Difference between revisions of "Talk:Burned at the stake"

From Cunnan
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 85: Line 85:
== Drawing blood by church officials ==
Is there any evidence of this really being true, that church leaders (bishops, etc.) were not allowed to shed blood? It seems out of step with crusaders. [[User:CsikosLo|CsikosLo]] 03:15, 11 July 2008 (EST)

Latest revision as of 03:15, 11 July 2008


I'm gonna have to disagree with the statement. While this may be true in certain geographic areas (eg England and the New World) it is not true of other areas where the witchcraft craze took place. I will be adding to this page at a later date. Jane of Stockton 10:23, Nov 13, 2003 (EST)

Yup, go for it, but provide some real evidence that isn't post-Crowleyist.

Germany and Scotland were amongst the few places in period when people were burned at the stake for alleged(*) witchcraft. In nearly all of the rest of Europe, those burned at the stake were those accused of heresy. Even the Malleus Maleficarum only prescribes burning at the stake of witches who were convicted of heresy (i.e. those who professed to be christians but were not).

(*) alleged, only. There were almost certainly very few real witches in period, and those accused of witchcraft were mostly just cranky old ladies with a bad widows hump and a pet cat. The Malleus Maleficarum was written by a couple of badly delusional paranoid misogynists, and can't be accepted as fact.

Del 15:06, 13 Nov 2003 (EST)

Cant remember the exact journal article - I think it was the Sixteenth Century Journal --- but it was arguing that far more of those killed in Germany during the Great Witchcraft Craze were men than has been commonly thought.

The bibliography in the article might be worth a look for the rewrite, to see what the state of the art is for historical work on the topic.



Regarding the Malleus Maleficarum ... that is one really great example of the depths to which late Scholastic work sank.

It's tendentiuous, it's got logical holes, it uses rhetoric rather than clear language and it basically stinks.

Lets take Malleus Maleficarum Part 1 Question XVIII "Here follows the Method of Preaching against and Controverting Five Arguments of Laymen and Lewd Folk, which seem to be Variously Approved, that God does not Allow so Great Power to the Devil and Witches as is involved in the Performance of such Mighty Works of Witchcraft."

Argument 5 " Lastly, they argue that preachers and judges have preached and practised against witches in such a way that, if there were witches, their lives would never be safe from them on account of the great hatred that witches would have for them."

Reply to Argument 5 "Thirdly, it is said that they cannot injure Inquisitors and other officials, because they dispense public justice. Many examples could be adduced to prove this, but time does not permit it. "

Sorry, guys. Bzzzzt. That is what you call 'Controverting' ? I dont think so ...


Something we agree on Anton? Surely not! :)

Anyway, like I said, show me some real evidence.


(hurriedly burying two or three post-reformation texts on witchcraft for exhibiting the same flaws in logic as the MM did).



On further review of the work, given a correctly stacked tribunual, and I think I can have the authors of the MM nailed for advocacy of sorcery themselves. Some of their 'defensive procedures' stray quite badly from orthodoxy, I feel.


Anton and Del,

It's true about the numbers regarding men. The most recent academic scholarship on this offers the interesting observation that as one moves further away from Western Europe, the numbers regarding men and women tend to invert. The numbers from Russia indicating that accusations against men outnumber those against women.

And Del, not everyone who is interested in this period relies on dodgy fluffy bunny Wiccan books for their information.

Jane of Stockton 11:08, Nov 14, 2003 (EST)


Go for it ... I'd love to read a summary of the recent scholarship on witchcraft in Europe :)

I'm vaguely tempted to write up some sort of Scholastic defence of Lochac's wussy position towards heresy and so on ... you can actually put together a pretty liberal policy, if you use people like John of Paris rather than my old mate Thomas (who is hardcore on this).

Of course, given that there has been no open advocation of heretical opinions in Lochac, no publication of heretical works and so on, I think Their Magesties of Lochac are probably right in keeping a light hand on the tiller, as it were.


Drawing blood by church officials

Is there any evidence of this really being true, that church leaders (bishops, etc.) were not allowed to shed blood? It seems out of step with crusaders. CsikosLo 03:15, 11 July 2008 (EST)