraft Defamations in Early Modern England, 2016-10-31, James Brown, Margaret Alcock’s Evil Eye: Witchcraft Defamations in Early Modern England, Inner Lives, 31 October 2016; section The Bewitching of Richard Malham and paragraphs beginning Mary’s husband, Although Mary, And saith, As is now well established and As is so often. Retrieved 26 October 2026. (scholarship) (later scholarship)
CP.H.3335 manuscript, Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.3335. Libel on images 2–3; answers and docket on image 4; covered duplicate on image 1., Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York CP.H.3335 (court record)
York Cause Papers catalogue CP.H.3335, n.d., Saved complete repository manifest metadata, CP.H.3335; date 30 May 1678; two pieces, no deposition, libel present, no sentence. (catalogue)
Helen Harrington, Harrington 2015, Northumbria University, 2015, Helen Harrington, Gender and ‘Crimes of Speech’ in Seventeenth-Century York, BA Hons History dissertation, Northumbria University, 2015; chapter 1, printed pp.16–17 (PDF pages 16–17), note 53; title page PDF page 1. Public text retrieved 25 October 2026; screenshot fetch and direct download unavailable. (scholarship) (later scholarship)
What are the cause papers, University of York, n.d., Borthwick Institute for Archives, What are the cause papers?, sections Admission by the defendant and The Sentence; search-accessed guide text 25 October 2026; direct page returned 403. (scholarship) (later scholarship)
Cooke–Greetham · reading edition, Witching reading edition; prepared 2026-10-25; edition version 1.0; reading identifier cooke_greetham-reading-v1. (edition)

Credit

Witches in Early Modern England research edition. Human editorial and review credits await confirmation.