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.

My Sisters, Rise Against These Injustices!

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. 

LOL, you're all going to die, probably

Let's face it, after the scare of witch craft was spread, if someone even thought of anything concerning witches, they were convicted as a witch. If you were a girl, you also had no chance. You were a witch if you were a woman because they are "weak" and cannot "control their emotions" as well as men. Women were also easily convinced because of their weakness and sensitivity.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love witch accusations as much as the next person, and reading about how scared that these people were, is kind of funny, but chapter six got a little personal...being a girl and all. I could only imagine how long I would have lasted in that century. Honestly, think about it, I am a girl who does not hold her tongue. I give myself until the age of 15 if I were alive then.

Uhhhhhhhhhh...

"Girls are gross and they have cooties and they scare me."

No, that's not a direct quote from the reading, as hard as it may be to tell. This reading was something alright. I'm not quite sure what kind of something it was though. My copy of the book is used and I've found occasional notes left by a previous owner, but this chapter was absolutely full of highlights. I could almost picture the look on their face. One sentence that I can tell made them extra excited was both highlighted and covered in asterisks. "Therefore let us now chiefly consider women, and first, why this kind of perfidy is found more in so fragile a sex than in men." (181).

Another point of interest: on page 185, where Socrates is brought up, the owner underlined a few lines and wrote "Socrates" in big letters and drew an arrow to part of the text, almost as if they were in disbelief about what they were reading. I was quite surprised myself. "And when the philosophy Socrates was asked if one should marry a wife, he answered: If you do not, you are lonely, your family dies out, and a stranger inherits; if you do, you suffer perpetual anxiety, querulous complaints, reproaches concerning the marriage portion, the heavy displeasure of your relations, the garrulousness of a mother-in-law, cuckoldom, and no certain arrival of an heir." (185). This was definitely not something I would expect of someone who spent so much time thinking.

A lot of this reading was, honestly, quite repetitive. There are only so many ways to say, "Women are weak-minded, therefore they fill victim to temptation more than men." and Kramer and Sprenger certainly said it in all those ways more than once. With such headings as, "Why Superstition is chiefly found in Women" they are sure to make their feelings known. "When a woman thinks alone, she thinks evil." (183). "All witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which is in women insatiable." (188). I probably don't need to list any more quotes to get the point across: these two 'gentlemen' were quite set in their ways against women.

Looking back from a modern perspective, where a lot of things have changed, it's not difficult to think poorly of these writers. I don't think you could find many people that would agree with what is written here, at the very least. When this stuff was written, of course, people were a lot different. Stereotypes were likely even more widespread, because not everyone could write, and those that could were looked up to. And with this writing talking about women being weak, vulnerable to demons, unable to control their lust, and innately evil creatures, among other things, I wouldn't be surprised to find the common person starting to believe in these things upon reading them. Certainly, if I were to read this with an empty mind, perhaps as an alien that had just discovered Earth and knew nothing of the people on it, I would read these many pages and form an opinion that women are indeed everything these men say they are.

Of course, I'm not an alien and so I don't think this way at all, but I guess it's understandable (and unfortunate) that people back then might have been led to think this way. When the people who know how to write and utilize their knowledge do it to pass on their own beliefs, well, it's hard to stop others from latching on to those beliefs as well. And when people are as impressionable as they were back then, with magic being so feared and talked about, it helps to have a scapegoat to pin blame on or a way to rationalize what's going on. Of course, that still doesn't make it okay.

And suddenly everything gets really creepy

The excerpts in this week's readings from the Malleus Maleficarum are incredibly disturbing. To me, this witch-hunting handbook is clearly not just the insane rambling of two bloodthirsty religious fanatics (I mean it totally is, it just isn't ALL it is), it's an outline for a clearly defined, meticulously organized system that led to the deaths of countless innocents.

The basis for the Malleus is already established in the readings of the last few weeks. There's already a firm theological and legal basis for the persecution of witches, and people all over Europe, including popes, clearly believe there are untold legions of witches lurking everywhere, conspiring to corrupt Christian civilization. Kramer and Sprenger technically aren't saying anything new here, they're just codifying their own opinions of a fear that's already vastly widespread.

The text itself is full of examples from theologians and court officials from around Germany dealing with the subjects of women, who to the medieval mindset were inferior to men and especially prone to spiritual corruption, and witchcraft. It seems meticulously researched, and even if Kramer and Sprenger made some or all of their examples up, the Malleus presents to the medieval reader what appears to be a scholarly, authoritative, and more importantly, thanks to the Summis Desiderantes Affectibus, papally authorized method of obliterating the perceived scourge of witches from the face of Christian Europe.

Behind the scholarly veneer, though, the text is full of circular logic that provides very little in the way of justice for the falsely accused. For example, accused witches cannot be sentenced to death without a confession of guilt, no matter how much "evidence" is brought against them. Therefore, the accused must be kept imprisoned and tortured for up to a year in order to secure a confession. Even if the accused does not break under months of torture and imprisonment, they are then thrown to the proverbial wolves of the secular courts as an "impenitent heretic." They either confess and the church has them executed, or the secular courts get ahold of them, and, since the secular courts don't necessarily have to deal with the strictures of Church law, things might actually get even worse from there.

This circular logic, though, could easily have seemed sound to the medieval mind. Annihilating witches from this earth in the name of Almighty God was certainly more important than a few innocent human lives. After all, if an innocent was killed due to the system laid out in the Malleus, God would certainly save that person's soul... right?

I find the Malleus so disgusting because it starts on a foundation of pure madness and then proceeds with something a medieval person could easily see as logic and rationality from that point. Kramer and Sprenger didn't start the witch craze, but their contribution to it is so massive and thorough that it's hard not to see them as utterly dominating it.

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.