Lets Give 'em Something to Talk About

I hate to admit that I closed Kors and Peters with a satisfied smirk on my face and breathed a very deep sigh of relief. The fact that this chapter was called "Belief, Skepticism, Doubt, Disbelief" was really exciting because these were all aspects of the scare that was witchcraft, but it was also the order of the chaos throughout the years. The belief came first and spread like wildfire, with wild accusations and fingerpointing until everyone thought everyone else was a witch. The skeptics came as the knowledge grew, like people who were supposed to be trusted, like church officials, knowing a suspicious amount about witchcraft. Should we have been skeptical of witchcraft existing or should we have been skeptical about who was fighting it? Doubt came following soon after due to the sources of facts being unreliable and too convenient at times and the finally, disbelief came into play. Disbelief meaning that the belief in witchcraft was gone for the most part, but also the shock and disbelief that this had gotten so largely blown out of proportion. It went from a spark of an idea to a forest fire to nothing. But I don't understand how something like this just disappears.

I could understand if new evidence came forward that called off all inklings of witchcraft, but there never was that one end everything epiphany. It just spiraled and spiraled until a few people said, hey, that's enough. In the end, witch trials are deemed useless, and while I agree that they were and that "witches" were tried unfairly, why did nobody try to explore the issue further? Maybe they weren't witches, but something was happening or had to have happened to get these rumors started in the first place? How can a whole part of the world go from being so hellbent on murdering witches to just not caring at all? I feel like this closing should have brought about a new search or a new replacement craze. All of these leaders were on a mission to stop at nothing until they could rid the world of witches and then they just gave up? Why the loss of power and energy? There has to be something more. This chapter said that this time stood by the belief that those who deny Christ are denying God. This would make it clear that anyone who worshipped someone or something other than God was a sinner. So maybe they weren't witches, but what were they? Who or what were they following?

The craze ends with everyone quitting and shoving the issue under the rug. Let people believe what they believe and pretend to be anything they want and they'll be punished in the end. That crazy desire to end all wrongs just vanishes and I can't wrap my head around it. This isn't the conclusion that we have been waiting for. People literally burned at the stake for the craze and now it's just over. So if something could just drop and end this quickly, then why did it even last for so long? Why end now? Was this just a time waster? Now there are new issues and people disobeying God is simply a thing of the past? Was there a new craze or trend that was about to spread?

I'm glad that these trials and the craze itself came to an end, and I wasn't expecting someone to come outside and announce "all witchcraft is a lie. Go back to your lives" or anything, but I also can't fathom how something so big just disappears. Maybe everyone was just so tired of the lies stacking up and the ridiculous time it all consumed that it was deemed a waste of time, but this all seems a little suspicious to me. Like some sort of witchcraft.

Witchy Shenanigans

I found chapter 7 of Kors/Peters to take a somewhat more refreshing turn compared to the repetitive, graphic rhetoric of previous chapters (butts and baby-eating) that we've been assigned.  
I really liked Desiderius Erasmus' story on the sorcerer from Orléans, especially in his concluding paragraphs in which he blames the horror of witchcraft directly on the weaknesses of humanity - in this case, greed. He doesn't even refer to the devil at this point, nope. He isn't making excuses for how susceptible humans are to temptation. Additionally, his frankness is extremely refreshing and actually made me chuckle; this is just a man who is freaking tired of witchy shenanigans. He states, "Monstrosities of this sort are of such frequent occurrence everywhere in the Digest that now that I am accustomed to them they do not even amuse me any longer, much less annoy me" (236). Erasmus is just sick of everyone's shit and boy can I appreciate that.

Same.

I also enjoyed Johann Geiler von Kaysersberg's richly detailed descriptions on witches' perceived travel movements, like how witches might think that they are flying through space but are just imagining it because of our crafty pal Satan. Kaysersberg's assertions therefore take the power away from witches (and perhaps subsequently some of the blame) and placing it in the hands of the devil. I was quite content reading until I reached the misogynistic part on why women are more likely to become witches and I had stress-induced flashbacks to the Malleus. I was brought back to reality when I read his concluding sentence: "But those [sorcerers] who can be cured and made healthy ought not to be put to death, but to a lesser punishment" (239), which was a lovely reminder not to get sucked into believing in the stereotype of the ignorant, dangerously uncompromising witch-hunting mob.

So not this. Hopefully. Or at least less of this.

Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola's Strix was fun and interesting because of its format as dialogue. Everyone appreciates a good basic play, right? Sure the story was somewhat contrived, especially with the staunch skeptic Apistius completely renouncing his skepticism on believing in witchcraft after interacting with the witch, but Pico's point was clear. Apistius, seeing the evidence, accepts that witchcraft exists. I appreciated  the implications here: that an accusation must be founded and have evidence. It seems to have connections to the movement of Christian Humanism during the Renaissance; that beliefs must be founded on reason and human experience. Neat.

Finally, while reading Pope Hadrian's On Diabolical Witchcraft, I had but one thought: Holy long sentences, Batman! Seriously. What is it with Popes and long sentences?

Witches, witches in a glitch, how many wishes do you wish?

Chapter seven covers a lot of ground and material, but what is most intriguing has to be the amount of people involved in the world of witchcraft. We know that the main focus is the witches themselves, but it's also important to take into account the Devil, God, Heretics, Believers v. Non-Believers, Humanists, Sorcerers, Preachers, Popes and countless other people who deem themselves experts at particular types of magic or careers, etc. One of the few people who stood out to me in the portion of this reading was Johann Geiler von Kayserberg, a theologian and a preacher. When I used to hear the word preacher, I pictured some sort of head of church preaching to the congregation about what lessons or perils could be learned from a particular sermon or verse and practically yelling and using repetition to drill that moral or rule into each and every mind of the congregation.

But now after just a few weeks in this class, I can see that it isn't always necessarily a religious preacher. It's more a very opinionated person who has decided to put out their own soap box, jump up on it and rant and rave about a topic to anyone who will listen. The topic of favor? Witchcraft, of course. I'd like to think of Kayserberg as that commenter on youtube under a music video that says "So and so sucks, and here's why" before listing reason after reason for why he dislikes this artist and those reasons would probably not be related to the artist's song, style or talent at all. And just like how one nasty comment can open up into a heated screaming match between commenters, preachers like Kayserberg are the start or continuation of presenting an opinion, receiving people who both agree and disagree with them and then spiraling completely out of control.

But although the preaching might need to come to a halt, Kayserburg brings up some fine points about witches: particularly, that witches aren't quite as powerful as we thought that they were. I was imagining these people (can I use the term "apparating"?) from one place to another in the blink of an eye or suddenly making objects appear or disappear. However, it doesn't quite work like that. These witches have the tools to travel at night, sure, or to make things appear and disappear, but it's as if everything they attempt to do has to go through the devil or be done by the devil himself. It's as if the devil is the ringmaster of this circus known as witchcraft.

When I imagine these night travels, I pictured witches flying through the air on brooms or just by themselves floating through the night among the stars. But this isn't the case. Sure, witches can travel at night, but it's more a movement of the soul and the mind out of the body and into another realm or part of the world without actually moving. Like Kayserburg's story about the woman on the bench, she is showing her night traveling, but her body is only spasming until she falls. Maybe she only thinks she is traveling or maybe she has traveled without her body, but it isn't the magical flight we typically picture.

Kayserburg also takes the time to show several examples of the devil doing the witches' work. A witch has the tools to do as she pleases and summon or erase what she wants, but although she possesses the power to ask for these things to be done, she is not capable of doing so herself. The devil gets almost a sort of notification through these spells and incantations and then he carries out the deed. It fascinates me that people are so scared of witches and all the powers they have, but in the end, they aren't even the ones who are doing the magic! We know witches are conjuring the devil and serving him, but why is the focus on burning witches when it could be using this connection with the devil to get closer to him and weaken him? Why not go to the source of evil instead of his servants and minions? We talk about witches endlessly, and they might have some tricks up their sleeves, but they are nothing without the devil.

Is it hot in here? Or is it just me....

In order to enter "the sect of the damned" one must "kiss this [toad] creature on the hind quarters and some on the mouth; they receive the tongue and saliva of the beast inside their mouths (KP 115)." But then the "novice" must kiss a wasted black eyed man from which "catholic faith totally disappears from his heart (KP 115)." No, but this is not all then they have to kiss the butt of a cat statue and say how unworthy they are and then have a giant orgy with no discrimination, because you know, devil worshipers. I just need to say how ridiculous this is,I know all of these rituals have been pretty bizarre so far but this one has definitely taken the lead. It is so very weirdly detailed and it makes me once again question how this Pope Gregory IX got his info. Was it secondhand? Thus, can it be true that this happened? Or was he like peeping in on these devil worshipers' orgies like "whoa that's cray! I'm totally writing this down in my journal."
                                      
                                     
  (Super creepy painting look at those weird creatures. James and Hermogenes. Musee Valenciennes)

Also everything was out of proportion. The poor servant, Alice Kyteler, was executed for sorcery because of a family dispute on land distribution (KP 121). People were just dropping demons and sorcery around to get their way. So selfish, what a terrible lot of people. Remember kids, if your getting bullied just tell a higher authority that they are practicing witchcraft and you can watch your bullies get roasted on a stick. Wow, what a win win. 
    


I was also horrified at the thought of women eating their own children. It was said that they kill them and sometimes ( if not their own child) place them back into their beds like it was an accident. Or that they boil them and grind them and like put the goo on their skin or drink it ( KP 157). It makes my stomach churn, I hope this really didn't happen and that it was just an exaggeration gone wrong. And of course if I was in the wife's position and (probably actually innocent) was being burned at the stake I would also be cursing all of those guys too. I understand the giant age gap and the hysteria with devil worshiping, yeah it's scary, but also just because a woman is cursing you while she is being tortured and burned at the stake does not mean you made the right decision, sorry bro. I do not worship the devil and I would still curse someone to hell if I was being burned alive, just saying.

Sorcery: The Uncanny

Chapters 4 and 5 in Kors/Peters have certainly taken a sharp turn from the jovial, upbeat magic portrayed in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight to graphic, brutal descriptions of terrifying sorcery. A headless, living green man seemed like child's play compared to stories of cannibalism and boiling dead infants for sustenance. I noted extreme specificity in these two chapters in the discussions and denunciations of magical rituals by religious authorities. Additionally, in these chapters, sorcery became completely aligned with heresy.

In these chapters, magic became even more so the enemy of Christianity: sorcerers were the heretical agents of Satan, and magic was their tool for evil - quite the departure from its benign household use as compiled in the Wolfsthurn handbook many reading assignments ago.

Early on in chapter 4, while reading Pope Alexander IV's "Sorcery and the Inquisitors,” I was pleasantly surprised when he advised “inquisitors of heretical depravity” not to investigate magical activities unless there was proof of heretical activity. I perhaps shouldn’t be surprised that he advised people to simply do their job, but with the occasional stereotypical thought of witch-hunting mobs clouding my judgment as I read, I appreciated the Pope’s progressive attitude. On the other hand, his letter effectually opens up sorcery to inquisition, and I am sure there were cases of inquisitors bending this decree for their own purposes. I, perhaps naively, would like to think that this letter was the Pope’s way of preventing these inquisitors from disturbing benign magicians.  

Hopefully Pope Alexander's letter prevented things like this.

Immediately following Pope Alexander's letter, though, are letters from William, Cardinal of Santa Sabina and Pope John XXII on Sorcery and the Inquisitors. These completely oppose Pope Alexander's viewpoints. The Cardinal, for instance, calls sorcerers "infectors of God's flock" (119) and Pope John states that "they ally themselves with death and make a pact with hell. By their means a post pestilential disease... grievously infects infests the flock of Christ throughout the world" (120). Granted, Pope John is speaking from a place of fear, as sorcerers have made an attempt on his life, which is completely understandable. As Pope, these letters had extreme influence and likely reaffirmed the Christian, God-fearing public's anxieties about the malevolent power and potential of magic. 

Perhaps the most memorable reading was Bernardino of Siena's sermon against women sorcerers. He must have been an extremely effective preacher through his fear-mongering, emotionally appealing language. He speaks directly to his audience in an accusatory tone, telling them YOU have committed this sin, YOU have caused this suffering, YOU will then suffer in eternal torment. What a way to terrify his congregation into denouncing any kind of magic for fear of their eternal destiny. Part of me, now, doesn't blame the paranoia that ensued in Salem in the late 1600s. 

Chapter 5 just built on the terrifying heresy established in the the previous chapter, with anecdotes of infanticide and cannibalism. My notes literally read "~evil witchy anecdotes~" and "~bad things~" because some of the stories were so disturbingly graphic.  My favorite one was The Errores Gazariorum because of its description of the process of a person's seduction to the dark side.

I had to do it.

It is specific, backwards, perverse, etc. It is the opposite of normalcy for a typical Christian. It is the inverse, the uncanny - and it makes it all the more terrifying. Again, the fears of average folk at this time was completely understandable. They were molded by their religious leaders and knew little else. How sad. :(

"To the Fire! To the Fire! To the Fire!" The world's First S'more and Why We Really Need to Duck Tape Bernardino of Siena's Mouth Shut

Sorry, for the long title...

 I'd like to apologize to my blog group who has no choice but to read this.  I know it's a long post. I'll make it entertaining I promise!

*Note: The following comment contains language not suitable for children*

A pope, a theologian, a preacher, a lawyer, and a judge all  into a pub... I mean church... and accuse a bunch of people of witchcraft flash forward to 1692, when America's first total bitch, Ann Putnam (I do not claim credibility for this comment #ilovethe1880s) accusations led to the death of twenty people in Salem, MA. Ann Putnam, you would have made a great addition to Mean Girls.

Anyway... On to the important stuff...

As a history major and human being when I hear the word theologian I brace myself for the worst. However, most of what was covered in Chapter 4 of Witchcraft in Europe from 400-1700 wasn't as dry as I was afraid it would be. I think Kors and Peters did a fantastic job with this chapter. The introduction quickly caught my interest at the first mention of Dante Alighieri who is my favorite author/epic poet. The mention of Canto 20 of his inferno caused me to stretch my legs and grab my copy of the Divine Comedy from my bookshelf to refresh my memory on Dante's take on sorcery. For those that have not read Dante's Inferno here is a link to Canto 20: http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dante/chap20.html After rereading Inferno 20, I felt that I had a better grasp on this chapter. As Kors and Peters point out Dante's condemnation of sorcery and divination may "reflect general understanding at the turn of the fourteenth century" (Kors and Peters 113). So now that I had been sucked into the chapter, I again braced myself for the primary sources. Let me get something straight, I love love love primary sources. To be honest the only religious text that I have ever read and liked was Jonathan Edwards Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Theologians just not my thing, sorry.

When Pope Gregory IX started talking about kissing frogs I was hoping that maybe this was some sort of messed up metaphor... maybe the frog represents the devil or something? As I read on I realized that I was mistaken. It wasn't a metaphor... or a simile. So after rereading the first couple sentences I then thought of fairy tales and my little knowledge of Grimm's fairy tales. Even though I haven't read them yet (so excited to though!!!) I know that unlike Disney movies, they don't end well. If you are sensitive to blasphemous language, I suggest you stop reading now and pick up after the letter. Seriously, I recommend you skip this next part. Annoyed and only slightly relevant rants make blogging more fun. I would like to take a moment and write an open letter to Disney:

Dearest Disney,

Why must you lie to children?  First off, this whole happily ever after thing is unrealistic. Also, while I loved those movies and still do, I know that people only randomly burst in to song in High School Musical (and 2 and 3), not in real life... which is kind of a bummer... but not the point! Sometimes things don't work out in life but in your movies everything always works out, what sorcery are you using? I blame you for my Shakespeare obsession. Also, you based Beauty and the beast off of a true story... you left out some very important parts of the story... but for the sake of time I will pick that up in another post. Disney... there is so much more that I wish to say to you.. but alas, time is short and it's almost 12 (noon), speaking of, why did the magic cast on Cinderella end at 12 midnight as opposed to 12 noon? Sorry, not the point. Disney this discussion is not over.

I will end this very humble and polite expression of my thoughts with this. WTF? (I apologize, that was unfeminine of me) but seriously, wtf... why? (again, my bad, I apologize). Regardless of my anger with you, I will continue to watch your movies as they are the essence of my childhood and life is stressful. Also, even though you "borrowed" (lets face it Disney had every intention of giving the ideas back...) many of the plots for your movies, they are entertaining. Rest assured this discussion is not over!

A Dear, (Yet Slightly Angered) Friend

The relevant part of this post continues here: I apologize for my rant... So yes, Pope Gregory is discussing kissing frogs and how blasphemous that is. But once I got past the similarities and very different outcomes of kissing frogs, I found that Pope Gregory was trying to invoke the wrath of God into all.

The theology faculty at the University of Paris brings up a list of 28... yes... 28, ways in which you can achieve your life's dream of becoming an "nefarious, pestiferous, and monstrous abomination." What I got out of this: rumors are running rampant around campus and some people belief that God wants them to practice arts and sorceries to "honor... and please him."  In a way makes as much sense as Martin Luther nailing his 95 point blog post (Renaissance Style- Sorry, Dr. MB) to the church door.

Bernardino of Siena... (I'll try and keep this short and censored but Bernardo got to me a little bit... though I was thoroughly entertained). First off,  Bernardino (cool name by the way), I'm going to quote you on this (yes, this has become another open letter... sorry).

Bernardino,

On page 135, you stated that following, "after I had preached, a multitude of witches and enchanters were accused." Was this reaction intended? It must have been foreseen (oh wait, don't answer that... actually please do. [If this was a trial and you admitted to that your punishment would be... penance for two years or you could call it heresy and risk execution, just saying...] I feel like you knew how these people would react to your speech. Lets do the math: People naturally do not all get a long + you explain to them that witches and enchanters exist = People think back to all the things that have happened to them or people they know + People begin thinking that perhaps my really annoying neighbor is responsible + the knowledge that hey, I can not only destroy this person's reputation but also ensure that I never have to deal with them again = A multitude of people getting accused of witchcraft after your speech. Makes sense to me. Not saying your responsible but actually, yes, I kind of do blame you. If duck tape had been invented yet then someone should have introduced you to it. Also. "Woe is me!"... seriously? You're upset because you started a witch hunt. Also, you just had to mention that " if any man or woman shall go be accused of such things and if any person shall go to their aid, the curse of God will light upon his house and he will suffer for it" (137). So, I'm guessing the whole State Farm Good Neighbor Policy is out then? I know you have no idea what I'm talking about since it doesn't exist yet, just go with me here.

Sincerely,

A Reader of your works

And now, dear, brave reader of this post...

 

I feel this is the only explanation I need for the strangeness of my post.  

Attitude Adjustment

As I sat down to read chapters 2 and 3 of Kors and Peters, something struck me as completely odd and it blew my mind. Apparently when, monks, friars, nuns, and whoever else had total undeniable access to literature of questionable origin, came across notions and writings of relation to sorcery, magic, or anything of otherworldly nature, they didn’t just stop reading or writing about it or even stop teaching it. These people, these godly people, actually wrote about it, as it was big deal. This coming from many of the same people who would’ve sooner burned a proponent of witchcraft or magic. That’s insane. When I think of witchcraft of the olde (e to the end=old), I think people being burned at the stake, tortured, or having their children (if they had any) taken away in an effort to make them renounce this “evil” way of life.

As I thought further and further into the matter of such things, an idea struck me. The whole feeling towards magic and sorcery was not always what it was during the days of yore. Much earlier before that, monasteries and even the common people embraced the powers of magic towards their own ends. In many early manuscripts, questionable cures of ailments were openly written about and used. That isn’t even the strangest part: allusions to the bible and its ideas sprung out from the same pages of evil and witchery. Then, the ideas of magic and its rituals and spells were said to be a “criminal sin” if even talked about (Kors/Peters, 59). And now, in 2015, people have parades and covens based on the ancient arts and rituals of earth magic and its sub disciplines. I mean seriously people MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!!

This whole stage of acceptance afterwords all came from the translated texts of Arabic origins now made widely available due to the printing press and increased curiosity over all things natural, theological, philosophical, musical, mathematical, and supernatural and all and everything in between. The people of the far, middle, and near east, seemed to be much more open to all things both physical and spiritual. This openness to test everything for the sake of knowledge ended up rubbing off big time in their written works. These ended up translated and being more widely available than they had been in previous years and could be found nearly everywhere. That compounded with the learning people began to be getting from these Arabic texts on alchemy, astrology and the works ended up giving us that many more amateur witches and wizards and that many more people that you’d much rather not cut in front of for fear of being turned into a newt or better yet a sack of potatoes. People definitely changed their attitudes towards otherworldly matters: now if it was for better or for worse, that’s for you to decide…

Arguing about Magic

In this weeks reading, Rachel forgets all about the fanciful, dark, and magical adventure this book is supposed to be as she becomes very confused and frustrated at the arguments and opinions of various authors in the text. First of all, Burchard of Worms somehow ends up saying something about how magical acts cannot happen directly on the body, with no other sources but some examples where that thing doesn't happen, none of which appear to actually say it's impossible. Then, Ralph of Coggeshall implies near the end of his work that's it's better to renounce what you believe in out of fear of death instead of nobly standing your ground, but only when you're not Christian or Jesus himself. Finally, in chapter 3 Thomas Aquinas truly embodies the spirit of modern argumentative reading by using questionable sources and manipulative logic to ultimately create something genuinely boring and hard to read.

As for my opinion on Burchard's text, I will admit I've never actually read any of the stories he has referenced and therefore don't know for a fact that none of them explicitly related the impossibility of magical acts happening directly upon the body. However, Burchard introduces them in the context of the magical acts occurring in the soul as opposed to the body, but only that much doesn't matter because correlation does not equal causation SIR, and that is quite the leap of logic either way.

My anger towards Ralph probably stems from my deep, deep hatred of confirmation bias, of which this is a prime example. Obviously, since he, as well as many other people, believe Christianity to be the one true religion, when Christians do noble deeds it's seen as wonderful and Holy, but if someone else does something the exact same way it's seen as evil and misguided. Intolerance breeds hatred, so not cool bro.

Other than picking up a few instances of him making some major assumptions (such as the validity of his sources, but I won't go too much into that because everyone has to make that assumption to an extent), and watching him clearly play with his reasoning in a very particular way to make his point ("Planets can't affect intellect because they don't have brains" somehow doesn't seem like a very solid foundation when you're talking about MAGIC), I don't really have much to say about him because he was just so boring to try and read through his stuff that I really don't want to take the time and effort to sort through every painful detail of his painfully long text just to get even more irritated at him.

In the end, my nature as a math major who must know how to write proper logical proofs, as well as a logic puzzle aficionado, has clouded my eyes to the actual content of the material and made me unnecessarily angry at dead people not making sense because that's not a waste of my energy or anything. Now Rachel is going to go take some ibuprofen to quell the raging headache that has spurred from reading all of that and calm herself with a nice murder mystery.