Ethan Krogman History 489

April 25th, 2017 Dr. Eby

Witchcraft: Government, Social Control, and Persecution

Witchcraft in early modern Europe was one of the most turbulent times in European

history. The ideas of individuals being able to bewitch, seduce, and entice fellow citizens to

succumb to the Devil was seen as a major problem. In response to this epidemic of the

temptation of the Devil authorities instituted policies in which would sort out witches from the

general population. Deeper analysis from Christina Larner, Brian P. Levack, William Monter,

and Gerhild Scholz-Williams suggest the overarching theme of the relationship between central

authority, local authority, social control, and how individuals interacted together with each other

in early modern Europe.

The three articles in question as well as under analysis first is “The Crime of Witchcraft

in Europe” by Christina Larner. Larner uses mostly a historical sociological perspective to this as

Larner examines the reasons why the crime of witchcraft, and religious deviance was the basis of

grounds for nation-states to initiate witch hunts to rid these so called deviants in a normal, and

moral society. Larner indicates women as the main target of the larger amount of persecutions in

early modern Europe. The justification associated with persecuting women was often along the

premise that they were having pre-marital sex, having a job, and dressing differently than what

was accepted for the time period.1 Essentially, social change was a main factor as to why states

persecuted more witches during these times as the governing body of that particular state saw

these social uproars as a threat to themselves and the nation-state as a whole. Larner specifies

1
Christina Larner, The Crime of Witchcraft in Europe, in Darren Oldridge, ed., The Witchcraft Reader, Second
Edition (New York, Routledge, 2002), 171-180; from Witchcraft and Religion: The Politics of Popular Belief,
Blackwell Publishing, 1984, pp. 35-67.

1
Ethan Krogman History 489
April 25th, 2017 Dr. Eby
that larger authorities and governing bodies were not completely separate in the aspect of church

and state. The church had a much larger influence as to how witch hunts happened, and who was

even put on trial or not. In contrast, Brian P. Levack disagrees with Larner on this and describes

his own opinions in his article.

Second, “State-Building and Witch-Hunting in Early Modern Europe” by Brian P.

Levack. Levack accepts Larner’s initial statement that efforts of social control were at the central

core of witch accusations, Levack asserts that there is other evidence that points to other sources

that go beyond the state. Rather than states accusing witches of being social, religious, or morally

deviant from what was to be conformed to in the time period. Levack insists that rather than

overarching, and large governmental bodies were the cause he states that smaller, and more local

authorities were the basis as to why there was increase of witch persecutions in early modern

Europe. This is how he contrasts Larner and provides further examples as to how small, local

authorities were the reason as to why people were accused of being witches. Such examples of

this are, “The links between this process of state development and witch hunting appear to be

stronger in Scotland than any other European states”.2 To elaborate on this it goes further into the

article to state that Larner thinks that witch hunting was centrally managed. Levack seems to

think otherwise. “The elders and magistrates who conducted these local trials were acting as

rulers of their own towns and villages, not as agents of the central government”.3 Using the

evidence of multiple different countries across Europe Levack paints a picture of how his

opinion of lesser governing bodies were the source of persecutions in Europe.4

2
Brian P. Levack, State Building and Witch-Hunting in Early Modern Europe, in Darren Oldridge, ed., The Witchcraft
Reader, Second Edition (New York, Routledge, 2002), 185-197; from Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in
Culture and Belief, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 96-107, 108-15.
3
Levack 188.
4
Levack 190.

2
Ethan Krogman History 489
April 25th, 2017 Dr. Eby
Third, the article under analysis is “Witchcraft, Confessionalism, and Authority” by

William Monter. Monter’s article states that even though witch hunts happened no matter where

you happened to go in Europe that it was mainly certain lesser German speaking areas that had

the most severe, and extensive persecutions.5 Even though that is not his argument, it is only a

fact that he argues why that was the case. While on the other hand, some areas of the German

nation-state were relatively unharmed by these extreme and severe witch hunts that happened.

Monter goes on to state that certain aspects such as: legal, religious, and political factors had a

major part when it came to witch hunts in those certain areas. The comparison of French

parliament, and the German Saarland. The relationship is that while the centralized government

of France did not execute witches that much. While on the other hand, Germany, a decentralized

government, executed over four hundred and fifty percent more witches than the government of

France. This is one of the main factors as to why Monter thinks so. Monter as well argues that

these small decentralized governments and judicial groups were weak and thus was the reason

for some of the more drastic, and atrocious witch hunts.6

Finally, “Pierre De Lancre and the Basque Witch-Hunt” compiled by Gerhild Scholz-

Williams gives an interesting perspective as to an individual, De Lancre, as the main source of

how witches were treated in early Modern Europe. Scholz-Williams uses the example of a

learned lawyer named Pierre De Lancre who studied witchcraft and gave an extremely different

twist to the argument at hand. To summarize Scholz-Williams, “The superior authority of the

5
William Monter, Witchcraft, Confessionalism, and Authority, in Darren Oldridge, ed., The Witchcraft Reader,
Second Edition (New York, Routledge, 2002), 198-204; from The Athlone History of Witchcraft and Magic in
Europe; Volume Four, Athlone Press, 2002, pp. 9-12, 22-3, 24-5.
6
Monter 198-204.

3
Ethan Krogman History 489
April 25th, 2017 Dr. Eby
state over the church was especially important in matters of witchcraft, an even more heinous

crime than heresy”.7

It asks the question of, was it larger, religious, and traditional government? It is the power

of the rise of the central nation states that led to the growth or hindrance of witch hunts across

Europe. All four historians, Larner, Levack, Monter, and Scholz-Williams agree that some sort

of governmental force is at play for increased or more intense witch hunts in early modern

Europe. Larner and her efforts to convey her sociological methodology presumed that social

control came from central authorities or institutions. Levack, and Monter show that central

authorities often lean towards to being a brake on witch hunts. This contrasting of traditional

values versus new social movements provided by Larner shows one perspective. On the other

hand, the relationship between local authorities and witches provide another aspect as to why

witch hunts happened even though they contrast on the facet of larger, centralized government

versus the lesser, and more localized governments. At the same time, both agree that some form

of government comes into play with the witch accusations during the time period. This is the

biggest, and most debated problem with these two articles. In a similar sense, the opposing side

is minor, more radical, and corrupted governing bodies were the cause of increased witch hunts

through the inspiration of local authorities by the local populace. This goes into more depth as

the scholarly conversation between these four historians provides interesting dialogue, and views

to each argument. The final twist to this is the third article that seems to agree with Levack in the

aspect that small, unorganized governmental bodies were the ones to play a role in major witch

hunts, and prosecutions. With Monter’s article is that it also addresses to some degree the factors

7
Gerhild Scholz-Williams, Pierre De Lancre and the Basque Witch-Hunt, in Darren Oldridge, ed., The Witchcraft
Reader, Second Edition (New York, Routledge, 2002), 324-335; from Defining Dominion: the Discourse of Magic
and Witchcraft in Early Modern France and Germany, University of Michigan Press, 1999, pp. 89, 90-3, 95-6, 119.

4
Ethan Krogman History 489
April 25th, 2017 Dr. Eby
in which witch hunts were allowed under, and as well as only draws on Germany as the main

example to his argument which is different than Levack. Scholz-Williams adds to the whole

picture by providing a specific example of De Lancre in his article to show that larger

governmental institutions did use individuals such as De Lancre to go and investigate the witch

hunting phenomenon in farther areas of France, most specifically the Basque region of France.

This aligns with Larner in her regards of centralized authority takin steps to ensure social control,

and stability in the state. De Lancre is a prime example of the ways central authorities went about

investigating witches and the Devil’s influence. Scholarly conversation provides further insight

in to how each historian responds to one another in this conversation of social control,

government, and witch persecutions.

First, Levack’s scholarly conversation and how it fits into the article is that one these

points: decentralization and centralization of government, the adherence of strict legal procedure,

and for the church to wipe out superstition. Levack then specified two goals, the goals of social

control, and judicial restraint were the main parts as to why Levack thought this way. This

provides a contrast to Larner’s articles.8 Monter’s article seems to lean towards the Levack side

of this discussion in the sense of the decentralized governments, and local authorities. At the

same time Monter has some points that do relate to Larner as well. Right away Monter states, “In

both places, the impulse to hunt witches came primarily from beneath, from prominent people in

local villages. Such local agendas were easily and willingly accommodated by local courts…” 9

How Larner’s article fits into the scholarly conversation is starting point for understanding each

8
Brian P. Levack, State Building and Witch-Hunting in Early Modern Europe, in Darren Oldridge, ed., The Witchcraft
Reader, Second Edition (New York, Routledge, 2002), 185-197; from Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in
Culture and Belief, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 96-107, 108-15.
9
William Monter, Witchcraft, Confessionalism, and Authority, in Darren Oldridge, ed., The Witchcraft Reader,
Second Edition (New York, Routledge, 2002), 198-204; from The Athlone History of Witchcraft and Magic in
Europe; Volume Four, Athlone Press, 2002, pp. 9-12, 22-3, 24-5.

5
Ethan Krogman History 489
April 25th, 2017 Dr. Eby
individual article. At the same time Monter agrees with aspects of Larner when using the

example of Germany. “A handful of huge witch-hunts, sponsored by the three arch-bishop-

electors of western Germany and a few other prelates, accounted for over one-third of all

executions for witchcraft in present-day Germany”.10 This excerpt explains the relationship

higher level individuals in authoritative positions could have on a state level with witch hunts.

Larner’s article and how it all fits into the conversation is where Larner and Levack come

at a crossroads as far as what was the reasons behind all of the witch hunts. Larner contrasts

Levack by her specifying points that contrast Levack. So this whole idea of social control, and

judicial restraint Larner says that some aspects of social control was a ploy when it came to

witch hunts in early modern Europe.11 Larner contrasts Levack by stating that rather than

judicial restraint there was actually not so much of a restraint when it came to witches. Once

again reiterating the point of France’s parliamentary government, and the comparison with the

German Saarland. The comparison of the execution rates of witches between both groups goes to

prove how much restraint or how little restraint there was. Witches, and superstition were the

main driving factors as to why institutions during the time period went out of their way to accuse

and prosecute witches in order to rid society of these deviants. Thus, creating a more conformed,

uniform society. This connects with Scholz-Williams as well because De Lancre was an official

of the state that sought to use the law to bring witches to justice. “In the name of royal majesty,

Lancre strove to punish people with the full weight of the law behind him”.12 At the same time,

10
Monter 201.
11
Christina Larner, The Crime of Witchcraft in Europe, in Darren Oldridge, ed., The Witchcraft Reader, Second
Edition (New York, Routledge, 2002), 171-180; from Witchcraft and Religion: The Politics of Popular Belief,
Blackwell Publishing, 1984, pp. 35-67.
12
Gerhild Scholz-Williams, Pierre De Lancre and the Basque Witch-Hunt, in Darren Oldridge, ed., The Witchcraft
Reader, Second Edition (New York, Routledge, 2002), 324-335; from Defining Dominion: the Discourse of Magic
and Witchcraft in Early Modern France and Germany, University of Michigan Press, 1999, pp. 89, 90-3, 95-6, 119.

6
Ethan Krogman History 489
April 25th, 2017 Dr. Eby
how Monter’s article fits into the scholarly conversation fits into the conversation is that by

specifically looking at the small German communities there can be aspects of both Larner, and

Levack in his analysis. It relates to Levack in the sense of the smaller, decentralized government

authorities using witch hunts to their own advantage to eliminate individuals they may not have

liked, or wanted in their community. Scholz-Williams elaborates on this statement as well by

telling the account of Lancre going to the Basque region to observe witchcraft in a rural region

for himself. “Lancre by his ow account led investigations against forty-six suspected witches,

among them twelve priests, and thirty-five informants…”13For Larner, it may not relate as much,

but at the same time there is a connection between accused individuals or groups. Larner it was

mainly women, and for Monter it was heretics, Levack local authorities, and magistrates, and

Scholz-Williams with Lancre and his investigations. To elaborate on heretics, the meaning of

heretics as in someone who did not follow the main social and religious norms of the time period

in early modern Europe. Essentially, religious, and social deviants were the heretics. Some

groups were to be accused and put on trial for something not being conformed to the rest of

societies’ standards.14

This all fits because this back and forth between Larner, Levack, Monter, and Scholz-

Williams provides a window that shows a historically sociological view into how institutions can

play a major role in the societies of the time. Whether it was enormous, centralized government,

or a minor, decentralized government both seem to agree to some degree that some type of social

institution had a hand in the witch persecutions of the time period. It is just a matter of which,

13
Gerhild Scholz-Williams, Pierre De Lancre and the Basque Witch-Hunt, in Darren Oldridge, ed., The Witchcraft
Reader, Second Edition (New York, Routledge, 2002), 324-335; from Defining Dominion: the Discourse of Magic
and Witchcraft in Early Modern France and Germany, University of Michigan Press, 1999, pp. 89, 90-3, 95-6, 119.
14
William Monter, Witchcraft, Confessionalism, and Authority, in Darren Oldridge, ed., The Witchcraft Reader,
Second Edition (New York, Routledge, 2002), 198-204; from The Athlone History of Witchcraft and Magic in
Europe; Volume Four, Athlone Press, 2002, pp. 9-12, 22-3, 24-5.

7
Ethan Krogman History 489
April 25th, 2017 Dr. Eby
large or small government bodies, institutions were at fault for killing numerous amounts of

people. As well as using different countries as examples for witch hunts, and persecutions.

Overall, this discussion between Larner, Levack, Monter, and Scholz-Williams provide a

great insight in to as what happened in early modern Europe for witches, and governmental

institutions. On one hand, Larner says centralized government and state initiated witch

persecutions were the reasons witches were being essentially hunted. Larner uses mainly poor

women as the sole cohort of people that proved her argument, and as well as a brief use of

England and Scotland to go further into her argument. Oppositely, Levack states that it was

actually lesser, decentralized governments who took matters in to their own hands were the

reasons that numerous witch hunts happened. Levack uses multiple examples across different

countries such as: England, Scotland, France, Denmark, and Germany. Ultimately, through the

sociological lens of which both articles are presented they provide an inside look as to what

social constructs. Government, in the aspect of the comparison between local and national

authoritative institutions between different countries as mentioned above. Law, in the legislation

that was passed to allow for the increase of power or lack thereof to allow for the continuation of

witch persecutions across Europe. Finally, judicial practice, and how local circuit courts as well

as state circuit courts handled witch accusations, and trials. These reasons are the driving forces

for the escalation of witch persecutions, and/or the decline of witch persecutions in early modern

Europe. How they talk to each other through these articles is through that use of centralized or

decentralized government for that fact. As well as the groups, or individuals being accused and

persecuted for witchcraft. This is the focal point of the entire argument between Larner, Levack,

and Monter, but at the same time evidence is always ignored to possibly further their own

arguments. For example, each of the In the end, Levack has a better stance on this topic as the

8
Ethan Krogman History 489
April 25th, 2017 Dr. Eby
sheer amount of evidence compared to Larner just makes it that much harder for Larner to try

and establish her credibility on such a topic as this one, and at the same time Levack uses Larner

in his analyzation of the topic of organized government and witch hunting. If Larner would have

used more countries for her argument then maybe she could stand up to Levack, but at the time

being Levack, and Monter have this argument in their corner for sheer evidence, and examples

used when compared to Larner, and her use of evidence to support her own points.

9
Ethan Krogman History 489
April 25th, 2017 Dr. Eby
References

Brian P. Levack, “State Building and Witch-Hunting in Early Modern Europe”, in Witchcraft in

Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief, Cambridge University Press, 1996,

pp. 96-107, 108-15. From Darren Oldridge, ed., The Witchcraft Reader, Second Edition

(New York, Routledge, 2002), 185-197;

Christina Larner, “The Crime of Witchcraft in Europe”, in Darren Oldridge, ed., The Witchcraft

Reader, Second Edition (New York, Routledge, 2002), 171-180.

Gerhild Scholz-Williams, “Pierre De Lancre and the Basque Witch-Hunt”, from Darren

Oldridge, ed., The Witchcraft Reader, Second Edition (New York, Routledge, 2002),

324-335; in Defining Dominion: the Discourse of Magic and Witchcraft in Early Modern

France and Germany, University of Michigan Press, 1999, pp. 89, 90-3, 95-6, 119.

William Monter, “Witchcraft, Confessionalism, and Authority”, from Darren Oldridge, ed., The

Witchcraft Reader, Second Edition (New York, Routledge, 2002), 198-204; in The

Athlone History of Witchcraft and Magic in Europe; Volume Four, Athlone Press, 2002,

pp. 9-12, 22-3, 24-5.

10