Draft Conference Paper - Inter

One decapitation three meanings. Social diversity in
understanding the function of punishment
Stanisław Witecki
Abstract
What is a punishment? I claim that this question does not have an universal
answer. As all human social constructions, its nature is culture specific. Moreover,
even within cultures, the meaning and function of a penalty may be different
according to various social groups. Therefore researchers should always focus on a
particular milieu and look for variety among its members.
Adhering to these guidelines I have analysed the meanings and functions of
punishment for the crime of witchcraft in eighteenth century Lesser Poland. I used
a micro-historical case study, focusing on the trial of Oryna Pawliszanka, who was
decapitated in the little town of Tylicz in 1763. I have made distinction between
three different views on this particular death sentence, relative to the three players
of a juridical social game: the judges, the accusers and the offender. To understand
their behaviours, I analysed both their common magical mentality, and distinct
position they had within their social structure. I found three different factors
essential in understanding punishment: knowledge related to the ability to read,
dependence or lack of dependence on higher powers and shape the of experiences
preceding the trial.
Using this method allowed me to come to the following conclusions. For
judges, Pawliszanka‟s fault was idolatry and the penalty‟s function was to exclude
person whose behaviour may trigger the wrath of God. Accusers found Oryna
guilty of committing an ordinary but condemnable act separated in time and/or
space from its harmful result. The function of decapitating her was to get rid of the
dangerous malefactor threatening their health and life and that of their animals.
Last but not least Oryna, refused to accept her sin, therefore the penalty for her was
an injustice but also salvation from long lasting social marginalization and
alienation.
Key Words: witchcraft, punishment, meaning, function, social diversity
*****
1. Introduction
I find all attempts to create a general theory of punishment to be wrong. If we
ask questions such as “Are punishments to deter crime or to control deviance?” and
we try to choose one of these alternatives, we will always overlook some important
aspects of this social phenomenon.
This mistake is related to choosing one, and only one, theoretical perspective.
However, punishment is both a strategy adopted by social players to achieve
2
One decapitation three meanings
__________________________________________________________________
practical goals and a social ritual performed according to cultural rules. Thus it can
by analysed in terms of its functionality in the social games, 1 and in terms of its
meaning depending on beliefs. Moreover punishment can be perceived as an
episode in individual biographies, and analysed in terms of life experiences. Last
but not least, there certainly are more aspects of punishment which can by analysed
using different theories.
Moreover various theories do not contradict each other because each one is
dedicated to punishment in a particular culture. Specific theories explain particular
cases, and they should not be interchanged in order to avoid inadequate
assumptions. If researchers ignore this rule they risk either constructing a theory so
general that unable to explain anything or the rapid rejection of their argument by
those who can provide an example that does not fit it. The particularity of
punishment (function, meaning, etc.) does not only refer to big cultural systems but
also to groups or even individual perspectives within a culture. Taking this
subjectivity into account it turns out that one case of punishment can be understood
with few theories, each fitting to other players.
However this approach does not mean that I do not see the possibility of
discovering an objective function of particular punishments. I think that besides the
diverse subjective perspectives, all punishments have their consequences,
independent from the players‟ aims and understanding. These results can certainly
be examined.
From the above notions, my method of analysing the diversity in the
understanding of punishment in eighteen century Lesser-Poland emerged. I used a
micro-historical case study, as not to overgeneralise and to understand the culture
rules deeply.2 I have distinguished three main factors which influenced the
different understandings of punishment: mentality, particular knowledge, and
interests dependent on social status and previous life experiences. The construction
of this paper is based on these factors. In the three chapters I examine the impact
they had on the three main players. In the conclusions I demonstrate the difference
between all the perspectives as they were above mentioned: function, meaning, and
significance within the biographies. Moreover I show what kind of the unintended
results they had.
2. Case study
I examined the decapitation of Oryna Pawliszanka in 1763 in the little town of
Tylicz in Lesser-Poland.3 She was found guilty of witchcraft, the verdict included:
profanation of the Eucharist and harming local craftsmen‟s and a Greek Catholic
priest‟s cattle. Her sin was supported by long the lasting process of gaining the
reputation of a witch.4
Three players were engaged in her punishment. The judges form nearby
Muszyna, whose role was to give the fairest verdict. The craftsmen and priest who
were convinced of her guilt. And last but not least Pawliszanka, who until the end
Stanisław Witecki
3
__________________________________________________________________
of her life defended her innocence. There was also a fourth player, the crowd of
citizens form Tylicz, but their interpretation of punishment corresponded to that of
the three other players.
It is obvious that all of the players had different aims, because they were
players in the non-zero game. But it is not the only factor which made them
different. They were also spread across various social classes. 5 Pawliszanka was at
the bottom of the town‟s hierarchy, the craftsmen were members of the local elite,
and the Judges were from outside the community. The players were also
differentiated by their mentality. Pawliszanka and her accusers were illiterate,
brought up in the magical culture, barely influenced by the religious concepts. The
judges were literate. By reading municipal law and having contact with the outside
world, including the minister of the lord of Muszyna and Tylicz - the bishop of
Cracow, they knew of the religious interpretation of certain facts. Finally during
the long process of gaining the reputation of a witch, Pawliszanka and her accusers
gained increasingly contradictive knowledge and interpretations of events which
were to be the basis of later accusations.
3. Mentality
The aspect of mentality which influenced the punishment‟s meaning were the
beliefs about witchcraft. The players who were members of magical culture, had a
very specific understanding of this crime, completely different than those emerging
form popular modern intuitions.
Hardly any of their actions were not magical, so they could not distinguish
them by their magicality.6 Thus I have reconstructed the Tyliczan definition of
witchcraft. It does not contain magic as a differentia specifica.7 Sorcery was 1) an
condemned act 2) separated in time and /or space from its 3) harmful effect. This
definition implies that sorcery was a completely normal but very dangerous
offence. It could have been done by anybody without any special ability, and
moreover with little chance of being caught.
However this definition, including only the necessary and the sufficient
features, does not indicate the other, in this case, more important prototypical
qualities.8 These were: the fact that witchcraft was rarely committed by men, and
the fact that it was almost always detrimental to the health of neighbours and their
cattle.
On the other hand, when casting a sentence, judges used a very different
definition. In their opinion sorcery was above all idolatry.9 Of course they also
took into consideration that it was the action that caused damages to the cattle‟s
health. But they believed that this effect was obtained with the help of the devil.
Thus the witch was not only guilty a crime against the people but also against God.
What is more they believed that the sorcery performed by one person could spread
through the community and ultimately induce the wrath of God.
4
One decapitation three meanings
__________________________________________________________________
From these differences in the definition of sorcery emerged differences in the
meaning of punishment. For the craftsmen it was the elimination of a personal
enemy, performed to avoid her further acts of violence against their cattle‟s health.
For the judges it was the elimination of “the mangy sheep infecting the others” and
provoking God‟s interventions. The last of players - Pawliszanka had none of these
understandings, but her singularity did not emerge from a different mentality (she
had a magical one, exactly like the craftsmen) but from having a specific set of
concrete information.
4. Possession of particular information
The function of the punishment depended on the understanding of the crime,
but its perception also derived from the conviction of the guilt or the innocence of
the accused. The opinion on this topic varied according to the interpretation of
Pawliszanka‟s actions, and these depended on the possessed information.
Some of her actions were new to the community, thus the lack of information
about them made the witnesses unable to recognise their intentionally harmless
function.10 The other actions were strongly ambiguous and were interpreted as
harmful according the information previously possessed about her reputation. 11
Despite the fact, that they were contrary to the intentions of the accused. But one
event, crucial for the accusers, due to the informational imbalance, was interpreted
in the completely opposite way.
When the craftsman Tomasz Wojkowski‟s cattle suffered, he asked the local
monks for help. They convinced him to blame the witch and gave him a method of
catching her. He used hallowed herb given by them to cense his cottage in order to
call the witch. The first person who came inside was Pawliszanka. For Wojkowski
it was irrefutable evidence of her guilt. For Pawliszanka, of course, this action was
nothing more than coincidence.
The player whose role it was to give a verdict, has the most varied information.
Judges know the testimonies‟ of both the accusers and the accused and they could
not believe the proof obtained by the monk‟s method as strongly as the craftsmen.
Moreover during the trial torture, which usually was a very effective method of
inquiry, had disappointed them. In spite the other convincing proofs, they had to
pass verdict without the necessary one - Pawliszanka‟s confession,12 basing it
mostly on her well established reputation.
All of these differences caused completely different perceptions of the
punishment. For the craftsmen it was undoubtedly the righteous verdict for the
dangerous and notorious criminalist, an effective way of deterring further damages.
For the judges it was a very uncertain verdict, and the only thing they could be sure
of was the elimination of a social deviance. For Pawliszanka the punishment was
nothing other than an injustice. She not only felt innocent of the particular
accusations, but from her perspective, her former beliefs in the various practices of
sorcery, the method of its detecting, and the rules of the trials could be doubted.
Stanisław Witecki
5
__________________________________________________________________
4. Diversity in interests
As was mentioned before, the players‟ perception of the punishment was
dependent on their different interests including their place in the social class and
their previous experiences. However all of these various circumstances ultimately
made the analysed punishment equally important for all of them.
To understand how crucial it was for the victims of sorcery, we must take their
source of income into consideration. In spite of the fact that they were members of
the local elite, had a craft and participated in local government, they made a living
mostly from farming and especially from animal husbandry. 13 Thus every threat on
their cow‟s health and life may have had a serious consequence on their welfare.
An example may be the life of Pawliszanka herself who in the beginning had her
own homestead, but as a result of the cow‟s illness she fell to the position of a
servant.
The more and more craftsmen‟s cattle suffered, so it was an increasingly
serious problem for whole group. And that problem in their opinion could only be
solved by deterring the responsible criminalist. For them, punishment of
Pawliszanka was the only way to rescue their way of life and social position. If we
also notice that certainty about Pawliszanka‟s guilt was based on the high moral
authority of the clergy,14 we will also see that the punishment for them was the
only possible solution. The lack of a conviction would undermine their vision of
the world.
For the judges punishment was so significant because of its uniqueness. It was
the only sorcery trial conducted in their lifetime which could not have been easily
classified as a slander.15 On the other hand it was an exceptional criminal case
because the accused did not confess his/her guilt during torture. These alone were
sufficient to assess the punishment, announced in this trial, as the most difficult
decision in their lives.
If we add the information that the judges were responsible to the Bishop‟s
minister their situation seems to have been even more difficult. 16 It was a time
when the Polish Roman Catholic episcopate condemned witch trials. 17 Judges
probably knew this, since it was clear for the local Greek Catholic priest. If they
really did, not only was the guilt of the accused uncertain but the legality and
morality of the trial itself was not clear. Their decision seems even more difficult if
we take into consideration that it was believed that the judges‟ sentences were
judged by the God.18
The severity of the punishment for the Pawliszanka is undoubted. She was to
lose her life, in her opinion completely unjustly. Moreover just before the
decapitation, she was publicly announced to be a witch, which was ultimate
confirmation of the long lasting process of gaining a criminal identity. The
punishment for her was not only unjust but also inconceivable. Before the trial and
proceeding events she had no reason for not believing in the concept of sorcery, in
monks‟ and priests‟ authority and in judicial righteousness. The verdict might have
6
One decapitation three meanings
__________________________________________________________________
ruined her vision of the world. It‟s only speculation but her feeling might have
been similar to that of Silas Marner from the George Eliot novel.19
On the other hand if she didn‟t lose her belief in the rules of the world the
verdict might have convinced her that she was a witch. In that case, though
difficult to imagine but possible, the punishment might have been a salvation from
unbearable social and self-perception.
4. Conclusions
The function of this particular punishment was certainly to deter the crime. The
accusers – the craftsmen – found Pawliszanka guilty of committing an ordinary but
condemnable act separated in time and/or space from its harmful result. The
function of decapitating her was to get rid of the dangerous malefactor threatening
their health and life and that of their animals. Capital punishment was for them the
only righteous and conceivable decision the judges could have made.
For them however, Pawliszanka‟s fault was not harming cattle but idolatry, a
serious offence against not only the people but also God. Thus the penalty‟s
function was to exclude the person whose behavior might have triggered the wrath
of God and infect the other members of the community with sin. Its purpose was
not to save the particular enemies of the witch but to rescue the whole community.
Unfortunately for the judges, they could not be sure that the accused was guilty of
witchcraft, nor of the validity of witchcraft trials themselves. They had to make the
decision independently but they were not independent at all. They could not be
sure of the righteousness of their actions, and the trial was an ordeal for them.
Last but not least, Pawliszanka refused to accept her sin to the bitter end,
therefore the penalty for her was pure injustice. Paradoxically it was also a
salvation from long lasting social marginalization and alienation. Although she
initially shared the view of the world with her accusers, subsequent events of her
life could have undermined her beliefs. She was the only player who could see that
the concept of witchcraft did not work. However, it was on the basis of this
concept that she was eliminated from the community and prevented from further
spreading the disbelief.
I mentioned that in spite of all individual perspectives the punishment had
objective consequences. Indeed, as a result, believed rules of the world have been
confirmed. There is no source that would indicate that judges were punished for
their punishment. Everybody finally agreed with each other, and got rid of the
only one who did not. If so, punishment‟s function was also to control deviance.
Notes
1
In this article I use terminology from the Game Theory applied to social sciences
like in: Agata Komendant, “Przemoc w Szkole w Perspektywie Teorii Gier –
Stanisław Witecki
7
__________________________________________________________________
Nowe Ujęcie Problemu,” in Przemoc – Konteksty Społeczno-kulturowe, ed.
Wiesława Walc, vol. 2, 2007, 29–45, however I do not use it‟s methodology.
2
My understanding of the micro-history is based on: Ewa Domańska,
Mikrohistorie: Spotkania w Międzyświatach (Poznań, 2005).
3
All information referring directly to the analysed course of events are based on
following sources: „Księga Wójtowsko- Ławnicza Tylicza‟ (Archiwum
Państwowe w Krakowie, it. 1805);‟Księga Zapisów i Spraw Miasteczka Tylicza‟
(Archiwum Państwowe w Krakowie, it 257); „Księga Kreskiego Sądu
Wójtowskiego Prawa Rugowego i Podsądkowego‟ (Archiwum Państwowe w
Krakowie Oddział I, depozyt rękopiśmienny100 i 101); Franciszek Piekosiński,
ed., Akta Sądu Kryminalnego Kresu Muszyńskiego 1647-1765 (Kraków, 1889).
4
I analysed this process in detail in post conference publication: Witecki
Stanisław, “Gaining the Reputation of a Witch (an „Other‟). Explanation of the
Social Game,” in Strangers, Aliens and Foreigners (Oxford, 2013).
5
More information about society in Tylicz could be found in: Piotr Rychlewski,
„Ludność Klucza Muszyńskiego w Drugiej Połowie XVIII Wieku‟, Rocznik
Sądecki 28 (2000): 53–54; Feliks Kiryk, „Tylicz. Ze Studiów Nad Miastami i
Miasteczkami w Rejonie Osadnictwa Łemkowskiego w Okresie
Przedrozbiorowym‟, in Łemkowie w Historii i Kulturze Karpat, ed. Jerzy
Czajkowski, vol. 1 (Rzeszów, 1995), 195; Rychlewski, „Ludność Klucza
Muszyńskiego w Drugiej Połowie XVIII Wieku‟, 52–53.
6
Tomasz Wiślicz, Zarobić Na Duszne Zbawienie. Religijność Chłopów
Małopolskich Od Połowy XVI Do Końca XVIII Wieku (Warszawa, 2001), 164–
167.
7
More about usage of definitions in humanities can be found in: Tadeusz
Pawłowski, Tworzenie Pojęć i Definiowanie w Naukach Humanistycznych
(Warszawa, 1978).
8
Using the term “prototype” I refer to the ethno-linguistics theory of cognitive
definition: Jerzy Bartmiński, Językowe Podstawy Obrazu Świata (Lublin, 2007).
9
This interpretation of sorcery is expressed in the Kulm law, on which sentence of
Oryna was based: Irena Malinowska-Kwiatkowska and Janusz Sondel, trans.,
Rewizja Nowomiejska Prawa Chełmińskiego 1580 (1814) Zwana Także Jus
Culmense Emendatum Lub Jus Culmense Polonicum (Toruń, 1993), 150; More
about this: Pilaszek, Procesy o Czary w Polsce w Wiekach XV-XVIII, 127–144.
10
For example Pawliszanka, listening to the new method brought from Hungary by
her sister-in-law, went to a stream away from her cottage at down, to collect
some water before the first bird flew over it. This water should then have been
used to water cattle In order to heal them. Unfortunately this event was
witnessed by the miller‟s wife who mistook it as a well-known piece of sorcery-
8
One decapitation three meanings
__________________________________________________________________
collecting dew onto a cheese-cloth which could mean that Pawliszanka‟s
intention was to hurt the miller‟s cattle
11
For example her walking through the priest‟s cattle was interpreted as the
sorcery.
12
Torture was claimed to be an essential mean of proof: Wacław Uruszczak,
„Proces Czarownicy w Nowym Sączu w 1670 Roku. Z Badań Nad Miejskim
Procesem Karnym Czasów Nowożytnych.‟, in Historia Prawa. Historia Kultury.
Liber Memorialis Vitoldo Maisel Dedicatus, ed. E Borkowska-Bagieńska and I.
H. Olszewski (Poznań, 1994), 193–203; It was used in a half of the trials:
Małgorzata Pilaszek, „W Poszukiwaniu Prawdy. O Działalności Sądów
Kryminalnych w Koronie XVI - XVIII W.‟, Przegląd Historyczny 89, no. z. 3
(1998): 361–368.
13
For example mayor Franciszek Bilicki had cowshed Piekosiński, Akta Sądu
Kryminalnego Kresu Muszyńskiego 1647-1765; Former mayor Jan Chowaniec,
had sheep and was trading the land „Księga Zapisów i Spraw Miasteczka
Tylicza‟, 595, 594, 559.
14
Wiślicz, Zarobić Na Duszne Zbawienie. Religijność Chłopów Małopolskich Od
Połowy XVI Do Końca XVIII Wieku, 88–90.
15
From many eighteen century trials related to the sorcery recorded in Muszynian
sources only the Pawliszanka‟s case ended with the death penalty. The other
accusations were found to be a slander: „Księga Kreskiego Sądu Wójtowskiego
Prawa Rugowego i Podsądkowego‟, dep. rkps. 100: 92, 201; dep. rkps. 101: 255,
260, 265, 267.
16
Frank Kmietowicz, Muszyna, Publikacja 800 Lecia Muszyny 1209-2009 (Nowy
Sącz, 2009), 85–86.
17
Małgorzata Pilaszek, Procesy o Czary w Polsce w Wiekach XV-XVIII (Kraków,
2008), 153–180.
18
Judges stressed in the sentence that Oryna must be killed in order to prevent the
people from the God‟s anger. This idea was compliant to the well-known theory
of Benedict Carpzov: Uruszczak, „Proces Czarownicy w Nowym Sączu w 1670
Roku. Z Badań Nad Miejskim Procesem Karnym Czasów Nowożytnych‟, 194.
19
George Eliot, Silas Marner (London, 1994).
Bibliography
Bartmiński, Jerzy. Językowe Podstawy Obrazu Świata. Lublin, 2007.
Domańska, Ewa. Mikrohistorie: Spotkania w Międzyświatach. Poznań, 2005.
George Eliot. Silas Marner. London, 1994.
Stanisław Witecki
9
__________________________________________________________________
Kiryk, Feliks. „Tylicz. Ze Studiów Nad Miastami i Miasteczkami w Rejonie
Osadnictwa Łemkowskiego w Okresie Przedrozbiorowym.‟ In Łemkowie w
Historii i Kulturze Karpat, edited by Jerzy Czajkowski. Vol. 1. Rzeszów, 1995.
Kmietowicz, Frank. Muszyna, Publikacja 800 Lecia Muszyny 1209-2009. Nowy
Sącz, 2009.
Komendant, Agata. “Przemoc w Szkole w Perspektywie Teorii Gier – Nowe
Ujęcie Problemu.” In Przemoc – Konteksty Społeczno-kulturowe, edited by
Wiesława Walc, 2:29–45, 2007.
„Księga Kreskiego Sądu Wójtowskiego Prawa Rugowego i Podsądkowego.‟
Archiwum Państwowe w Krakowie Oddział I, depozyt rękopiśmienny100 i 101.
„Księga Wójtowsko- Ławnicza Tylicza.‟ Archiwum Państwowe w Krakowie, it.
1805.
„Księga Zapisów i Spraw Miasteczka Tylicza.‟ Archiwum Państwowe w
Krakowie, it 257.
Malinowska-Kwiatkowska, Irena, and Janusz Sondel, trans. Rewizja Nowomiejska
Prawa Chełmińskiego 1580 (1814) Zwana Także Jus Culmense Emendatum Lub
Jus Culmense Polonicum. Toruń, 1993.
Pawłowski, Tadeusz. Tworzenie
Humanistycznych. Warszawa, 1978.
Pojęć
i
Definiowanie
w
Naukach
Piekosiński, Franciszek, ed. Akta Sądu Kryminalnego Kresu Muszyńskiego 16471765. Kraków, 1889.
Pilaszek, Małgorzata. Procesy o Czary w Polsce w Wiekach XV-XVIII. Kraków,
2008.
Rychlewski, Piotr. „Ludność Klucza Muszyńskiego w Drugiej Połowie XVIII
Wieku.‟ Rocznik Sądecki 28 (2000).
Uruszczak, Wacław. „Proces Czarownicy w Nowym Sączu w 1670 Roku. Z Badań
Nad Miejskim Procesem Karnym Czasów Nowożytnych.‟ In Historia Prawa.
Historia Kultury. Liber Memorialis Vitoldo Maisel Dedicatus, edited by E
Borkowska-Bagieńska and I. H. Olszewski, 193–203. Poznań, 1994.
Wiślicz, Tomasz. Zarobić Na Duszne Zbawienie. Religijność Chłopów
Małopolskich Od Połowy XVI Do Końca XVIII Wieku. Warszawa, 2001.
Witecki, Stanisław. “Gaining the Reputation of a Witch (an „Other‟). Explanation
of the Social Game.” In Strangers, Aliens and Foreigners. Oxford, 2013.
10
One decapitation three meanings
__________________________________________________________________
Stanisław Witecki is a student of Interdisciplinary Individual Humanistic Studies
at the Jagiellonian University. He is interested in the early modern popular culture
in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and applying the cultural anthropology
methods in the historical research. Currently his research is devoted to the interestate cultural content transmission.