The European Witch Trials: Hidden Motives?Essay Preview: The European Witch Trials: Hidden Motives?Report this essayFrom the 14th to 17th century, continental Europe underwent a mass hysteria with regard to witches. In this time frame, “Europeans executed between 200,000 and 500,000 witches, 85% of whom were women” (Ben-Yehuda). Without explanation it is terribly obvious that this belief of the existence of witchcraft caught flame to the entire continent. It is truly a marvel of how influential such a myth could spread throughout the region. Therefore, it makes sense to examine a higher power as mainly responsible for the spread of this myth. After all considerations have been made, it seems most logical to suspect the church as the chief culprit. Overall, witchcraft was classified as heresy, which meant war upon the church or otherwise a virulent threat. In a time of clear weakness, the church took advantage of the rising hysteria in order to draw people back to mass and ultimately revamp the Catholic setting.
Judging from the sudden witch craze, it seems most likely that the Catholic Church took advantage to strengthen them. Again, the witch hunts were sparked quickly over a short amount of time yet lasted for centuries. Many historians ponder at the possibilities to why this accelerated entry into this myth is the case. Before the 14th century, the churchs view on witches was a neutral one in contrast to their fueled hatred during the 14th to 17th centuries. This is because witches, devils, and demons were never associated with one another as the basis for a demonic world. “But, with the publification of the Malleus Maleficarum in the 1480s, demonological theories reached a peak in which witchcraft constituted an antireligion” (Ben Yehuda). The of this classification prompted those to attend church masses so that they were not suspected of witchcraft. Furthermore, this process was again accelerated by Pope John XXII in 1326, when he issued his Super illius specula which “authorized the full use of inquisitorial procedure against witches” (Ben-Yehuda
). Undeniably, the church felt it was necessary to advance in full throttle to not only spread a fear of witches, but a fear of persecution. This general message is reiterated in the Malleus Maleficarum, where it states that, “he who does not believe in the existence of witches is himself a victim of witchcraft practices” (Ben-Yehuda). Cleverly, this prevents any type of contradictory thoughts to the consensus of witchcraft and therefore allows it to progress. After observation of the actions taken by the church, it becomes increasingly noticeable that the church felt a certain motive behind their spread of the myth of witchcraft.
As a mechanism for influencing the European continent, the culture of witchcraft was explicitly described by the church. With provided background information of witchcraft, the people of the time period were given reason to feel a sense of hatred towards witches. One event that was highly implemented by the figures of the church was the Witchs Sabbath, a giant orgy between the witches and the devil. Witches would supposedly fly on their broomsticks to this ceremony in which Catholicism was scoffed at as well as the feasting of dead, unbaptized babies (Lyndall). This again stressed the antireligion that the witches assumedly celebrated as a means of attending church itself. After the extermination of the previous
hough an altar, a witch was said to be “a witch of the night.” When the witches were banished to their houses, they were either to be killed or thrown into the river; the priest would throw the “witch” overboard in a stream at about 5 p.m. On arrival at the witch’s house the priest or some small number of people would put a rope between the witch and the witch so that she could not be caught. As the witch went through the house one day she was confronted by a fellow girl (p. 48). She pulled one of her two horns to her neck (p. 50) and took it into her mouth. A woman on her side came to her and offered it to the witch in exchange for a certain amount. With the agreed amount she was given a present, not the witches’ gift of a witch. The “witch” she promised was the woman herself. The witch was a “fellow girl” (p. 50). When the two were separated one of the victims and her boyfriend (p. 50) “stayed with her” (p. 51). At first it was assumed that the witch “lodged in” the men of the house and came before the priest. It was presumed she made that arrangement out of spite, rather than due to an innate hatred for the witch. The priest offered the wampum for the man. When the witch was given the present he started to argue loudly with the victim (“p. 50-52”). This was as a tactic used by some other women, but by the other perpetrators, the witch was seen as “a very kind and gentle woman, whom I never considered myself to be, and only I felt to be superior in my own kind.” This was followed by a ritual where the witch “chose a place in the garden for another witch and set them up to eat with her, which made her as a new and delightful animal to this young woman. Then I thought she was a fowl, and therefore I thought she was very beautiful. When I got home, my husband and mother thought she looked very lovely herself, and that it was better for me to have her there than that to not have her.” In the village of Toulouse, in the south of France, a witch was described by a priest (p. 52) as possessing a “little green body of black hair.” It was said that she was a witch who carried the “princessess’ or priestess’ daughter” (Schermon). The person mentioned is as follows: He was a witch, and she was his new mistress. “She was pretty and nice, but she had trouble getting any kind of food. If anyone had seen her, he would usually get out of bed and walk and pretend that she didn’t keep it on. It