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.

Guilty or Not Guilty. You still rot in Jail/Witch Frenzy!!

I have to admit, I am a little overwhelmed from this chapter. Not only was it long but it was very thorough. To me this chapter was about methodically charging and sentencing someone accused of witchcraft/heresy.

This process is so delicate yet utterly confusing. In a sense, its just one big cycle/loop. Once you get accused, innocent or not, you are going to go through a lot of #$%$#, pardon my french. Take for instance, page 221: "they have revoked their evidence and confessed that they have out of malice put that crime upon the accused. Therefore the prisoner in such as case is not to be sentenced hastily, but must be kept for a year or more before he is delivered up to the secular Court." So the person that is charging me and is my sole witness, says they lied and I still have to wait over a year before anything else happens. What kind of system is that? Moreover, Kramer's logic is so contradicting.

Let's dive a little further in the chapter and Kramer. He published this infamous book "Malleus Maleficarum," after being expelled from Innsbruek. (Wikipedia) I have very few good things to say about this fellow. He refutes anyone who disagrees with him especially about the existence of witchcraft. He depicts women as fragile and easily corrupt. In the chapter Kramer says "what else is a woman but a foe of friendship, an unescapable punishment, a necessary evil, ...and domestic danger" (pg. 183). The chapter expands on the devil, the process of accusing, the process of judgment, etc.

Now let's dive into what's going on in my thoughts. Kramer talks about torturing the accused to produce a confession. I see copious things wrong with that. If it were me in that position, I would admit to whatever they are torturing me for. Having read how the system works, either way I'm screwed. It would takes miracle to walk out of this. Furthermore, Kramer uses the term "conjuring" as something a Judge or Priest can say, even though they are punishing a civilian("witch") for practically doing the same. In page 215, Kramer states that "the Judge or priest may use some method ...and say I conjure you by the bitter tears shed on the Cross by our Saviour..." This is the very typical style of witchcraft that Kramer sheds light on. The only difference is who is invoked.

I can't fathom what would have been going through the mind of some of the people. All the jargon coming out of priests and Judges would be so confusing. Unless you were an educated scholar, it wouldn't make sense. The jargon they use is so blended and mixed with multiple meanings. It's just a never ending cycle. Then you have the questioning and torture. Kramer says you are innocent till proven otherwise, but they practically treat the accused as guilty. The delicate process of getting accused and charged is so meticulous, but also incredibly contradicting. If you are accused your screwed.

Also, if you look up facts about Kramer and this publication, it's a very infamous book that led whether directly or indirectly 600,000-9,000,000  (over 250 years) of bled shed.(Wikipedia) The Malleus was the hand guide for inquisitors to identifying, prosecuting, and dispatching witchcraft/witches. I find that incredibly disappointing since this publication is contracting and harsh.

Witches...They're Magically Devil-icious

When I think of a witch, my mind immediately goes to an older woman with a foul expression and ugly features cackling over a bubbling, boiling cauldron brewing some sort of potion to wreak havoc on the innocent. While the chapter on Diabolical Witches doesn't quite break down what a witch supposedly looked like or draw one out, it does seem to do a pretty good attempt at slashing witch stereotypes and putting things right. But it's a mass collection of opinions and contradictions.

So far, I have really appreciated and been intrigued by all of our readings, but for some reason, I was immensely frustrated by it. Finally, I know why. It's all opinion. It lacks evidence. My Type-A brain wants one person with qualifications to write one book about all there is to know about witches and witchcraft and for that to be the be-all end-all source of information. But that's not the point of witchcraft, is it? After some resistance, I have come to embrace the variety of information coming to us through these different excerpts from various scholars and authors. It's a sort of organized chaos that allows us to wipe the slate clean and forget what we know. We absorb new things about witchcraft page by page, chapter by chapter, and eventually, a new vision of a witch starts to form in our heads. We begin to agree and disagree with these writers and create our own image. Without even meaning to we accredit and ignore certain writers and therefore the habits, customs and descriptions of witches.

What intrigues me most is the incorporation of the Devil. The exercise earlier in the semester about what the word "magic"makes us feel showed that we don't necessarily always get a negative connotation of the word. Many of us had fond memories of the magic of Harry Potter or fairies and wands and dreams coming true. In that sense, it made me think that there were both good and bad witches even if they looked different from modern interpretations. The "bad", darker witches I pictured were just witches who had chosen the wrong path or gone astray. I thought that they were witches who used their powers for evil instead of good and wanted to wrong people. However, these witches we read about were not necessarily doing "bad" things. Curing illnesses and injuries and changing the weather don't seem like evil. And while making someone fall in love with you might be manipulative and uncalled for, it's not something we'd put at the top of our charts as an evil act. It's simply that witchcraft is unnatural and that's what makes these witches so terrible. What gives these people the right to think of themselves as better than the rest of humanity?

This chapter reminded me of The Uberman theory that comes up in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. The main character, Raskolnikov, basically believes himself to be an Uberman, or a human being who is superior to other human beings. Because of his high intelligence and intellect, he believes that any crime he commits should be pardoned because anything he does is for the greater good and his intelligence should excuse him from the law and unethical wrongdoings. It seems that this is what witchcraft is. Anything a witch does should be seen as fine because only they have the power to do so. Do not be mad that a witch has carried out the deeds of the devil, because only she could have done that and not you. But the frustration that comes with this is that by worshipping and doing deeds for the devil, these witches thing of themselves as almighty beings who can have the powers of god. They do not respect or worship God. They are not in awe of him. They live to serve the devil. They will do anything for the devil no matter how cruel, crude or forbidden. People cannot understand how these witches will do anything to please the devil when the devil is the nemesis of god and abuses his powers.

Witches explained in this chapter are servants of the devil and work to compete against god when they do the devil's work. Though the actions they perform might be innocent alone, they add up in a plot to fight against good and work towards evil. They aid the devil and work to please him, ignoring all they had known about heavenly aspirations and religion. Is it witchcraft that is so bad or is it that fact that these witches worship the devil? I think these writings all exist because various groups of people and intellectual individuals cannot fathom how so many people could break from worshipping god and instead worship someone who had fallen from heaven's grasp into hell. The issue is not spells and potions, but serving the devil and doing everything they can to ignore religion and heaven and instead, be almighty themselves and pursue evil.

"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.