Custom essays, dissertations, coursework & essay help from the UK's original custom essay writing services provider
Free Essays - History Essays
Evaluate the impact of the Thomas Macfarlane model on the historiography of early modern witchcraft
A valid argument can be made that the Thomas-Macfarlane model has been readily received and accepted by a large number of historians but also rejected, wholly and in part, by others. I will show how this model has had an impact on the historiography of witchcraft studies from its first publication in the early 1970s and that it is still largely, although not entirely, accepted as a creditable historical model by many historians. In the first instance, I will examine the history of the historiography of the subject and will consider how witchcraft was viewed in pre-1950s studies, the point being made that witchcraft was studied within the framework of the Grand Narrative, a framework into which, according to Dr J Durrant, ‘it does not fit very comfortably.’ I shall also show how the work of Sir E.E. Evans-Pritchard, the noted anthropologist, has changed the course of witchcraft historiography by validating the use of anthropological data concerning historical studies. Next, I will use examples from E W Monter that will help outline the Thomas-Macfarlane model and by using examples from this model will show Monter’s arguments about its place in the historiography of witchcraft studies. These examples allow an explanation of the model in an historical and historiographical context. I will use Monter’s article for the bulk of the assessment in this section as it covers most of the points that I feel are relevant and will only use other historians’ points to counter specific arguments, both for and against, that are made by Monter. I will then go on to examine criticisms of the model; I will consider the points made by feminist historian, Anne Llewellyn Barstow, and will examine the validity of her arguments about Thomas and Macfarlane’s model. Lastly, I shall conclude that although the Thomas-Macfarlane model may not be entirely satisfactory in its approach to the gender questions raised about witchcraft and specifically that of misogynistic activity as suggested by Barstow, it does provide a highly plausible and probable explanation as to why there were witchcraft prosecutions, in England at least. I shall also conclude that much is owed to the work of E.E.Evans-Pritchard for his indirect effect on the style of the model’s construction.
In the years before 1950, history was studied in a style that is now known as the Grand Narrative. The basic premise of this style was that history was studied in a ‘top-down’ format and concentrated almost entirely on the study of the supposed greats of society: kings and queens, leaders of state, famous authors and musicians, famous generals and military leaders; scant attention was paid to the ordinary, multitudinous members of society. It also followed a set chronological pattern that told time from before Greek and Roman times, progressed linear style through the great ages, and finished with the World Wars of the twentieth-century. Set in this framework therefore, the study of witchcraft was not of any particular relevance except to those who clung to the theories that ‘European witchcraft was really the survival of a pre-Christian fertility cult’ and as such was not really worthy of any serious scholarly debate. However, emerging in the 1950s and growing through the 1960s, there was a realisation in western historical circles that by use of ancillary methods of investigation such as anthropology, sociology, and psychoanalysis historians were able to examine more thoroughly non-traditional spheres of historical study. These areas of research had effectively been denied to them when trying to use the traditional, narrow concepts that were dictated by the restraints of ‘top-down’ history. E.E. Evans-Pritchard’s 1937 study of the Azande Indians set in motion an idea that by studying primitive cultures historians could gain a better understanding of how and why societies may have worked in a European past. He also asserted that anthropology should not be viewed a natural science, claiming instead that it should be grouped among the humanities and especially that of history: he gained a history degree from Oxford so would have a natural understanding of the comparisons and links between the disciplines. Evans-Pritchard’s book influenced many people including Keith Thomas. An entry in the DNB states that
Evans-Pritchard's first book, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande (1937), a brilliant analysis of Zande mystical belief and practices, implicitly raised general questions of the relationship between faith and reasoning, and impressed not only anthropologists but philosophers (for example, R. G. Collingwood and Michael Polanyi) and social historians (for example, Keith Thomas).
Therefore, Evans-Pritchard’s book would help to start a revolutionary new concept in historical study in the form of what we now term ‘bottom-up’ history; the study of the general populace and their inter-relational status. For Keith Thomas this would help to clarify his work on early modern neighbourhood dynamics and allow him to develop his ideas into areas that were traditionally not viewed as being worthy of scholarly debate.
In a very short space of time from its conception and publication the Thomas-Macfarlane model, of charity refused, and of refusal of social obligation had gained many plaudits from those in the historical community. Katharine Hodgkin wrote about the quality of the argument put forward by Thomas and Macfarlane and noted how it effectively answered the question for many historians about the causes of witchcraft persecutions and dealt with the question as to why so many of them were directed at women. She stated that
This was a powerful and persuasive account, to the extent that it seemed almost to close off the possibility of others; little substantial work on witchcraft was published in Britain in the 15 years or so following Thomas’ religion and the decline of magic in 1971. It also seemed simultaneously to account for and dismiss the predominance of women in witch persecutions.
In his 1972 article on the historiography of European witchcraft, E. William Monter explained that the model ‘tries to incorporate the results of anthropological research from outside of Europe with other social-scientific theory in order to produce a functional and structural picture of witchcraft in European societies.’ So impressed was he with the theory behind it that he went on to state that ‘it looks sufficiently distinctive to claim a place as a… major paradigm in its own right.’ In providing an explanation of the model’s functionality, he writes ‘MacFarlane’s monograph on Essex offers a pioneering analysis of witchcraft in its normal historical setting, the village.’ He continues with an explanation extrapolated from Macfarlane’s writings as to why witchcraft prosecutions were frequent and judged as normal; it was considered one of the norms of village life that witchcraft prosecutions did not tend to arise in sporadic outbursts. He states that ‘he [Macfarlane] has shown how witchcraft prosecutions did not occur as occasional eruptions, abnormal reactions to particular crises. They seem to have been a normal part of village life, widespread and regular.’ A point made by Macfarlane about old and New England shows that witchcraft prosecutions had very little to do with misogynistic tendencies or involvement in close family ties ‘most of the quarrels leading to witchcraft prosecutions were not related to kinship…’ and had more relevancy in inter-relational village dynamics, ‘to sheer physical proximity.’ Monter further expands on Macfarlane’s points by stating that,
Furthermore, it seems that the function of witchcraft trials in these villages was to avenge certain types of misfortune, such as lingering illnesses or mysterious deaths of livestock, which could not be remedied by the forms of counter-magic (witch doctors and folk remedies) available to the victims.
Taking an anthropological aspect on the subject then shows us that it can be seen, according to this model, that witchcraft prosecutions were more likely to come about due to group interactions, proximity of accusers and accused, tensions within certain areas and levels of the community and in certain cases retribution for perceived attacks and wrongdoings. However, with this point made, Christina Larner counters certain points of the argument. Whereas for Macfarlane the responsibility for witchcraft prosecutions was founded at local village level, Larner contests that it was actually the higher powers that instigated proceedings. She is quoted in Annabel Gregory’s 1991 article on seventeenth-century Rye as saying
The European witch, unlike her African or American-Indian counterpart, was a transfigured creature who began her career in the farmyard as an enemy of her neighbour, and ended it in the courts as a public person, an enemy of God and of the godly society.
Gregory uses this quote to enhance further her point that it was those in control of the court mechanism that instigated proceedings against those of a lower more vulnerable order; it was therefore isolated in reality from the workings of inter-personal village relationships. She writes that this point of view, at the time of her writing, has seen a growing number of historians in agreement
In this passage Christina Larner expressed…an argument that has been gaining currency among historians. According to this approach, responsibility for the dramatic rise in witchcraft prosecutions in early modern Europe lay primarily with the elites who controlled the courts rather than the accusers, who were usually of lower status.
Therefore, it can be argued that although there is no major denial of the theories as laid out in the Thomas-Macfarlane model, not all historians agree entirely with all the assertions advanced. Even those historians that can see great validity in the model are also aware of the fact that there are potential shortcomings in some of its theoretical statements. Monter, whose first comments about the model are those of glowing praise, can also see some of its limits when he writes ‘it is possible that the first examples of this model do not strike the best possible balance among the social sciences approaching European witchcraft.’ He continues with his concerns about too much reliance on specific approaches to the subject in favour of others. He also highlights the inadaptability of the model from an Anglo-American setting to its European counter-parts by stating that,
The quirks of outside research on contemporary witchcraft may have led to too much anthropology and not enough social psychology, which could have more to offer about the “context” of witchcraft belief and fears. It is also possible that an exclusive reliance upon British and American evidence has led these pioneers to create models that cannot be adapted easily to continental conditions.
The main reason for this difficulty was in the way that witch trials were conducted at this time and he highlights the point that they differed greatly as Europe and England had different legal systems in place for persecuting and prosecuting witchcraft suspects
One important difficulty is that Continental witchcraft demanded a far greater structural role for the Christian Devil than did rural England; Continental witch-trials were almost invariably heresy trials as well as trials for malign sorcery, which makes them different both from the English and from virtually all of the non-European societies which have been studied by anthropologists.
Therefore, it can be seen that although the model is useful when considering the position of witches in England, it is its lack of transferability to other important areas of witchcraft study that impedes its hegemonic domination of the witchcraft discussion.
There are also historians that are opposed to the ideas formulated by Thomas and Macfarlane for other reasons than those stated above. It can be recognised that feminist historians such as Anne Llewellyn Barstow are diametrically opposed to the theories put forward by them. If they were to accept them, then this would mean that they negate their own point of view that witchcraft prosecutions were solely centred on the gender question and that misogyny played a large part in the proceedings. However, on reading Barstow’s book and reading past the hyperbole that she employs in her writing it is hard to accept some of the statements she makes. When quoting Macfarlane’s study of Essex trials she uses statistics to try to show that misogyny is a key factor
Alan Macfarlane’s careful analysis of the Essex trials confirmed that 92% of the victims were women… but he concluded that ‘there is no evidence that hostility between the sexes lay behind their prosecutions’.
She then makes a statement with regard to Thomas concurring with Macfarlane when she writes
Keith Thomas in his influential study of English folk religion concurred with Macfarlane. Though denying that either misogyny or psychological factors affected the female victims, he made the useful point that economic and social considerations were valid because women were ‘the most dependant members of the community and thus the most vulnerable to accusation’.
The key points of these statements are that although 92% of those prosecuted at this time were women ‘there is no evidence that hostility between the sexes lay behind…prosecutions.’ Therefore, there is no hard evidence for or against that this is because of sexual hostility. Barstow also accepts that the economic and social considerations were a valid point but then tries to turn vulnerability into misogyny. The misogyny question at this point has been countered by Pieter Spierenburg when he states,
A general increase in misogyny around 1500 has not been demonstrated so far…the antifeminine culture tradition is at least two thousand years older than the witchcraft doctrine, and it is difficult to accept that this tradition would suddenly have led to the witch persecutions between 1480 and 1680.
Therefore, by removing the question about misogyny the Thomas-Macfarlane model again seems to provide suitable anthropologically based answers as to why it was women who were most likely to be accused of witchcraft. Because women were the most dependant members of the community they were the most vulnerable to accusation; they were the persons most likely to ask for charity and therefore under the model most likely to be refused it. This then led to a chain of events, cursing, guilt, transference of guilt etc, which potentially ended in an execution of a witch; this is exactly the sequence that is asserted by the model.
It can be seen that the Thomas-Macfarlane model has indeed had a strong impact on the historiography of witchcraft. By providing a creditable historical model based on anthropological studies of native cultures it can give the historian an idea of how early modern peoples may have interacted. It has been largely due to the work of Evans-Pritchard and his pioneering approaches to anthropology and the readiness of historians to alter the way in which they perceive history that has allowed Thomas and Macfarlane’s model to be accepted in the historical community. As it has been shown, not all historians concur with this point of view. Feminist historians argue that the question of misogyny has been sidestepped by the acceptance of this model. It could also be argued that a study of Azande Indians in the 1930s is not comparative enough with early modern Europe to allow the study to be of relevance: different language models in certain societies are not necessarily transmutable. However, these points aside, it can be seen that the Thomas-Macfarlane model has made a major contribution to the advancement of historical studies in witchcraft by employing scientific disciplines in its research methods that allow for a balanced and scientific approach to the study of witches in early modern Europe.
Bibliography
- Barry, J and Davies, O (eds), Witchcraft historiography, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007)
- Barstow, A, Witchcraze: A new history of the European witch hunts, (London: HarperCollins, 1994)
- Gregory, A, ‘Witchcraft, politics and “good neighbourhood” in early seventeenth-century Rye’, Past and Present, No.133. (Nov. 1991) pp. 31-66.
- http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080-4169%281973%291973%3C55%3AO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
- Lienhardt, R. G. “Pritchard, Sir Edward Evan Evans- (1902–1973).” Rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford: OUP, 2004. 5 Dec. 2007 http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/31089
- Macfarlane, A, Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England, (London: Routledge, 1999)
- Monter, E, W, ‘The historiography of European witchcraft: progress and prospects’, Journal of interdisciplinary history, Vol. 2, No. 4, Psychoanalysis and History, (Spring 1972) pp. 435-451.
- Spierenburg, P, The broken spell, (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1991)
History Essays - Find your free history essays...
We have a large assortment of free essays available to use as research material. Visit our history essays from our free essays section.
All of the essays in the "Free Essays" section were written by students and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism!
UK Essays Sitemaps
UKEssays.com RSS Feed
