I am an absolute enthusiast for werewolves. It’s a passion that’s hard to articulate. The depth of my fascination fuels my work, yet it pains me to see werewolves consistently misrepresented in media. Even more troubling is how genuine werewolf legends are fading, overshadowed by misinterpreted and diluted versions.
This is truly my calling.
Prepare yourself; this is the most extensive exploration of werewolf lore I’ve undertaken to date. It’s essential to set the record straight, so please bear with the length!
The Howling, a movie influential in shaping modern werewolf perceptions, often misaligned with figures like Peter Stubbe.
Recently, while preparing a poll for my patrons to select the next werewolf fact topic – a shift towards in-depth analyses of specific werewolf legends – an idea struck me. Why not research the most widely known werewolf legends to gauge public familiarity and interest? Two options were already in mind: “Bisclavret” and “Peter Stubbe (and the misconception of his tale as a werewolf legend).”
However, my research yielded frustrating results.
The poll was shelved. It became clear that dispelling myths surrounding werewolf legends – such as the fabricated “wulver” and the miscategorization of the Beast of Gévaudan – was paramount.
It’s crucial to note that I have previously addressed this issue briefly, highlighting the pervasive misrepresentation of werewolf lore. The mischaracterization of Peter Stubbe’s story is a significant concern within werewolf studies. It’s imperative to rectify this false narrative and challenge the amateur interpretations of a legend with a well-documented historical basis. My book, The Werewolf: Past and Future, delves into this in greater detail, underscoring the problematic elevation of Stubbe’s narrative to a “famous” werewolf legend.
This article aims to provide a more comprehensive analysis, emphasizing that Peter Stubbe was never historically known as “The Werewolf of Bedburg” and, more crucially, was never even identified as a “werewolf” in primary historical accounts.
In examining werewolf legends, it’s important to acknowledge that not all figures we now categorize as “werewolves” were explicitly termed as such at the time. Folklore and mythology often lack the clear-cut taxonomies we seek today.
However, Peter Stubbe’s case emerges from a period when the term “werewolf” was indeed in use, and distinctions were being drawn, particularly by the Catholic Church, between “werewolves” and “sorcerers.” These terms carried specific and separate meanings. This distinction sets later werewolf trials apart from earlier legends, including Greek myths, which, while formative to werewolf concepts, predate the consistent use of the term “werewolf.” For a deeper understanding, refer to my post, “What Is a Werewolf?.”
Let’s now explore the reasons why Peter Stubbe’s story, much like the misconstrued Beast of Gévaudan, is not a werewolf legend at all.
Let’s examine the historical account itself in detail. All quotes are sourced from Montague Summers’ The Werewolf in Lore and Legend, specifically pages 253-259 of the 2012 Martino Publishing edition.
Summers introduces Stubbe’s case as “one of the most famous of all German werewolf trials” (253), a statement immediately problematic as it misrepresents the trial’s nature – it was a sorcerer’s trial, not a werewolf’s. Summers notes the varied spellings of Stubbe’s name: “Peter Stump (or Stumpf, Stube, Stubbe, Stub, as the name is indifferently spelled–and there are other variants)” (253). For consistency, I will use “Stubbe.”
Peter Stubbe was executed in Bedburg, near Cologne, on March 31, 1590. This event, in Summers’ words, “caused an immense sensation” (253) and has since been referenced in numerous popular works. A pamphlet detailing Stubbe’s deeds and execution is included in Summers’ book, which he claims to “reproduce… in full” (253). This claim seems accurate, as the account remains devoid of any explicit werewolf terminology.
The pamphlet begins (Summers, 253):
A true Discourse.Declaring the damnable lifeand death of one Stubbe Peeter, a mostwicked Sorcerer, who in the likenes of aWoolfe, committed many murders, continuing thisdiuelish [devilish] practise 25. yeeres [years], killing and de-uouring [devouring] Men, Woomen, andChildren.Who for the same fact was ta-ken and executed on the 31. of Octoberlast past in the Towne of Bedburneer the Cittie of Collinin Germany.
Note the designation: “Sorcerer.” The account continues on the next page, opening with “Stubbe, Peeter, being a most / wicked Sorcerer” (254).
Sorcerer and sorcery – where is the “werewolf” accusation? Stubbe is never once called a werewolf, nor is he accused of “werewolfery,” a term in contemporary use.
The retroactive labeling of Stubbe as a “werewolf” by scholars stems from the claim that he transformed into a wolf. However, contemporary accounts consistently refer to him as a sorcerer. For example, the pamphlet speaks of “the great matters which the accursed practise of Sorcery” (254). He is even called a “hellhound” (254), but never a werewolf. The narrative describes Stubbe’s lifelong “Damnable desire of magick … and sorcery” (254), intensifying from age twelve. Later, he purportedly made a pact with the Devil:
The Deuill [Devil/Satan] who hath a readye eare to listen to the lewde motions of cursed men, promised to give vnto him whatsoeuer his hart desired during his mortall life : wherupon this vilde wrtech neither desired riches nor promotion, nor was his fancy satisfied with any externall or outward pleasure, but hauing a tirannous hart, and a most cruell blody minde, he only requested that at his plesure he might woork his mallice on men, Women, and children, in the shape of some beast, wherby he might liue without dread or danger of life, and vnknowen to be the executor of any bloody enterprise, which he meant to commit (254)
Stubbe’s request was for “the shape of some beast,” not specifically a werewolf. The Devil’s response:
[The Devil] gaue until him a girdle which being put about him, he was straight transfourmed into the likenes of a greedy deuouring Woolf, strong and mighty, with eyes great and large, which in the night sparkeled like vnto brandes of fire, a mouth great and wide, with most sharpe and cruell teeth, A huge body, and mightye pawes : And no sooner should he put off the same girdle, but presently he should appeere in his former shape, according to the proportion of a man, as if he had neuer beene changed (255)
The form was a wolf, chosen by the Devil, not specifically requested by Stubbe, whose depraved desires could have been fulfilled by transformation into any animal.
While certain elements of Stubbe’s story echo other accounts of shapeshifting – like Jean Grenier’s case from the same era, or older tales involving animal skins or magical salves – the crucial distinction lies in the contemporary understanding and labeling.
During this period, both werewolves and sorcerers were recognized categories. Stubbe was consistently labeled a sorcerer, not a werewolf. His narrative lacks key elements common to werewolf legends of the time, such as involuntary transformation or loss of control. Stubbe’s actions were deliberate, his transformations willed. His animal form could have been any beast – a cat, bear, or other creature – underscoring that he was a sorcerer employing shapeshifting, not inherently a werewolf.
Stubbe committed atrocities “in the shape of a Woolfe” (255), preying on “Maide, Wife, or childe,” raping and murdering them “in his Wooluishe [wolfish] likenes” (255). This narrative echoes aspects of The Howling, unfortunately permeating popular culture. Historically, werewolves were not associated with sexual crimes prior to the retroactive werewolf label assigned to Stubbe.
The account emphasizes Stubbe’s bestial depravity, detailing his consumption of humans, babies, lambs, and other animals, raw and bloody, “as if he had beene a naturall Woolfe indeed, so that all men mistrusted nothing lesse than this his diuelish Sorcerie” (255). Again, the emphasis remains on sorcery, not lycanthropy or werewolfery. This disturbing narrative, inappropriately linked to werewolves, was never intended to be a werewolf legend, and its association with werewolf lore is a scholarly misstep.
The account further details incestuous acts and offspring, further diverging from typical werewolf narratives. Yet, the descriptions consistently use phrases like “likenes of a Woolfe” (256), “transformed man” (257), “light footed Woolfe” (257), and “greedy & cruel Woolfe” (257), reinforcing the wolf form as a disguise, not an inherent identity.
Stubbe’s capture occurred when he was observed reverting to human form after removing the demonic girdle. He confessed, stating he “by Sorcery he procured of the Deuill a Girdle, which beeing put on, he forthwith became a Woolfe” (258).
His brutal execution is described in detail: “first to haue his body laide on a wheele, and with red hotte burning pincers in ten seueral places to haue the flesh puld off from the bones, after that, his legges and Armes to be broken with a wooddenn Axe or Hatchet, afterward to haue his head strook from his body, then to haue his carkasse burnde to Ashes” (259).
The account concludes (259):
Thus Gentle Reader haue I set down the true discourse of this wicked man Stub Peeter, which I desire to be a warning to all Sorcerers and Witches, which vnlawfully followe their owne diuelish imagination to the vtter ruine and destruction of their soules eternally, from which wicked and damnable practice, I beseech God keepe all good men, and from the crueltye of their wicked hartes. Amen.
The warning is directed to “Sorcerers and Witches,” not werewolves.
It is crucial to reiterate that Stubbe’s trial occurred during a period concurrent with other werewolf trials. In those cases, the accused were explicitly labeled “werewolves.” However, Stubbe was consistently termed a “sorcerer,” with careful avoidance of werewolf terminology. He was described as “wolf-shaped” and a “sorcerer,” consistently “sorcerer,” never “werewolf.”
Around the same time, accusations of “werewolfery” and “being a werewolf” were documented. For instance, a decree from the parliament of Franche-Comté in December 1573 (prior to Stubbe’s trial), as cited by Matthew Beresford in The White Devil (p. 146), called for:
those who are abiding or dwelling in said places … to assemble with pikes, halberds, arquebuses, and sticks, to chase and pursue the said were-wolf in every place where they may find or seize him
Yet, Stubbe was never accused of “werewolfery” or “being a werewolf,” but repeatedly of “taking a wolf shape,” “sorcery,” and being a “sorcerer.”
This distinction is vital. Werewolves and sorcerers were distinct categories. I may elaborate on this distinction in a future post, but it’s touched upon in previous articles, such as “What Is and Isn’t a Werewolf?” and “Werewolves Have Tails?” and others linked earlier.
Why, then, is Peter Stubbe so often labeled a “werewolf”? Is it simply due to his wolf transformation, a superficial reading that disregards crucial details? Partially.
One of the earliest sources to mischaracterize Stubbe as a werewolf is Richard Verstegan in Restitution of Decayed Intelligence (1605, pp. 236-237).
Verstegan’s definition of “werewolf” is as follows:
Were – wulf . This name remayneth Aill knowne in the Teutonic , and is as much to ſay , as mans wolfe ; the Greeke expreſſing the very like , in Lycanthropos .
Ortelius not knowing what Wwere ſignifiech , becaufe in the Netherlands , it is now cleame out of rfe , except thus compoſed with WWolfe , doch miſ – interpret it ac cording to his fancy .
He correctly identifies werewolves as “man-wolves” and references the Greek term “lycanthropos.” However, he then ironically proceeds to “misinterpret” werewolves himself in the subsequent paragraph:
[werewolves] are certayne Sorcerers , who ha uing annoynted their bodies , with an Oyntment which they make by the inſtinct of the Diuell : And putting on a cercayne Inchaunced Girdle , doe not onely voto the view of others , ſceine as Wolues , but to their owne thin king haue boch che Shape and Nature of Wolues , ſo long as they weare the fayd Girdle . And they doc diſpoſe them felues as very wolues , in wourrying and killing , and moft of Humane Cicatures .
Of ſuch , ſundry haue beene takon , and executed in ſun dry parts of Germany , and the Netherlands . One Peter Stump , for beeing a were , Wolfe , and hauing killed thirteene Children , two VVomen , and one Mao ; was as Beibur , not farre from Cullen , in the yeare 1589 put vnco a very cerrible Death . The Ach of diucrs partes of his bom dy was pulled out with hot iron tongs , his armes , thighes , and legges broken on a Wheele , and his body laſtly burnt . Hee dyed with very great remorſe , deſiring that his body might not be ſpared from any Torment , fo his Coule might be ſaued .
Verstegan conflates werewolves and sorcerers, blurring the clear distinction of the time. He equates werewolves with sorcerers and explicitly labels Stubbe a “were-Wolfe.” This misrepresentation has had a lasting, detrimental impact on subsequent scholarship, a disservice compounded by figures like Montague Summers, who, despite access to primary accounts, perpetuated the confusion. Verstegan, while a scholar, appears to have lacked specific interest in or deep understanding of werewolf lore, yet his assertion that Stubbe was a werewolf has unfortunately resonated through history.
Further illustrating the confusion, while today Stubbe is often called the “Werewolf of Bedburg,” Adam Douglas, in The Beast Within: A History of the Werewolf (p. 162), refers to him as “the werewolf of Cologne” (Bedburg being near Cologne). This inconsistency, coupled with the acknowledgement, even by those who call him a werewolf, that primary sources never use the term, reveals the extent of the mischaracterization.
Matthew Beresford also contributes to this misrepresentation in The White Devil, stating (pp. 146-147) that Stubbe was “convicted of being a werewolf,” which is factually incorrect. He was convicted of sorcery. Beresford’s own source quotations, like others, avoid the term “werewolf.”
Even Montague Summers, who published the primary account of Stubbe’s trial in The Werewolf in Lore and Legend (or The Werewolf), refers to “[o]ne of the most famous of all German werewolf trials was that of Peter [Stubbe]” (Summers, 253). Despite presenting evidence contradicting this label within his own book and elsewhere in his works, Summers still uses the term “werewolf” to describe Stubbe.
While Summers’ work in preserving primary source material is invaluable, his interpretations and consistency are not always reliable. His work, and indeed all scholarship, should be approached with critical analysis. Without Summers, however, we might lack the very primary accounts, like Stubbe’s pamphlet, that allow us to understand that he was never contemporaneously labeled a werewolf.
In short:
tl;dr: Peter Stubbe was never called a “werewolf” in his own time. Contemporary accounts, including the pamphlet published in the year of his execution, consistently refer to him as a “sorcerer” who took on the “likeness of a wolf,” but never as a “werewolf” or using terms associated with “werewolfery.”
The distinction between a werewolf and a sorcerer is crucial, not a mere semantic quibble. Equating them fundamentally distorts the study of werewolf legends and negatively impacts werewolf portrayals in popular culture. It is a misconception rooted in a misreading of historical accounts, folklore, and legend, perpetuated by academia’s penchant for novel, even if inaccurate, interpretations. Claiming Stubbe was a werewolf is not a “new argument”; it is simply wrong.
During this historical period, a clear distinction existed between “werewolf” and “sorcerer.” This is not a matter of anachronistic terminology, but a recognition of contemporary categorization. Ignoring this distinction undermines the study of specific legends, historical context, language, and cultural understanding.
Peter Stubbe’s story is a sorcery legend, not a werewolf legend. It concerns demonic magic and shapeshifting sorcery.
While overlaps between werewolf and sorcerer narratives may exist, and deserve exploration in future discussions, it is paramount to acknowledge the absence of “werewolf” or “werewolfery” terminology in contemporary accounts of Stubbe. The terminology was in use at the time, yet deliberately avoided in his case.
It is vital to prevent the conflation of Stubbe’s sorcery with werewolf legends. To reiterate a point from a previous post: Peter Stubbe became entangled in the broader discourse of “werewolf trials,” alongside cases like Jean Grenier, who was accused of “werewolfery” and “sorcery” – importantly, as distinct accusations. Grenier, unlike Stubbe, was deemed mentally unsound and confined to a monastery, reflecting the association of werewolves with insanity in the late medieval and early modern periods.
Regrettably, Peter Stubbe, the sorcerer, has become, through misinterpretation, a primary, though inaccurate, source for modern horror werewolf tropes: simplistic, flesh-hungry (in all senses) monsters.
This misrepresentation is a disservice to genuine werewolf lore. Stubbe could have transformed into any animal; his wolf form, chosen by demonic agency, led to his erroneous categorization as a “werewolf” by later scholars, overshadowing his contemporary designation as a sorcerer.
(If you appreciate this exploration of werewolf folklore, please explore my other work and consider supporting me on Patreon! Your support makes a significant difference.
Patreon — Wulfgard — Werewolf Fact Masterlist — Twitter — Vampire Fact Masterlist — Tumblr )
