Mischievous Magic: Kramer and Sprenger Did Not Get The Joke

Before I begin, I would like to credit one person who, in my excitement, I forgot to mention in my presentation. I would like to thank my friend Stephan Vandevander (Lord Morien MacBain), who lent me supplementary reading material about witchcraft, and an actual copy of the Malleus Maleficarum. I also meant to say "and as my friend, the Honorable Lord Morien MacBain says, there are peasants killing the chivalry of Europe.... This can't be God's plan!!" However, I neglected to credit him in that phrase and for that I apologize. I am very grateful for his help.

 

Behold his awesomeness and tremble!!!
 

Credit for photo goes to Sam Silva

Now that that is done onto my main point. There is a portion of the text that contains a passage that I am sure was a joke. I don't mean a joke in the sense that it is really bad logic, or an example clearly taken out of context to prove a point (thus making it a joke of an argument). I mean that there is literally a joke in the text that Kramer and Sprenger cite as an example of witchcraft supposedly in the real world. The passage in Question is on page 203.

"For a certain man tells that, when he had lost him member, he approached a known witch to ask her to restore it to him. She told the afflicted man to climb a certain tree, and that he might take which he liked out of a nest in which there were several members. And when he tried to take a big one, the witch said: You must not take that one; adding, because it belonged to a parish priest." (Page 203)

 

http://images.wikia.com/thehungergames/images/f/fd/1346839458-auto-dafuq-dafuq-did-i-just-read-200165.jpeg

.......... That passage was a joke. Seriously, it was a joke. The reasons I believe this include:

 

1. Unlike the examples that are given on pages 199-202, no specific names or locations are mentioned. Thus it does not have any actual information that could be used to properly document or verify the story. This passage could easily apply to anyone, anywhere, in any situation. Thus it has greater mass appeal, which is useful for a joke.

 

2. It lays out the situation quickly, so that it can hold the audience's attention without wearing out its welcome... like the structure of a good joke.

 

3. It has some social commentary in it (the "member" can only be taken from those who have been doing sinful acts with their "member," and somehow the priest's "member" ended up in the tree with the rest (page 202-203)). Social commentary is a feature found in many jokes, especially in political satire.

4. It even has a punch line! "You must not take that one (the big member); adding, because it belonged to a parish priest." (page 203)

 

Kramer and Sprenger treated the example above as just another serious example of witchcraft around them; however, because of all of the reasons I just mentioned, I believe this this passage was originally intended to be a joke. So what happened?

"Oh no! I sent them the wrong bird. They're going to get the one with my indecent, witch-based humor! Quick get it back!!!"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4349216-3x2-940x627.jpg

            Either someone brought Kramer and Sprenger this tale and somehow manage to convince them that it was 100% legitimate, or (I think more likely) these two were so joyless that they literally did not know a joke when they heard one. I say this because they treated everything in this book completely seriously; despite the fact that, even back when this text was written, there were people who would have seen some of this as weird and/or comical. There are several examples in the text that could be seen as humorous, but Kramer and Sprenger didn't even acknowledge it. I can't recall one instance where they wrote anything like “Despite how strange this seems, it really happened and it is a subject to be treated seriously.” They just plow straight through as though there was nothing possibly amusing in the least about anything that they were writing. Which is why I feel that, even when presented with something that was meant to be a joke, Kramer and Sprenger failed to see any humor in it.

Nope, there is nothing funny about this at all. Move along citizens.

http://api.ning.com/files/wD-b8tJJjO2gZMYVwll5vnnERg-eIpUrxIx94j06cf79jCaod3ec2rpx20wolekTNMAwP7Z3gZzpqJAhHgVoVF5RpLGuVDn*/cap_ghostbusters_cinebug_5.jpg

I get the feeling that these two are the kind of guys that if you asked them "Why did the chicken cross the road?" They would say "The better question is: how did the chicken escape from its pen? I shall tell you. It is because the devil has sent agents among us to attack farmers and steal out livestock!" Then they would write a 150 page long book on the subject, in which they still manage to have a 75 page long rant about the inherent wickedness of women. This book would be guild to hunt down the devil's cattle thieves and help track down chickens in the act of crossing roads.

"Come back chicken! You will not escape the Inquisition!!!"

 

http://whatexitnj.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Chicken-crossing-the-road-in-Lexington-NC-Donnie-Robberts-AP-SF-Gate1.jpg