Witchcraft & Heresy Lesson 14

Lesson and description here, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
This is the last one of the semester. And soon I will post my final paper for this class.

Original: First of all I want to say that I may be a bit biased in my interpretation and inclination to one author, being Kieckhefer. I believe part of my bias is from the intensive discussion posts that we have engaged in regarding mostly Kiechkefer’s work rather than Oldridge. Unfortunately, I lost some interest in reading Oldridge due to the fact that most of the modules that required reading his work resulted in discussion posts that did not focus so much specifically on the text. Secondly, I am most definitely biased because of Oldridge’s explanation of the supposed compassion that the persecutors and punishers of supposed witches had as discussed more in depth in my original response to question 10. This unquestionably is responsible for the beginning of my waning interests in Oldridge’s writing.
With all this in mind, I will say that I enjoyed Kieckhefer’s literature more and his much more objective descriptions of witchcraft and the Middle Ages. That would lead to the idea that I feel Oldridge is less objective and involves his own opinions clearly in his text. I have no objections to doing so, but feel for a classroom setting that it is not the most appropriate way to go about learning of the subject. In addition that would result in my tendency to say that Oldridge’s writing is more biased. I also enjoyed Kieckhefer’s in depth and thoroughly detailed descriptions of the very concept of magic, the people involved with magic from the laypeople to the rich and educated to the clerics, the beliefs and fears held by these people in regard to witchcraft and the punishments and trials that fall in accord with that. I feel he does an excellent job really digging into the culture regarding magic of that time, really putting you into the shoes of the people then, hence his objectivity further aids this. Although Oldridge describes more of the bizarre aspects of witchcraft during that time which is nonetheless interesting, I feel it more difficult to really place yourself in the shoes of the people described.
Student response #1: I definitely agree with how you describe Kieckhefer’s literature, which also partly inspired how I focused my original response. He, indeed, gave many incredibly detailed accounts of the many aspects of magic. I feel he did an excellent job painting the picture of the culture and the people at those times. In regards to your statements about Oldridge’s book, you are completely right about the cover art being misleading, as if some sort of horror novel. I may have thought that when I first purchased the book but later forgotten about it as the readings progressed. Although you shouldn’t judge a book by a cover, I do feel this cover is surely misleading to some extent. You are also correct about the fact that Oldridge seemingly tries to make an argument rather than just provide information. Although I don’t entirely agree with that you feel his argument was merely his defense for magic that was taken out of context and such. Although I agree with that sentiment, Oldridge does, in fact, empathize with the persecutors and the fearful in the description he makes that they were doing these things out of compassion. I agree that he is making an argument, for his work tends to be more biased and rooted in his own opinions on the matter, rather than presenting objective information.
Student response #2: You brought up something I forgot to mention in my original response, that being that Oldridge was easier to read. I agree with that thought, however I did not particularly like it over Kieckhefer’s book. It is very interesting that these discussion posts allow us to dig into these different aspects of the course and it reveals to our fellow classmates how each of us individually process information as well as what our preferences are. Although, especially for this post, none of us are necessarily wrong or right, we expose what it is we look for and enjoy as well as prefer. For example, it is interesting that you point out Kieckhefer’s more Church orientated information and that you prefer Oldridge. This may possibly imply that you weren’t at that interested in the Church’s interpretations and reactions to magic, but something else. Whereas I, personally, was very interested in the Church with regards to magic. Nice post.