I think that the greatest asset I bring to the table as a soon-to-be graduate student in history is my ability in writing and researching and I said as much in my personal statement. I had decent GRE scores and a pretty good transcript, but it's definitely the writing, researching, and editing that make me a good candidate. What follows is the paper I used as my graduate writing sample, and it has an interesting history. It grew out of a much, much (much) shorter paper I wrote in a senior year class on the late plays of Shakespeare. The original was on the use of astrological discourse and depictions of witchcraft in Shakespearean plays (King Lear, Macbeth, A Winter's Tale, and Troilus and Cressida in particular) and how Shakespeare had to make the witches villainous to escape legal retribution but astrological rhetoric was perfectly acceptable, even though several laws against astrology were current in late Elizabethan England. The conclusion of that paper was that essentially, even though astrology was to some degree illegal in 16th century England, it was popular enough among its people that there was little authorities could do to curb its influence by simply passing a law, and thus it remained in tact, at least as way of speaking about and interpreting events.
For my graduate writing sample, I decided to expand upon the Shakespeare paper I had written, making it even more historically based. Essentially, what resulted was this massive paper (the original was around 8 pages, the current one is 46) that deals with the separate histories of Western witchcraft and astrology, their similar practices despite dissimilar position in the Western European consciousness, and their convergence in popular culture as evinced by writers like Shakespeare. In retrospect, the paper seems a bit too broad, and I think I focus a bit too much on their general histories, perhaps include a few too many unnecessary details, and don't tie together the separate sections of the paper--I think the last section on Shakespeare is probably the strongest section, but it seems somewhat out of place after reading the first two thirds. Many of you who read this blog have already read an earlier version of this paper. This is probably at least the tenth draft and it differers significantly from that one in some important ways: gone are some of the more general descriptions of both astrology and witchcraft as well as some of the less historically relevant literary aspects from Macbeth, and there is a greater emphasis on primary sources, especially the Malleus Maleficarum and the works of King James, Regino of Prum, Charlemagne, Augustine, and Isodore of Seville. I think it's a better paper, though still a little broad. As I mentioned, it's extraordinarily long, so I'm going to post it in seven or eight parts over the course of the next week or so. It is unaltered from the original except that I have removed the footnotes and reinserted them in quasi-MLA format throughout the text, except in the case of relatively important information which I have attempted to reintegrate into the main body. I may or may not post the bibliography later. Enjoy!
In 1601 the Englishman John Chamber, in his diatribe against astrology titled A Treatise Against Iudicial Astrologie, wrote, “Witchcraft…sometime findeth now and then some hard entertainment, as it well deserueth. But this damnable superstition [judicial astrology], which dishonoreth God, polluteth heauen, deceiueth and seduceth men, goeth without touch or check; the Astrologer escaping, while the Witch is punished, may not that be well said?” (Chamber, C2v) The fact that men and women were engaged in similar applications of the occult, but were regarded differently in terms of legal and social status, was oftentimes the case in Elizabethan England. Chamber’s equation with astrology and witchcraft is a fact sometimes overlooked by historians of both. While the two had separate origins and different historical paths, the parallels in practice, purpose, and their positions in popular social consciousness cannot be ignored.
Witchcraft had long been condemned both by religious and political establishments throughout medieval and early modern history, but the similarities between it and astrology have largely been overlooked due to the institutionalized place of the latter in Western scholarly society. Despite the fact that the judicial branch of astrology—that concerned with divination, horoscopy, and the foretelling of the future—was censured to various degrees throughout its history in Western civilization, it remained an edifice of scientific discourse from ancient times until well into the seventeenth century. In general, astrology was accepted because it was practiced principally by learned and noble men from the same socio-economic class as those who also created the laws governing its performance, and it is no coincidence that very similar acts committed by women were condemned, many times for no other reason than the fact that they were perpetrated by females and regarded as heretical (Barstowe, 16). The patriarchal society of Europe was maintained by excluding these works of women, however comparable they were. As we shall observe in this study, the origins of these two disciplines are poles apart in terms of their cultural and ideological geneses; however, the disapproval of both in the Later Middle Ages and early modern period is a fact we can explain when we examine what kept them apart: 1) the masculine/feminine duality rife in pre-modern Europe and the misogynation stemming from this; 2) the accommodation of astrology within Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology, and its influence on the Christian attitude toward the physical universe; 3) the microcosm-macrocosm relationship; 4) the heretical nature of the late medieval interpretation of witchcraft versus astrology; 5) and the early Christian distaste for nearly all things pagan from which the mythology of witchcraft ultimately arises. This last point excluded Greco-Roman learning, into which astrology was incorporated, and Christianity was able to syncretize. This study will track the categorization and punishment of witchcraft, the modes of astrological discourse in the later Middle Ages and early modern times, their similarity in some practices despite contradictory legal standards, and the positions of both in the popular consciousness of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century as evinced by the writings of William Shakespeare in particular.
For my graduate writing sample, I decided to expand upon the Shakespeare paper I had written, making it even more historically based. Essentially, what resulted was this massive paper (the original was around 8 pages, the current one is 46) that deals with the separate histories of Western witchcraft and astrology, their similar practices despite dissimilar position in the Western European consciousness, and their convergence in popular culture as evinced by writers like Shakespeare. In retrospect, the paper seems a bit too broad, and I think I focus a bit too much on their general histories, perhaps include a few too many unnecessary details, and don't tie together the separate sections of the paper--I think the last section on Shakespeare is probably the strongest section, but it seems somewhat out of place after reading the first two thirds. Many of you who read this blog have already read an earlier version of this paper. This is probably at least the tenth draft and it differers significantly from that one in some important ways: gone are some of the more general descriptions of both astrology and witchcraft as well as some of the less historically relevant literary aspects from Macbeth, and there is a greater emphasis on primary sources, especially the Malleus Maleficarum and the works of King James, Regino of Prum, Charlemagne, Augustine, and Isodore of Seville. I think it's a better paper, though still a little broad. As I mentioned, it's extraordinarily long, so I'm going to post it in seven or eight parts over the course of the next week or so. It is unaltered from the original except that I have removed the footnotes and reinserted them in quasi-MLA format throughout the text, except in the case of relatively important information which I have attempted to reintegrate into the main body. I may or may not post the bibliography later. Enjoy!
These "Damnable Superstitions":
Legal Double Standards and Cultural Reflections
of Witchraft and Judicial Astrology, ca. 1200-ca. 1600
Introduction: "Damnable Superstitions"
Legal Double Standards and Cultural Reflections
of Witchraft and Judicial Astrology, ca. 1200-ca. 1600
Introduction: "Damnable Superstitions"
In 1601 the Englishman John Chamber, in his diatribe against astrology titled A Treatise Against Iudicial Astrologie, wrote, “Witchcraft…sometime findeth now and then some hard entertainment, as it well deserueth. But this damnable superstition [judicial astrology], which dishonoreth God, polluteth heauen, deceiueth and seduceth men, goeth without touch or check; the Astrologer escaping, while the Witch is punished, may not that be well said?” (Chamber, C2v) The fact that men and women were engaged in similar applications of the occult, but were regarded differently in terms of legal and social status, was oftentimes the case in Elizabethan England. Chamber’s equation with astrology and witchcraft is a fact sometimes overlooked by historians of both. While the two had separate origins and different historical paths, the parallels in practice, purpose, and their positions in popular social consciousness cannot be ignored.
Witchcraft had long been condemned both by religious and political establishments throughout medieval and early modern history, but the similarities between it and astrology have largely been overlooked due to the institutionalized place of the latter in Western scholarly society. Despite the fact that the judicial branch of astrology—that concerned with divination, horoscopy, and the foretelling of the future—was censured to various degrees throughout its history in Western civilization, it remained an edifice of scientific discourse from ancient times until well into the seventeenth century. In general, astrology was accepted because it was practiced principally by learned and noble men from the same socio-economic class as those who also created the laws governing its performance, and it is no coincidence that very similar acts committed by women were condemned, many times for no other reason than the fact that they were perpetrated by females and regarded as heretical (Barstowe, 16). The patriarchal society of Europe was maintained by excluding these works of women, however comparable they were. As we shall observe in this study, the origins of these two disciplines are poles apart in terms of their cultural and ideological geneses; however, the disapproval of both in the Later Middle Ages and early modern period is a fact we can explain when we examine what kept them apart: 1) the masculine/feminine duality rife in pre-modern Europe and the misogynation stemming from this; 2) the accommodation of astrology within Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology, and its influence on the Christian attitude toward the physical universe; 3) the microcosm-macrocosm relationship; 4) the heretical nature of the late medieval interpretation of witchcraft versus astrology; 5) and the early Christian distaste for nearly all things pagan from which the mythology of witchcraft ultimately arises. This last point excluded Greco-Roman learning, into which astrology was incorporated, and Christianity was able to syncretize. This study will track the categorization and punishment of witchcraft, the modes of astrological discourse in the later Middle Ages and early modern times, their similarity in some practices despite contradictory legal standards, and the positions of both in the popular consciousness of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century as evinced by the writings of William Shakespeare in particular.
No comments:
Post a Comment