While a strong consensus has emerged in the last generation about many sociocultural aspects of witchcraft, the role of gender--why witchcraft was particularly but not exclusively associated with women--has remained problematic. This article asserts that women in early modern Europe were thought more likely to be witches because, the evidence suggests, they were in fact more likely to act like witches. Hostility and violence figured prominently in early modern village and small town life, and women resorted to witch-like behaviors ranging from premeditated poisoning and surreptitious assault through ritual malefic magic to spontaneous displays of intense anger because these were effective means of engaging in conflicts that played to their learned and innate strengths while avoiding forms of struggle they were less well equipped for. The article concludes by suggesting that the intervention of the state in the form of widespread and protracted witch prosecutions played a role in inhibiting witch-like practices and behaviors, and since these were utilized far more often by women than men, helped change the perceived "nature" of women from the Medieval notion that they were particularly violent and lustful to the modern image of women as gentle and asexual.
The Journal of Social History publishes articles and reviews in all fields of social history, regardless of period and region. It seeks particularly to promote work in new topics in social history, where it has established a distinguished record during its 40-year existence. New topics involve both the key facets of the field: exploring the histories and impacts of ordinary people and exploring aspects of the human experience beyond the more conventional historical staples. It also encourages discussions of key analytical and methodological issues, including comparative issues and issues of periodization. The Journal has also been active in bringing sociohistorical work in regional specializations, such as African or Latin American history, to a wider audience within the field. Periodically, the journal offers thematic issues that advance its basic purposes, including discussions of larger trajectories within the field itself.
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. OUP is the world's largest university press with the widest global presence. It currently publishes more than 6,000 new publications a year, has offices in around fifty countries, and employs more than 5,500 people worldwide. It has become familiar to millions through a diverse publishing program that includes scholarly works in all academic disciplines, bibles, music, school and college textbooks, business books, dictionaries and reference books, and academic journals.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our
Journal of Social History