Harry Potter

I was reading Sam’s last post on here and it inspired me.  I really love Harry Potter.  But the fun story about this love, is that I have never read the first book.  That’s right, you read that correctly. I never read the first book. The reasoning was, that my mother, coming from a VERY Baptist family she didn’t let me read them.  She said that they were sacrilegious and that she didn’t want me getting any ideas.  So I didn’t read them.  Until one day, I was in third grade (I think) my father, who had been reading the books, called me over.  He asked me if I was interested in reading the books. I said yes, but mom wouldn’t let me.  So from then onward, my dad read me the books when my mom wasn’t home.  The way he saw it was I wasn’t doing anything my mom didn’t want me to.  And from then on, I’ve loved the books.  But to this day, I have not read the very first book.  Everyone always feels the need to give me a bizarre look whenever I say that. But at the end of this class, I will have read them all.  And I’m very excited to do so. 

The Poor Midwives...

For those out of the men and women from different professions who were accused of witchcraft during the inquisition, there is one particular group I felt really bad for as a whole category of people; they would be midwives.

In Kramer’s and Sprenger’s “The Malleus Maleficarum”, they actually described a section, “That Witches who are Midwives in Various Ways Kill the Child Conceived in the Womb…or if they do not this Offer New-born Children to the Devils” (188). This seems like a really harsh vicious accusation to make on a group of people.  Essentially, if a baby dies at childbirth, the midwife who delivered the child could be accused of witchcraft and conspiring with the devil. All that makes me think of is what a scary job to have, if that could be the outcome.

           

During the time of “The Malleus Maleficarum”, people were constantly experiencing loss through diseases like “the black plague”, they had poor sanitation, and had an unstable living conditions with their crops dying. As a society the people were suffering. Conditions like the black plague could not be determined, and for unknown reasons children were dying in childbirth or as infants.

With all the tragedy around them it is obvious as that people were looking for someone to blame for things that they couldn’t explain, and midwives were their option, since they are the first people to come into contact with the child. Even when a child has been born, if they die, a parent will want a reason for it, and again to me it makes sense that the midwife was chosen to take responsibility sometimes.

Overall, I understand reasoning why, inquisitors might have classified midwives as a group that could be working with magic. People always want an answer as to why, and this situation is even larger than a family losing their child, but also a whole society who have are having many infants not surviving into adulthood.

I still feel sympathetic for the midwives of the time though. I can see where they would be the scapegoats, and I would think that knowing that if a child dies in their care that they could be viewed as responsible for it.         

A Riddikulus Analysis: Why Harry Potter Means So Damn Much to Me

When I first entered English 259, I was met with a seemingly simple task: design a collage of your biggest magical influences. My mind automatically went to Harry Potter. Not Lord of The Rings, not Alice in Wonderland, and definitely not Hocus Pocus. Is it because the name became a brand and a franchise due to its unending support from millions of readers? Yeah. Is it due to the author(and creator)'s vision that prevailed and triumphed over "selling out"? Hell yeah! But it is mostly due to the fact that Harry gave us someone to connect to. And by "us", I mean any reader of any age. It was an underdog story that culminated in a glorious and heart-wrenching finale. I found myself cheering (yes, literally cheering...like, out loud) when I read about Mrs. Weasley doing away with Bellatrix Lestrange.  I was in awe at Nevil's newfound bravery. I was sobbing when I read about Dobby and how he met his end. This books series is written so well that it becomes one's definition of "magic" or "wizardry". Think about a wizard casting a spell on someone. Unless you're a diehard CCR fan (respect if you are), your first thoughts are most likely something that either has to do with Harry Potter, or something that was influenced/ can be compared to Harry Potter in a significant way. It doesn't hurt that the filmmakers have CGI on their side, which makes me associate almost any magical creature with one I saw in the Potter series (If it was the same creature/type of creature). Overall, the Harry potter series transcended not only age but genre. It was a sad, happy, angry, anxious, suspenseful, mysterious, scary, dramatic, masterpiece, and its influence is immeasurable. 

Dead Baby Jokes: Too Soon?

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. 

Progenies of Misogyny

In the chapter, titled "The Hammer of Witches", I noticed a strong trend of misogyny. On page 183, the author describes women as "a foe to friendship, an unescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil of nature, painted with fair colours!" While I'm certain that this man's ideas weren't anything new, it surprised me to read so many negative words about the female gender as a whole. I am left to wonder if this man's view of women stems from either a life experience or by the "Eve is the Mother of All Sin" viewpoint of some Christians at the time. My guess would be the former since he goes on to say "The tears of a woman are a deception, for they may spring from true grief, or they may be a snare." Okay, I can guess where this is going. Since we describe witches as deceptive and evil, this person is trying to say that only women can be witches by equating them with similar adjectives. Ah! I love it when I'm right. He then goes on to explain that women are most likely to be witches because they are more impressionable and light-minded. Oh! And he goes on to say that the many negatives comments about women stem from "the temptress, Eve. and her imitators." So now we're back to that, eh? Assuming the worst of all women for the actions of one? Doesn't that sort of go against the teachings of one of the most important figures in Christianity- scratch that- THE most important figure in Christianity? Well, now that I'm off my religious soapbox, the author then paints a lovely misogynistic metaphor when he says that the breast rib, from which the first woman, Eve, was formed, was bent in the opposite direction almost as if it were opposing man. (Yeah, yeah, it's a simile. I get it. I just couldn't resist a little alliteration.) I'm curious as to whether this represents the beliefs of many or few. I am also curious as to how witchcraft affected the public's view of women as a result of this type of writing.  

Magic and Me

The very first assignment we had in class was the influence map of what we think about when we think about magic. I just briefly wanted to go over three of my main picture on my influence map.

The first thought I have when considering magic is witches, and all kinds of witches. Of course many people first identify Harry Potter when considering witches, and that is because Harry Potter impacted so many people. The purpose of the books is for young readers to grow up with Harry Potter, and they did each year introducing them to a new and darker world of magic.

Another major idea that shaped my perception of magic is The Wizard of Oz. This is really one of my first exposures to witches. They made you acknowledge good versus bad and light versus dark. The story supports the idea the bad should be destroyed an good should be celebrated, giving a foundation of right and wrong.

Lastly, my favorite magical character growing up, was Merlin from The Sword in the Stone. He didn’t make magic good and evil to me, but it was just there. He could do all sort of magic that I remember being incredible like him packing his bag in his home and all the books sink to fit in. His magic was fun, and light, and playful, which is not a typical view into magic.

Are You a Witch

After reading ““The Malleus Maleficarum” I wasn’t shocked, but impacted by the hypocrisy that women of the time faced. First, lets take into account the fact that if an accused person admitted to witchcraft they would be sentenced to death (209).  It seems natural and necessary then for the accused to keep quite in hopes of self-preservation, however that only goes so far because they have reasons as to why a woman will stay silent. Kramer and Sprenger explain, that in regards to silence they attempt to get a confession with a threat of torture. They believe that the only way a witch will confess is either by “God compelling the devil to withhold his help from the witch”, or by “the devil sometimes of his own will permits them to confess to the crime…” (210). If these women do not confess to the crime of witchcraft, then they will be questioned and tortures in attempt to extract the “truth” (212). The most puzzling question that I cannot figure out is how can they be innocent? If they are silent because their innocent or silent because they are guilty, how can they be found to be anything but guilty at all?

            The same situation is present in regards to crying. In “The Malleus Maleficarum” Kramer and Sprenger claim one of the standards of being a witch is the inability to cry when asked, believing that the Devil will not allow a person involved in witchcraft to cry (215). There is a credibility issue among this situation when Kramer and Sprenger claim witches may be able to cry on occasion, stating “But it may be objected that it might suit with the devil’s cunning, with God’s permission, to allow even a witch to weep; since tearful grieving, weaving and deceiving are said to be proper to women” (215). So how can women be witches if they cry, and witch if they don’t? 

            I’m curious as to how the women of the time felt about the situation. Were they scared that if they spoke out they would also be accused of witchcraft? Or were they involved in accusing, not knowing the dangers until they themselves are accused?

            To me this seems like the biggest damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. The people being accused are in a lose/lose scenario since regardless of how they respond to the test, they could keep being tested until they could be exposed as a witch.

All this talk about magic and mysticism.

When we were given the assignment to read about Hildegard von Bingen and Catherine of Sienna and about mysticism, I did't even know know what that meant. So, of course I looked it up on Merriam-Webster dictionary and it said mysticism is "a religious practice based on the belief that knowledge of spiritual truth can be gained by praying or thinking deeply" and it also said, "the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)". Thank you to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mysticism. 

Source: http://radix24.deviantart.com/art/Strange-lights-in-the-sky-4400158

Okay so do you guys believe that someone who prays so deeply can really understand the knowledge of God? I mean do you really believe that this could possibly happen? I thought that God was suppose to be infinitely powerful and have infinite amounts of knowledge and from the religious perspective God is so holy that a mere human being can not see him, can not touch him, let alone for a mere human to actually understand the knowledge of God is mind boggling. I would think that if you were to attain the direct knowledge of God you would just burst into tiny million pieces because God's knowledge is infinite. It makes me question if these people were like crazy or what? I dunno...

Source: http://www.vasc.org/rental/bday.html

This also sort of reminds me of the class discussion we had a while back when our classmates asked the question "could magic be an illusion?" From what I have actually seen about magic, which is not a lot, I think so. I mean, the rabbit coming out of a hat, the deck of cards tricks, making things disappear they are all just like mind tricks. There's a reason why a magician says oh I don't reveal my trick secrets because its just a trick. It's not like they have supernatural powers. What do you think? 

A Rose By Any Other Name

Yeah, I went there, I quoted Shakespeare. And this is why:

Magic? Mysticism? What? Okay, so I have a really hard time differentiating between the two. They seem awfully similar… So similar in fact, that I would argue that they’re synonymous. Does the difference between names even matter?

Hildegard of Bingen and Catherine of Siena did the same exact things that many witches were accused of. They incorporated religion in their books on healing remedies, they described the manner in which one should prepare salves and potions to cure various ailments, and they candidly spoke of sex. These are all things that a common woman would have been burned at the stake for! So what gives these two women the right to practice something so similar to witchcraft?

This guy is obviously confused too.

<www.raveflyers.co.uk>

That Papacy, that’s who. Yep, the guy with the really cool hat and the head of a religious empire is all it takes to obtain a glorified “get out of jail free” pass. Because really, isn’t that what he gave them? With the Pope’s blessing, Catherine of Siena and Hildegard were able to document their findings in relation to healthcare, human life, and music. Let’s also remember that Catherine of Siena claimed that she had a direct connection to God and that he spoke to her in dreams. That’s totally normal. Meanwhile common women mixing herbs in their kitchen to help soothe a stomachache had the potential to be tried executed alongside unlucky midwives and women accused of adultery.

<www.weknowmemes.com>

This brings up two interesting implications. First, if the Pope gives his stamp of approval to someone doing something that would otherwise be labeled as heretic, it’s okay. We all now that the Pope has more power than pretty much anyone else in medieval Europe, including the monarchs, but it’s entirely different seeing that play out in this manner. His say so has effectively changed the label of witchcraft to holy. If he made a blanket statement along the lines of “if you wanna mix herbs to help the health of the community or help educate others, it’s cool” he could have saved countless lives.

The second thing this makes me think of is that these women needed the Pope to okay their doings. They were aware of what they were doing and they knew that if they didn’t have Papal approval, their head was on the chopping block. They knew that if they didn’t get the go ahead from the Pope that they could be tried as witches – this implies that they were aware of exactly how their practices could be perceived!

Basically the line between magic and mysticism is so blurry to me that I can’t see where one ends and the other begins. I’ve honestly been coming to the conclusion that there is in fact no difference because of the way in which Catherine of Siena and Hildegard went about their professions. The only difference in my eyes is that one is approved by the Church because it is devoted to God, while the other is not.

Hildegard von Bingen saintly woman, or evil in a dress?

I was unable to attend class when we discussed mystics, so I decided for this blog post I would talk about my thoughts on Hildegard von Bingen. My first thought was: how was this woman not tried as a witch?!?!?! The reason being is that she has all the requirements of being a witch. 

          1. She is a woman,

This right away should cause suspicion as we have learned from our good friends Kramer and Sprenger.       
          2. She has “Visions”

I know she did not reveal her visions to many people but those who knew, did they never question this woman? I am surprised that no one thought that maybe she was being possessed by a demon. Or that she herself is receiving prophecies as a result witchcraft?
          3. She was educated

She was ambitious and educated enough to read and write. Von Bingen knew how to read Latin and was a part of the church. We have learned in class that this is the gateway to necromancy!
          4. “She used the curative powers of natural objects for healing…”

This is something that I thought was a major selling point to convincing people that she was a witch. I do not understand how people overlooked this aspect of her life. If anything, I would think it would condemn her to the stake, she is mixing herbs to create a type of medicine. Or maybe just maybe she was mixing herbs to make…..a potion!! MAGIC!!!

The only thing that I can think of that would make her more witch-like would be if she were a mid wife as well. Luckily, she studied medicine and herbs instead. Now I do it is great that this woman was able to gain the respect and fame that she did. I do find her story inspiring especially for a woman during this period. However, I do not think that I am alone in feeling a little confused as to why this woman specifically was not met with scorn or suspicion. To be honest when I first read about her I kind of wanted to drop a house on her. I’m not  going to lie…..