Let us pause for a moment to consider some general characteristics of what we call “idea systems.” This chapter posits a five-tier model that allows us to holistically dissect and inspect them, having taken into account their history, changes, and uses. The model encompasses (1) believability, (2) resilience, (3) adaptability, (4) developmental potential, and (5) ease of use. Readers can use this model to assess the conditions and qualities of multiple idea systems, irrespective of the specific forms and configurations of these systems. The model will also be adopted to assess the two other cases in this book, after engaging in more microscopic and chronological examinations.

Believability

With believability, ideas shift from a state of self-aware fantasies or faithful beliefs to “realities” perceived to stand for some actual truths. Thinkers express a degree of self-aware confidence, or taken-for-grantedness, toward these “realities.”

The whole system of witchcraft ideas—driven by an empirical mode of codification—acquired its believability via the construction of compact symbolic structures. Many points of information were turned into coded things (e.g., mental images or objects) and then organized into the forms of arguments, stories, vignettes, and so forth. By intricate processes of rational deduction and calculation as well as stepwise idea generation and extrapolation, cohesive chain-complexes of ideas are formed.

Such coherence was organized by ensuring contradictions are minimized to the greatest extent possible, while maximizing the corroborative authority that supports it. Backstage manipulations and defensive mechanisms helped to smooth out contradictions, making the ideas congruent. Voices from epistemic and social authorities often were “borrowed” to maximize credibility. When they were in polyphonic agreement, they represented multiple viewpoints, multiple methods, and multiple forms of human intelligence—as well as multiple data points—to support a theory or explanation grounded in empirical information and the employment of codes.

An important source of believability that I have not yet sufficiently emphasized can be captured through this term: bad cognitive safeguards (or simply bad safeguards).

Good cognitive safeguards can improve our thought processes by blocking off prejudices, lazy associations, illogical argumentation, unsubstantiated stories, and other lamentable sources of bias; here, epistemic rigor and self-critical attitude are some prime examples.

Cognitive safeguards that are “bad” tend to do these things only halfway—or are perhaps largely successful except for leaving a significant 10–20% room for error. The epistemic rigor and self-critical attitude may be exercised in a curiously uneven or compartmentalized manner.

In reality, such successful fakes sometimes formed the most critical junctural points of an evidentially driven idea system, or they could be thoroughly diffused throughout the idea system, rendering considerable believability simply by creating a snapshot appearance that certain rules are being rigorously followed and a great deal of intelligence and integrity is being shown. They are almost an obligatory part of an idea system that is driven by an empirical mode of codification. Without them, an idea system might not even be able to establish face validity.

An ostensibly righteous hypocrite can be more damaging—and always harder to discover—than a shameless liar. Having an acceptable modicum of rationality, reasonableness, and virtuousness can be worse than having none—if their function in the idea system is to camouflage the weakness or dilute its presence. Their broadened presence can make a bad idea system more believable.

Intentional or otherwise, the systematic discourses and ostensibly fair measures in the courts, and the elegant and persuasive writings of academics and popes, could serve to obfuscate a few problems. An initially impartial reader reading demonology treatises could be enormously impressed by the superficially “objective” attitude displayed in Delrio’s eloquent critique of torture and Boguet’s scathing criticism of the “swimming test” and the “ducking stool,”Footnote 1 while Guazzo’s and Lancre’s deductive reasoning, intelligent rebuttal, creative yet meticulous exegesis, and encyclopedic comprehension of past cases and existing texts are equally formidable. The partially honorable qualities they display—the apparent attitude of kindness, sense of morality, and respect for evidence—all added believability to their accounts. Such “safeguards,” however, advanced, instead of guarded against, the tragic admittance of bad ideas.

Resilience

Resilient idea systems can withstand the onslaughts of internal and external contradictions. Contradictions emerge when constructed ideas clearly fail to match reality, when codes are seen to be inconsistently applied, when challengers backed with strong data sources question the “justification” of the symbolic structures being constructed, and so on.

Idea systems that had a sophisticated, preemptive design could keep contradictions from surfacing. A number of contradictions are dealt with in advance because the design pre-resolves or pre-explains them—before the skeptical questions are even asked. For example, the idea that witches could potentially have the ability to transform themselves into animals could address in advance empirical questions regarding why certain suspects were not seen at a particular location. Lancre’s argument that Satan’s feature is consistently inconsistent preempted arguments concerning the inconsistency across cases.

Contradictions often flare up in vehemently fought idea battles from opposing voices, speculations, and interpretations, locally and regionally. Powerful actors with overwhelming advantages could ignore, hide, or suppress these contradictions. But other than the use of force or an attempt to control every word that is said, informal regulation, along with a system capable of absorbing challenges, prevented these conflicts from irrevocably eroding the idea system.

A discourse parameter, often subtly placed in the background, often regulates what is being expressed in such battles. That parameter is an understood—and occasionally enforced—range of generally feasible and tolerated options for speaking and thinking; it sets a boundary line that battle participants should not cross. Because of this parameter, only ideas that do not confound, or perhaps are even supported by, the core propositions of an idea system are admitted into the battles. Such parameters also include a set of etiquette to be followed. When all subjects act within the parameter, challenges to authorities were limited, and battle participants could avoid consequential sanctions and maximize leverage. The result, however, was that no matter which side eventually won, the idea system’s integrity was largely left unblemished.

Sometimes, such skirmishes even exploited new voices to reinforce the core ideas. “Contradictory” viewpoints could be placed into an orbit in which many potential explanations revolved around the same set of core ideas. Such potential explanations, unlike definitive ones, required considerably less effort and empirical materials to generate. At the same time, they drastically increased the effort, empirical materials, and intellectual sophistication required for challengers to disprove these potential explanations. They became obstacles preventing debilitating attacks upon the idea system, and they even absorbed the efforts and works of these actors for long-term defensive purposes.

Finally, assuring resilience does not mean the absolute rejection of any changes. An adaptive system also can enhance resilience. What is critical, however, is that the rate and degree of change are under control. Changes that are too drastic and too hasty could threaten the system’s stability and cohesion—causing ruptures or implosions—instead of forming a more gradual, digestible modification.

Adaptability

A highly adaptable idea system can withstand environmental changes. This can take place in at least two ways. The first is akin to a camel that can accommodate extreme temperature changes in the desert without losing its composure, because its biological makeup is made for adaptation to these changes. Similarly, an idea system can be developed in a way that, despite marked changes in the environment (social, political, epistemic, discursive, etc.), the system can maintain its essential form.

The second way could be thought of as a bacteria that can take on new forms—such as forming thicker cell walls, changing their chemical composition, multiplying at a different speed, or even losing genes—in light of changes to acidity, temperature, radiation, or other aspects of their surroundings. In such a case, an idea system can be revamped and modified into significantly “new” forms that function effectively in new environments.

The empirically coded idea systems that drove the witch hunts manifested both means of adaptability. When it was readapted and then remerged in different European locations, the resulting idea system took on considerably different appearances, some even possessing key differences from one another. The idea did not simply mold the culture dogmatically, but also expressed cultural interpretations and influences.

At the same time, it is also impressive, despite the variations, how similar some of the processes and outcomes were, even when some basic elements were put together into particular combinations. English witch hunts had a different flavor from the ones in France, of course. But core components and processes proved to create similarities in outcome despite the new contexts. This is akin to how the bacteria of E. coli still can cause diarrhea even after considerable mutation.

Some modifications seemed to be much more significant in effect.

In the Central Balkans or other locations, certain inhibitors (e.g., counter-magic, counterinterpretations) were built into the modification. Although the basic dynamics and propensity for causing calamities were still present, and the core propositions were never changed, by tempering panics the inhibitors mitigated the likelihood of calamities. Such an adaptation of the idea system is akin to a dose of antibiotics taken in conjunction with E. coli, which mitigates the diarrheic propensity.

If adaptation takes on the form of extreme mutation, it could entail losing the core features of the idea altogether. This is not to say, however, that dangers are necessarily restrained. An idea system that discards its core ideas after its mutation could still operate in a way that produced such effects. If we substitute much of the essence of witchcraft beliefs with other contents, many of the horrendous dynamics could potentially be replicated. We will return to this point at the end of the book.

Developmental Potential

Many idea systems have an undeveloped potential to expand and grow, or to improve and refine. The seedling of a lemon tree that has just sprouted is full of developmental potential. A mature one can yield many lemons, and it could keep doing so, on and off, for fifty years or more. At some point, the potential for the tree’s development will meet its limits, depending on its innate makeup or its interaction with its environment. A dying tree, like a moribund idea system, can no longer be saved from changes and modification. Its developmental potential is exhausted.

The particularly dangerous form of witchcraft idea system began to mature around the late 1400s, a little while after the publication of the Malleus Maleficarum that coherently organized and synthesized some empirical precedents. The wave of German witch trials around 1490, with the Trier case being exemplary, demonstrated the idea system in robust activation and potency.

Being a “young” idea system, it had considerable room to grow in evidence, to improve on its composition, and to readapt in sites of application, forming new branches and bearing new fruits. Through the processes of refinement and expansion, the structural makeup of the idea system became more complex and extensive. It became connected to different sets of evidence (information), concepts (codes), and theoretical propositions (code relations)—as did a growing stock of quotes and figures. New testing methods were explored, and new puzzles and problems surfaced. Many differing theories were tested, with case experiences, so that those variants were documented and examined. More branches of defensive arguments had appeared to deal with the contradictions that had arisen. Such a pattern of growth lasted for at least several decades in Germany, until it peaked in its development and started to show signs of withering. Viewed from this perspective, the entire life of the idea system—from its “birth” to its “death”—spanned about 300 years.

Development could be stunted or halted for a variety of reasons. For a hypothetical lemon tree, the reasons might be changes in temperature, supply of nutrients in the soil, exposure to pathogens, and so forth. The tree could intentionally be subjected to having its roots girdled, its branches trimmed, or its life terminated entirely by an axe. Witchcraft ideas and discourse had, in fact, frequently been intentionally “stunted” in such manners. Especially where the idea system developed into a threatening scale, some central authorities proactively suppressed the usage of the idea system favored by aggressive witch hunt proponents.Footnote 2 The development of counter-ideas, such as science and medicine, as well as the increasingly vocal opposition of skeptics and revelations of backstage manipulation, also impeded its development.

Idea development might also come to a halt in the face of overwhelming contradictions. Cognitively, when contradictions became too much and too visible, the theories—even with defensive explanations—could become harder to maintain. Emotionally, seeing too much visible damage being done can also affect their adoption. Towns and regions that had not seen what witch hunts might, and did, entail, could grow into a fervor, yet the fear of the consequences of witch hunts could gradually rival the fear of witches once witch hunts actually occurred, thus provoking a more careful, measured attitude.

Finally, stagnancy can also cause the idea to atrophy. Some ideas could primarily grow in scale because they were new and novel, thereby arousing captivating feelings, or if they showed their usefulness in daily necessities. When ideas lost their perceived freshness or usefulness, when information and procedures became too formulaic or redundant, people’s attention could just be shifted to other things, such as newer cultural trends—for instance scientific inventions or political speculations. The whole idea system could subside in its development as a result.

Ease of Use

Socially effective idea systems, for them to be used and understood by the public, must be relatively easy to use in thinking and in communication. The codes, for example, could not be couched in an inaccessible language, such as how “angiomyogenesis,” a bio-medicine terminology, represents “the regeneration of heart tissues.” Modern institutions can afford to employ such inaccessible terminologies in compartmentalized settings. However, idea systems that are meant to be widely communicated and used operate much more easily by memorable and repeatable words and phrases—so too, should the quotes, stories, logic, and lines of arguments.

An effective idea system must allow discourse members to execute complex operations, such as the intricate chain-by-chain building processes. We have discussed the public, private, institutional, and institutionalized cognitive portals that were put into place, which often enabled thinkers to move through somewhat complex situations in a swift, continuous movement without undue effort, hindrance, or interruption. The idea system could assume an extremely complex form if necessary; but cognitive portals serve as a simplified, abbreviated “how-to guide” version—so easy to use that even an inattentive dullard or an average institutional actor could operate to an impactful extent.

The amazing clarity and simplicity of the witch concept, the vivid images, the fantastical folkloric stories, and stereotypical associations were not just relatively effortless, but actually sometimes entertaining, to operate. A story of a person rubbing ointment on himself, turning into a werewolf, and then killing a dozen cattle does not require much “explanation”;Footnote 3 they are also excellent materials for rumor and imagination. With such qualities, the ideas could even be drilled into the minds of children, becoming their mental playthings. Argumentatively, even children could create “evidence” for the ideas. Especially with a few adults’ assistance, they helped to create some compelling landmark cases of the era.