Emotion, fears, terrors,
fantasy, passions... These are all words employed by Lyndal Roper as she set
the stage for her investigation of the witch craze. For me, the most intriguing
aspect in the reading was the manner in which Roper approached the historical
topic. A distinct turn away from the straightforward style of Brian Levack,
which now appears as observation from a distance in comparison, Roper seems to
have no qualms exploring the roles of the unconscious, the imagined, and the
emotional landscape of the period in which a large number (dependent on locale)
of witches were hunted, tortured, prosecuted, and/or executed. Therefore, it is
not shocking that Roper opens with a story, the story of Ursula Gotz. The
narrative, rather than expressed via trial testimony, village sources, or precise
summary, brings the reader personally to the village, there to see it all
played out. In this way, Roper accustoms the reader to her style, as she
describes, “The answers...cannot be found in statistical surveys of
witch-hunting. They demand that we venture into the passions of the
unconscious, exploring the terrors and images which contemporaries found hard
to put into words” (Roper 8). Therefore, the book is prepared to bring forth
individuals of the period – their fears, neighbors, plights, and authorities-
to foster an understanding of the overall phenomenon. However, Roper does lean towards
her professed interest in psychoanalysis, unafraid to delve fully into the “disorientating”
or “nightmare” world of the time (Roper 9). This may prove advantageous to a
different perspective on the period, yet it may also detract from the actual
historical contingencies and convergences that led to such a culturally-rooted
hunt. Nonetheless, Roper offers an important contrast to Levack, her
description and language tending to be more passionate, open-ended, and narrative,
in line with the use of “witch craze” to denote the events of the time period.
Did you, as a reader
of history, prefer Levack’s or Roper’s approach so far?
Roper, Lyndal. Witch
Craze: Terror and Fantasy in Baroque Germany. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2004. Print.
Hi Sadi,
ReplyDeleteI thought what you wrote was great. I tend to lean more towards Roper's idea of a "witch craze" compared to Levack's ideas when discussing the witch hunts. As you said Roper tells a story in which it puts a reader in the time period and nevertheless, gives the reader to chance to create their own ideas. I also agree that Roper was more passionate compared to Levack.
Shelby
Personally I find myself leaning towards Levack. I do enjoy Roper's approach of attempting to put the reader into the event and trying to make it more interesting and personable. However I do think that trying to hard to draw a reader in through putting them in the situation can take away from the raw facts themselves. It's too early to tell if Roper will continue this trend but I feel that as she gets to the meat of her argument she will be more fact heavy in her writing.
ReplyDeletePeople love a great story teller. Books are a great medium for that, so I too also lean towards Roper. Levak is a good source for getting down to the nitty gritty, but Roper puts it in a fiction-like world that is a great conduit to get history into the minds of the reader. As Zach points out, let's see how the material develops and which historians capture the audience in the end.
ReplyDeleteI personally much preferred the writing style of Levack over Roper. Roper's style of trying to make her book sound like a story is something i find distracting and unessential to the narrative. I find the emphasis of a more observational tone used by Levack to be much more appropriate for this kind of genre.
ReplyDeleteGreat to hear your views, I expect you all to take value from both, and disagree! Roper will become less "story-like" as she progresses--that was an introductory approach--but she still does have a visual narrative. Good to hear your input. Both approaches are valid ways of doing history and instructive.
ReplyDelete