Woe is me!

             At this point I think we have read just about everything there is to know about witchcraft, what stood out to me in this week’s reading was the writings of Johann Geiler von Kaysersberg. I thought it was extremely interesting how he reasoned that witchcraft was not actually being done by the witch him or herself, but by the devil. The witches are simply just gesturing or signaling the devil to do something. To me this is the most logical explanation of witchcraft we’ve read yet, of course logical for the time period and for believing in the existence of the devil. He also explains that witches aren’t really traveling at night, but simply dreaming. He says that the devil can get into the minds of people create impressions. I think Kaysersberg was a pretty smart guy for recognizing that people don’t actually have magical powers. If more people at this time had these same beliefs we maybe would have seen a different treatment of witches. Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola’s Strix was fun read to me. It seemed like a very simplistic play and the short, basic dialogue was entertaining. I especially liked how Apistius changes his mind almost instantly and then declares that he has been convinced.

                I really loved the illustrations in this chapter. It’s fascinating to me to see all the interpretations what witches were. The pictures are so detailed and some really tell a story on their own. While the illustrations depict witches doing different things they also showed how they were similar ideas of witches coming from different artists. 

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?

Two Faced and Belief Seller

Finally, I nice amount of pages to read. The past few readings have had some interesting parts, but this chapter is one of my favorite chapters so far. The last few readings have had parts that were very disturbing but (sorry not sorry) very fun to read such as infanticide and filicide, devil’s piss in a vase, anus kissing, and eating of infants. These readings have been fun, but chapter 7 has more of the type of flow I like when reading.

                The part that I liked the best in chapter 7 was Strix. This type of reading is what I was hoping for in this class. This type of reading holds my attention better when reading and I can therefore remember and comprehend more of what I read. The part that fascinated me the most about this reading was how fast Apistius changed his mind about the existence of witches. It seriously feels like he in one second denies the existence of witches and in the next he believes in them wholly. I also laughed at the very end when he says, “And because I have changed the habit of my mind, from here on I wish also to change my name.” If someone said that to me I would be like, “Okay dude, you have been named X. for your whole life up to this moment but if you want to be called a new name on a whim, who am I to stop you?”

I also enjoyed the first reading, A Terrible Case of Sorcery in Orléans. This reading, too, was the type I enjoy. This reading is one that I had to read twice to fully comprehend, but I enjoyed it both times. The exciting part about this reading came from the fact that the entire family had something to do with witchcraft. The other aspect of this reading I liked is the fact that this may be the first instance of an undercover person I have read about during this time period. The monk acted as a double agent in this story and may be the first person to be one.

This reading was a nice short one that I really enjoyed. Can’t wait until we get into Harry Potter and Shakespeare 

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.

A Wicked Revelation

I found it interesting that according to Imperial law, "those who can be cured and made healthy ought not to be put to death but to a lesser punishment" (p. 239). This made me wonder how often one got away with 'witchcraft'. As a class we've decided that the wealthiest members of society were more likely to get away with it. However, as it seems, most of what we have read about follows the lines of crime and punishment (go away Roskonokov, I'm not talking about you). Seriously though, why do we read about the people who were condemned by the crime of being a witch as opposed to the lucky (well as lucky as one could be after being accused of witchcraft) ones? Is it because humans don't have a long attention span? Who are we kidding, if someone offers you two stories which would you choose and why? The first story is about the triumph of good over evil. The second story is about someone who may or may not have done something bad but it doesn't matter whether they did it or not because regardless the charges were dropped because the character paid off the judge... The end. Pick a story any story (just to be clear, by any story I mean of the two listed above... Not ANY story). Yes, there are exceptions, we do read about accused getting off scot free after being found innocent do occur. I'm just wondering why there aren't more stories on it.

Gianfrancesco Pico Della Mirandola's Strix, is a good example of just how convinced some were about witchcraft and just how desperate they were to convince everyone else of its existence. It is basically the story of a learned man who doesn't believe in witchcraft but it then convinced because of something horrible that a witch has done and how could someone who was a witch commit such an evil act? Therefore, it is the duty of the inquisitor to convict everyone suspected of being a witch because as discussed in the pervious chapter it is worse to let one witch escape punishment than to falsely punish an innocent.

Money and Prestige; the bringer of things

I read through part of chapter seven until I came upon a quote that really struck me and ended up blowing my mind to billions of tiny smithereens, "Men's hearts to every ill incites Th'accursed love of gold…"(KP 233). The motives of most people in this day and age for doing better in their jobs and careers and generally most things, is money and notoriety. Up until reading this selection, I thought that was always a more modern thing to be out for money and prestige. Apparently, I am wrong. money and status has always been the defining factor in all things. prestige is how people have power over others and money is the enabler. you cant have one without the other. They make each other better. Like lewis and clark, or ice and cream, or like cookies and warm milk. Money is so important to people that sometimes people will even sellout their family or friends for it like judas did to jesus. Money can get you anything and everything. Money is the down fall of society. But it can also bring people up. It can just as much bring up a good cause as much as a good one. 

With enough money, you can bring a government crashing down. With enough money, you can bring yourself prestige and notoriety. With increased prestige and notoriety, it can bring boatloads of dough. With such influence and monetary support, you could do anything you wished. See, thats why people want money. It can level the playing field. The devil seems to be the dealer in money. so in that respect, it must be evil or an incentive to evil. Everywhere you look, people seem to be selling their souls for stockings filled with endless gold, or even better, skills that can get them as much gold as possible in the least amount of time. People have been fighting over money for years. usually, the guy with the thickest wallet won. That just seems to lead to better equipment, training, and overall, better soldiers. Money can be a blessing or a curse. too much coin in your pocket can make you sink to the bottom of a lake or it can buy you a boat in an effort to not have that happen. 

The way I look at it, I think money will always sort of be the bane of humanity. It is the reasoning behind why when societies went agricultural, the man with the biggest surplus of food, was the highest up. But, with the evolution of the food systems, as people gained more and more stuff, war and fighting would ensue. Overall, money and its equivalents might bring good tidings and high class, but its no good when your gone from this world to the next.