The Paris Review's Blog, page 88

March 16, 2022

A Memorial for Those Accused of Witchcraft

Colors extracted, using a traditional recipe, from maritime sunburst lichen the author collected from the wildlife corridor along Ellebækstien in Køge. Fabrics from left to right, top to bottom: handwoven tussah and mulberry silk, wool, silk charmeuse, silk-rayon velvet, cotton, and linen. Photograph by Johan Rosenmunthe.

 

A LOGBOOK TO REMEMBER 16 WOMEN OF WHOM 13 WERE BURNED ALIVE, TWO COMMITTED SUICIDE, AND ONE MANAGED TO ESCAPE, 1612–1615 AND 2021, REWRITTEN, GATHERED, DREAMED BY A WOMAN, AGE 34, THAT’S TO SAY ME, A STAR AMONG ALL THESE RESPIRING STARS WE CALL PEOPLE

 

Johanne Tommesis, burned, August 24, 1612
Kirstine Lauridsdatter, burned, September 11, 1612
Mette Banghors, burned, December 7, 1612
Volborg Bødkers, escaped and convicted in absentia, June 7, 1613
Annike Christoffersdatter, burned, June 14, 1613
Anne Olufs, burned, June 26, 1613
Karen Eriks, suicide in prison, August 30, 1613
Maren Muremester, burned, 1613
Maren of Ringsbjerg, burned, 1613
Maren Bysvende, suicide in her well after receiving a summons to appear in court, 1613
Kirsten Væverkvinde, burned, 1613
Birgitte Rokkemager, burned, September 18, 1615
Else Holtug, burned, November 6, 1615
Mette Navns, burned, 1615
Johanne Muremester, burned, 1615
Magdalene, Søren Skrædder’s wife, burned, 1615

WHERE: Køge, Denmark

MARCH 3, 2021

All morning, Køge has been shrouded in fog. I took the train here. I’ve walked down Nørregade. All the stores are closed because of the pandemic. Still, a few people are out. It’s about ten o’clock. I haven’t been here since December, the day before everything shut down for the second time. For years now, I’ve been reading and thinking about those accused of witchcraft in Køge. Not with any objective in mind—it’s been a kind of hunger. I want to understand what time is, what four hundred years of time is.

On the side of the house on the corner of Nørregade and the town square is a commemorative plaque: here happened the køge holy terror, 1608–1615. It isn’t a memorial for the burned but for those who burned them. The plaque was put up in 1911 when Køge Museum opened in the building across the street. It was supposed to be a kind of promotion for the museum. The women who were accused of witchcraft and murdered (or committed suicide) aren’t mentioned.

The first time I visited here was August 2019, and everything was on the verge of withering. I was three months pregnant and I came to visit these women’s graves. It was only as I was standing in the town square, the wind rolling against my face and my hair swept up—I could hear the cries of seagulls—that I realized there were no graves because the women had been burned. What did they do with the ashes? The site of the fires is now occupied by Norske Løve, a former hotel; now I think that normal people live there—anyway, there’s a buzzer by the door. 

Since that day, I’ve visited Køge regularly. I go there to approach the ones who are not mentioned by the plaque. I pass by the river that runs through the town like a live wire, crossed by a number of small bridges. I’ve read about so many women in the archives who’ve drowned themselves and their children here. I walk down towards the roundabout, past Blegdammen and to the corner of Kongsberg Allé. Here lies the narrow green corridor, traversed by the stream, where those accused of witchcraft are said to have gathered.

MARCH 6, 1613

There lived in Køge a godforsaken witch by the name of Mette Banghors.

This woman, at the behest of Satan and her companions, went out to the stream located immediately outside of town and conjured the devil with the intention of leading him to the house of Hans Bartskiær.

Then she aimed to conjure him in the likeness of a rat.

Then Satan answered that he wouldn’t rise because, he said, “I have horns and you have none.”

Then the impious witch went and placed a pot on her head, conjured him anew, and said: “Now I have three horns; now, come on up already.”

Then he rose from the stream in the likeness of a rat, and she brought him to the home of the aforementioned man.

This was all confessed by Satan’s prisoner, after which she was burned along with many other witches who were revealed and burned.

A slightly rewritten source from the footnotes of Køge huskors (The Køge Holy Terror) by Johan Brunsmand, with an introduction and notes by Anders Bæksted (Ejnar Munksgaard, 1953).

MARCH 7, 1500 or 1700

To be Insensible to Torture

Write these lines on a small piece of paper, which you will then swallow:

Dismas et Gestas damnatur potestas.
Disma et Gestas damnatur.
Ad astra levatur.

When you are to be tortured, say: “This rope is so soothing against my limbs, as the Holy Virgin’s milk to Our Lord.”

Spell from The Grand Grimoire (exact date of publication unknown).

Peder Resen’s map of Køge, 1677. From Køge huskors by Johan Brunsmand.

MARCH 13, 1608–1615
A HISTORY OF THE KØGE HOLY TERROR, IN BRIEF

There’s a lot going on in Køge in 1607. According to the tax records of the time, many wealthy citizens live in the town. Business is good, and many ships are arriving in the harbor. King Christian IV frequently travels to visit the town. Copenhagen’s status as the capital isn’t yet set in stone but the king is in the process of centralizing power with a series of initiatives and so on. In Køge’s town center, on the corner of Køge Square and Nørregade, live the wealthy merchant couple Anna and Hans Barskiær. They have a large household with plenty of children, a foster son named Jacob, and a staff of house-keeping servants. They are a powerful and well-respected family, what people call pillars of the community. Strange and scary things start to happen in Anna and Hans’s house. The animals are behaving oddly and one by one the children are falling ill, speaking of eerie fellows who visit them at night, and before long, there’s an eruption of full-on possessions: Satan is speaking from their mouths, wicker bassinets are levitating, and folks are swelling up when they visit the house and see Satan everywhere. 

The suspicion arises that these unexplainable events must be the work of witchcraft. Hans and Anna hire a prosecutor by the name of Mads Hansen, who, at the couple’s behest, starts trial proceedings against a series of women who are believed to have led Satan into Anna and Hans’s house, and therefore, to have caused all these terrible things. The first woman Mads Hansen summons to appear in court is Johanne Tommesis, another wealthy and well-respected woman in town, who lives a stone’s throw from Anna. Johanne is known to be a hotheaded woman prone to lashing out at people on the street, and the land registry also includes records of Johanne’s husband having charged Anna and Hans because Anna had a go at Johanne one day when Johanne was out buying beer. There was, in other words, bad blood between them. But Johanne doesn’t give in without a fight, and in the end, the court must obtain a letter from the king to put Johanne away once and for all. She sits in the prison cellar for four months until she finally confesses (probably under torture) that yes, she’s behind all the nuisances in Hans and Anna’s house—because she’s sent Satan after them with witchcraft—and then she names two other women who were also involved, Mette Banghors and her own maid, Kirstine. After confessing to everything, Johanne is burned at the stake. 

In Denmark, witch trials work by first getting the woman to confess that she’s a witch; only then does the court begin their interrogation to bring all her sins to light. This was termed the embarrassing interrogation, a euphemism for torture. The idea is that by confessing, one can cleanse oneself of all sin and therefore still be able to go to heaven after being burned. So, it’s only after Johanne has been sentenced to death that she recounts all the terrible witchcraft that she’s brought about and names the others who were involved. This is all happening at the end of September 1612. Before the year turns, Kirstine and Mette are also sentenced and burned, and each of them cites more women from town and the surrounding area, and so it goes until 1615. After Mette’s execution, Mads Hansen resigns as prosecutor and Hans Bartskiær dies of illness (it’s difficult for me to figure out which happens first), but the witch trials proceed, and the children are still levitating and screaming Satan’s name in Anna’s house. 

During an interrogation of Mette Banghors, it is revealed that the horrible happenings in the house on the corner of the square and Nørregade will only come to an end once every witch who helped to summon Satan is dead. In other words, the town needs to be completely purged before they will be set free. In January and February of 1613, they start with Annike Christoffersdatter and Volborg Bødkers. In the meantime, Volborg has managed to escape (nice going, and good for you), probably because her husband bailed her out. In other words, she is yet another wealthy woman. Annike, however, is imprisoned at the start of the year and burned in June. It appears that, the same year, both Maren Muremester and Maren of Ringsbjerg (who is maybe Maren of Egøje—one of these Marens must be Maren of Egøje, whose name I’ve run into, but hopefully it’ll become clear with time, as I start to understand the material better) are burned. Maren of Ringsbjerg, who is named in Køge, is brought before the court in Tryggevælde Len and then taken by Christian IV to Christiansborg Palace, and this is where my trail ends, but I’m not done following it. 

The same year, 1613 still, two women commit suicide in relation to the case. Karen Eriks in jail, where she was locked up based on accusations of witchcraft, and Maren Bysvende, who drowns herself in her own well after receiving a summons. Between 1613 and 1615, Anne Olufs, Kirsten Væverkvinde, Berit Rokkemager, Else Holtug, Johanne Murmester, and Magdalene (who I have very little information about—I only know that she was Søren Skrædder’s wife) are burned, too. Two years later, Christian IV issues a statewide decree on witchcraft that declares all forms of magic (white and black) punishable by burning. Subsequently, the number of witch trials in Denmark explodes. The same year, Anna Barskiær marries a wealthy merchant, Cort Ricther, now the magistrate of Køge. Well, at least I think so. All this is four hundred years ago, and agreeing on history is a challenge.

Figure of the number of witch trials in Jutland, 1609–1687, from Jens Christian V. Johansen’s Da djævlen var ude (When the Devil was out there) (Odense Universitetsforlag, 1991). Sketches on the figure are mine.

MARCH 17, 2021

Køge was a town where everyone traded, from the city councilmembers to the poor old ladies.

They sold pork, beef, butter, nuts, sheepskins and lambskins, rye, barley, malt, honey, mead, wine, and beer from Germany.

There were often conflicts between the traders on the square over the location of their booths, especially between the bakers.

A tailor hit a poor old lady in her house and a prostitute pushed a girl from Copenhagen onto her backside.

In Lovgraven, which collected the water from the gutters on Nyportstræde and the neighboring streets, sludge piled up.

The town was known for its beer. The townspeople took every opportunity to enjoy a stoup of beer or to gather around a whole barrel.

I take my usual route past Blegdammen. Right before crossing the stream, an older couple walks past; she’s using walking poles, a stick in each hand. “What’s not normal?” she asks because she didn’t hear him the first time. “Life,” he answers.

Two eager faces, the driver in a gray blazer, circle the roundabout in a white BMW with rims.

There were three sets of cattle guards by the entrance to the large cemetery to prevent stray pigs from digging around the graves. Still, it was occasionally necessary to chase the pigs away, and the nightman occasionally had to remove a pig that had died.

As I near the stream, I feel the almost ominous, seductive pull of the soil. The Kings of the Poor, the town’s two beggar kings, dressed in red calico, made their rounds, rattling their cans for the poor.

Most of the poor were women and children. Many of them died on the streets. A woman died in Bastian Bartskiær’s basement, another on Lovportsstræde, and a boy in the mill. Others were taken in from the street and died soon after. The account books suggest it was the poorest of the townspeople, the people in the booths in the square, who showed mercy by taking care of the dying who lay on their doorsteps.

Two women of the common poor from the booths in the town took on the task of caring for the sick in the plague house in exchange for one mark every eight days. They survived and, after eleven weeks, received five dalers and two marks.

A tattered man in high spirits is sitting on the bench outside the Køge Museum, across from the memorial plaque, the kind of person I would have called a “gentleman of the road” as a child, and I realize that he’s known among the locals. He’s talking with a lady in a purple puffer coat. The man on the bench points at the plaque: “The witch trials,” he says, and reads aloud, “1608–1615. It happened right here.”

“I’ve thought about that a lot,” the puffer lady says, “it must have been awful.”

“Yeah, me too. Good for us we weren’t alive back then.”

“Yes.” The puffer lady turns to leave with her husband, pauses, and says, “They kept them in the cellar down there,” and points at the small window in the wall behind the bench.

I’ve read somewhere1 that the Køge Holy Terror is a story of women’s daily lives. That it takes place in the home and is really about relationships between female neighbors, disputes about servants and the caretaking of children. But it is also the story of women’s activity in the public space: trips to the capital to take care of business, brewing beer, and the potter’s wife trading in the square.

I see the small woman with the baby in the sling again. She’s wearing a green coat, her face still young. Her eyes look right into mine, and I see their brown color.

1. The place is Marianne Johannesen’s article “Køges udvikling mellem 1350 og 1850” (“The Development of Køge, 11350–1850”), which I cite directly from in the rest of this passage. The article is from Køge bys historie (The history of Køge), published by Turistforeningen for Køge og Omegn ved Victor Hermansen og Povl Engelstoft in 1988.

Detail from Resen’s map, where you can see the “Køge kag.” The kag was an instrument of torture, closely related to the pillory, which consisted of a wooden crate and a stake that criminals were tied to and whipped. From Køge huskors by Johan Brunsmand.

MARCH 21, 1899

To make people furious

If you take water lilies and let a person smell or eat them, then they will become furious.

A spell from Evald Tang Kristensen’s folklore collection, Danske sagn, som de har lydt I folkemunde (Danish Legends as They Were Told by the People), 1899.

MARCH 22, 1613

WHAT
The case against Volborg Bødkers continues in the Køge Town Court. Volborg isn’t present, as she’s fled. It’s been nearly a year since the first woman in town, Johanne Tommesis, was imprisoned for witchcraft and since then, Volborg has been named a witch multiple times during the trial proceedings. Last fall, three women were convicted of witchcraft and burned on the outskirts of town (close to where Norske Løve lies today).

THE AGGRIEVED
Peder Karmager

THE ACCUSED
Volborg Bødkers

THE ACCUSATION
That Volborg Bødkers has harmed Peder and his wife and, moreover, that Volborg Bødkers, along with Johanne Tommesis, has taken evil from the well of Johanne Tommesis and led him to the house of Hans Barskiær.

WHO
Twenty-five citizens of Køge take this opportunity to lay the blame on the absent Volborg for all kinds of misfortunes. All in all the largest number of accusations given in a single day during the entirety of the Køge witch trials. It is also the only case in which the accused woman is not present. None of the witnesses sees Volborg again. One by one, they appear before the court and give their testimonies, as they become increasingly agitated.

WITNESSES
Peder Sørensen (juror)
Peder Rasmussens (juror)
Mads Pedersen (skipper)
Hans Henriksen (potter)
Ludze (Christen Kjeldsen’s wife)
Birgitte (Niels Bødker’s wife)
Jens Sørensen (fisherman)
Knud Bødker (cooper)
Peder Lagermager
Rasmus Jacobsen
Claus Nielsen (a servant)
Jens Olufsen (porter)
Anne Sværdfegers (sword maker)
Rasmus Ravn
Laurids Bødker (Peders Karmager’s yonuger brother)
Casper Hansen (barber surgeon’s apprentice)
Daniel Hansen (acting as witness on his wife’s behalf)
Thomas Bjørnsen
Mads Jensen
Svend Kjeldsen
Christen Skrædder (tailor)
Peder Hugger (woodcutter)
Jens Feldbereder (tanner)
Gregers Klejnsmed (locksmith)

THE FIRST TWO WITNESSES
The day’s proceedings begin with two men by the name of Peder who relay that they, fourteen days prior, went to Volborg’s house but that she wasn’t there. They also left word with her brother-in-law, Hans Enevoldsen, that she should appear in court today. And as you can see, she hasn’t.

THE THIRD WITNESS
Now Mads Pedersen, a skipper from Køge, testifies that he, five years ago, in relation to a trip to Lübeck, sold a barrel of Lønberg salt to Volborg for ten marks. Several months later, however, Volborg unexpectedly returned the barrel and demanded her money back. Mads sent the barrel back, saying he didn’t want the salt. Mads adds that he paid the porter two dalers to take it back to her house. Then Volborg’s maid went to see Mads’s wife and told her that if Mads didn’t take the salt back, she would live to regret it. Mads describes that he, two days later, became wretched and unwell in all his limbs, such that he had no rest nor peace, neither night nor day, inside nor out. So, he sends for the priest. For four days, Mads was held in this delirium, after which his condition improved slightly, but still, it ended up costing him seven weeks on his sickbed. This, he believes, is the work of Volborg.

THE FOURTH WITNESS
Now, Hans Henriksen Pottemager, a potter, testifies that he, eight years ago, had agreed to build a cockle stove for Volborg but that when he arrived at her house, he saw someone else already building the very oven she had ordered from him. He was angry about the double booking but Volborg said that if he didn’t relent, he’d learn his lesson in good time. Three days later, Hans’s wife was selling clay pots in the square when suddenly she became very ill, and many good people saw it too. They sent word to Hans, who then hurried over. A few women were already walking her home and he took her basket of pottery. But when he reached the door to his house, he too was struck by an illness so vehement he couldn’t carry the basket in, and it seemed to him that all the houses were running around him. The small dogs who had run alongside him, following him home, ran over the threshold ahead of him and became sick and mad. One of them died on the street immediately and the other was later found dead in the attic. When Hans finally entered the living room, he fell into his bed and immediately became so unwell in all his limbs that his whole body floundered and flailed as if his heart was bursting out of his body. Hans had neither rest nor peace, neither night nor day, except when he lay on the cold, bare ground. He was unwell for a year and a half, and for this illness, he holds Volborg entirely accountable. But Hans isn’t done testifying yet. He has another grievance to air. He recounts that Volborg came to see him last year, sometime late in September (this was around the same time the first women were burned). Volborg falls to her knees in front of Hans’s wife, begging to have her child to play with, but his wife won’t let go.

Then Volborg asks if Hans’s wife can go find her some pots to look over and maybe buy but his wife says she only has the pots laid out on the bench. Volborg isn’t interested in any of them and goes her way but then returns a half hour later to buy a pan. The wife says she only has one pan for sale but Volborg doesn’t want that one either, and after thinking it over while standing next to the cockle stove, Volborg leaves again. And ever since that day, Hans’s wife has been bedridden. And the same week as Volborg’s visit, an oven full of the potter’s work was broken and ruined, even though no one had touched them.

THE FIFTH WITNESS
Now comes Ludze, Christen Kjeldsen’s wife, and she testifies that she was at the house of Hans Pottemager and saw Volborg enter twice, and she confirms, moreover, that both Hans and his wife had suffered harm and illness.

THE SIXTH WITNESS
Now comes Birgitte Niels Bødkers, and she testifies that, nine years ago, her husband Niels Bødker became very unwell in his thigh. It came on suddenly and the pain and torment spread, such that he could neither walk nor work. Back then, he suspected Volborg Bødkers of having brought this evil upon him and so, he went to her house, in the presence of the good people, to accuse her of having caused his precariousness and sorrow. As soon as he had done so, his condition improved, and the very same illness disappeared.

THE SEVENTH WITNESS
Now Jens Sørensen Fisker testifies that, last summer, he was taking Anne Niels Skaanings back from Copenhagen and when he reached the outskirts of Køge, he saw Volborg Bødkers feeding her horses by the road. She asked him to come help her since it was getting late. He asked her who had taken her out here, and she answered: “That Knud Bødker—he’ll be sorry, that scoundrel, I’ll swear to that, all high and mighty. I asked him to help me, too, and he refused.”

THE EIGHTH WITNESS
Now the aforementioned Knud Bødker testifies that it is indeed true that Volborg was feeding her horses the very place Jens claimed, and that Knud drove off after declining to help her, and that he hadn’t even considered Volborg would be upset. And Knud continues, recounting that he, soon after, was struck by a strange ailment in his back and loin, such that he couldn’t work for more than a few hours at a time for several days, even though he considers himself of sound heart. And Knud concludes that he suspects Volborg Bødkers of having brought on his illness, as she swore him harm when he left her behind.

THE NINTH WITNESS
Now Peder Lagermager testifies to an event that occurred four years ago, back when a young goldsmith was living with Volborg Bødkers. One night, late in the evening, the goldsmith crawled over the board fence into Peder’s yard, wearing nothing but his shirt and with a drawn sword in his hand. He was clearly ill at ease, and knocked on Peder’s door, asking him, for God’s sake, to let him in. But Peder wouldn’t let anyone in at night, and the smith said: “If you don’t let me in, they’ll be the death of me.” But Peder didn’t dare let him in because he didn’t know what was going on. So, the goldsmith crawled over the next board fence into Margrete Jyde’s yard and through the archway onto the street. The following morning, Volborg came knocking on Peder’s door to ask whether he had seen a young man who had come from her house last night. And Peder said yes, he had seen someone. And Volborg asked Peder to help her find him in her house, and, after looking for some time, they returned to the living room to find the very same goldsmith standing in the doorway—he had just appeared. Then he said to Volborg and her girl, as he gestured to them: “May God forsake You for last Night, You have made me a poor Man, You and Your girl have given me a cursed Night, You and Your maidservant are of the same Kind, You ought to have been burned in Fire ten years ago.”

THE TENTH WITNESS
All this is confirmed by the witness Rasmus Jacobsen, who recounts that both he and his mother saw the gates to the backyard and the door to the street open that night.

THE ELEVENTH WITNESS
And Claus Nielsen, one of Niels Andersen’s servants, testifies that he, the same morning, saw the aforementioned goldsmith enter Niels Andersen’s living room in nothing but his shirt and bare legs with a drawn weapon in his hand, and strongly laments that Volborg Bødkers had him lie there, and that Volborg and her girl brought him with them to the Old Køge Cemetery at night, where they dug peat2 from under their feet, and said many words that he didn’t pay heed to; however, the young smith laments that they gave him a wretched night.

THE TWELFTH WITNESS
And now, Jens Olufsen Vognmand testifies, and merely adds that his earlier testimony stands true in this case as well.

THE THIRTEENTH WITNESS
Now Anne Sværdfegers testifies that Volborg Bødkers has been her neighbor for nine years, like one of Satan’s harpies, because once, she came to see Anne. Anne had two geese walking across the floor with their twenty-four gooselings and Volborg asked to borrow a sewing needle. Volborg said a Hail Mary while waving her hand over the gooselings and then said: “Oh, what little things have we here.” And soon after, when the very same goslings were put out to pasture, they disappeared, each and every one, such that Anne never saw them again. Furthermore, as Anne testifies, Volborg came to her house to trade a skilling for a few white plants and Anne walked with her into the garden to get the plants. But when Volborg entered Anne’s garden, she signed the Hail Mary three times with her hand over Anne’s herb garden, over the marjoram, thyme, and other herbs, which were all beautifully green and tall. And within eight days, all the herbs had been gobbled up by pests, leaving the soil entirely bare. And for this, she blames Volborg.

THE FOURTEENTH WITNESS
Now, Rasmus Ravn is testifying about the time Peder Karmager, the town cooper, had made a new tun for Søren Bødker on Nørrestræde. The cask was standing by the well in Søren’s yard and they measured that it could hold fourteen barrels of water. In the meantime, Søren’s wife3 came up from the cellar with a jug of beer, which she gave first to her husband, who took a drink and passed it to Peder, who took a drink and passed it to Rasmus, who took a drink and passed it to Anders Karmager. Suddenly, Peder Karmager fell into the cask, although no one had seen or knew how it happened. They quickly pulled him out of the tub because, otherwise, he would have drowned. And as soon as he came up from the cask, he pulled off his pants and ran out of Søren’s gate like a wild and wretched person and back home, where he put on a pair of pants and a clean shirt before returning to Søren’s living room to drink the remaining beer with the rest of them. And then, once more, he became so wretched in his head and ran off again, after which they didn’t see more of him that day.

THE FIFTEENTH WITNESS
Now Laurids Bødker testifies that he was there to help Peder out of the cask and Laurids swears that Peder, at that point, was not drunk.

THE SIXTEENTH WITNESS
Now Peder Karmager steps forward to testify. He was the one who commenced the trial by bringing accusations of witchcraft against Volborg and he is the key witness in the case. Peder accuses Volborg of being the cause of the ungodly torment and holy terror that he and his wife have been subjected to. The main reason Volborg should hold a grudge against them, Peder believes, has to do with him teaching his younger brother Laurids about the cooper business, the same profession Volborg’s husband makes his living from. Volborg managed to coax the boy away from Peder.4 But then Peder takes the brother back against her will. As a result, Volborg gets angry, goes to see Peder Karmager, quarrels with him in bad faith, and says that Peder will meet a devil’s accident and that he won’t be the better for it.

THE FIFTEENTH WITNESS, AGAIN
And Laurids, Peder’s younger brother, who, at that point, was also Peder’s neighbor, confirms all that has been said.

THE SEVENTEENTH WITNESS
Now Casper Hansen testifies about his father who bandaged up Peder Karmager’s wife, Anne. One day, his father was called to see her and she showed him a living thing in her thigh, running up and down like a piglet. One morning, Casper Hansen’s father returned to her house with a razor to slice a hole in her thigh, which he believed would improve her condition. But when he went to make the incision, the living thing scuttled up into Anne’s head, making her head go up and down, so a few women had to hold her head steady. And when Casper’s father returned to the house to bandage her up, she spat on him and then ripped the bandage off with a strange habit, and wouldn’t accept any salve for the wound.

THE EIGHTEENTH WITNESS
Now Daniel Hansen testifies that he was at Peder Karmager’s house and that Daniel’s wife had an experience there, of which he has a written account to be read aloud in court today.5

THE NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH WITNESSES
Now Thomas Bjørnsen and Mads Jensen testify that they too are regular visitors of Peder Karmager’s house and that they’ve seen and heard many strange words from the mouth of Peder Karmager’s wife along with strange and peculiar gesticulations. And whenever he6 is asked what kind of fellow he is, the answer comes from the woman’s mouth: My name is Lucifer, my lady Volborg Bødkers entered this person, so that I could torment her. And the voice, by their own accounts, kept speaking and told them that Volborg has punished Anne Karmager, so that Anne would not have any sustenance from her garden or elsewhere.

And that Volborg put him into an egg at night and buried him in Anne Karmager’s garden. And when Anne went to dig in the place the egg had been buried, so it was spoken from Anne’s mouth, and he rushed up and into her thigh at Volborg’s behest, and the voice said that Volborg was his in body and soul for all eternity. 

THE TWENTY-FIRST, TWENTY-SECOND, AND TWENTY-THIRD WITNESSES
Now Svend Kjeldsen, Christen Skrædder, and Peder Hugger testify that they too have been to Peder Karmager’s house and have seen and heard from Anne Peder Karmager’s mouth the words and strange gestures that Daniel Hansen has described.

THE TWENTY-FOURTH WITNESS
Now Jens Feldbereder testifies that he too can confirm these events have taken place in Peder Karmager’s house.

THE TWENTY-FIFTH WITNESS
Now Gregers Klejnsmed testifies that he too can confirm these events have taken place in Peder Karmager’s house and that he, moreover, has heard from Anne Peder Karmager’s mouth that the voice is called Lucifer and that Volborg Bødkers is his lady and that she has sworn herself to him so that she would always have enough silver and pennings. 

And Peder Karmager permits further testimony in this case, if necessary.

My rewriting of the court records from March 22, 1613, located in the ledgers containing the trial proceedings related to the Køge Holy Terror. I’ve used Anders Bæksted’s republication of the ledgers in Fra Københavns Amt—Aarbog udgivet af Historisk Samfund for Københavns Amt (1951). In Køge huskors, the same Bæksted cites directly from the court records in his footnotes, using the original orthography. When compared to the records from 1951, we can see that his account is likely a direct transcription of the ledgers but in Bæksted’s contemporary orthography.

2. In Danish, one uses the verb at grave (to dig or to bury) when collecting peat. So the description of these women “digging at night at the graveyard” carries a double meaning.

3. This must be Volborg.

4. My guess is that she convinces him to learn from her instead.

5. I haven’t been able to find this written account anywhere.

6. The “he” refers to whatever is moving inside her.

The frontispiece of the German translation of Køge huskors from 1696, in which Anna is seen praying in the foreground, circled by animalistic, devilish figures, rats, and her possessed children. In the opening of the door, her foster son Jacob is seen lifted as if crucified by a devil.

MARCH 22, 1613

The same day. I see them leave the town hall one by one, gathering in small clusters on the street; the air is cold but fresh, the sky very high, one or a few of them light a pipe; there are hushed voices, but there’s also a dizziness, like after a long day of sedentary work—fine motor skills and a clean brain, the intense concentration of the courtroom. Some of them head home while others are planning to go back in. Either because they have something to say or just to see what’ll happen next. Some of them have yet to play their part, perhaps they haven’t had the presence of mind to follow the movements of the witnesses’ mouths because a trembling inside about what was to come had stopped them. Domesticated dogs run between the people, their shirts, woven with nettles, linen; the aprons, children dart around; someone crunches a slender, pale vegetable between their teeth. Annike Christoffersdatter is collected from the cellar. She has been sitting there since January. It was Kirstine, Johanne’s maid, who first named Annike back in September, but now it’s March, and Kirstine was burned the same day she named Annike. Once Johanne broke, the rest was quick. She sat in the cellar for four months, on a hunger strike and fighting. But they got her in the end. Once Johanne confessed and named Kirstine—as well as Mette and Maren—it took only four days before Kirstine was sitting in the cellar and another twenty-two days before she was burned. And she had the chance to name Annike.

At first, it was someone else, Johanne’s relative, Laurids Prammand, who had helped Kirstine, whose one leg was paralyzed, to urinate in the church’s baptismal font, and she said in court that he had helped her up. That Maren of Ringsbjerg, along with Johanne, had promised that Kirstine’s paralysis would disappear if she urinated into the baptismal font in the church. But nothing happened and her leg kept limping, and at first, Kirstine came forward one day and said that Laurids had helped her because the font was too tall and too difficult to get her legs around, but then she came forward the next day, if possible, even more dispirited and gray, if possible, with an even greater look of delusion in her dead eyes, and said that no, it wasn’t actually Laurids, she had misremembered, it was Annike. And now, Annike is being brought up from the cellar beneath the town hall where she has sat for thirty days. And she is accused of having helped the others lead evil into the house of Hans Bartskiær, with having carried the rat, the rat Satan, from the stream up to Anna and Hans’s house, where the strange things with the children happened. And that it was this: the rat, from the stream which supposedly set everything in motion. And now Annike is being brought up from the cellar, her hands tied behind her back; dirt scrapes between the cobblestones from the toes of shoes; a pipe is emptied, someone rubs a chin, a face squints at the sun; it’s almost noon, the sun is high, as high as it gets in March; the birds are audible, the wheel of the year is turning, bell by bell it falls forward and around like wood-carved pieces in a game, in an endless clockwork. Not endless because it’s eternal but because it’s biting its own tail. And when Mette Banghors confessed and confirmed that Johanne was a witch and said that Boel Peders was too, she also gave up Kirsten Polsagtig and Birgitte, and then Annike. And a few weeks later, Mette has been sitting in the cellar for a little over three months now, and she’s being brought up (but that was in November, now it’s March, and Annike is being brought up from the cellar too, as she’s being raised from the obliterating waters of a cellar well, and their eyes are squinting at the light and faces) and Mette singles out Annike again and now Volborg too, and twenty-one days later, Mette is declared guilty of witchcraft and she confesses to everything but retracts her accusation of Volborg. But not her accusation of Annike. And a week later, Mette changes her story again: previously, she’s mentioned Mette Navns and Kirstine Krielles, but they’re not actually witches, but Volborg is, and Annike is, and they’re the ones being persecuted today, and the day Mette said all this was the seventh of December, but now it’s March, that day, she was burned and disappeared, no grave, only the ashes floating over the town and nestling between brown stalks in the vegetable gardens; the evergreens sheltered the ash among its leaves. I don’t know when Annike was put in jail but I do know that the accusation against her was brought forward on January 22, so it was likely around then they brought her in. Now we’ll see whom Annike knows; now, she’s coming, now, she’s being escorted in, now she’s being brought into the courtroom, and people who have been waiting around, getting a breath of air and a smoke, file in after her. I wonder whether she had children, which she probably did, and about where those children were and what those children saw.

MARCH 22, 1613

WHAT
The trial of Annike Christoffersdatter continues in the Køge Town Court.

THE AGGRIEVED
Unknown

THE ACCUSED
Annike Christoffersdatter

THE ACCUSATION
Witchcraft and participation in leading evil to the house of Hans Bartskiær.

WHO
Annike Christoffersdatter, Peder Holtug (on his wife’s behalf), Oluf Rokkemager (on his wife’s behalf), Karen Eriks, Kirsten Væverkvinde, the town magistrate (on the behalf of His Royal Majesty) and Mads Jensen (serving as judge). Annike Christoffersen, by all accounts, was imprisoned back in February. Now, she is appearing before the Køge Town Court, where she confirms what she has previously confessed to outside the court regarding herself as well as Else Holtug, Birgitte Rokkemager, Karen Eriks, and Kirsten Væverkvinde. That her confession took place outside the court likely means that she confessed under interrogation.

Her confession is read aloud but there’s no record of the confession to be found.

 

Translated from the Danish by Sherilyn Nicolette Hellberg. 

Olga Ravn is a prize-winning Danish novelist and poet. Her novel The Employees was shortlisted for the Booker Prize in 2021 and has been published in twenty languages. A version of this piece, which is part of an ongoing project, was commissioned for the exhibition Hummings (2021), curated by Fulya Erdemci and Ulrikke Neergaard for the KØS Museum of Art in Public Spaces.

Sherilyn Nicolette Hellberg is a writer and literary translator. Her translation of Jonas Eika’s After the Sun is longlisted for this year’s International Booker Prize.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 16, 2022 11:35

A Memorial for those Accused of Witchcraft

Colors extracted, using a traditional recipe, from maritime sunburst lichen the author collected from the wildlife corridor along Ellebækstien in Køge. Fabrics from left to right, top to bottom: handwoven tussah and mulberry silk, wool, silk charmeuse, silk-rayon velvet, cotton, and linen. Photograph by Johan Rosenmunthe.

 

A LOGBOOK TO REMEMBER 16 WOMEN OF WHOM 13 WERE BURNED ALIVE, TWO COMMITTED SUICIDE, AND ONE MANAGED TO ESCAPE, 1612–1615 AND 2021, REWRITTEN, GATHERED, DREAMED BY A WOMAN, AGE 34, THAT’S TO SAY ME, A STAR AMONG ALL THESE RESPIRING STARS WE CALL PEOPLE

 

Johanne Tommesis, burned, August 24, 1612
Kirstine Lauridsdatter, burned, September 11, 1612
Mette Banghors, burned, December 7, 1612
Volborg Bødkers, escaped and convicted in absentia, June 7, 1613
Annike Christoffersdatter, burned, June 14, 1613
Anne Olufs, burned, June 26, 1613
Karen Eriks, suicide in prison, August 30, 1613
Maren Muremester, burned, 1613
Maren of Ringsbjerg, burned, 1613
Maren Bysvende, suicide in her well after receiving a summons to appear in court, 1613
Kirsten Væverkvinde, burned, 1613
Birgitte Rokkemager, burned, September 18, 1615
Else Holtug, burned, November 6, 1615
Mette Navns, burned, 1615
Johanne Muremester, burned, 1615
Magdalene, Søren Skrædder’s wife, burned, 1615

WHERE: Køge, Denmark

MARCH 3, 2021

All morning, Køge has been shrouded in fog. I took the train here. I’ve walked down Nørregade. All the stores are closed because of the pandemic. Still, a few people are out. It’s about ten o’clock. I haven’t been here since December, the day before everything shut down for the second time. For years now, I’ve been reading and thinking about those accused of witchcraft in Køge. Not with any objective in mind—it’s been a kind of hunger. I want to understand what time is, what four hundred years of time is.

On the side of the house on the corner of Nørregade and the town square is a commemorative plaque: here happened the køge holy terror, 1608–1615. It isn’t a memorial for the burned but for those who burned them. The plaque was put up in 1911 when Køge Museum opened in the building across the street. It was supposed to be a kind of promotion for the museum. The women who were accused of witchcraft and murdered (or committed suicide) aren’t mentioned.

The first time I visited here was August 2019, and everything was on the verge of withering. I was three months pregnant and I came to visit these women’s graves. It was only as I was standing in the town square, the wind rolling against my face and my hair swept up—I could hear the cries of seagulls—that I realized there were no graves because the women had been burned. What did they do with the ashes? The site of the fires is now occupied by Norske Løve, a former hotel; now I think that normal people live there—anyway, there’s a buzzer by the door. 

Since that day, I’ve visited Køge regularly. I go there to approach the ones who are not mentioned by the plaque. I pass by the river that runs through the town like a live wire, crossed by a number of small bridges. I’ve read about so many women in the archives who’ve drowned themselves and their children here. I walk down towards the roundabout, past Blegdammen and to the corner of Kongsberg Allé. Here lies the narrow green corridor, traversed by the stream, where those accused of witchcraft are said to have gathered.

MARCH 6, 1613

There lived in Køge a godforsaken witch by the name of Mette Banghors.

This woman, at the behest of Satan and her companions, went out to the stream located immediately outside of town and conjured the devil with the intention of leading him to the house of Hans Bartskiær.

Then she aimed to conjure him in the likeness of a rat.

Then Satan answered that he wouldn’t rise because, he said, “I have horns and you have none.”

Then the impious witch went and placed a pot on her head, conjured him anew, and said: “Now I have three horns; now, come on up already.”

Then he rose from the stream in the likeness of a rat, and she brought him to the home of the aforementioned man.

This was all confessed by Satan’s prisoner, after which she was burned along with many other witches who were revealed and burned.

A slightly rewritten source from the footnotes of Køge huskors (The Køge Holy Terror) by Johan Brunsmand, with an introduction and notes by Anders Bæksted (Ejnar Munksgaard, 1953).

MARCH 7, 1500 or 1700

To be Insensible to Torture

Write these lines on a small piece of paper, which you will then swallow:

Dismas et Gestas damnatur potestas.
Disma et Gestas damnatur.
Ad astra levatur.

When you are to be tortured, say: “This rope is so soothing against my limbs, as the Holy Virgin’s milk to Our Lord.”

Spell from The Grand Grimoire (exact date of publication unknown).

Peder Resen’s map of Køge, 1677. From Køge huskors by Johan Brunsmand.

MARCH 13, 1608–1615
A HISTORY OF THE KØGE HOLY TERROR, IN BRIEF

There’s a lot going on in Køge in 1607. According to the tax records of the time, many wealthy citizens live in the town. Business is good, and many ships are arriving in the harbor. King Christian IV frequently travels to visit the town. Copenhagen’s status as the capital isn’t yet set in stone but the king is in the process of centralizing power with a series of initiatives and so on. In Køge’s town center, on the corner of Køge Square and Nørregade, live the wealthy merchant couple Anna and Hans Barskiær. They have a large household with plenty of children, a foster son named Jacob, and a staff of house-keeping servants. They are a powerful and well-respected family, what people call pillars of the community. Strange and scary things start to happen in Anna and Hans’s house. The animals are behaving oddly and one by one the children are falling ill, speaking of eerie fellows who visit them at night, and before long, there’s an eruption of full-on possessions: Satan is speaking from their mouths, wicker bassinets are levitating, and folks are swelling up when they visit the house and see Satan everywhere. 

The suspicion arises that these unexplainable events must be the work of witchcraft. Hans and Anna hire a prosecutor by the name of Mads Hansen, who, at the couple’s behest, starts trial proceedings against a series of women who are believed to have led Satan into Anna and Hans’s house, and therefore, to have caused all these terrible things. The first woman Mads Hansen summons to appear in court is Johanne Tommesis, another wealthy and well-respected woman in town, who lives a stone’s throw from Anna. Johanne is known to be a hotheaded woman prone to lashing out at people on the street, and the land registry also includes records of Johanne’s husband having charged Anna and Hans because Anna had a go at Johanne one day when Johanne was out buying beer. There was, in other words, bad blood between them. But Johanne doesn’t give in without a fight, and in the end, the court must obtain a letter from the king to put Johanne away once and for all. She sits in the prison cellar for four months until she finally confesses (probably under torture) that yes, she’s behind all the nuisances in Hans and Anna’s house—because she’s sent Satan after them with witchcraft—and then she names two other women who were also involved, Mette Banghors and her own maid, Kirstine. After confessing to everything, Johanne is burned at the stake. 

In Denmark, witch trials work by first getting the woman to confess that she’s a witch; only then does the court begin their interrogation to bring all her sins to light. This was termed the embarrassing interrogation, a euphemism for torture. The idea is that by confessing, one can cleanse oneself of all sin and therefore still be able to go to heaven after being burned. So, it’s only after Johanne has been sentenced to death that she recounts all the terrible witchcraft that she’s brought about and names the others who were involved. This is all happening at the end of September 1612. Before the year turns, Kirstine and Mette are also sentenced and burned, and each of them cites more women from town and the surrounding area, and so it goes until 1615. After Mette’s execution, Mads Hansen resigns as prosecutor and Hans Bartskiær dies of illness (it’s difficult for me to figure out which happens first), but the witch trials proceed, and the children are still levitating and screaming Satan’s name in Anna’s house. 

During an interrogation of Mette Banghors, it is revealed that the horrible happenings in the house on the corner of the square and Nørregade will only come to an end once every witch who helped to summon Satan is dead. In other words, the town needs to be completely purged before they will be set free. In January and February of 1613, they start with Annike Christoffersdatter and Volborg Bødkers. In the meantime, Volborg has managed to escape (nice going, and good for you), probably because her husband bailed her out. In other words, she is yet another wealthy woman. Annike, however, is imprisoned at the start of the year and burned in June. It appears that, the same year, both Maren Muremester and Maren of Ringsbjerg (who is maybe Maren of Egøje—one of these Marens must be Maren of Egøje, whose name I’ve run into, but hopefully it’ll become clear with time, as I start to understand the material better) are burned. Maren of Ringsbjerg, who is named in Køge, is brought before the court in Tryggevælde Len and then taken by Christian IV to Christiansborg Palace, and this is where my trail ends, but I’m not done following it. 

The same year, 1613 still, two women commit suicide in relation to the case. Karen Eriks in jail, where she was locked up based on accusations of witchcraft, and Maren Bysvende, who drowns herself in her own well after receiving a summons. Between 1613 and 1615, Anne Olufs, Kirsten Væverkvinde, Berit Rokkemager, Else Holtug, Johanne Murmester, and Magdalene (who I have very little information about—I only know that she was Søren Skrædder’s wife) are burned, too. Two years later, Christian IV issues a statewide decree on witchcraft that declares all forms of magic (white and black) punishable by burning. Subsequently, the number of witch trials in Denmark explodes. The same year, Anna Barskiær marries a wealthy merchant, Cort Ricther, now the magistrate of Køge. Well, at least I think so. All this is four hundred years ago, and agreeing on history is a challenge.

Figure of the number of witch trials in Jutland, 1609–1687, from Jens Christian V. Johansen’s Da djævlen var ude (When the Devil was out there) (Odense Universitetsforlag, 1991). Sketches on the figure are mine.

MARCH 17, 2021

Køge was a town where everyone traded, from the city councilmembers to the poor old ladies.

They sold pork, beef, butter, nuts, sheepskins and lambskins, rye, barley, malt, honey, mead, wine, and beer from Germany.

There were often conflicts between the traders on the square over the location of their booths, especially between the bakers.

A tailor hit a poor old lady in her house and a prostitute pushed a girl from Copenhagen onto her backside.

In Lovgraven, which collected the water from the gutters on Nyportstræde and the neighboring streets, sludge piled up.

The town was known for its beer. The townspeople took every opportunity to enjoy a stoup of beer or to gather around a whole barrel.

I take my usual route past Blegdammen. Right before crossing the stream, an older couple walks past; she’s using walking poles, a stick in each hand. “What’s not normal?” she asks because she didn’t hear him the first time. “Life,” he answers.

Two eager faces, the driver in a gray blazer, circle the roundabout in a white BMW with rims.

There were three sets of cattle guards by the entrance to the large cemetery to prevent stray pigs from digging around the graves. Still, it was occasionally necessary to chase the pigs away, and the nightman occasionally had to remove a pig that had died.

As I near the stream, I feel the almost ominous, seductive pull of the soil. The Kings of the Poor, the town’s two beggar kings, dressed in red calico, made their rounds, rattling their cans for the poor.

Most of the poor were women and children. Many of them died on the streets. A woman died in Bastian Bartskiær’s basement, another on Lovportsstræde, and a boy in the mill. Others were taken in from the street and died soon after. The account books suggest it was the poorest of the townspeople, the people in the booths in the square, who showed mercy by taking care of the dying who lay on their doorsteps.

Two women of the common poor from the booths in the town took on the task of caring for the sick in the plague house in exchange for one mark every eight days. They survived and, after eleven weeks, received five dalers and two marks.

A tattered man in high spirits is sitting on the bench outside the Køge Museum, across from the memorial plaque, the kind of person I would have called a “gentleman of the road” as a child, and I realize that he’s known among the locals. He’s talking with a lady in a purple puffer coat. The man on the bench points at the plaque: “The witch trials,” he says, and reads aloud, “1608–1615. It happened right here.”

“I’ve thought about that a lot,” the puffer lady says, “it must have been awful.”

“Yeah, me too. Good for us we weren’t alive back then.”

“Yes.” The puffer lady turns to leave with her husband, pauses, and says, “They kept them in the cellar down there,” and points at the small window in the wall behind the bench.

I’ve read somewhere1 that the Køge Holy Terror is a story of women’s daily lives. That it takes place in the home and is really about relationships between female neighbors, disputes about servants and the caretaking of children. But it is also the story of women’s activity in the public space: trips to the capital to take care of business, brewing beer, and the potter’s wife trading in the square.

I see the small woman with the baby in the sling again. She’s wearing a green coat, her face still young. Her eyes look right into mine, and I see their brown color.

1. The place is Marianne Johannesen’s article “Køges udvikling mellem 1350 og 1850” (“The Development of Køge, 11350–1850”), which I cite directly from in the rest of this passage. The article is from Køge bys historie (The history of Køge), published by Turistforeningen for Køge og Omegn ved Victor Hermansen og Povl Engelstoft in 1988.

Detail from Resen’s map, where you can see the “Køge kag.” The kag was an instrument of torture, closely related to the pillory, which consisted of a wooden crate and a stake that criminals were tied to and whipped. From Køge huskors by Johan Brunsmand.

MARCH 21, 1899

To make people furious

If you take water lilies and let a person smell or eat them, then they will become furious.

A spell from Evald Tang Kristensen’s folklore collection, Danske sagn, som de har lydt I folkemunde (Danish Legends as They Were Told by the People), 1899.

MARCH 22, 1613

WHAT
The case against Volborg Bødkers continues in the Køge Town Court. Volborg isn’t present, as she’s fled. It’s been nearly a year since the first woman in town, Johanne Tommesis, was imprisoned for witchcraft and since then, Volborg has been named a witch multiple times during the trial proceedings. Last fall, three women were convicted of witchcraft and burned on the outskirts of town (close to where Norske Løve lies today).

THE AGGRIEVED
Peder Karmager

THE ACCUSED
Volborg Bødkers

THE ACCUSATION
That Volborg Bødkers has harmed Peder and his wife and, moreover, that Volborg Bødkers, along with Johanne Tommesis, has taken evil from the well of Johanne Tommesis and led him to the house of Hans Barskiær.

WHO
Twenty-five citizens of Køge take this opportunity to lay the blame on the absent Volborg for all kinds of misfortunes. All in all the largest number of accusations given in a single day during the entirety of the Køge witch trials. It is also the only case in which the accused woman is not present. None of the witnesses sees Volborg again. One by one, they appear before the court and give their testimonies, as they become increasingly agitated.

WITNESSES
Peder Sørensen (juror)
Peder Rasmussens (juror)
Mads Pedersen (skipper)
Hans Henriksen (potter)
Ludze (Christen Kjeldsen’s wife)
Birgitte (Niels Bødker’s wife)
Jens Sørensen (fisherman)
Knud Bødker (cooper)
Peder Lagermager
Rasmus Jacobsen
Claus Nielsen (a servant)
Jens Olufsen (porter)
Anne Sværdfegers (sword maker)
Rasmus Ravn
Laurids Bødker (Peders Karmager’s yonuger brother)
Casper Hansen (barber surgeon’s apprentice)
Daniel Hansen (acting as witness on his wife’s behalf)
Thomas Bjørnsen
Mads Jensen
Svend Kjeldsen
Christen Skrædder (tailor)
Peder Hugger (woodcutter)
Jens Feldbereder (tanner)
Gregers Klejnsmed (locksmith)

THE FIRST TWO WITNESSES
The day’s proceedings begin with two men by the name of Peder who relay that they, fourteen days prior, went to Volborg’s house but that she wasn’t there. They also left word with her brother-in-law, Hans Enevoldsen, that she should appear in court today. And as you can see, she hasn’t.

THE THIRD WITNESS
Now Mads Pedersen, a skipper from Køge, testifies that he, five years ago, in relation to a trip to Lübeck, sold a barrel of Lønberg salt to Volborg for ten marks. Several months later, however, Volborg unexpectedly returned the barrel and demanded her money back. Mads sent the barrel back, saying he didn’t want the salt. Mads adds that he paid the porter two dalers to take it back to her house. Then Volborg’s maid went to see Mads’s wife and told her that if Mads didn’t take the salt back, she would live to regret it. Mads describes that he, two days later, became wretched and unwell in all his limbs, such that he had no rest nor peace, neither night nor day, inside nor out. So, he sends for the priest. For four days, Mads was held in this delirium, after which his condition improved slightly, but still, it ended up costing him seven weeks on his sickbed. This, he believes, is the work of Volborg.

THE FOURTH WITNESS
Now, Hans Henriksen Pottemager, a potter, testifies that he, eight years ago, had agreed to build a cockle stove for Volborg but that when he arrived at her house, he saw someone else already building the very oven she had ordered from him. He was angry about the double booking but Volborg said that if he didn’t relent, he’d learn his lesson in good time. Three days later, Hans’s wife was selling clay pots in the square when suddenly she became very ill, and many good people saw it too. They sent word to Hans, who then hurried over. A few women were already walking her home and he took her basket of pottery. But when he reached the door to his house, he too was struck by an illness so vehement he couldn’t carry the basket in, and it seemed to him that all the houses were running around him. The small dogs who had run alongside him, following him home, ran over the threshold ahead of him and became sick and mad. One of them died on the street immediately and the other was later found dead in the attic. When Hans finally entered the living room, he fell into his bed and immediately became so unwell in all his limbs that his whole body floundered and flailed as if his heart was bursting out of his body. Hans had neither rest nor peace, neither night nor day, except when he lay on the cold, bare ground. He was unwell for a year and a half, and for this illness, he holds Volborg entirely accountable. But Hans isn’t done testifying yet. He has another grievance to air. He recounts that Volborg came to see him last year, sometime late in September (this was around the same time the first women were burned). Volborg falls to her knees in front of Hans’s wife, begging to have her child to play with, but his wife won’t let go.

Then Volborg asks if Hans’s wife can go find her some pots to look over and maybe buy but his wife says she only has the pots laid out on the bench. Volborg isn’t interested in any of them and goes her way but then returns a half hour later to buy a pan. The wife says she only has one pan for sale but Volborg doesn’t want that one either, and after thinking it over while standing next to the cockle stove, Volborg leaves again. And ever since that day, Hans’s wife has been bedridden. And the same week as Volborg’s visit, an oven full of the potter’s work was broken and ruined, even though no one had touched them.

THE FIFTH WITNESS
Now comes Ludze, Christen Kjeldsen’s wife, and she testifies that she was at the house of Hans Pottemager and saw Volborg enter twice, and she confirms, moreover, that both Hans and his wife had suffered harm and illness.

THE SIXTH WITNESS
Now comes Birgitte Niels Bødkers, and she testifies that, nine years ago, her husband Niels Bødker became very unwell in his thigh. It came on suddenly and the pain and torment spread, such that he could neither walk nor work. Back then, he suspected Volborg Bødkers of having brought this evil upon him and so, he went to her house, in the presence of the good people, to accuse her of having caused his precariousness and sorrow. As soon as he had done so, his condition improved, and the very same illness disappeared.

THE SEVENTH WITNESS
Now Jens Sørensen Fisker testifies that, last summer, he was taking Anne Niels Skaanings back from Copenhagen and when he reached the outskirts of Køge, he saw Volborg Bødkers feeding her horses by the road. She asked him to come help her since it was getting late. He asked her who had taken her out here, and she answered: “That Knud Bødker—he’ll be sorry, that scoundrel, I’ll swear to that, all high and mighty. I asked him to help me, too, and he refused.”

THE EIGHTH WITNESS
Now the aforementioned Knud Bødker testifies that it is indeed true that Volborg was feeding her horses the very place Jens claimed, and that Knud drove off after declining to help her, and that he hadn’t even considered Volborg would be upset. And Knud continues, recounting that he, soon after, was struck by a strange ailment in his back and loin, such that he couldn’t work for more than a few hours at a time for several days, even though he considers himself of sound heart. And Knud concludes that he suspects Volborg Bødkers of having brought on his illness, as she swore him harm when he left her behind.

THE NINTH WITNESS
Now Peder Lagermager testifies to an event that occurred four years ago, back when a young goldsmith was living with Volborg Bødkers. One night, late in the evening, the goldsmith crawled over the board fence into Peder’s yard, wearing nothing but his shirt and with a drawn sword in his hand. He was clearly ill at ease, and knocked on Peder’s door, asking him, for God’s sake, to let him in. But Peder wouldn’t let anyone in at night, and the smith said: “If you don’t let me in, they’ll be the death of me.” But Peder didn’t dare let him in because he didn’t know what was going on. So, the goldsmith crawled over the next board fence into Margrete Jyde’s yard and through the archway onto the street. The following morning, Volborg came knocking on Peder’s door to ask whether he had seen a young man who had come from her house last night. And Peder said yes, he had seen someone. And Volborg asked Peder to help her find him in her house, and, after looking for some time, they returned to the living room to find the very same goldsmith standing in the doorway—he had just appeared. Then he said to Volborg and her girl, as he gestured to them: “May God forsake You for last Night, You have made me a poor Man, You and Your girl have given me a cursed Night, You and Your maidservant are of the same Kind, You ought to have been burned in Fire ten years ago.”

THE TENTH WITNESS
All this is confirmed by the witness Rasmus Jacobsen, who recounts that both he and his mother saw the gates to the backyard and the door to the street open that night.

THE ELEVENTH WITNESS
And Claus Nielsen, one of Niels Andersen’s servants, testifies that he, the same morning, saw the aforementioned goldsmith enter Niels Andersen’s living room in nothing but his shirt and bare legs with a drawn weapon in his hand, and strongly laments that Volborg Bødkers had him lie there, and that Volborg and her girl brought him with them to the Old Køge Cemetery at night, where they dug peat2 from under their feet, and said many words that he didn’t pay heed to; however, the young smith laments that they gave him a wretched night.

THE TWELFTH WITNESS
And now, Jens Olufsen Vognmand testifies, and merely adds that his earlier testimony stands true in this case as well.

THE THIRTEENTH WITNESS
Now Anne Sværdfegers testifies that Volborg Bødkers has been her neighbor for nine years, like one of Satan’s harpies, because once, she came to see Anne. Anne had two geese walking across the floor with their twenty-four gooselings and Volborg asked to borrow a sewing needle. Volborg said a Hail Mary while waving her hand over the gooselings and then said: “Oh, what little things have we here.” And soon after, when the very same goslings were put out to pasture, they disappeared, each and every one, such that Anne never saw them again. Furthermore, as Anne testifies, Volborg came to her house to trade a skilling for a few white plants and Anne walked with her into the garden to get the plants. But when Volborg entered Anne’s garden, she signed the Hail Mary three times with her hand over Anne’s herb garden, over the marjoram, thyme, and other herbs, which were all beautifully green and tall. And within eight days, all the herbs had been gobbled up by pests, leaving the soil entirely bare. And for this, she blames Volborg.

THE FOURTEENTH WITNESS
Now, Rasmus Ravn is testifying about the time Peder Karmager, the town cooper, had made a new tun for Søren Bødker on Nørrestræde. The cask was standing by the well in Søren’s yard and they measured that it could hold fourteen barrels of water. In the meantime, Søren’s wife3 came up from the cellar with a jug of beer, which she gave first to her husband, who took a drink and passed it to Peder, who took a drink and passed it to Rasmus, who took a drink and passed it to Anders Karmager. Suddenly, Peder Karmager fell into the cask, although no one had seen or knew how it happened. They quickly pulled him out of the tub because, otherwise, he would have drowned. And as soon as he came up from the cask, he pulled off his pants and ran out of Søren’s gate like a wild and wretched person and back home, where he put on a pair of pants and a clean shirt before returning to Søren’s living room to drink the remaining beer with the rest of them. And then, once more, he became so wretched in his head and ran off again, after which they didn’t see more of him that day.

THE FIFTEENTH WITNESS
Now Laurids Bødker testifies that he was there to help Peder out of the cask and Laurids swears that Peder, at that point, was not drunk.

THE SIXTEENTH WITNESS
Now Peder Karmager steps forward to testify. He was the one who commenced the trial by bringing accusations of witchcraft against Volborg and he is the key witness in the case. Peder accuses Volborg of being the cause of the ungodly torment and holy terror that he and his wife have been subjected to. The main reason Volborg should hold a grudge against them, Peder believes, has to do with him teaching his younger brother Laurids about the cooper business, the same profession Volborg’s husband makes his living from. Volborg managed to coax the boy away from Peder.4 But then Peder takes the brother back against her will. As a result, Volborg gets angry, goes to see Peder Karmager, quarrels with him in bad faith, and says that Peder will meet a devil’s accident and that he won’t be the better for it.

THE FIFTEENTH WITNESS, AGAIN
And Laurids, Peder’s younger brother, who, at that point, was also Peder’s neighbor, confirms all that has been said.

THE SEVENTEENTH WITNESS
Now Casper Hansen testifies about his father who bandaged up Peder Karmager’s wife, Anne. One day, his father was called to see her and she showed him a living thing in her thigh, running up and down like a piglet. One morning, Casper Hansen’s father returned to her house with a razor to slice a hole in her thigh, which he believed would improve her condition. But when he went to make the incision, the living thing scuttled up into Anne’s head, making her head go up and down, so a few women had to hold her head steady. And when Casper’s father returned to the house to bandage her up, she spat on him and then ripped the bandage off with a strange habit, and wouldn’t accept any salve for the wound.

THE EIGHTEENTH WITNESS
Now Daniel Hansen testifies that he was at Peder Karmager’s house and that Daniel’s wife had an experience there, of which he has a written account to be read aloud in court today.5

THE NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH WITNESSES
Now Thomas Bjørnsen and Mads Jensen testify that they too are regular visitors of Peder Karmager’s house and that they’ve seen and heard many strange words from the mouth of Peder Karmager’s wife along with strange and peculiar gesticulations. And whenever he6 is asked what kind of fellow he is, the answer comes from the woman’s mouth: My name is Lucifer, my lady Volborg Bødkers entered this person, so that I could torment her. And the voice, by their own accounts, kept speaking and told them that Volborg has punished Anne Karmager, so that Anne would not have any sustenance from her garden or elsewhere.

And that Volborg put him into an egg at night and buried him in Anne Karmager’s garden. And when Anne went to dig in the place the egg had been buried, so it was spoken from Anne’s mouth, and he rushed up and into her thigh at Volborg’s behest, and the voice said that Volborg was his in body and soul for all eternity. 

THE TWENTY-FIRST, TWENTY-SECOND, AND TWENTY-THIRD WITNESSES
Now Svend Kjeldsen, Christen Skrædder, and Peder Hugger testify that they too have been to Peder Karmager’s house and have seen and heard from Anne Peder Karmager’s mouth the words and strange gestures that Daniel Hansen has described.

THE TWENTY-FOURTH WITNESS
Now Jens Feldbereder testifies that he too can confirm these events have taken place in Peder Karmager’s house.

THE TWENTY-FIFTH WITNESS
Now Gregers Klejnsmed testifies that he too can confirm these events have taken place in Peder Karmager’s house and that he, moreover, has heard from Anne Peder Karmager’s mouth that the voice is called Lucifer and that Volborg Bødkers is his lady and that she has sworn herself to him so that she would always have enough silver and pennings. 

And Peder Karmager permits further testimony in this case, if necessary.

My rewriting of the court records from March 22, 1613, located in the ledgers containing the trial proceedings related to the Køge Holy Terror. I’ve used Anders Bæksted’s republication of the ledgers in Fra Københavns Amt—Aarbog udgivet af Historisk Samfund for Københavns Amt (1951). In Køge huskors, the same Bæksted cites directly from the court records in his footnotes, using the original orthography. When compared to the records from 1951, we can see that his account is likely a direct transcription of the ledgers but in Bæksted’s contemporary orthography.

2. In Danish, one uses the verb at grave (to dig or to bury) when collecting peat. So the description of these women “digging at night at the graveyard” carries a double meaning.

3. This must be Volborg.

4. My guess is that she convinces him to learn from her instead.

5. I haven’t been able to find this written account anywhere.

6. The “he” refers to whatever is moving inside her.

The frontispiece of the German translation of Køge huskors from 1696, in which Anna is seen praying in the foreground, circled by animalistic, devilish figures, rats, and her possessed children. In the opening of the door, her foster son Jacob is seen lifted as if crucified by a devil.

MARCH 22, 1613

The same day. I see them leave the town hall one by one, gathering in small clusters on the street; the air is cold but fresh, the sky very high, one or a few of them light a pipe; there are hushed voices, but there’s also a dizziness, like after a long day of sedentary work—fine motor skills and a clean brain, the intense concentration of the courtroom. Some of them head home while others are planning to go back in. Either because they have something to say or just to see what’ll happen next. Some of them have yet to play their part, perhaps they haven’t had the presence of mind to follow the movements of the witnesses’ mouths because a trembling inside about what was to come had stopped them. Domesticated dogs run between the people, their shirts, woven with nettles, linen; the aprons, children dart around; someone crunches a slender, pale vegetable between their teeth. Annike Christoffersdatter is collected from the cellar. She has been sitting there since January. It was Kirstine, Johanne’s maid, who first named Annike back in September, but now it’s March, and Kirstine was burned the same day she named Annike. Once Johanne broke, the rest was quick. She sat in the cellar for four months, on a hunger strike and fighting. But they got her in the end. Once Johanne confessed and named Kirstine—as well as Mette and Maren—it took only four days before Kirstine was sitting in the cellar and another twenty-two days before she was burned. And she had the chance to name Annike.

At first, it was someone else, Johanne’s relative, Laurids Prammand, who had helped Kirstine, whose one leg was paralyzed, to urinate in the church’s baptismal font, and she said in court that he had helped her up. That Maren of Ringsbjerg, along with Johanne, had promised that Kirstine’s paralysis would disappear if she urinated into the baptismal font in the church. But nothing happened and her leg kept limping, and at first, Kirstine came forward one day and said that Laurids had helped her because the font was too tall and too difficult to get her legs around, but then she came forward the next day, if possible, even more dispirited and gray, if possible, with an even greater look of delusion in her dead eyes, and said that no, it wasn’t actually Laurids, she had misremembered, it was Annike. And now, Annike is being brought up from the cellar beneath the town hall where she has sat for thirty days. And she is accused of having helped the others lead evil into the house of Hans Bartskiær, with having carried the rat, the rat Satan, from the stream up to Anna and Hans’s house, where the strange things with the children happened. And that it was this: the rat, from the stream which supposedly set everything in motion. And now Annike is being brought up from the cellar, her hands tied behind her back; dirt scrapes between the cobblestones from the toes of shoes; a pipe is emptied, someone rubs a chin, a face squints at the sun; it’s almost noon, the sun is high, as high as it gets in March; the birds are audible, the wheel of the year is turning, bell by bell it falls forward and around like wood-carved pieces in a game, in an endless clockwork. Not endless because it’s eternal but because it’s biting its own tail. And when Mette Banghors confessed and confirmed that Johanne was a witch and said that Boel Peders was too, she also gave up Kirsten Polsagtig and Birgitte, and then Annike. And a few weeks later, Mette has been sitting in the cellar for a little over three months now, and she’s being brought up (but that was in November, now it’s March, and Annike is being brought up from the cellar too, as she’s being raised from the obliterating waters of a cellar well, and their eyes are squinting at the light and faces) and Mette singles out Annike again and now Volborg too, and twenty-one days later, Mette is declared guilty of witchcraft and she confesses to everything but retracts her accusation of Volborg. But not her accusation of Annike. And a week later, Mette changes her story again: previously, she’s mentioned Mette Navns and Kirstine Krielles, but they’re not actually witches, but Volborg is, and Annike is, and they’re the ones being persecuted today, and the day Mette said all this was the seventh of December, but now it’s March, that day, she was burned and disappeared, no grave, only the ashes floating over the town and nestling between brown stalks in the vegetable gardens; the evergreens sheltered the ash among its leaves. I don’t know when Annike was put in jail but I do know that the accusation against her was brought forward on January 22, so it was likely around then they brought her in. Now we’ll see whom Annike knows; now, she’s coming, now, she’s being escorted in, now she’s being brought into the courtroom, and people who have been waiting around, getting a breath of air and a smoke, file in after her. I wonder whether she had children, which she probably did, and about where those children were and what those children saw.

MARCH 22, 1613

WHAT
The trial of Annike Christoffersdatter continues in the Køge Town Court.

THE AGGRIEVED
Unknown

THE ACCUSED
Annike Christoffersdatter

THE ACCUSATION
Witchcraft and participation in leading evil to the house of Hans Bartskiær.

WHO
Annike Christoffersdatter, Peder Holtug (on his wife’s behalf), Oluf Rokkemager (on his wife’s behalf), Karen Eriks, Kirsten Væverkvinde, the town magistrate (on the behalf of His Royal Majesty) and Mads Jensen (serving as judge). Annike Christoffersen, by all accounts, was imprisoned back in February. Now, she is appearing before the Køge Town Court, where she confirms what she has previously confessed to outside the court regarding herself as well as Else Holtug, Birgitte Rokkemager, Karen Eriks, and Kirsten Væverkvinde. That her confession took place outside the court likely means that she confessed under interrogation.

Her confession is read aloud but there’s no record of the confession to be found.

 

Translated from the Danish by Sherilyn Nicolette Hellberg. 

Olga Ravn is a prize-winning Danish novelist and poet. Her novel The Employees was shortlisted for the Booker Prize in 2021 and has been published in twenty languages. A version of this piece, which is part of an ongoing project, was commissioned for the exhibition Hummings (2021), curated by Fulya Erdemci and Ulrikke Neergaard for the KØS Museum of Art in Public Spaces.

Sherilyn Nicolette Hellberg is a writer and literary translator. Her translation of Jonas Eika’s After the Sun is longlisted for this year’s International Booker Prize.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 16, 2022 11:35

March 15, 2022

Announcing Our Spring Issue

Five days before the Spring issue went to press, I found myself perched on a sofa in the Review’s Chelsea office, listening as Jamaica Kincaid and Darryl Pinckney put the finishing touches on a conversation they’d begun eight years earlier. By then, my colleagues and I had pored over hundreds of pages of transcripts for Kincaid’s Art of Fiction interview, and yet, that Monday afternoon, as the two writers went back over the stories she’d told him about her childhood on Antigua, her adventures as a young journalist in seventies New York, and her life as a writer, new details kept emerging. She was a backup singer in Holly Woodlawn’s band before being replaced by Debbie Harry? She drafted Annie John out loud in the bath while pregnant with her first child?

JAMAICA KINCAID AND DARRYL PINCKNEY IN THE PARIS REVIEW OFFICES. PHOTOGRAPH BY STEPHANIE BLACK.

Among the greatest pleasures of the Review’s Writers at Work series is the opportunity to eavesdrop on a revered author speaking intimately—on a conversation that feels at once spontaneous and timeless. We experienced a similar pleasure while first reading many of the pieces that appear in the Spring issue. The manic highs and lows of an all-consuming sexual affair, recorded by Annie Ernaux in a diary she would later use to compose Simple Passion. Jane Gardam’s hard-won sense, confided to Sadie Stein, of the importance of comfort and happiness to literature. Ordinary household objects made luminous in Ishion Hutchinson’s elegy for his grandmother and her home by the sea in Portland, Jamaica. The accidental uncovering, in a scene from Will Arbery’s play Corsicana, of a painful, long-repressed teenage memory. A glimpse into the private world of a middle-aged woman scraping by in northeastern Texas. A love scene told in the language of an IKEA instruction manual.

The cover image, by Andrew Cranston, a favorite of our art director, Na Kim, was painted on a hardback book especially for the Review. For me, it captures something about this strange season we are in, when hope feels almost painful. “Spring like a gun to the head,” Dorothea Lasky writes in one of three poems she contributed to the issue. “Green how I want you.”

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 15, 2022 09:30

Redux: Vulnerable to an Epiphany

Every week, the editors of The Paris Review lift the paywall on a selection of interviews, stories, poems, and more from the magazine’s archive. You can have these unlocked pieces delivered straight to your inbox every Sunday by signing up for the Redux newsletter.

Each year, the Plimpton Prize for Fiction celebrates the work of an exceptional new writer appearing in the Review. In honor of this year’s winner, Chetna Maroo, we’re lifting the paywall on four previous recipients of the award, from the very first—Marcia Guthridge, for her story “Bones,” from issue no. 128 (Fall 1993)—to last year’s, Eloghosa Osunde, for “Good Boy,” from issue no. 234 (Fall 2020).

If you enjoy these free stories, why not subscribe to The Paris Review? You’ll get four new issues of the quarterly delivered straight to your door.

PROSE
Bones
Marcia Guthridge

It is clear now that things were not quite normal with me. I was vulnerable to an epiphany. I needed a place to stand.

From issue no. 128 (Fall 1993)

PROSE
Immortality
Yiyun Li

Decades later, movie stars will be the most studied faces among the pregnant mothers. But at this time, the dictator is the only superstar in the media, so the mother has been gazing at the dictator’s face for ten months before the baby’s birth.

From issue no. 167 (Fall 2003)

PROSE
The Early Deaths of Lubeck, Brennan, Harp, and Carr
Jesse Ball

—I saw a swan maul a child once, said Carr. The child had to be removed. To the hospital, I mean. The swan was beaten to death with a stick.

Jane covered the cygnet’s ears. You’ll have to imagine for yourself what that looked like. I don’t really know where a bird’s ears are.

From issue no. 183 (Winter 2007)

PROSE
Good Boy
Eloghosa Osunde

I’ve always had a problem with introductions. To me, they don’t matter. It’s either you know me or you don’t—you get? If you don’t, the main thing you need to know is that I am a hustler through and through. I’m that guy that gets shit done.

From issue no. 234 (Fall 2020)

If you enjoyed the above, don’t forget to subscribe! In addition to four print issues per year, you’ll also receive complete digital access to our sixty-nine years’ worth of archives.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 15, 2022 08:44

March 10, 2022

Do Not Et Cetera

DIY miniature dollhouse, licensed under CC BY SA 4.0.

“Living in America during the Reagan years had the same disorientation as a texture dream,” writes David Wojnarowicz in Close to the Knives, “that sense you get at times lying with your face against the sheets with your eye open, millimeters away from the microscopic weave of the linen, and suddenly your body freezes up and your eye is locked into the universe of textures and threads and weaves, and for an extended moment you can’t shake yourself from the hallucination.” The political subterfuge of the Reagan years is the subject, too, of Maxe Crandall’s recent poem-novel, The Nancy Reagan Collection. Published by Futurepoem in 2020, it’s a mercurial archive of the Reagans’ silence on AIDS and the era’s innumerable other devastating failures, among them Iran-Contra and the expansion of the war on drugs. In high-camp imagined encounters with Nancy Reagan, Crandall deftly traces the era’s iconography of concealment—Nancy in her immutable trademark red, her high-necked collar, her tartan blazer, her little nautical blouse, her gloves—as he lists the names of friends and public figures dead from AIDS and its complications. Grief and rage churn at the center of these encounters, each of them shaped by speculative archival work and a biting queer sensibility. It’s a beautifully inventive experiment in historiography and a reminder of the enduring political aesthetics of obfuscation and silence: the particular politeness that meets with mass death. And like everything Futurepoem puts out, as an object it’s gorgeous—bright red, impossible to miss. —Oriana Ullman 

I am going through a lot of changes in my life, all at once, and as usual I am trying to resolve this by imposing haphazard measures of discipline. Ordered mornings are tantalizing—alarm clock, reading, running, shower, skincare, dressing in the kind of clothes I don’t even own to catch a train into the city. I am always trying and failing to establish different versions of such a routine, and by the end of the day it normally breaks down altogether. But there is one thing I have been doing most days for the last few weeks, since I have moved at least temporarily into a little attic room that overlooks the highway and has nothing on the walls. In the morning, I’ve been reading a few pages of John Cheever’s journals while I drink my little coffee; this feels virtuous and luxurious, because it is pointless but I love the prose. 

I first read an excerpt from these journals in college, before I’d read anything else by Cheever, and now that I have I can say with certainty that the journals are leagues better than the stories, a whole different category of thing. The critic Dustin Illingworth wrote that the journals center on the themes of “God, sex, guilt, and nature” and “manage to instill genteel ennui with the anguished moral passion of a Russian novel.” They are sort of lush, pastoral, romantic, rough, and full of gestural lists: “The calendar of flowers, gin bottles, steak bones.” There are philosophical declarations—“When the beginnings of self-destruction enter the heart it seems no bigger than a grain of sand”—and there are self-admonishments and resolutions—“Do not drink. Do not et cetera et cetera.” It is strange, maybe, to be trying to create some order in my life by reading the thoughts of someone who was consistently failing to do the same. But I have been sticking to it anyway, underlining the good parts and sometimes coming back to them: “The little boy, running barefoot over ash heaps, the warm ash heaps in the cool evening, as we used to do. Thought of last year’s passionate autumns where love obscured the crack in the ceiling and the dust under the bed and how this terminated in spitefulness and bewilderment. But these are not the things that will kill us.” —Sophie Haigney

Hardcore punk is not my genre. However, it’s a staple in our flat, and I regularly come home to the blistering shockwave that is Minor Threat or 7 Seconds. I don’t seek it out, and I don’t mind (some of) it. But I’m mesmerized by the Baltimore band Turnstile’s NPR Tiny Desk Concert, recorded in the drummer’s basement during the COVID pandemic. I think it’s their primal rhythm—everything starts with the rhythm—the infectious playfulness of the performance, and the music itself. Because Turnstile reimagined their songs for the stripped-down setting of a Tiny Desk Concert, there’s a powerfully restrained energy in every beat. I have the feeling that this is a band not afraid of anything: they let in whatever they want, and when they do, they mean it—whether it’s swimming guitar riffs, soul-inspired sounds, a thirteen-second bridge with handclaps all the way through, or the hundreds of stuffed toys surrounding them in lieu of a mosh pit. Turnstile’s Tiny Desk Concert is seventeen minutes of joy. —Chetna Maroo 

Chetna Maroo is the winner of the Review’s 2022 Plimpton Prize. You can read more about this year’s prize here

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 10, 2022 09:40

The Review’s Review: Do Not Et Cetera

DIY miniature dollhouse, licensed under CC BY SA 4.0.

“Living in America during the Reagan years had the same disorientation as a texture dream,” writes David Wojnarowicz in Close to the Knives, “that sense you get at times lying with your face against the sheets with your eye open, millimeters away from the microscopic weave of the linen, and suddenly your body freezes up and your eye is locked into the universe of textures and threads and weaves, and for an extended moment you can’t shake yourself from the hallucination.” The political subterfuge of the Reagan years is the subject, too, of Maxe Crandall’s recent poem-novel, The Nancy Reagan Collection. Published by Futurepoem in 2020, it’s a mercurial archive of the Reagans’ silence on AIDS and the era’s innumerable other devastating failures, among them Iran-Contra and the expansion of the war on drugs. In high-camp imagined encounters with Nancy Reagan, Crandall deftly traces the era’s iconography of concealment—Nancy in her immutable trademark red, her high-necked collar, her tartan blazer, her little nautical blouse, her gloves—as he lists the names of friends and public figures dead from AIDS and its complications. Grief and rage churn at the center of these encounters, each of them shaped by speculative archival work and a biting queer sensibility. It’s a beautifully inventive experiment in historiography and a reminder of the enduring political aesthetics of obfuscation and silence: the particular politeness that meets with mass death. And like everything Futurepoem puts out, as an object it’s gorgeous—bright red, impossible to miss. —Oriana Ullman 

I am going through a lot of changes in my life, all at once, and as usual I am trying to resolve this by imposing haphazard measures of discipline. Ordered mornings are tantalizing—alarm clock, reading, running, shower, skincare, dressing in the kind of clothes I don’t even own to catch a train into the city. I am always trying and failing to establish different versions of such a routine, and by the end of the day it normally breaks down altogether. But there is one thing I have been doing most days for the last few weeks, since I have moved at least temporarily into a little attic room that overlooks the highway and has nothing on the walls. In the morning, I’ve been reading a few pages of John Cheever’s journals while I drink my little coffee; this feels virtuous and luxurious, because it is pointless but I love the prose. 

I first read an excerpt from these journals in college, before I’d read anything else by Cheever, and now that I have I can say with certainty that the journals are leagues better than the stories, a whole different category of thing. The critic Dustin Illingworth wrote that the journals center on the themes of “God, sex, guilt, and nature” and “manage to instill genteel ennui with the anguished moral passion of a Russian novel.” They are sort of lush, pastoral, romantic, rough, and full of gestural lists: “The calendar of flowers, gin bottles, steak bones.” There are philosophical declarations—“When the beginnings of self-destruction enter the heart it seems no bigger than a grain of sand”—and there are self-admonishments and resolutions—“Do not drink. Do not et cetera et cetera.” It is strange, maybe, to be trying to create some order in my life by reading the thoughts of someone who was consistently failing to do the same. But I have been sticking to it anyway, underlining the good parts and sometimes coming back to them: “The little boy, running barefoot over ash heaps, the warm ash heaps in the cool evening, as we used to do. Thought of last year’s passionate autumns where love obscured the crack in the ceiling and the dust under the bed and how this terminated in spitefulness and bewilderment. But these are not the things that will kill us.” —Sophie Haigney

Hardcore punk is not my genre. However, it’s a staple in our flat, and I regularly come home to the blistering shockwave that is Minor Threat or 7 Seconds. I don’t seek it out, and I don’t mind (some of) it. But I’m mesmerized by the Baltimore band Turnstile’s NPR Tiny Desk Concert, recorded in the drummer’s basement during the COVID pandemic. I think it’s their primal rhythm—everything starts with the rhythm—the infectious playfulness of the performance, and the music itself. Because Turnstile reimagined their songs for the stripped-down setting of a Tiny Desk Concert, there’s a powerfully restrained energy in every beat. I have the feeling that this is a band not afraid of anything: they let in whatever they want, and when they do, they mean it—whether it’s swimming guitar riffs, soul-inspired sounds, a thirteen-second bridge with handclaps all the way through, or the hundreds of stuffed toys surrounding them in lieu of a mosh pit. Turnstile’s Tiny Desk Concert is seventeen minutes of joy. —Chetna Maroo 

Chetna Maroo is the winner of the Review’s 2022 Plimpton Prize. You can read more about this year’s prize here

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 10, 2022 09:40

Cooking with Dorothy Sayers

Photograph by Erica Maclean.

Dorothy Sayers’s Strong Poison opens with a description of a man’s last meal before death. The deceased, Philip Boyes, was a writer with “advanced” ideas, dining at the home of his wealthy great-nephew, Norman Urquhart, a lawyer. A judge tells a jury what he ate: the meal starts with a glass of 1847 oloroso “by way of cocktail,” followed by a cup of cold bouillon—“very strong, good soup, set to a clear jelly”—then turbot with sauce, poulet en casserole, and finally a sweet omelet stuffed with jam and prepared tableside. The point of the description is to show that Boyes couldn’t have been poisoned, since every dish was shared, with the exception of a bottle of Burgundy (Corton), which he drank alone. The judge’s oration is another strike against the accused, a bohemian mystery novelist named Harriet Vane, who saw Boyes on the night he died, and had both motive and opportunity to poison him. Looking on from the audience, the famous amateur detective Lord Peter Wimsey writhes in misery; he believes Harriet Vane is innocent, and he has fallen suddenly and completely in love with her. 

Strong Poison was published in 1930, but the meal at Norman Urquhart’s was rooted in the Victorian era, serving a fish dish prior to a poultry dish. Photograph by Erica Maclean.

The moment is one of great significance for fans of Sayers’s work. The eleven Wimsey books, published between 1923 and 1937, hinge on the romance between Wimsey and Vane, which percolates through several novels following Strong Poison, and culminates in Gaudy Night and Busman’s Honeymoon. For me, though, it’s the menu that’s more intriguing: cold Jell-O soup, followed by sauce-smothered fish, soggy-skinned chicken, and eggs with jam? Even if you account for changing tastes, this meal is a pungent reminder that Dorothy Sayers was having a joke. Urquhart is smugly respectable, and the stuffy and unappetizing menu illustrates his stodgy Victorian-era tastes. Moreover, it reminds us that Wimsey began as a satire—a bumbling Bertie Wooster who detects things—dreamed up a time when Sayers desperately needed the money. The books were potboilers, and the upper-class milieus, four-course dinners, mannered menservants, literary quotations, and aged wines were played for winks and kicks. When Sayers’s financial situation stabilized, she moved on to work she considered more important: writing a series of religious plays, penning original theology, and translating Dante.

And yet, the books have endured, despite their many flaws, and I’ve read and reread the entire run every few years since first discovering them in high school, including the wonderful one about the church bells and the boring one about the artists’ colony in Scotland. The biographer James Brabazon suggests that their true appeal was the pleasure of spending time in Sayers’s company. She was the daughter of a rector, born in Oxford, and a member of its first female graduating class. Her erudition informs her plots, and Peter’s silly, quotation-laden verbal style has delighted readers for generations. When Harriet, declining Peter’s proposal of marriage, tells him that “if anybody ever marries you, it will be for the pleasure of hearing you talk piffle,” the reader understands. Sayers’s books are also credited with being the first feminist detective stories, and she also worked in advertising as a woman in the twenties, wore gender-bending three-piece suits, and expressed a frank sexuality. Brabazon writes that her work has been so successful because it “communicat[es] her energy, her amusement, her intelligence, her love of writing, her enthusiasm, her sense of fun.” I refined that theory when I read—at long last—the work Sayers did take seriously: her theology and her translation of Dante. How I’d never done this before is the true mystery.  

A character calls Sayers’s sleuth “a chattering icicle in an eyeglass,” but Wimsey warms the reader’s heart while investigating this chicken dish in order to free Harriet Vane. Photograph by Erica Maclean.

Sayers’s theological volume The Mind of the Maker examines what we can learn about God the Creator from observing the practice of human creators—artists. I began skeptically, but was delighted by how original the premise was. I also read two volumes of the Dante translation, still in print from Penguin Classics, and was captivated by Sayers’s notes, which make the rings of hell and levels of purgatory morally and spiritually comprehensible to the modern reader. Even more impressive, in a feat few other translators have dared, she preserved Dante’s rhyme scheme. Familiarity with these works brought my conception of Sayers in line with her self-conception: a writer who was primarily a moral philosopher.

This new understanding of her work brought into focus the aspect of the Wimsey books that I believe has been central to my enjoyment of them. After the courtroom scene, Peter bursts into the visiting room at the jail to propose to Harriet, and she turns him down. She does so because he holds all the cards, because he’s saving her life. In this way, beginning with Strong Poison, Sayers interrogates the idea of marriage and partnership, and insists that it should be a union of equals. Harriet cannot marry Peter while she is dependent on him, nor while she in his debt and humiliated by her trial. The couple struggles to attain equal footing for several books, and when they finally unite they have established each partner’s self-respect and answered all the hard questions, about money and children, individuality and work. The thrill of the love affair, for me, lies in the moral philosophy. It may not have been Sayers’s intention to create this effect—by all accounts the characters’ deepening humanity and increasingly sophisticated struggle was an accidental byproduct of the author becoming better at her craft—but it has kept readers engaged with Wimsey for a century. 

Adding whipped egg whites to a yolk and sugar mixture should produce a light and fluffy sweet omelet. Photograph by Erica Maclean.

Sayers transcended her genre, so I hoped she would also transcend her satirical murder menu and that together we would make a good meal. I set out to make the four-course dinner from Strong Poison, staying true to the letter of the recipes while making adjustments to suit my palate. The soup “set to a clear jelly” sounded like the worst of it, so I made no attempt to season it blandly, as an English cook in the twenties probably would have. Instead I thought of a collagen-rich broth made from a Chinese recipe, with chicken feet infused with the flavor of peanuts and red dates. The fish course in the novel was turbot, a flatfish whose flesh is a delicacy. I bought flounder, which is less expensive, poached it in milk, and served it with hollandaise, following a recipe from Alain Ducasse. This seemed appropriate, since the next course was also French-influenced: a poulet en casserole.  The term can refer to any kind of chicken cooked in a pot, with vegetables. I found one à la Normande with bacon and apples, braised in apple cider. It was seasoned with garlic, which would have been considered risqué in twenties England, but I wanted my dish to have lots of flavor. The internet had plentiful recipes for sweet omelets, which are about as simple as they sound (an omelet, just add sugar).

The wine in the book is a Grand Cru, a designation for wines from the most elite subregions. Ours is from Aloxe-Corton, a village adjacent to Corton. Photograph by Erica Maclean.

Dorothy Sayers was said to enjoy both food and drink in great quantities. And her characters do as well. Wimsey is a wine connoisseur, and this was the first time I’d reread the series since becoming interested in wine myself. Even prior to rereading, I recalled several pivotal moments involving wines—a short story in which Wimsey proves his identity against two imposter Wimseys through duel of palates, and the scandal provoked when Mrs. Ruddle washes the bottles of Cockburn ’96 port in Busman’s Honeymoon. Analysis performed with Hank Zona, my spirits consultant, revealed that Sayers was having her fun with wines too. Wimsey’s ports and clarets and brandies and Sauternes and Burgundies were the best of his day, and most are still being made in ours. Some of the specific vintages mentioned are even available today as collectors’ items: a bottle of the Cockburn port from 1896 sold for $734 online as recently as 2018. To buy the wine from Harriet Vane’s honeymoon would have been a true fan moment, but instead I asked Hank to source the elite wines from the meal from Strong Poison—an oloroso sherry and a Corton Burgundy—in versions I could afford. The ones he found are made in traditional styles and have excellent value for their price point. The sherry was especially close to the one from 1847 that kicked off the meal at Norman Urquhart’s. It came from Fernando de Castilla, a sherry house founded in the 1830s, and is made in “antique” style, meaning unblended, longer aged, and more fortified. 

This beautiful oloroso sherry has notes of treacle, warm dates, and powdered ginger. Photograph by Erica Maclean.

But was the meal from Strong Poison poisoned? And if so, how? The plot hangs on this, and I won’t give it away (though there is a little clue here somewhere). I drank my sherry and ate my four protein dishes, as instructed, paired with a red Burgundy. As expected, neither the poisonously sweet omelet dessert nor the jellied soup were to my tastes, but both French recipes were delicious and the meal had a certain old-fashioned elegance. The soup was wonderful when warm; simmering the chicken feet with peanuts and dried fruit made the broth salty, savory, nutty and sweet. For the fish, I loved Alain Ducasse’s suggestion to poach fillets in aromatic-infused milk. The results were so delicate and flavorful they hardly needed the hollandaise sauce. And since my chicken was slow-cooked in hard cider with bacon and cream, it really couldn’t taste bad. I’d recommend only the addition of a crusty baguette to soak up the juices. The omelet for dessert smelled delicious, but was rubbery and flat by the time I ate it, proving the judge’s commentary in the novel that it’s best to prepare an omelet “at the table in a chafing dish” and never allow it to stand or it will get tough. The Burgundy, from Edmond Cornu & Fils in Aloxe-Corton, was the best bottle of wine I’ve tried since I began exploring wine. It had the notes of cherries, raspberries, and earthiness that are characteristic of Pinot Noir, and its bright, lingering presence on my palate reminded me that Sayers considered France and sensuality synonymous. After all, as we find out in Busman’s Honeymoon, Peter Wimsey speaks French in bed—a detail, like all the rest, that is satirical and romantic in just the right measure. 

Photograph by Erica Maclean.

Strong Bouillon 

Adapted from a recipe on the Wok & Kim blog. 

6 cups water 
8 good-quality chicken feet 
1 clove garlic, crushed
1 chunk ginger
1 tbsp unsalted peanuts
4 Chinese red dates
1 tsp salt 

Photograph by Erica Maclean.

First, preboil the chicken feet. Place them in a medium saucepan, cover generously with water, and bring to a boil. Turn off the heat and drain. Rinse the pot. Return the feet to the pot, and add the six cups water, garlic, ginger, and salt. Bring to a boil, then turn the heat down to low. Simmer for six hours, adding water as necessary. Turn off the heat and allow the mixture to cool. Strain the broth, discarding the solids. Pour into individual ramekins and chill overnight. Serve cold.

Photograph by Erica Maclean.

Poached Flounder with Hollandaise Sauce 

Adapted from a recipe by Alain Ducasse. 

2 fillets of turbot, porgy, or other flatfish, about 1 lb 
1 ¼ cups of milk
1 sprig thyme
1 clove garlic
1 bay leaf 
salt 
2 black peppercorns 
pepper 
7 oz butter, melted 
3 egg yolks 
½ lemon 
Salt 

Photograph by Erica Maclean.

Bring the milk to a boil in a medium saucepan. Add the thyme, garlic, bay leaf, salt, and peppercorns and simmer for twenty minutes, to allow the aromatics to infuse into the milk. Remove the aromatics with a skimmer, then gently lower the fish into the milk. Cook for ten minutes. 

To make the hollandaise sauce, combine the egg yolks with a little bit of water in a small pot over very low heat. Whisk continuously until the mixture is pale yellow and fluffy, and has a ribbonlike consistency when drizzled off the whisk. Slowly whisk in the melted butter, then the lemon juice. Season with salt and pepper to taste. 

Photograph by Erica Maclean.

Poulet en Casserole 

Adapted from a recipe on the Vikalinka blog. 

1 tbsp olive oil
2 lbs chicken thighs and legs, well seasoned with salt and pepper
4 shallots, diced
1 rib celery, diced 
4–5 thyme sprigs
2 cloves garlic, minced
6 strips bacon, chopped
2 tbsp brandy or whiskey
2 tbsp flour
⅓ cup chicken stock
1 ½ cups hard, dry, apple cider
2 apples, cored and cut into wedges 
½ cup heavy cream 

Photograph by Erica Maclean.

Preheat the oven to 350°F. 

In a large casserole dish, brown the chicken parts in one tablespoon of oil over medium-high heat until golden. Remove and set aside. Reserve the chicken fat. Add the bacon to the dish and fry over medium heat until crisp, then remove and reserve. If the bacon released a lot of fat, discard that as well. To the same pan, add the shallot, celery, and two sprigs of thyme and cook until soft but not colored, for five to seven minutes. Add the garlic and cook thirty seconds longer, while stirring. 

Deglaze the pan with some brandy and stir, scraping up any browned bits from the bottom. Add the flour and stir until it’s combined with the fat and turns into a paste, then slowly add the chicken stock and stir until the mixture resembles a thick gravy, then pour in the apple cider and stir to combine. Return the chicken and bacon to the dish, along with three more sprigs of thyme, and bring to a boil.  

Cover, place in the preheated oven, and cook for thirty minutes. Uncover and cook for thirty minutes more. While the chicken is in the oven, fry the apple wedges in two tablespoons of the reserved chicken fat. Do not let them burn. 

Take the casserole out of the oven, add the heavy cream, and cook for twenty minutes more. Taste and adjust seasonings for salt and pepper. Stir in the fried apple wedges just before serving. 

Photograph by Erica Maclean.

Sweet Omelet with Jam 

2 eggs
2 teaspoons sugar
½ tsp vanilla
2 tsp butter 
Jam to serve 

Separate one of the eggs and whisk the white until it holds soft peaks. In another bowl, whisk together the sugar, vanilla, remaining egg, and remaining egg yolk. Gently fold in the whisked white.

Melt the butter in a nonstick skillet over medium heat. Add the egg mixture and fry until set on the bottom and firm enough to hold its shape. Flip and finish cooking. Spread the jam on one half of the omelet, fold over, and serve immediately.   

Photograph by Erica Maclean.

Valerie Stivers is a writer based in New York. Read earlier installments of Eat Your Words.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 10, 2022 08:00

March 9, 2022

Chetna Maroo Wins This Year’s Plimpton Prize

Photograph by Graeme Jackson.

We are thrilled to announce that Chetna Maroo has won the 2022 Plimpton Prize for Fiction, which will be presented at our Spring Revel in April. The prize, awarded annually since 1993 by the editorial committee of The Paris Review’s board of directors, celebrates an outstanding piece of fiction by an emerging writer published in the Review during the preceding year. Previous winners include Ottessa Moshfegh, Emma Cline, and Atticus Lish. 

Maroo’s deft, affecting “Brothers and Sisters” appeared in our Winter 2021 issue. “At first glance,” as the Review’s publisher, Mona Simpson, says, “it looks like a traditional story, told traditionally, in stately English, but without the usual conventions of context. All of Maroo’s innovations come by way of implication. A girl named Oma goes on a school trip while her family prepares five nights of wedding festivities for her twenty-two-year-old sister. On the train, a boy named Daniel, who spends Saturdays passing out religious literature by the station, points to a scene outside the window: a man skating awkwardly on a pond. Daniel and Oma begin to question their beliefs in the religions they’ve inherited, while forming a delicate relationship.” Maroo pays attention to the small torments, affinities, and shifts in mood that are rarely expressed out loud. As she writes in the opening scene, when Oma’s older sister tells her younger siblings that their turn will come to grow up and get married, “since it was impossible for the sisters to imagine themselves at twenty-two without a vague, unsettling sense of their own absence, they each turned away and occupied themselves with other thoughts.”

Maroo, a British Indian writer born in Kenya, lives in London and worked until recently as an accountant. Her stories have appeared in anthologies and literary magazines including the Stinging Fly and the Cincinnati Review, and her first novel, Western Lane, will be published in 2023 by Picador (UK), Farrar, Straus and Giroux (U.S.), and Knopf (Canada). 

We very much look forward to toasting Chetna Maroo and Jamaica Kincaid, this year’s recipient of the Hadada Award, at Cipriani 42nd Street in New York on April 12. This will be the first Revel since 2019, and tickets are still available—won’t you join us?

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 09, 2022 10:51

March 8, 2022

Redux: Of Continuous Change

Every week, the editors of The Paris Review lift the paywall on a selection of interviews, stories, poems, and more from the magazine’s archive. You can have these unlocked pieces delivered straight to your inbox every Sunday by signing up for the Redux newsletter.

ELIAS KHOURY, IN 2007. 

Elias Khoury began his 2017 Art of Fiction interview with the wry observation that “American reviewers read Arabic literature as if they’re reading the newspaper.” This week, we’re thinking—as we stare, helpless and sore-eyed, at our feeds—about the relationship between journalism and literature, and how artists, writers, and readers might respond to the news. Alongside Khoury’s interview, we revisit a short story by Stephen Minot, a Patricia Smith poem, and a portfolio of works from Peter and Annette Nobel’s collection of “press art.”

If you enjoy these free interviews, stories, poems, and portfolios, why not subscribe to The Paris Review? You’ll get four new issues of the quarterly delivered straight to your door.

INTERVIEW
The Art of Fiction No. 233
Elias Khoury

INTERVIEWER

How do you continue to write novels when every day seems to bring news of some new atrocity or human calamity in your backyard?

KHOURY

I’ve lived my life under a state of near permanent war. I was born in 1948 and have vivid memories of the “small” civil war of 1958. The defeat of 1967 brought me to political consciousness. And I began writing novels during the first years of our major civil war. I try not to write about war, but to write from within it. One has to write through these calamities and atrocities. I think it’s good practice—for writing and for living—but it isn’t ever easy.

From issue no. 220 (Spring 2017)

YOUSHEN WANG, NEWSPAPER (WASHING SERIES) (DETAIL), 1993/2007, COLOR PHOTOGRAPH AND WATER, 46 ½” X 30 ⅔”.

PROSE
Reading the News—Keeping Informed
Stephen Minot

We vary in our sources, but we all keep up on current events. That’s something we share. We and our wives are conversant with every major development. We read and we discuss. We vary in our political persuasions just as we do in taste—some cautious, some tending toward the flamboyant, like reading the Manchester Guardian, overseas edition. But being informed is something we all share. It’s a moral obligation with us.

From issue no. 72 (Winter 1977)

TOMI UNGERER, UNTITLED, CA. 1960, NEWSPAPER, INK, AND GOUACHE ON PAPER, 12 ⅛” X 9 1/16″.

POETRY
Always in the Head
Patricia Smith

There are times I hate being a reporter.
I am afraid of the stories.
The voices are too real, the colors too strong.
I rewind the tape, open another computer file,
hear my son yell good-bye
and slam the door on his way out.
I run to the window. Yes, his head is covered.

From issue no. 124 (Fall 1992)

DANIELA KEISER BOTANIK (DETAILS), 2012, COLOR PHOTOGRAPH ON ALUMINUM, 7″ X 10 ½”.

ART
Press Art
Peter Nobel

The nineteenth century saw a number of artworks in which people read news­papers to themselves or, supposedly out loud, to a small audience, sometimes a family. Then the Cubists—Picasso, Braque, Juan Gris—started collaging daily newspapers into their works. These artists undertook a new style of painting, one that would explore synthetic abstraction and, equally, society’s relationship with technology. They took the newspaper as an advanced technical means of modernity and an expression of continuous change: news of the day—every day.

If you enjoyed the above, don’t forget to subscribe! In addition to four print issues per year, you’ll also receive complete digital access to our sixty-eight years’ worth of archives. 

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 08, 2022 09:50

Re-Covered: Edith Templeton

In Re-Covered, Lucy Scholes exhumes the out-of-print and forgotten books that shouldn’t be.

Photograph by Lucy Scholes.

“You are so exquisitely made,” the American Major in Edith Templeton’s 1968 short story “The Darts of Cupid” tells the object of his desire, “I could break every bone in your body.” This predation is unsettling, as is the completeness with which Eve, the young woman who’s being seduced, embraces the role of submissive victim. Entwined in her new lover’s arms, she’s reminded of a Japanese print she once saw, in which a naked female corpse, floating in the sea, is penetrated by the many tentacles of a large octopus. Her physical and emotional surrender is similarly all-encompassing: “I knew that this was the rendering of love as it should be: trapped inescapably, secure and fastened, drowned in bed and water, both cradle and grave.”

Such sexually explicit content became what Templeton was best known for during her lifetime—a reputation made yet more notorious due to the fact that she drew direct inspiration from her own illicit trysts. She was born into a wealthy upper-class family in Prague in 1916, and raised in a world of sophistication, civility, and gentility: this social milieu would have been shocked by such self-exposing erotica. Edith Passerová, as she was then, met her first husband, the Englishman William Stockwell Templeton, when she was only seventeen. They married five years later, in 1938, and lived in England. The union quickly disintegrated, but rather than return home to what by that point was a war-torn Europe, Templeton remained in Britain after their separation. She initially took a job with the American War Office, during which time she had the brief fling described in “The Darts of Cupid.” The story’s candid, violently charged eroticism caused a stir when it was first published in The New Yorker, but even its level of graphic sexual detail paled in comparison to that of Templeton’s most famous novel.

Gordon, which was originally published—though not under her own name—two years earlier, in 1966, is set in London shortly after the end of the Second World War, and fictionalizes Templeton’s own fleeting but seminal sadomasochistic affair with a Scottish psychiatrist twenty years her senior in the mid-forties. Less than an hour after they first meet, in a pub in Mayfair, the eponymous Gordon has Louisa (Templeton’s fictional alter-ego) flat on her back on a stone bench in a nearby public garden. “The whole was achieved in a matter of about four seconds,” she reports incredulously. “It was speedy and casual and effortless and at the same time seemingly impossible, like a virtuoso performance.” After a nine-month dalliance—during which time Gordon regularly pressures Louisa into intercourse, often in public places and often employing excessive force in the process; refuses to kiss her or engage in any tenderness; and commands she “make loo loo” for him on demand—he abruptly ends the liaison, shortly after which he takes his own life.

Although the sexual politics of the novel are decidedly disturbing—“Nobody could have called it a rape,” Louisa says rather unconvincingly of her and Gordon’s dramatic first encounter; “I was neither willing or unwilling. I was nothing at all. I had not been given the choice to be either”—it’s the novel’s treatment of psychoanalysis that dates it most. When he’s not forcing himself on her body, Gordon’s trying to wheedle his way into Louisa’s unconscious by conducting an unethical bedside analysis, through which we learn that an early separation from her father (which mirrors Templeton’s own) has left Louisa with certain daddy issues. “You are right,” she tells her paramour towards the end of the novel; “it’s never occurred to me before. But it’s true. You are—you were—like a father to me.” While it’s plausible that Gordon’s first readers might have found these revelations surprising, today, it’s all somewhat clichéd.

Speaking in 2002, more than half a century after the real-life Gordon’s suicide, Templeton still described their relationship as the “fundamental event” of her life. It is apt, then, that its fictionalized version has made the most lasting mark on her literary reputation. It’s the only one of her six novels still in print today (along with the short-story collection The Darts of Cupid, which was published in 2002 and a finalist for that year’s National Book Critics Circle award). This distinction is due, no doubt, to the scandal caused by the book’s initial publication, at which time its sexual explicitness, especially for a woman writer, was radical: “The original Fifty Shades of Grey,” reads the tagline on Penguin’s website. But although Gordon is a literary landmark of sorts, it is not Templeton’s finest work. In fact, it’s her first three novels that are her best: Summer in the Country (1950) (which was released in the U.S. under the alternative title The Proper Bohemians in 1952), Living on Yesterday (1951), and The Island of Desire (1952). What is explicit in Gordon is implicit in these novels. Although not officially a trilogy, they are best understood as a triumvirate of sorts: a detailed panorama of the upper classes of Central Europe between the wars, a society that gives the outward appearance of being refined, urbane, and elegant but has danger and disorder simmering beneath the surface.

***

Set in the sprawling castles that dot the Bohemian countryside and the large town houses of Prague’s most sought-after residential streets, Templeton’s little-known early novels depict a world of intricate, cryptic social codes—a language that is imprinted on those who belong but impossible to translate for those who don’t. Regularly dining out in restaurants is looked down upon (doing so implies deficiency in one’s own chef); ladies must employ a favored dressmaker (though it would be vulgar to wear actual couture); and the man who wears his slippers outside of the privacy of his own bedroom can never be a true gentleman. In a life so meticulously choreographed, the slightest faux pas is a red flag, a permanent sign of bad character. The inverse is true as well: a well-executed performance is interchangeable with an authentic one. “He looks like a man,” declares one character of another in Living on Yesterday. “And because he looks like one he thinks he is one.” (The real question, of course, is whether other people—the people who count—think he is, too.) In a society in which impressions are critical, nothing is ever quite as it seems; in Templeton’s novels, a polished exterior inevitably obscures a grubbier truth. These are ostensibly novels of manners, but as the English novelist Anita Brookner so astutely observes, “they are also something more, for running beneath the social comedy, so beautifully conducted by all the principal players, there lie acts of madness, of revenge, and of revolt.” Yet through it all, good etiquette prevails; neither comedy nor tragedy shakes the composure of Templeton’s characters—nor the controlled elegance of her own prose.

In Templeton’s first three novels, it is often the matriarchal figures who are the arbiters of social mores: worldly, inflexible women who see everything—or, at least, everything they want to see—yet give little away themselves. The Island of Desire features the especially self-composed Mrs. Kalny; ever perfectly coiffed and smooth of brow, she remains “outwardly calm” even as great currents of frustration (caused by the behavior of her tiresome teenage daughter, Franciska) roil within her. Here is restraint, Templeton writes, “no less ascetic than the discipline of the soldier or the nun.” In Summer in the Country, it is a Mrs. Birk who presides over the family castle. Too polite to explicitly articulate her dislike of her daughter, Alice, Mrs. Birk nevertheless makes a point of evidencing her disdain in a more artful fashion. “Would you like some of this sherry, Mr Marek?” she asks one guest. “There is whiskey and gin, if you prefer it, but you’ll have to wait till my daughter Alice comes. She keeps it locked up. It gives her something to do.”

It is Alice’s daughter’s husband, the nouveau riche Oscar Ritter, who makes the mistake of leaving his bedroom at Castle Kirna without first changing out of his slippers. Although the Birk family disdains their in-law for his poor manners, it is his money that maintains their ancestral home and estate. Much of the equilibrium of Templeton’s world is sustained by similarly Faustian pacts. In Living on Yesterday, another matriarch, a Baroness Kreslov—the wife of a prosperous industrialist, and the intimidating society hostess of the most famed soirees in all of Prague—marries her daughter, Hedwig, to the young and handsome Count Szalay, a man whose lack of fortune is made up for by his impeccable breeding. Hedwig will provide the capital; he will provide the class. When, after the marriage, it is revealed that Szalay is not the nobleman he claims to be, the baroness remains unruffled—all she requires is that he sustain the masquerade.

***

Of these three novels, The Island of Desire showcases the most stinging examples of the same ruthless sangfroid that’s so valued in the social world of Templeton’s writing. It’s impossible to tell, we’re told, how much Mr. Kalny knows about his wife’s habitual, though discreet, infidelities, “but it [is] certainly due to his sobriety and good sense—the good sense of the mediocre—that nothing scandalous ever transpired and that Mrs. Kalny had acquired the reputation of an allumeuse, which was flattering, instead of that of a society whore, which was not.” Templeton grasps the ferocity of her milieu, yet there’s nothing crude about the way she renders it on the page. As the Times Literary Supplement’s review pointed out, “This is a most savage book, but it is subtle too.” Templeton spares neither husband nor wife in the episode above; never has the term mediocre been quite so cutting.

Templeton’s world is particularly cruel to young women, for whom innocence and purity, though valued above all else, often become hazards that leave them especially vulnerable. When Franciska Kalny seeks to extricate herself from the clutches of her selfish, pampered other, she does so by rashly marrying a young Englishman whom she takes, based on the most cursory of observations, to be a suitable match. Mr. Parker is modeled on the real-life Mr. Templeton, whom the author married in a similarly naive state, and who, like his fictionalized avatar, would quickly disabuse his young wife of her illusions. For, sadly, Franciska “had not a sufficient knowledge of people in general to discern certain traits which are common to those of gentle birth in all countries,” and Mr. Parker soon reveals himself not to be the gentleman she thought he was, and perhaps not quite the husband either: it is delicately implied that he harbors homosexual desires.

All of Templeton’s novels are about power play, even as the settings change from the salons and drawing rooms of Prague to the bedrooms and backstreets of London. The brutality that bubbles beneath the surface in her early work is given merely a plainly sexual form in Gordon and “The Darts of Cupid,” though the subtlety of her prose, and therefore the mastery of her menace, is blunted in the process. But even in the first three novels, sex itself plays a—perhaps surprisingly—significant role for her characters. “Aren’t you sorry, Mama, after all that you did not marry Feldman?” asks Franciska, referring to a rather unattractive but “terribly rich” family friend. “Every day I am sorry. Every night I am glad,” is her worldly mother’s witty, and no doubt sincere, reply.

Templeton recognizes what is traded between people, and is unafraid to name it; for her, intimacy is a process of commercial exchange. “I have always prostituted myself,” she said in an interview in the early 2000s. “Do not misunderstand, I do not mean I went out into the street,” she clarifies. “I had no money, I had to live, so I married and I was kept by various men … I want to be a parasite, I need to be kept, so I can write.” Her commitment to her craft is as striking as her misogyny: in the same conversation, she dismisses feminism as “idiotic”; men, she declares, “are superior,” and that’s that. In another interview, she confesses that she never loved her only son. Though chilling, Templeton’s ruthlessness is channeled into rich form in her fiction. If her relationship with the real-life Gordon was the defining event in her life, the more ambient machinations of the society in which she moved had just as much of an influence on her, both as a writer and as a woman. In these novels—as in life, Templeton would no doubt have argued—virtue, decency, and kindness are not rewarded, and naivete and youth put one only at a disadvantage. “If you’re going to be a writer, you have to be willing to be nasty,” she is recorded as saying, shortly before she died in 2006, at age ninety at her home in Bordighera on the Italian Riviera. “The idyllic does not work—maybe it does in painting, but not in literature.”

 

Lucy Scholes is a critic who lives in London. She writes for the NYR Daily, the Financial Times, The New York Times Book Review, and Literary Hub, among other publications. Read earlier installments of Re-Covered.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 08, 2022 08:08

The Paris Review's Blog

The Paris Review
The Paris Review isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.
Follow The Paris Review's blog with rss.