IndexIntroduction to history and contextIn-depth interpretationsExplain the differences you have identifiedConclusion"Historians disagree on the reasons for the end of the witch craze" . To what extent was the changing religious climate responsible for the end of the witch craze? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Introduction to history and context The witch craze was a widespread phenomenon throughout Europe, from the late 15th to the early 18th century, resulting in thousands of people, mostly women, accused, tried, and executed for witchcraft. Such intense persecution of witches had never occurred before this period, and has not occurred since, thus making these two centuries unique in the history of witchcraft. This has led many historians to look at the context of this period to try to discover what it was about this era that allowed the witch craze to have such a hold on societies across Europe. It was a time of social upheaval, religious conflict, and scientific development as Europe emerged from frequent plagues, famines, and wars that ravaged it during the Middle Ages. There is a general consensus among most historians that the witch craze waned in the early 18th century. However, the question of why the witch craze came to an end is one of many ongoing controversies surrounding the witch craze. Among other factors, changing religious climate, urbanization, and judicial skepticism have been suggested by historians as reasons for the decline of the witch craze. James Sharpe, HC Erik Midelfort and Owen Davies all present different reasons for the decline of the witch craze. Both Sharpe and Midelfort take a “top down” approach to the decline of the witch trials, arguing that it was the elite who ended the witch craze, while Davies takes a “bottom up” approach to the decline, focusing on the structures of community. and the lower classes. Sharpe argues that the emergence of rational Christianity in England caused an increase in skepticism towards witchcraft. It suggests that skepticism was more common among the elite and educated classes, and that, because at that time there was still a considerable amount of religious enthusiasm and belief in witchcraft in the lower classes, social snobbery accentuated elite skepticism. Thus he presents the changing religious climate, combined with social relations, as the main reason for the decline of the witch craze. Midelfort describes the witch craze as an outbreak of large-scale persecution in Germany, characterized by chain-reaction processes. It was then that a suspect accused of witchcraft was forced under torture to provide the names of other witches with whom he had communicated, leading to the arrest of these people as well. Since they would also be forced to provide the names of other witches, this led to a huge amount of witchcraft trials, all stemming from a single initial accusation of witchcraft. He suggests that the decline of the witch craze was caused by judicial skepticism, triggered mainly by the involvement of children in witch trials, but also caused by changing attitudes towards torture and trials. In contrast, Davies examines how urbanization has made it possible that witchcraft beliefs based primarily on agriculture are less relevant in London, an urban environment, leading to a decline in witchcraft accusations. It also suggests how the urban environment has ledto social instability and writes that "witchcraft accusations may, in fact, be indicative of social stability", implying that social instability has caused a decline in witchcraft accusations, showing how urbanization has led to the decline of urban environment. witch mania. Overall, Sharpe presents the most compelling argument because he presents the strongest reason for growing skepticism among elites towards witchcraft accusations, which could target the lower classes through the justice systems. The cause of the decline of the witch craze is still a highly controversial area of ​​history, and many reasons have been suggested. All three historians present different reasons for the decline of the witch craze. Changing religious climate, judicial skepticism, and urbanization are just three of many arguments that can all be justified as causes of the decline of the witch craze and supported by evidence. The first argument, popular among theologians, suggests that the changing religious climate can be seen as responsible for the decline of the witch craze because it introduced skepticism about the reality of witchcraft among elites. By the end of the 17th century, religious enthusiasm among the elite was waning and "most educated people believed that religion should be as free from enthusiasm as possible", while if spiritual forces operated on the physical it was through the emotions or rather the soul. with respect to external forces". This is evident because religious conflicts decreased across Europe in the second half of the 17th century. The Thirty Years' War between Catholic and Protestant countries ended in 1648, and the Restoration in England in 1660 brought greater religious tolerance, showing a decline in religious zeal and hegemony. Furthermore, the Royal Society was founded in 1660 and encouraged the growth of the natural sciences and philosophy. Members such as Isaac Newton attempted to reconcile scientific discoveries with their faith, leading to a Christianity based more on science, making it more rational. With the emergence of a more rational Christianity, the belief that God was omnipotent and that Satan had very little power over the physical world was becoming increasingly widespread among the elite. They were also influenced by the mechanical philosophy developed by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century, which undermined the authority of spirits or devils by suggesting that there were fundamental natural laws capable of explaining events that seemed supernatural. This undermined the belief that the devil was attacking humans through witches, meaning that educated, rational believers were less likely to initiate witch hunts or support them. This would have had a significant impact on the overall decline of all witchcraft trials, even those among the lower classes, because elites controlled the justice systems, where witches were tried, revealing why several historians have argued that the changing religious climate was responsible for the decline of the witch craze. Other historians have taken a functional approach and argued that judicial skepticism led to the decline of the witch craze. This was due to "a growing reluctance to use torture as a tool of judicial interrogation", meaning that witchcraft testimony obtained under torture was no longer considered so reliable. Since it was these testimonies used as evidence to convict other witches that allowed the chain reaction trials to take place, this meant that far fewer trials took place and those that did were prevented from turning into chain reaction trials. Furthermore, in judicial systems yesThere is also growing skepticism about valid evidence. For example, "judges became increasingly reluctant to allow the devil's mark evidence to be admitted" and other influential judicial figures such as lawyers and theologians also began to question the reliability of the evidence used. However, since the elite controlled the judicial systems, this suggests that judicial skepticism was based on the skepticism of the elite, caused by the emergence of rational Christianity, meaning that it was fundamentally the change in the religious climate that caused the decline of witch mania. However, some historians, particularly Marxist ones and those who take a "bottom-up" approach, have observed how urbanization may be held responsible for the decline of witch-mania. This is because it created "less close-knit, more individualistic and not well-defined communities", making potential witchcraft accusers feel less able to express their suspicions because they were unsure how the community around them would react. Furthermore, because the reputation of witches was “generated and sustained through the long-term accumulation of alleged evil deeds, preserved in the community's collective memory,” it meant that the increasingly mobile urban environment was less conducive to witch hunts, because “witches' had less chance of gaining a reputation. Furthermore, there was a greater intensity of urban government compared to that of rural communities. Even the smallest villages had a council that closely monitored the inhabitants. This means that once justice systems became skeptical of witchcraft accusations, this would have a more profound impact on urban areas where a harsher justice system existed, compared to rural areas. Since judicial skepticism reflects elite skepticism, caused by the emergence of rational Christianity, it once again suggests that the changing religious climate was fundamentally responsible for the decline of the witch craze. In-Depth Interpretations Sharpe, Davies and Midelfort all explore the question of witches. mania in depth as they present several arguments for its decline. Sharpe argues that the changing religious climate in England led to the decline of the witch craze, as the emergence of rational Christianity increasingly discredited belief in witchcraft among the elite. This occurred because "Satan's power was downgraded and belief in the majesty and sovereignty of God was emphasized." The misfortunes supposedly caused by witchcraft were misattributed: they were more properly the result of divine providence, leading believers who held this view to "seek the explanation of their own sinfulness" rather than blame others for the misfortunes through accusations of witchcraft. Sharpe further suggests that most clerical intellectuals believed that the age of miracles had passed, which meant that "the idea that agents of the devil could perform miracles would be difficult to sustain." This led to the decline of witch trials because it meant that elites were less likely to make witchcraft accusations or support them within their communities. Furthermore, Sharpe suggests that the emergence of rational Christianity created a skeptical clergy. He takes the example of John Gaule, who did not accept "the observations, traditions, opinions, affectations, professions, proverbs, occupations and conversations of the vulgar concerning witchcraft." Since the clergy were often consulted in cases of suspected witchcraft, the emergence of a clergy skeptical of witchcraft accusations could have led to a reduction innumber of witchcraft trials in a community. Sharpe describes Gaule as "typical of that layer of controversial minor clergymen who flourished at the time", suggesting that skepticism among the country clergy was widespread, meaning that this group could have had a significant impact on the decline of the witch craze . Sharpe argues that although "the old 'enthusiastic' attitude towards religious experience was losing its hold among theologians and philosophers, it continued to be widespread among the general population", suggesting that the rejection of religious enthusiasm was fundamentally occurring only in upper classes. He writes that “for educated people, belief in witchcraft, such as acceptance of the reality of wonders, faith healing, and the experience of religiously inspired or demonic possession, might be rejected on intellectual grounds. But the realization that acceptance of such matters was still current among the lower classes meant that intellectual positions were strongly entrenched by social prejudice, suggesting that social snobbery helped skepticism about the witch craze take a firmer hold on upper classes, and so was also a major contributor to the decline of the witch craze. In summary, Sharpe presents the emergence of rational Christianity, incorporating the rejection of religious enthusiasm and the belief that the age of miracles had passed, as the primary cause of the decline of the witch craze. Davies argues that the witch craze declined due to the divorce between urban and rural communities. It focuses on urbanization in London and the formation of new social structures there. He suggests that "the intimacy of neighborhood relationships and primary networks that fueled witchcraft accusations may not have been able to develop in this environment to the same extent as they did in early modern London, or as they continued to develop in rural areas ". . This meant that potential witchcraft accusers were less likely to express their suspicions as accusations, because they were unsure "how the people around would react to his claims", suggesting that the usual response to the misfortune of making an accusation was being suppressed . due to social insecurity in urban communities. Furthermore, he argues that since "a witch's reputation was usually generated and sustained through the long-term accumulation of alleged evil deeds, preserved in the collective memory of the community", the increased mobility of an urban community, creating fewer restricted community relations, would have led to a decline in accusations of witchcraft, because it would have made it much more difficult for a witch to develop a reputation. This explains the decline of witchcraft trials where accusations of witchcraft were based on a witch's reputation built from various acts of maleficium. However, some accusations of witchcraft were made without the witch having gained a reputation, such as the chain reaction trials described by Midelfort, the most famous example of these being the Salem witch trials. Therefore, instability caused by urbanization cannot be held responsible for the decline of all witchcraft trials. Furthermore, Davies argues that the weakening of community bonds contributed to the decline of belief in witchcraft. He explains how this may have interrupted a vital path, especially in the urban environment where "the collective memory of the community is neither so wide nor so deep" to pass down beliefs to future generations, because "stories about witches and witchcraft were perpetuated mainly, although not exclusively, through oral transmission, particularly within thefamily group. Furthermore, he argues that the urban environment made belief in witchcraft less relevant, and explains this by saying that "accusations of witchcraft often resulted from unexplained illnesses and deaths of livestock, or problems associated with the processing of agricultural products." meaning that in the urban environment, potential witchcraft accusers were unable to use traditional agricultural misfortunes as the basis for their accusations, which may have led to a decline in witchcraft accusations. However, this cannot explain the general decline of the witch craze, because "it is certainly not the case that witchcraft beliefs and practices had disappeared or significantly reduced before or even soon after the end of the witch trials." Overall, Davies presents urbanization as the overall reason for the decline of the witch craze, because the social functioning of urban communities became less conducive to the making of witchcraft accusations and witchcraft beliefs declined in the urban context. In contrast, Midelfort argues that the decline of the witch craze was caused by judicial skepticism in his study of Germany. He writes that “throughout the centuries of witch hunts these locally inspired and often controlled witchcraft trials continued to be common. They usually ended as abruptly as they began, with the execution or banishment of a witch or two... But the real panic did not remain rooted in these rural concerns and was not satisfied with the extermination of one or two geriatric witches. . He suggests that although elite skepticism "might help explain why even small local processes died out in the eighteenth century", it cannot be held fundamentally responsible for the decline of the witch craze because "by now the vast chain reaction" processes had been dead for a generation or more." He argues that the decline of these trials "is due to the fact that during the 17th century they increasingly came to involve children", which suggests that the involvement of children in large chain-reaction trials was responsible for judicial skepticism, because made local officials realize that the "testimony" of minors was simply not credible", making them more skeptical of witchcraft accusations. However, justice systems must have already been to some extent skeptical of witchcraft accusations to interrogate the children and find out if the their testimonies were true, suggesting that the involvement of children in trials cannot be considered the fundamental reason why justice systems initially became sceptical. Midelfort then examines the impact of changing attitudes towards evidence and torture on judicial skepticism regarding to accusations of witchcraft. He writes that the territories of the Holy Roman Empire became "much more cautious in the use of torture than they had been in the past." This was significant because it meant that the confessions of accused witches, obtained under torture, were no longer considered valid evidence on which to base their conviction, or that of other witches they might accuse. This made it much more difficult to convict a person of witchcraft and made it virtually impossible for large chain reaction witchcraft trials to continue. He suggests that growing caution about the use of torture was influenced by critical writings on witchcraft, when he states that “critics of witchcraft trials, from Johann Weyer in the 16th century to Friedrich von Spee in the 17th, had long argued that tortured evidence was equally unreliable,” proving that criticism from educated elites couldcause justice systems to reject evidence obtained through torture. However, the educated elites who wrote critiques of the witchcraft trials themselves became critical of witchcraft due to the emergence of rational Christianity, suggesting that it was fundamentally the changing religious climate that was responsible for the decline of the witch craze, because it was responsible for increased judicial skepticism, particularly when evidence obtained under torture was used. Overall, Midelfort argues that judicial skepticism, caused by changing attitudes towards torture and trials and the involvement of children in trials, led to the decline of the witch craze. Explain the differences you have identifiedThe different conclusions reached by these historians regarding the decline of the witch craze are due to a number of reasons. One reason why interpretations differ is the choice to focus on a single place. The interpretations of Sharpe, Midelfort and Davies are all weakened by the fact that they consider the witch craze to be in just one country rather than the whole of Europe. Midelfort focuses on Germany in his argument that judicial skepticism brought the witch craze to a halt. . Germany had an inquisitorial justice system, but other countries in Europe, such as England, had an adversarial system. Since an adversarial system involved a defense and a trial to convince the jury of the guilt or otherwise of the accused, judicial skepticism could still have an impact on the verdict of the judge and jury, but perhaps less so than in an inquisitorial system, where the judge and jury are not required to base their verdict on the arguments of the prosecution and defense, meaning that if they themselves were skeptical, they could more easily dismiss a witchcraft accusation. This makes Midelfort's interpretation slightly weaker for European countries with adversarial systems, but it still has some weight. In contrast, Owen Davies bases his interpretation on the London case study. Urbanization was occurring in several European countries, meaning that Davies' interpretation could be applied to all European urban centers. However, witchcraft trials were still ongoing in rural areas, suggesting that Davies' interpretation is limited because it does not explain why witchcraft accusations decreased in rural areas. Furthermore, his argument is undermined by the fact that urbanization in Germany occurred around the beginning of the 19th century, about a century later than in England, by which time the witch craze in Germany had already declined, showing that the Urbanization cannot really be held responsible for the decline of the witch craze in Germany. Overall, by focusing on the city of London, Davies' interpretation is different from that of Sharpe and Midelfort, who both look at an entire country, because he is looking at the significant changes between a city and the countryside and their effect on the craze of witches, rather than the general political, social and religious situation of an entire country. Sharpe also focuses on England when examining why the witch craze declined. However, his interpretation is stronger because he looks at the whole country rather than just London, which allows him to more accurately reconstruct the overall religious, political, social and economic environment of 17th- and 18th-century England. Furthermore, his thesis about the emergence of rational Christianity could be applied to most European countries, because the Enlightenment was leading to more rational beliefs throughout Europe. That ismakes his argument convincing about the decline of the witch craze in Europe, and helps explain why his argument is more applicable to Europe than other interpretations, which sets it apart. Furthermore, the sources used by each historian are also fundamental in explaining the different interpretations they gave. Davies uses the Surrey Assize registers. Since the Assize Courts only dealt with the most serious cases, they cannot be representative of all witchcraft trials, particularly those where the witchcraft accusation was rejected and not taken seriously by local authorities, which explains why Davies' argument fails to explore a skeptical question. elite or judiciary, unlike that of Midelfort and Sharpe. Furthermore, he would have asked different questions about the documents of the Assizes, compared to the questions that historians might have asked about the documents of the local courts. This would have given him different information about witchcraft trials, perhaps leading him to believe that witchcraft trials had declined in urban areas because there were fewer records of witchcraft trials in the Surrey Assize urban registers, but this was probably because only the most serious cases were brought to court. the courts of Assizes. Furthermore, many documents from the 17th and 18th centuries have been lost or damaged over time, and some trials may not have been recorded at all. This limits Davies' interpretation, because gaps in the evidence mean he cannot support his theory absolutely. However, the case studies he uses from these documents strengthen his argument as they allow him to make accurate inferences about the developing nature of witchcraft accusations in urban areas. Midelfort encounters the same problem when he uses German court documents on witchcraft executions, relying on less than indisputable evidence. However, he uses other evidence, such as legislation, case studies, and contemporary writings to convincingly demonstrate that justice systems were becoming skeptical of witchcraft accusations. This explains why his argument is different, because it draws on a variety of different sources, providing different explanations for judicial skepticism, which makes it multicausal, rather than the other two arguments which are monocausal. Sharpe supports his interpretation with a series of case studies. This makes his argument stronger because it is indisputable evidence that he can base his conclusions on. He uses contemporary writings such as Elizabeth Livingstone's diary to gain insight into contemporary religious beliefs and observes the actions of various religious figures, such as the minister John Glanvill, to demonstrate that new skeptical religious attitudes towards witchcraft were widespread. While this evidence inevitably comes from the upper, literate classes of society, giving Sharpe a more limited scope, he uses it to gain insight into the religious beliefs of the elite, as well as their attitudes towards the lower classes. This allows him to make inferences about the religious situation in the lower classes, which strengthens his argument and explains why his opinion stands out, as it addresses the fundamental reason why the elite became sceptical, why the case studies allowed him to see witchcraft. accusations through the eyes of the contemporary elite, who revealed their religiously based skepticism through their writings. Another reason why historians have come up with different interpretations is that they all look at different types of witch trials. Midelfort limits his argument because he believes the witch craze consists.