Thomas J. Schoeneman

Lewis and Clark College

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1984, 15, 299-314.

The psychopathological interpretation of demonology, witchcraft, and possession states that demonology replaced psychiatric knowledge and practice in the Middle Ages and that the mentally ill were subsequently misidentified as witches and demoniacs. This model, promulgated by traditional histories of psychiatry, has been discredited, yet it seems to appear frequently in textbooks of abnormal psychology. The investigation reported here examined 20 such textbooks published between 1978 and 1981 to delineate the scope and character of this problem Almost all authors endorsed at least one aspect of the psychopathological interpretation, and only three books included contradictory opinions. Textbooks that presented the psychiatric model seem to have derived it primarily from the work of Gregory Zilboorg, and there is also evidence of unreferenced internal borrowing among textbooks. Authors generally ignored prominent historical and anthropological research on witchcraft and possession; in addition, they gave minimal attention both to more recent, socioculturally oriented histories of psychiatry and to critiques of the older psychiatric paradigm. This article discusses possible reasons for these results and concludes that they are at least partly due to clinical psychologists' identification with psychiatrists' efforts at self- validation and self-justification.

Shared constructions of past events are often reflections of a group's present patterns of organization and function. Historians and anthropologists observed this relationship some years ago (e.g., Butterfield, 1931; Evans-Pritchard, 1940). More recently, the connection between historical consciousness and social process has achieved wide currency in scientific circles. Historians and philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn (1968, 1970) have studied the ways in which scientific communities nonconsciously reconstruct the past in order to affirm present paradigms. This has led, in turn, to new evaluations of science teaching, with particular emphasis on that basic pedagogic tool, the textbook.

This turn of events has not made life any easier for the authors of these books or for the teachers who use them. Textbooks are now widely regarded as constituting a "literature of indoctrination" (Samelson, 1980), which presents a discipline's professional ideals and desired public image (Brush, 1974) and which performs the function of "keeping memory of the past in alignment with the present state of scientific authority" (Douglas, 1981, p. 89). From this perspective, then, textbook authors share the motives of early historians of science, who saw their work as "a means to elucidate the concepts of their specialty, to establish its tradition, and to attract students" (Kuhn 1968, p. 74).

In psychology, as in other disciplines, this scrutiny has resulted in considerations and reconsiderations of the images of psychology that are being transmitted to students and of the assumptions and motives revealed in such communications (Bramel & Friend, 1981; Harris, 1979; Samelson, 1974, 1980). This article deals with the sustenance of a fallacy in textbooks of abnormal psychology and considers not only its wide distribution but also some of the implications of its prevalence for the field of clinical psychology. The subject matter in question concerns demonology, possession, and witchcraft in early modern Europe; the erroneous but widespread explanation of these phenomena is known as the psychopathological interpretation of witch hunting and related events (Schoeneman, 1977, 1982).

Until recently, most histories of psychiatry adopted a fairly standard interpretation of the European witch hunts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (see especially Zilboorg & Henry, 1941; Alexander & Selesnick, 1966; Bromberg, 1975; Deutsch, 1952; Zilboorg, 1935). According to this view, the end of the Middle Ages was marked by the triumph of ecclesiastical demonology over psychiatry; medical conceptions and treatments of insanity were lost in a growing wave of monkish superstition and credulity. The consequence was that later, in the Renaissance, the educated political, legal, and spiritual leaders of Europe erroneously accused and executed the mentally ill as heretics, witches, and demoniacs. The mental disorder of accused witches was particularly evident in their confessions of harming neighbors, communicating with demons and familiars, flying to nocturnal sabbaths, copulating with the devil, and so forth.

This view has had a long career in the psychiatric literature (Swales, l 982; Szasz, 1970) and has been especially prominent in histories of psychiatry in this century (Spanos, 1978). It has also received thorough criticism from investigators familiar with historical and anthropological treatments of witchcraft beliefs and prosecutions (see Schoeneman, l982, for a review). These negative evaluations can be summarized under four general headings.

In the first place, promoters of the psychopathological view have relied on a very small sample of primary and secondary sources as a data base (Neugebauer, 1979; Schoeneman, 1977, 1982; Spanos, 1978; Szasz, 1970).¹ Although the array of available primary historical materials includes legal records, literary works, diaries, pamphlets and manuscripts, early psychiatric historians focused only on a handful of witch hunters' manuals and a few treatises critical of the witch hunts. Usage of the secondary literature was similarly restricted: Psychiatric historians tended to cite other psychiatric historians and to exclude the insights of such early mainstream historians as Burr (1942), Ewen (1929), Hansen (1900), Kittredge (1929), Lea (1888) and Notestein (1911).

The psychopathologists also committed serious errors in interpreting the primary literature (Kirsch, 1978, 1980; Kroll, 1973; Schoeneman, 1977; Spanos, 1978; Szasz, 1970). A major problem arose with these historians' ambivalent treatment of witch hunters' manuals: Although they derided the authors of such works as ignorant, superstitious, and deceitful, they also treated the manuals themselves as if they were sources of reliable psychiatric case histories. Taken at face value, and out of context, these accounts are filled with confessions of fantastic deeds strongly suggestive of schizophrenia, hysteria, and organic deliria. But if psychiatric historians brushed aside the question of the reliability of the witch-hunting chroniclers of such behavior, they also missed the point that confessions from accused witches could be accounted for by torture, sleep deprivation, deceit, various forms of social pressure, and a number of social learning variables (see especially Delcambre, 1969; Henningsen, 1980; Larner, 1981; Robbins, 1978; Spanos, 1978). There are a number of other instances of interpretive muddles; these include the confusion of the categories "accused witch" and "demoniac" (one who is possessed by one or more demons) and a mixing up of historical events and periods (e.g., identifying events of the Renaissance and Reformation as "medieval").

In the past decade or so, historical research has failed to support the psychopathological interpretation in all of its aspects. Kroll (1973) and Rosen (1968) found that demonology did not triumph as a theory of insanity, but coexisted with naturalistic etiologies and treatments derived from Galenic humoural theory and folk medicine. In addition, Neugebauer (1979) examined records from proceedings that were convened in England to establish mental incompetency from the thirteenth through the seventeenth centuries; a demonological cause was proposed in only one case. Petitioners and examiners alike operated under the assumption that mental incompetence resulted from natural causes and divine providence.

Archival studies of legal, ecclesiastical, and civil records have also thrown some light on such issues as the modal witchcraft suspect and the dynamics of witchcraft accusations. The typical accused witch was not a mentally ill person but an impoverished woman with a sharp tongue and a bad temper; in some areas the modal suspect was also old and unmarried (Larner, 1981; Macfarlane, 1970; Midelfort, 1972; Monter, 1976; Thomas, l97l).² In places that suffered large-scale witch panics, however, this characteristic identity could fall by the wayside, and almost anyone could be susceptible to accusation (Henningsen, 1980; Midelfort, 1972).

Patterns of witchcraft accusations have been found to be fairly regular, but these regularities varied across localities. For example, rural English accusations arose from guilt over unneighborly behavior. Accusers had previously quarreled with or refused aid to a neighbor and then interpreted subsequent misfortune as retaliatory witchcraft (Macfarlane, 1970; Thomas, 1971). In the French-Swiss border provinces, however, this pattern was reversed: The frustrated borrower was likely to be the accuser, not the accused (Monter, 1976). It seems that the dynamics of accusation were to a large extent dependent on social and political structures, which, of course, varied from region to region. (See also Larner, 1981, on Scotland; Mandrou, 1969, on rural and urban France; Midelfort, 1972, on southwestern Germany; and the extensive anthropological literature that stimulated much of this historical work, especially Wilson, 1951; Nadel, 1952; Middleton & Winter, 1963).

The last, but by no means least, set of objections comes from critics who have taken issue with the psychopathologists' general orientation to history and society (Connor, 1975; Kirsch, 1978, 1980; Kroll, 1973; Midelfort, 1972; Neugebauer, 1979; Pattison, 1977; Rosen, 1968; Russell, 1972; Schoeneman, 1977; Spanos, 1978; Szasz, 1970). These commentators find that a model that emphasizes intrapsychic processes and minimizes social, historical, political, and economic variables is inadequate in representing the complexity of witch hunts. Furthermore, most early psychiatric historians adopted an ethnocentric, "Whig" approach to the history of science (Butterfield, 1931); this orientation assumes present conceptions of reality to be immutably correct and evaluates past paradigms and actions in this light. Such an approach generally paints a current discipline as a culmination of centuries of heroic struggle against superstition and ignorance; along the way, the past is seriously misunderstood and misrepresented.

Anthropologists and historians have been the principal investigators of witchcraft and related systems of belief and action. What follows is a brief resume of the approaches taken by these disciplines in their efforts to understand witch hunts.

Social anthropological analyses tend to be functional or structural (or both; Macfarlane, l970; Mair, l969). Functionalists have focused on the latent personal and interpersonal functions served by social institutions. According to these analysts, witchcraft beliefs and counter-measures constitute a theory of causes and a blueprint for action in situations involving misfortune; they define (by contrast) cultural concepts of morality and normality and supply mechanisms for social control; they promote personal adjustment in times of stress by relieving tension, anxiety, guilt, and perceived loss of control; and they sometimes further social change (Crawford, 1967; Evans-Pritchard, 1937; Kluckhohn, 1967; Krige, 1947; Marwick, 1964; Mayer, 1970; Nadel, 1952; Schoeneman, 1975; Willis, 1970). Structural analysts view patterns of accusation as elucidating social structure and especially as indicative of loci of tension and conflict between subgroups (Middleton & Winter, 1963; Nadel, 1952; Wilson, 1951; and most of the functionalists cited above).

Historical studies of the European witch hunts are also represented by two related approaches (Russell, 1980). Scholars who have adopted a history-of-ideas approach see the genesis, course, and decline of the witch hunts in terms of a complex interaction between popular beliefs about the supernatural and the ideas of the learned elite concerning theology, heresy, high magic, science, and social order (Anglo, 1977; Cohn, 1975; Kieckhefer, 1976; Larner, 1981; Peters, 1978; Russell, 1972; Thomas, 1971). A second set of investigators has adapted anthropological functionalism and structuralism in order to study local patterns of witch hunting. The resulting analyses, many of which also trace the history of demonological ideas, usually address the issues of modal suspects and typical patterns of accusation (Boyer & Nissenbaum, 1974; Henningsen, 1980; Larner, 1981; Macfarlane, 1970; Midelfort, 1972; Monter, 1976; Thomas, 1971).

Anthropologists and historians sometimes use psychological constructs in discussions of personal and interpersonal aspects of witchcraft. Functionalists have certainly assumed a general human need for understanding, prediction, and control, and this is occasionally couched in the terminology of psychoanalysis and ego psychology (see, e.g., Kluckhohn, l 967). Role theory, especially as it relates to the labeling of deviance (Schur, 1971), has proven useful to some students of witchcraft accusations and confessions: some have applied it explicitly (e.g., Larner, 1981), whereas others seem to have reinvented it (e.g., Delcambre, 1969). My impression, however, is that most witchcraft researchers from anthropology and history have not found it necessary to import formal psychological constructs into their analyses.

This holds true for concepts from psychiatry and abnormal psychology as well. Those few investigators who have acknowledged the existence of psychiatric interpretations have generally dismissed them as insufficient to an understanding of the witch hunts (e.g., Midelfort, 1972; Russell, 1972)³ or used them with extreme caution in discussing isolated case histories (Henningsen, 1980).

Despite its discreditation, the psychopathological interpretation seems to be alive and well in textbooks of abnormal psychology. This has been of concern to a number of critics (Kirsch, 1978; Spanos, 1978; Schoeneman, 1977, 1982) and some have identified the psychiatric historian Gregory Zilboorg (1935; Zilboorg & Henry, 1941) as the prime influence in spreading this view in modern times (Neugebauer, 1979; Schoeneman, l 977, 1982; Szasz, l 970). None of these commentators has systematically reviewed textbooks in order to document these perceptions.⁴ There is thus a lack of clarity in a number of areas: To what extent is the psychopathological interpretation endorsed in current abnormal psychology textbooks? If it is cited, which aspects are presented? What primary and secondary sources receive citation as supporting evidence? Have critics of the psychopathological model, as well as prominent historians and anthropologists, received any consideration?

This study is an attempt to answer these questions. "Subjects" were books published between 1978 and 1981 (inclusive), which were general surveys of abnormal behavior and psychopathology written by psychologists for psychology students. Excluded from consideration were anthologies, books from other disciplines (sociology of deviance, psychiatry, psychiatric nursing, and social work), books with a restricted focus (e.g., depression), and texts that exclusively promoted a particular theoretical orientation (e.g., psychoanalysis). The search for materials utilized library card catalogs, advertising in the American Psychologist and APA Annual Convention Program, listings of books received by Contemporary Psychology, and such reference works as the Library of Congress Catalog, Cumulative Book Index, Subject Guide to Books in Print, and Subject Guide to Forthcoming Books. All textbooks identified in this search were then obtained through the campus library or from faculty bookshelves. These were screened for appropriateness according to the criteria listed above. The final sample of titles is, to the best of my knowledge, a full listing of abnormal psychology textbooks published from 1978 through 1981.

A standard rating form was used to summarize the relevant sections of each book. These forms solicited four kinds of information: (a) whether the book contained a separate section devoted to history; (b) whether the text covered the topics of possession and witch hunting; (c) which primary sources (works published prior to 1750) and secondary sources were cited; and (d) page numbers and direct quotations for endorsements or refutations of three major aspects of the psychopathological interpretation: the triumph of demonology over psychiatry, possession as a manifestation of psychopathology, and the accused witch as mentally ill.

Nineteen of the 20 textbooks contained sections devoted to the history of abnormal psychology; in a few of these cases historical materials appeared in chapters on models of abnormality. Seventeen books discussed demonic possession and exorcism, and 19 dealt with witchcraft and the witch hunts. Only one text (Orme, l979) was devoid of any subject matter relevant to this study.

To what extent were the three aspects of the psychopathological interpretation endorsed? Let us first consider the conquest of psychiatry by demonology: 14 books supported this view, l opposed it (Martin, 1981), 1 gave a pro-and-con presentation (Nathan & Harris, 1980), and 4 did not mention it (Altrocchi, 1980; Orme, 1979; Price & Lynn, 1981; White & Watt, 1981). The equation of demonic possession with mental illness occurred in 15 instances and was not presented in the remaining texts (Martin, 1981; Nathan & Harris, 1980; Orme, 1979; Price & Lynn, 1981, Sarason & Sarason, 1980).⁵ Lastly, the accused witch was presented as actually mentally ill in 16 texts; this idea was absent in one case (Orme, 1979), disputed in two (Martin, 1981; Mears & Gatchel, 1979), and both presented and disputed in one case (Nathan & Harris, 1980). Let us now take a closer look at these endorsements and refutations.

Eighteen of 20 abnormal psychology textbooks presented one or more of the three components of the psychopathological interpretation of witch hunts and possession, and in fact, l2 of 20 endorsed the entire package. These materials follow the standard presentation fairly closely. Thus for instance,

And,

And,

The transplanting of these views from older histories of psychiatry into psychology textbooks naturally replicates many of the errors, omissions, and logical inconsistencies from the source materials.⁶ None of these confusions seems to be more institutionalized than is the equation of demoniacs and accused witches, however. Spanos (1978; Spanos & Gottlieb, 1979) described this error as rampant in psychiatric histories and "an almost standard feature in textbooks in abnormal psychology" (Spanos, 1978, p. 419). In the present sample, this is the case: three texts used terms like witchcraft and possession synonymously (Kleinmuntz, l980; Lahey & Ciminero, l 980; White & Watt, 1981), but in a rather unexpected development, an additional nine used a more complex equation (Adams, 1981; Altrocchi, 1980; Bootzin & Acocella, 1980; Davison & Neale, 1978; Duke & Nowicki, 1978; Goldstein, Baker, & Jamison, 1980; Martin, 1981; Sue, Sue, & Sue, l 981). These presentations stated (incorrectly) that in the fifteenth century or thereabouts, it was believed that there were two kinds of demoniacal possession: unwilling seizure by demons and willing pacts with Satan (witchcraft); the former kind was true insanity, but the distinction became blurred and the insane fell victim to the witch hunts. Witchcraft was, in fact, never considered a variety of possession, either by witch hunters, the general populace, or modern historians (see, again, Spanos, 1978, on this point). It is easy to see, however, the utility of this argument: The behavior of the possessed is quite bizarre, and if possession can be linked to witchcraft, the statement that accused witches are mentally ill gains further validity.

What is interesting about this particular fallacy is its consistent and fairly invariant presentation in so many texts. Where did it come from? With one exception, none of these texts cited its source; luckily, Davison and Neale (1978) gave its origin as the fifth edition of Coleman's (1976) popular textbook. Further searching revealed that Coleman's statement (Coleman, 1976; Coleman, Butcher, & Carson, 1980) of the witchcraft-as-a-variety-of-possession position appeared in an almost identical passage over 30 years ago in his first edition (Coleman, l 950)! This seems to be a case of the unreferenced diffusion of an idea throughout a discipline's textbooks; many current authors undoubtedly used early editions of Coleman's book in their own undergraduate coursework and assimilated this viewpoint (and perhaps others) into their later work. Whether this fallacy originated with Coleman or was borrowed from elsewhere remains unclear, however.⁷

Let us briefly consider three textbooks that disputed certain aspects of the psychopathological interpretation.

Mears and Gatchel (1979) presented the triumph of demonology and the possessed as insane but took a different approach toward witchcraft.

These authors' treatment of witchcraft relied mainly on the work of an historian (Robbins, l959); they did not cite psychiatric historians in this section, although they did reference Alexander and Selesnick (1966) and Bromberg (1975) elsewhere in their book.

Nathan and Harris (1980) did not consider possession, but they did present positions on the decline of psychiatry and the ensuing witch hunts that were directly quoted from Zilboorg and Henry (1941). They followed their presentation of the psychopathological view, however, with contrary evidence and criticisms of that position from Kirsch (1978) and Spanos (1978); in addition, Szasz (1970) was discussed in a subsequent section. Nathan and Harris stated the following:

Finally, Martin (1981) stated that in the Middle Ages physicians conceptualized insanity from a variety of standpoints, including

Martin further declared that although some behaviorally disordered people may have been convicted as witches,

This author cited Zilboorg and Henry (1941), but he was clearly more influenced by Rosen (1968), whose work represents the more recent development of psychiatric histories that are concerned with sociocultural as well as intrapsychic variables.

Primary sources, defined here as works published prior to 1750, were mentioned frequently in surveys of abnormal psychology, although they rarely appeared in reference lists.⁸ The most-often mentioned primary materials (sometimes mentioned by authors' names only) were Sprenger and Kramer's Malleus maleficarum (1486/1971; cited in 16 textbooks), Innocent VIII's papal bull Summis desiderantes affectibus (quoted in full in Zilboorg & Henry, 1941, and in the preface to Malleus maleficarum-mentioned in 8 textbooks), Weyer's De praestigiis daemonum (1563, discussed extensively by Zilboorg & Henry, 1941-mentioned in 12 textbooks), and Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft (1584/1972-mentioned in 6 textbooks). Note that this tetrad comprises the standard list of heroes (Scot, Weyer) and villains (Innocent VIII, Sprenger & Kramer) in traditional histories of psychiatry.

Over 50 secondary sources were cited and referenced in this sample, but only 4 works appeared in more than two books. The hands-down champion is Zilboorg and Henry's A History of Medical Psychology (1941), which was cited in 15 textbooks. Deutsch's The Mentally Ill in America (1952) appeared six times, and both Alexander and Selesnick's History of Psychiatry ( 1966) and Spanos's article in Psychological Bulletin (Spanos, l 978) were mentioned in four books. The works of modern historians and anthropologists and of critics of the psychopathological interpretation (other than Spanos) were referenced infrequently.

The psychopathological interpretation of demonology, possession, and witch hunts is flourishing in textbooks of abnormal psychology. Authors have relied heavily on traditional histories of psychiatry for information about the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Reformation; in particular, the work of Gregory Zilboorg (1935; Zilboorg & Henry, 1941) seems to have generated a pattern that has been disseminated in subsequent psychiatric histories and become standard in abnormal psychology textbooks. These latter volumes are still mostly unaware of criticisms of the psychopathological interpretation or of a more recent trend in psychiatric histories toward analyses that favor sociocultural and cross-disciplinary analyses (e.g., Kroll, l 973; Mora, 1975; Rosen, l968); in addition, they rarely cite witchcraft scholarship from the disciplines of history and cultural anthropology.

There is a second influence on the adoption of the psychopathological model, the relative importance of which is not clear: internal borrowing among abnormal psychology textbooks. In this study I was able to trace the widespread notion of witchcraft-as-willing-possession back, through six editions of a popular textbook, to 1950. It is possible, although not yet demonstrated, that Coleman's (1950) volume served as a major gateway for the entry of Zilboorg's ideas into abnormal psychology texts and also cast the mold for the reporting of history that is still widely used in such textbooks. This possibility illustrates an important piece of unfinished business, namely, the history of ideas that constitute the psychopathological model. It would be interesting to know more specifically what lines of thought converged in Zilboorg's presentation and how these ideas further spread throughout the psychiatric and psychological literatures.

Let us now turn to a further query: Why is this psychopathological fallacy so prevalent in current surveys of abnormal behavior? A preliminary answer to this question might emphasize the hazards of summarizing areas in which one has little or no expertise. Most psychologists are neither historians nor cultural anthropologists, nor are they authorities on beliefs in witchcraft and demonic possession. We could note, with some empathy, the textbook authors were only using those materials which were readily available, albeit flawed. Thus although critics have chided these authors for relying too heavily on secondary accounts of classic psychological experiments (e.g., Harris, 1979), we might be more forgiving of a less-than-thorough familiarity with primary sources of the Renaissance and Reformation or secondary sources from other disciplines.

This innocence of arcane knowledge may have been a factor in the propagation of the psychopathological interpretation, but I do not believe it to be a sufficient explanation. If it were, this error should have been readily correctable once contradictory evidence became available. The present findings seem to indicate, however, that psychologists have had difficulty changing this gestalt. A standard presentation, not only of witchcraft and related topics but of entire historical chapters, is replicated over and over; this pattern is derived from traditional histories of psychiatry and is quite resistant to challenging views. Authors have generally ignored fairly visible alternatives to and criticisms of these old-school histories of psychiatry, and even when textbook authors cite such contrary sources, they often misread the argument presented. The fate of Nicholas Spanos's (1978) thorough critique is illustrative. Of the four textbooks that refer to Spanos (1978), one presents his analysis accurately (Nathan & Harris, 1980); one seems to take his article to mean that witch burnings were not as frequent as is usually claimed (White & Watt, 1981); one interprets Spanos as claiming that "the witch hunts may have ironically contributed to an increased incidence of the patterns of maladaptive behavior that were believed to be signs of demonic possession and witchcraft" (Lahey & Ciminero, 1980, p.11); and one ends a psychopathological interpretation of the Middle Ages (including Malleus maleficarum) with the statement that "the waves of superstition stirred up in the Middle Ages proved nearly overwhelming (Spanos, 1978)" (Sarason & Sarason, 1980, p. 27).

The stability of the psychopathological error suggests that it serves some function and indicates some current social process in the fields of abnormal and clinical psychology. Previous considerations of the mythology and folklore of psychology textbooks have identified such functions as the reinforcement of self- perceptions and of elitist attitudes about the roles and statuses of psychologists (Bramel & Friend, 1981) and the promotion of psychology as a continuous, progressive, scientific enterprise (Harris, 1979). These authors are, of course, describing the Whig interpretation of history (Butterfield, 1931) as it applies to psychology. Samelson (1974) has paraphrased this tendency quite well:

The Whig interpretation also deals harshly with those who have not seen the light (today's truths) and thus impeded progress (Brush, 1974; Butterfield, 1931).

It seems, then, that clinical psychologists, as represented by the authors of abnormal psychology textbooks, have identified with traditional psychiatric historians in their efforts at self-validation and the "heroification" of those who study and treat the mentally ill. This identification may, at first glance, seem ironic when one considers the rivalry and skirmishings that have occupied psychiatrists and psychologists for many years. The alliance has very real roots, however, that are common to the two disciplines. Seymour Sarason (1981a, 1981b) has characterized psychology in general as asocial and single-mindedly individualistic in orientation, lacking in constructs necessary to understand the social order and its effects on behavior. These are quite arguably the characteristics and shortcomings of the traditional variety of psychiatry practiced and glorified by proponents of the psychopathological interpretation of witch hunts. Authors of abnormal psychology textbooks may unconsciously cleave to such a point of view because it has a certain resonance with their own profession and because it validates clinical practice and practitioners alike.

By way of conclusion, let us consider two issues raised by this report. The smaller issue is the question of whether demonology and witch hunts have a place in textbooks of abnormal psychology. Obviously, some critics of the psychopathological interpretation would contend that the European witch hunts are largely irrelevant to the history of concepts and treatments of insanity. It could be argued, however, that demonic possession, witchcraft accusations, and "spontaneous" confessions fit in well in discussions of sociological or labeling theories of deviance; indeed, some social psychologists have done this (e.g., Goldstein, 1980; Schlenker, 1980). This application raises the following larger issue: The use of historical events for the purpose of validating current theories can easily lead to what Stocking (1965) has called "the sins of history written 'for the sake of the present'," namely, "anachronism, distortion, misinterpretation, misleading analogy, neglect of context, over-simplification of process" (p. 215). The Whiggish temptation to find forerunners of current theoretical notions is a variant of this "presentist" type of history, and it is usually close at hand.

Recent developments in the history of science (Kuhn, 1968) and calls for a more critical, less Whiggish examination of the past for its own sake (Samelson, 1974; Stocking, l965) put textbook writers in all fields in somewhat of a bind. According to Brush (1974), "one might say that Whig history is precisely what the science teacher wants--he is interested only in those earlier developments that led up to today's established theories and laws" (p. 1169). There is thus a conflict between teachers and textbook writers, on the one hand, and newer views of the history of science, on the other hand. Textbook authors currently ignore or exclude full consideration of the implications of the ways in which they write history- and of alternatives ways; this gives an affirmative answer to Brush's (1974) question of whether the history of science should be rated X. What remains uncertain is whether textbook writers can or even should embrace non-Whiggish historicism and lower the rating to PG--pedagogical guidance required.

¹ For example, Zilboorg and Henry (1941) cite only the infamous Malleus maleficarum (Sprenger & Kramer, 1486/1971) along with two other witch hunters' manuals and the works of two skeptics. Alexander and Selesnick (1966) cite only Malleus maleficarum.

² See Larner (1981) for a discussion of the sex-related aspects of witchcraft accusations and stereotypes.

³ Note, however, that Midelfort (1972) cites melancholy as a secondary predisposing factor in modal witchcraft suspects The use of the term may be misleading, however, because it seems to describe a quarrelsome or sullen personality as much as it does clinical depression. See Schoeneman (1977, 1982) for further arguments along these lines. Note also that although most recent historians of the witch hunts are circumspect about the formal or colloquial use of psychiatric terminology, older rationalist authors have no compunction whatsoever in using labels such as "witchcraft psychosis" as synonyms for "witch hunt." For a recent survival of this rationalist view, see White (1974), who describes the "witch mania" as a "social psychosis" (p. 34).

⁴ Schoeneman (1977) presented a brief and nonsystematic review of 19 textbooks and stated only that 11 presented some version of the psychopathological view.

⁵ Note that none of the textbooks in this sample considered explanations for possession other than mental illness. For a discussion of demonic possession in terms of role enactment and social learning variables, see Spanos and Gottlieb (1976, l979).

⁶ It is interesting, for instance, that many authors firmly state that the mentally ill were victims of the witch hunts while at the same time filling their accounts with contradictory information. Thus some writers seem to be aware that not all accused witches were insane, that torture and coercion were used to elicit confessions (from the "mentally ill"), and that such confessions often generated large lists of further suspects.

⁷ The equation of accused witches and demoniacs is not found in Zilboorg and Henry (1941), although Zilboorg does lump them together as both mentally ill.

₈ Goldstein et al (1980) and Nathan and Harris (1980) include Malleus maleficarum in their bibliographies; the former authors also reference Weyer's De praestigiis daemonum (1563), which has never been translated into English.

Adams, H. E. (1981). Abnormal psychology. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.

Alexander, F. G., & Selesnick, S. T. (1966). The history of psychiatry. New York: Harper & Row.

Altrocchi, J. (1980). Abnormal behavior. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Anglo, S. (Ed.). (1977). The damned art. Essays in the literature of witchcraft. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bootzin, R. R., & Acocella, J. R. (1980). Abnormal psychology: Current perspectives. New York: Random House.

Boyer, P., & Nissenbaum, S. (1974). Salem possessed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bramel, D., & Friend, R. (1981). Hawthorne, the myth of the docile worker, and class bias in psychology. American Psychologist, 36, 867-878.

Bromberg, W. (1975). From shaman to psychotherapist. Chicago: Henry Regnery.

Brush, S. G. (1974). Should the history of science be rated X? Science, 183, 1164-1172.

Burr, G. L. (1942). Selections from his writings (L. O. Gibbons, Ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Butterfield, H. (1931). The Whig interpretation of history. London: Bell.

Cohn, N. (1975). Europe's innerdemons. New York: Basic Books.

Coleman, J. C. (1950). Abnormal psychology and modern life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Coleman, J. C. (1976). Abnormal psychology and modern life (5th ed .). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Coleman, J. C., Butcher, J. N., & Carson, R. C. (1980). Abnormal psychology and modern life (6th ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Connor, J. W. (1975). The social and psychological reality of European witchcraft beliefs. Psychiatry, 38, 366-380.

Crawford, J. R. (1967). Witchcraft and sorcery in Rhodesia. London: Oxford University Press.

Davison, G. C., & Neale, J. M. (1978). Abnormal psychology: An experimental clinical approach (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Delcambre, E. (1969). The psychology of Lorraine witchcraft suspects. In E. W. Monter (Ed.), European witchcraft (pp. 95-109). New York: Wiley.

Deutsch, A. (1952). The mentally ill in America (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.

Douglas, M. (1981). Edward Evans-Pritchard. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Duke, M., & Nowicki, S., Jr. (1978). Abnormal psychology: Perspectives on being different. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1937). Witchcraft, oracles and magic amongtheAzande.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1940). The Nuer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ewen, C. L. (1929). Witch hunting and witch trials. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trubner.

Goldstein, J. H. (1980). Social psychology. New York: Academic Press.

Goldstein, M. J., Baker, B. L., & Jamison, K. R. (1980). Abnormal psychology: Origins and interventions. Boston: Little, Brown.

Haas, K. (1979). Abnormal psychology. New York: Van Nostrand.

Hansen, J. (1900). Zauberwahn, Inquisition und Hexenprozess im Mittelalter. Munich, Germany: Oldenbourg, Verlag.

Harmatz, M. (1978). Abnormal psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Harris, B. (1979). Whatever happened to Little Albert? American Psychologist, 34, 151-160.

Henningsen, G. (1980). The witches' advocate. Basque witchcraft and the Spanish inquisition. Reno: University of Nevada Press.

Kieckhefer, R. (1976). European witch trials: Their foundations in popular and learned culture, 1300-1500. Berkeley: University of California Press. :

Kirsch, I. (1978). Demonology and the rise of science: An example of the misperception of historical data. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 14, 149-157.

Kirsch, I. (1980). Demonology and science during the scientific revolution. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16, 359-368.

Kittredge, G. L. (1929). Witchcraft in old and New England. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kleinmuntz, B. (1980). Essentials of abnormal psychology (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Kluckhohn, C. (1967). Navaho witchcraft. Boston: Beacon Press.

Krige, J. D. (1947). The social function of witchcraft. Theoria, 1, 8-21.

Kroll, J. A. (1973). A reappraisal of psychiatry in the Middle Ages. Archives of General Psychiatry, 29, 276-283.

Kuhn, T. S. (1968). Science: I. The history of science. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 14, pp.74-83). Macmillan & Free Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lahey, B. B., & Ciminero, A. R. (1980). Maladaptive behavior: An introduction to abnormal psychology. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Larner, C. (1981). Enemies of God. The witch-hunt in Scotland. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lea, H. C. (1888). A history of the inquisition of the middle ages. New York: Macmillan.

Maefarlane, A. D. J. (1970). Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England. New York: Harper & Row.

Mahoney, M. J. (1980). Abnormal psychology: Perspectives on human variance.

San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Mair, L. P. Witchcraft. (1969). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mandrou, R. (1969). Magistrates and witches in 17th century France. In E. W. Monter (Ed.), European witchcraft. New York: Wiley.

Martin, B. (1981). Abnormal psychology: Clinical and scientific perspectives. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Marwick, M. (1964). Witchcraft as a social strain gauge. Australian Journal of Science, 26, 263-268.

Mayer, P. (1970). Witches. In M. Marwick (Ed.), Witchcraft and sorcery (pp. 45- 64). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin

Mears, F. G., & Gatchel, R. J. (1979). Fundamentals of abnormal psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Middleton, J., & Winter, E. H. (Eds.). (1963). Witchcraft and sorcery in East Africa. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Midelfort, H. C. E. (1972). Witch hunting in southwestern Germany, 1562- 1684. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Monter, E. W. (1976). Witchcraft in France and Switzerland. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Mora, G. (1975). Historical and theoretical trends in psychiatry. In A. M. Freedman, H. 1. Kaplan, & B. J. Sadock (Eds.), Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry II. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.

Nadel, S. F. (1952). Witchcraft in four African societies: An essay in comparison. American Anthropologist, 54, 18-29.

Nathan, P. E., & Harris, S. L. (1980). Psychopathology and society (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Neugebauer, R. (1979). Medieval and early modern theories of mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36, 477-483.

Notestein, W. (1911). A history of witchcraft in England. Washington, DC: American Historical Association.

Orme, J. E. (1979). An introduction to abnormal psychology. London: Methuen.

Pattison, E. M. (1977). Psychosocial interpretations of exorcism. Journal of Operational Psychiatry, 8, 5-21.

Peters, E. (1978). The magician, the witch, and the law. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Price, R. H., & Lynn, S. J. (1981). Abnormal psychology in the human context. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Robbins, R. H. (1959). The encyclopedia of witchcraft and demonology. New York: Crown.

Robbins, R. H. (1978). Witchcraft. An introduction to the literature of witchcraft. Millwood, NY: KTO Press.

Rosen, G. (1968). Madness in society. New York: Harper & Row.

Russell, J. B. (1972). Witchcraft in the Middle Ages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Russell, J. B. (1980). A history of witchcraft: Sorcerers, heretics and pagans. New York: Thames & Hudson.

Samelson, F. (1974). History, origin myth and ideology: "Discovery" of social psychology. Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior, 4, 217-231.

Samelson, F. (1980). J. B. Watson's Little Albert, Cyril Burt's twins, and the need for a critical science. American Psychologist, 35, 619-625.

Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1980). Abnormal psychology: The problem of maladaptive behavior (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sarason, S. B. (1981a). An asocial psychology and a misdirected clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 36, 827-836.

Sarason, S. B. (1981b). Psychology misdirected. New York: Free Press.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schoeneman, T. J. (1975). The witch hunt as a culture change phenomenon. Ethos, 3, 529-554.

Schoeneman, T. J. (1977). The role of mental illness in the European witch hunts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: An assessment. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 13, 337-351.

Schoeneman, T. J. (1982). Criticisms of the psychopathological interpretation of witch hunts: A review. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 1028-1032.

Schur, E. M. (1971). Labeling deviant behavior. Its sociological implications. New York: Harper & Row.

Scot, R (1972). The discoverie of witchcraft. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1584)

Spanos, N. P. (1978). Witchcraft in histories of psychiatry: A critical analysis and an alternative conceptualization. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 417-439.

Spanos, N. P., & Gottlieb, J. (1976). Ergots and Salem village witchcraft: A critical appraisal. Science, 194, 1390-1394.

Spanos, N. P., & Gottlieb, J. (1979). Demonic possession, mesmerism, and hysteria: A social psychological perspective on their historical interrelations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 527-546.

Sprenger, J., & Kramer, H. (1971). Malleus maleficarum. (M. Summers, Ed. and Trans.). New York: Dover. (Original work published 1486)

Stocking, G. W., Jr. (1965). On the limits of "presentism" and "historicism" in the historiography of the behavioral sciences. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 1, 211-217.

Sue, S., Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1981). Understanding abnormal behavior. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Swales, P. J. (1982, November). A fascination with witches. The Sciences, 22, 21-25.

Szasz, T. S. (1970). The manufacture of madness. New York: Delta.

Thomas, K. V. (1971). Religion and the decline of magic. New York: Scribner's.

White, L., Jr. (1974). Death and the devil. In R. S. Kinsman (Ed.), The darker vision of the Renaissance (pp. 25-46). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

White, R. W., & Watt, N. F. (1981). The abnormal personality (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Willis, R. G. (1970). Instant millennium: The sociology of African witch-cleansing cults. In M. Douglas (Ed.), Witchcraft confessions and accusations (pp. 129-139). London: Tavistock.

Wilson, M. H. (1951). Witch beliefs and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 56, 307-313.

Zilboorg, G. (1935). The medical man and the witch during the Renaissance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Zilboorg, G., & Henry, G. W. (1941). A history of medical psychology. New York: Norton.

THOMAS J. SCHOENEMAN received his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1979 His interest in witchcraft beliefs and witch hunts is part of a wider research focus on social judgment and self-perception. He is currently investigating attributions for misfortune. The author thanks Chris Woroniecki and Rod Haug for their assistance in conducting this research and John Noll, Nicholas P. Spanos, Robert Till, Don Tucker, and Peter Williamson for comments on the article.