Historians have disagreed about the extent of the authorities’ actions being
responsible for the widespread nature of the Bamberg witch trials 1623-32.
What is your view about the extent of the authorities’ actions being responsible for
the widespread nature of the Bamberg witch trials 1623-32?
Under the rule of the Holy Roman Empire, particularly throughout the 17th century,
Europe faced persistent economic, social, and political change. These changes
acted as a catalyst for beliefs of witchcraft to cultivate amongst societies. Despite a
sharp population decline between 1599 and 1653, the city of Bamberg became a
hub for witchcraft, hosting one of the biggest witch hunts in Germany. One
predominant reason which is often suggested to be a cause for the widespread
nature of witch accusations in Bamberg is the role of authoritative figures, and how
they abused their powers when governing the community. Due to the corruption of
authority, many people were falsely accused of witchcraft by government officials in
order to make financial gains. Historian Elliot Currie argues that this led to a rapid
influx of witchcraft in Bamberg as authoritative figures were using it as a scheme to
benefit themselves financially through the confiscation of property. Another cause
that holds substantial responsibility for the rise in witchcraft cases was the influence
of the media, and how this installed fear into German citizens, thus causing a chain
reaction of accusations as people were apprehensive of living amongst such a
supernatural phenomenon, previously unknown to them, as argued by
Walinski-Keihl. Propaganda spread various rumours and misinformation about
witches and their origins, leading to increased vigilance and more suspicion spread
across Bamberg. Jef R Palframan’s interpretation suggests that public prejudice, as
a result of social turmoil, was reasonably responsible for the widespread nature of
,witch trials since the densely populated cities, including Bamberg, faced an increase
in social crime (such as vagrancy and prostitution) and thus also witch accusations.
Whilst all three factors agree that witchcraft was undeniably a dishonest and amoral
scheme, which evolved from a once religiously motivated purge, some put more
weight on the involvement of the government officials than others, blaming the
impacts of misconduct and wealth to outweigh the impact of the spread of ideologies.
Corruption of Authorities
Historians have debated for decades over the causes behind the widespread growth
of witchcraft accusations in Bamberg, and whether the influence of the authority is a
fundamental issue, due to its corruption, or not. Europe was facing a crisis as the
amount of witchcraft accusations increased, ultimately resulting in 35,000 executions
taking place across the Holy Roman Empire. One key argument which may suggest
the origins of this is the influence of government officials over the beliefs of the
people. The government undeniably alienated their beliefs, with the majority of
information about witchcraft deriving from official sources, thus there was a likelihood
of corruption. Elliot Currie’s article entitled ‘Crimes without Criminals: Witchcraft and
Its Control in Renaissance Europe’ argues that corrupt authority figures can be held
predominantly accountable for the influx of witch accusations in Bamberg, as well as
wider Germany, as a result of the indoctrinating influence that their power had over
German citizens.1 Witchcraft may have originated as a genuine religious scare in the
early 15th century, however, when government officials began to realise how they
were benefiting from it, witchcraft lost its original purpose and became a more
profitable scheme. In this article, Currie presents the argument that authorities
1
Currie, E.P, Aug 1968, ‘Crimes without criminals: Witchcraft and its control in Renaissance Europe’,
Law & Society Review, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 7–32.
, blamed witchcraft on social deviance, however, they constructed this concept of
deviance themselves, basing it around their personal needs and preferences, and
they, therefore, would be highly judicious over who was trialled.2 Towards the end of
the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), many socio-economic issues started to emerge
across Europe, such as crop failure, an increase in crime rates, and an economic
crisis. In retrospect, it is clear to note that such issues were a consequence of the
ongoing conflict, as law enforcement is less pertinent during times of war, and
agricultural developments were given less attention in compromise for war efforts.
Crop failure was unexplainable in the eyes of Bamberg’s citizens, as they had
inadequate knowledge of meteorology and how changing weather forecasts was the
explanation for a lack of agriculture. Therefore, as people often search for something
to accuse in times of political and social turmoil, the government used witchcraft as a
logical matter to rationalise these situations. However, as accusations increased,
government officials began to see the true benefits of the situation. Currie argues
that witchcraft stemmed from a ‘repressive control system with a powerful economic
motive’ 3. This suggests how officials may have once carried out witchcraft for the
sake of hunting down those associated with the devil, however, soon it became a
money-making scheme, rather than a religious plot, once officials were aware of the
benefits it was having on them financially. Elliot Currie’s opinion is viable as it
suggests that authorities had motives for promoting witchcraft accusations, and as
corruption is a recurrent trait within the government throughout the history of politics,
it is not an unlikely scenario. Currie states that ‘720,000 florins were taken from the
accused witches in Bamberg, Germany, a single year’4 since witches were forced to
supply the funding for their own trials and punishments. Evidence such as this
2
Ibid., 28, (Currie).
3
Ibid., 21, (Currie).
4
Ibid., 21, (Currie).
responsible for the widespread nature of the Bamberg witch trials 1623-32.
What is your view about the extent of the authorities’ actions being responsible for
the widespread nature of the Bamberg witch trials 1623-32?
Under the rule of the Holy Roman Empire, particularly throughout the 17th century,
Europe faced persistent economic, social, and political change. These changes
acted as a catalyst for beliefs of witchcraft to cultivate amongst societies. Despite a
sharp population decline between 1599 and 1653, the city of Bamberg became a
hub for witchcraft, hosting one of the biggest witch hunts in Germany. One
predominant reason which is often suggested to be a cause for the widespread
nature of witch accusations in Bamberg is the role of authoritative figures, and how
they abused their powers when governing the community. Due to the corruption of
authority, many people were falsely accused of witchcraft by government officials in
order to make financial gains. Historian Elliot Currie argues that this led to a rapid
influx of witchcraft in Bamberg as authoritative figures were using it as a scheme to
benefit themselves financially through the confiscation of property. Another cause
that holds substantial responsibility for the rise in witchcraft cases was the influence
of the media, and how this installed fear into German citizens, thus causing a chain
reaction of accusations as people were apprehensive of living amongst such a
supernatural phenomenon, previously unknown to them, as argued by
Walinski-Keihl. Propaganda spread various rumours and misinformation about
witches and their origins, leading to increased vigilance and more suspicion spread
across Bamberg. Jef R Palframan’s interpretation suggests that public prejudice, as
a result of social turmoil, was reasonably responsible for the widespread nature of
,witch trials since the densely populated cities, including Bamberg, faced an increase
in social crime (such as vagrancy and prostitution) and thus also witch accusations.
Whilst all three factors agree that witchcraft was undeniably a dishonest and amoral
scheme, which evolved from a once religiously motivated purge, some put more
weight on the involvement of the government officials than others, blaming the
impacts of misconduct and wealth to outweigh the impact of the spread of ideologies.
Corruption of Authorities
Historians have debated for decades over the causes behind the widespread growth
of witchcraft accusations in Bamberg, and whether the influence of the authority is a
fundamental issue, due to its corruption, or not. Europe was facing a crisis as the
amount of witchcraft accusations increased, ultimately resulting in 35,000 executions
taking place across the Holy Roman Empire. One key argument which may suggest
the origins of this is the influence of government officials over the beliefs of the
people. The government undeniably alienated their beliefs, with the majority of
information about witchcraft deriving from official sources, thus there was a likelihood
of corruption. Elliot Currie’s article entitled ‘Crimes without Criminals: Witchcraft and
Its Control in Renaissance Europe’ argues that corrupt authority figures can be held
predominantly accountable for the influx of witch accusations in Bamberg, as well as
wider Germany, as a result of the indoctrinating influence that their power had over
German citizens.1 Witchcraft may have originated as a genuine religious scare in the
early 15th century, however, when government officials began to realise how they
were benefiting from it, witchcraft lost its original purpose and became a more
profitable scheme. In this article, Currie presents the argument that authorities
1
Currie, E.P, Aug 1968, ‘Crimes without criminals: Witchcraft and its control in Renaissance Europe’,
Law & Society Review, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 7–32.
, blamed witchcraft on social deviance, however, they constructed this concept of
deviance themselves, basing it around their personal needs and preferences, and
they, therefore, would be highly judicious over who was trialled.2 Towards the end of
the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), many socio-economic issues started to emerge
across Europe, such as crop failure, an increase in crime rates, and an economic
crisis. In retrospect, it is clear to note that such issues were a consequence of the
ongoing conflict, as law enforcement is less pertinent during times of war, and
agricultural developments were given less attention in compromise for war efforts.
Crop failure was unexplainable in the eyes of Bamberg’s citizens, as they had
inadequate knowledge of meteorology and how changing weather forecasts was the
explanation for a lack of agriculture. Therefore, as people often search for something
to accuse in times of political and social turmoil, the government used witchcraft as a
logical matter to rationalise these situations. However, as accusations increased,
government officials began to see the true benefits of the situation. Currie argues
that witchcraft stemmed from a ‘repressive control system with a powerful economic
motive’ 3. This suggests how officials may have once carried out witchcraft for the
sake of hunting down those associated with the devil, however, soon it became a
money-making scheme, rather than a religious plot, once officials were aware of the
benefits it was having on them financially. Elliot Currie’s opinion is viable as it
suggests that authorities had motives for promoting witchcraft accusations, and as
corruption is a recurrent trait within the government throughout the history of politics,
it is not an unlikely scenario. Currie states that ‘720,000 florins were taken from the
accused witches in Bamberg, Germany, a single year’4 since witches were forced to
supply the funding for their own trials and punishments. Evidence such as this
2
Ibid., 28, (Currie).
3
Ibid., 21, (Currie).
4
Ibid., 21, (Currie).
