Talk:Witch trials in the early modern period/Archive 1

Inconsistencies

This article say:

The most common death sentence was to be burnt at the stake while still alive.

The article Execution by burning, however say:

burning however, was actually less common than hanging, pressing, or drowning as a punishment for witchcraft.

This is inconsistent and whoever wrote these need to add a source for any of the statements. Which of these are true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.59.154 (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Protests

I have added to this section a number of references containing the information cited in the list of protests which follows. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Germany: Weather and Panic

I added this section after I conducted research and discovered that it had been a consistent topic among noted scholars on early modern Europe (i.e. Midelfort, Monter and Behringer). It is ment to only be brief and historiographical in a nature and feel it fills in a small gap in the rest of the article. - HChundak —Preceding unsigned comment added by HChundak (talk • contribs) 07:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit needed: "The assertions that early modern European witch hunts, at least where Germany is concerned, is the product of a number of events falling in line with each other is one clear a well developed view of the nature of these witch hunts."?????172.166.231.78 (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Nachman Ben-Yehuda

Cut from the article:

Nachman Ben-Yehuda in 1980 claimed that "From the early decades of the 14th century until 1650, continental Eurpeans executed between 200,000 and 500,000 witches" [The European Witch Craze of the 14th to 17th Centuries: A Sociologist's Perspective Nachman Ben-Yehuda The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 86, No. 1 (Jul., 1980), pp. 1-31 Publisher: The University of Chicago Press]

the sentence cited is part of the abstract given right at the start of the article. No source whatsoever is provided, nor is any mention made of estimates of the number executed in the article body. Judging from his Wikipedia article, Ben-Yehuda also seems to be somewhat on the lunatic fringe. This is not a good source for a scholarly estimate of the number executed (1980. No source. Conspiracy theorist). dab (𒁳) 18:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Scottish Witch Hunt of 1661-1662

Why not give the section of The Scottish Witch Hunt of 1661-1662 it's own article? Judging by it's content, it seems to deserve one! --85.226.235.160 (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Country-specific data

If the table listing executions is referring to modern territories and countries, this should be explicitly stated. Currently it is confusing, as it includes some historical territories. Is "Austria" referring to contemporary Austria or the Habsburg hereditary lands, which e.g. would include most of modern Slovenia? Does "Bohemia" include Moravia? Compiling data for contemporary countries doesn't make sense in a historical article such as this and inevitably leads to confusion. For example, the "End of the witch-trials" section states that "[i]n Austria, Maria Theresa outlawed witch-burning and torture in the late 18th century; the last capital trial took place in Salzburg in 1750." There's something wrong here: Maria Theresa did not rule the Archbishopric of Salzburg, which only became a Habsburg territory in 1805. Martg76 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested articles

On Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands/Article requests are three article requests related to witch trials in the Netherlands, maybe some of this article's editors could help create them?

• Anna Muggen (requested since 12 November 2007)
• Triene Langheldes (requested since 12 November 2007)
• Witchhunt in the Netherlands (requested since 23 July 2007)

Thanks, Ilse@ 15:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ortodox witch trials missing!

The article informs about catholic and protestant witch trials, but lacks coverage about witch trials in ortodox Europe, such as Russia. According to Russian language wikipedia, they did ecxist, although they were not as known or large as in Western Europe. Perhaps someone with knowledge can fix this? There should be specific articles about the most famous witch trial in Russia, etc, but the subject should at least be mentioned here. --Aciram (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Lynching in the 19th-century

I have added : However, even after legal trials and executions had stopped, the belief in witches resulted in lynchings in the 19th-century, such as the cases of Anna Klemens in Denmark 1800, Krystyna Ceynowa in Poland 1836, and Dummy, the Witch of Sible Hedingham in 1863 in England. Perhaps there should be a section about the witch lynchings of the 19th-century? Not to mention the case of Barbara Zdunk (1811), although just as dubious as the case of Anna Göldi, took place in the 19th-century. --85.226.41.31 (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Religious Bias

It seems that the persecution of so-called witches is somewhat more ecumenical that the first sentence describes. The Reformation was well along in many, even most of the areas used in examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.56.249 (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The biggest witch trials where Catholic, such as the Trier witch trials (1581–1593), the Fulda witch trials (1603–1606), the Würzburg witch trial (1626–1631) and the Bamberg witch trials (1626–1631).--85.226.42.215 (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The article mentioned the Scottish North Berwick witch trials, Swedish Torsåker witch trials and the American Salem witch trials as the most "notable". They were undoubtedly the most famous, but the Trier witch trials (1581–1593), the Fulda witch trials (1603–1606), the Würzburg witch trial (1626–1631) and the Bamberg witch trials (1626–1631) could be considered as more notable as they had much more victims. It is true that the examples previously used in the article are from protestant nations, but these giant mass trials, with thousand more victims than the protestantic, where Catholic. I have rephrased this; but of course, the trials are already mentioned in their articles, so to avoid disputes, specific trials need not be mentioned here at all.--Aciram (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

new title

The new title is strictly accurate, of course, but it is also way too awkward. Perhaps Witch trials in the Early Modern period? The point is that the witch hunts took place everywhere where there was also "early modernity", being one characteristic of that period. --dab (𒁳) 14:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with you - I was the one who changed the title, and it is definately rather too long now. I think that your alternative title is a good choice. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC))

I agree with your opinion, and as there has been a while since this discussion was active, and there is no objection to your suggestion, I hope it was correct of me to perform the change of title. Otherwise, you may of course revert my change and solve the matter in some other way. In that case, I leave it to you. I have no other suggestion myself, only the opinion that the former title was to long. Regards--Aciram (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

it's fine with me, thanks. --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Comments, thoughts and ideas to be found at this talk page. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 19:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ergotism (Saint Anthony's Fire)

The true causes of these 'hysteria' was due to the accidental consumption of ergot from the rye which symptoms are manifested as 'witch' behaviour. Its really strange for wikipedia to include a section of the cause "cause" for something without showing the real cause for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.53.250 (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's only one of many causes for select European witchhunts, reducing such large and complex social phenomena that spanned multiple countries and centuries is a bad idea. However, it is a theorized cause that should be discussed, but it would have to cite reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, this has been hypothesized in the Salem Witch Trials incident, too, but mostly because it was so small and localized. Ergotism has many other, more dramatic and less ambiguous symptoms, though, including and especially the turning black and falling off of fingers and toes as the capillaries constrict so much that blood flow is entirely stopped. I'd think such symptoms would be well documented, as they were in the Scottish village where its discovery led to the production of ergotamines as a therapeutic drug. --TEHodson 07:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church as major force

I clarified your opening paragraph because it was the Catholic Church that was behind most of the witch trials in Europe (as this talk page states). All that wild succubus/incubus stuff isn't even something the Protestant religions have on the menu. This is important for lots of reasons, but is especially noteworthy for the link from the Salem Witch Trials page, where I have noted the unique nature of the Puritan-on-Puritan attack that it entailed. Everything I've read about The Burning Times makes the point that the Catholic Church was "fighting" paganism, midwives, etc. I have linked to your page from SWT to draw the comparison. (I am hard at work improving that page, and suggestions from anyone here who is knowledgeable about them are welcome.) --TEHodson 07:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This page doesnt prove that the Catholic Church was behind most of the witch trials, it just contains an unsourced statement from an editor that it is the case. Given the controversial nature of such an assertion it would be best to revert to the status quo anti until we have achieved consensus on a form of words. Also please note that the Salam trial is far from unique in North America (see for example the list at [1]). The problem here may be the casual subbubus/incubus statement, rather than the fact that the Catholic Church is responsible for it. All the recent scholarly research indicates that the issues were a lot more complex than that. I would also appreciate a little time to check some sources so that the statements the article makes can be backed up. Please note the section dealing with the myth of the burning times that are further down the page. We may need a better lead than the one we have at the moment, but I do not think that these changes are necessarily it.--SabreBD (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. What I think would help is the stressing of church vs. paganism or vestiges of same, if that helps. The superstitions of the Catholic were, ironically, mostly borrowed from paganism (there's none of the sort of categorization of "demonic energies" noted above in the Bible). The Inquisition led many of these trials, and often threw in witchcraft as a charge in run-of-the-mill heresy trials. Of the trials you name, weren't they run by the Catholic Church?

I was using The Burning Times as a broad category, not a literal time. I know that it is a hyped thing. I should have put it in quotes. I'll look at the link. I've only seen this one event referred to in N.A. There were people in other nearby towns cried out on, but only as part of the original hysteria. I can't find anything else (at least not so far). Any other source I can check out (it would be great to have it for what I'm doing over at our place)? Thanks. --TEHodson 08:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I use that list as a source on the SWT page? Those Puritans, quite the busy bees. I noticed that the Western cases were brought by the Inquisition--more Catholics! I noticed that in your Execution section, no one mentioned burning as a way of "purifying" the person as they died. Does the research support that contention? --TEHodson 08:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

To answer the last point first, sadly I do not think we can use that link as it does not count as a reliable source, but given time I can probably find others. Changing the lead of an article is difficult since it is meant to be a summary of the major points of the main body, so if there are changes to be done they should be in the main body first and that is where they will be sourced. I have to say that this is not really my article at all and I have done very little work on it, partly because this stuff is my job and I tend to try to avoid replicating this on Wikipedia. Looking through again I think there is some good, well-sourced work, but also some that is not well sourced and other areas that are simply not covered. I am really busy right now and not really looking to take on a rewrite or expansion that would be a lot of work and, probably controversial, given the topic. I am inclined to follow the Levak line on the religious divide in witch trails, that is to say that the Catholic Church had a 100 years of trials before there was any Protestantism, and thereafter they continued while Protestants took on the idea of dealing with witchcraft, but for slightly different reasons, partly (as I think you are suggesting) because they found "pagan supersitition" within Catholicism. If there is a consensus around this kind of view, I need to think about how this could reflected in the main body and then it can be summarised carefully in the lead. So perhaps to begin with you (and any other editors) could comment on whether that outline is acceptable and we can try to move on from there.--SabreBD (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Church of Rome was not a driving force behind the witch trials. On the contrary, it was very reluctant to endorse them. This is just a pop culture cliché. Of course there were church officials involved in the witch hunts, so the church cannot just wash its hands of them, but if there was a driving force behind this, it was the emerging Protestant churches to a far greater degree than the Catholic Church.

Sabrebd's outline sounds reasonable. The year 1484 and Summis desiderantes affectibus should certainly be mentioned as an important turning-point in the attitude of the Catholic Church. But I think it is important to note that this was very much a "bottom to top" phenomenon -- the official church had to gradually concede the practice of witch-hunts simply because there was overwhelming popular demand for it, not because there was some theological rationale or mater plan behind it. But afaik the bulk of this was entirely secular -- the witches were tried in secular courts and the churches (Catholic or Protestant) more or less just let things take their course. If anything of this belongs in the lead, it is probably the essentially secular character of the phenomenon, if only to dispel the "Spanish Inquisition" meme. --dab (𒁳) 19:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that while the courts may have technically been secular, as were the courts in the Salem Trials, the trials could not have occurred without the intensely religious nature of the entire community, where (in Mass. Colony, at least) you couldn't even be an official of any sort unless you were a powerful church member in good standing. There's no way the trials would have occurred here without its influence--the whole "supernatural" milieu was the provenance of the church. It is unthinkable that such things would happen in an environment entirely free of religion; from where else does the notion of "the Devil" originate? You can't have men and women being influenced by succubi and incubi, etc., if there isn't a church promoting such concepts. So what does "secular" mean in this context? Re the Catholic Church, why did they write and use the Malleus Maleficarum if not to destroy "witches"? If this is not a good argument for noting them as a "major force" in the prosecuting of witches, I'm not sure what is. The MM page here is pretty clear about its purpose, the Church's role in the writing of it, and confirms what I said above, about the irony of the whole thing starting as a pagan belief system that was co-opted by the Catholic Church. My point about courts being only technically secular is supported by the info re the MM, i.e., it is one of the sources the courts relied upon in order to know how to know a witch in order to charge her/him, and then how to conduct the trials, so how secular does that make the whole affair? Not very, I'd say.

I do not cite the Wiki page as my only source on the MM, the Catholic Church and European witch trials (it's a pretty well known book! I became familiar with it through my experiences with midwifery, as the MM states that midwives are the biggest threat to the Church and must be eliminated if possible, and at that time read one of the books listed on the MM page about it and the trials in Europe). But as it's a part of the Wiki encyclopedia, should there not be some continuity between articles about the same thing? This is a good discussion, by the way. Oh--I will be at the library tomorrow to do some more homework about the SWT, and will see if I can find other sources about the American witch trials that the above link listed. Weird that I've never heard about them before. --TEHodson 08:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Edited above --TEHodson 08:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Stressing the "Church vs Paganism" dichotomy doesn't seem like a great idea to me, since as far as I've seen, Murrey, some neo-pagans, and the occasional Christian fundamentalist are really the only ones that believe the "witches" are properly identified as pagans. Secular scholars would agree there were vestiges of paganism in Europe up until even today, but those were often co-opted by the Church (c.f. Green man and Gargoyles, Halloween, Saint Brigid). Although Europe held on to some pagan ideas after converting, Europe (aside from Finns, Jews, and Muslims) identified as Christian by the time the witch trials took effect. Most of what I've seen goes with the witches being the members of society that were unliked or different (the extremely rich and the extremely poor) being accused in a precursor to the 1980's Satanic panic (for which no evidence ever arose), and confessing under torture. The SWT, involving an African slave, could have contained African paganism, though, but beyond Tituba and a few of the girls, the rest of the accused were likely orthodox and orthoprax Puritans. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

TEHodson, you seem to be confusing "the Church" with "religiosity". The "intensely religious nature of the entire community" has very little to do with the Church of Rome, in fact the two are opposites or antagonists more often than not. If there was any "Church vs Paganism dichotomy", it was the the Church (the institution) vs. the "intensely religious nature of the entire community" (pagan). Needless to say, the side insisting on burning witches was the latter.

The need to persecute witches was understood as a matter of course in paganism. Looking at this in a historical context, it is clear that the practice of witch-hunting itself is "a vestige of paganism" adopted in popular Christianity, just like Halloween or Saint Brigid. The Church successfully suppressed witch-hunts as a pagan relict during the High Middle Age, but it re-emerged with the collapse of monolithic Roman Catholicism in the 15th century.

"The Church" did neither write nor use the Malleus Maleficarum. The book was written by one Heinrich Kramer, and it was used by the secular witch-hunters. --dab (𒁳) 13:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

... You know, I'm hitting myself over the head for not realizing the witch hunters are the vestige of paganism in the witch hunts. You win an internet. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

well, they are, aren't they. I can't quite tell whether you are being sarcastic, but if you are, you should read up on the pre-Christian history of anti-witchcraft legislation. --dab (𒁳) 14:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic, sorry if my use of a net meme gave the appearence of lack of earnestness. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I confess I am a bit confused as to where we are on this one, but I think I got support for my proposed changes and I have a bit of time this weekend, so I will try to produce something concise on those lines.--SabreBD (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a little laughable to say that witch trials were not a consequense of Christinanity. The witches where a part of the belief of Satan, and Satan is a part of the Christian religion, not of Paganism. I do hope we will se no religious cenzorhisp on wikipedia.--85.226.47.79 (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the belief in witches predates the belief that they worked for Satan. The Catholic Church's Canon Episcopi denied the existance of witchcraft. Witches did factor into pre-Christian beliefs in those areas, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Structuring the page

Hello all! I just thought we should have some discussion of how to structure this page, because at the moment there has been some alterations by various ediotrs, including myself, which has varyingly changed the page structure around. I for instance, implemented a system where the causes and the background to the witch trials was put first, but a subsequent editor has seen fit to instead move it to the end. Discussion is needed. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC))

I seem to remember that you were the one who expunged all references to protests against the witch hunts. How about we discuss that? Are you going to try it again?--Taiwan boi (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, my apologies, on reflection I was certainly too ruthless in removing all those references. My issue with that particular section is that it is just a very long list (mostly unreferenced) of cases where Early Modern individuals protested against the trials. What I think would be far better would be a good paragraph or too on the subject, not just a long list. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC))

The list was very clearly preceded by ten citations which referenced everything on the list. I didn't think they would be easy to miss. I agree the protest section could be developed further, but what I disagree with is the idea of it being nuked out of existence without explanation, without discussion, and without any attempt to improve the edit.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. If I'm being honest, I don't really remember why I removed it, so I'm in no position to defend my actions. Once again, I apologise. I hope that these actions won't affect participation in the further improvement of this page.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC))

well, the list is a start, but it should really be worked into a coherent paragraph in prose. There is no hurry, as there is no deadline, but it's on our to-do list in improving the article further. I do think the article has improved over the past months, due to both Midnightblueowl's edits and mine. It's a complex topic, and it's natural that we should need to play around with article structure in order to find the optimal presentation. --dab (𒁳) 20:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur wholeheartedly with Dab on this one.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC))

The entire protests section is going to be too large for this page, and should be split off. Some of the current information doesn't actually belong to protests against witchcraft in the Early Modern period, and should be moved elsewhere. I have started moving the relevant protest information here, with new references. I will separate this list into paragraphs on different kids of protests; legal, moral, theological, scientific.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)