of Gaulmin (1615) and in the edition of the Greek original by
Boissonade (1837).
[20] “_Diabolus simia Dei est_,” is the startling formula in which the
Middle Age embodied this doctrine and betrayed its source.
[21] For, strictly speaking, it is only to Thomas of Aquino that this
theory can be attributed; but Thomas Aquinas was _par excellence_ the
creator of the scholastic theology. It is he who was sainted for his
wisdom, who has been raised by the Popes to the rank of a fifth Teacher
of the Church (_Doctor ecclesiae_), the only successor of Athanasius
and Ambrose and Jerome and Augustine. How thoroughly he is alone
responsible may be seen by comparing his dicta on this topic with those
of his great master, Albert of Bollstädt (Albertus Magnus), who still
stands fully on the ground of the canon _Episcopi_. These dicta of
Thomas are scattered throughout his works, but were carefully gleaned
by all the earlier writers on witchcraft, and may be found bodily in
their pages; they cite him more than all other authorities together,
save the Bible. Thus, in the midst of his discussion of impediments to
matrimony (in his “Quodlibeta,” x., questio 10, “De maleficiatis”), he
bursts out: “Of witchcraft, however, be it known: that certain have
said that there is no such thing, and that this [idea] proceeded from
infidelity, because they would have it that there are no demons, save
by the imagination of men--inasmuch, that is, as men imagined them,
and, terrified by that imagining, were distressed. But the Catholic
faith teaches, both that there are demons and that by their doings they
can distress men.” ... (“Fides autem catholica vult: et quod daemones
sint et possint eorum operationibus laedere et impedire carnalem
copulam.” I quote from the edition of Nuremberg, 1474.) Of the dogmas
that cluster about the terrible word _incubus_,--not to be uttered
without a blush or heard without a shudder,--let me not speak.
His fellow-Dominicans followed him at once, and gradually brought the
Church to their side, but not without opposition. The Franciscans,
especially, long stood out. Their great summist, Astexanus de Ast,
writing in 1317, will go no whit beyond the canon _Episcopi_. Even
Alfonso de Spina, in 1459, refused to believe in the witch-flight;
and men like Samuel de Cassinis and Franciscus à Victoria carried the
Franciscan protest far into the sixteenth century. But this, of course,
only intensified the Dominican championship of the dogma.
[22] A little later the same Pope issued a general bull (an
_extravagans_) “contra magos magicasque superstitiones.” It may be
found in Eymeric’s “Directorium inquisitorum” (pars ii., qu. 43) or in
Binsfeld’s “De confessionibus maleficorum.” It is undated, but Janus
(Döllinger and Huber) puts it “about 1330.”
[23] It was about 1350 when the inquisitors fortified themselves by
taking the advice of the most eminent jurist of the day, the Italian
professor Bartolo, as to the punishment to be inflicted on the witches.
His opinion is still extant (in Ziletti, “Consilia selecta,” 1577, i.,
8). On the strength of the words of Jesus, “If a man abide not in me
[_i.e._, said Bartolo and the inquisitors, in the Church], he is cast
forth as a branch, ... and men gather them and cast them into the fire,
and they are burned;” he approved their burning alive. (See Janus,
_i.e._, Döllinger and Huber, “The Pope and the Council,” London, 1869,
pp. 254, 255.)
[24] And what wonder, when even a reformer like John Wesley, late in
the enlightened eighteenth century, still thought that “the giving up
of witchcraft is in effect giving up the Bible”? (In his “Journal,”
1768,--cited by Mr. Lecky.)
[25] The book, though existing in sundry MSS. (see Quétif and Échard,
“Script. Ord. Pred.,” and Antonio, “Bibl. Script. Hispan.”), has never
been printed, and I have not seen it; but its attitude may be guessed
from Eymeric’s treatment of the subject in the “Directorium.” The
statement (made by Antonio and others) that he was led to write it by
the denial of his jurisdiction in the case of a certain Barcelonese
Jew, can hardly be true, since the “Directorium” (pars ii., qu. 46)
puts this episode “in the time of Pope Urban V.,” whose papacy began
in 1362. A better explanation is suggested by Mr. Lea, when he tells
us (“The Inquisition of the Middle Ages,” ii., 175) that “the sum of
Eymerich’s activity during his long career is so small that it shows
how little was left of heresy by this time. Occasional Fraticelli
and Waldenses and renegade Jews or Saracens were all that rewarded
the inquisitor, with every now and then some harmless lunatic whose
extravagance unfortunately took a religious turn, or some over-subtle
speculator on the intricacies of dogmatic theology.”
A Paris MS. of Eymeric’s book begins (according to Quétif): “Incipit
prologus in tractatum super daemonum invocatione, an scilicet daemones
invocare sapiat haeresim manifeste, editum et confectum a F. Nicolas
Eymerici ord. FF. Prædic.,” and bears at end its date: “perfectus anno
D[omi]ni MCCCLIX.” The latter may refer only to the MS.; but the book
must of course be at least as old. The title of the work is elsewhere
given as “Contra adoratores et advocatores daemonum”; and the Escurial
catalogue (cited by Antonio) calls it: “De jurisdictione Inquisitorum
in et contra Christianos daemones invocantes.” Eymeric would seem to
have completed or supplemented this by another: “De jurisdictione
ecclesiae et inquisitorum contra infideles daemones invocantes” (see
Quétif and Échard), and it is perhaps the latter that was called forth
by the case of the Barcelona Jew.
[26] “De maleficis et eorum deceptionibus.” This essay was early
detached from the rest of the book and appended to the editions of the
“Witch-Hammer,” and it became an inseparable addition to that work. The
title-page of these reprints always calls Nider an inquisitor, and the
statement has also the high authority of Trithemius. His latest German
biographers deny (as do Quétif and Échard) that there is any evidence
of his having been one. Mr. Lea, however, still thinks that he “seems
sometimes to have acted as inquisitor”; and, in any case, all his
sympathies were with this work of his order. Nider (according to Quétif
and Échard) kept his book in hand for several years, and its various
MSS. are of different dates; but that of 1437 seems to have been its
last revision.
[27] How powerful this argument was to the men of that time may be
inferred from the words of the eminent Italian theological professor
Isolani, who in 1506 published an argument (“Libellus adversus magos,”
etc.) to prove that men cannot be bewitched into taking religious
vows, and who, though a Dominican, was not an inquisitor, and was
by no means prone to superstition. “Querant qui haec vana fictaque
judicaverint processus totis Cristiani imperii finibus apprime notos,
quos virieruditissimi, omnium virtutum genere preclarissimi, reis
narrantibus composuere. His minime assentiant, qui Demonas ... esse
nequaquam opinantur.”
There are not wanting still good people who marvel at what they call
the “agreement” in the testimony of the witches. To such may be
commended the prescribed lists of interrogatories, which from more
than one “Instruction to Judges” are now making their way to light.
And, even where these were not used, leading questions were the rule,
and the victim had little more to do than answer yes or no. Only
here and there in the trials do we find some poor quivering woman
begging her judges to tell her what she must confess. The confession
was a criterion, not of the guilt of the witch, but of the learning
of her inquisitors. It is rather a marvel that there should ever be
disagreement, when the victim not only had such prompters, but must
herself time and again have heard just such confessions read, as the
custom was, to the crowd gathered about the stake.
And if any are puzzled that the confessions should be persisted in
after the torture and in the face of death (which, in countless cases,
they were _not_), they should remember that persistence in confession
was long a condition of that “forbearance of the Court” which suffered
the prisoner to be first strangled or beheaded, instead of being burned
alive. Only the Church _always_ burned alive.
[28] Or Jacquier (Latin, _Jaquerius_ or _Jacquerius_).
[29] _I.e._, On the treading-under-foot of demons. (_Calcatio_, a
mediæval word, means usually threshing, _i.e._, by treading out; but
Jaquier must have had in view its literal sense.) The book has never
been printed, but exists in MS. (according to Quétif and Échard) at
Louvain and elsewhere. A copy at St. Omer is entitled: “De calcatione
malignorum spirituum.” The book begins: “Duo magna incommoda inter
caetera incurrit genus humanum.”
[30] The rod (_flagellum_) was meant to scourge out of God’s temple,
the Church, certain “perverse dogmas and stolid assertions,” to wit:
that witches are victims of delusion. Jaquier tells us himself (pp. 39,
56, of the first printed ed., of 1581) the year in which he writes.
[31] Mr. Lea writes “Alonso,” and I defer to his high authority, though
I have not else met that form. As “Alphonsus à Spina” he is known to
his Latin-writing contemporaries.
[32] In his book itself the name is spelled _Viueti_; but Quétif and
Échard, who know of him from other sources, write Vineti, and the other
may well be a misprint, though Viveti has been adopted by the few
bibliographers who know of the book. The impression is undated; but
Quétif and Échard ascribe it to 1483. V. was inquisitor at Carcassonne
from 1450 to about 1475.
[33] His “Tractatus de magicis artibus ac magorum maleficiis.”
According to the title of an edition described by Hain, it was written
by Basin in 1482 “in suis vesperis,” and the first dated impression
is of Paris, 1483; but it is quite clear from his opening words that
it was an address, on some formal occasion, before a theological
faculty--doubtless at Paris, where Basin was a doctor of theology,--and
there is an undated Paris impression (put first by Hain), which was
very probably printed at once. Basin was a speaker of some note, for we
find him in 1481 (according to Burchard’s “Diarium”) preaching before
the cardinals at Rome.
[34] His “Flagellum maleficorum,” written probably soon after the
middle of the century (he mentions nothing later than 1453), but not
printed till about 1490.
[35] His “Lamiarum sive strigarum opusculum,” printed in 1490. Quétif
and Échard, who know it only in MS., give its title as “De lamiis et
strigibus ad Franciscum Sfortiam Vicecomitem,” which would seem to
prove it written before 1465, since Francesco Sforza died in that
year. I hold in my hand a manuscript of what is perhaps the same, but
is quite as possibly a different treatise by the same author. It is
entitled: “Opusculu_m_ Mag_ist_ri Hieronymi Viceco_m_itis [_i.e._,
Visconti--the inquisitor is said to have been a member of the great
Milanese family of that name] ord_in_is _prae_dica_torum_ i_n_ quo
p_ro_ba_tur_ Lamias e_sse_ h_aer_eticas et no_n_ laborare humore
melancholico.” It is apparently contemporary, and may be the autograph
of its author, though the marginal corrections and annotations are in
differing hands of the same period. It is directed mainly against the
canon _Episcopi_, and shows no knowledge either of witch-bull or of
“Witch-Hammer.” Date it has none. The White Library is indebted for it
to Dr. Hennen, of Düsseldorf, to whom it came from the collection of
the musician Tosi.
[36] Of these I have already mentioned the books of Eymeric and
Jaquier. Mr. Lea (“The Inquisition of the Middle Ages,” iii., 533)
says that when (about 1460) certain witches were arrested at Tournay,
Jean Taincture, a clerk, “wrote an elaborate treatise to prove their
guilt,” which still exists in MS. in the National Library at Brussels.
Mr. Lecky’s statement that the famous Spanish inquisitor-general Thomas
of Torquemada wrote a book on witchcraft must, however, be a confusion
of him with his namesake Antonio, who lived a century later. Still in
MS. is also the “Buch von allerhand verbotenen Künsten, Unglauben und
Zauberey” written about 1455, in a very different spirit--doubtless for
the amusement of his ducal patrons--by the versatile Dr. Hartlieb, of
Munich.
[37] So, at least, (according to Soldan-Heppe) replied Archbishop
Johann of Trier.
[38] Better known by his Latin name of Institor, or Institoris.
[39] The statement, made by nearly all authorities on this subject,
that the “Witch-Hammer” was first printed in 1489, is a manifest error.
True, its first _dated_ edition is of that year. But Hain (“Repertorium
Bibliographicum,” Nos. 9238-9241) chronicles no less than four undated
(and presumably earlier) editions. All of these I have examined. One
alone--that to which Hain wisely gives the first place--lacks both
the Cologne theological faculty’s approval of May, 1487, and the
commendatory letters of Maximilian of Austria, of 6 Nov., 1486, both of
which appear in all other editions, and were not likely to be omitted
when once obtained. The first impression can hardly, therefore, be
of later date than 1486. That it is not earlier is clear from the
evidence of the book itself. It begins with a commentary on the bull of
5 Dec., 1484 (the bull itself is not printed in this first edition),
which must have required a little time to make. That the book was not
completed in the year of its beginning may perhaps be inferred from
the phrase “anno eodem quo hic liber est inchoatus,” used to date a
certain anecdote. That at least a part of it was written in 1486 is
sure from the fact that an incident (the burning of forty-one witches
in a single year by the inquisitor Cumanus) is in one place (pars I.,
qu. 11) said to have happened “last year,” in another (pars II., qu. 1,
cap. ii.) “in the year 1485,” and still again (pars III., qu. 15) “anno
elapso, qui fuit 1485.” 1486, then, was almost unquestionably the year
of its publication. The suggestion of Stanonik (“Allgemeine Deutsche
Biographie,” _s. v._ Krämer) that it may have appeared in the same year
with the bull is therefore untenable (the edition mentioned by Quétif
and Échard, following Fontana, as of “Lugduni, Juntarum, 1484,” was
probably printed in 1584); and 1486 was, almost unquestionably, the
year of its publication. The copy of the _editio princeps_ examined by
me is in the City Library of Trier; the White Library has what seems
the second (Hain, 9239).
[40] “Haeresis est maxima, opera maleficarum non credere.”
[41] In his “History of the rise and influence of the spirit of
rationalism in Europe,” i. It is by all odds the best survey of the
field in English. Admirable in its insight, though less ambitious in
its scope, is also Mr. Lowell’s essay on witchcraft (first published in
the _North American Review_, then reprinted in the first series of his
“Among my books”).
[42] Soldan’s “Geschichte der Hexenprozesse, neu bearbeitet von
Heinrich Heppe,” Stuttgart, 1880.
[43] “Geschichte des Teufels,” Leipzig, 1869.
[44] “Religion und Hexenprozess,” Leipzig, 1888.
[45] Or Molitoris (Müller’s Ulrich?). In his “De lamiis et phitonicis
[pythonicis] mulieribus,” Cologne, 1489.
[46] In his “Parerga juris” (to be found in his “Opera”).
[47] In his “De lamiis” (to be found in Ziletti).
[48] In his “De vanitate scientiarum”; but even more boldly in his
fiery defence and rescue of a witch indicted by the Dominicans at Metz
in 1519.
[49] Notably in his “Ein wunderlich gesprech von fünff unhulden,” 1531.
[50] Erasmus, alas, is hardly to be reckoned among them. The letter, of
the year 1500, to Abbot Antonius à Bergis, in which he gives an account
of a witch prosecution, and which has been too hastily cited by Soldan
(and by so many on his authority) as showing his skepticism, is rather
an evidence of his credulity. The “novum et inauditum portentum” at
which he pretends to shudder is not the witch-trial, but the alleged
crime itself. Nor is there any thing in his “Praise of Folly” that can
prove him incredulous on this point. Yet, is Mr. Lecky quite right in
thinking that “Erasmus was an equally firm believer in witchcraft”
with Luther? Even in his letter to the Abbot he scores the meanness,
the duplicity, and the vanity of the Dominican tale-bearer; if he
does not share, he certainly does not censure, the hesitation of his
friend the Official to believe the astounding things revealed under the
torture; and the holy horror which he displays to his clerical patron
has a factitious ring. Certainly he was as far from defending as from
denying the inquisitorial theory; and the whole tenor of his pen toward
monkish superstitions must have strengthened the courage of those who
questioned this one also.
[51] In his “De strigiis,” written about 1510.
[52] In his “Tractatus declarans quam graviter peccent quaerentes
auxilium a maleficiis,” Cologne, 1510.
[53] I know of these only through Quétif and Échard. Were their
treatises ever printed?
[54] In his “Liber octo quaestionum ad Maximilianum Caesarem” (it
was very probably his powerful advocacy that won the persecution the
support of that prince, his pupil and friend), Oppenheim, 1515; and in
his “Antipalus maleficiorum,” not printed till 1555.
[55] In his “Opus de magica superstitione,” Alcala, 1521, better known
in its later Spanish version.
[56] _I.e._, Silvestro Mazolini, of Prierio. In his “De strigimagorum
daemonumque mirandis,” Rome, 1521.
[57] In his “Quaestio de strigibus,” 1523; and in his “In Ponzinibium
de lamiis apologia,” 1525.
[58] In his “Strix, seu de ludificatione daemonum,” Bologna, 1523.
[59] Not, of course, that there were in this time _no_ new books on
witchcraft; but they were few and unimportant.
[60] As a crime in itself, independently of the material injury
alleged to be caused by it. Thus, notably, the “Carolina” (the great
new criminal code of the Empire, 1532), which became a model for all
Europe. The first English statute (in 1541), more conservative, took
cognizance of the intent of the witch, and the “Carolina” required
proof of actual damage before inflicting death. But the courts were not
fastidious as to sort or amount.
[61] Or Weier, Wier (Latin, Wierus or Piscinarius). As to Weyer, his
opponents, and his followers, the scholarly and admirable biography by
Professor Binz (“Doctor Johann Weyer,” Bonn, 1885), a model for others
of its kind, has opened a whole new field.
[62] “De sagarum natura,” Bremen, 1584.
[63] “Exegesis expurgationis sagarum super aquam frigidam,” Helmstadt,
1584.
[64] “Christlich Bedencken und Erinnerung von Zauberey,” Heidelberg,
1585. He was a professor at Heidelberg, but wrote under the pseudonym
of “Augustin Lercheimer of Steinfeld”; and so carefully was his secret
kept that it has but just been ferreted out. A critically edited
reprint of his book was last year published by Professors Binz and
Birlinger, of Bonn.
[65] “De vera et falsa magia,” partially printed at Cologne, 1592.
Loos’s book, long supposed to have been destroyed by the Inquisition at
the time of his forced recantation, I had the good fortune, in 1886,
to find in MS. (apparently his own copy) on the shelves of the City
Library at Trier (see the _Nation_ for 11 Nov., 1886), and brought
away a _fac-simile_. Since that time printed pages of it (so much as
had been completed before its seizure) have been unearthed at the
City Library of Cologne (see the _Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_,
1888, p. 455). The minutes of the trial of Loos’s compatriot and
fellow-martyr, Dr. Dietrich Flade, of Trier, the most eminent victim of
the persecution in Germany, which had also long been thought lost, are
in the President White Library.
[66] “De magis, veneficis et lamiis,” Frankfurt a. M., 1591.
[67] “Γυναικόλουσις, seu mulierum lavatio, quam purgationem per aquam
frigidam vocant; item vulgaris de potentia lamiarum opinio, quod
utraque Deo, naturae omni juri et probatae consuetudini sit contraria.
Candida, brevis et dilucida oratio,” Lubeck, 1590. The book is
overlooked even by Binz.
[68] “The discoverie of witchcraft,” London, 1584. This first edition
is so rare that the British Museum itself has not a perfect copy (our
own collection is more fortunate); but there is now an admirable
reprint (edited by Brinsley Nicholson, London, 1886). Scot is bolder
and more rational than Weyer himself.
[69] “A discourse of the subtill practises of devilles by witches,”
London, 1557. “A dialogue concerning witches and witchcrafts,” London,
1603.
[70] “A declaration of egregious popish impostures,” London, 1603.
Harsnet, who at the time of writing this was only chaplain to the
Bishop of London, but who became successively Master of Pembroke Hall,
Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, Bishop of Chichester, Bishop of Norwich,
and Archbishop of York, was one of the most rational and outspoken men
of his time. It was in 1599, as it seems, that he first took ground
against the belief in demoniacal possession, in his book against the
Anglican exorcist, John Darrell, whom he virtually drove from the
realm. His “Declaration of popish impostures,” written against the
Jesuit Edmunds, or Weston, and his exorcisms, appeared in 1603. In
it Harsnet shows himself a thorough-going disciple of Reginald Scot
(whom he cites), and scoffs openly at the whole body of witchcraft
superstition, declaring it delusion and humbug.
[71] “The triall of witchcraft,” London, 1616.
[72] “Les sorciers,” 1574. In Latin, as “De veneficis,” in 1575.
[73] “De la démonomanie des sorciers,” Paris, 1580. More widely read in
its Latin translation of the following year.
[74] “De la haine de Satan et malins esprits contre l’homme,” Paris,
1590.
[75] Or Lancre. “Tableau de l’inconstance des mauvais anges et démons,
où il est ... traicté des sorciers,” Paris, 1612. “L’incrédulité et
mescréance du sortilège,” Paris, 1622.
[76] “De lamiis, seu strigibus,” Basel, 1577.
[77] “De confessionibus maleficorum et sagarum,” Trier, 1589.
“Commentarius in Tit. de Maleficis et Mathematicis,” Trier, 1592.
[78] “De examine et purgatione sagarum per aquam frigidam epistola,”
[1583]. “De sagarum natura et potestate,” Marburg, 1588. “Responsio ad
examen ignoti patroni veritatis de purgatione sagarum,” Frankfurt a.
M., 1590.
[79] Latin, Remigius. “Daemonolatreia,” Lyons, 1595.
[80] “Discours exécrable des sorciers,” Paris, 1602.
[81] Or del Rio. “Disquisitiones magicae,” Louvain, 1599-1601. The
edition ascribed by Grässe (and by others following him) to 1593 is a
myth. If this were not abundantly proved by Delrio’s own prefaces and
by the approbations of the censors, we have in the correspondence of
Justus Lipsius (in his letters to Delrio) conclusive testimony. Lipsius
himself suggested the title of the book, in whose progress he took the
liveliest interest. In the National Library at Brussels (where I have
examined it) is an earlier and much briefer draft of Delrio’s book,
dated 1596 and bearing the title “De superstitione et malis artibus.”
[82] Or Villalpando. In his “Epitome delictorum, sive De magia,”
Seville, 1618, and in his “Daemonologia,” Mainz, 1623.
[83] “A discourse of the damned art of witchcraft,” Cambridge, 1610.
[84] “Daemonologie,” Edinburgh, 1597. James was undoubtedly the prime
author of the new and harsher English statute against witchcraft,
which, with a fresh edition of his “Daemonologie,” appeared in the year
(1603) of his accession to the English throne.
[85] It was the day of the “Theatrum diabolorum,” of the “Theatrum de
veneficis,” of the “Mallei maleficarum”--now swollen by supplements to
thrice the bulk of the original “Malleus,” and growing every year.