I have read many chapters of this book, and I can't help but notice this pervasive mentioning of children. Children are mentioned on page 161, page 157, page 191, and many others! What's more is that every time a child is mentioned, it is either being killed or harvested. (and sometimes both!) Could this possibly be a pathos-style way to spin the fight into the realm of emotion? Bear with me, here. The church wanted to get rid of this Witchcraft ordeal the moment it started, so it could say pretty much anything it wanted to about practitioners of Witchcraft. Society loves children, doesn't it? They're innocent, pure, and kind. Now think of all the horrible punishments you'd want inflicted on a man or woman who harms a sweet, innocent child. You'd either think "Wow, they really take Original Sin seriously, " or you'd think "I'd really like to see that assclown burn at the stake." The harming of children is something that (hopefully) most of society can easily get riled up and passionate about. The church also had a great measure of credibility, even in such times of opposition, and so the public would believe and follow what they said. I happened upon an interestingly interchangeable situation while reading The Sect of Diabolical Witches chapter. The witches are said to kill the children and make it appear as though the parents crushed them in their sleep. This level of specificity tells me that this picture was either conveyed by practitioners of Witchcraft while they were admitting to their crimes, or created falsely after a father/mother legitimately crushed/steamrolled his/her son/daughter to death/nonexistence. Before you say that this is too farfetched, think: we're talking about a time where the church was in heavy turmoil and under heavy scrutiny, so they needed a heavy scapegoat. Witches were the perfect outlet for the blame because anything that could not be explained was chalked up to "Hey man, it's magic. That shit's tricky. Sometimes things don't make sense." (Less eloquent than "God works in mysterious ways", eh?) (Side note: The church has a few of these logically trailed off policies, "God works in mysterious ways" being one of them. it's a lot of "Don't question me; just follow", which is no doubt what drove many to Witchcraft. The concept of immediate gratification meshes very well with humans and their predisposed greed and gluttony.) I think the fact that it can even be disputed whether or not this scapegoat is being put into play shows how questionable the church was at the time. The effects of Witchcraft were quite clear.
A few points relating to your blog. Over all I think t has a very solid core idea. People (regardless of time period or culture) love their children, and it is easy to turn on an enemy who is not only threatening your children, but wants to kill and/or consume them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm not sure if I would say that the church wanted to get rid of the witchcraft phenomenon the moment it started. As we have seen in class the concept of magic changed steadily over time. What was innocent magic one century, was tied to summoning demons the next. Also remember that the Church's biggest concern for much of this time was heresy. It was only in 1258 that Pope Alexander IV gave the Inquisition permission to investigate sorcery, and only when it was tied directly to heresy (Kors and Peters 116-118).
However, again I think the core idea is solid. Once we arrive at the point were those who use magic seem to be inseparably linked to baby killing, no one was going to support them. It was easy for secular and religious authorities to stir up resentment for an enemy that was so depraved. After all, not many are going to stand up and voice their approval for the "I kill babies in their sleep" platform.