While
most of the readings for Monday reiterate the public’s need to watch for acts
of witchcraft, I was very intrigued by Johann Geiler von Kaysersberg’s article.
Besides the fact he has a pretty awesome name, I actually found myself condemning
him less than Desiderius, Gianfranceso and Hadrian VI. I still think they’re
all delusional, but Kaysersberg has some relevant points about witchcraft that
no other has brought up before.
Instead
of directly blaming the witches for their actions, Kaysersberg blames the Devil.
It is the Devil himself who casts plagues upon the people. The witches are
nothing more than a façade for the Devil’s work. I don’t remember any other
writer who made this type of distinction. It is a rather unusual argument, as most
people directly believed witches held the power to change weather, kill/hex
people and do other nefarious activities.
Kaysersberg
states that the witch, when she desires something to be done, gives a sign to the
Devil. On page 238, Kaysersberg says, “the devil sees the sign and hears the
word, he knows what they indicate; then he performs the act, and it is the
devil who does this and not [the witches].” While the witches may have evil
intentions, they do not possess the ability to carry out their actions. Rather,
it is only the Devil who may grant their wish and do their bidding. I admit to
being one of those people who automatically thought witches hold the power. Reading
Kaysersberg twist on the matter makes me rethink how I’ve viewed witches.
Are
they capable of doing such diabolical things or is an evil spirit, the Devil,
taking advantage of their ill will to do bad? Can these women truly be called
witches following his belief? Kaysersberg also gives us three reasons why women
are more prone to witchcraft. He cites William of Paris for the reasons and
they are similar to the reasons mentioned by the Malleus. He cites their “instability of spirit,” “understood better
by demons,” and “their talkativeness” as reasons women are ‘weaker’ (K/P 238).
Personally,
I find the aspect of talkativeness to be hilarious. I feel like the men put
that down because they were annoyed by their wives nagging them or constantly
gossiping with friends. Men did not understand women (and still don’t),
therefore I think it was easier for them to categorize witches. If a woman did
not fit the perfect, obedient, submissive role, she could be cast into this
negative light.
With
this in mind, I’ve wondered, if witches truly existed—if these men proclaimed
so many to work for the Devil, wouldn’t you think there would be a mass
uprising of witches against such massacre? I’ve no doubt a group of powerful
witches would be able to wipe out the trials and murderers of their sisters. Do
you think the religious men of the time even considered this fact when deciding
if witches existed? Probably not, the ignorant bastards.
Great Gif. I really liked your post. I might be using Johann Geiler von Kaysersberg in my paper. Anywho, I do like his take on witches and their association with the devil. It kind of takes away from the witches; it also, in my opinion, is pulling away from the witch frenzy and focusing on the presence of the devil and all the evil that he is. As I will probably mention in my paper, we shouldnt focus on witches but casting out the devil.
ReplyDeleteThis chapter is definitely a time of change. Change in ideas. Change in blame/cause (root of evil)
I don't see Kayersburg's idea that the devil is directly in control of the powers typically attributed to witches as being all that revolutionary. Even if witches were assumed to have direct control of those powers in past readings, they were given those powers by the devil. Either way, it's still the devil's fostering and empowerment of a witch's malice that causes witchcraft to occur.
ReplyDelete