What do the witch hunts tell us about the social and political life of early modern Europe?

In 1625 the first Icelandic witch burned on the stake: it was a man named Jón Rögnvaldson. Lutheran Denmark removed all religious aspects from the crime of witchcraft and such trials reflected civil lawsuits, and in England the acquittal of several people accused of witchcraft followed due to a lack of scientific evidence; William Harvey (1578–1657), the discoverer of blood circulation, had been unable to find any medical evidence of witchcraft.[i] This essay will address the question ‘What do the Witch Hunts tell us about social and political life of early modern Europe?’ In it it will be argued that witch hunts were a reflection of rapid socio-economic, religious, and political change in which newly formed religious denominations and states tried to centralise their power, created their own identity, and used witch hunts as tools for control or oppression. Furthermore, this paper will argue that socio-economic inequalities led to a witch craze which affected all social strata, and show that the belief in, and persecution of, witchcraft was not uniform. Finally, this paper will argue that due to the Reformation, and Counter-Reformation, the boundaries between state and church faded into a symbiotic relationship of which the witch hunts were an expression, and that therefore the witch hunts were not merely a religious phenomenon.

Early modern European societies started to form just after the publication of the Malleus Maleficarum or The Hammer of Witches (1486). Europe started to recover from the fourteenth-century Black Death, more food was becoming available, and the economy started to expand.[ii] However, Europe remained prone to diseases, the population rose, towns started to grow, the economic wealth did not spread equally, and the Church increasingly abused their power.[iii] Many of these factors culminated into the witch hunts of early modern Europe, and these witch hunts directly reflect socio-political issues of this period. According to Muchembeld, the witch hunts were a result of demographic expansion and economic changes, however, Christina Larner linked, what Larner named ‘Christian political ideology’, to a consistent pattern of social control which transcended the denominations and depended on a complex local environment of ‘social, institutional, and ideological’ circumstances’.[iv] The aftermath of the Reformation left a Europe of religious denominations in which confessionalisation concurred with state-forming which both utilised social disciplining to instill order into the new citizens.[v]

Although there was a degree of social mobility (e.g., merchant class), the role of women was in constant flux. Nevertheless, the position of women remained low throughout the whole early modern period which reflects in the analysis of the witch hunts.[vi] In this sense, the Reformation had not changed anything as both Calvin and Luther believed women to be inherently inferior. Furthermore, research has shown that a direct negative correlation exists between the status of women and the level of witch mania.[vii] In English rural communities the fertility of women constituted a precious commodity and by the time these women reached the menopause their status deflated even further. Consequently elderly women found themselves accused of witchcraft; they enjoyed virtually no status and they had a motive, which was envy.[viii]

Despite the fact that the Malleus Maleficarum mentions the Witches’s Sabbath, there was no popular basis for the belief in the existence of a satanic conspiracy; this was rather the imagination of demonologists.[ix] Not everyone believed in the existence of witchcraft: several scholars, including religious authorities, doubted the existence of supernatural magic, did not find any proof of it, or blatantly denied the existence of witches all together. The reversal of the Christian liturgy (the Witches’s Sabbath) only gained real importance after the time of the Tridentine Counter-Reformation.[x] Protestant demonology sought to correct popular belief and to eradicate superstition which actively moved away from any layman conception of the witch. Conversely, in Russia accusations of witchcraft only reflected popular belief — not scholarly demonology — as Russia lacked scholastic theological demonologists.[xi]

Witchcraft accusation polarised already tense societies: Anxiety, anger and other emotions emerged from a lack of social, political and economic power. Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (1519–56) added to the socio-economic unrest by promising people a portion of the confiscated goods of those they reported; a practice common across Europe with the exception of England which saw its abolition in 1604.[xii] Accusations happened across all social classes, very few were immune, for example; in Hungary the rich and powerful accused the weaker in society as they assumed magical revenge out of envy of their success.[xiii] However, in the Jura area quarrels between neighbours led to most of the accusations; here the poor accused the poor and both ended on the stake as a result.[xiv] The population explosion in Norway gave rise to a new, poor social class which the Norwegians perceived as a burden and social problem: a salient detail is that, in Norway, there was a direct relation between the accusations of witchcraft and the social standing of the accused. Furthermore, in Scotland, witch hunts correlated directly with the economy of Scottish society as a whole; three of the five witchcraft panics occurred during time of extremely high wheat prices.[xv]

While historians have linked witch hunts to rapid social, environmental and economic changes, Europe was also in political turmoil. Persecution of witches was neither a solely a religious phenomenon, nor was it purely socio-economic, but in fact the witch hunts were a combination of the two aforementioned factors combined with politics and vice versa. It was a part of a larger plan to control the population and coerce them into respecting the new laws, religious denominations, and states that were crystallising during this period.[xvi] The time of the early modern European witch hunts was marked by a period of wars: the wars of religion including the German Peasants’ War (1524–5), the French Wars of Religion (1562–98), and the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48).[xvii] It was a time during which states, with a religious denominational identity, formed in which centralisation of authority was paramount. A prime example is that of the Holy See, under Pope Paul III, which had already issued the bull Licet ab initio as early as 1542, which did not establish a new Inquisition, but rather centralised power with supreme authority over all lay and ecclesiastical tribunals.[xviii] In addition, witch hunters did not only hunt witches, but also prosecuted other crimes and in absolutist countries this was a centralised fashion of controlling the population.[xix] Furthermore, some witch hunts were solely a tool for political reform, order, and control: Charles II of Styria (1564–90) and his son Ferdinand II (1578–1637) adopted Catholic orthodoxy to reach a political goal which affected peasants and nobility alike.[xx]

In the case of Catholicism, the centralisation of witch hunting had a moderating effect, for instance; the Venetian Inquisition never convicted a single person for maleficio (harmful magic), and many of those convicted in Italy saw their judgement overturned by the Holy Office in Rome.[xxi] However, in some strict Calvinist and Lutheran states, such as Geneva and Denmark, the persecution of witches was often ruthless and so opposite of the development in the Catholic Church. Interestingly, in countries such as France, England, and Spain, the witch hunts ceased relatively early due to their centralisation of power. However, this centralisation cannot be the only reason for the early endings, nor the religious denomination of the State as this explanation does not account for early ending of the witch hunts (c. 1613) in the decentralised, Calvinist, Republic of the United Provinces.[xxii] It also does not explain it’s ending in Protestant England where Edward VI evoked all convictions of witchcraft as early as 1547.[xxiii]

The boundaries between church and state were not distinct and religion and politics often overlapped; throughout Europe symbiotic relations existed between state and religion. In Franche-Comté the Inquisition dealt with witchcraft until the mid-1590s, but from 1599 onwards the lay judge Henri Boguet (1550–1619) took over the witch trials and published the final version of his book on demonology including two chapters dedicated to the instruction of lay judges.[xxiv] The Reformation of Denmark (and Norway), under Christian III (1503–59), to Lutheranism made it the state religion, however, around 1620 (under Christian IV, 1577–1648), during the peak of the Danish witch hunts, all trials were led by lay judges.[xxv] In Italy civil courts and Inquisition both handled witchcraft cases, and in Sweden local courts oversaw witch trials with the assistance of the parish priest and the sheriff.[xxvi] Before Peter the Great of Russia (1672–1725) brought the Church under state control, Peter established the crime of witchcraft under the secular Military Statute of 1716. However, with Peter’s introduction of demonic witchcraft, clearly inspired by the West, witches arguably received worse treatment than in the previous two centuries despite the fact that witchcraft was legislated and placed under secular law.[xxvii] A final, but very clearl, example of this symbiotic overlap between politics and religion comes in the form of Henry VIII who, as head of the Church of England, defined witchcraft as a felony and punishable by death making Henry the political and religious leader at the same time.[xxviii]

This paper has addressed the question of what the witch hunts can tell us about social and political life. From the presented evidence one can conclude that the witch hunts reflected problems in society and the rapid changes society underwent. Furthermore, the centralisation and identity formation of the newly found states and their newfound denominations led to a situation in which witch trials were an effective tool for control and oppression. In addition, this paper has shown evidence that changes in society brought about inequalities which led to a frenzy of witch hunts from which no one was safe. Finally, this paper argued that belief in witchcraft was not uniform, and that the state and church overlapped often in pursue of control, authority and witches, and thus, the witch hunts were not merely a religious occurrence. Contemporary Europe is almost the antithesis of early modern Europe; modern witches and Satanists practice openly and have united under names such as Wicca and the Church of Satan celebrating Sabbaths and black masses. However, in early modern Europe, it is highly unlikely that all the people burned at the stake were witches (if any), and neither is it probable that any of them participated in a Sabbath. In order to make sense of the witch hunts of the past one should look at the social and political life of the period.

A ‘pact with the Devil’ allegedly signed by Satan and several demons. The document dates from 1634 and was entered as evidence in the Loudon witch trail of Father Urbain Grandier (1590–1634).[xxix]

Bibliography

Anderson, Alan and Gordon, Raymond. Witchcraft and the Status of Women — The Case of England. In The British Journal of Sociology, xxix, no. 2 (1978), pp 171–84.

Ankarloo, Bengt. Sweden: The Mass Burnings (1668–76). In Ankerloo, Bengt and Henningsen, Gustav (ed.). Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries. New York, 1993, pp 285–317.

Ben-Yaduda, Nachman. The European Witch Craze of the 14th to the 17th Centuries: A sociologist’s Perspective. In American Journal of Sociology, lxxxvi, no. 3 (1980), pp 1–31.

Bever, Edward. The Realities of Witchcraft and Popular Magic in Early Modern Europe. New York, 2008.

Clark, Stuart. Protestant Demonology: Sin, Superstition, and Society. In Ankarloo, Bengt and Henningsen, Gustav (ed.). Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries. New York, 1993, pp 45–81.

Columbia College. The Core Curriculum: Pact allegedly signed between Urbain Grandier and the Devil, submitted as evidence during the 1634 Loudun Possession Trial. http://www.college.columbia.edu/core/content/pact-allegedly-signed-between-urbain-grandier-and-devil-submitted-evidence-during-1634-loudu. Accessed: 08 Mar. 2014.

Gaskill, Malcom. Witchfinders: A Seventeenth-Century English Tragedy. Reprinted paperback, London, 2006, of orig. ed. London, 2005.

Gijswijt-Hofstra, Marijke. The European Witchcraft Debate and the Dutch Variant. In Social History, xv, no. 2 (1990), pp 181–94.

Goodare, Julian. Scottish Witchcraft in its European context. In Goodare, Julian, Martin, Lauren and Miller, Joyce (ed.). Witchcraft and Belief in Early Modern Scotland. New York, 2008, pp 26–50.

Kallestrup, L.N. Lay and Inquisitorial Witchcraft Prosecution in Early Modern Italy and Denmark. In Scandinavian Journal of History, xxxvi, no. 3 (2011), pp 265–78.

Kern, Edmund. Confessional Identity and Magic in the Late Sixteenth Century: Jakob Bither and Witchcraft in Styria. In The Sixteenth Century Journal, xxv, no. 2 (1994), pp 323–40.

Klaniczay, Gabor. Hungary: The Accusation and the Universe of Popular Magic. In Ankerloo, Bengt and Henningsen, Gustav (ed.). Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries. New York, 1993, pp 220–55.

Kramer, Heinrich and Sprenger, Jakob. Malleus Maleficarum. Reprint, London, 2000, translation of orig. ed., Speyer, 1486.

L’Estrange Ewen, Cecil. Witch Hunting and Witch trials: The Indictments for Witchcraft from the Records of 1373 Assizes held for the Home Circuit A.D. 1559–1736. Hertford, 1929.

Maxwell-Stuart, P.G. Witchcraft in Europe and the New World, 1400–1800. New York, 2001.

Merriman, John. A History of Modern Europe, Volume 1: From the Renaissance to the Age of Napoleon. 3rd ed., New York, 2010.

Monter, E.W. Witchcraft in France and Switzerland: The Borderlands during the Reformation. London, 1976.

Muchembled, Robert. Satanic Myths and Cultural Reality. In Ankarloo, Bengt and Henningsen, Gustav (ed.). Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries. New York, 1993, pp 139–60.

Naess, H.E. Norway: The Criminological Context. In Bengt and Henningsen, Gustav (ed.). Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries. New York, 1993, pp 367–82.

Roper, Lyndal. Oedipus & the Devil: Witchcraft, sexuality and religion in early modern Europe. New York, 1994.

Ryan, W.F. The Witchcraft Hysteria in Early Modern Europe: Was Russia an Exception? In The Slavonic and East European Review, lxxvi, no.1 (1998), pp 49–84.

Seitz, Jonathan. The Root in Hidden and the Material Uncertain: The Challenges of Prosecuting Witchcraft in Early Modern Venice. In Renaissance Quarterly, lxii (2009), pp 102–33.

Tedeschi, John. Inquisitorial Law and the Witch. In Ankarloo, Bengt and Henningsen, Gustav (ed.). Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries. New York, 1993, pp 83–118.

Footnotes

[i] P.G. Maxwell-Stuart, Witchcraft in Europe and the New World, 1400–1800 (New York, 2001), p. 81; L.N. Kallestrup, ‘Lay and Inquisitorial Witchcraft Prosecution in Early Modern Italy and Denmark’ in Scandinavian Journal of Hist., xxxvi, no. 3 (2011), pp 268–9 (hereafter Kallestrup, Lay and Inquisitorial Witchcraft); Malcolm Gaskill, Witchfinders: A Seventeenth-Century English Tragedy (reprinted paperback, London, 2006, of original edition, London, 2005), pp 46–7 (hereafter Gaskill, Witchfinders).

[ii] John Merriman, A History of Modern Europe, Volume 1: From the Renaissance to the Age of Napoleon (3rd ed., New York, 2010), pp 18–23 (hereafter Merriman, A History of Modern Europe).

[iii] Ibid. p. 90.

[iv] Stuart Clark, ‘Protestant Demonology: Sin, superstition, and society’ in Bengt Ankarloo and Gustav Henningsen (ed.), Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries (New York, 1993), pp 46–7 (hereafter Clark, Protestant Demonology).

[v] Lyndal Roper, Oedipus & the Devil: Witchcraft, sexuality and religion in early modern Europe (New York, 1994), p. 146 (hereafter Roper, Oedipus & the Devil).

[vi] Nachman Ben-Yaduda, ‘The European Witch Craze of the 14th to the 17th Centuries: A sociologist’s Perspective’ in American Journal of Sociology, lxxxvi, no. 3 (Jul. 1980), pp 21–2; Alan Anderson and Raymond Gordon, ‘Witchcraft and the Status of Women — The Case of England’ in The British Journal of Sociology, xxix, no. 2 (Jun. 1978), p. 176 (hereafter Anderson and Gordon, Witchcraft and the Status of Women).

[vii] Anderson and Gordon, Witchcraft and the Status of Women, pp 173–4.

[viii] Gaskill, Witchfinders, p. 97; Roper, Oedipus and the Devil, p. 204.

[ix] Heinrich Kramer and Jakob Sprenger, Malleus Maleficarum (reprint, London, 2000, translation of original edition, Speyer, 1486), pp 99–100; Robert Muchembled, ‘Satanic Myths and Cultural Reality’ in Bengt Ankarloo and Gustav Henningsen (ed.), Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries (New York, 1993), p. 140 (hereafter Muchembled, Satanic Myths and Cultural Reality).

[x] Jonathan Seitz, ‘The Root in Hidden and the Material Uncertain: The Challenges of Prosecuting Witchcraft in Early Modern Venice’ in Renaissance Quarterly, lxii (2009), p. 108 (hereafter Seitz, The Root in Hidden and the Material Uncertain). Seitz mentions Johann Weyer (1515–88) and Friedrich von Spee (1591–1635) who believed witchcraft to be illusionary; R. Muchembled, Satanic Myths and Cultural Reality, p. 140.

[xi] Clark, Protestant Demonology, p. 59; W.F. Ryan, ‘The Witchcraft Hysteria in Early Modern Europe: Was Russia an Exception?’ in The Slavonic and East European Review, lxxvi, no.1 (Jan. 1998), pp 51–4 (hereafter Ryan, Was Russia an Exception?)

[xii] Edward Bever, The Realities of Witchcraft and Popular Magic in Early Modern Europe (New York, 2008), p. 20; Muchembled, Satanic Myths and Cultural Reality, p. 145; Anderson and Gordon, Witchcraft and the Status of Women, p. 176.

[xiii] Gabor Klaniczay, ‘Hungary: The Accusation and the Universe of Popular Magic’ in Bengt Ankarloo and Gustav Henningsen (ed.), Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries (New York, 1993), p. 238. The author briefly mentions that noble families, such as the Báthory family, accused their defeated political enemies (also nobles) as well.

[xiv] E.W. Monter, Witchcraft in France and Switzerland: The Borderlands during the Reformation (London, 1976), pp 137–9 (hereafter Monter, Witchcraft in France and Switzerland).

[xv] H.E. Naess, ‘Norway: The Criminological Context’ in Bengt Ankarloo and Gustav Henningsen (ed.), Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries (New York, 1993), p. 377; Julian Goodare, ‘Scottish Witchcraft in its European context’ in Julian Goodare, Lauren. Martin and Joyce Miller (ed.), Witchcraft and Belief in Early Modern Scotland (New York, 2008), p. 30.

[xvi] Muchembled, Satanic Myths and Cultural Reality, p. 153

[xvii] Merriman, A History of Modern Europe, pp 126–61.

[xviii] John Tedeschi, ‘Inquisitorial Law and the Witch’ in Bengt Ankarloo and Gustav Henningsen (ed.), Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries (New York, 1993), pp 86–87 (hereafter Tedeschi, Inquisitorial Law and the Witch).

[xix] Muchembled, Satanic Myths and Cultural Reality), p. 154.

[xx] Edmund Kern, ‘Confessional Identity and Magic in the Late Sixteenth Century: Jakob Bither and Witchcraft in Styria’ in The Sixteenth Century Journal, xxv, no. 2 (1994), pp 325–8.

[xxi] Seitz, The Root in Hidden and the Material Uncertain, pp 103–09.

[xxii] Marijke Gijswijt-Hofstra, ‘The European Witchcraft Debate and the Dutch Variant’ in Social Hist., xv, no. 2 (May 1990), p. 187.

[xxiii] Anderson and Gordon, Witchcraft and the Status of Women, p. 176.

[xxiv] Monter, Witchcraft in France and Switzerland, p. 73.The title of Boguet’s book on demonology is Discours execrable des Sorciers.

[xxv] Kallestrup, Lay and Inquisitorial Witchcraft, p. 266.

[xxvi] Tedeschi, p. 85; Bengt Ankarloo, ‘Sweden: The Mass Burnings (1668–76)’ in Bengt Ankarloo and Gustav Henningsen (ed.), Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries (New York, 1993), p. 295

[xxvii] Ryan, Was Russia an Exception, pp 63–5; J. Merriman, A History of Modern Europe, p. 275.

[xxviii] In the Act of Parliament A.D. 1542 33 Hen. VIII, c.8 the felony was described as ‘any Invocacons or conjuracons of Sprites wichecraftes enchauntementes or sorceries’ as cited in Cecil L’Estrange Ewen, Witch Hunting and Witch trials: The Indictments for Witchcraft from the Records of 1373 Assizes held for the Home Circuit A.D. 1559–1736 (Hertford, 1929), p. 14.

[xxix] Columbia College, ‘The Core Curriculum: Pact allegedly signed between Urbain Grandier and the Devil, submitted as evidence during the 1634 Loudun Possession Trial’ (http://www.college.columbia.edu/core/content/pact-allegedly-signed-between-urbain-grandier-and-devil-submitted-evidence-during-1634-loudu) (08 Mar. 2014). The reason for adding this illustration is to point out even priests were accused of witchcraft.