On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Dennis Claxton wrote:
> Not so minor. Ginzburg, who knows more about this than anyone, would
> argue that witch scares were part of the beginnings of modernism.
That sounds fascinating. Can you remember where he develops that?
My impression from the introduction to _The Night Battles_ was kind of the opposite -- that Ginzberg was trying to confirm a hypothesis originally put forth by Margaret Murray that witchcraft was the demonization by Christianity of a pre-Christian fertility cult that continued to exist in the countryside. Her theory was done on the large-generalization scale of Frazier's _The Golden Bough_ so there wasn't really much evidence for it. All you could say with certainty was that in the beginning of Christianity, some emminent Christians certainly did identify pagan gods with demons and the devil, and so it would go to reason that would make their followers demon and devil worshipers.
Various people tried to prove Murray's theory with better evidence, but while better, it was still thin.
But Ginzberg said that with the "good walkers," the Benandanti, and with the inquisition archive, he had found an honest to god rural fertility cult in northern Italy in the 16th century; he had found copious reliable records once we read them correctly; and in them, he could clearly trace how this cult was discovered and then demonized by the Church in real time.
But as I understand him, he sees himself as finally giving the best evidence for Murray's much broader thesis. On this view, it would seem the church was always inherently hostile to this pagan tradition, and always demonizing it, throughout the, say, 1200 years previous (counting from Constantine).
Being a careful historian, Ginzberg sticks very closely to his local case and what he can back up with evidence. But in the introduction he gives several indications that he personally believes the complex of beliefs behind Benandanti practices are part of a tradition that at one time spread all over Europe and which was continuous back to pre-Christian times. See esp. the paragraph on pp. xx-xxi.
Am I misunderstanding Ginzberg? Did he revise his views? Am I misunderstanding you?
Michael