M
magisterfaust
Guest
have been reading the the malleus maleficarum, it has taken me a while. It gotta have a place on my list of top 10 books.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Why?
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
I also wonder about it being in your top 10.
The hexenhammer is a famous book from history but Iâm not sure why it would be such an important book in these times.
Please expound upon your thinking.
The hexenhammer is a famous book from history but Iâm not sure why it would be such an important book in these times.
Please expound upon your thinking.
G
grubbles
Guest
Ok - so your reading the Witches Hammer - glad someone is enlightended on the many miscarriages of justice perfomed during those ages.
Although there âmayâ have been wiccans/pagans causing problems/rituals etc -
do you know they also murdered midwifes/healers because they knew what plants to use to help numb pain?
do you know the church sanctioned torture on woman as young as 10yrs old.
Now - it was long ago, and probably not all the details are correct and its a secondary point of reference so probably biased - but do you agree with what was done?
explain your views please.
Although there âmayâ have been wiccans/pagans causing problems/rituals etc -
do you know they also murdered midwifes/healers because they knew what plants to use to help numb pain?
do you know the church sanctioned torture on woman as young as 10yrs old.
Now - it was long ago, and probably not all the details are correct and its a secondary point of reference so probably biased - but do you agree with what was done?
explain your views please.
Y
yinekka
Guest
The Malleus Maleficarum (review)
by Jenny Gibbons - MA Medieval Studies
âŚThe *Malleus Maleficarum *is indeed one of the most influential Witch-hunting manuals of all times. And since itâs easily available in modern English translation, itâs still influential, the darling of amateur historians today. But itâs not a reliable guide to the Burning Times: itâs a duplicitous text with a checkered past, a book you simply canât take at face value.
**#1: The Author and His Motivation **
Almost all of the Malleus was written by one man: Heinrich Kramer (aka Henry Institoris). A German inquisitor of the late 15th century, Kramer was not a well-respected man. His views on Witchcraft were considered weird and extreme by most of his fellow clergymen, who continually opposed and hindered his trials. .
Kramer wrote the Malleus to win the cooperation of his peers. The book isnât â as some assume â a guide to what most 15th century Christians believed about Witches. Itâs a minority opinion, written to convince the populace at large of the dangers of Witchcraft.
**
#2: The Endorsements **
The Malleus is usually circulated along with a papal bull âSummis Desiderantesâ, which rails against Witches and the people who oppose Kramer and his co-author, Jacob (or James) Sprenger. In the 15th century, there was also a little recommendation from the Faculty of Cologne (the Inquisitionâs top theologians). Both of these endorsements are misleading.
Pope Innocent had actually never read the Malleus when he wrote âSummis Desiderantesâ. Kramer complained to the Pope about the poor reception he was receiving from other priests, and the Pope (who was very superstitious and feared Witches greatly) obligingly gave Kramer this bull. Kramer treated the bull as if it was a full endorsement of his book, but it wasnât.
The recommendation from Cologne is an out-and-out forgery. When they were finished writing, Sprenger presented the Malleus to the Faculty, asking for its approval. Instead, the Inquisition resoundingly condemned the book. It said that the legal procedures it recommended were unethical and illegal, and that its demonology was not consistent with Catholic doctrine. Undaunted, Kramer forged an enthusiastic endorsement. As you might expect, the Faculty discovered this quickly and was enraged! Kramer and Sprenger parted on bad terms, and the Inquisition condemned Kramer in 1490, just four years after the Malleus was published.
**#3: The Impact of the Malleus **
The Malleus wasnât an immediately influential book. Most Church and Inquisitorial courts ignored it, probably because of the Facultyâs condemnation. Civil courts, unfortunately, gave it more weight. Fooled by the forged recommendation and the out-of-context bull, many non-religious judges believed that the Malleus had the approval of the Church. Many used it, though it did not â as some authors say â lie on the bench of every judge.
It publication did not increase the number of Witch trials. In fact, it came at the beginning of a slight lull, when the steady rise in trials stalled for a few decades. But when the major panics of the Burning Times hit in the mid-16th century, the Malleus came into its own. It was the most detailed discussion of Witchcraft around. Many civil courts were handling Witch trials for the first time. They had no idea how to proceed, and so they latched onto the Malleusâ recommendations gladly. By the end of the 16th century, other Witch hunting manuals eclipsed the Malleus. But at the beginning of the crazes, it did have an enormous impact.
**#4: The Theories **
You also have to take the Malleusâ theories with a grain of salt. As Iâve said, **Kramerâs views were condemned by the Inquisition. They certainly donât represent the official view of the Church of the 15th century. **
If you compare the Malleus to other Witch-hunting manuals, you can see how unique its theories are. Kramerâs sexual hang-ups shine through like a super nova. I mean, there are seven entire chapters on all the awful things Witches can do to penises, and Kramer apparently thought that it was quite common for men to wake up and discover that their Virile Member had walked off in the middle of the night⌠The bookâs sexism is also extreme. Most manual profer sexist explanations for why the majority of Witches are women. But none are as virulently misogynist as the Malleus.
The theology is also primitive. Read the Malleus closely, and youâll notice that many of the âtraditionalâ bits of Witch lore are missing. There are no sabbats. No covens. No Witchesâ marks. Many of the Witchcraft stereotypes weâre familiar with developed in the 16th century. By comparing the Malleus (1484) to, say, the Compendium Maleficarum (1608), you can see how much beliefs changed during the height of the panics.
Thatâs the history of the Malleus, in brief. Now for a review:
The Malleus is dreadfully dull reading. Itâs long, confusing, and dry, âenlivenedâ only by occasional shocking bits of misogyny and bigotry. So before you read it, I encourage you to ask yourself why youâre bothering.
Is it to learn what Witch hunting was like? Well, the Malleus wonât tell you. Youâre better off reading trial records or pamphlet accounts of individual trials. (Which you can find in books like Witchcraft in England by Barbara Rosen, or Alan Korsâ Witchcraft in Europe, 1100 - 1700.)
Do you want to learn what the Church taught about Witches? Again, the Malleus wonât help you. You need to read tons of material to understand the Churchâs responses (or, more sensibly, you can read scholarly summaries of the debate).
The big thing to remember, however, is that the Malleus does not give an accurate picture of what Witch hunting was like. Itâs an extreme, radical text, and gives a very distorted view of life in the Burning Times.
by Jenny Gibbons - MA Medieval Studies
âŚThe *Malleus Maleficarum *is indeed one of the most influential Witch-hunting manuals of all times. And since itâs easily available in modern English translation, itâs still influential, the darling of amateur historians today. But itâs not a reliable guide to the Burning Times: itâs a duplicitous text with a checkered past, a book you simply canât take at face value.
**#1: The Author and His Motivation **
Almost all of the Malleus was written by one man: Heinrich Kramer (aka Henry Institoris). A German inquisitor of the late 15th century, Kramer was not a well-respected man. His views on Witchcraft were considered weird and extreme by most of his fellow clergymen, who continually opposed and hindered his trials. .
Kramer wrote the Malleus to win the cooperation of his peers. The book isnât â as some assume â a guide to what most 15th century Christians believed about Witches. Itâs a minority opinion, written to convince the populace at large of the dangers of Witchcraft.
**
#2: The Endorsements **
The Malleus is usually circulated along with a papal bull âSummis Desiderantesâ, which rails against Witches and the people who oppose Kramer and his co-author, Jacob (or James) Sprenger. In the 15th century, there was also a little recommendation from the Faculty of Cologne (the Inquisitionâs top theologians). Both of these endorsements are misleading.
Pope Innocent had actually never read the Malleus when he wrote âSummis Desiderantesâ. Kramer complained to the Pope about the poor reception he was receiving from other priests, and the Pope (who was very superstitious and feared Witches greatly) obligingly gave Kramer this bull. Kramer treated the bull as if it was a full endorsement of his book, but it wasnât.
The recommendation from Cologne is an out-and-out forgery. When they were finished writing, Sprenger presented the Malleus to the Faculty, asking for its approval. Instead, the Inquisition resoundingly condemned the book. It said that the legal procedures it recommended were unethical and illegal, and that its demonology was not consistent with Catholic doctrine. Undaunted, Kramer forged an enthusiastic endorsement. As you might expect, the Faculty discovered this quickly and was enraged! Kramer and Sprenger parted on bad terms, and the Inquisition condemned Kramer in 1490, just four years after the Malleus was published.
**#3: The Impact of the Malleus **
The Malleus wasnât an immediately influential book. Most Church and Inquisitorial courts ignored it, probably because of the Facultyâs condemnation. Civil courts, unfortunately, gave it more weight. Fooled by the forged recommendation and the out-of-context bull, many non-religious judges believed that the Malleus had the approval of the Church. Many used it, though it did not â as some authors say â lie on the bench of every judge.
It publication did not increase the number of Witch trials. In fact, it came at the beginning of a slight lull, when the steady rise in trials stalled for a few decades. But when the major panics of the Burning Times hit in the mid-16th century, the Malleus came into its own. It was the most detailed discussion of Witchcraft around. Many civil courts were handling Witch trials for the first time. They had no idea how to proceed, and so they latched onto the Malleusâ recommendations gladly. By the end of the 16th century, other Witch hunting manuals eclipsed the Malleus. But at the beginning of the crazes, it did have an enormous impact.
**#4: The Theories **
You also have to take the Malleusâ theories with a grain of salt. As Iâve said, **Kramerâs views were condemned by the Inquisition. They certainly donât represent the official view of the Church of the 15th century. **
If you compare the Malleus to other Witch-hunting manuals, you can see how unique its theories are. Kramerâs sexual hang-ups shine through like a super nova. I mean, there are seven entire chapters on all the awful things Witches can do to penises, and Kramer apparently thought that it was quite common for men to wake up and discover that their Virile Member had walked off in the middle of the night⌠The bookâs sexism is also extreme. Most manual profer sexist explanations for why the majority of Witches are women. But none are as virulently misogynist as the Malleus.
The theology is also primitive. Read the Malleus closely, and youâll notice that many of the âtraditionalâ bits of Witch lore are missing. There are no sabbats. No covens. No Witchesâ marks. Many of the Witchcraft stereotypes weâre familiar with developed in the 16th century. By comparing the Malleus (1484) to, say, the Compendium Maleficarum (1608), you can see how much beliefs changed during the height of the panics.
Thatâs the history of the Malleus, in brief. Now for a review:
The Malleus is dreadfully dull reading. Itâs long, confusing, and dry, âenlivenedâ only by occasional shocking bits of misogyny and bigotry. So before you read it, I encourage you to ask yourself why youâre bothering.
Is it to learn what Witch hunting was like? Well, the Malleus wonât tell you. Youâre better off reading trial records or pamphlet accounts of individual trials. (Which you can find in books like Witchcraft in England by Barbara Rosen, or Alan Korsâ Witchcraft in Europe, 1100 - 1700.)
Do you want to learn what the Church taught about Witches? Again, the Malleus wonât help you. You need to read tons of material to understand the Churchâs responses (or, more sensibly, you can read scholarly summaries of the debate).
The big thing to remember, however, is that the Malleus does not give an accurate picture of what Witch hunting was like. Itâs an extreme, radical text, and gives a very distorted view of life in the Burning Times.
C
Canardmom85
Guest
Thank you, I recently came across this topic in my Human Development textbook by Arnett. It made the Catholic Church seem like midwife murderers. Even quoted how threatened we were by midwives. This is for a life span psychology class and I was disgusted to see such misinformation about Catholicism. âNo one does more harm to the Catholic faith than midwives.â mentioning that two monks wrote a witch hunting manual, but never once mentioning that the author was condemned four years later. The book made it sound like midwives were hated for delivering babies. Seriously wonder if it is worth bringing it up to my professor considering she is anti-catholic herself.The Malleus Maleficarum (review)
by Jenny Gibbons - MA Medieval Studies
âŚThe *Malleus Maleficarum *is indeed one of the most influential Witch-hunting manuals of all times. And since itâs easily available in modern English translation, itâs still influential, the darling of amateur historians today. But itâs not a reliable guide to the Burning Times: itâs a duplicitous text with a checkered past, a book you simply canât take at face value.
**#1: The Author and His Motivation **
**
#2: The Endorsements **
Pope Innocent had actually never read the Malleus when he wrote âSummis Desiderantesâ. Kramer complained to the Pope about the poor reception he was receiving from other priests, and the Pope (who was very superstitious and feared Witches greatly) obligingly gave Kramer this bull. Kramer treated the bull as if it was a full endorsement of his book, but it wasnât.
The recommendation from Cologne is an out-and-out forgery. When they were finished writing, Sprenger presented the Malleus to the Faculty, asking for its approval. Instead, the Inquisition resoundingly condemned the book.
**#3: The Impact of the Malleus **
The Malleus wasnât an immediately influential book. Most Church and Inquisitorial courts ignored it, probably because of the Facultyâs condemnation. Civil courts, unfortunately, gave it more weight. Fooled by the forged recommendation and the out-of-context bull, many non-religious judges believed that the Malleus had the approval of the Church. Many used it, though it did not â as some authors say â lie on the bench of every judge.
**#4: The Theories **
You also have to take the Malleusâ theories with a grain of salt. As Iâve said, **Kramerâs views were condemned by the Inquisition. They certainly donât represent the official view of the Church of the 15th century. **
If you compare the Malleus to other Witch-hunting manuals, you can see how unique its theories are. Kramerâs sexual hang-ups shine through like a super nova. I mean, there are seven entire chapters on all the awful things Witches can do to penises, and Kramer apparently thought that it was quite common for men to wake up and discover that their Virile Member had walked off in the middle of the night⌠The bookâs sexism is also extreme. Most manual profer sexist explanations for why the majority of Witches are women. But none are as virulently misogynist as the Malleus.
The theology is also primitive. Read the Malleus closely, and youâll notice that many of the âtraditionalâ bits of Witch lore are missing. There are no sabbats. No covens. No Witchesâ marks. Many of the Witchcraft stereotypes weâre familiar with developed in the 16th century. By comparing the Malleus (1484) to, say, the Compendium Maleficarum (1608), you can see how much beliefs changed during the height of the panics.
Thatâs the history of the Malleus, in brief. Now for a review:
The Malleus is dreadfully dull reading. Itâs long, confusing, and dry, âenlivenedâ only by occasional shocking bits of misogyny and bigotry. So before you read it, I encourage you to ask yourself why youâre bothering.
Is it to learn what Witch hunting was like? Well, the Malleus wonât tell you. Youâre better off reading trial records or pamphlet accounts of individual trials. (Which you can find in books like Witchcraft in England by Barbara Rosen, or Alan Korsâ Witchcraft in Europe, 1100 - 1700.)
Do you want to learn what the Church taught about Witches? Again, the Malleus wonât help you. You need to read tons of material to understand the Churchâs responses (or, more sensibly, you can read scholarly summaries of the debate).
The big thing to remember, however, is that the Malleus does not give an accurate picture of what Witch hunting was like. Itâs an extreme, radical text, and gives a very distorted view of life in the Burning Times.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.