Analysis Of The Witchcraft Trials According To Stephens An Effort To Keep The Faith

An Effort to Keep the Faith The narrative of the witchcraft trials according to Stephens differs greatly from what it is according to Briggs. Logically thinking, if two people are studying the same occurrence over a relatively similar timeframe, there should not be any reason for there to be such a dramatic shift in their narratives; both historians examined the myths and causes behind the witch trials and addressed them within their texts. The difference lies in their focus--Briggs on what is said and done by those who accuse the witches, Stephens on the theory behind witchcraft--and their sources. Moreover, it is highly possible that they formed their conclusions first and only used texts that supported the claim that fit their idea, or

This was not only on the part of the church, but also the theorists and regular civilians. People wanted to believe, but due to the increasing religious skepticism due to the growing intellectual fields, they had to rationally prove the existence of demons and the Devil to justify their belief in Christianity. In order to do this, Stephens crafts a historiography of the theory behind witchcraft in order to prove as much certainty the desperate need of the people of the sixteenth through nineteenth or twentieth centuries to believe in spirituality. Stephen carefully and critically examined witch treaties starting from the fifteenth century, paying close attention to “their themes, their rhetorical strategies, and their strategic silences” (Stephens, 11). He also employs the use of popular illustrations of the time and uses the methods listed to determine their uses in extending the people’s belief. Stephens manner of writing and pace are especially engaging, they help to suspend the disbelief that can arise from reading such spectacular

Why is it that this happened? The two authors relied heavily on one type of source, almost blatantly ignoring others, which of course only gives part of any picture no matter how extensive the sources may be. There is also a possibility that each author had a certain theory in mind and used what they needed to prove it; similar to how witch theorists used what they had to prove their beliefs. This goes to show that history depends on the historian who is telling it. Sources will not always be interpreted the same way, and more often than not, a history is written to support or prove a belief held by the historian which is why history is said to be biased, despite claims that it is