If you search up Myra Hindley, one of the perpetrators of the 1960s Moors murders, the first page of Google will show you an article whose abstract makes the surprising statement that she was a victim. She was a victim of, among others things, her sex; because she was a woman who participated in the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of children, she received more vitriol in the press than her male co-murderer. While there is some truth in this, I was the one clutching my pearls that time, because this is Myra fucking Hindley we’re talking about. Surely feminists have better things to do than rehabilitate her.
Reading this book reminded me of that article, but Puhak goes further in suggesting that Bathory, though not entirely a peach, was not a murderer. This proposition is not new, and it’s even made it into pop culture representations of her. It should be noted that the twentieth-century works that aimed to portray Bathory as the victim of a conspiracy, whether based on politics, religion, or gender, were generally not written by historians, who mostly ignored Bathory until recently. A number of these works are cited in the bibliography, but citations are relatively infrequent in the text.
The theory that Puhak subscribes to is that Bathory was a healer who, alongside other medical women in her household, was simply trying to help girls using accepted yet stigmatized methods. The idea of persecuted women folk healers is one that certain feminist writers are rather obsessed with, as popular ideas about the early modern witch hunts show. A skeptical reader is left thinking that Bathory and her herbalists must have been highly incompetent, since so many people kept dying on their watch. The evidence Puhak marshals in support of this thesis did not, to me, suggest any greater interest in medicine on Bathory’s part than would be considered typical for a person of her era. Even less convincing was Puhak’s attempts to attribute some of the injuries of Bathory’s alleged victims to other causes, as not only are the records related to this not meant to be used as patient records, but it seems to be based on a modern understanding of forensics and medical examinations as central to court cases, which was irrelevant to early modern trials based on personal testimony. Puhak also fails to cite any medical texts that prescribe shoving needles into women’s vaginas, severe beatings, or covering a girl in honey and allowing insects to bite her to death, all things that Bathory was alleged to have done by her four accomplices.
Although the poor citation methods make it difficult to know what Puhak refers to when she talks about the testimonies, she mostly seems to cite the most absurd claims possible that legitimately were just hearsay (such as the testimony of Susannah, who is responsible for the claim that Bathory killed 650 people), and not the nearly 100 people who either witnessed the alleged crimes or saw the injuries inflicted. Of course, even justice of the time was not wholly served in Bathory’s case, but her lack of a trial was probably an attempt to prevent a conviction, which would not only forfeit all her valuable property but also damage the family’s reputation. It is notable that Bathory’s own son, writing after his mother, Thurzo, and the king were all dead, claimed that she was guilty. While Puhak identifies motivations for malicious prosecution, none of them actually prove that there was any harmful conspiracy; and while it’s not Puhak’s fault, the complaints about conspiracy theories hit a sour note at a time when a prominent conspiracy theory is being proven. Although the practices of the early modern justice system left much to be desired by modern standards, acknowledgment of this actually loses Bathory her special case, because then all trials of that era can be considered suspicious.
Puhak’s analysis might have been stronger if she had written an essay, since as it stands, most of this book focuses on Hungarian politics in which Bathory was not always directly involved. While obviously some of this is necessary background, the details about Lutheran and Calvinist views on the Lord’s Supper were not. Some of the details she mentions I felt undermined her point, such as an early section where she points out how powerful, wealthy widows were not an uncommon sight. The novelistic, often somewhat purple, writing style was occasionally interrupted by ill-fitting modernisms, such as describing Bathory’s husband as looking like a “contemporary cartoon villain”. I was put on edge at the very beginning, because Puhak’s dramatic reconstruction of Bathory’s arrest, while positioning itself as recounting legend and not fact, made reference to seemingly contemporary rumors of Bathory bathing in blood, when this legend first came about in the eighteenth-century.
There is little doubt that Bathory’s crimes were sensationalized in her lifetime, as Susannah shows, but this does not mean that there was no basis for any of the accusations, and I remain convinced that Bathory was probably a murderer. At one point, Puhak comments on the two-faced nature of one of Bathory’s contemporaries, in that he was capable of generosity one moment but cruelty the next, but does not apply this to the Countess herself. Readers unfamiliar with Bathory will come away knowing a bit more about her, but they could get that information from Wikipedia just as easily. I can’t wait to see Puhak’s take on La Quintrala.