A2 History – The Witch-crazes – Witch-Hunting in Europe and Southern

Germany
Overview: The Hunts –
No clear correlation between certain circumstances and a hunts subsequently arising. Plague,
famine, and zealous clergy in one area would spark a hunt, whilst not in another. Usually, hunts were
started by individuals accusing others of maleficium; once judicial figures agreed to hear the charge,
they assumed control, thus dictating the hunt’s scale (e.g. who is tortured, executed; how many etc.)

 Large hunts were often caused by chain-reactions via confessions.

 Large hunts were not always cohesive; they occurred over several areas in a judge’s
jurisdiction, often in spontaneous, unrelated waves over many years (i.e. many small hunts,
not one large hunt).
 Practically all hunts were united by a fear of witchcraft, the potential of diabolical power, and
the fear of being wrongly accused; this encouraged participation in the hunts.

End of the hunts –

Small, isolated hunts ended when the accused were executed.

Larger hunts were usually more difficult to end; new accomplices and ‘leads’ could be extracted
through torture, sparking new hunts. Reasons for why large hunts ended include:

 Judicial scepticism – this usually grew once ‘atypical witches’ became increasingly
persecuted (i.e. nobility, men, children etc.), as suspicions arose as to whether the innocent
were being accused. The rate of acquittal would rise, assuring judges that some accusations
were false.

 Heavy death tolls could also discourage the judiciary from further participation (e.g.
Rottenburg – authorities feared that continuing their hunt would kill all the women of
the town; two local villages in the same year, for instance, had been left with one
female survivor each. However – hunts usually ended before this stage.

 Local pressure – ordinary people could refuse to denounce or testify, express their
disapproval, or protest to the appropriate authority.
 Inevitable decline – the high point of a nation’s witch trials and its decline occurred almost
simultaneously; mass accusations illustrated the difficulty of convincingly convicting
individuals.

Regional variations –
 Holy Roman Empire –
A collection of over 2000 independent territories (including Prince-Electorate, ecclesiastical
principalities, earldoms, imperial cities etc.), loosely joined by a single Empire and Emperor.
These central authorities, however, had very limited influence over local proceedings.

The Carolina (a criminal legal code) was not effectively enforced, as:
 There were no itinerant (moving) judges;
 There was no mechanism to appeal to the Imperial Supreme Court in Speyer.

Local judges were required to consult with neighbouring universities, however,

when conducting witch-trials; it was hoped this would bring knowledge and restrain
to proceedings. However – universities were the epicentre of demonological
debate, meaning diabolical ideas were introduced to local authorities.

Larger hunts tended to occur in small ecclesiastical southern and western territories;
examples include:

 Bamberg, Trier, Cologne and Würzburg (see depth study)

 Ecclesiastical territory of Fulda (1603-5) – 276 executions.
  Prince-Electorate of Mainz (1601-29) – under three different prince-bishops, 1800
were executed.
 Catholic Principality of Ellwangen (1611-8) – 400 executions.

Across the HRE – 20,000-25,000 trials; over half of those tried were executed.

Potential reasons for the HRE’s hunts –

 Economic conditions – Behringer (2004) believes that the trials of the early 17th
century were caused by an unfavourable climate, causing crop failures, famines
and disease. Witches became scapegoats for these poor conditions.

 Counter-Reformation Zeal – Ecclesiastical figure’s zeal during the counter-

reformation may have encouraged the elimination of the Devil’s influence. However
– not all Catholic territories participated in the hunts; many Protestant areas
conducted equally large hunts.

 The Thirty Years War – Initially a largely religious war stemming from the Counter-
Reformation, it came to involve many European powers, from 1618-48. The largest
hunts occurred whilst the Thirty Years War raged; the war caused severe
economic difficulties –

 Entire regions were either destroyed or looted by varying armies;

 Thousands of soldiers died, not only depleting areas of farmers but also
spreading disease as they moved;
 The war stunted economic development.

People have sought scapegoats for their misery.

 Individuals – Hunts tended to start and end in accordance with a leader’s reign,
suggesting their own personal motives, rather than underlying pressure, initiated
many hunts; this was exacerbated by the limited centralised authority within the
HRE, enabling individuals to act with immense freedom.

 Witch-Commissioners – Judges with the sole target of identifying and executing

witches, usually through by-passing district courts and central government, whilst
employing torture.

 Popular pressure – A desire from the general population may have sparked hunts;
in Prattigau, for instance, the local villages were only able to execute witches after
they seceded from their uncooperative Tyrolian authorities (subsequently executing
over 100 in a few years).

 France –

1000 executions from 1500-1700, occurring largely in the Kingdom’s ‘frontiers’ (i.e. border
regions), as these areas were more resistant to the centralised Monarchy, enabling their
courts to act with greater independence.

France’s judicial system explains why far fewer witches were executed compared with the
HRE, despite their similar population size. 8 parlements (regional high courts), staffed by
men trained in law, oversaw the work of local authorities.

The Paris parlement, for instance, refused to sentence witches based on

confessions extracted from torture; it dismissed 1/3rd of cases. The Paris parlement
greatly influenced the work of other parlements.
  Switzerland –
 10,000 executions.
 Autonomous judicial authorities across the religiously, culturally and linguistically diverse
cantons.

 Franche-Comte, Lorraine, Luxembourg, Spanish Netherlands –

 Combination of central (King of Spain, Holy Roman Emperor, Archduke of Burgundy providing
the legal framework) and local authorities (able to conduct hunts freely) caused large
hunts.
 Lorraine – 2000 executions from across the 16th-17th century.
 Luxembourg - ~350 executions from across the 16th-17th century.
 Spanish Netherlands - ~2000 executions under Philip II of Spain.

 Dutch Republic –
 150 executions (and ended earlier than any other European hunt)
 1594 – Court of Holland forbade torture; high scepticism amongst Dutch judges regarding
witch’s supposed ‘diabolical conspiracy’.

 Denmark and Norway –

 1000 executions in Denmark; 350 executions in Norway (governed by Denmark).
 1547 – Danish Government banned the use of testimonies of those convicted of infamous
crimes (i.e. witchcraft) could not be used to convict others; also forbade torture (until after a
death sentence was declared).

 Sweden –
 1593 – law requires 6 witnesses or a confession to be convicted of a capital crime; all
death sentences must be appealed to a royal court in Stockholm.
 Only large hunt was in Dalarna (1668-76) – 200 executed as a result of children accusing
others of attending Sabbats; ended after courts began interrogating the children, and King
Charles XI ended them by decree (also did so in Finland and the Baltic States).

 Eastern Europe –
 Started and ended later than most hunts (into the 18th century). In general, areas more
closely tied to the HRE conducted more hunts compared to Orthodox areas.
 Poland – 1000 executed by largely independent local courts.
 Hungary – 500 executed.
 Persecutions in other areas, such as Transylvania, were rare.

 Southern Europe –
 500 executions across Spain and Italy.
 Despite the Spanish Inquisition trying thousands, only around 100 were executed. The
Inquisition, and judges, were sceptical of many accusations, and were unwilling to exploit
the accusatorial process; as a result, torture was rare (e.g. only 2 were tortured out of 100s
during the Basque Hunts).

Depth-Study –
Trier –

 When was it? 1581-93

 Who was the area’s leader? Suffragan Bishop Peter Binsfeld.
 What/who started it? 1580s – series of poor harvests, causing harsh economic conditions, causing
people to seek scapegoats and to put pressure on local authorities; dispute of power between the
town council and the prince-bishop was decided in favour of the prince-bishop; Jesuit college
enthusiastically supported Binsfeld’s campaign.
 What enabled its growth? Jesuit College used young boys to identify sabbat-attenders; torture was
implemented; realisation that political and financial motivations could be achieved through the hunts
(e.g. Trier authorities made money through possessing victim’s wealth)
 How many were killed? 1,000
  Who was persecuted? Initially stereotypical witches (i.e. old, female, poor); as momentum grew,
atypical witches were increasingly prosecuted (e.g. nobility; Dr Dietrich Flade – Chancellor of Trier
University; former Lord Mayors; Councillors; Parish Priests etc.)
 What ended it? Unknown.

Cologne –

 When was it? 1623-34

 Who was the area’s leader? Prince-Elector Ferdinand (Archbishop of Cologne).
 What/who started it? Potential socioeconomic fears, derived from a series of poor harvests and crop
failures.
 What enabled its growth? Ferdinand appointed witch-commissioners to establish control once
momentum had gathered; these commissioners, however, acted independently, implementing their
own policies and terrorising regions.
 How many were killed? 2,000
 Who was persecuted? Unknown.
 What ended it? Unknown.

Wurzburg –

 When was it? 1623-31

 Who was the area’s leader? Philip Adolf von Ehrenberg.
 What/who started it? Potentially Ehrenberg (hunts climaxed during his reign; ended upon his death);
potential selfish and/or political motivations.
 What enabled its growth? Confessions were used (presumably extracted via torture).
 How many were killed? 900
 Who was persecuted? All sections of society, across ages, professions and gender. Included
mayors, priests, children and Ehrenberg’s own nephew.
 What ended it? Death of Ehrenberg in 1631; takeover by King Adolphus of Sweden (trials ended
under his rule).

Bamberg –

 When was it? 1609-33

 Who was the area’s leader? Prince-Bishop Johann Gottfriend von Aschhausen (1609-22); Prince-
Bishop Johann George Fuchs von Dornheim (1622-33)

 What/who started it? First hunts begun by ardent Counter-Reformer Aschhausen (invited Jesuits to
Bamberg to eradicate traces of Protestantism); Second hunts initiated by Dornheim (similarly
zealous – desired to create a Holy State, and to remove the Devil’s influence over his lands). Both
may have been exploiting economic problems caused by devastating harvests, plagues and the
Thirty Years War.

 What enabled its growth?

 Dornheim was aided by Friedrich Forner, an avid Counter-Reformer and Witch-hunter, a
group of witch-commissioners, and a council of doctors of law;
 Dornheim created a ‘Witch House’ (Drudenhaus), specifically designed to imprison and
torture witches; permission to torture needed to be granted by Dornheim, who usually gave
it freely.
 Use of painful torture methods (e.g. leg vices, thumbscrews, strappado etc.) meant
confessions and the naming of accomplices was common; enabled a ‘chain-reaction’ to
unfold, greatly expanding the number and type of witches accused and executed.
 Financial gain – Dornheim became extremely wealthy through the hunts (rich individual’s
possessions were seized; the family of the accused had to pay for their imprisonment and
execution).
 How many were killed? 900

 Who was persecuted? Chain-reaction meant atypical witches were increasingly accused as the trials
progressed; included nobility and high-ranking officials –
 Dr George Haan – suspected of being a witch-sympathiser; an order from the Imperial Court
at Speyer to not execute his wife and daughter did not reach Bamberg in time; Haan and his
son were arrested and executed upon their return to Bamberg, 1628; Haan confessed to
having seen 5 councillors at a Sabbat (all were executed).
 Johannes Junius, one of the councillors accused by Haan, was tortured so extensively that
he confessed to having a Devil’s Pact and attending Sabbats, whilst also accusing relatives
and friends – all were executed in 1628.

 What ended it?

 Intervention from Emperor Ferdinand II – repeatedly attempted to stop Dornheim’s hunts
 Ordered release of George Haan – Dornheim ignored the request;
 Forbade persecution of Doretha Flock, whose husband had appealed to Ferdinand
and the Pope – message arrived too late;
 September 1630 + June 1631 Ferdinand issued strong directives in opposition to
the hunts, including how all accusations must be made public, property confiscation
was ended, and a witch-hunt sceptic was to head the Bamberg hunting commission).
 Death of Bishop Forner in 1630.
 Threat of King Gustavus of Sweden, forcing Dornheim to flee; died in exile in 1633.