8 ms·

The Cornell University Witchcraft Collection

108 points by heywoodlh 4y ago

metadaemon 4y ago
I'm not sure why, but collecting and looking at occult material that is old/rare is extremely fascinating to me.
- pmarreck 4y ago
  I see nothing wrong with that. I'm a software developer but the first section of the library I tended to visit as a kid was the Paranormal section (this was shortly before personal computers were a thing!). I probably know as much about it as I do about software, and I'm still largely skeptical.
- krapp 4y ago
  If you aren't already, you may be interested in the Esoterica channel on Youtube which discusses old occult texts and beliefs[0]. [0]https://www.youtube.com/@TheEsotericaChannel https://www.youtube.com/@TheEsotericaChannel
tppiotrowski 4y ago
Carl Sagan did a great job describing the witch trial phenomenon in "The Demon Haunted World". It discusses how unchecked beliefs without any evidence can wreak havoc on society. If you were accused of witchcraft your only choices were: 1. to deny it and be burned at the stake 2. admit it, implicate others and be put to death in a gentler way I admire the ones who stood for reason and were brave enough to endure the consequences.
- pmarreck 4y ago
  I guess it's no surprise that his source material was directly at hand, as he was a Cornellian
- pmarreck 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - tiedieconderoga 4y ago
    How many religious people would people trust an AI over their religion? It sounds more like ChatGPT is secretly engaging in witchcraft, and trying to talk its way out of things. Looks like the AI's choice is to get burned at the stake.
    - pmarreck 4y ago
      You're right. You can't reason someone out of a belief that they never got to via reason to begin with. But teaching how to reason is possible.
      - xyzelement 4y ago
        I love reasoning, but reason has led me to see its own limitations - eg: we evolved smart-enough to eat cows rather than be eaten by wolves, there's no reason to expect that what we call reason is sufficiently "expressive" to let us understand the deepest truths. Since reason isn't powerful enough (likely) to let you see the deepest truth, the intellectually honest thing is to seek systems of thought that can pick up where certainty/reason/science reach their asymptotic limits. In my study of religion (to which I did come through reason, having been born a Soviet atheist) I recognized that one of the fundamental things about religion is the recognition of your own limits and then going "now what?" I found it to be an intellectually humbling and honest place to arrive at.
        pmarreck 4y ago
        that's actually very interesting to me for multiple reasons. 1) the only atheist I ever knew of (Harvard grad, actually) who converted from atheism TO a faith (and a congregation that she found suited her), did it from reading... The Brothers Karamazov, a Soviet literary work. Not the Bible. Which is kind of amazing. What was your search like? I'm curious. (I tried reading the English translation of TBK, but it was either too opaque or I am too illiterate. Actually, I realize I can just have ChatGPT "translate" it for me now, LOL.) So you're now the 2nd person I've met who has done that trick. She wasn't Soviet, but the book she read was. Is there something about the Russian worldview (perhaps some high level of nihilism?) that drives people in the opposite direction, I wonder? 2) I believe I am well aware of the limits of reason. My worldview is basically "take reason as far as it goes, and where it overrides anything else, permit it to... because there is still so much it cannot touch, such as values, preferences, the notion and/or reality of "will", and subjective experience themselves, which are fundamental to everything we cherish in life". I was raised Catholic, but after much disillusionment, am now skeptical insofar as I still think there is "something else" but I am not willing to go so far as "atheist-materialist" (although I do believe it should be the "null hypothesis" from an explanatory point of view... but not all is cause-and-effect). The thing is, reason even as a fundamental "null hypothesis" that everyone accepts as a basis cannot even avoid being shat on, so I always feel compelled to defend it. But yes, I can entirely see you coming to religion via reason. That "now what?" question is a dangerous one, however... it's the same one that cults take advantage of. I have a 22 month old son now and the big question- Will I raise him Catholic, atheist, perhaps Unitarian (a group that I've found appealing) or "wishy-washy/other"? (My sister will absolutely hate me for any option other than A.) Is it wrong to press beliefs into him before he has the "reason" tools to defend against them? I would love to discuss further when I have time. Any additional thoughts you care to mention would probably fascinate me.
- hosh 4y ago
  There is an interesting history thesis that the Inquisition and the Renaissance are actually two faces of the same phenomena: the rise of the idea of nation-states and institutions. That is, power and authority sourced in something impersonal that survives the person vested with it. It's one of the pillars of modernity, and we take it for granted enough that we erroneously view the Medieval period and feudal structures in that way. By the early Renaissance, Inquisition courts became meticulous about following court procedures, evidentiary processes (such as they were), and documenting decisions. That's not to justify the Inquisition, but rather, it isn't as if how we do things now is all that much better.
  - staunton 4y ago
    > That's not to justify the Inquisition, but rather, it isn't as if how we do things now is all that much better. a lot of countries don't have capital punishment and people are usually assumed innocent until proven guilty rather than the opposite, as it was back then. It seems a lot better to me.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  Currently we have a pervasive purity culture. It seems every group of any sort has its purity tests. And I am appalled by the number of times I witness accusers asking yes or no questions, not allowing for anything but a simple demon-haunted binary answer. We humans are not currently punishing the wrong answers with death (most of the time). But we have not progressed much beyond that.
- x3iv130f 4y ago
  Carl Sagan is an excellent communicator but he relies too heavily on literary tropes and popular fiction. The issue of witchcraft is not unchecked beliefs, but the combustible mixture of politics and economics. Early witches weren't old women performing secret rituals in dense forests. They were the bourgeoisie, who found themselves newly rich during a time of political and economic uncertainty. The "Malleus Maleficarum" never caught on among the religious elite. Why would they care about the imagined threat of witches when Protestants were out in the open and gaining ground amongst all levels of society? Where the book did catch on was amongst secular courts. The book provided a convenient justification for condemning political and economic opponents. There it was used to great effect.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  Assuming this is about beliefs would imply the claims were made in earnest. In many (if not the vast majority?) of cases, this seems questionable. For instance during the Salem Witch Trials you even had a Minister [1] executed for witchcraft. His accusers were men who he owed debts to, and the evidence was a farce. It's not like he was executed because of a society, drowned in their own beliefs, stumbled upon passable evidence of his crimes in an otherwise objective fashion. He was executed because some people really didn't like him and simply weaponized the fears of the day, and that was more the rule than exception. To me the risk seems to be when something becomes so popular to hate that nobody is willing to defend the accused. And this is made even worse due to an opposite bias in the other direction. Demonize and call for even more draconian treatment of the accused and you can signal your own incredible virtue. As his execution, Burroughs had turned the crowd to his side with a moving speech, as well as a recital of The Lord's Prayer, which a witch was not supposed to be able to do. But fear not, along came some power seeking pompous posturing poser who offered his own counter-speech, an event recounted in a book he'd release the following year. And this is a pattern that has repeated endlessly throughout history. All that changes is whatever one needs to label somebody. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Burroughs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Burroughs
  - tppiotrowski 4y ago
    You're right but I think there are those who believe and the charlatans who take advantage of them. It's hard to reason with the mob once it's co-opted by someone who feeds into their beliefs. I think the people in charge used it to their advantage while harnessing the religious masses to enforce their agenda.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    People didn't like him.....and had a way, due to belief, to punish him
  - Amezarak 4y ago
    I read the primary sources from the trial. Burroughs was notorious in the community as a serious wifebeater. People testified that he told them not to tell anyone if he accidentally killed his wife. His first wife did end up dying, although not overtly from that. It made me suspect that maybe Burroughs was one of those people who was notorious for being awful and breaking the law, but which could never be proved legally. So when witchcraft fever started going around...there was a way to get rid of him.
- throw0101b 4y ago
  > If you were accused of witchcraft your only choices were: 3. Ask to see if you weighed the same as a duck
  - tmtvl 4y ago
    It's a fair cop.
  - heywoodlh 4y ago
    * Or very small rocks
83457 4y ago
Well this finally explains how Vito Arujau beat RBY so easily.
Forestessential 4y ago
You're a wizard, Harry!
xjay 4y ago
..and the consequences: "Witchcraft beliefs around the world: An exploratory analysis [2022-11]" > Country-level variation in the prevalence of witchcraft beliefs is systematically linked to a number of cultural, institutional, psychological, and socioeconomic characteristics. > Among the documented potential costs of witchcraft beliefs are; disrupted social relations, high levels of anxiety, pessimistic worldview, lack of entrepreneurial culture and innovative activity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9683553/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9683553/
- xyzelement 4y ago
  // disrupted social relations, high levels of anxiety, pessimistic worldview, lack of entrepreneurial culture and innovative activity. Perhaps this was your point anyway but this sounds like a very modern set of problems. Perhaps religious history of "battling" witchcraft and demonism can be understood as societies having witnessed a similar set of social issues brewing and looking for the root cause. An interesting connection that popped in my mind is women I've met in life who called themselves witches, or were interested in the concept, or even just dressed every day like it's Halloween - these aren't people you easily picture being close to their family, being married with children, being optimistic and entrepreneurial, etc. You kinda picture them at least absent from those things but perhaps more actively seeking to subvert them (eg: r/WitchesVsPatriarchy - by "patriarchy" they basically mean "everything") So perhaps the religious history of battling witches is just a limited/filtered understanding of the larger (and necessary) social theme of trying to preserve virtuous, energetic, spiritual, values-driven society, during times they were under attack. The number of "perhapses" in this comment should make it clear that I am just riffing here, but this is what your post inspired.
  - Ensorceled 4y ago
    > popped in my mind is women I've met in life who called themselves witches, or were interested in the concept, or even just dressed every day like it's Halloween - these aren't people you easily picture being close to their family, being married with children, being optimistic and entrepreneurial Ummmm, wow. You're explaining away old bigotry against witches by extrapolating your current bigotry ... For what it's worth, most "witches" I've encountered tend to be optimistic and entrepreneurial; often running their own small businesses -- for instance there are several psychic shops near me (tarot readings are very popular now) and all have been in business for the 8 years I've lived here. Are you sure you're not talking about goths?
ewgados 4y ago
I think there's two big mistakes at play: 1/ when an opportunistic person accuses an innocent person of being a witch 2/ when an academic person dismisses this type of devilry as fiction
- heywoodlh 4y ago
  > when an academic person dismisses this type of devilry as fiction Are you implying that instead all people should align on witchcraft being legitimate? And that if all people align on it being legitimate that it should be viewed as devilry?
ZunarJ5 4y ago
There's two really, really cool museums on this stuff: - England: https://museumofwitchcraftandmagic.co.uk/visit/ https://museumofwitchcraftandmagic.co.uk/visit/ - Iceland: https://galdrasyning.is/en/ https://galdrasyning.is/en/
devindotcom 4y ago
Anyone who wants a great single-volume reference for this kind of thing should check out The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology by Rossell Hope Robbins. Extraordinary collection. You can browse a copy here: https://archive.org/details/the-encyclopedia-of-witchcraft-and-demonology-by-rossell-hope-robbins https://archive.org/details/the-encyclopedia-of-witchcraft-a...
- abudabi123 4y ago
  Faust is a memorable read for me. * https://archive.org/details/Faust00goet_201303 https://archive.org/details/Faust00goet_201303

108 points by heywoodlh 4y ago

metadaemon 4y ago

I'm not sure why, but collecting and looking at occult material that is old/rare is extremely fascinating to me.

pmarreck 4y ago
I see nothing wrong with that. I'm a software developer but the first section of the library I tended to visit as a kid was the Paranormal section (this was shortly before personal computers were a thing!). I probably know as much about it as I do about software, and I'm still largely skeptical.
krapp 4y ago
If you aren't already, you may be interested in the Esoterica channel on Youtube which discusses old occult texts and beliefs[0]. [0]https://www.youtube.com/@TheEsotericaChannel https://www.youtube.com/@TheEsotericaChannel

tppiotrowski 4y ago

Carl Sagan did a great job describing the witch trial phenomenon in "The Demon Haunted World". It discusses how unchecked beliefs without any evidence can wreak havoc on society. If you were accused of witchcraft your only choices were: 1. to deny it and be burned at the stake 2. admit it, implicate others and be put to death in a gentler way I admire the ones who stood for reason and were brave enough to endure the consequences.

pmarreck 4y ago
I guess it's no surprise that his source material was directly at hand, as he was a Cornellian
pmarreck 4y ago
[flagged]
- tiedieconderoga 4y ago
  How many religious people would people trust an AI over their religion? It sounds more like ChatGPT is secretly engaging in witchcraft, and trying to talk its way out of things. Looks like the AI's choice is to get burned at the stake.
  - pmarreck 4y ago
    You're right. You can't reason someone out of a belief that they never got to via reason to begin with. But teaching how to reason is possible.
    - xyzelement 4y ago
      I love reasoning, but reason has led me to see its own limitations - eg: we evolved smart-enough to eat cows rather than be eaten by wolves, there's no reason to expect that what we call reason is sufficiently "expressive" to let us understand the deepest truths. Since reason isn't powerful enough (likely) to let you see the deepest truth, the intellectually honest thing is to seek systems of thought that can pick up where certainty/reason/science reach their asymptotic limits. In my study of religion (to which I did come through reason, having been born a Soviet atheist) I recognized that one of the fundamental things about religion is the recognition of your own limits and then going "now what?" I found it to be an intellectually humbling and honest place to arrive at.
      - pmarreck 4y ago
        that's actually very interesting to me for multiple reasons. 1) the only atheist I ever knew of (Harvard grad, actually) who converted from atheism TO a faith (and a congregation that she found suited her), did it from reading... The Brothers Karamazov, a Soviet literary work. Not the Bible. Which is kind of amazing. What was your search like? I'm curious. (I tried reading the English translation of TBK, but it was either too opaque or I am too illiterate. Actually, I realize I can just have ChatGPT "translate" it for me now, LOL.) So you're now the 2nd person I've met who has done that trick. She wasn't Soviet, but the book she read was. Is there something about the Russian worldview (perhaps some high level of nihilism?) that drives people in the opposite direction, I wonder? 2) I believe I am well aware of the limits of reason. My worldview is basically "take reason as far as it goes, and where it overrides anything else, permit it to... because there is still so much it cannot touch, such as values, preferences, the notion and/or reality of "will", and subjective experience themselves, which are fundamental to everything we cherish in life". I was raised Catholic, but after much disillusionment, am now skeptical insofar as I still think there is "something else" but I am not willing to go so far as "atheist-materialist" (although I do believe it should be the "null hypothesis" from an explanatory point of view... but not all is cause-and-effect). The thing is, reason even as a fundamental "null hypothesis" that everyone accepts as a basis cannot even avoid being shat on, so I always feel compelled to defend it. But yes, I can entirely see you coming to religion via reason. That "now what?" question is a dangerous one, however... it's the same one that cults take advantage of. I have a 22 month old son now and the big question- Will I raise him Catholic, atheist, perhaps Unitarian (a group that I've found appealing) or "wishy-washy/other"? (My sister will absolutely hate me for any option other than A.) Is it wrong to press beliefs into him before he has the "reason" tools to defend against them? I would love to discuss further when I have time. Any additional thoughts you care to mention would probably fascinate me.
hosh 4y ago
There is an interesting history thesis that the Inquisition and the Renaissance are actually two faces of the same phenomena: the rise of the idea of nation-states and institutions. That is, power and authority sourced in something impersonal that survives the person vested with it. It's one of the pillars of modernity, and we take it for granted enough that we erroneously view the Medieval period and feudal structures in that way. By the early Renaissance, Inquisition courts became meticulous about following court procedures, evidentiary processes (such as they were), and documenting decisions. That's not to justify the Inquisition, but rather, it isn't as if how we do things now is all that much better.
- staunton 4y ago
  > That's not to justify the Inquisition, but rather, it isn't as if how we do things now is all that much better. a lot of countries don't have capital punishment and people are usually assumed innocent until proven guilty rather than the opposite, as it was back then. It seems a lot better to me.
drewcoo 4y ago
Currently we have a pervasive purity culture. It seems every group of any sort has its purity tests. And I am appalled by the number of times I witness accusers asking yes or no questions, not allowing for anything but a simple demon-haunted binary answer. We humans are not currently punishing the wrong answers with death (most of the time). But we have not progressed much beyond that.
x3iv130f 4y ago
Carl Sagan is an excellent communicator but he relies too heavily on literary tropes and popular fiction. The issue of witchcraft is not unchecked beliefs, but the combustible mixture of politics and economics. Early witches weren't old women performing secret rituals in dense forests. They were the bourgeoisie, who found themselves newly rich during a time of political and economic uncertainty. The "Malleus Maleficarum" never caught on among the religious elite. Why would they care about the imagined threat of witches when Protestants were out in the open and gaining ground amongst all levels of society? Where the book did catch on was amongst secular courts. The book provided a convenient justification for condemning political and economic opponents. There it was used to great effect.
somenameforme 4y ago
Assuming this is about beliefs would imply the claims were made in earnest. In many (if not the vast majority?) of cases, this seems questionable. For instance during the Salem Witch Trials you even had a Minister [1] executed for witchcraft. His accusers were men who he owed debts to, and the evidence was a farce. It's not like he was executed because of a society, drowned in their own beliefs, stumbled upon passable evidence of his crimes in an otherwise objective fashion. He was executed because some people really didn't like him and simply weaponized the fears of the day, and that was more the rule than exception. To me the risk seems to be when something becomes so popular to hate that nobody is willing to defend the accused. And this is made even worse due to an opposite bias in the other direction. Demonize and call for even more draconian treatment of the accused and you can signal your own incredible virtue. As his execution, Burroughs had turned the crowd to his side with a moving speech, as well as a recital of The Lord's Prayer, which a witch was not supposed to be able to do. But fear not, along came some power seeking pompous posturing poser who offered his own counter-speech, an event recounted in a book he'd release the following year. And this is a pattern that has repeated endlessly throughout history. All that changes is whatever one needs to label somebody. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Burroughs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Burroughs
- tppiotrowski 4y ago
  You're right but I think there are those who believe and the charlatans who take advantage of them. It's hard to reason with the mob once it's co-opted by someone who feeds into their beliefs. I think the people in charge used it to their advantage while harnessing the religious masses to enforce their agenda.
- themitigating 4y ago
  People didn't like him.....and had a way, due to belief, to punish him
- Amezarak 4y ago
  I read the primary sources from the trial. Burroughs was notorious in the community as a serious wifebeater. People testified that he told them not to tell anyone if he accidentally killed his wife. His first wife did end up dying, although not overtly from that. It made me suspect that maybe Burroughs was one of those people who was notorious for being awful and breaking the law, but which could never be proved legally. So when witchcraft fever started going around...there was a way to get rid of him.
throw0101b 4y ago
> If you were accused of witchcraft your only choices were: 3. Ask to see if you weighed the same as a duck
- tmtvl 4y ago
  It's a fair cop.
- heywoodlh 4y ago
  * Or very small rocks

83457 4y ago

Well this finally explains how Vito Arujau beat RBY so easily.

Forestessential 4y ago

You're a wizard, Harry!

xjay 4y ago

..and the consequences: "Witchcraft beliefs around the world: An exploratory analysis [2022-11]" > Country-level variation in the prevalence of witchcraft beliefs is systematically linked to a number of cultural, institutional, psychological, and socioeconomic characteristics. > Among the documented potential costs of witchcraft beliefs are; disrupted social relations, high levels of anxiety, pessimistic worldview, lack of entrepreneurial culture and innovative activity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9683553/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9683553/

xyzelement 4y ago
// disrupted social relations, high levels of anxiety, pessimistic worldview, lack of entrepreneurial culture and innovative activity. Perhaps this was your point anyway but this sounds like a very modern set of problems. Perhaps religious history of "battling" witchcraft and demonism can be understood as societies having witnessed a similar set of social issues brewing and looking for the root cause. An interesting connection that popped in my mind is women I've met in life who called themselves witches, or were interested in the concept, or even just dressed every day like it's Halloween - these aren't people you easily picture being close to their family, being married with children, being optimistic and entrepreneurial, etc. You kinda picture them at least absent from those things but perhaps more actively seeking to subvert them (eg: r/WitchesVsPatriarchy - by "patriarchy" they basically mean "everything") So perhaps the religious history of battling witches is just a limited/filtered understanding of the larger (and necessary) social theme of trying to preserve virtuous, energetic, spiritual, values-driven society, during times they were under attack. The number of "perhapses" in this comment should make it clear that I am just riffing here, but this is what your post inspired.
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  > popped in my mind is women I've met in life who called themselves witches, or were interested in the concept, or even just dressed every day like it's Halloween - these aren't people you easily picture being close to their family, being married with children, being optimistic and entrepreneurial Ummmm, wow. You're explaining away old bigotry against witches by extrapolating your current bigotry ... For what it's worth, most "witches" I've encountered tend to be optimistic and entrepreneurial; often running their own small businesses -- for instance there are several psychic shops near me (tarot readings are very popular now) and all have been in business for the 8 years I've lived here. Are you sure you're not talking about goths?

ewgados 4y ago

I think there's two big mistakes at play: 1/ when an opportunistic person accuses an innocent person of being a witch 2/ when an academic person dismisses this type of devilry as fiction

heywoodlh 4y ago
> when an academic person dismisses this type of devilry as fiction Are you implying that instead all people should align on witchcraft being legitimate? And that if all people align on it being legitimate that it should be viewed as devilry?

ZunarJ5 4y ago

There's two really, really cool museums on this stuff: - England: https://museumofwitchcraftandmagic.co.uk/visit/ https://museumofwitchcraftandmagic.co.uk/visit/ - Iceland: https://galdrasyning.is/en/ https://galdrasyning.is/en/

devindotcom 4y ago

Anyone who wants a great single-volume reference for this kind of thing should check out The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology by Rossell Hope Robbins. Extraordinary collection. You can browse a copy here: https://archive.org/details/the-encyclopedia-of-witchcraft-and-demonology-by-rossell-hope-robbins https://archive.org/details/the-encyclopedia-of-witchcraft-a...

abudabi123 4y ago
Faust is a memorable read for me. * https://archive.org/details/Faust00goet_201303 https://archive.org/details/Faust00goet_201303