EN:Persecution of witches
From Historisches Lexikon Bayerns
The belief in witchcraft stemmed from popular folklore and increasingly evolved into a criminal offense from the late Middle Ages onward. Social and economic tensions around 1600 resulted in significant witch-hunts during the first half of the 17th century, with the monetary interests of the persecutors being a non-negligible element of the accusations. The ecclesiastical territories of Franconia as well as territorial border regions saw a particularly high number of witch trials. The victims represented all professions, social classes, and age groups, encompassing not only women but also children and men.
Historical outline
The belief in and practice of witchcraft, sorcery, and summoning devils and demons in Europe reaches back to antiquity. Across nearly all societies, individuals sought to influence their surroundings with ointments, potions, amulets, or talismans. In contrast to the church’s teachings, which seemed rather abstract to ordinary people, individuals claiming magical knowledge offered practical solutions to everyday problems; the two spheres—magical folk beliefs and Christian religious teachings—were not strictly separated but often intertwined. Among such individuals were so-called witches (regionally referred to as "Druden," "Unholde," and other names): women and men believed to possess magical powers and to perform harmful spells through their alleged alliances with devils and demons. According to this belief, Satan engaged in fornication with his followers and participated in witches' flights and the witches' Sabbath. Witchcraft was thus portrayed as a cumulative and collective crime, encompassing the devil's pact, sexual relations with the devil, witches' flight, participation in the witches' Sabbath, and the casting of harmful spells. The notion that witches could fly with the devil's assistance to cause harm emerged in the late 13th century. The concept of nightly gatherings of witches, known as the witches' Sabbath, has been documented since the 14th century. This idea was reinforced as secular and ecclesiastical authorities began linking heresy with witchcraft. The witches' dance or Sabbath became a central feature of the image of the “witch”, highlighting the sect-like solidarity among witches and the perceived threat it posed. Interrogations of suspects often emphasised identifying accomplices who were allegedly present at the witches' dance, aiming to expose the supposed conspiracy of witches in its entirety.
Woodcut depicting a hail spell, from: Ulrich Molitoris, Von den unholden oder Hexen, Ausgburg 1508. (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Bavarian State Library), Res/4 H.g.hum. 16 o)
"Drutendantz bei Laub,” a depiction of a witches dance near the village of Laub (municipality of Munningen, district of Donau-Ries), appears on a map of the western region of the Principality of Palatinate-Neuburg, dated to around 1570. (Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv (Bavarian Main State Archive), plan collection 4269)
Woodcut from the “Traktat von den bösen weiben, die man nennet hexen” (Treatise on the Evil Women Who Are Called Witches), Augsburg, 1508. (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, picture archive port-027688)
The term "witchcraft" was first documented in 1419 during a secular criminal trial in Lucerne (Switzerland). However, it gained its complex meaning as a “cumulative witchcraft offense” only in the subsequent two centuries. This evolution was shaped by demonologists like the Dominican Heinrich Kramer (known as Institoris, d. 1505), Jesuit Martin Delrio (1551–1608), and jurist Jean Bodin (d. 1596), who merged findings about diabolical conspiracies from inquisitorial heresy prosecutions with popular beliefs and propagated these ideas through their writings. The majority of trials against alleged witches and sorcerers occurred between 1580 and 1630, placing them firmly in the early modern period rather than the Middle Ages. A pivotal text for witch doctrine and a catalyst for the witch hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries in German-speaking regions was the “Hexenhammer“(Malleus Maleficarum, e. “Witch Hammer”), authored by the Dominican Heinrich Kramer in 1487. In this systematic summary of the subject matter, Kramer classified all forms of sorcery as apostasy — a renunciation of God — and thereby deemed them crimes punishable by death. The Hexenhammer provided expert guidance on identifying witches and sorcerers, detailing how to recognise them and where and when their meetings occurred. Walpurgis Night (30 April) was a particularly significant time for these nocturnal gatherings, but other important days such as Easter and Pentecost also played a key role, according to the Hexenhammer.
Witch hunts in the early modern period: background, causes and consequences
Deteriorating economic conditions due to the Little Ice Age (1350-1850), which peaked around 1600, exacerbated social tensions in many European regions, including southern Germany. In Bavaria and Franconia, in particular, crop failures during the 1610s and 1620s led to an exorbitant rise in the prices of wine and grain. The "Kipper and Wipper period" (1620-1624) further expedited the substantial devaluation of currency. An explanation for the inexplicable — weather phenomena, crop failures, inflation, impoverishment, famine, plagues, and high mortality — was found in the actions of witches. Natural disasters and crop failures ultimately served as catalysts for this pan-European event, which requires explanations not based on a single cause but on regional, mentality-driven historical perspectives.
Legislation
The handling of the belief in witchcraft was already regulated by law in the early Middle Ages. The Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniæ of Charlemagne (r. 768-814, emperor from 800) stipulated in 782 that anyone who believed in witches according to pagan concepts or persecuted individuals as witches was to be punished by death. The Canon Episcopi, created in Trier in 906, which dealt with accusations of harmful sorcery and prosecuted superstitious denunciators, belongs to the same tradition. As the secular and ecclesiastical authorities dismissed the power of such practices as pagan superstition and punished those beholden to it, there was no official persecution of witches for a long time. It was only in the late Middle Ages that the perception of witchcraft began to change. The “Sachsenspiegel” (e. Saxon Law Book, circa 1225) stipulated death by fire as the punishment for the offence. Around half a century later, the “Schwabenspiegel” (e. Swabian Law Book) went a step further and generally based all types of sorcery on a pact with the devil. At the beginning of the early modern period, the offence found its way into territorial collections of criminal law such as the Bamberg Code of High Justice (1507), which in turn served as a model for the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina published throughout the Empire in 1532. The concept of the crime of witchcraft, complete with all its elements, was now fully established. This provided the legal basis for the large-scale witch trials to come. The focus shifted from prosecuting superstitious accusers to targeting individuals accused of witchcraft. Defamation cases evolved into witchcraft trials when accusations encountered authorities prepared to act on them.
Procedure of witch trials
The trials typically commenced with vague suspicions or specific accusations, often presented before officials acting as local representatives of the ruling authorities. These accusations originated from the general population, often from the close personal circles of the alleged witches—many times from neighbours or even their own families. Without the initiative or at least the broad backing of the populace, the laborious proceedings would not have been feasible in many regions. Secular courts were responsible for conducting the trials. Initially, the proceedings followed established rules based on the Carolina Law. However, due to the particularly grave nature of the offences attributed to the accused witches, the crime of witchcraft was soon declared an exceptional crime (crimen exceptum), allowing deviations from the regular legal procedures. In this context, legally trained 'witch commissioners' were employed after 1600, often interfering with the jurisdiction of the courts and taking over the trials. The fact that they occasionally exploited economic potential from their new role had no connection to their original function.
As the persecutions progressed, the courts were empowered to take action on clear wrongdoings even in the absence of a plaintiff, contrary to the principle of accusatio, which was required for the formal filing of a complaint. Scholars attribute a crucial role in the escalation of witch persecutions to the introduction of the inquisitorial procedure, replacing the accusatorial procedure, and to the rise of witch commissioners. While the accusatorial system required a private plaintiff and aimed to settle the dispute between the parties (through compensation), the inquisitorial procedure involved a public prosecutor who could act independently on speculation and whose task was to identify all those guilty. The arrest, and thus the initiation of witchcraft proceedings, required a certain number of “Besagungen” (denunciations). The use of torture, which had been common since the late Middle Ages and was employed during interrogations in criminal cases of any kind, was not considered a tool for punishment or execution, but was seen as a legitimate means of establishing the truth. Since the justifications for the verdicts were read out publicly, it is not surprising that certain ideas about witchcraft became widely accepted, developed into stereotypes, and that many confessions were similar in content. Illustrated pamphlets, literary works, and printed sermons also played a part in this. The only possible outcomes of witchcraft trials were either acquittal or a sentence of death. While the sovereign had the right to grant a "pardon,” this did not result in an acquittal, but rather in a reduction of the death sentence or a change in the method of execution, from the original burning alive imposed on heretics to decapitation or strangulation, followed by the burning of the body.
The persecuted
Contrary to the stereotypical depictions of witches as women with certain (physical) characteristics, which were also circulated by contemporary artists such as Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528) and Hans Baldung Grien (c. 1484-1545), the sources (denunciation lists, interrogation records) provide a more differentiated and regionally extremely variable picture of those who fell victim to the persecutions. In the course of the persecutions, no profession, social class, age, gender, or religious denomination was immune from being accused of witchcraft. In this context, Wolfgang Behringer (born 1956) speaks of the egalitarian tendency of the witch trials. However, certain (professional) groups could be particularly at risk. While in Bamberg, for example, a disproportionately high number of men from the city's political ruling class were executedand thus taken out of the way through denunciation, in the city of Würzburg, the commissars targeted a significant number of Catholic clergymen.. In fact, men accounted for more than half of the executions there. As the trials progressed, in some places (Würzburg, Augsburg, Freising), groups such as children and nobles also came under suspicion of the persecutors. At the start of waves of persecutions or trials, statements from children accusing their parents, relatives, or neighbours were strikingly common.
The persecutors and other players
The group of persecutors was also composed differently than is often assumed. A popular accusation is that the (Catholic) Church was primarily responsible for the persecutions. Indeed, for many contemporaries, the sermons of clergymen were the only access to educated discourse in general and on specific topics such as witchcraft. Therefore, their influence on the formation of public opinion should not be underestimated. However, the ecclesiastical princes, often denounced in popular literature as 'witch bishops', did not act alone. They were surrounded by clerical and secular officials, advisors, and specialists whose responsibility included the coordination and execution of criminal cases such as witchcraft (Bamberg, Würzburg, Eichstätt).
In the peripheral regional and local administration, particular attention must be given to the responsible officials such as bailiffs, district judges and assessors, and sheriffs, as well as their scope of action. Religious orders, especially the Society of Jesus (Societas Iesu), exerted significant influence over the spiritual and religious life of the population, as well as on the rulers in the Catholic territories of the Holy Roman Empire, including the Franconian and Bavarian dioceses. The most important Catholic universities were largely under Jesuit leadership, and through their positions as court confessors and preachers, members of the order were able to significantly influence the formation of princely opinions and politics. However, the Societas Iesu did not have a unified stance on the issue of witchcraft. In addition to well-known opponents of the persecutions, there were numerous, sometimes prominent supporters among the Jesuits, who were also active as writers, such as the theologian and lawyer Martin Delrio. The most notable opponent of the witch-hunts within the Jesuit order, however, was Friedrich Spee (1591-1635) with his Cautio Criminalis of 1631.
The law faculties were another authority on the witchcraft issue. In what is now Bavaria, universities such as Altdorf, Ingolstadt, and Würzburg were also asked to provide expert opinions in disputed legal cases. In October 1590, the University of Ingolstadt categorically rejected the probative value of witches' marks and maintained this position in the following years. The law faculty of the Nuremberg University of Altdorf advocated for acquittal in a case from 1627. However, even the opinions of the same university could vary greatly. A Würzburg “expert opinion” from the late 1620s, for example, recommended such harsh measures that it was rejected by those who commissioned it, while in another case in 1651, the lawyers there advised that it would be irresponsible to arrest the accused. Whether persecutions were initiated and how the trials proceeded depended on the decisions of many authorities, individual actors, and the power dynamics at territorial, regional, and local levels. Members of various social groups were able to benefit from the trials — privately, financially, or professionally — which encouraged their pro-persecution stance. However, the influence of the general public should also not be overlooked. Negative responses from the authorities to demands for witchcraft trials could lead to public unrest and an increase in vigilante justice, such as arbitrary imprisonments or lynchings, as documented in the first third of the 17th century in Ochsenfurt (Würzburg district) and in the Tauber Valley.
Extent and specifics of the witch hunts in what is now Bavaria
Ecclesiastical principalities occupied a special position in the witchcraft trials., The worst persecutions known in Europe, with around 6,000 deaths, were carried out in some of them in the first half of the 17th century. In the Holy Roman Empire, around a quarter of those affected were inhabitants of ecclesiastical territories. Particularly intense were the witch hunts in the Franconian bishoprics in the years 1626 and 1630, the final phase of the witch persecutions, during which between 900 and 1,200 people were executed in Bamberg and Würzburg, respectively. As early as 1616, waves of trials had occurred in both territories in the peripheral administrative towns of Zeil am Main (Haßberge district) and Gerolzhofen (Schweinfurt district). Several hundred people were also executed in the Eichstätt diocese between 1612 and 1637. Johann Christoph I von Westerstetten (r. 1612–1637) was a prince-bishop willing to persecute, under whose rule the witch trials took on the character of systematic persecutions. The Bamberg auxiliary bishop and vicar general Dr Friedrich Förner (died 1630) dedicated his 35 witchcraft sermons, which were published in 1626, to the bishop of Eichstätt, who had already made a name for himself outside the diocese in this regard.
In secular territories, however, where local jurisdiction was overseen by several levels of learned jurists, witch-hunts were rarely allowed. Only in areas where the population's demands for persecution were met by a cooperative judiciary, significantly detached from the control of the sovereign, could large-scale witchcraft trials take place. Research into the Duchy and Electorate of Bavaria shows that there were only a few intensive witch-hunts in the region. In Munich, Maximilian I (r. 1597-1651, Elector from 1623) reigned during the height of the witch-hunts; a ruler who was deeply uncertain about the issue of witchcraft and anything but decisive.A wave of persecution in 1590 immediately triggered intense domestic political struggles, which ultimately led to Bavaria adopting a moderate stance. A witchcraft trial in Munich in 1600, conducted by some court councillors and intended to serve as the spark for new trials with its extorted denunciation lists, was an exception.
Around 1630, the witchcraft trials in the Duchies of Saxe-Coburg and Palatinate-Neuburg claimed numerous victims. In Coburg, the sovereign Duke Johann Casimir (r. 1586-1633) himself was a driving force behind the trials. Around 100 trials are documented in the Margraviate of Brandenburg-Ansbach, with nearly half resulting in executions. In Neuburg, research suggests that the fears and aggression triggered by forced conversion had a stimulating effect on the course of the trials. In the County of Oettingen, the excessive measures taken in the territories of the Catholic branch of the noble house significantly differed from the more restrained handling of witchcraft accusations by their Protestant relatives.
No significant persecutions or victim numbers have been recorded in the territories of the prince-bishoprics of Hochstifte Regensburg, Passau, Augsburg, the prince-provostship of Berchtesgaden, the prince-abbey of Kempten, and in smaller territories with imperial immediacy, such as the imperial knighthoods. The latest research suggests that ultimately, personnel factors at the heads of the respective territories, as well as in regional authorities and local administration (bailiffs, district judges, sheriffs), were crucial in determining whether and to what extent persecutions could occur.
In imperial cities, remarkably few people fell victim to persecution compared to other dominions. In cities such as Nuremberg, Rothenburg ob der Tauber, and Schweinfurt, a considerable number of trials were conducted, but executions were carried out only in single digits. The authorities in the imperial cities seemed to have recognised the potential dangers of the rapidly expanding witch-hunts, as they were unfolding in neighbouring prince-bishoprics, as well as the abuse of denunciations, early on.
Repeatedly, territorial and confessional disputes between neighbouring rulers had an impact on ongoing witchcraft trials. In 1602, the Würzburg cathedral chapter filed a lawsuit against the Protestant Margrave Georg Friedrich of Brandenburg-Ansbach (r. 1543–1603) because his officials had removed two people suspected of witchcraft from grounds they claimed. The case continued for decades and even went before the Imperial Chamber Court. It was less about the women abducted as witches and more about the issue of jurisdiction in territorial border areas. The fact that an appeal against the arrest of a witch was filed from Würzburg had territorial political rather than humanitarian motives. The events in the town of Remlingen (district of Würzburg), where the Diocese of Würzburg met the territory of the Counts of Castell, should be understood as a conflict over jurisdiction in witch trials, and possibly as an effort at confessional profiling. Bishop Julius Echter (r. 1573–1617) found himself in a dispute with the Protestant Count Wolfgang II (1558–1631) over the execution of women convicted as witches, during which the count asserted the innocence of the accused. The Protestant count and the district assessors, standing in contrast to the Catholic bishop, have often been portrayed in historical research as early proponents of enlightenment and above all superstitions. In reality, however, the issue appears to have been less about the legitimacy of the witch-hunts themselves and more about asserting sovereign authority in a contested border region. This is indicated not least by the fact that, only three years later, the count himself was proven to have tortured, extorted confessions, and ordered the burning of a “witch” convicted in this manner. In addition to all this the population often exploited the fragmented, multi-authority governance typical of Franconia by playing different rulers against one another to pursue their own aims of persecution. In general, some of the most severe persecutions occurred in border regions. In this context, Johannes Dillinger (born 1968) refers to the “interactions between the witch-hunts and the formation of statehood”.
The witch hunts subside and come to an end
The major persecutions ended in most regions of the surveyed area around 1630, as the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) shifted to southern Germany and the rampant accusations became increasingly perilous, even for the social elites. The Würzburg and Bamberg trials ceased during this period due to the intervention of the emperor or the imperial courts, which insisted on the adherence to the ordinary legal process in line with existing imperial laws and forbade the continued treatment of witchcraft cases as crimen exceptum. Four decades later (1669), Johann Philipp von Schönborn (r. 1642–1673 as Bishop of Würzburg, from 1647 also Archbishop of Mainz, and from 1663 also Bishop of Worms) prohibited witch persecutions in his territories, in some areas against the will of the protesting population (f.e. the towns of Stadtprozelten and Dorfprozelten in 1644). Trials against individuals accused of witchcraft were transformed back into defamation trials against their accusers.
Selective persecutions, however, are evidenced across the entire surveyed area until the 1680s and, in individual cases, even beyond. For instance, between 1715 and 1723, a series of witchcraft trials against children took place in the episcopal town of Freising, culminating in their execution. In 1749, the lingering belief in witchcraft claimed its final victim in Würzburg with the Unterzell subprioress Maria Renata Singer von Mossau (1679–1749). The elderly nun was condemned as a witch, beheaded, and burned amidst great public applause. Around 1767, a heated debate on the phenomenon of witchcraft and its persecutions, known as the "Bavarian Witch War,” unfolded in the print media of the Electorate of Bavaria, garnering international attention. It represented one of the "largest Enlightenment debates in the German-speaking world" (W. Behringer) and marked the end of the discourse in Bavaria. The last woman to be condemned as a witch in what is now Bavaria (Princely Abbey of Kempten) was likely Anna Maria Schwegelin (1729–1781) in 1775, though her death sentence (beheading) was never carried out. Apart from such individual cases, the authorities' handling of witchcraft issues began to fundamentally change around the mid-17th century. It was then that Georg Christoph Walther (1601–1656), a lawyer from the Protestant imperial city of Rothenburg ob der Tauber, justified the imminent release of two witchcraft suspects in 1652 by stating that it was better "to let 100 guilty people go free than to condemn one innocent person”. This reflected the prevailing attitude of most territorial authorities in the Empire.
European and global comparison
In the territories that now constitute Germany, approximately 25,000 people were executed as witches and sorcerers during the early modern period, representing about half of all known European persecution victims. Southwest Germany is considered a region of intense witch-hunting, although larger secular territories such as the Duchy of Württemberg and the Electoral Palatinate significantly restrained their witch-hunting activities, resulting in comparatively low execution numbers. Nevertheless, it was a cross-confessional phenomenon. Across the Empire - in addition to the Franconian prince-bishoprics - a notably high number of people (around 4,000) fell victim to the trials in the Rhenish electorates, especially during the reign of Ferdinand of Bavaria in Cologne (r. 1612-1650). Relatively high victim counts are also documented for other European countries such as Switzerland, France, Scotland, and Sweden. The infamously excessive witch-hunts in Salem, North America, around 1692, also drew significant attention. In many parts of Europe, men accounted for 20 to 25% of persecution victims, and in certain regions of France, they even constituted the majority. Lyndal Roper (born 1956) estimates an average male victim rate of 20% in the regions of modern-day Germany. Furthermore, research has shown that although not all victims were women, individual accusations of witchcraft were particularly often made by women—usually against others of their own gender.
Sources, research, reception
Trial records are the primary source for historical research on witchcraft. These encompass interrogation protocols as well as correspondence between princely local officials and the government, which often provides deeper insights into the subject of investigation. However, these records are frequently incomplete, and a significant portion appears to have been lost during the witch trials themselves. Additionally, numerous documents were destroyed during the wars of the 20th century. Nonetheless, the documentation for territories such as the Bishopric of Bamberg, Palatinate-Neuburg, and the Imperial City of Nuremberg is relatively well-preserved. However, in many Bavarian regions, records are missing for the entire period of investigation or for certain intervals. As a result, precise figures on the victims of witch trials in what is now Bavaria, as in numerous other regions, cannot be determined.
In addition to trial records, there is a range of other contemporary sources that must be considered. Testimonies from victims or third parties not directly involved in the trials, who observed the proceedings closely or from a distance and documented them in letters and diaries, are rare. Unlike these and the trial records, which were primarily intended for internal use, pamphlets or printed sermons reached a broader public audience. Since most of the testimonies were written by those involved in the exclusion, criminalisation, and extermination of alleged witches, or who profited commercially from these activities (such as by harbouring them, confiscating their property, or distributing relevant pamphlets), caution is always necessary when dealing with them in the search for “facts”.
Since the 1970s, the fields of law, social sciences, and history have been intensively studying the European witch-hunts of the early modern period. Significant scientific contributions have been made on the topic in nearly every European country. Due to the structure of the Holy Roman Empire, with its small and micro-territories, case studies were initially conducted for individual regions, followed by comparative studies. Numerous publications concerning the Bishopric of Würzburg by various authors have appeared in recent years, following earlier works on the witch trials in Franconia, and specifically Würzburg that were published in the 1950s. Special attention was given to the particular case of the clergy trials in the 1620s under Prince-Bishop Ehrenberg (r. 1623–1631). The Bamberg Trials were adapted into a film in 2015. Future research will also have to address the popular publications that accompany academic studies, which are often specifically tailored to meet the expectations of a broad audience, along with the misunderstandings and prejudices they perpetuate.
Witch executions in the territory of present-day Bavaria
Preliminary remark: The following table is intended as a supplement to the map shown above. It is not meant to be exhaustive and can only reflect the current state of research. The figures provided are verifiable minimum numbers of all trial victims who were executed. However, due to the state of available records, these numbers may differ significantly. Only locations within the present-day territory of Bavaria have been selected, which means that some places, such as Freudenberg or Lauda, which were part of the Hochstift Würzburg at the time, do not appear in the table or the map. Not all executions took place in the hometowns of the victims. For example, many victims from Bamberg were burned in Zeil am Main.
| Location | Number of witch executions (Minimum figures according to sources) |
Periods |
|---|---|---|
| Abenberg (Roth district) | 11 | 1590 |
| Abensberg (Kelheim district) | 2 | 1591 |
| Amberg | 4 | 1669, 1712, 1719 |
| Amorbach (Miltenberg district) | 14 | 1601, 1629, 1642 |
| Ansbach | 2 | 1653, 1719 |
| Arnstein (Main-Spessart district) | 19 | 1600, 1627 |
| Aschaffenburg | 326 | 1592-97, 1602-04, 1626-29 |
| Augsburg | 18 | 1563, 1615, 1643, 1650-79, 1685-99 |
| Bad Tölz | 4 | 1590-91, 1599, 1615 |
| Bamberg | 203 | 1595, 1616-17, 1626-30 |
| Bayreuth | 2 | 1560-63 |
| Beilngries (Eichstätt district) | 2 | 1623, 1625 |
| Berchtesgaden | 2 | 1681 |
| Bobingen (Augsburg district) | 4 | 1590, 1728-34 |
| Burgau (Günzburg district) | 10 | 1580, 1595 |
| Burghausen (Altötting district) | 13 | 1685, 1690-98, 1719, 1740, 1751 |
| Cadolzburg (Fürth district) | 9 | 1592 |
| Coburg | 41 | 1611-13, 1628-32 |
| Dachau | 2 | 1681, 1712 |
| Dillingen a. d. Donau | 54 | 1575-79, 1587-1604, 1612-24, 1727, 1744-45 |
| Dinkelsbühl} (Ansbach district) | 9 | 1656 |
| Donauwörth (Donau-Ries district) | 14 | 1590-96, 1602, 1608-13, 1644, 1692, 1714, 1721 |
| Eichstätt | 132 | 1603-08, 1616-31 |
| Ellingen (Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen district) | 48 | 1575, 1590 |
| Emskirchen (Neustadt a. d. Aisch-Bad Windsheim district) | 2 | 1587 |
| Erding | 6 | 1716, 1721 |
| Farchant (Garmisch-Partenkirchen district) | 1 | 1590 |
| Feuchtwangen (Ansbach district) | 2 | 1676 |
| Forchheim | 3 | 1618, 1625 |
| Freising | 47 | 1590-91, 1672-79, 1717-22 |
| Füssen (Ostallgäu district) | 2 | 1613, 1618 |
| Garmisch | 25 | 1590-91 |
| Gerolzhofen | 272 | 1616-17, 1626-30 |
| Grainau (Garmisch-Partenkirchen district) | 2 | 1589-90 |
| Haidau (Regensburg district) | 46 | 1664, 1689-94, 1701-02 |
| Hallstadt (Bamberg district) | 67 | 1617-19 |
| Hammelburg (Bad Kissingen district) | 26 | 1602-05 |
| Helmishofen (Ostallgäu district) | 4 | 1590 |
| Hemau (Regensburg district) | 12 | 1610, 1616-18, 1623, 1627 |
| Hengersberg (Deggendorf district) | 4 | 1644, 1700 |
| Herrieden (Ansbach district) | 6 | 1590, 1617 |
| Herzogenaurach (Erlangen-Höchstadt district) | 3 | 1618, 1625 |
| Hilpoltstein (Roth district) | 1 | 1687 |
| Höchstädt a. d. Donau (Dillingen a. d. Donau district) | 7 | 1570, 1588, 1716 |
| Hörstein (Gde. Alzenau, Aschaffenburg district) | 139 | 1601-05 |
| Illereichen (Gde. Altenstadt, Neu-Ulm district) | 8 | 1563 |
| Ingolstadt | 11 | 1590-94, 1629-30, 1704 |
| Kaufbeuren | 10 | 1591 |
| Kelheim | 4 | 1590, 1705 |
| Kellmünz a. d. Iller (Neu-Ulm district) | 5 | 1590 |
| Kempten i. Allgäu | 3 | 1716, 1755 |
| Kleinheubach (Miltenberg district) | 45 | 1616-17, 1629 |
| Klingenberg a. Main (Miltenberg district) | 60 | 1628-29 |
| (Bad) Königshofen (Rhön-Grabfeld district) | 59 | 1601-04, 1627 |
| Kronach | 10 | 1612-13, 1627 |
| Landshut | 10 | 1608-09, 1621, 1715, 1749-56 |
| Langenzenn (Fürth district) | 6 | 1569, 1591-92 |
| Laufen (Berchtesgadener Land district) | 6 | 1677 |
| Lauingen (Dillingen a. d. Donau district) | 8 | 1589, 1665 |
| Lindau i. Bodensee | 6 | 1445, 1493, 1592, 1682, 1730 |
| Lohr a. Main (Main-Spessart district) | 153 | 1611-13, 1626-29 |
| Marktheidenfeld (Main-Spessart district) | 16 | 1627 |
| Marktoberdorf (Ostallgäu district) | 109 | 1590-92 |
| Martinszell i. Allgäu (Oberallgäu district) | 1 | 1670 |
| Memmingen | 21 | 1665-68 |
| Miltenberg | 210 | 1616-30 |
| Mindelheim (Unterallgäu district) | 1 | 1629 |
| Mittenwald (Garmisch-Partenkirchen district) | 5 | 1590 |
| Mitterfels (Straubing-Bogen district) | 3 | 1702-03, 1710 |
| Moosburg a. d. Isar (Freising district) | 3 | 1687, 1722, 1726 |
| Mühldorf a. Inn | 1 | 1682 |
| Munich | 15 | 1578-79, 1588-1600, 1666, 1701, 1720-22 |
| Natternberg (Deggendorf district) | 6 | 1622 |
| Nennslingen (Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen district) | 9 | 1590 |
| Neuburg a. d. Donau | 17 | 1629-30 |
| Neustadt a. d. Donau (Kelheim district) | 5 | 1670,1677 |
| Nördlingen (Donau-Ries district) | 54 | 1589-94, 1598 |
| Nuremberg | 17 | 1471-89, 1501,1520-27, 1588-1608, 1617-22, 1659-60, 1692 |
| Oberndorf a. Lech (Donau-Ries district) | 94 | 1590-92 |
| Osterzell (Ostallgäu district) | 9 | 1590 |
| Pappenheim (Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen district) | 11 | 1590 |
| Partenkirchen | 7 | 1590-91 |
| Passau | 20 | 1527, 1614-15 |
| Rain (a. Lech) (Donau-Ries district) | 9 | 1587, 1611, 1638-44 |
| Regensburg | 3 | 1467, 1552 |
| Reichertshofen (Pfaffenhofen a. d. Ilm district) | 93 | 1590, 1628-30, 1645 |
| Remlingen | 11 | 1611-16 |
| Rettenberg-Sonthofen (Oberallgäu district) | 40 | 1575, 1586-87, 1592, 1644 |
| Rieneck (Main-Spessart district) | 37 | 1612-18 |
| Rosenheim | 1 | 1629 |
| Rothenfels (Main-Spessart district) | 39 | 1616-29 |
| Schongau | 70 | 1589-1592 |
| Schwabach | 8 | 1505, 1592 |
| Schwabmünchen (Augsburg district) | 41 | 1589-92, 1721, 1730 |
| Spalt (Roth district) | 14 | 1562 |
| (Bad) Staffelstein (Lichtenfels district) | 2 | 1616-17 |
| Straubing | 12 | 1609, 1649-50, 1679, 1710-12, 1750 |
| Sugenheim (Neustadt a. d. Aisch-Bad Windsheim district) | 12 | 1596 |
| Tapfheim (Donau-Ries district) | 2 | 1589 |
| Unterföhring (Munich district) | 4 | 1590 |
| Volkach (Kitzingen district) | 4 | 1627 |
| Waischenfeld (Bayreuth district) | 2 | 1616-22 |
| Wallerstein (Donau-Ries district) | 60 | 1589-94, 1628-30 |
| Wasserburg a. Bodensee (Lindau district) | 19 | 1628, 1656-60 |
| Wasserburg a. Inn (Rosenheim district) | 1 | 1670 |
| Weilheim (Weilheim-Schongau district) | 5 | 1590, 1697 |
| Weißenburg i. Bay. | 2 | 1590 |
| Wemding (Donau-Ries district) | 51 | 1609, 1615, 1629-31 |
| Wengen/Trauchburg (Gde. Weitnau, Oberallgäu district) | 11 | 1576, 1617, 1622 |
| (Bad) Windsheim | 24 | 1596-97 |
| Würzburg | 376 | 1616-17, 1626-30 |
| Zeil a. Main | 445 | 1616-20, 1625-31 |
| Zusmarshausen (Augsburg district) | 5 | 1590-91, 1612 |
The information was compiled from, among others: Josef Auer and Heinrich Stürzl, Hinrichtungen wegen Hexerei in Eichstätt von 1585-1723, in: Blätter des Bayerischen Landesvereins für Familienkunde 76 (2013), 225-283; Wolfgang Behringer, Hexenverfolgung in Bayern. Volksmagie, Glaubenseifer und Staatsräson in der Frühen Neuzeit, Munich, 3rd edition. Edition 1997; Birke Grießhammer, Website http://www.hexen-franken.de/ [accessed 8.12.21]; Britta Gehm, Die Hexenverfolgung im Hochstift Bamberg und das Eingreifen des Reichshofrates zu ihrer Beendigung (Rechtsgeschichte und Zivilisationsprozess 3), Hildesheim/Zurich/New York 2012; Wilhelm Otto Keller, Hexer und Hexen in Miltenberg und der Cent Bürgstadt, "Man soll sie dehnen, bis die Sonn' durch sie scheint!,” Miltenberg 1989; Traudl Kleefeld/Hans Gräser/Gernot Stepper, Hexenverfolgung im Markgraftum Brandenburg-Ansbach und in der Herrschaft Sugenheim (Mittelfränkische Studien 15), Ansbach 2001; Susanne Kleinöder-Strobel, Die Verfolgung von Zauberei und Hexerei in den fränkischen Markgraftümern im 16. Jahrhundert (Spätmittelalter und Reformation, N.R. 20), Tübingen 2002, esp. 148-202; Fritz Kuisl, Die Hexen von Werdenfels. Hexenwahn im Werdenfelser Land, Garmisch-Partenkirchen 2002, 43-60; Robert Meier, Strafjustiz auf dem Land. Die Tätigkeit der Zent Remlingen in der Zeit des Fürstbischofs Julius Echter mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Hexenprozesse, in: Mainfränkisches Jahrbuch 67 (2015), 143-166; idem, Die Hexenprozesse in der Würzburger Zent Gerolzhofen 1616-1618, in: Mainfränkisches Jahrbuch 69 (2017), 365-384; Elmar Weiß, Die Hexenprozesse im Hochstift Würzburg, in: Peter Kolb/Ernst-Günter Krenig (eds.), Unterfränkische Geschichte, vol. 3, Vom Beginn des konfessionellen Zeitalters bis zum Ende des Dreißigjährigen Krieges, Würzburg 1995, 327-361.
References
- Rainer Beck, Mäuselmacher oder die Imagination des Bösen, München 2011.
- Wolfgang Behringer, Hexenverfolgung in Bayern. Volksmagie, Glaubenseifer und Staatsräson in der Frühen Neuzeit, München 3. Auflage 1997.
- Wolfgang Behringer, Hexen. Glaube, Verfolgung, Vermarktung, München 1998.
- Wolfgang Behringer, Hexen und Hexenprozesse in Deutschland, München 2006.
- Wolfgang Behringer, Kulturgeschichte des Klimas. Von der Eiszeit bis zur globalen Erwärmung, München 2007.
- Wolfgang Behringer, Hexenprozess und Modernisierung, in: Johannes Dillinger (Hg.), Hexenprozess und Staatsbildung (Hexenforschung 12), 321–335.
- Wolfgang Behringer/Claudia Opitz-Belakhal (Hg.), Hexenkinder – Kinderbanden – Straßenkinder (Hexenforschung 15), Bielefeld 2016.
- Emanuel Braun u.a. (Hg.), Hexenverfolgung im Bistum Eichstätt. Symposium des Eichstätter Diözesangeschichtsvereins am 12./13. Oktober 2018 in Eichstätt (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Diözese Eichstätt 2), St. Ottilien 2020.
- Christoph Daxelmüller, Aberglaube, Hexenzauber, Höllenängste – Eine Geschichte der Magie, München 1996.
- Johannes Dillinger, Magical Treasure Hunting in Europe and North America. A History, Basingstoke 2012.
- Johannes Dillinger, Kinder im Hexenprozess. Magie und Kindheit in der Frühen Neuzeit, Stuttgart 2013.
- Britta Gehm, Die Hexenverfolgung im Hochstift Bamberg und das Eingreifen des Reichshofrates zu ihrer Beendigung (Rechtsgeschichte und Zivilisationsprozess 3), Hildesheim/Zürich/New York 2012.
- Carlo Ginzburg, Hexensabbat. Entzifferung einer nächtlichen Geschichte, Berlin 1990.
- Alexandra Haas, Hexen und Herrschaftspoltitik. Die Reichsgrafen von Oettingen und ihr Umgang mit den Hexenprozessen im Vergleich (Hexenforschung 17), Bielefeld 2018.
- Johannes Hasselbeck/Robert Zink, „So wirdt die gantze Burgerschafft verbrendt ...“. Der Brief des Bamberger Bürgermeisters Johannes Junius aus dem Hexengefängnis 1628, Bamberg 2013.
- Eva Labouvie, Zauberei und Hexenwerk. Ländlicher Hexenglaube in der frühen Neuzeit, Frankfurt am Main 1991.
- Brian P. Levack, Hexenjagd. Die Geschichte der Hexenverfolgungen in Europa, München 1995.
- Brian P. Levack (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, Oxford 2014.
- Sönke Lorenz (Hg.), Hexen und Hexenverfolgung im deutschen Südwesten. Katalog und Ausstellung. Bd. 2, Ostfildern 1994.
- Markus Mergenthaler/Margarete Klein-Pfeuffer (Hg.), Hexenwahn in Franken, Dettelbach 2014.
- Friedrich Merzbacher, Die Hexenprozesse in Franken, München 1957.
- Kurt Rau, Augsburger Kinderhexenprozesse 1625-1730, Wien/Köln/Weimar 2006.
- Lyndal Roper, Hexenwahn. Geschichte einer Verfolgung, München 2007.
- Walter Rummel/Rita Voltmer, Hexen und Hexenverfolgung in der Frühen Neuzeit, Darmstadt 2012.
- Burghard Schmanck (Bearb.), Dämonenglaube und Zauberei im Jahre 1625. Die „Hexenpredigten“ des Bamberger Bischofs Friedrich Förner, Nordhausen 2015.
- Georg Schwaiger (Hg.), Teufelsglaube und Hexenprozesse, München 4. Auflage 1999.
- Harald Schwillus, Kleriker im Hexenprozeß. Geistliche Opfer der Hexenprozesse des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts in Deutschland (Forschungen zur fränkischen Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte, 16), Würzburg 1992.
- Rita Voltmer, Hexen. Wissen was stimmt, Freiburg 2008.
- Robert Walinski-Kiehl, Witch-Hunting and State-Building in the Bishoprics of Bamberg and Würzburg (c. 1570–1630), in: Johannes Dillinger/Jürgen Michael Schmidt/Dieter R. Bauer (Hg.), Hexenprozess und Staatsbildung. Witch-Trials and State-Building (Hexenforschung 12), Bielefeld 2008, 245–264.
- Elmar Weiß, Die Hexenprozesse im Hochstift Würzburg, in: Kolb, Peter/Krenig, Ernst-Günter (Hg.), Unterfränkische Geschichte. Bd. 3, Vom Beginn des konfessionellen Zeitalters bis zum Ende des Dreißigjährigen Krieges, Würzburg 1995, 327–361.
- Elmar Weiß, Würzburger Kleriker als Angeklagte in Hexenprozessen in den Jahren 1626–1630, in: Mainfränkisches Jahrbuch für Geschichte und Kunst 40 (1988), 70–94.
External Links
- Regionalgeschichte.net: Witch trials in Kurmainz
- hexen-franken.de
- Arbeitskreis interdisziplinäre Hexenforschung (Working group on interdisciplinary witchcraft research)
- historicum.net: Witchcraft research
Further Research
- Keyword search in the online catalogue of the Bibliotheksverbund Bayern (Library Network Bavaria)
- Keyword search in bavarikon
Related Articles
- Gerichtsverfahren (Spätmittelalter/Frühe Neuzeit)
- Oettingen, Grafen/Fürsten von
- Bambergische Halsgerichtsordnung
Cite
Andreas Flurschütz da Cruz, Persecution of witches, published 20 January 2022, English version published 25 February 2025; in: Historisches Lexikon Bayerns, URL: <https://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/EN:Persecution_of_witches> (17.03.2025)