AHC: No witch hunts in Northern Europe or New England, magic not equated with evil

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
One of the more unique sets of observations, correct or not, of controversial pro-Christian author Rodney Stark is that he sees witch hunts as out of step with most of Christian history, and a comparatively late development brought on almost contemporaneously with the Reformation and with the Enlightenment (which he thinks is misnamed).

According to Stark, medieval Catholicism was not so uptight about magic and sorcery. The attitude was more or less neutral and the Church's view of whether it was satanically influenced depended on what the spell casters intent was. Evil intent in practicing magic was considered evil, and magic for the purposes of seduction or theft was frowned upon, but for healing and other purposes the attitude was rather laissez-faire.

What could have caused established religion to keep thinking of magic in this way (magic doesn't kill people, evil magicians do) through the Reformation and Enlightenment eras into modern times.
 
One of the more unique sets of observations, correct or not, of controversial pro-Christian author Rodney Stark is that he sees witch hunts as out of step with most of Christian history, and a comparatively late development brought on almost contemporaneously with the Reformation and with the Enlightenment (which he thinks is misnamed).

According to Stark, medieval Catholicism was not so uptight about magic and sorcery. The attitude was more or less neutral and the Church's view of whether it was satanically influenced depended on what the spell casters intent was. Evil intent in practicing magic was considered evil, and magic for the purposes of seduction or theft was frowned upon, but for healing and other purposes the attitude was rather laissez-faire.

What could have caused established religion to keep thinking of magic in this way (magic doesn't kill people, evil magicians do) through the Reformation and Enlightenment eras into modern times.

I know this information comes from Tv.Tropes, but didn't Saint Augustine himself state that Christians cannot obey Exodus' proclamation that Witches must be killed because Witches don't actually exist? This view supposedly lasted until the Late Middle Ages, when Witchcraft was equated with Heresy just in time for Joan of Arc's death.

Something better supported as it comes from the Encyclopedia Britannica's published editions (I read it in a library): Apparently, the Spanish Inquisition didn't believe in Witch burning. Rather, they believed that Witchcraft was impotent at best, curable by putting the 'Witch' in a convent at worst.
 

samcster94

Banned
One of the more unique sets of observations, correct or not, of controversial pro-Christian author Rodney Stark is that he sees witch hunts as out of step with most of Christian history, and a comparatively late development brought on almost contemporaneously with the Reformation and with the Enlightenment (which he thinks is misnamed).

According to Stark, medieval Catholicism was not so uptight about magic and sorcery. The attitude was more or less neutral and the Church's view of whether it was satanically influenced depended on what the spell casters intent was. Evil intent in practicing magic was considered evil, and magic for the purposes of seduction or theft was frowned upon, but for healing and other purposes the attitude was rather laissez-faire.

What could have caused established religion to keep thinking of magic in this way (magic doesn't kill people, evil magicians do) through the Reformation and Enlightenment eras into modern times.
I read somewhere that believing in witches was viewed as problematic in the Low Middle Ages.
 
Well, the Matter of Britain certainly suggests magic wasn't viewed as necessarily evil--from a modern viewpoint the piety of Galahad seems at odds with Merlin's magic, but from a contemporary perspective it must have seemed fine
 
I know this information comes from Tv.Tropes, but didn't Saint Augustine himself state that Christians cannot obey Exodus' proclamation that Witches must be killed because Witches don't actually exist? This view supposedly lasted until the Late Middle Ages, when Witchcraft was equated with Heresy just in time for Joan of Arc's death.

Something better supported as it comes from the Encyclopedia Britannica's published editions (I read it in a library): Apparently, the Spanish Inquisition didn't believe in Witch burning. Rather, they believed that Witchcraft was impotent at best, curable by putting the 'Witch' in a convent at worst.
Lombard code of 643: "Let nobody presume to kill a foreign serving maid or female servant as a witch, for it is not possible, nor ought to be believed by Christian minds."

Believing in witchcraft was a bit of a pagan tradition and sort of meant assigning higher powers to entities outside of God, a belief that the Catholic Church was rather opposed to.
 
When I was participating in the Blackwall map making game on here I discovered part of the reason for the witch stuff in the UK at one point. Namely, two families who publically called themselves watched, and used it for extortion, as well as selling 'potions' used for murder, inducing miscarriages, etc. They both accused each other to try to get each other arrested because they were competition. And it also reminds me of that last time the Witchcraft law was used to prosecute someone during WWI or WWII. Namely, the woman was NOT prosecuted as a witch. She was prosecuted for falsely claiming to be able to use magic in order to get money form people.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
One of the more unique sets of observations, correct or not, of controversial pro-Christian author Rodney Stark is that he sees witch hunts as out of step with most of Christian history, and a comparatively late development brought on almost contemporaneously with the Reformation and with the Enlightenment (which he thinks is misnamed).

If Stark is controversial, that's the first I've heard of it. It's not like the man is a religious figure writing a biased account (he's an atheist, or - more recently - a self-described agnostic) or some kind of arch-conservative trying to whitewash a 'glorious traditional past' or something. As far as I know, even those who disagree with Stark consider him a respected and intellectually honest author. There are certainlt hacks who write revisionist histories to fit a political narrative, but Stark cannot credibly be called one of them.

Anyway, whatever one feels about this author in particular, the facts broudly back up his position. The whole witch-hunting craze only got going at the very tail-end of the middle ages, and went on through the renaissance. The popular conception of an almighty evil church killing people for witcfhcraft during the 'dark ages' is an odious myth-- it's exactly one of the forms of politically motivated revisionism we should watch out for. Much like the idea that people in the middle ages were universally uneducated, or that everyone believed the world was flat, the whole notion was born in the Enlightenment era, as a deliberate attempt to contrast the values of 'reason' with the (at least partially imagined) backwardness of the past.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Enlightenment is misnamed, but Stark does have a point about a very persistant bias regarding the middle ages and the church in particular, based on incorrect claims made in the Enlightenment era.


According to Stark, medieval Catholicism was not so uptight about magic and sorcery. The attitude was more or less neutral and the Church's view of whether it was satanically influenced depended on what the spell casters intent was. Evil intent in practicing magic was considered evil, and magic for the purposes of seduction or theft was frowned upon, but for healing and other purposes the attitude was rather laissez-faire.

What could have caused established religion to keep thinking of magic in this way (magic doesn't kill people, evil magicians do) through the Reformation and Enlightenment eras into modern times.

It do agree with @Dragos Cel Mare that magic was largely just considered to be... not real. This also ties into the fact that the church wasn't some caricature, full of superstition. Most clergymen were in fact an educated elite, and they were among the least likely people to believe in folk superstition. Church policy just didn't recognise magic as real on any level. On the other hand, they did obviously believe in the evil of satan. So anyone who (apparently) called upon satanic or otherwise demonic powers in an occult context was cause for concern. Yes as pointed out, this would much sooner lead to 'institutionalisation' in a convent than it would ever lead to torture and execution.

Actual belief in magic ('the evil eye' and such things) obviously persisted among the populace, but in the vast majority of cases, religious authorities didn't get involved one way or another.
 
I've not read Stark's work, so can only comment in light of what you have summarised here, but I think maybe its a bit too simplistic a view.

Many people, as previous posters have noted, did believe in magic in the middle ages and early modern period. Whilst the European Witch Craze certainly reached an unusual peak in the 17th century, its origins ran much further back into the c14th. Some scholars believe the upswing was a result of hardening attitudes to minorities and outsiders after the Black Death, others see it as part of a process of "firming-up" the Catholic (and later Protestant) churches - i.e. the more doctrinal you are the less patience and sympathy you have for things that fall outside of that doctrine like folk beliefs or "magic".

But to argue that the majority of people in the Medieval period considered magic to be not real has little basis in historical record. Of course there were skeptics, and of course canon-law was divided on the issue, but for many people up and down the social hierarchy magic was something that was an everyday undercurrent in life.

Just a couple of examples to prove my point:

I'm not saying that previous posters are completely wrong, but people in the Medieval Period did believe in magic in large numbers. Arguing that, as Stark presumably does from your synopsis, that the Witch Hunts are a departure from the previous norm is to misunderstand the phenomena somewhat I think. Remember that, despite their images later on, many Inquisitions did not seek to kill their targets. A soul that died unrepentant and in sin was a soul lost, after all, and that was far from ideal for Inquisitors who were meant, at least, to be pulling the sinful back from the edge of damnation.

But why, to address Stark's main thesis, did punishment shift in this period? Why were so many predominantly women killed? I'd argue its not as much a change in belief systems between, say 1200 and 1550, but instead that post 1450 when the witch trials really began to pick up the social fabric of Europe was under considerable strain as the beginnings of urbanisation, mercantilism, and the Reformation and Renaissance trends of thought unsettled the status quo.
 
I think it's partially an outgrowth of bible literalism of the protestant movement.

I'm no fan of Luther et al., but I think is unfair. There was a general upsurge of interest in occultism and the like during the Renaissance, so I think we'd likely have seen some witch burnings even if the Reformation had never happened.

And it also reminds me of that last time the Witchcraft law was used to prosecute someone during WWI or WWII. Namely, the woman was NOT prosecuted as a witch. She was prosecuted for falsely claiming to be able to use magic in order to get money form people.

IIRC, the last person prosecuted for witchcraft in the UK was prosecuted for trying to use magic to discover Allied war plans during WW2.

Anyway, whatever one feels about this author in particular, the facts broudly back up his position. The whole witch-hunting craze only got going at the very tail-end of the middle ages, and went on through the renaissance. The popular conception of an almighty evil church killing people for witcfhcraft during the 'dark ages' is an odious myth-- it's exactly one of the forms of politically motivated revisionism we should watch out for. Much like the idea that people in the middle ages were universally uneducated, or that everyone believed the world was flat, the whole notion was born in the Enlightenment era, as a deliberate attempt to contrast the values of 'reason' with the (at least partially imagined) backwardness of the past.

On a bit of a tangent, it really is quite striking how many of the negative views people have of the middle ages actually apply more to the renaissance: superstition and belief in magic (much more prevalent from the 15th century on, as others have pointed out), religious violence (which obviously happened during the middle ages, but not on the same scale as after the Reformation), tyrannical and arbitrary monarchs (the renaissance saw a trend towards absolutism in most European countries), lack of hygiene (bathing went out of fashion in the late middle ages, and didn't make a comeback until the 19th century; if you put Thomas Aquinas and Voltaire together, chances are Aquinas would smell better).

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Enlightenment is misnamed, but Stark does have a point about a very persistant bias regarding the middle ages and the church in particular, based on incorrect claims made in the Enlightenment era.

I, on the other hand, would go so far. Pretty much any time people say "We modern people are so smart and rational, not at all like those backward hicks in previous generations," it's PR speaking, rather than proper history. (Cf. the Dark Ages, the Renaissance.)

I'm not saying that previous posters are completely wrong, but people in the Medieval Period did believe in magic in large numbers. Arguing that, as Stark presumably does from your synopsis, that the Witch Hunts are a departure from the previous norm is to misunderstand the phenomena somewhat I think. Remember that, despite their images later on, many Inquisitions did not seek to kill their targets. A soul that died unrepentant and in sin was a soul lost, after all, and that was far from ideal for Inquisitors who were meant, at least, to be pulling the sinful back from the edge of damnation.

As a matter of fact, the Inquisition had a reputation for being more lenient than secular courts; there are accounts of people trying to get their cases transferred to the Inquisition, suggesting they expected better treatment there than from the ordinary magistrates.
 
IIRC early on the most surefire way to end up on a bonfire would be to claim that someone else was doing magic ... They might / Might not (and if it was healing or other good magic (medical herbal knowledge learned from oral traditions usually, and often recognized as such by the medically inclined clergy even if not named as such) they would be considered blessed people doing 'miracles') but claiming that other could do magic branded you as a disbeliever and often no better than Pagan ritualists
 
Interestingly in the Netherlands most Witch hunts happened in the southern catholic part. there were barely any convictions in the northern Dutch republic.
 
(and if it was healing or other good magic (medical herbal knowledge learned from oral traditions usually, and often recognized as such by the medically inclined clergy even if not named as such)

Probably not, actually: miracles and magic were quite clearly distinguished in the medieval mind.
 

Perkeo

Banned
I think it's partially an outgrowth of bible literalism of the protestant movement.
I beg to disagree:
1) Witch hunting began before, albeit not much before , protestantism .
2) Witch hunting was never restricted to Protestant areas.
3) Bible literalism can support both options:
a) Witches are evil
b) The belief that witches exist and/or the attempt to be one is evil.
AFAIK the Bible never explicitly defies b)
 

Perkeo

Banned
Probably not, actually: miracles and magic were quite clearly distinguished in the medieval mind.
Indeed. Miracles came from the Christian God. Magic from pagan gods. Since the existence of pagan gods was denied magic had to be denied.
The other option was that pagan gods do exist, but are evil demons sent by the devil.
AFAIK the second option became more attractive due to increased decease and crop fails.
 
I beg to disagree:
1) Witch hunting began before, albeit not much before , protestantism .
2) Witch hunting was never restricted to Protestant areas.
3) Bible literalism can support both options:
a) Witches are evil
b) The belief that witches exist and/or the attempt to be one is evil.
AFAIK the Bible never explicitly defies b)
Would you agree that literalism was partially responsible?
And wasn't literalism a direct component that lead to Protestantism?
 
Indeed. Miracles came from the Christian God. Magic from pagan gods. Since the existence of pagan gods was denied magic had to be denied.
The other option was that pagan gods do exist, but are evil demons sent by the devil.
AFAIK the second option became more attractive due to increased decease and crop fails.

Exactly my point ... If they heard about it, and the 'magic' was healing and similar things, and the person in question wasn't Pagan, then it would be classified as Miracles
 
Top