This
is just a little overview of my section that I covered during the leadership
discussion for Chapter 7 in Kors and Peters.
Strix, by
Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola, came out in 1523 and it is based on a real
event that Mirandola participated in: the witch trial of Caterina de Racconigi
(Kors and Peters 239). The work follows a dialogue form between characters,
which was a popular writing style in the 15th and 16th
centuries (239). The four main characters that are listed on pg. 240 are: Apistius
(“‘the man without faith’”), Phronimus (“‘the prudent man’”), Dicaste
(“‘judge’”) and Strix (who is called Strega in the text) is the witch.
In
the first part, Phronimus and Apistius are debating on the existence of magic
and witchcraft. Phronimus is trying to prove to Apistius that magic is real: “many
learned men, experts, and certainly not part of the mob, all believe it, and
have openly expressed their convictions. We cannot believe that they are
mistaken.” (242) However, Apistius argues that it is “laughable, that, having
drawn a circle and anointed the body with some ointment…and murmuring some
gobbledygook, these people can mingle with the demons and that this silly troop
of riders through the night on whatever kind of stick that they’ve decorated,
can ride a goat or a ram, or that others are carried through the air by a force
greater than any wind.” (242) When they see Dicaste and Strega talking,
Apistius and Phronimus decide to try to see what is going on.
In
the second part we see Apistius and Phronimus talking to the accused witch,
Strega. She tells them all about these wicked deeds that she did because of
witchcraft. They sort of have a debate about whether or not witches are
transported bodily or spiritually to the sabbat. Dicaste’s opinion is that
either mode of transportation can happen in different instances and “Sometimes
it happens through a deception of the demon and sometimes by the choice of the
witches.” (243). On pg. 243, Strega gives a graphic account of how witches like
her killed infants. And after all of this evidence in support of witchcraft,
Apistius is still not convinced.
In
the last part, Dicaste brings in ancient and Biblical references to prove that
magic is real. When Apistius is still hung up on how witches get to the sabbat,
Dicaste tells him that how the people get to the sabbat does not matter, but
what matters is that they turned their backs on Christianity and the Church
(244). And then Phronimus gives a nice, neat conclusion, at the end of which
Apistius announces that he’s finally convinced and he changes his name. When
the others don’t believe him, Pistius responds, “Do you really think that I
could joke about something upon which both ancients and moderns agree? Upon
that which the poets, rhetoricians, Stoics, jurists, philosophers, theologians,
wise and prudent men, soldiers, rustics, experimenters all agree?” (245)
This
document is really interesting to read because to the contemporaries of the
time, Phronimus and Dicaste make perfect sense while to readers today, Apistius
has the most logical views. Therefore, the medieval sense of logic is very
different from our common sense and we see this in this document. When I first
read this, I was rooting for Apistius because his arguments are ones that people
of today would probably make.
Kors,
Alan Charles and Edward Peters. Witchcraft
in Europe: 400-1700. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
2001. Print.
For me, this is the coolest primary document we've read so far - probably because I get a bunch of philosophical vibes from it. Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola (I'm just gonna call him Pico form now on) was well learned in classical literature, and he hated Aristotle, so we'd definitely get along swimmingly. But aside from that, I find it fascinating that in order to convince his readers of Gods existence and the inexistence (is there a word for that?) of witches, he emulates Plato's traditional dialogue writing style.
ReplyDeleteWhen we look at the text that way we need to remember that the purpose of Plato's dialogues were not to solve problems - but to make you think. Plato was a master of irony and even when you think he's making his point, he's actually not. So, if Pico is trying to channel his inner Plato (like I think he is) perhaps this text deserves a second (or third, or fourth) read through. The end of this dialogue is just a little too neat and tidy for anyone well-versed in Platonic dialogues... Something is definitely up.
I, too, was rooting for Apistius when I read this chapter. He logic was very ahead of his time so to speak. It was funny because my brother makes arguments like this all the time, so when reading this document I just pictured him as Apistius. Although my brothre is stubborn as a mule and would never switch sides so easily as it seemed Apistius did. That was the one part I did not like about the document was Apistius changed sides. I understand we only read a little part of the actual document in class, and this little summary of yours, but I still feel like Apistius swayed too easily in the end. Also, i know that this is not exactly what happened, but was his name really Apistius (meaning a man with no faith)? I feel like with a name like that you kind of have to not believe any thing... what a cool name...
ReplyDeleteI agreed with Apistius in this chapter. I do not really believe drawing a circle around you and saying some chant while you mix some charms together will give you power or summon a demon. Though I do believe that there were rituals that one could preform to gain powers. Now if those powers could kill crops or humans is another story. But throughout this chapter, I sided with Apistius.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the name Apistius has a lot a significance and could possibly provide multiple explanations for his final switch the the other side. Since his name literally means unbeliever I think that the main idea was that Apistius didn't believe in witches, hence the name. However, this "unbeliever" could be referring to different things within the text. Apistius could be referring to how easily he was swayed, that he didn't really believe that witches didn't exist in the first place. Or it could be referring to the fact that the people around him don't believe him, though he would probably be more aptly named the un-believed in that case. His name could also indicate that his is and will forever be and unbeliever because his final statement seems weak and unconvincing.
ReplyDelete...now that I've typed unbeliever out a million times it doesn't quite look like a real word anymore.