Pick One Already!!

Doctor Faustus must be one of the most evil men on earth. He has summoned demons, but more importantly he has served the devil lukewarm babies’ blood. The audience that would attend Doctor Faustus would have a solid understanding of the bible. There are moments in the first two acts of the play that would lead one to believe Doctor Faustus is a very evil man. For example, Doctor Faustus states “To [Lucifer] I’ll build an alter and a church and offer lukewarm blood of newborn babes” (Marlowe, [2.1] 13-14). If using the blood of newborn babes isn’t bad enough, it’s also lukewarm. Being lukewarm is a terrible thing according to God “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth” (Revelation, 3:15-16). Is the babies’ blood a metaphor for his uncertain allegiance? Throughout the first two acts Doctor Faustus was having a hard time deciding if he was on Lucifer’s side or God’s side. Doctor Faustus is having an internal battle of what to choose, he states, “I will renounce this magic and repent” (Marlowe, [2.2] 11). Just a few lines later he says, “I am resolved, Faustus shall not repent” (Marlowe, [2.2] 30). This back and forth clearly shows his lukewarm attitude toward God. As if summoning demons and serving babies blood isn’t bad enough his unsure nature is just adding fuel to the pyre… I meant fire. Not only has God labeled him a lukewarm rotten apple, the audience has also found his confusion to be unacceptable. In the end who could trust someone with such a muddled thought process.

witches are snitches

"After this her confession, she was committed to prison, where shee continued a season, where immediately shee accused these persons following to bee notorious witches, and caused them forthwith to be apprehended, one after another, viz. Agnes Sampson, Agnes Tompson, Doctor Fian..."(320) 48.

The Reasons for Torture

This past weekend’s chapter in Witchcraft in Europe had some of the most interesting documents. Yet, what stood out to me the most was not in a document itself but in the preface of document 48 “The Prosecutions in Scotland”. It is here that Kors and Peters point out that in Scotland, there is the “denunciation of one alleged witch extracted under torture from another accused witch” (318). This is further seen in the reading as it does not talk about trying to get names of other witches from those that were accused. Instead, every event of torture is coupled with interrogations on how they were set into a contract with a devil and how or what magic they have performed in their lives. This idea of not being able to use accusations that precipitate from torturing was shocking as it is against what I had always thought of. My viewpoint of witch trials was that those interrogating the witches were looking for the other witches in the community. They did not care why or how they got into witchcraft as they were already thought to be guilty. To them, they saw witches as knowing each other and the easiest way to find others without them causing harm to the innocent. Perhaps this was an idea unique to Scotland but still interesting as it leads me to the question of if you can question others accused by a "witch" if there was no torture inflicted upon him/her.

SandWITCHES

In the Jean Bodin passage the twelfth crime of witches is killing with poisons or spells that is distinct from other than violence. I feel that it could be confusing with people getting sick for many other reasons, even though I know that hygiene was not as bad as I originally thought before this class, people still get sick at pretty frequent rates from the food they consume. Many cooks and bakers should be at fault here for food bourne illnesses getting people sick and thinking that an enemy of them is a witch that poisons them because they were around them when they felt sick or died from the food. But also, I am surprised to not hear any stories of bakers getting accused of being a witch for killing some people, since they got sick over the food they consumed from their place of business and though that they did it on purpose. Now thinking about it bakers might've been able to kill people easily since there was no way of knowing they did it.

DO NOT get on a SINGLE persons bad side in the 16th century...

So during my reading over this beautiful weekend the part that stuck with me the most was the fact that anyone could just SAY you were a witch and that would be enough probable cause to have a full on investigation on your whole life. God FORBID if you had a couple pet lizards or some leftover chicken bones from dinner because now the "evidence" is stacking up against you. This was really unsettling because on page 295 it says,

"It is sufficient, therefore, to have strong presumptions to impose corporal punishment in such a revolting case, and up to but not including death. That is to say, beatings, amputations, brandings, life imprisonments, fines, confiscations, and other such penalties except banishment, unless the witch is confined to a particular place."

So this literally says YOU COULD LOSE A LIMB OR BE BRANDED LIKE FOREVER by someone having a "strong presumption" that you were a witch. But don't you worry they won't kill you, just some light maiming. I feel a little disturbed knowing if Agatha's husband dies after her neighbor tells him to go to hell that there might be a branding or even an amputation in the near future.

                                  

Remember the babies...