WI: No witch hunts?

For most of its history, the Christian church's position on witchcraft (eg: enchantments, weather manipulation, love potions, etc.) Was that it was mere superstition, and condemned rulers for accusing and killing purported witches.

So suppose that this attitude is maintained (at least by Catholics) what effects might we expect?
 
It wasn't that it was considered supertitious, and you had a widespread use of magical/sorcerous tools; but that while witches existed they had no real powers, it was the Decil that fooled them and people to make them believe they had. Ergo, believing that witches had power was believing the Devil.
The problem there is less religious andjudicial : witchcraft was particularily associated with poison, and it was something medieval (and late medieval) rulers and justice was really paranoid about. The Malleus Maleficarum was as such more used by secular courts than anything else.

Giving that limiting the secularisation of Europe would require a much earlier PoD, you might want to have a situation where inquisitorial procedure is taken more seriously : IOTL, witch hunts are rare at worst in Spain and Italy, with Inquisition barely taking in account accusation of witchcraft (at most reprimending people to believe in elves, because that's damn ridiculous at your age, and they were doing a serious job at hunting heresy meanwhile damnit). With the failure of Reformation, and less holier-than-thou contest which ended up bolstering witch-hunts (when mapped, you realize most happened in the contact between Protestants and Catholics), you might have something close enough?
 

Kaze

Banned
The Holy Office of Inquisition started in the purge of the Cathars. Now once that heresy was gone, they turned elsewhere on the enemies of the Church and perceived enemies of the Church - then the witch trials began. Such trials led to purging Hus (a proto-Luther) and Luther himself.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The Holy Office of Inquisition started in the purge of the Cathars. Now once that heresy was gone, they turned elsewhere on the enemies of the Church and perceived enemies of the Church - then the witch trials began. Such trials led to purging Hus (a proto-Luther) and Luther himself.

You're confusing totally different things. Combatting heresies was a completely different task than hunting witches. The former was something the Catholic Church was concerned with (although you present a rather biased, anti-Catholic view of it), the latter was explicitly not. At least not until the Early Modern period, which is when witch-hunting crazes really erupted. It was still mostly a secular affair, but a general tendency towards all sorts of occultism in the period fed the fire. Combined with the Reformation and a wild, apocalyptic tendency (fed by the Wars of Religion), things soon got out of hand.

I'm not entirely sure that 'just' preventing the Reformation - as @LSCatilina has suggested - would be quite enough (since the upsurge in mysticism and occultism actually precedes -- and to no small extent influenced parts of -- the Reformation), but it would go a long way. It's easily the biggest 'single step' one could take in preserving the old (Catholic) status quo: that witch-hunting is something for uneducated louts, and the Inquisition has far better things to do (namely combat heretical doctrines, which actually exist).
 

Kaze

Banned
The manuals of the Roman Catholic Curch remained highly skeptical of witch accusations, although there was sometimes an overlap between accusations of heresy and of witchcraft, particularly when, in the 13th century, the newly formed Inquisition was commissioned to deal with the Cathars of Southern France, whose teachings were charged with containing an admixture of witchcraft and magic. Although it has been proposed that the witch-hunt developed in Europe from the early 14th century, after the Cathars and the Templar Knights were suppressed.

Things do not happen in a vacuum...

Then later in 1484, Pope Innocent VIII issued Summis desiderantes affectibus, a Papal bull authorizing the "correcting, imprisoning, punishing and chastising" of devil-worshippers who have "slain infants", among other crimes. He did so at the request of inquisitor Heinrich Kramer, who had been refused permission by the local bishops in Germany to investigate. However, historians such as Ludwig von Pastor insist that the bull neither allowed anything new nor was necessarily binding on Catholic consciences.Three years later in 1487, Kramer published the notorious Malleus Maleficarum (lit., 'Hammer against the Evildoers') which, because of the newly invented printing presses, enjoyed a wide readership. The book was soon banned by the Church in 1490, and Kramer was censured, but it was nevertheless reprinted in 14 editions by 1520 and became unduly influential in the secular courts.

Thus, the witch-hunts had a legal framework.
 
I'm curious about the history of witchcraft. I'm sure it has roots in the pre-Christian religions of Europe, but it's certainly changed and gotten bigger sometime after Christianity took over the entire continent. What exactly happened?
 
The Holy Office of Inquisition started in the purge of the Cathars. Now once that heresy was gone, they turned elsewhere on the enemies of the Church and perceived enemies of the Church - then the witch trials began.
That's wrong : I can't remember an Inquisitorial trial against witches in the period between XIIIth and XVIth century in Languedoc. You did have witch trials, but they were essentially secular.

'm not entirely sure that 'just' preventing the Reformation - as @LSCatilina has suggested - would be quite enough (since the upsurge in mysticism and occultism actually precedes -- and to no small extent influenced parts of -- the Reformation),
I'm not saying it would be enough, but it would help greatly reducing witch trials if you get rid of the religious opposition. You'd still have peripherical trials, such as Basque Witches in the XVIIIth, but significantly less than IOTL
Anything more, IMO, would require preventing secularisatin of justice in a significant manner (possibly up getting rid of Roman Law reintroduction) and that might be too tall of an order.
 
The manuals of the Roman Catholic Curch remained highly skeptical of witch accusations, although there was sometimes an overlap between accusations of heresy and of witchcraft, particularly when, in the 13th century, the newly formed Inquisition was commissioned to deal with the Cathars of Southern France, whose teachings were charged with containing an admixture of witchcraft and magic.
I'm going to ask you a source for this, because it literally goes against everything I have read and being learned on the topic.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The manuals of the Roman Catholic Curch remained highly skeptical of witch accusations, although there was sometimes an overlap between accusations of heresy and of witchcraft, particularly when, in the 13th century, the newly formed Inquisition was commissioned to deal with the Cathars of Southern France, whose teachings were charged with containing an admixture of witchcraft and magic.

That last bit strikes me as very much skewed. At most, I think cathars were associated with Gnostic heresies, which argue there are two gods (a good one and an evil demiurge who created the physical world). there are theories that the Church misread that doctrine as being worship of said evil deity, a.k.a. Satan. -- But that's all very theoretical, and the true nature of Cathar doctrine (and the extent to which catholic portrayals of it were propgandistic) remains contested. I think @LSCatilina can probably say more about this topic. The big thing is that 'devil-worship' and 'witchcraft' are not quite the same thing (certainly not to the medieval mind).

ETA: and indeed, LSC has already noted the point while I was still typing.


Although it has been proposed that the witch-hunt developed in Europe from the early 14th century, after the Cathars and the Templar Knights were suppressed.

I have my doubt about this thesis.


Things do not happen in a vacuum...

Then later in 1484, Pope Innocent VIII issued Summis desiderantes affectibus, a Papal bull authorizing the "correcting, imprisoning, punishing and chastising" of devil-worshippers who have "slain infants", among other crimes. He did so at the request of inquisitor Heinrich Kramer, who had been refused permission by the local bishops in Germany to investigate. However, historians such as Ludwig von Pastor insist that the bull neither allowed anything new nor was necessarily binding on Catholic consciences.Three years later in 1487, Kramer published the notorious Malleus Maleficarum (lit., 'Hammer against the Evildoers') which, because of the newly invented printing presses, enjoyed a wide readership. The book was soon banned by the Church in 1490, and Kramer was censured, but it was nevertheless reprinted in 14 editions by 1520 and became unduly influential in the secular courts.

Thus, the witch-hunts had a legal framework.

All of this is true, and rather proves the point: witch-hunting was a secular, ah... 'hobby'. the Church typically opposed it and at best condoned combating "devil-worship" (which I stress again, is quite another thing; that Kramer conflates things is his own doing).
 

Kaze

Banned
It is in the trail records of the anti-Cathar proceedings as well as the anti-Templar proceedings where they are accused of devil worship ( in the mind of that period - worshiping the Devil is witchcraft), profaning the Host, cannibalism (in one case), homosexuality, and other things. Where it was -- "Kill them all, the Lord will recognize His own"
 
I'm curious about the history of witchcraft.
May I advise you Witchcraft in Europe - 400 to 1700?It's kind a good book on this. Also "Withcraft, a history".

I'm sure it has roots in the pre-Christian religions of Europe, but it's certainly changed and gotten bigger sometime after Christianity took over the entire continent. What exactly happened?
While you had certainly folk beliefs, it wasn't really much more present than Folk Christianism, which regardless what was said, was enough close to basic dogmas, and was regularily revengelized. Medieval and Early Modern witchraft is a Christian witchcraft, culturally-wise.

It is in the trail records of the anti-Cathar proceedings
I'm looking at some right now, and can't find this. For instance, the (really long) trial of Bernard Othon doesn't.
Same goes for trials launched by Bernard de Castanet, who really wasn't a nice guy about it.
Are you thinking about one in particular? Meanwhile, I'll go give a look at Biget and Roquebert.

as well as the anti-Templar proceedings
Which are secular proceeding tough, and not really inquisitorials.

( in the mind of that period - worshiping the Devil is witchcraft),
I think that's where your wrong : witchcraft is considered a diabolical illusion and a spiritual abberration, but it's not really comparable with actual devil worshipping.

Where it was -- "Kill them all, the Lord will recognize His own"
It's an apocryphal quote, unfortunately. It's known since the XIXth century.
 
Ok so i see that witchhunts were more of a secular habbit, but is there any particular reason why they hid the things they didn't like (such as folkmedicine) behind esoteric guises like witchcraft, infanticide, and the like?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Ok so i see that witchhunts were more of a secular habbit, but is there any particular reason why they hid the things they didn't like (such as folkmedicine) behind esoteric guises like witchcraft, infanticide, and the like?

"Secular" doesn't mean those doing it weren't motivated by belief, but that it wasn't the church doing it. The secular authorities - in particular local authorities - in these cases often genuinely believed witchcraft existed. That is difficult to grasp from a modernist worldview, but "secularism" in our sense of the word is historically highly unusual. To the vast majority of people for the vast majority of history, the supernatural was real. Not something of myth, but something active in the world around us. So when a bunch of cows (or, you know, human infants) start dying, and there's that weird old hag living nearby, certain conclusions are jumped to, you see...

That old hag better hope there's an inquisitor around, by the way. He'll demand things like proof, which will most likely result in her release. The local authorities, conversely, would be more inclined to hang her.
 
A friend of mine just pointed out to me an interesting vid on the topic
This video does have important issues but makes good points too.

First,the usual issue with not grasping medieval economics : most economical changes were already happening by the XIVth, since two centuries notably the appearance of an urban and semi-urban capitalism; but also countryside changes (serfdom was already significantly on the decline before the Plague). That the Plague accelerated changes is largely possible, that it represented a period of popular re-evengelisation is obvious (for instance, it's the period where people begins to use Christian names on a large scale) but feudal society didn't begin to crack then. Of course there's the problem defining a "feudal economy" which is at best debatable giving we're more in a transition between bona fide capitalism and domanial production : he's entierely right that Marx wasn't 100% right about everything and this is possible another case where marxian periodisation is less interesting.

Now, I think his appreciation of woman's role isn't that spot on either : the affirmation that women were leading "anti-feudal" and "anti-capitalist" (whatever it means in this context) needs some grounds. Taking in consideration the great popular movement against feudal hierarchy and urban elites of the XIVth (Jacqueries, Tuchins, Wat Tyler's revolt, etc.) they don't appear, while not being entirely masculine, led by women. They do actively participated to this, but...
Now it's true the political/social role of women decreased since the XIIth century (partly compensated culturally by courteous love and rise of marial cult) and the role of reintroduced Roman Law is to be pointed out IMO.(note that it concerned social minors, women and poor classes alike, women having a double sentence as the re-evengelisation basically painted them either as saints or demons) and the growing influence over countryside (which economically, happened since the XIIth and the increasingly important of loans into rural economy).

A good part of trials were, eventually, tied to malpractice : for instance, but I don't pretend this example is typical or not, just one that came in mind, the trial of Peronne Bacheme in 1485 in southern France. She was a young widows (so a vulnerable person) which took lessons from an apothicar and became some sort of a wise-woman,and a baby she treated died. People around accused her of witchcraft, secular authorities prosecuted and she was executed.
The author makes a fair point with the similarity of racist lynchings, but I think the key difference there is that we're talking of a structurated and policed society in XIXth/XXth century America, and societies in great changes in periphery of what secular states could do (and generally accepted out of disinterest) while it charged vulnerable persons in the idea of social "normality". Witches were often (not systematically, as we're talking of a really complex situation) peripheral women, socially, without a lot of social protection.
Note that witch-hunts didn't happen all over societies in late Middle-Ages and Early Modern Period. It was fairly limited in Spain and Italy, while they were place of earlier capitalist development, somewhat not rare in England, and most of France, and really more common in place where Protestantism and Catholicism was at odds.
It's far from being a systematic explicans (the importance of trials in Germany might be explainable trough the destructuration of society due to religious wars and especially TYW), but it does provides some parallel that doesn't fit a whole societal transformation.

Eventually, I don't really agree with the witch-trials as something as politicized that the video's author makes it : it did played a role into social long transformation but I think it was more symptomatic than leading there.
 
Last edited:
Top