Ship of Fools: Do witches exist?

Thread: Do witches exist? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023816

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Reading this article highlighting the lives of modern self-identified witches in contrast to those hanged for it 400 years ago, it makes me wonder at how the two match up. The witch hunts of Early Modern Europe and North America are almost universally considered by historians to be based in superstition and prejudice, particularly against single women, and those convicted of witchcraft were innocent of any actual supernatural behaviour. Modern witches on the other hand embrace the idea that their spells and rituals have supernatural effects.

My questions are:

Are these two ways of thinking compatible with each other, and are either compatible with Christian thinking?

Was there any actual supernatural behaviour carried out by people who were convicted of witchcraft? Do modern witches genuinely have supernatural abilities?

What is the Christian perspective on those convicted and executed for witchcraft? Was it a just punishment for any genuine witches amongst those convicted considering the Biblical perspective?

Do modern witches line up with the Biblical concept of a witch?

What should be the Christian attitude towards modern witchcraft - is it another pagan religion like all non-Christian religions, or is it a specific sin of its own? Does it include mediums, astrology etc?

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Reading this article

quote:
It's not all blood and gore.

But some blood and gore? I wish he would have elaborated. [Help]

(BTW your name reminds me of my dear departed cat - may she RIP.)

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

Some of my best friends are witches. Well, OK, just the one.

I tend to think of her religion the same way as I would that of any non-Christian friend -- respect her beliefs, be aware of differences, share what we can and try not to argue over what we disagree on. I don't think being a "witch," or a neo-pagan, or whatever, is in any special category.

C.S. Lewis had an interesting point to make about medieval persecution of witches and our modern perspective that this was a terrible thing to do. He said the change in attitude came about not because our morality changed but because we no longer "believed in" witches. If we really believed there were people who had sold their souls to the devil in return for the power to curse their neighbours, we'd probably still think it was OK to persecute them. I don't know if I'd go that far but I'm not sure most Christians today believe in that kind of witchcraft, and those who do are perhaps right to feel that it is dangerous.

But I think that's quite a different thing from what modern people, like my friend, who call themselves witches, mean. My friend hasn't made a deal with the devil; she doesn't even believe in Satan, because he's a character from Christian belief, and she's not a Christian. She is essentially someone who tries to make her spiritual life meaningful by incorporating modern reimaginings of ancient pagan rituals into her life. She doesn't use the term "magick" (with a K!!!) much, but when she does, I get the impression it's not much different from what I mean when I say "prayer" -- in her case perhaps with a ritual added like lighting a candle (but then some Christians would add that ritual to their prayers too).

The question of whether her "magick" has any efficacy seems to me to be exactly the same sort of question as whether a Hindu friend's prayer to Ganesh is in any way effective -- an interesting question, but one that has little to do with the Bible's proscriptions against witchcraft.

[ 18. August 2012, 11:49: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I think its quite hard for us to get our head around it in our western society at this particular point in history, but in cultures where traditions of 'witchcraft' and cursing etc still exist, it is truly very destructive to society and dreadful poison to communities. Whether it is real or not is pretty much beside the point if you ask me (and I don't think all cultures think of it in supernatural terms anyway) - the fact is that the perception of it is there and it is therefore destructive.

To a degree we still have it when we ask' why me?' or 'what did I do to deserve this?'. In one sense we are looking for a reason as to why bad things happen to us. The leap to my dastardly nemesis must be a curse happy witch is an easy one to make and likely has a certain psychological satisfaction in the short term. It doesn't necessarily have to be understood in supernatural terms either - it can simply be based on the influence someone has over you, and this is the mistake that a lot of anthropologists make when looking at this area: they assume that the ill educated natives believe everything is a sprite or evil demon come to curse them and make life a misery. The very real evil influence of a person on a community doesn't need any supernatural help. People can be really poisonous when they want to be.

In Europe and in the States something somewhat different was happening. In a time of enormous flux you could argue that the tension was literally beat out on someone. Again, it doesn't matter whether it was real or not (even at some point in the past before it got to a wheels within wheels stage), the social destruction was all too real.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

Good points, Fletcher Christian -- I was looking at it from a wholly Western perspective. Of course the term "witch" can mean quite different in different culture.

Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :

I was raised a Christian and became a witch and could identify with a lot of what the priestess in the article said. (Later I became a Christian again, but it was very different to my childhood beliefs).

When someone raised as a Christian becomes a witch, the church has failed and needs to take a look at itself. If a church doesn't teach the real supernatural power of God and prayer, then people will turn to magic. If it doesn't honour God as creator, then people will turn to nature worship. Children have a living spirituality that needs to be fed with more than the bible story worksheets that they get in Sunday School. Sadly it's often the more sensitive and creative children that leave the church for paganism.

Medieval witchcraft, where it was real and not scapegoating, was probably more similar to African witchcraft than modern Wicca. It was about using supernatural power for selfish ends in a way that harms communities. In many places today communities live in fear of witchdoctors. is it a slipperly spiritual slope from 'white' magic to cursing? I believe so, but I know many Wiccans would find that statement personally offensive, and I don't say every individual Wiccan is going to head down that slope.

I was reading about the medieval witch trials the other day, and witches were only charged with 'causing harm' by witchcraft, not witchcraft itself. Later, when it became defined as heresy, they were lumped in with other heretics for execution. Is it acceptable, just or biblical to execute heretics? No.

I have friends who are pagans and my attitude is the same as towards everyone else - to try to treat them as my neighbour and respectfully exchange views if religion comes up. I think Wicca is misguided, but then I think much of 'secular' culture is harmful and misguided too. The moment you lable one group of sinners as worse and more hellbound than any other you have become worse than they are, and this has always been true.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Christians can rejoice with Wiccans where they say, as the woman in the article says, "We honour, revere and give thanks to nature. We celebrate the seasons. It's not all blood and gore. In spring, we celebrate life and rebirth then in the winter, decay and death to make way for new life."

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

It's all very straightforward.

Watch this and everything will be clear.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PerkyEars:
Medieval witchcraft, where it was real and not scapegoating, was probably more similar to African witchcraft than modern Wicca. It was about using supernatural power for selfish ends in a way that harms communities. In many places today communities live in fear of witchdoctors. is it a slipperly spiritual slope from 'white' magic to cursing? I believe so, but I know many Wiccans would find that statement personally offensive, and I don't say every individual Wiccan is going to head down that slope.

I'm not sure any Wiccan is going down that slope - it's pretty incompatible with Wiccan beliefs, particularly the Wiccan Rede. Now, I know some Heathens who would defend their right to use curses and hexes against those who have harmed them, but not Wiccans.

From what I know, I'd largely agree with what Trudy says. I'd also add that I'm inclined towards the belief that C. S. Lewis expressed (in the Last Battle among other places) that service rendered in the right spirit, even if the target is believed to be someone other than God, is counted as rendered to God. Any belief that results in good intent and right action has something of God in it.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

My village burned a witch in 1596. What is interesting about her is that she had taken a neighbour to court several years earlier (unsuccessfully!). She was clearly a difficult woman, and probably was threatening the rest of the village with her alleged "supernatural" powers, while it was still safe to do so. Then the North Berwick witch trials happened, and suddenly what had probably been anti-social behaviour was a capital offence.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Belief in witches was alive and kicking in the fen village of my youth in the 1960's and 1970's. Every village had a "wise woman" who was the layer out of the dead, unofficial midwife and who it was not considered good to cross.

Most of them looked pretty bad anyway! (They were called will-jills, I seem to remember - women who looked and dressed like men).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The more you say about the Fens, Exclamation Mark, the more pleased I am that I didn't grow up there ...

I quite like Elgood's Black Dog but haven't been that impressed with the rest of their beers. Certainly not enough to want to move there ...

I've always had an appalled fascination as I've driven below the Wash on the way to Norfolk or Suffolk ... part of me can't to get that section of the journey over with ...

Perhaps Graham Swift's 'Waterworld' has something to do with it ...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
C.S. Lewis had an interesting point to make about medieval persecution of witches and our modern perspective that this was a terrible thing to do. He said the change in attitude came about not because our morality changed but because we no longer "believed in" witches. If we really believed there were people who had sold their souls to the devil in return for the power to curse their neighbours, we'd probably still think it was OK to persecute them.

As a counterpoint to the OP and the above post, there's this article.

quote:
The rainy season is over and the Niger Delta is lush and humid. This southern edge of West Africa, where Nigeria's wealth pumps out of oil and gas fields to bypass millions of its poorest people, is a restless place. In the small delta state of Akwa Ibom, the tension and the poverty has delivered an opportunity for a new and terrible phenomenon that is leading to the abuse and the murder of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of children. And it is being done in the name of Christianity.

Almost everyone goes to church here. Driving through the town of Esit Eket, the rust-streaked signs, tarpaulins hung between trees and posters on boulders, advertise a church for every third or fourth house along the road. Such names as New Testament Assembly, Church of God Mission, Mount Zion Gospel, Glory of God, Brotherhood of the Cross, Redeemed, Apostalistic. Behind the smartly painted doors pastors make a living by 'deliverances' - exorcisms - for people beset by witchcraft, something seen to cause anything from divorce, disease, accidents or job losses. With so many churches it's a competitive market, but by local standards a lucrative one.

But an exploitative situation has now grown into something much more sinister as preachers are turning their attentions to children - naming them as witches. In a maddened state of terror, parents and whole villages turn on the child. They are burnt, poisoned, slashed, chained to trees, buried alive or simply beaten and chased off into the bush.

Some parents scrape together sums needed to pay for a deliverance - sometimes as much as three or four months' salary for the average working man - although the pastor will explain that the witch might return and a second deliverance will be needed. Even if the parent wants to keep the child, their neighbours may attack it in the street.

This is not just a few cases. This is becoming commonplace. In Esit Eket, up a nameless, puddled-and-potholed path is a concrete shack stuffed to its fetid rafters with roughly made bunk beds. Here, three to a bed like battery chickens, sleep victims of the besuited Christian pastors and their hours-long, late-night services. Ostracised and abandoned, these are the children a whole community believes fervently are witches.

If you believe witchcraft is a real thing, as TS has pointed out, this kind of situation is at least plausibly justifiable.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I would very much recommend Tanya Luhrmann's Persuasions of the Witch's Craft - an anthropological study of modern (c 1980s) magic users.

It's an excellent window into the various strands of paganism.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
But an exploitative situation has now grown into something much more sinister as preachers are turning their attentions to children - naming them as witches. In a maddened state of terror, parents and whole villages turn on the child. They are burnt, poisoned, slashed, chained to trees, buried alive or simply beaten and chased off into the bush.

Some parents scrape together sums needed to pay for a deliverance - sometimes as much as three or four months' salary for the average working man - although the pastor will explain that the witch might return and a second deliverance will be needed. Even if the parent wants to keep the child, their neighbours may attack it in the street.

This is not just a few cases. This is becoming commonplace. In Esit Eket, up a nameless, puddled-and-potholed path is a concrete shack stuffed to its fetid rafters with roughly made bunk beds. Here, three to a bed like battery chickens, sleep victims of the besuited Christian pastors and their hours-long, late-night services. Ostracised and abandoned, these are the children a whole community believes fervently are witches.
If you believe witchcraft is a real thing, as TS has pointed out, this kind of situation is at least plausibly justifiable.

Didn't Jesus have something to say about doing this kind of damage to children? Something about millstones and seas? What, simony wasn't enough for these "pastors"? [Mad]

If the problem with "witches" is that they damage a community, then these "pastors" are the bone fide witches. Satan would probably sell his soul to them if they would teach him a thing or two.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Was there any actual supernatural behaviour carried out by people who were convicted of witchcraft? Do modern witches genuinely have supernatural abilities?

The New Church has very definite teachings about witchcraft.

The short answer, according to the New Church, is that, yes, witchcraft is real. Genuine witches and wizards have supernatural abilities. However, the conditions that enable magic to happen are not prevalent in the modern world, making true witchcraft nearly impossible.

The way that witchcraft actually works is through the ability of a witch or wizard to manipulate the life that normally flows from God and heaven through the spiritual world into the physical world. All things exist by virtue of this influx, and someone who is able to manipulate this power can work magic.

In ancient times there were two conditions that made it possible for people to really do this:

1. The first is that there were people in the spiritual world who were both very good and very simple, who could become conduits for skilled magicians. Believing that they were attaching themselves to something positive and good they could be manipulated into sending energy that could be used in negative ways.
2. The second is that among ancient peoples there was the almost universal use of complex symbolism, which many ancient peoples understood and used in their worship. Through these symbols, and through occult practices, they made contact with spirits, both good and bad, and were able to direct them in a way that resulted in magic.

Because of these two conditions witches and wizards could clandestinely kill people, move objects, change things into different things, gain control of people, set fires, and do other similar things.

Fortunately, these things are almost impossible nowadays for two similar reasons:

1. Since the Lord's Advent the simple good spirits who would allow themselves to be conduits for evil no longer exist. The demarcation between good and evil is more sharply defined, and so it is much more difficult for the evil to masquerade as good in order to access the power of heaven.
2. The other reason magic is much rarer is that the knowledge of how to do it has almost completely died out. No one in the educated world has that knowledge, or believes in it, and people in older cultures that still believe in it have only a limited understanding of it.

In order for magic to work a practitioner has to have communication with the spiritual world, be able to contact spirits with access to heaven, and know how to manipulate them. This is almost impossible because it requires a person to be both sincerely devout and also wicked.

What is easily possible is for a person, through occult practices, to come into contact with spirits, something forbidden in the Bible because it is spiritually dangerous.

Modern witches have no power like what I have described. But their beliefs share many of the ideas that were prevalent among ancient peoples who practiced genuine magic.

Fundamentally, though, magic is necessarily evil. There is no such thing as good magic. The good equivalent are the miracles described in the Bible, which happen in a similar but fundamentally different way.

Anyway, that is the view that my denomination takes on this topic.

Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on :

On the practice of witchcraft in Africa, a Ugandan friend once told me that boys there are circumcised (and girls have their ears pierced) because once their bodies have been "cut" they are no longer suitable for use in witchcraft. She added that a second cousin of hers (aged around 8) had been abducted once, but as soon as his abductors confirmed that he was circumcised, they let him go.

I was reminded of this story when I came across the following article:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/ugandan-survivor-finds-hope-in-australia-20120511-1yies.html

quote:

Five-year-old George is a survivor of child sacrifice. He was aged just two, playing football with his brothers, when his neighbour offered to take him into town for sweets.

But instead, John Otebati, a witch doctor, took him to a nearby banana plantation and castrated him with a knife.

In Uganda children live in fear of child sacrifice, driven by unscrupulous witch doctors and their accomplices or fraudulent traditional healers who claim they can bring power, prosperity and money.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Some years ago I read an article that said some of the women who were accused of witchcraft in Salem may have ingested a rye mold, Ergot that had some of the same properties as LSD. The women were tripping.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re ergot poisoning:

The speculation I heard was that the *accusers* may have been the ones tripping, and their hallucinations prompted the accusations.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've always had an appalled fascination as I've driven below the Wash on the way to Norfolk or Suffolk ... part of me can't to get that section of the journey over with ...

The Black Dog legend spreads as far south as cambridge. The Fens is a strange flat eerie place even now - you can only imagine what it might've been like before/during the clearance. Even today its very disorienting and at its worse when the mists come down.

Mind you, the rumours of witches and covens are still strong between wood and water. OK a lot of it is an excuse (in a very rural area) for a bit of alfresco sex and nudity, but soeme of the participants undoubtedly belief that there's a spiritual act to what they're doing and it isn't all nice. There are the usual pagans - in Tintagel, Braunton, Glastonbury - but also an undercurrent of malevolence too.

In 11 years, on a couple of occasions I came across solid evidence of "something" having gone on - once in a barn.

As to the efficacy of the ceremonies, well they'd hardly get involved if they got nothin out of it, would they?

One of my predecessors was very well known (sensible) man in the sphere of dealing with this stuff and he found plenty to do.

There was a national news story about 15 years ago concernng Rushden Northants where a coven met at a local adult education centre. It all came out when blackmail began in the coven nd the police got involved.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
when the mists come down.

alfresco sex and nudity

Given England's climate, anyone engaging in outdoor nudity and bonking has to be possessed of strange superhuman occultic powers.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

I don't know about other countries, but Canada still has a law against the fraudulent practice of witchcraft. But as the language implies, you have to be doing it for money in order to be prosecuted.

As the article says, the law is not generally enforced, as witnessed by the open marketing of psychic services in newspapers etc. I assume the practitioners get around the law by muttering the "entertainment only" caveat at the beginning of their sessions. As well, they probably keep their promises vague enough to avoid proof of deception. Presumably, this guy didn't take the neccessary precautions.

[ 19. August 2012, 16:09: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
when the mists come down.

alfresco sex and nudity
Given England's climate, anyone engaging in outdoor nudity and bonking has to be possessed of strange superhuman occultic powers.

We're made of tough stuff in the Fens. Must be the yellow bellies.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Hellish Nell was imprisoned for witchcraft during the Second World War; the Witchcraft Act was subsequently repealed.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LucyP:
On the practice of witchcraft in Africa, a Ugandan friend once told me that boys there are circumcised (and girls have their ears pierced) because once their bodies have been "cut" they are no longer suitable for use in witchcraft.

I had never heard this. I lived for two years in a small village in West Africa where everyone believed in magic. All the girls had their ears pierced as infants. I don't know if it was for that reason.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Some communities in Uganda circumcise boys, some don't. There is a lot of difference between the many cultures there.

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I've always had an appalled fascination as I've driven below the Wash on the way to Norfolk or Suffolk ... part of me can't to get that section of the journey over with ...

It sounds as though you should read
this book, Gamaliel.

I'm intrigued by the suggestion that there were "wise women" laying out the dead into the 1970s - I know my grandfather was laid out by a neighbour in 1958, but I'd assumed that by the time I appeared it had died out.

Tangenially, Boscastle in Cornwall is home to the Museum of Witchcraft. When Boscastle was devastated in 2004 by a monstrous flash flood, the museum was filled with water and sewage to the ground floor roof, but the building survived, whilst the neighbouring Christian bookshop (with which apparently they had very cordial relations) was washed away. God does indeed, move in mysterious ways...

AG

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PerkyEars:
......If a church doesn't teach the real supernatural power of God and prayer, then people will turn to magic. If it doesn't honour God as creator, then people will turn to nature worship.......

You may well know of a few cases where this is true but it's not always so - some of us worked out that exchanging the frying pan for the fire is just plain daft.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Fundamentally, though, magic is necessarily evil. There is no such thing as good magic. The good equivalent are the miracles described in the Bible, which happen in a similar but fundamentally different way.

You realize how much this sounds like special pleading, right? Essentially it boils down to "my magic is good, your magic is bad".

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Institutional Christianity has received some bad press in recent decades, a lot of it unfortunately justified, over its treatment of "witches" in the past.

It seems to have died down recently, but some of the inaccurate history flying around included:

1. That many millions of women died, whereas the figure is in the low hundreds of thousands (yes, that is also a horrific figure).

2. That witch-hunting was an activity of the church in the mediaeval period, whereas the main era of witch-hunts was the early modern age, and was carried out by secular courts.

3. That the Inquisitions were in the forefront of witch-hunts, whereas they actually displayed a sceptical attitude toward accusations of witchcraft.

The Salem witch trials of the 1690s have also received a lot of attention, for which Arthur Miller's The Crucible is partly responsible, but fewer than twenty of the accused were executed, a large proportion of whom were males; no-one was burned; and leading clerics later admitted that the whole episode was very dubious (which of course didn't do the victims any good!)

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Fundamentally, though, magic is necessarily evil. There is no such thing as good magic. The good equivalent are the miracles described in the Bible, which happen in a similar but fundamentally different way.
You realize how much this sounds like special pleading, right? Essentially it boils down to "my magic is good, your magic is bad".

Sure. I'm not sure that too many people will agree with my explanation of how magic works anyway. [Biased]

But if you follow the description I gave of the way that magic works it requires the diversion of power that originates in God to other purposes. Miracles, on the other hand, derive their power directly from God to fulfill His ultimate purposes.

Magic requires deception, so it can't be good. It also requires contacting spirits, which is also not good.

But yes, this may be seen as special pleading. [Paranoid]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
But if you follow the description I gave of the way that magic works it requires the diversion of power that originates in God to other purposes. Miracles, on the other hand, derive their power directly from God to fulfill His ultimate purposes.

Magic requires deception, so it can't be good. It also requires contacting spirits, which is also not good.

"By the power of the Moon Fairies, you will be granted a promotion at work and a brand new car in the next year!!"

"By the power of Jesus, you will be granted a promotion at work and a brand new car in the next year!!"

Now, okay, so technically, yes, the second speaker is NOT diverting power away from God, and NOT contacting spirits, so he's on firmer ground than the first guy. But still, when it gets to the point that Jesus is promising corner offices and brand-new BMWs to people, he's essentially being reduced to the level of a sorcerer's errand boy.

And yes, I realize that Christianity in general is hardly synonymous with the Prosperity Gospel. But it's an extreme example to indicate how blurry these distinctions can become. If I can get the same healing from the Moon Fairies that I can get from Our Lady Of Lourdes, it kinda raises questions about just how special Our Lady Of Lourdes really was to begin with.

[ 20. August 2012, 00:21: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Shamanistic Influences In Korean Pentecostal Christianity

Works as a case-study for the point I was making above.

(And no, I don't endorse everything about Rick Ross. Cult "deprogrammers" have some pretty dubious aspects in their own right.)

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
"By the power of Jesus, you will be granted a promotion at work and a brand new car in the next year!!"

Now, okay, so technically, yes, the second speaker is NOT diverting power away from God, and NOT contacting spirits, so he's on firmer ground than the first guy.

I'm not sure that qualifies as magic. More like fraud. [Biased]

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Institutional Christianity has received some bad press in recent decades, a lot of it unfortunately justified, over its treatment of "witches" in the past.

...

The Salem witch trials of the 1690s have also received a lot of attention, for which Arthur Miller's The Crucible is partly responsible, but fewer than twenty of the accused were executed, a large proportion of whom were males; no-one was burned; and leading clerics later admitted that the whole episode was very dubious (which of course didn't do the victims any good!)

I'm not sure anyone who knows anything is saying much different about the Salem witch trials (and given the total population of Massachusetts was only about 57,000 and Salem only a few hundred, 19 was a large number). In addition one was pressed to death since he refused to plea and at least four died for various reasons in prison. Three others were convicted but not executed (I believe they still lost their property and their legal status) and dozens spent extended time in prison before the fervor of the witch hunt died out.

In modern times we do seem to have large numbers of witchcraft accusations and persecution (legal and mob) sometimes unto death of accused witches or exile into 'witch camps' in some countries.

For instance the situation in Ghana
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2011/0915/Ghana-aims-to-abolish-witches-camps
http://www.voanews.com/content/ghana-witch-camps-slow-to-close/940349.html

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
"By the power of the Moon Fairies, you will be granted a promotion at work and a brand new car in the next year!!"

"By the power of Jesus, you will be granted a promotion at work and a brand new car in the next year!!"

Now, okay, so technically, yes, the second speaker is NOT diverting power away from God, and NOT contacting spirits, so he's on firmer ground than the first guy.

That's also special pleading, of the "my spirits are totally different than his spirits" variety. An invisible, intangible entity exerting supernatural influence would seem to still fall under the definition of "spirit", even if named "Jesus".

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Institutional Christianity has received some bad press in recent decades, a lot of it unfortunately justified, over its treatment of "witches" in the past.

It seems to have died down recently, but some of the inaccurate history flying around included:

1. That many millions of women died, whereas the figure is in the low hundreds of thousands (yes, that is also a horrific figure).

2. That witch-hunting was an activity of the church in the mediaeval period, whereas the main era of witch-hunts was the early modern age, and was carried out by secular courts.

3. That the Inquisitions were in the forefront of witch-hunts, whereas they actually displayed a sceptical attitude toward accusations of witchcraft.

The Salem witch trials of the 1690s have also received a lot of attention, for which Arthur Miller's The Crucible is partly responsible, but fewer than twenty of the accused were executed, a large proportion of whom were males; no-one was burned; and leading clerics later admitted that the whole episode was very dubious (which of course didn't do the victims any good!)

What exactly is your point here? It reads like someone complaining that Charles Manson is usually referred to as an infamous murderer, when all he was ever convicted of is that he got other people to commit murder for him.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Institutional Christianity has received some bad press in recent decades, a lot of it unfortunately justified, over its treatment of "witches" in the past.

It seems to have died down recently, but some of the inaccurate history flying around included:

1. That many millions of women died, whereas the figure is in the low hundreds of thousands (yes, that is also a horrific figure).

2. That witch-hunting was an activity of the church in the mediaeval period, whereas the main era of witch-hunts was the early modern age, and was carried out by secular courts.

3. That the Inquisitions were in the forefront of witch-hunts, whereas they actually displayed a sceptical attitude toward accusations of witchcraft.

The Salem witch trials of the 1690s have also received a lot of attention, for which Arthur Miller's The Crucible is partly responsible, but fewer than twenty of the accused were executed, a large proportion of whom were males; no-one was burned; and leading clerics later admitted that the whole episode was very dubious (which of course didn't do the victims any good!)
What exactly is your point here? It reads like someone complaining that Charles Manson is usually referred to as an infamous murderer, when all he was ever convicted of is that he got other people to commit murder for him.

My point, which I would have thought was obvious to the meanest intelligence, is that our very understandable revulsion against the persecution of "witches" does not justify embroidering the historical record with inaccuracies or exaggerations.

[ 20. August 2012, 02:13: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Not witchcraft per se, but a modern example of something I hadn't realised still happened.

My waters didn't break when I had my daughter, so she was born in the caul. The midwife's first comment was that the baby would have second sight. (This was before we even knew whether we'd had a boy or a girl.) The midwife took the caul, divided it into two and prepared the pieces, one as a lucky charm which she kept, one as a lucky charm for us to take home. I had no idea that NHS midwives did this!

At home, I threw our charm in the bin; I wasn't comfortable with the whole thing. Now I rather wish I'd kept it as a curiosity. Dicken's David Copperfield had a caul, so it would have had a certain literary interest!

Anyone else gone into a modern hospital, and had the staff prepare a lucky charm for them?? Or indeed come across a "charm" in a context they weren't expecting?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sandemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I've always had an appalled fascination as I've driven below the Wash on the way to Norfolk or Suffolk ... part of me can't to get that section of the journey over with ...
It sounds as though you should read
this book, Gamaliel.

1. I'm intrigued by the suggestion that there were "wise women" laying out the dead into the 1970s - I know my grandfather was laid out by a neighbour in 1958, but I'd assumed that by the time I appeared it had died out.

2. Tangenially, Boscastle in Cornwall is home to the Museum of Witchcraft. When Boscastle was devastated in 2004 by a monstrous flash flood, the museum was filled with water and sewage to the ground floor roof, but the building survived, whilst the neighbouring Christian bookshop (with which apparently they had very cordial relations) was washed away. God does indeed, move in mysterious ways...

AG

1. Bizarre but true. The undertaker was the local carpenter and builder. It has to be said that this practice continued mainly with farm labourers and the like. The posh people used the services of the Funeral Firm in the local town.

2. I used to live a few miles away across the border and got bits of the village washed up on the local beach. Tbh Boscastle used to give a few people the creeps because of the witches house -- and it was some of the less charismatic, more robust members of the church (mainly older ones). It's not my experience either that the witch museum and bookshop were exactly bosum buddies -- sounds like a bit of talking it up to me into something it wasn't. But then again, it's not exactly reknowned as bastion of evangelical churchmanship around there either whatever your denominational taste ....

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Not witchcraft per se, but a modern example of something I hadn't realised still happened.

My waters didn't break when I had my daughter, so she was born in the caul. The midwife's first comment was that the baby would have second sight. (This was before we even knew whether we'd had a boy or a girl.) The midwife took the caul, divided it into two and prepared the pieces, one as a lucky charm which she kept, one as a lucky charm for us to take home. I had no idea that NHS midwives did this!

At home, I threw our charm in the bin; I wasn't comfortable with the whole thing. Now I rather wish I'd kept it as a curiosity. Dicken's David Copperfield had a caul, so it would have had a certain literary interest!

Anyone else gone into a modern hospital, and had the staff prepare a lucky charm for them?? Or indeed come across a "charm" in a context they weren't expecting?

Yep that's the same belief as in the Fens. There is (or was - I haven't been there in years), one such caul in the cambriudge folk museum.

Not heard of it being done for years. Never heard of charms on the NHS and Mrs Mark and all 3 daughters work on it. Sounds if you had a pagan midwife!

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I don't know if she was a pagan, but I know that she was a Radical Midwife, so perhaps the preparing of charms comes within the ambit of "traditional midwifery." Whatever, she was a brilliant midwife. I could have lived without the prediction of second sight for my daughter, though!

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
In modern times we do seem to have large numbers of witchcraft accusations and persecution (legal and mob) sometimes unto death of accused witches or exile into 'witch camps' in some countries.

For instance the situation in Ghana
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2011/0915/Ghana-aims-to-abolish-witches-camps
http://www.voanews.com/content/ghana-witch-camps-slow-to-close/940349.html

Thanks for posting that. In my experience belief in witchcraft is nearly universal in West Africa, and it is good to see Ghana taking steps to reduce the ugly side of that belief.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

Quite a fascinating thread and I must say I found some of the posts, including those by fletcher christian; North East Quine and Exclamation Mark useful.

The late Joseph Campbell the mythologist said that he felt, under certain circumstances, Magic (read witchcraft) could work.

There are strong traditions of sorcery and witchcraft in many Non-western countries and a strong residue in much British folk belief.

Much has been said here about the "Christian" approach to witchcraft, both historic and current. I don't really wish to get involved in that, because I think the subject is best left untouched, unless it directly affects someone adversely, in which case, ruling out all other possibilities, the appropriate religious authorities need to be approached.

Real Magic, or Witchcraft, seems to work by invoking power or a Power for one's own ends, which I think is incredibly dangerous and definitely un-Christian.

It is interesting, in her book "Dangerous Persuaders" about cult and other psychological manipulation, Louise Samways, a psychologist and agnostic, does deal with some of the psychologically damaging effects on people who get involved with Magic. Quite sobering stuff.
http://www.louisesamways.com.au/

There is much interest in the occult these days. Some TV series, such as "Charmed", have evoked people's interest in witchcraft. My advice would definitely be caveat emptor. There are some roads best never walked.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

The folklore I've always heard related to cauls is that a person born with a caul can't die by drowning, which of course in a seafaring culture would make it a pretty prized thing (if you happened to believe in it).

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Much has been said here about the "Christian" approach to witchcraft, both historic and current. I don't really wish to get involved in that, because I think the subject is best left untouched, unless it directly affects someone adversely, in which case, ruling out all other possibilities, the appropriate religious authorities need to be approached.

Well that's just it, isn't it? If witches are actually out there curdling milk and blighting crops, doesn't that call for a response along "traditional" lines? It's like the old saying, you can't make a witch-free omlette without driving five nails into a nine year old's skull.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
There are strong traditions of sorcery and witchcraft in many Non-western countries and a strong residue in much British folk belief.

That's very true esp in remote rural areas. The efficacy (or not) of witchcraft would depend (if it's real) on tapping into the dark side outisde human explanation or if it's merely psychological on tapping into the dark side within people.

A lot of witchcraft beliefs in eastern england are tied (inextricably I think) to prevailing views of women. There was for example one fear that oif you allowed a woman who was "ill at ease" to milk cows, churn butter or wash her hair then curdled milk, rancied butter or madness would result.

Now I know we men don't understand it but women's periods, don't IME, cause these kind of problems.

Daft as such views may seem today they were accepted as true by people in their 70's/80's back in the 1970's - the result of a lifetime, if not many generations of lifetimes, of beliefs.

There's no doubt that to illiterate unworldly labourers, a woman with a basic knowledge of medicinal herbs growing in gardens and hedgerows, could seem a "charmed" person. Most country people still have an inkling of knowledge. My dad chews fverfew for migraine; has hops in his dried flower display to help sleep; inter plants marigolds, carrots and onion and never gets fly on them.

I once stopped the blood on a bad sickle cut on my arm by binding a dock leaf round it. I was a mile away from anyone else with no 1st aid kit (it was the 70's): a dock leaf and handkerchief stopped the blood and drew the edges together by the coolness of the leaves. A faint 4 inch scar on my arm is the reminder.

Imagine what the same would look like generations ago when they'd seen people bleed to death from similar accidents.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
The folklore I've always heard related to cauls is that a person born with a caul can't die by drowning, which of course in a seafaring culture would make it a pretty prized thing (if you happened to believe in it).

Yep thats the fen belief (remember it was a pretty waterlogged area).

If i remember rightly the caul in cambridge Folk Museum had been back and forth across the Atlantic with several members of the family whpo were seafarers.

At the least it could be seen as sympathetic magick - a psychological boost.

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There was for example one fear that if you allowed a woman who was "ill at ease" to milk cows, churn butter or wash her hair then curdled milk, rancied butter or madness would result.

<thinking out loud> I grew up about 15 miles from Cleveland, Ohio in a place that was rapidly making the transition from farmland to suburb in the 1960s. One of my friends was a girl whose parents had one of the few remaining working farms. She absolutely refused to wash her hair when she was menstruating, but gave no reason other than saying she had always heard it was "bad for you" to do it. I wonder if something similar was at the root of her belief. </thinking out loud>

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There was for example one fear that if you allowed a woman who was "ill at ease" to milk cows, churn butter or wash her hair then curdled milk, rancied butter or madness would result.
<thinking out loud> I grew up about 15 miles from Cleveland, Ohio in a place that was rapidly making the transition from farmland to suburb in the 1960s. One of my friends was a girl whose parents had one of the few remaining working farms. She absolutely refused to wash her hair when she was menstruating, but gave no reason other than saying she had always heard it was "bad for you" to do it. I wonder if something similar was at the root of her belief. </thinking out loud>

Sounds like it doesn't it? Perhaps the ancestors arrived in Ohio from Eastern England

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I don't know about hair washing, but before a proper understanding of hygiene, working in the dairy at those times might have affected the products a bit. (Frantic rationalising going on here.)

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Exclamation Mark:

quote:
A lot of witchcraft beliefs in eastern england are tied (inextricably I think) to prevailing views of women. There was for example one fear that oif you allowed a woman who was "ill at ease" to milk cows, churn butter or wash her hair then curdled milk, rancied butter or madness would result.

Was that not the belief of the medieval church, though? At University, we were told that these views were promulgated amongst the pre-Reformation clergy, because they were celibate and had limited experience of women.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Double-posting. William Hay's lectures, delivered at Aberdeen University in 1535, to men who were probably going to enter the church, includes the statement that if a menstruating woman looks into a polished mirror, blemishes will appear upon it.

By recollection, there is also a prohibition against menstruating women churning butter, but I can't find it, and it's 30 years since I attended lectures on this.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I can't see any way these things could be called the belief of the medieval church, no matter who lectured or studied it in whatever university setting. The thing is, at that time an educated man (rarely women [Frown]

) was expected to know as much as possible about EVERYTHING; so you'd get lectures on mathematics, history, medicine, grammar, rhetoric, etc. because as a university student and future ordinand you were supposed to know all this stuff, d*** it, regardless of whether it had anything to do with theology or not. Call it "general studies" if you will.

And since we are talking about a time when science and what we would now call "magic" or "superstition" were still inextricably intertwined, you'd get a goodly mix of astrology in with your astronomy, and bizarre menstruation myths along with your anatomy and physiology.

Though to be fair about it, these myths are really not bizarre at all in world cultures. You can find similar stuff pretty much all over the place. I suspect it's because the phenomenon of wound-less, (sometimes) painless bleeding was pretty scary to many people--particularly men who did not experience it themselves and therefore get used to it. Blood is a near-sacred substance in most cultures IMU.

ETA: for many, maybe most women, menstruation was a lot less common an experience than it is today, due to lack of birth control. If one is pretty much pregnant or nursing for most of one's fertile years, a period gets to be a rare experience. Well, rare-r.

[ 20. August 2012, 23:15: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Much has been said here about the "Christian" approach to witchcraft, both historic and current. I don't really wish to get involved in that, because I think the subject is best left untouched, unless it directly affects someone adversely, in which case, ruling out all other possibilities, the appropriate religious authorities need to be approached.
Well that's just it, isn't it? If witches are actually out there curdling milk and blighting crops, doesn't that call for a response along "traditional" lines? It's like the old saying, you can't make a witch-free omlette without driving five nails into a nine year old's skull.

Ooh, I think there's an obvious distortion here!

I was actually thinking about someone feeling under supposedly malign influence, such as a curse, here.

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There was for example one fear that if you allowed a woman who was "ill at ease" to milk cows, churn butter or wash her hair then curdled milk, rancied butter or madness would result.
<thinking out loud> I grew up about 15 miles from Cleveland, Ohio in a place that was rapidly making the transition from farmland to suburb in the 1960s. One of my friends was a girl whose parents had one of the few remaining working farms. She absolutely refused to wash her hair when she was menstruating, but gave no reason other than saying she had always heard it was "bad for you" to do it. I wonder if something similar was at the root of her belief. </thinking out loud>
Sounds like it doesn't it? Perhaps the ancestors arrived in Ohio from Eastern England

Certainly not impossible, though most English settlers in northeast Ohio would have gone to New England first, then western New York. But many of those who came over to New England in the Great Migration were from East Anglia, so perhaps it is the same superstition, transplanted. Does it exist in New England, I wonder?

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I heard the same "Don't wash your hair" story in my German family. My mother would also get all angsty if she saw me sitting on the ground -- sitting on the lawn in summertime, or doing some sort of outdoor task while sitting on the sidewalk -- during my Special Lady Time. I think she told me I'd catch TB. I used to find that sort of motherly advice extremely annoying. Now I don't sit on the ground at any time because it's too difficult to get back up.;-)

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Much has been said here about the "Christian" approach to witchcraft, both historic and current. I don't really wish to get involved in that, because I think the subject is best left untouched, unless it directly affects someone adversely, in which case, ruling out all other possibilities, the appropriate religious authorities need to be approached.
Well that's just it, isn't it? If witches are actually out there curdling milk and blighting crops, doesn't that call for a response along "traditional" lines? It's like the old saying, you can't make a witch-free omlette without driving five nails into a nine year old's skull.
Ooh, I think there's an obvious distortion here!

I was actually thinking about someone feeling under supposedly malign influence, such as a curse, here.

Sorry, still not following. If someone is feeling bewitched, is driving nails into the skull of the supposed witch a proper or improper response by "the appropriate religious authorities"? For that matter, which religious authorities are appropriate in such cases?

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped.

quote:
I can't see any way these things could be called the belief of the medieval church, no matter who lectured or studied it in whatever university setting. The thing is, at that time an educated man (rarely women [Frown] ) was expected to know as much as possible about EVERYTHING; so you'd get lectures on mathematics, history, medicine, grammar, rhetoric, etc. because as a university student and future ordinand you were supposed to know all this stuff, d*** it, regardless of whether it had anything to do with theology or not. Call it "general studies" if you will.

And since we are talking about a time when science and what we would now call "magic" or "superstition" were still inextricably intertwined, you'd get a goodly mix of astrology in with your astronomy, and bizarre menstruation myths along with your anatomy and physiology.

True. But these beliefs can't be ascribed solely to witchcraft either, if they were included in university lectures in theology c 1535.

William Hay's lectures (written in Latin c1535, translated into English in 1967) are Scotland's best source as to "what views were held by the church in Scotland" in the early C16th, and these views clearly included belief in "weird menstruation myths."

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

I was once turned into a newt by a witch.

I got better though!

I knew she was a witch because she had a wart, bbbuuuurrrrnnnn her!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

A lorry driver one picked up a hitch hiker who was a witch. How did he know?

She put her hand on his knee and he turned into a lay by.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
True. But these beliefs can't be ascribed solely to witchcraft either, if they were included in university lectures in theology c 1535.

William Hay's lectures (written in Latin c1535, translated into English in 1967) are Scotland's best source as to "what views were held by the church in Scotland" in the early C16th, and these views clearly included belief in "weird menstruation myths."

Well, no, they can't be ascribed solely to witchcraft. Basically everybody in that culture believed them (theologians and otherwise) and thought of them more or less as we do of science. That was sort of my point.

As for what somebody includes in their theology lectures, having sat through a few I take leave to doubt that simple inclusion means the whole church holds that view as some sort of official theological doctrine. One memorable lecture I recall started out with the variety of Christian heresies and progressed through a series of odd links to the life and habits of boa constrictors.

Probably a good thing nobody wrote it down!

[ 21. August 2012, 11:46: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Belief in witches was alive and kicking in the fen village of my youth in the 1960's and 1970's. Every village had a "wise woman" who was the layer out of the dead, unofficial midwife and who it was not considered good to cross.

ISTR in the 80s there were a couple of Tory MPs - Geoffrey Dickens being one - who fanned the flames of various satanic abuse scares.

I remember this as at the time one of the people giving supporting testimony was a woman named Audrey Harper who claimed to have been involved in a child sacrificing satanic cult. She spoke at the church I attended at the time (the following week the minister had to warn parents that any children who might have bought her books shouldn't be allowed to read them as they were very disturbing).

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I wondered when I saw this discussion if it was in response to this Radio 4 report on Witchcraft and Child abuse broadcast yesterday. According to the programme the Metropolitan Police (London UK police force) have been involved in 83 "faith based" cases of child abuse in the last 10 years. One of the recent publicised child abuse cases was explained as the child being accused of witchcraft or being a witch. The absolute certainty of the Bible's teachings on witchcraft being relevant from one of the participants was chilling. That link takes you to a description of the programme and the links to listen again.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I thought women couldn't work in a butchers because it might be that time of the month, and it sends pork off.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Belief in witches was alive and kicking in the fen village of my youth in the 1960's and 1970's. Every village had a "wise woman" who was the layer out of the dead, unofficial midwife and who it was not considered good to cross.
ISTR in the 80s there were a couple of Tory MPs - Geoffrey Dickens being one - who fanned the flames of various satanic abuse scares.

I remember this as at the time one of the people giving supporting testimony was a woman named Audrey Harper who claimed to have been involved in a child sacrificing satanic cult. She spoke at the church I attended at the time (the following week the minister had to warn parents that any children who might have bought her books shouldn't be allowed to read them as they were very disturbing).

Yes, that's it, the fruit cake fringe. Satanic Ritual abuse and all that stuff. Totally discredited - p[ossibly led to abuse remaining undiscovered after the backlash.

Wasn't Dickens a bit of a naughty boy in some sex scandal kind of way? If so, interesting diversion tactics - and he WAS a Tory mp after all. Goes with the territory.

[ 21. August 2012, 18:13: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I thought women couldn't work in a butchers because it might be that time of the month, and it sends pork off.

True - that rules out most months as well as May, June, July, August (never kill a pig when there's no "r" in the month).

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Wasn't Dickens a bit of a naughty boy in some sex scandal kind of way?

Yes, and thanks for reigniting that memory [Eek!]

. Only the day before someone had mentioned the episode of David Mellor and the toe-sucking so now, with Geoffrey Dickens as well, I need to go out and buy a vat of industrial strength brain bleach.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There was for example one fear that if you allowed a woman who was "ill at ease" to milk cows, churn butter or wash her hair then curdled milk, rancied butter or madness would result.
<thinking out loud> I grew up about 15 miles from Cleveland, Ohio in a place that was rapidly making the transition from farmland to suburb in the 1960s. One of my friends was a girl whose parents had one of the few remaining working farms. She absolutely refused to wash her hair when she was menstruating, but gave no reason other than saying she had always heard it was "bad for you" to do it. I wonder if something similar was at the root of her belief. </thinking out loud>
Sounds like it doesn't it? Perhaps the ancestors arrived in Ohio from Eastern England
Certainly not impossible, though most English settlers in northeast Ohio would have gone to New England first, then western New York. But many of those who came over to New England in the Great Migration were from East Anglia, so perhaps it is the same superstition, transplanted. Does it exist in New England, I wonder?

I was born in London and grew up in the 1950s. I remember this ban on washing hair, and was never given a reason for it, you just didn't do it at 'that time of the month'. Seems a pretty widespread belief, then.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
we still have it when we ask' why me?' or 'what did I do to deserve this?'. In one sense we are looking for a reason as to why bad things happen to us. The leap to my dastardly nemesis must be a curse happy witch is an easy one to make and likely has a certain psychological satisfaction in the short term. It doesn't necessarily have to be understood in supernatural terms either - it can simply be based on the influence someone has over you, and this is the mistake that a lot of anthropologists make when looking at this area: they assume that the ill educated natives believe everything is a sprite or evil demon come to curse them and make life a misery. The very real evil influence of a person on a community doesn't need any supernatural help. People can be really poisonous when they want to be.

In Europe and in the States something somewhat different was happening. In a time of enormous flux you could argue that the tension was literally beat out on someone. Again, it doesn't matter whether it was real or not (even at some point in the past before it got to a wheels within wheels stage), the social destruction was all too real.

What is the saying-- Fooled once, shaman them, fooled twice, shame on us?

Seriously, though, Fletcher has said some perceptive things up there, but they trouble me a little because one can read them as justifying, or at least wringing hands over, the whole social cycle of scapegoating and ritual sacrifice described and lamented by Girard. True, one can be a very (and subtly) destructive person to society either with or without supernatural means. But it is also true that one can be merely perceived as supernaturally destructive and then be conspicuously eliminated; and presto, social tensions are relieved and everyone feels better for awhile. No actual fault on the victim's part is required. To assume that the social relief resulting from the purge of the victim proves that the victim was really harmful is to fall for the placebo effect.

The Christian faith is supposed to put an end to this cycle. Let us beware of perpetuating it instead. As an admired Presbyterian minister once assured a gay friend of mine back when gays were seriously persecuted, "if I ever uncovered a witch hunt in this congregation, I'd go after the witch hunter, not the witch."

I wouldn't want to doubt as a certainty that either witchraft or demon possession are occasionally genuine. If I really doubted it, I would have purchased that book seen for sale thirty years ago that belonged to Aleister Crowley, and taken it home. Everyone who likes books would like to have a few once owned by famous people. Why not him? Well, the idea gave me the creeps, that's all I can say. Was I superstitious?

But in many cases there are other explanations. It is all too easy for this social process to fasten upon an old woman who lives alone, communing with nature and a few fellow marginalzed spinsters because she was never pretty enough to catch a husband. Can we preclude their keeping alive the knowledge of a few obscure but genuine and beneficial techniques (as well as a few poisons) long forgotten by the rest of us? Anything not understood is liable to be called magic and (at best) dismissed. The medical profession is wedded in principle to scientific knowledge: to prescribe any remedy beyond what science currently certifies would be considered malpractice. But its advance frequently embraces valuable natural chemicals previously known only to the traditional custodians of folklore in threatened rain forests etc. I still don't know what medical science makes of acupuncture, but its effectiveness is by now rather generally acknowledged.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

If you ever get a chance visit Salem, MA and the witch trial museum; very interesting.

Where I live curanderas are sometimes accused of being witches. One of my favorite books, Bless Me Ultima, deals with the subject. Great reading if you love New Mexico or are interested in Chicano culture or "witches".

[ 24. August 2012, 01:40: Message edited by: art dunce ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I hope I didn't give the wrong impression in what I posted. I wasn't in any way suggesting that the Girardian scapegoating was in any sense 'normal' or even 'good'. I was simply acknowledging that it is unfortunately what people have a tendency to do. I suppose its an area that interests me because where I live was a mere two thousand years ago a hotbed of, not just accusation but also war and ruthless killing because of these very notions of witchcraft and cursing and some of these elements hang on even today. In these situations it didn't have to be a supernatural event, it could simply be someone acting out in a very negative way. It's not that they didn't believe in the supernatural, but rather that they appear to have had no sense of division as we do, between the supernatural and the natural. For them it was all witchcraft - pretty much anything bad seems to have been classed as witchcraft. I've seen this elsewhere in another part of the world in the present day and it has the same propensity to keep the natural and the supernatural together in one understanding. The result is of course extremely dangerous and makes witchcraft appear an altogether more subtle affair. However on the plus side, I have to say it does make you really think about your effect upon people and society in terms of what you say and do.....

*Edited to add:
.....if it can be said that there is a plus side to social disintegration!

[ 24. August 2012, 08:06: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
It is all too easy for this social process to fasten upon an old woman who lives alone, communing with nature and a few fellow marginalzed spinsters because she was never pretty enough to catch a husband.

This has been a fascinating thread. Until recently the Pitt-Rivers museum had among it's voodo exhibits a preserved frog pierced with long thorns as a way of cursing someone. The note said "Norfolk, 1929". It's not just the Fens! (I am, by the way, a Norfolk man).

I'm surprised that no one, as far as I've noticed, has quoted "Religion and the Decline of Magic" by Keith Thomas. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the complexity of English attitudes to witchcraft.

There are two points which haven't been mentioned: one was the social pressure to believe in witches. Thomas quotes several examples of writers who held that to not believe in Satan having the power to create witches was the first step towards atheism.

The second point is that I believe the property of a witch was forfeit to the crown in mainland Europe but not in England. In England many magistrates showed little enthusiasm for witchcraft cases. Sir John Holt (Lord Chief Justice 1689-1710) acquitted so many accused witches that an observer doubted he had any belief in witchcraft (Thomas p547).

A colleague of his, Mr Justice Powell, acquitted a woman after impeccable witnesses insisted she had been seen flying on a broomstick. There was, he said, no law in England against flying.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
The second point is that I believe the property of a witch was forfeit to the crown in mainland Europe but not in England.

I don't believe that this is true. The Salem witch trials were presumably conducted under English law. One accused man, Giles Corey, refused to plead innocent or guilty because he was sure he would be found guilty (IIRC none of the accused were found innocent). The law said that he could not be tried without pleading. To force a plea, he had heavy stones piled on him. Almost everyone subject to this will plead eventually. He held out until the weight killed him, but his property went to his heirs.

Moo

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

que sais-je wrote:

quote:
This has been a fascinating thread. Until recently the Pitt-Rivers museum had among it's voodo exhibits a preserved frog pierced with long thorns as a way of cursing someone. The note said "Norfolk, 1929". It's not just the Fens! (I am, by the way, a Norfolk man).

Voodoo in the east of England?

[ 25. August 2012, 12:39: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
que sais-je wrote:

Voodoo in the east of England? [/QUOTE]

I can't remember the appropriate anthropological term! I'm sure we have a proper Norfolk term for it but I was never initiated (or cursed).

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The midwife's first comment was that the baby would have second sight.

Cool! Any sign of it yet? [Smile]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

No, fortunately. Any sign would be discouraged. [Razz]

My great-grandmother was credited with second sight (the knowing-when-someone-in-another-country-had-died-before-the-letter-came type of second sight, not the see-into-the-future type) and my family generally regard it as something to keep quiet about.

My father gave me The Talk about not encouraging it when I was about 7; I haven't given my daughter The Talk, but I'd certainly not encourage it.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Oh. Well, every person must decide what they will do if they have such abilities, so it's up to you (and her, of course).

This may seem like a dumb question, but why would you discourage it? If it's more of an inborn ability, I mean. Obviously becoming obsessed with it would be unhealthy, as with anything else.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

(As my Daddy Vern told me, something can be perfectly true and real and you can still go just as crazy over it, so I can relate to approaching certain things carefully.)

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

My father's view, which I agree with, is that if you have any abilities in that direction you should treat them with indifference, because if you let it become important to you, you can let your own desire distort it into something damaging for you.

My great grandmother (and my grandfather and my father) were living in an area of the Scottish Highlands which had a lot of folk-belief and if someone who was believed to have second sight wanted, they could self-aggrandise. So allied to a belief in second-sight was a belief that it should be treated with caution.

According to my Dad, second sight is a burden to be borne, not a gift to be sought.

Obviously, such caution is predicated in belief that second sight is real!

Does that make sense, Chastmastr?

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

I think I understand your reasoning, though it sounds to me as if the temptation to self-aggrandizing is the main issue in this case, and could be equally applied to any other talent or skill as well.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

In England many magistrates showed little enthusiasm for witchcraft cases.

Statistics don't support this. 1500 to 2000.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Convictions? If so, out of how many accusations, and in what period? And what were the sentences and how many were actually carried out?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Executions. 1450–1750 after which the west ceased competing. As much or more than any other European country in the same period with the exception of participants in the Holy Roman Empire.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

So on average- and of course withc scares tended to bunch together, so these weren't evenly distributed- about 5-7 executions a year over a three hundred year period. Even if we posit that many many executions over the period 1450-1650 to allow for the decline in belief in witchcraft thereafter, that's 8-10 executions a year on average. That is really not a very large number. In England, it was pretty much always causing harm by witchcraft (or attempting to) rather than the practice of witchcraft itself that was the crime, and it seems reasonable to suggest fairly suggest that among that 1500-2000 there may well have been some- though we can't know how many or how few- who actually were attempting to cause harm by witchcraft, and were therefore quite properly convicted. On these figures, the popular image of eccentric elderly women (and men, who tend to get overlooked) being bundled wholesale off to the stake or the pond simply doesn't hold up.
BTW, I believe I''ve read- though I can't put my finger on where at the moment- that Scotland and the German states were much more zealous in their pursuit of witches than England was over this period.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

James VI of Scotland believed that witches had caused the storm at sea which could have killed him and his new bride. James' reaction to this triggered a wave of trials and executions for witchcraft the length and breadth of Scotland. So, yes, Albertus, Scotland was much more zealous than England in the pursuit of witches in the 1590s.

Apart from this wave, I don't know if Scotland was generally more zealous. The Scottish archives include details of about 2,000 witchcraft trials.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So on average- and of course withc scares tended to bunch together, so these weren't evenly distributed- about 5-7 executions a year over a three hundred year period. Even if we posit that many many executions over the period 1450-1650 to allow for the decline in belief in witchcraft thereafter, that's 8-10 executions a year on average. That is really not a very large number. In England, it was pretty much always causing harm by witchcraft (or attempting to) rather than the practice of witchcraft itself that was the crime, and it seems reasonable to suggest fairly suggest that among that 1500-2000 there may well have been some- though we can't know how many or how few- who actually were attempting to cause harm by witchcraft, and were therefore quite properly convicted. On these figures, the popular image of eccentric elderly women (and men, who tend to get overlooked) being bundled wholesale off to the stake or the pond simply doesn't hold up.
BTW, I believe I''ve read- though I can't put my finger on where at the moment- that Scotland and the German states were much more zealous in their pursuit of witches than England was over this period.

Well, there you go. What's couple thousand people executed for a mostly imaginary crime? Almost nothing apparently. Glad that's been cleared up.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Not almost nothing if you're one of them, of course. Every individual case matters (except, as I say, that we might be rather less sympathetic to any who actually were trying to cause harm by witchcraft). But 7 executions a year, even in the much lkess populous England of the early modern period, does not amount to a sustained and zealous persecution.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

The persecution of witches in Scotland at least was not exactly systematic, but tended to be concentrated in certain pockets. (And if I remember my church history classes rightly, the same applied in England).

Basically, if a particular region had a particularly zealous/obsessive witch-finder, then the trials and executions for that area rocketed. Other areas, perhaps just next door, might have had comparatively few such trials. So the zeal of John Kincaid, witch-finder of Haddington, almost single-handedly accounts for the fact that a massive percentage of witch trials in Scotland happened in the Lothians: 32% of named accused witches, according to the site I link to below. Meanwhile, the neighbouring Borders Region accounts for 9%, while their other neighbour, Central Region, saw only 2%.

This Edinburgh University link contains some very interesting details and figures. It also has this quote:

quote:
We have identified a total number of 3,837 people who were accused of witchcraft in Scotland. 3,212 of these are named and there are a further 625 unnamed people or groups included in our database. This is not a complete figure (see How complete is the database?), but it is probably fairly accurate.

Older accounts of the subject tended to produce much higher figures, such as 4,500 or 30,000. Sometimes these figures are still repeated, but they are based on speculation rather than detailed research. Usually they are given as figures for executions, making them even more misleading. Similarly, a figure of 9 million witches executed in Europe is sometimes given, when most scholars agree that it was about 60,000. These exaggerations are unfortunate. We think that 3,837 people accused of witchcraft is a lot.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Executions. 1450–1750 after which the west ceased competing. As much or more than any other European country in the same period with the exception of participants in the Holy Roman Empire.

In England? No way. England wasn't in the top five countries for executions, possibly not in the top ten. There were probably at the most a couple of hundred judicial executions for witchcraft or crimes supposed to have been committed by means of witchcraft over that entire period. A significant minority of them due to James VI & I who seemed to have a personal grudge against witches. Loads of countries were far worse than that. Hundreds of times worse in some places.

There was also the year Matthew Hopkins was killing people in East Anglia. I'm not sure what we call that because it was hardly a judicial process, as the government and courts had entirely lost control of the process. It was somewhere between an insane serial killer, mass hysteria, and lynch mobs. And no-ne knows how many women he had killed - it might have been as many as all the other witchhunts amd trials in England put together over three hundred years, it might have been a lot fewer. But even if you count his killings the total number of deaths in England over the period is between 300 and 500 - less even than Scotland, never mind France or Germany.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

The areas of uncertainty in life are often surrounded by belief in 'something.'

The most hard nosed and blunt farm hand can turn surprisingly insightful when confronted with his grandmothers last few moments. While the birth of a child is often another occasion for pausing.

Those times when life and death hover between here and somewhere else are precious and need to be honoured & I guess we all find ways to do that.

When someone dies, is opening a window to let their spirit fly free a superstition? Witchcraft? A helpful closing ritual? In any way Christian? (

And, do we have to have 'christian' rituals or 'non christian' rituals?

With the upsurge of non medical accompaniers during birth and the desire to see our last moments on earth as something a little bit more than using up the last drop of morphine we have an interesting idea of Soul Midwives.So what's that one all about?
Maybe christians need to wake up to the idea that these Inbetween Times are asking for comment and help.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Alright, I admit to being lazy and using this Wikipedia paragraph as a reference. I defer to those above who have done better research.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Not almost nothing if you're one of them, of course. Every individual case matters (except, as I say, that we might be rather less sympathetic to any who actually were trying to cause harm by witchcraft). But 7 executions a year, even in the much lkess populous England of the early modern period, does not amount to a sustained and zealous persecution.

The questions that occur to me are how does this compare to executions for other offenses (say theft or murder) and is there any way to get an estimated number for extra-judicial or vigilante witch-hunts? Most modern witch killings occur outside the judicial system.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Indeed. And there's also the question of how many of these convictions- bearing in mind the differing standards of judicial behaviour and changes in the law and understanding of evidence and so on between say 1600 and now- could actually be seen as justifiable. I suppose we will never know. But we know that people do, from time to time, try to harm their families or their neighbours or kill their animals or destroy their crops, or whatever. And in a society where it is widely believed that it is possible to do these things by witchcraft it would be reasonable to expect that some would try to use witchcraft to achieve these ends. It is perfectly reasonable to prosecute people who do that kind of thing. What we think of whether or not witchcraft works is neither here nor there.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
What we think of whether or not witchcraft works is neither here nor there.

Given the title of the thread, that question would seem to be very much "here".

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, slightly odd title, I thought. Certainly people who believe that they are witches exist.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, slightly odd title, I thought. Certainly people who believe that they are witches exist.

People who call themselves "magicians" also exist, but almost all of them are pretty open about their skills being mostly misdirection and sleight-of-hand.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, slightly odd title, I thought. Certainly people who believe that they are witches exist.
People who call themselves "magicians" also exist, but almost all of them are pretty open about their skills being mostly misdirection and sleight-of-hand.

People who practice magic (as opposed to conjurors) usually seem to refer to themselves as practitioners of magick these days - presumably to avoid that confusion, seemingly following the practice of Aleister Crowley. There may be a pond difference - I don't know what terminology people use in N. America or elsewhere. I have no idea of the numbers in either category and wouldn't want to speculate.

So far as numbers of executions for witchcraft are concerned, when I looked into it briefly a few years ago I finished up abandoning the exercise - getting reliable stats. is very difficult, firstly as it's very difficult to find reliable source material, and secondly a lot of the figures cite condemnations rather than executions. At that time many people were condemned to death but only a fraction were executed. For example, Wikipedia cites the statistics for the 60 years between 1770-1830 (just after the end of witch-hunts, but I can't find nearer on a quick Google) as 35,000 people condemned to death, but 7,000 executions. These figures relating to all capital offences of course.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0