![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Okay, so did you guys know that witch hunts throughout history actually constitute a pattern of political oppression upon women? Didya? Didya? Because according to this 1992 book, no one has ever figured this out before.
Seriously though, this is a great example of how to do good history badly. The authors present a brief but compelling case about how witch trials from Joan of Arc to Salem were a male dominated society’s way of controlling women of influence like physicians and midwives and saints, or resolving financial or property disputes. They use primary sources well, backed by some scant but effective history of the printing press and other related matters. However.
However, this is all they do. And I’m sorry, but you cannot propound a “new” theory to explain witch hunts without ever addressing some of the existing models and placing yours in context. In particular, yes you really have to deal with the apparently thorny issue of witchcraft as a symptom and product of superstition before the scientific revolution. You don’t just get to make casual but snide references to “blindly staggering Europe” and the misfortunes in infant mortality and other trials which caused frustrated blame and fear to fall on the heads of successive out groups, and then carry on as if neither accused nor accuser ever actually believed in witchcraft. Which, uh, both usually did. And simply listing alternate models in one sentence with no context or explanation or integration doesn’t cut it. Especially in cases like the fascinating ergotism theory, which actually could have helped the thesis. Grar. Most irritating.
Unrelatedly, it is clear that Diana Gabaldon and the Pratchett-Gaiman team did at least a little research on the history of witchcraft – apparently the witch Mrs. Duncan was a real person, as were the Devices and Nutters.
Seriously though, this is a great example of how to do good history badly. The authors present a brief but compelling case about how witch trials from Joan of Arc to Salem were a male dominated society’s way of controlling women of influence like physicians and midwives and saints, or resolving financial or property disputes. They use primary sources well, backed by some scant but effective history of the printing press and other related matters. However.
However, this is all they do. And I’m sorry, but you cannot propound a “new” theory to explain witch hunts without ever addressing some of the existing models and placing yours in context. In particular, yes you really have to deal with the apparently thorny issue of witchcraft as a symptom and product of superstition before the scientific revolution. You don’t just get to make casual but snide references to “blindly staggering Europe” and the misfortunes in infant mortality and other trials which caused frustrated blame and fear to fall on the heads of successive out groups, and then carry on as if neither accused nor accuser ever actually believed in witchcraft. Which, uh, both usually did. And simply listing alternate models in one sentence with no context or explanation or integration doesn’t cut it. Especially in cases like the fascinating ergotism theory, which actually could have helped the thesis. Grar. Most irritating.
Unrelatedly, it is clear that Diana Gabaldon and the Pratchett-Gaiman team did at least a little research on the history of witchcraft – apparently the witch Mrs. Duncan was a real person, as were the Devices and Nutters.
