Witches' mark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)

According to witch-hunters during the height of the witch trials (c. 1645), the witches’ mark (also called a Devil's mark or a witches' teat) indicated that an individual was a witch. The witches' mark, witches' teat, and the devil's mark are all terms applied to essentially the same mark. The beliefs about the mark differ depending on the trial location and the accusation made against the witch. Evidence of the witches’ mark is found earliest in the 1500s, and reached its peak in 1645, then essentially disappeared by 1700.[1] The Devil's mark was believed to be the permanent marking of the Devil on his initiates to seal their obedience and service to him. He created the mark by raking his claw across their flesh, or by making a blue or red brand using a hot iron. Sometimes, the mark was believed to have been left by the Devil licking the individual. The Devil was thought to mark the individual at the end of nocturnal initiation rites.[2]

The witches' teat is associated with the perversion of maternal power by witches in early modern England[3]. The witches' teat is associated with the feeding of witches' imps or familiars; the witches' familiars supposedly aided the witch in her magic in exchange for nourishment (blood) from sacrificial animals or from the witch's teat[4]. It is also where the devil supposedly suckles when he comes at night to bed his faithful servants, sometimes impregnating them with his seed. Once the devilish half-breed has been conceived, the cambion may only feed upon this teat and no other. Folklore suggests that on the 7th day of the 7th week of consecutive feeding upon the teat, the cambion would grow to adulthood immediately and begin wreaking havoc with a range of demonic powers inherited from its supernatural father. However, should the ritual be disrupted during the 49-day period, the process has to restart all over again.

It was believed that the marks were applied to “secret places" – under the eyelids, in armpits and body cavities. Being found to have this mark was considered undeniable proof of being a witch. All witches and sorcerers were believed to have a witch’s mark waiting to be found. When a person was accused of witchcraft, they were brought to trial and carefully scrutinized[5]. Their entire body was suspect as a canvas for a mark, an indicator of a pact with Satan.[2]Witches’ marks were commonly believed to include moles, scars, birthmarks, skin tags, supernumerary nipples, natural blemishes and insensitive patches of skin. Experts, or Inquisitors, firmly believed that a witch’s mark could be easily identified from a natural mark; in light of this belief, protests from the victims that the marks were natural were often ignored.

Authorities in the witch trials routinely stripped an accused witch of clothing and shaved all body hair so that no potential mark could be hidden. Pins were driven into scars, calluses, and thickened areas of skin – the practice of “pricking a witch”. Customarily, this routine was performed in front of a large crowd.[6] Medieval inquisitors also believed that the Devil left invisible marks upon his followers. If after stripping and shaving, the accused witch was found to have no likely blemishes, pins were simply driven into her body until an insensitive area was found.[6]. The search for the witches' mark had disappeared by 1700 [7]. The violence used against accused witches’ in order to discover the witches’ mark included torture; "To try to force a confession, priest applied hot fat repeatedly to Catherine Boyraionne's eyes and her armpits, the pit of her stomach, her thighs, her elbows, and 'dans sa nature'-in her vagina. She died in prison, no doubt from injuries"[8]. It is also important to address that although both men and women were accused of witchcraft during the witch-hunts, the search for the witches’ mark is specific to women.

During the witch-trials in early modern Europe individuals were employed to help aid in the discovery and conviction of witches, these individuals were given the title "witch finders". Perhaps the most famous witch finder was a man named Matthew Hopkins, who claimed to be the "Witch Finder General".Matthew Hopkins (ca. 1620 - 1647) was an English witch finder whose writings reached their hight of popularity during the English Civil War (circa 1645). Hopkins's writings and ideas on discovering witches contributed to the use of the witches' mark as evidence of a witches' guilt. Evidence shows that two Scottish women disguised themselves as men so they too could become witch-finders; known as "Mr. Dickson" and "Mr. Peterson".[9]

Contents

[edit] A Historiography of the Witches' Mark

As far as the historical study of the witches' mark goes; historians are split in to three different camps. The first camp, sometimes referred to as "Murray-ists" support Margaret Murray's theory of the witches' mark. Historical discussion of the witches' mark began after the publication of Margaret Murray's books on the subject; Witchcult in Western Europe and The God of the Witchesin the early twentieth century.The writings of British anthropologist Margaret A. Murray argue strongly for the theory that Devil’s marks were in actuality tattoos that identified members of an organized pagan religion she believed flourished in the Middle Ages.[10] After the publication of her work the historical community became divided between non-Murrayist and Murrayist scholars; “When the Witchcult in Western Europe appeared in 1921, it broke this deadlock; “Yes, said Murray, witches had indeed been up to something of which society disapproved, but it was in no way supernatural; they were merely members of an underground movement secretly keeping pagan rituals alive in Christian Europe.”[11] Murray’s work became widely accepted and was considered an expert in witchcraft studies after their publication. Murray is also credited with the renewed interest in neo-pagan religions, and later Wicca, that occurred after the publications of her books. However, today her controversial ideas have been largely rejected by scientists and academics due to the lack of any evidence.

The second camp discussing the witches' mark believes that the witches' mark is a gendered aspect of the witch-hunts. In Anne Barstow's book, Witchcraze: A New History of the European Witch Hunts, the witches' mark is viewed from a feminist perspective. Barstow sees the witch hunts of Europe as an attempt to control women, and the witches' mark as an excuse to control women's bodies through violence and sadism. The searching of women's bodies for the witches' mark gives insight into the reality of a women's position during this time; "when 'a personable and good-like woman' was defended by one of the local gentry the pricker argued that, having been accused, she must be tried anyway"[8].[12] Barstow views the violent and sexual nature of the witches' mark in the witch trials to be further evidence that the witch-hunts, were in fact "women-hunts". Another Feminist historian; Deborah Willis asserts that the witch-hunts resulted from a societal fear of maternal power. Willis argues that the people of early modern Europe all had similar fears about malevolent motherly nurturing, and that the witches' teat is a manifestation of that fear. Willis asserts that the witches' teat is a perversion of the female power to nourish and strengthen young. Many feminist historians have yet to address the witches' mark.

Various other historians have addressed the witches mark. In his book Witchcraft, Magic, and Culture Owen Davies describes the witches' mark as an; "established folk belief during the early modern period".[13] The belief and dismissal of the witches' mark as a folk belief and no more is the view most historians take regarding the witches' mark. The lack of interest in the witches' mark by the historical community accounts for the lack of evidence and information on this subject.

[edit] Current Culture and Slang

The "Witches' Teat" has been adapted to mean something of a cold or foreboding nature. A common function of the word as slang is used as a representation of cold temperatures. An example of this is: "Its colder than a witches' teat out here!" or "Teats, it's cold!"

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ "Encyclopedia of Witchcraft: The Western Tradition" Richard M. Golden, Library of Congress vol 4, Q-Z, 2006
  2. ^ a b Devil's mark Guiley, Rosemary Ellen.The Encyclopedia of Witches and Witchcraft. New York: Facts On File.1989. p. 99
  3. ^ Deborah Willis "Malevolent Nurture: Witch-hunting and maternal Power in Early Modern England" Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press. 1995. xi + 264 pp.
  4. ^ "Witchcraft Today: An Encyclopedia of Wiccan and Neopagan Traditions" James R. Lewis, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-publication Data, 1999; pp. 104
  5. ^ A Witches Mark
  6. ^ a b Hart, R 1971, Witchcraft, London, Wayland
  7. ^ "Encyclopedia of Witchcraft: The Western Tradition" Richard M. Golden, Library of Congress vol 4, Q-Z, 2006.
  8. ^ Barstow, Anne Llewellyn. Witchcraze: A New History of the European Witch Hunts. USA: Pandora: A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, 1994.
  9. ^ Anne Llewelyn Barstow, Witchcraze: A New History of the Witch Hunts. (USA Pandora: A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, 1994), 129.
  10. ^ THE WITCH-CULT IN WESTERN EUROPE - A Study in Anthropology By Margaret Alice Murray. OXFORD 1921
  11. ^ Jaqueline Simpson, "Margaret Murray: Who Believed her and Why" Folklore 105 (1994):89-96.
  12. ^ Barstow, Anne Llewellyn. Witchcraze: A New History of the European Witch Hunts. USA: Pandora: A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, 1994. 130.
  13. ^ Owen Davies, Witchcraft, Magic, and Culture (New York: Manchester University Press 1999)

[edit] Bibliography

  1. Barstow, Anne Llewellyn. Witchcraze: A New History of the European Witch Hunts. USA: Pandora: A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, 1994.
  2. Murray, Margaret A. “The Devil’s Mark.” Man, Vol. 18, (Oct., 1918), pp. 148-153. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. http:// www.jstor.Org/s table/2788131.
  3. Murray, Margaret A. The God of the Witches. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.
  4. Davies, Owen. Witchcraft, Magic and Culture 1736-1951. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc., 1999.
  5. Willis, Deborah. Malevolent Nurture: Witch-Hunting and Maternal Power in Early Modern Europe. New York: Cornell University Press, 1995.
Languages