THE WORSHIP OF THE WITCH
In order clearly to understand and fully to realize the shuddering horror
and heart-sick dismay any sort of commerce between human beings and
evil spirits, which is the very core and kernel of Witchcraft, excited
throughout the whole of Christendom, to appreciate why tome after tome
was written upon the subject by the most learned pens of Europe, why
holiest pontiffs and wisest judges, grave philosopher and discreet
scholar, king and peasant, careless noble and earnest divine, all alike
were of one mind in the prosecution of sorcery; why in Catholic Spain and
in Puritan Scotland, in cold Geneva and at genial Rome, unhesitatingly
and perseveringly man sought to stamp out the plague with the most
terrible of all penalties, the cautery of fire; in order that by the
misreading of history we should not superficially and foolishly think
monk and magistrate, layman and lawyer were mere tigers, mad fanatics—for
as such have they, too, often been presented and traduced,—it will be not
wholly impertinent briefly to recapitulate the orthodox doctrine of the
Powers of Darkness, facts nowadays too often forgotten or ignored, but
which to the acute mediæval mind were ever fearfully and prominently in
view.
And here, as in so many other beliefs, we shall find a little dogma;
certain things that can hardly be denied without the note of temerity;
and much concerning which nothing definite can be known, upon which
assuredly no pronouncement will be made.
In the first place, the name Devil is commonly given to the fallen
angels, who are also called Demons. The exact technical distinction
between the two terms in ecclesiastical usage may be seen in the phrase
used in the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council[1]: “Diabolus enim et
alii dæmones.” (The devil and the other demons), i.e. all are demons,
and the chief of the demons is called the Devil. This distinction is
preserved in the Vulgate New Testament, where _diabolus_ represents the
Greek διάβολος, and in almost every instance refers to Satan himself,
whilst his subordinate angels are described, in accordance with the
Greek, as _dæmones_ or _dæmonia_. But save in some highly specialized
context when the most meticulous accuracy is required, we now use the
words “devil,” “demon” indifferently, and employ the definite article to
denote Lucifer (Satan), chief of the devils, The Devil. So in S. Matthew
xxv. 41, is written “the devil and his angels.” The Greek word διάβολος
means a slanderer, an accuser, and in this sense is it applied to him of
whom it is said “the accuser [ὁ κατήγορος] of our brethren is cast forth,
who accused them before our God day and night” (Apocalypse xii. 10). Thus
it answers to the Hebrew name Satan, which signifies an adversary, an
accuser.
Mention is made of the Devil in many passages both of the Old and New
Testaments, but much is left in obscurity, and the full Scriptural
teaching on the legions of evil can best be ascertained by combining
the scattered notices and reading them in the light of patristic and
theological tradition. The authoritative teaching of the Church is
declared in the Decrees of the Fourth Lateran Church (cap. 1. _Firmiter
credimus_), wherein, after setting forth that God in the beginning had
created two creatures, the spiritual and corporeal; that is to say, the
angelic and the earthly, and lastly man, who was made of both earth and
body; the Council continues: “For the Devil and the other demons were
created by God naturally good; but they themselves of themselves became
evil.”[2] The dogma is here clearly laid down that the Devil and the
other demons are spiritual or angelic creatures created by God in a state
of innocence, and that they became evil by their own free act. It is
added that man sinned by suggestion of the Devil, and that in the next
world the reprobate and impenitent will suffer punishment with him. This
then is the actual dogma, the dry bones of the doctrine, so to speak.
But later theologians have added a great deal to this,—the authoritative
Doctor Eximius, Francisco Suarez, S.J.,[3] _De Angelis_, VII, is
especially valuable—and much of what they deduce cannot be disputed
without such rejection incurring the grave censure technically known as
“Erroneous.”[4]
It is remarkable that for an account of the Fall of the angels, which
happened before the creation of the world, we must turn to the last book
in the Bible, the Apocalypse of S. John. For although the picture of the
past be blended with prophecies of what shall be in the future, thus
must we undoubtedly regard the vision of Patmos. “And there was a great
battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the
dragon fought and his angels: and they prevailed not, neither was their
place found any more in heaven. And that great dragon was cast out, that
old serpent, who is called the Devil, and Satan, who seduceth the whole
world; and he was cast down unto the earth, and his angels were thrown
down with him” (Apocalypse xii. 7-9). To this may be added the words of
S. Jude: “And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook
their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting
chains, unto the judgement of the great day.” To these references should
be added a striking passage from the prophet Isaiah: “How art thou fallen
from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning! how art thou
fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations! And thou saidst in
thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the
stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides
of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be
like the most High. But yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, into the
depth of the pit” (Isaiah xiv. 12-15). The words of the prophet may in
one sense, perhaps primarily, be directed against Merodach-baladan, King
of Babylon, but all the early Fathers and later commentators are agreed
in understanding the passage as applying with deeper significance to the
fall of the rebel angel. This interpretation is confirmed by the words
of Our Lord to His disciples: “I saw Satan like lightning falling from
heaven.” (Uidebam Satanam sicut fulgur de cœlo cadentem.) S. Luke x. 18.
An obvious question which next arises and which has been amply discussed
by the theologians is: What was the nature of the sin of the rebel
angels? This point presents some difficulty, for theology has logically
formed the highest estimate of the perfection of the angelic nature,
the powers and possibilities of the angelic knowledge. Sins of the flesh
are certainly impossible to angels, and from many sins which are purely
spiritual and intellectual they would seem to be equally debarred. The
great offence of Lucifer appears to have been the desire of independence
of God and equality with God.
It is theologically certain that Lucifer held a very high rank in the
celestial hierarchy, and it is evident that he maintains some kind of
sovereignty over those who followed him in his rebellion: “Si autem,”
says Our Lord, “et Satanas in seipsum diuisus est quomodo stabit regnum
eius?” (If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom
stand?) And S. Paul speaks of “Principem potestatis æris huius, qui nunc
operatur in filios diffidentiæ.” (The Prince of the power of this air,
who now worketh in the sons of disobedience) Ephesians ii. 2. It may
seem strange that those rebellious spirits who rose against their Maker
should be subordinate to and obey one of their fellows who led them to
destruction, but this in itself is a proof that Lucifer is a superior
intelligence, and the knowledge of the angels would show them that they
can effect more mischief and evil by co-operation and organization,
although their unifying principle is the bond of hate, than by anarchy
and division. There can be little doubt that among their ranks are many
mean and petty spirits[5]—to speak comparatively—but even these can
influence and betray foolish and arrogant men. We shall be on safe ground
if we follow the opinion of Suarez, who would allow Lucifer to have
been the highest of all angels negatively, i.e. that no one was higher,
although many (and among these the three great Archangels, S. Michael, S.
Gabriel, S. Raphael) may have been his equals.
It has been argued that the highest of the angels, by reason of their
greater intellectual illumination, must have entirely realized the utter
impossibility of attaining to equality with God. So S. Anselm, _De Casu
Diaboli_ (IV), says: “Non enim ita obtusæ mentis [diabolus] erat, ut
nihil aliud simile Deo cogitari posse nesciret?” (The devil was surely
not so dull of understanding as to be ignorant of the inconceivability
of any other entity like to God?) And S. Thomas writes, in answer to
the question, whether the Devil desired to be “as God,” “if by this we
mean equality with God, then the Devil would not desire it, since he
knew this to be impossible.” But as the Venerable Duns Scotus, Doctor
subtilis, admirably points out, we must distinguish between efficacious
volition and the volition of complaisance, and by the latter act an angel
could desire that which is impossible. In the same way he shows that,
though a creature cannot directly will its own destruction, it may do
this _consequenter_, i.e. it can will something from which this would
inevitably follow.
And although man must realize that he cannot be God, yet there have been
men who have caused themselves to be saluted as God and even worshipped
as God. Such was Herod Agrippa I, who on a festival day at Cæsarea, had
himself robed in a garment made wholly of silver, and came into the
crowded theatre early in the morning, so that his vesture shone out in
the rays of the sun with dazzling light, and the superstitious multitude,
taught by his flatterers, cried out that he was a god, and prayed to
him as divine, saying: “Be thou merciful unto us, for although we have
hitherto reverenced thee only as a man yet henceforth we own thee to
be god.”[6] Caligula, also, arrogated to himself divinity. “Templum
etiam numini suo proprium, et sacerdotes et excogitatissimas hostias
instituit.”[7] (He also built a temple in honour of his own godhead,
and consecrated priests to offer him most splendid sacrifices.) This
emperor, moreover, set up his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem, and
ordered victims to be sacrificed to him. Domitian, with something more
than literary compliment, is addressed by Martial as “Dominus Deusque
noster”[8] (Our Lord and our God), and he lived up to his title.
Heliogabalus identified himself in some mystic way with the deity of
Edessa, and ordered no god save himself to be worshipped at Rome, nay,
throughout the wide world: “Taking measures that at Rome no god should be
honoured save Heliogabalus alone.... Nor did he wish to stamp out only
the various Roman cults, but his desire was that all the whole wide world
through, only one god, Heliogabalus, should everywhere be worshipped.”[9]
To cite further examples, and they are numerous, from Roman history were
superfluous.[10] Perhaps the most astounding case of all was that of the
Persian king, Khosroes (Khusrau) II, who in the seventh century sacked
Jerusalem and carried off the True Cross to his capital. Intoxicated
with success he announced by solemn proclamation that he was Almighty
God. He built an extraordinary palace or tower, in which there were vast
halls whose ceilings were painted with luminous suns, moons, and stars
to resemble the firmament. Here he sat upon a lofty throne of gold, a
tiara upon his head, his cope so sewn with diamonds that the stuff could
not be seen, sceptre and orb in his hands, upon one side the Cross,
upon the other a jewelled dove, and here he bade his subjects adore him
as God the Father, offering incense and praying him “Through the Son.”
This insane blasphemy was ended when the Persians were vanquished by the
Emperor Heraclius, and in the spring of 629 the Cross was restored to
Jerusalem.[11]
Montanus, the Phrygian heretic of the second century, who had originally,
as S. Jerome tells us, been a priest of Cybele, actually claimed to be
the Trinity. “I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete,”[12] he said,
and again, “I am the Lord God omnipotent who have descended into a man
... neither an angel, nor an ambassador, but I, the Lord, the Father, am
come.”[13] Elipandus of Toledo in the eighth century spoke of Christ as
“a God among gods,” inferring that there were many others who had been
divine. One may compare the incarnate gods adored in China and Tibet
to-day. A Bohemian woman named Wilhelmina, who died in Milan, 1281,
declared herself to be an incarnation of the Third Person of the Blessed
Trinity, and was actually worshipped by crowds of fanatics, who caused
great scandal and disorder. The Khlysti in Russia have not only prophets
but “Christs” and “Redeemers,” and they pray to one another. About 1830
there appeared in one of the American states bordering upon Kentucky
an impostor who declared himself to be Christ. He threatened the world
with immediate judgement, and a number of ill-balanced and hysterical
subjects were much affected by his denunciations. One day, when he was
addressing a large gathering in his usual strain, a German standing
up humbly asked him if he would repeat his warnings in German for the
benefit of those present who only knew that tongue. The speaker answered
that he had never been able to learn that language, a reply which
seemed so ludicrous in one claiming divinity that many of the auditors
were convulsed with laughter and so profane a charlatan soon lost all
credit. Monsignor Flaget, Bishop of Bardstoun, wrote an account of this
extraordinary imposture in a letter dated 4 May, 1833,[14] where he says
the scene took place some three years before. About 1880 at Patiala
in the Punjaub, a fanatic of filthy appearance named Hakim Singh gave
himself out to be Christ, and in a short time had a following of more
than four thousand persons, but within a few months they melted away.[15]
Many “false Christs” have organized Russian sects. In 1840 a man drained
the peasants of Simboisk and Saratov of their money by declaring himself
to be the Saviour; about 1880 the founder of the _bojki_, an illiterate
fanatic named Sava proclaimed that he was the Father, and his kinsman,
Samouil, God the Son. Ivan Grigorieff, founder of the “Russian Mormons,”
taught that he was divine; and other frenzied creatures, Philipoff,
Loupkin, Israil of Selengisk, have all claimed to be the Messiah and God.
It is apparent then, that although rationally it should be inconceivable
that any sentient creature could claim divinity, actually the contrary
is the case. The sin of Satan would appear to have been an attempt to
usurp the sovereignty of God. This is further borne out by the fact that
during the Temptation of our Lord the Devil, showing Him “omnia regna
mundi, et gloriam eorum” (all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of
them), said, “Hæc omnia tibi dabo, si cadens adoraueris me.” (All these
will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me.) And he is
rebuked: “Uade Satana: Scriptum est enim: Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et
illi soli seruies.” (Begone, Satan: for it is written: The Lord thy God
shalt thou adore, and Him only shalt thou serve.) It should be remarked
that Lucifer was telling a lie. The kingdoms of this world are not his to
offer, but only its sins and follies, disappointment and death. But here
the Devil is demanding that divine honours should be paid him. And this
claim is perpetuated throughout the witch trials. The witches believed
that their master, Satan, Lucifer, the fiend, the principle of evil,
was God, and as such they worshipped him with latria, they adored him,
they offered him homage, they addressed prayer to him, they sacrificed.
So Lambert Danéau, _Dialogue of Witches_ (trans. 1575), asserts: “The
Diuell com̅aundeth them that they shall acknowledge him for their god,
cal vpo̅ him, pray to him, and trust in him.—Then doe they all repeate
the othe which they haue geuen vnto him; in acknowledging him to be their
God.” Cannaert records that the accusation against Elisabeth Vlamynex of
Alost, 1595, was “You were not even ashamed to kneel before Belzebuth,
whom you worshipped.”[16] De Lancre, in his _Tableau de l’Inconstance
des mauvais Anges_ (1613), informs us that when the witches presented a
young child they fell on their knees before the demon and said: “Grand
Seigneur, lequel i’adore.” (Great Lord, whom I worship.) The novice
joining the witches made profession in this phrase: “I abandon myself
wholly to thy power and I put myself in thy hands, acknowledging no other
god; and this since thou art my god.”[17] The words of Silvain Nevillon,
tried at Orleans in 1614, are even plainer: “We say to the Devil that we
acknowledge him as our master, our god, our creator.”[18] In America[19]
in 1692, Mary Osgood confessed that “the devil told her he was her God,
and that she should serve and worship him.”
There are numberless instances of prayer offered to the Devil by his
servants. Henri Boguet, in his _Discours des Sorciers_ (Lyons, 1608),
relates that Antide Colas, 1598, avowed that “Satan bade her pray to
him night and morning, before she set about any other business.”[20]
Elizabeth Sawyer, the notorious witch of Edmonton (1621), was taught
certain invocations by her familiar. In her confession to the Rev. Henry
Goodcole, who visited her in Newgate, upon his asking “Did the Diuell
at any time find you praying when he came unto you, and did not the
Diuell forbid you to pray to Iesus Christ, but to him alone? and did he
not bid you to pray to him, the Diuell as he taught you?” She replied:
“He asked of me to whom I prayed, and I answered him to Iesus Christ,
and he charged me then to pray no more to Iesus Christ, but to him the
Diuell, and he the Diuell taught me this prayer, _Sanctibecetur nomen
tuum, Amen_.”[21] So as Stearne reports in _Confirmation and Discovery
of Witchcraft_ (1648), of the Suffolk witches: “_Ellen_, the wife of
_Nicholas Greenleife_ of _Barton_ in _Suffolke_, confessed, that when
she prayed she prayed to the Devill and not to God.”
In imitation of God, moreover, the Devil will have his miracles,
although these are θαύματα, mere delusive wonders which neither profit
nor convince. Such was the feat of Jannes and Mambres, the Egyptian
sorcerers, who in emulation of Moses changed their rods to serpents. To
this source we can confidently refer many tricks of Oriental jugglers.
“I am satisfied,” wrote an English officer of rank and family, “that the
performances of the native ‘wise-men’ are done by the aid of familiar
spirits. The visible growth of a mango tree out of an empty vessel into
which a little earth is placed, a growth which spectators witness, and
the secret of which has never been discovered, may not be unreasonably
referred to the same occult powers which enabled the Egyptian magicians
of old to imitate the miraculous acts which Moses, by God’s command,
openly wrought in the face of Pharaoh and his people.”[22] In the
basket-trick, which is performed without preparation in any place or
spot—a greensward, a paved yard, a messroom—a boy is placed under a
large wicker basket of conical shape, which may be examined and handled
by all, and this is then stabbed through and through by the fakir with
a long sword that pierces from side to side. Screams of pain follow
each thrust, and the weapon is discerned to be covered with fresh
blood. The cries grow fainter and at length cease altogether. Then the
juggler uttering cries and incantations dances round the basket, which
he suddenly removes, and no sign of the child is to be seen, no rent in
the wicker-work, no stain on the steel. But in a few seconds the boy,
unharmed and laughing, appears running forward from some distant spot. In
this connexion we may well recall the words of Suarez: “[The Devil] can
deceive and trick the senses so that a head may appear to be cut off and
blood to flow, when in truth no such thing is taking place.”[23]
The wizards of Tartary and Tibet, _bokte_, upon certain special days will
with great ceremony appear in the temples, which are always thronged
on these occasions, and whilst their disciples howl and shriek out
invocations, they suddenly throw aside their robes and with a sharp
knife seem to rip open their stomachs from top to bottom, whilst blood
pours from the gaping wound. The worshippers, lashed to frenzy, fall
prostrate before them and grovel frantically upon the floor. The wizard
appears to scatter his blood over them, and after some five minutes he
passes his hands rapidly over the wound, which instantly disappears, not
leaving even the trace of a scar. The operator is noticed to be overcome
with intense weariness, but otherwise all is well. Those who have seen
this hideous spectacle assure us that it cannot be explained by any
hallucination or legerdemain, and the only solution which remains is to
attribute it to the glamour cast over the deluded crowd by the power of
discarnate evil intelligences.[24]
The portentous growth of Spiritism,[25] which within a generation passed
beyond the limits of a popular and mountebank movement and challenged
the serious attention and expert inquiry of the whole scientific and
philosophical world, furnishes us with examples of many extraordinary
phenomena, both physical and psychical, and these, in spite of the most
meticulous and accurate investigation, are simply inexplicable by any
natural and normal means. Such phenomena have been classified by Sir
William Crookes, in his _Researches in the Phenomena of Spiritualism_.
They include the movement of heavy bodies without contact, or with
contact altogether insufficient to explain the movement; the alteration
of weight of bodies; the rising of tables and chairs off the ground
without contact with any human person; the levitation of human beings;
“apports,” objects such as flowers, coins, pieces of stone conveyed into
a hermetically closed room without any visible agency to carry them;
luminous appearances; more or less distinct phantom faces and forms.
In spite of continual and most deliberate trickery, repeated and most
humiliating exposure, and this not only in the case of cheap charlatans
but also of famous mediums such as William Eglinton, there occur and have
always occurred phenomena which are vouched for upon the evidence of
names whose authority cannot be gainsaid. Do such manifestations proceed
from the spirits of the departed or from intelligences which have never
been in human form? Even avowed believers in a beneficent Spiritism,
anxious to establish communication with dead friends, are forced to
admit the frequent and irresponsible action of non-human intelligences.
This conclusion is based upon lengthy and detailed evidence which it is
only possible very briefly to summarize. It proves almost impossible
satisfactorily to establish spirit identity, to ascertain whether the
communicator is actually the individual he or it purports to be; the
information imparted is not such as would naturally be expected from
those who have passed beyond this life but trivial and idle to a degree;
the statements which the spirits make concerning their own condition are
most contradictory and confused; the moral tone which pervades these
messages, at first vague and unsatisfactory, generally becomes repulsive
and even criminally obscene. All these particulars unmistakably point
to demoniac intervention and deceit.[26] The Second Plenary Council of
Baltimore (1866) whilst making due allowance for fraudulent practice
and subtle sleights in Spiritism declares that some at least of the
manifestations are to be ascribed to Satanic intervention, for in no
other manner can they be explained. (_Decreta_, 33-41.) A decree of the
Holy Office, 30 March, 1898, condemns Spiritistic practices, even though
intercourse with evil spirits be excluded and intercourse sought only
with good angels.
Not only with miracles but also in prophecies does Lucifer seek to
emulate that God Whose Throne he covets. This point is dealt with by
Bishop Pierre Binsfeld, who in his _De Maleficis_ (1589) writes: “Nunc
uidendum est an dæmones præscientiam habeant futurorum et secretorum,
ita ut ex eorum reuelatione possit homo prognosticare[27] et occulta
cognoscere?... Prima conclusio: Futura, si in seipsis considerentur,
anullo præterquam a solo Deo cognosci possunt.” (Next we will inquire
whether devils can have any foreknowledge of future events or of hidden
things so that a man might from their revelations to him foretell the
future and discover the unknown?... First conclusion: The future,
precisely considered, can be known to none save to God alone.) But it
must be borne in mind that the intelligence of angels, though fallen,
is of the acutest order, as Simon Maiolo in his _Dies caniculares_
explains: “Astutia, sapientia, acumine longe superant homines, et longius
progrediuntur ratiocinando.” (In shrewdness, knowledge, perspicuity, they
far excel mankind, and they can look much further into the future by
logical deduction.) And it is in this way that a demon will often rightly
divine what is going to happen, although more often the response will
either be a lie or wrapped up in meaningless and ambiguous phrase, such
as were the pagan oracles. A notable example of false prophets may be
found in the Camisards (probably from _camise_, a black blouse worn as a
uniform), a sect of evil fanatics who terrorized Dauphiné, Vivarais, and
chiefly the Cévennes at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Their
origin was largely due to the Albigensian spirit, which had never been
wholly stamped out in that district, and which was fanned to flame by the
anarchical preaching and disordered pamphlets of the French Calvinists,
such as Jurieu’s _Accomplissement des prophéties_. Pope Clement XI styles
the Camisards “that execrable race of ancient Albigenses.” De Serre, a
rank old Calvinist of Dieulefit in Dauphiné, became suddenly inspired and
a wave of foul hysteria spread far and wide. In 1702 the saintly abbé de
Chaila was treacherously murdered by these wretches, who seized arms and
formed themselves into offensive bands under such ruffians as Séguier,
Laporte, Castanet, Ravenal, and Cavalier. Louis XIV sent troops to subdue
them, but the Catholic leaders at first do not seem to have appreciated
the seriousness of the position, and a desultory guerilla warfare dragged
on for some years. Cavalier escaped to England,[28] whence he returned in
1709, and attempted to kindle a revolt in Vivarais. On 8 March, 1715, by
a proclamation and medals, Louis XIV announced that these demoniacs were
entirely extinct.
A number of these prophets fled to England, where they created great
disturbances, and Voltaire, _Siècle de Louis XIV_, XXXVI, tells us that
one of the leading refugees, a notorious rebel, Elie Marion, became so
obnoxious on account of his _avertissements prophétiques_ and false
miracles, that he was expelled the country as a common nuisance.[29]
The existence of evil discarnate intelligences having been orthodoxly
established, a realm which owns one chief, and it is reasonable to
suppose, many hierarchies, a kingdom that is at continual warfare with
all that is good, ever striving to do evil and bring man into bondage; it
is obvious that if he be so determined man will be able in some way or
another to get into touch with this dark shadow world, and however rare
such a connexion may be it is, at least, possible. It is this connexion
with its consequences, conditions, and attendant circumstances, that is
known as Witchcraft. The erudite Sprenger in the _Malleus Maleficarum_
expressly declares that in his opinion a denial of the possibility of
Witchcraft is heresy. “After God Himself hath spoken of magicians and
sorcerers, what infidel dare doubt that they exist?” writes Pierre
de Lancre in his _L’Incredulité et Mescreance du Sortilège_ (Paris,
1622)[30]. That eminent lawyer Blackstone, in his _Commentaries_ (1765),
IV, 4, asserts: “To deny the possibility, nay, actual existence of
Witchcraft and Sorcery, is at once flatly to contradict the revealed Word
of God in various passages both of the Old and New Testament; and the
thing itself is a truth to which every Nation in the World hath in its
turn borne testimony, either by examples seemingly well attested, or by
prohibitory laws, which at least suppose the possibility of commerce with
evil spirits.” Even the ultra-cautious—I had almost said sceptical—Father
Thurston acknowledges: “In the face of Holy Scripture and the teaching
of the Fathers and theologians the abstract possibility of a pact with
the Devil and of a diabolical interference in human affairs can hardly
be denied.” Imposture, trickery, self-deception, hypnotism, a morbid
imagination have, no doubt, all played an important part in legends of
this kind. It is not enough quite sincerely to claim magical powers to
possess them in reality. Plainly, a man who not only firmly believes in
a Power of evil but also that this Power can and does meddle with and
mar human affections and human destinies, may invoke and devote himself
to this Power, may give up his will thereunto, may ask this Power to
accomplish his wishes and ends, and so succeed in persuading himself
that he has entered into a mysterious contract with evil whose slave and
servant he is become.[31] Moreover, as we should expect, the records
teem with instances of common charlatanry, of cunning villainies and
crime masquerading under the cloak of superstition, of clever fraud, of
what was clearly play acting and mumming to impress the ignorant and
vulgar, of diseased vanity, sick for notoriety, that craved the name and
reputation of witch, of quackery and cozening that proved lucrative and
comfortable enough.
But when every allowance has been made, as we examine in detail the long
and bloody history of Witchcraft, as we recognize the fearful fanaticism
and atrocious extravagances of the witch mania, as we are enabled to
account for in the light of ampler knowledge, both psychological and
physical, details and accidents which would have inevitably led to the
stake without respite or mercy, as we can elucidate case after case—one
an hysterical subject, a cataleptic, an epileptic, a sufferer from some
obscure nervous disorder even to-day not exactly diagnosed; another,
denounced by the malice of private enemies, perhaps on political grounds;
a third, some doting beldame the victim of idlest superstition or mere
malignity; a fourth, accused for the sake of gain by a disappointed
blackmailer or thief; others, silly bodies, eccentrics, and half-crazed
cranks; and the even greater number of victims who were incriminated by
poor wretches raving in the agonies of the rack and boots;—none the less
after having thus frankly discounted every possible circumstance, after
having completely realized the world-wide frenzy of persecution that
swept through those centuries of terror, we cannot but recognize that
there remain innumerable and important cases which are not to be covered
by any ordinary explanation, which fall within no normal category. As a
most unprejudiced writer has well said: “The underlying and provocative
phenomena had really been present in a huge number of cases.”[32] And
there is no other way of accounting for these save by acknowledging
the reality of Witchcraft and diabolic contracts. It must be steadily
remembered that the most brilliant minds, the keenest intelligences, the
most learned scholars, the noblest names, men who had heard the evidence
at first hand, all firmly believed in Witchcraft. Amongst them are such
supreme authorities as S. Augustine, “a philosophical and theological
genius of the first order, dominating, like a pyramid, antiquity and the
succeeding ages”[33]; Blessed Albertus Magnus, the “Universal Doctor”
of encyclopædic knowledge; S. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor Angelicus, one of
the profoundest intellects the world has ever seen; the Seraphic S.
Bonaventura, most loving of mystics; Popes not a few, Alexander IV, the
friend of the Franciscans, prudent, kindly, deeply religious, “assiduous
in prayer and strict in abstinence”[34]; John XXII, “a man of serious
character, of austere and simple habits, broadly cultivated”[35];
Benedict XII, a pious Cistercian monk, most learned in theology; Innocent
VIII, a magnificent prelate, scholar and diplomatist; Gregory XV, an
expert in canon and civil law, most just and merciful of pontiffs,
brilliantly talented. We have the names of learned men, such as Gerson,
Chancellor of Notre-Dame and of the University of Paris, “justly regarded
as one of the master intellects of his age”[36]; James Sprenger, O.P.,
who for all his etymological errors was a scholar of vast attainments;
Jean Bodin, “one of the chief founders of political philosophy and
political history”[36]; Erasmus; Bishop Jewell, of Salisbury, “one
of the ablest and most authoritative expounders of the true genius and
teaching of the reformed Church of England”[37]; the gallant Raleigh;
Lord Bacon; Sir Edward Coke; Cardinal Mazarin; the illustrious Boyle;
Cudworth, “perhaps the most profound of all the great scholars who
have adorned the English Church”[36]; Selden; Henry More; Sir Thomas
Browne; Joseph Glanvill, who “has been surpassed in genius by few of his
successors”[36]; Meric Casaubon, the learned Prebendary of Canterbury;
Sir Matthew Hale; Sir George Mackenzie; William Blackstone; and many
another divine, lawyer, scholar, of lesser note. It is inconceivable
that all these, mistaken as they might be in some details, should have
been wholly deluded and beguiled. The learned Sinistrari in his _De
Dæmonialitate_,[38] upon the authoritative sentence of Francesco-Maria
Guazzo, an Ambrosian, (_Compendium Maleficarum_, Liber I. 7), writes:
“Primo, ineunt pactum expressum cum Dæmone aut alio Mago seu Malefico
uicem Dæmonis gerente, et testibus præsentibus de seruitio diabolico
suscipiendo: Dæmon uero uice uersa honores, diuitias, et carnales
delectationes illis pollicetur.” (Firstly, the Novices have to conclude
with the Demon, or some other Wizard or Magician acting in the Demon’s
place, an express compact by which, in the presence of witnesses, they
enlist in the Demon’s service, he giving them in exchange his pledge for
honours, riches, and carnal pleasures.)
It is said that the formal pact was sometimes verbal, sometimes a
signed document. In every case it was voluntary, and as Görres points
out, the usual initiation into these foul mysteries was through some
secret society at an assembly of which the neophyte bound himself with
terrific oaths and a blasphemy to the service of evil. But there are
cases which can only be explained by the materialization of a dark
intelligence who actually received a bond from the worshipper. These
are, of course, extremely rare; but occasionally the judges were able
to examine such parchments and deeds. In 1453 Guillaume Edelin, Prior
of S. Germain-en-Laye, signed a compact with the Devil, and this was
afterwards found upon his person. Pierre de Lancre relates that the witch
Stevenote de Audebert, who was burned in January, 1619, showed him “le
pacte & conuention qu’elle auoit faict auec le Diable, escrite en sang de
menstrues, & si horrible qu’on auoit horreur de la regarder.”[39] In the
library at Upsala is preserved the contract by which Daniel Salthenius,
in later life Professor of Hebrew at Königsberg, sold himself to Satan.
In the archives of the Sacred Office is preserved a picture of the
Crucifixion of which the following account is given: A young man of
notoriously wicked life and extreme impiety having squandered his
fortune, and being in desperate need, resolved to sell himself body
and soul to Lucifer on condition that he should be supplied with money
enough to enable him to indulge in all the luxuries and lusts he desired.
It is said the demon assumed a visible form, and required him to write
down an act of self-donation to hell. This the youth consented to do on
one proviso. He asked the demon if he had been present on Calvary, and
when he was answered in the affirmative he insisted that Lucifer should
trace him an exact representation of the Crucifixion, upon which he
would hand over the completed document. The fiend after much hesitation
consented, and shortly produced a picture. But at the sight of the racked
and bleeding Body stretched on the Cross the youth was seized with such
contrition that falling upon his knees he invoked the help of God. His
companion disappeared, leaving the fatal contract and picture. The
penitent, in order to gain absolution for so heinous guilt, was obliged
to have recourse to the Cardinal Penitentiary, and the picture was taken
in charge by the Holy Office. Prince Barberini afterwards obtained
permission to have an exact copy made of it, and this eventually he
presented to the Capuchins at S. Maria della Concezione.
A contract with Satan was said always to be signed in the blood of
the executor. “The signature is almost invariably subscribed with the
writer’s own blood.... Thus at Augsburg Joseph Egmund Schultz declared
that on the 15 May, 1671, towards midnight, when it was betwixt eleven
and twelve of the clock, he threw down, where three crossroads met, an
illuminated parchment, written throughout in his own blood and wrapped up
in a fair kerchief, and thus he sealed the compact ... Widmann also tells
us how that unhappy wretch Faust slightly cut his thumb and with the
drops of blood which trickled thence devoted himself in writing body and
soul to the Devil, utterly repudiating God’s part in him.”[40] From the
earliest times and in many nations we find human blood used inviolably
to ratify the pledged word.[41] Rochholz, I, 52, relates that it is
a custom of German University freshmen (Burschen) for the parties to
write “mutually with their own blood leaves in each other’s albums.” The
parchment is still said to be in existence on which with his own blood
Maximilian, the great and devout Bavarian elector, religiously dedicated
himself to the Most Holy Mother of God. Blood was the most sacred and
irrevocable of seals, as may be seen in the custom of blood-brotherhood
when friendship was sworn and alliances concluded. Either the blood
itself was drunk or wine mixed with blood. Herodotus (IV, 70) tells us
that the Scythians were wont to conclude agreements by pouring wine into
an earthen vessel, into which the contracting parties having cut their
arms with a knife let their blood flow and mingle. Whereupon both they
and the most distinguished of their following drank of it. Pomponius
Mela, _De Situ Orbis_, II, 1, records the same custom as still existing
among them in his day: “Not even their alliances are made without
shedding of blood: the partners in the compact wound themselves, and
when the blood gushes out they mingle the stream and taste of it when it
is mixed. This they consider to be the most assured pledge of eternal
loyalty and trust.”[42] Gyraldus, _Topographia Hibernorum_, XXII, p.
743, says: “When the Ireni conclude treaties the one drinks the blood of
the other, which is shed voluntarily for this purpose.” In July, 1891,
a band of brigands which had existed for three years was discovered and
broken up in South Italy. It was reported that in the ritual of these
outlaws, who were allied to the “Mala Vita” of Bari, “the neophytes
drank blood-brotherhood with the captain of the band by sucking out and
drinking the blood from a scratch wound, which he had himself made in the
region of his heart.”
In several grimoires and books of magic, such as _The Book of Black Magic
and of Pacts_, _The Key of Solomon the King_, _Sanctum Regnum_, may be
found goetic rituals as well as invocations, and if these, fortunately
for the operators, are occasionally bootless, it can only be said that
Divine Power holds in check the evil intelligences. But, as Suarez justly
observes, even if no response be obtained from the demon “either because
God does not allow it, or for some other reason we may not know,”[43] the
guilt of the experimenter in this dark art and his sin are in no wise
lightened.[44] Towards the end of the eighteenth century a certain Juan
Perez, being reduced to the utmost misery, vowed himself body and soul
to Satan if he were revenged upon those whom he suspected of injuring
him. He consulted more than one magician and witch, he essayed more than
one theurgic ceremonial, but all in vain. Hell was deaf to his appeal.
Whereupon he openly proclaimed his disbelief in the supernatural, in
the reality of devils, and mocked at Holy Scripture as a fairy tale, a
nursery fable. Naturally this conduct brought him before the Tribunal of
the Holy Office, to whom at his first interrogation he avowed the whole
story, declaring himself ready to submit to any penance they might seem
fit to inflict.
Any such pact which may be entered into with the demon is not in the
slightest degree binding. Such is the authoritative opinion of S.
Alphonsus, who lays down that a necromancer or person who has had
intercourse with evil spirits now wishing to give up his sorceries is
bound: “1. Absolutely to abjure and to renounce any formal contract or
any sort of commerce whatsoever he may have entered into with demonic
intelligences; 2. To burn all such books, writings, amulets, talismans,
and other instruments as appertain to the black art (i.e. crystals,
planchettes, ouija-boards, pagan periapts, and the like); 3. To burn the
written contract if it be in his possession, but if it be believed that
it is held by the demon, there is no need to demand its restoration since
it is wholly annulled by penitence; 4. To repair any harm he has done
and make good any loss.”[45] It may be remarked that these rules have
been found exceedingly useful and entirely practical in dealing with
mediums and others who forsake spiritism, its abominations and fearful
dangers.
There are examples in history, even in hagiography, of sorcerers who
have been converted. One of the most famous of these is S. Theophilus
the Penitent;[46] and even yet more renowned is S. Cyprian of Antioch
who, with S. Justina, suffered martyrdom during the persecution of
Diocletian at Nicomedia, 26 September, 304.[47] Blessed Gil of Santarem,
a Portuguese Dominican, in his youth excelled in philosophy and medicine.
Whilst on his way from Coimbra to the University of Paris he fell into
company with a courteous stranger who offered to teach him the black art
at Toledo. As payment the stranger required that Gil should make over his
soul to the Devil and sign the contract with his blood. After complying
with the conditions he devoted seven years to magical studies, and then
proceeding to Paris easily obtained the degree of doctor of medicine.
Gil, however, repented, burned his books of spells, and returned to
Portugal, where he took the habit of S. Dominic. After a long life of
penitence and prayer he died at Santarem, 14 May, 1205, and here his body
is still venerated.[48] His cult was ratified by Benedict XIV, 9 March,
1748. His feast is observed 14 May.
The contract made by the witch was usually for the term of her life,
but sometimes it was only for a number of years, at the end of which
period the Devil was supposed to kill his votary. Reginald Scot remarks:
“Sometimes their homage with their oth and bargaine is receiued for a
certeine terme of yeares; sometimes for ever.”[49] Magdalena de la Cruz,
a Franciscan nun, born at Aquilar in 1487, entered the convent of Santa
Isabel at Cordova in 1504. She acquired an extraordinary reputation
for sanctity, and was elected abbess in 1533, 1536, and 1539. Scarcely
five years later she was a prisoner of the Inquisition, with charges of
Witchcraft proven against her. She confessed that in 1499 a spirit who
called himself by the grotesque name Balbar, with a companion Pithon,
appeared to her at the tender age of twelve, and she made a contract
with him for the space of forty-one years. In 1543 she was seized with
a serious illness, during which she confessed her impostures and demonic
commerce. She was confined for the rest of her life as a penitent in a
house of the utmost austerity. Joan Williford, a witch of Faversham,
acknowledged “that the Devil promised to be her servant about twenty
yeeres, and that the time is now almost expired.”[50] In 1646 Elizabeth
Weed, a witch of Great Catworth in Huntingdonshire, confessed that “the
Devill then offer’d her that hee would doe what mischiefe she should
require him; and said she must covenant with him that he must have her
soule at the end of one and twenty years which she granted.”[51] In 1664,
a Somerset sorceress, Elizabeth Style, avowed that the Devil “promised
her Mony, and that she should live gallantly, and have the pleasure of
the World for Twelve years, if she would with her Blood sign his Paper,
which was to give her Soul to him.”[52]
Satan promises to give his votaries all they desire; knowledge, wealth,
honours, pleasure, vengeance upon their enemies; and all that he can give
is disappointment, poverty, misery, hate, the power to hurt and destroy.
He is ever holding before their eyes elusive hopes, and so besotted are
they that they trust him and confide in him until all is lost. Sometimes
in the case of those who are young the pact is for a short while, but
he always renews it. So at Lille in 1661 Antoinette Bourignon’s pupils
confessed: “The Devil gives them a Mark, which Marks they renew as often
as those Persons have any desire to quit him. The Devil reproves them
the more severely, and obligeth them to new Promises, making them also
new Marks for assurance or Pledge, that those Persons should continue
faithful to him.”[53]
The Devil’s Mark to which allusion is here made, or the Witches’ Mark,
as it is sometimes called, was regarded as perhaps the most important
point in the identification of a witch, it was the very sign and seal
of Satan upon the actual flesh of his servant, and any person who bore
such a mark was considered to have been convicted and proven beyond all
manner of doubt of being in league with and devoted to the service of the
fiend. This mark was said to be entirely insensible to pain, and when
pricked, however deeply, it did not bleed. So Mr. John Bell, minister
at Gladsmuir, in his tract _The Trial of Witchcraft; or Witchcraft
Arraigned and Condemned_, published early in the eighteenth century,
explains: “The witch mark is sometimes like a blew spot, or a little
tate, or reid spots, like flea biting; sometimes also the flesh is sunk
in, and hollow, and this is put in secret places, as among the hair of
the head, or eye-brows, within the lips, under the arm-pits, and in the
most secret parts of the body.” Robert Hink, minister at Aberfoill, in
his _Secret Commonwealth_ (1691), writes: “A spot that I have seen, as a
small mole, horny, and brown-coloured; throw which mark, when a large pin
was thrust (both in buttock, nose, and rooff of the mouth), till it bowed
and became crooked, the witches both men and women, nather felt a pain
nor did bleed, nor knew the precise time when this was doing to them,
(their eyes only being covered).” This mark was sometimes the complete
figure of a toad or a bat; or, as Delrio says, the slot of a hare, the
foot of a frog, a spider, a deformed whelp, a mouse.[54] The same great
authority informs us on what part of the body it was usually impressed:
“In men it may often be seen under the eyelids, under the lips, under the
armpits, on the shoulders, on the fundament; in women, moreover, on the
breast or on the pudenda.”[55]
In his profound treatise _De Dæmonialitate_ that most erudite Franciscan
Ludovico Maria Sinistrari writes: “[Sagæ seu Malefici] sigillantur a
Dæmone aliquo charactere, maxime ii, de quorum constantia dubitat.
Character uero non est semper eiusdem formæ, aut figuræ: aliquando enim
est simile lepori, aliquando pedi bufonis, aliquando araneæ, uel catello,
uel gliri; imprimitur autem in locis corporis magis occultis: uiris
quidem aliquando sub palpebris, aliquando sub axillis, aut labiis, aut
humeris, aut sede ima, aut alibi: mulieribus autem plerumque in mammis,
seu locis mulieribus. Porro sigillum, quo talia signa imprimuntur, est
unguis Diaboli.” (The Demon imprints upon [the Witches or Wizards]
some mark, especially on those whose constancy he suspects. That mark,
moreover, is not always of the same shape or figure: sometimes it is the
image of a hare, sometimes a toad’s leg, sometimes a spider, a puppy, a
dormouse. It is imprinted on the most hidden parts of the body: with men,
under the eye-lids, or the armpits, or the lips, on the shoulder, the
fundament, or somewhere else: with women it is usually on the breasts or
the privy parts. Now, the stamp which imprints these marks is none other
but the Devil’s claw.)
This Mark was made by the Devil, or by the Devil’s vicegerent at the
Sabbats upon the admission of a new witch. “The Diuell giveth to euerie
nouice a marke, either with his teeth or his clawes,” says Reginald
Scot, _Discoverie of Witchcraft_, 1584. The young witches of Lille
in 1661 confessed that “the Devil branded them with an iron awl upon
some part of the body.”[56] In Scotland, Geillis Duncane, maid-servant
to the deputy bailiff of Tranent, one David Seaton, a wench who was
concerned in the celebrated trial of Doctor Fian, Agnes Sampson, Euphemia
McCalyan, Barbara Napier, and their associates, would not confess even
under torture, “whereuppon they suspecting that she had been marked by
the devill (as commonly witches are) made diligent search about her,
and found the enemies mark to be in her fore crag, or fore part of her
throate; which being found, shee confessed that all her doings was done
by the wicked allurements and entisements of the devil, and that she
did them by witchcraft.”[57] In 1630 Catharine Oswald of Niddrie was
found guilty of sorcery, “the advocate for the instruction of the assyze
producing the declaration of two witnesses, that being in the tolbuith,
saw Mr. John Aird, minister, put a pin in the pannell’s shoulder,
(where she carries the devill’s mark) up to the heid, and no bluid
followed theiron, nor she shrinking thereat; which was againe done in
the justice-depute his own presence.” In 1643 Janet Barker at Edinburgh
confessed to commerce with the demon, and stated that he had marked
her between the shoulders. The mark was found “and a pin being thrust
therein, it remained for an hour unperceived by the pannell.”[58]
On 10 March, 1611, Louis Gaufridi, a priest of Accoules in the diocese of
Marseilles, was visited in prison, where he lay under repeated charges of
foulest sorcery, by two physicians and two surgeons who were appointed to
search for the Devil’s mark. Their joint report ran as follows: “We, the
undersigned doctors and surgeons, in obedience to the directions given us
by Messire Anthoine de Thoron, sieur de Thoron, Councillor to the King
in his Court of Parliament, have visited Messire L. Gaufridy, upon whose
body we observed three little marks, not very different in colour from
the natural skin. The first is upon his right thigh, about the middle
towards the lower part. When we pierced this with a needle to the depth
of two fingers breadth he felt no pain, nor did any blood or other humour
exude from the incision.
“The second is in the region of the loins, towards the right, about an
inch from the spine and some four fingers breadth above the femoral
muscles. Herein we drove the needle for three fingers breath, leaving it
fixed in this spot for some time, as we had already done in the first
instance, and yet all the while the said Gaufridy felt no pain, nor was
there any effluxion of blood or other humour of any kind.
“The third mark is about the region of the heart. At first the needle
was introduced without any sensation being felt, as in the previous
instances. But when the place was probed with some force, he said he
felt pain, but yet no moisture distilled from this laceration. Early the
next morning we again visited him, but we found that the parts which had
been probed were neither swollen nor red. In our judgement such callous
marks which emit no moisture when pierced, cannot be due to any ancient
affection of the skin, and in accordance with this opinion we submit our
report on this tenth day of March, 1611.
_Fontaine_, _Grassy_, Doctors;
_Mérindol_, _Bontemps_, Surgeons.”[59]
On 26 April, 1634, during the famous Loudun trials, Urbain Grandier, the
accused was examined in order to discover the witch-mark. He was stripped
naked, blindfolded, and in the presence of the officials, René Mannoury,
one of the leading physicians of the town, conducted the search. Two
marks were discovered, one upon the shoulder-blade and the other upon the
thigh, both of which proved insensible even when pierced with a sharp
silver pin.
Inasmuch as the discovery of the devil-mark was regarded as one of the
most convincing indications—if not, indeed, an infallible proof—that
the accused was guilty since he bore indelibly branded upon his flesh
Satan’s own sign-manual, it is easy to see how the searching for,
the recognition and the probing of, such marks actually grew to be a
profession in which not a few ingenious persons came to be recognized
as experts and practical authorities. In Scotland, especially, the
“prickers,” as they were called, formed a regular gild. They received a
good fee for every witch they discovered, and, as might be expected, they
did not fail to reap a golden harvest. At the trial of Janet Peaston,
in 1646, the magistrates of Dalkeith “caused John Kincaid of Tranent,
the common pricker, to exercise his craft upon her. He found two marks
of the Devil’s making; for she could not feel the pin when it was put
into either of the said marks, nor did the marks bleed when the pin was
taken out again. When she was asked where she thought the pins were
put into her, she pointed to a part of her body distant from the real
place. They were pins of three inches in length.”[60] Another notorious
pricker was John Bain, upon whose unsupported evidence a large number of
unfortunate wretches were sentenced to death. About 1634 John Balfour of
Corhouse was feared over all the countryside for his exploits; whilst
twenty years later one John Dick proved a rival to Kincaid himself. The
regular trade of these “common prickers” came to be a serious nuisance,
and confessedly opened the door to all sorts of roguery. The following
extraordinary incident shows how dangerous and villainous in mountebank
hands the examinations could become, which, if conducted at all, ought
at least to be safeguarded by every precaution and only entrusted to
skilled physicians, who should report the result to grave and learned
divines. “There came then to Inverness one Mr. Paterson, who had run
over the kingdom for triall off witches, and was ordinarily called the
Pricker, because his way of triall was with a long brass pin. Stripping
them naked, he alledged that the spell spot was seen and discovered.
After rubbing over the whole body with his palms he slips in the pin,
and, it seemes, with shame and fear being dasht, they felt it not, but
he left it in the flesh, deep to the head, and desired them to find and
take it out. It is sure some witches were discovered but many honest men
and women were blotted and break by this trick. In Elgin there were two
killed; in Forres two; and one Margret Duff, a rank witch, burned in
Inverness. This Paterson came up to the Church of Wardlaw, and within
the church pricked 14 women and one man brought thither by the Chisholm
of Commer, and 4 brought by Andrew Fraser, chamerlan of Ferrintosh. He
first polled all their heads and amassed the heap of haire together,
hid in the stone dich, and so proceeded to pricking.[61] Severall of
these dyed in prison never brought to confession. This villan gaind a
great deale off mony, haveing two servants; at last he was discovered
to be a woman disguished in mans cloathes. Such cruelty and rigure was
sustained by a vile varlet imposture.”[62] No doubt in very many, in
the majority of instances, these witch-marks were natural malformations
of the skin, thickened tissue, birthmarks—I myself have known a subject
who was by prenatal accident stamped upon the upper part of the arm with
the complete figure of a rat—moles, callous warts, or spots of some
kind. But this explanation will not cover all the cases, and even the
sceptical Miss Murray who writes: “Local anæsthesia is vouched for in
much of the evidence, which suggests that there is a substratum of truth
in the statements,” is bound candidly to confess, “but I can at present
offer no solution of this problem.”[63] Moreover, as before noticed, this
mark was not infrequently branded upon the novice at admission, often
by the Witch-Master, who presided over the rout, sometimes—it must be
admitted—by non-human agency.
The “little Teat or Pap,” so often found on the body of the wizard or
witch, and said to secrete milk which nourished the familiar, must be
carefully distinguished from the insensible devil-mark. This phenomenon,
for no explainable reason, seems to occur only in the records of
England and New England, where, however, it is of exceedingly frequent
occurrence. It is worth remarking that in the last act of Shadwell’s
play, _The Lancashire Witches_ (1681), the witches are searched by a
woman, who reports “they have all great Biggs and Teats in many Parts,
except Mother _Madge_, and hers are but small ones.” Shadwell, who in
his voluminous notes has citations from nearly fifty authors, on this
point writes: “The having of Biggs and Teats all modern Witchmongers
in _England_ affirm.”[64] In 1597 at the trial of a beldame, Elizabeth
Wright, of Stapenhill, near Burton-on-Trent: “The old woman they stript,
and found behind her right sholder a thing much like the vdder of an ewe
that giueth sucke with two teates, like vnto two great wartes, the one
behinde vnder her armehole, the other a hand off towardes the top of her
shoulder. Being demanded how long she had those teates, she answered
she was borne so.”[65] In the case of the Witch of Edmonton, Elizabeth
Sawyer, who was in spite of her resistance searched upon the express
order of the Bench, it was found by Margaret Weaver, a widow of an honest
reputation, and two other grave matrons, who performed this duty that
there was upon her body “a thing like a Teate the bignesse of the little
finger, and the length of half a finger, which was branched at the top
like a teate, and seemed as though one had suckt it.”[66] John Palmer
of St. Albans (1649) confessed that “upon his compact with the Divel,
hee received a flesh brand, or mark, upon his side, which gave suck
to two familiars.”[67] The Kentish witch, Mary Read of Lenham (1652),
“had a visible Teat, under her Tongue, and did show it to many.”[68] At
St. Albans about 1660 there was a wizard who “had like a Breast on his
side.”[69] In the same year at Kidderminster, a widow, her two daughters,
and a man were accused; “the man had five teats, the mother three, and
the eldest daughter, one.”[70] In 1692 Bridget Bishop, one of the Salem
witches, was brought to trial: “A Jury of Women found a preternatural
Teat upon her Body: But upon a second search, within 3 or 4 hours, there
was no such thing to be seen.”[71] There is similar evidence adduced
in the accounts of Rose Cullender and Amy Duny, two Suffolk witches,
executed in 1664; Elizabeth Horner, a Devon witch (1696); Widow Coman,
an Essex witch, who died in her bed (1699); and, indeed, innumerable
other examples might be quoted affording a whole catena of pertinent
illustrations. No doubt many of these are explicable by the cases of
polymastia (_mammæ erraticæ_) and polythelia (supernumerary nipples)
of which there are continual records in recent medical works. It must
be freely admitted that these anatomical divagations are commoner than
is generally supposed; frequently they are so slight that they may
pass almost unnoticed; doubtless there is exaggeration in many of the
inexactly observed seventeenth-century narratives. However, it has to be
said, as before, that when every most generous allowance is made, the
facts which remain, and the details are very ample, cannot be covered by
physical peculiarities and malformations. There is far more truth in the
records of the old theologians and witch finders than many nowadays are
disposed to allow.
NOTES TO CHAPTER II.
[1] Under Innocent III, 1215.
[2] Diabolus enim et alii dæmones a Deo quidem natura creati sunt boni,
sed ipsi per se facti sunt mali.
[3] Bossuet says that the writings of Suarez contain the whole of
Scholastic Philosophy.
[4] Since it contradicts a definite (_certa_) theological conclusion or
truth clearly consequent upon two premises, of which one is an article of
faith (_de fide_), the other naturally certain.
[5] Which explains much of the trifling and silliness in Spiritism; the
idle answers given through the mediums of the influences at work.
[6] Josephus, _Antiquities_, XIX. 8. 2.
[7] Suetonius, _Caligula_, XXII. Here ample details of Caligula’s worship
may be read.
[8] _Epigrammatum_, V. 8. 1. See also IX. 4, _et sæpius_.
[9] ... id agens ne quis Romæ deus nisi Heliogabalus coleretur.... Nec
Romanas tantum extinguere uoluit religiones, sed per orbem terræ unum
studens ut Heliogabalus deus unus ubique coleretur. Ælius Lampridius,
_Antoninus Heliogabalus_, 3; 6.
[10] Even the Christian (Arian) Constantius II suffered himself to be
addressed as “Nostra Æternitas.”
[11] Now commemorated on 14 September, the Feast of the Exaltation of
Holy Cross. Shortly after the Restoration of the Cross to Jerusalem, the
wood was cut up (perhaps for greater safety) into small fragments which
were distributed throughout the Christian world.
[12] Didymus, _De Trinitate_, III. xli.
[13] Epiphanius, _Hær._, xlviii. 11.
[14] _Annales de la Propagation de la Foi_, VII (1834), p. 84.
[15] D. C. J. Ibbetson, _Outlines of Punjaub Ethnography_, Calcutta.
1883. p. 123.
[16] ... vous n’avez pas eu honte de vous agenouiller devant votre
Belzebuth, que vous avez adoré. J. B. Cannaert, _Olim procès des
Sorcières en Belgique_, Gand, 1847.
[17] Ie me remets de tout poinct en ton pouuoir & entre tes mains, ne
recognois autre Dieu: si bien que tu es mon Dieu.
[18] On dit au Diable nous vous recognoissons pour nostre maistre, nostre
Dieu, nostre Createur.
[19] John Hutchinson, _History of the Province of Massachusett’s Bay_,
1828, II. p. 31.
[20] Satan luy comma̅da de le prier soir & matin, auant qu’elle s’addonat
à faire autre œuure.
[21] _Wonderful Discoverie of Elizabeth Sawyer_, London, 1621.
[22] Rev. F. G. Lee, _More Glimpses of the World Unseen_, 1878, p. 12.
[23] Potest [diabolus] eludere sensus et facere ut appareat caput
abcisum, _De Religione_, l. 2, c. 16, n. 13, t. 13, p. 578.
[24] Huc. _Voyage dans la Tartarie, le Thibet et la Chine_, I, ix, p.
308. The author remarks: Ces cérémonies horribles se renouvellent assez
souvent dans les grandes lamaseries de la Tartarie et du Thibet. Nous
ne pensons nullement qu’on puisse mettre toujours sur le compte de la
superchérie des faits de ce genre: car d’après tout ce que nous avons vu
et entendu parmi les nations idolâtres, nous sommes persuadé que le démon
y joue un grand rôle. (These horrible ceremonies frequently occur in the
larger lamaseries of Tartary and Tibet. I am very certain that we cannot
always ascribe happenings of this sort to mere juggling or trickery; for,
after all that I have seen and heard among heathen people, I am confident
that the powers of evil are very largely concerned therein.)
[25] I use this term rather than the more popular “Spiritualism.”
Spiritism obtains in Italy, France and Germany. “Spiritualism” is
correctly a technical name for the doctrine which denies that the
contents of the universe are limited to matter and the properties and
operations of matter.
[26] For fuller, and, indeed, conclusive details see Godfrey Raupert’s
_Modern Spiritism_, London, 1904; and Monsignor Benson’s _Spiritualism_,
_Dublin Review_, October, 1909, and reprinted by the Catholic Truth
Society.
[27] _Prognosticare_ is a late word. Strictly to prognosticate is to
deduce from actual signs, to prophesy is to foretell the future without
any such sign or token.
[28] The Camisards were agreeably satirized by D’Urfey in his comedy _The
Modern Prophets; or, New Wit for a Husband_, produced at Drury Lane, 5
May, 1709, (_Tatler_, 11), and printed quarto, 1709, (no date). One of
the principal characters is “_Marrogn_, A Knavish French Camizar and
Priest,” created by Bowen. This is a portrait of Elie Marion. In his
preface D’Urfey speaks of “the abominable Impostures of those craz’d
Enthusiasts” whom he lashes. The play had been composed in 1708, but
production was postponed owing to the death of the Prince Consort,
28 October of that year. Swift, _Predictions for the Year 1708_,
has: “_June_. This month will be distinguished at home, by the utter
dispersing of those ridiculous deluded enthusiasts, commonly called
the _prophets_; occasioned chiefly by seeing the time come, when many
of their prophecies should be fulfilled, and then finding themselves
deceived by contrary events.”
[29] See also Fléchier’s _Récit fidèle_ in _Lettres choisies_, Lyons,
1715; and Brueys’ _Histoire du fanatisme de notre temps_, Montpellier,
1713.
[30] Après que Dieu a parlé de sa propre bouche des magiciens et
sorciers, qui est l’incredule qui on peut justement douter?
[31] In the fourteenth century bas-reliefs on cathedrals frequently
represent men kneeling down before the Devil, worshipping him, and
devoting themselves to him as his servants. Martonne, _Piété au Moyen
Âge_, p. 137.
[32] George Ives, _A History of Penal Methods_, p. 75. His admirable and
documented chapter II, “The Witch Trials,” should be carefully read.
[33] Philip Schaff, _History of the Christian Church_.
[34] Matthew Paris, _Chronica Maiora_.
[35] J. P. Kirsch.
[36] All these quotations are from W. H. Lecky, _History of Rationalism
in Europe_, c. 1.
[37] Rev. Peter Lorimer, D.D.
[38] First published by Isidore Liseux, 1875. p. 21. XIII. Ludovico Maria
Sinistrari, Minorite, was born at Ameno (Novara) 26 February, 1622. He
was Consultor to the Supreme Tribunal of the Holy Office; Vicar-general
of the Archbishop of Avignon, and Theologian Advisory to the Archbishop
of Milan. He is described as “omnium scientiarum uir.” He died 6 March,
1701.
[39] _L’Incredulité et Mescreance du Sortilege_, Paris, 1622, p. 38.
[40] Subscriptio autem sæpissime peragitur proprio sanguine.... Sic
Augustæ referebat Joseph Egmund Schultz, se anno 1671. d. 15. Maji
sanguine proprio tinctum manuscriptum, in membrana, nomine picto,
obuolutoque muccinio, in media nocte, cum hora undecima & duodecima
agebatur, in compitum iecisse, atque pactum sic corroborasse.... Sic de
infausto illo Fausto _Widmannus_ refert, proprio sanguine ex leuiter
uulnerato pollice emisso illum se totum diabolo adscripsisse, Deoque
repudium misisse. _De Sagis_, Christian Stridtheckh, Lipsiæ, 1691. (XXII).
[41] See Götz, _De subscriptionibus sanguine humano firmatis_, Lübeck,
1724. Also Scheible, _Die Sage vom Faust_. Stuttgart, 1847. So far as I
am aware this point has been neglected by writers on Witchcraft.
[42] Ne fœdora quidem incruenta sunt: sauciant se, qui paciscuntur,
exemtumque sanguinem, ubi permiscuere, degustant. Id putant mansuræ fidei
pignus certissimum.
[43] ... uel quia Deus non permittit, uel propter alias rationes nobis
occultas. _De Superstitione_, VIII. i. 13.
[44] Tunc autem propria culpa diuinationis iam commissa est ab homine,
etiamsi effectus desideratas non fuerit subsecutus. (For the sin of
divination is actually committed by the sinner and that willingly,
although he obtain not the desired effect of his action.) _Idem._
[45] _Theologia moralis_, l. iii. n. 28. Monendi sunt se teneri 1.
Pactum expressum, si quod habent cum dæmone, aut commercium abiurare et
dissoluere; 2. Libros suos, schedas, ligaturas, aliaque instrumenta artis
comburere; 3. Comburere chirographum, si habeat: si iuro solus dæmon id
habeat, non necessario cogendus est ut reddat, quia pactum sufficienter
soluitur per pœnitentiam; 4. Damna illata resarcire.
[46] Bollandists, 4 February.
[47] _Breuiarium Romanum_, Paris Autumnalis, 26 September, lectio iii. of
Matins. Upon this history Calderon has founded his great drama _El Magico
Prodigioso_.
[48] Bollandists, 14 May. _Breuiarium iuxta S. Ordinis Prædicatorum._
14 May. In Nocturno, Lectiones ii, iij. Touron _Histoire des hommes
illustres de l’ordre de Saint Dominique_. (Paris, 1743.)
[49] _Discoverie of Witchcraft_, Book III.
[50] _Examination of Joane Williford_, London, 1643.
[51] John Davenport, _Witches of Huntingdon_, London, 1646.
[52] Glanvill, _Sadducismus Triumphatus_.
[53] Antoinette Bourignon, _La Vie exterieure_, Amsterdam, 1683.
[54] Delrio. _Disquisitiones magicæ_, l. v. sect. 4. t. 2. Non eadem est
forma signi; aliquando est simile leporis uestigio, aliquando bufonis
pedi, aliquando araneæ, uel catello, uel gliri.
[55] _Idem._ In uirorum enim corpore sæpe uisitur sub palpebris, sub
labiis, sub axillis, in humeris, in sede ima: feminis etiam, in mammis
uel muliebribus locis.
[56] ... le Diable leur fait quelque marque comme avec une aleine de fer
en quelque partie du corps.
[57] _Newes from Scotland_, London. (1592.) Roxburgh Club reprint, 1816.
[58] _Abbreviate of the Justiciary Record._
[59] Nous, medecins et chirurgiens soussignés, suivant le commandement à
nous fait par messire Anthoine de Thoron, sieur de Thoron, conseiller du
roy en sa cour de parlement, avons visité messire L. Gaufridy au corps
duquel avons remarqué trois petites marques peu differentes en couleur du
reste du cuir. L’une en sa cuisse sénestre sur le milieu et en la partie
inferieure, en laquelle ayant enforcé une aiguille environ deux travers
de doigts n’a senti aucune douleur, ni de la place n’est sorti point de
sang ni autre humidité.
La seconde est en la region des lombes en la partie droite, un poulce
près de l’épine du dos et quatre doigts au-dessus les muscles de la
fesse, en laquelle nous avons enfoncé l’aiguille trois travers de doigts,
la laissons comme avions fait à la première plantée en cette partie
quelque espace de temps, sans toutefois que le dit Gaufridy ait senti
aucune douleur et que sang ni humeur quelconque en soit sorti.
La troisième est vers la région du cœur. Laquelle, au commencement qu’on
mit l’aiguille parut comme les autres sans sentiment; mais à mesure que
l’on enfonçait fort avant, il dit sentir quelque douleur; ne sortant
toutefois aucune humidité, et l’ayant visité le lendemain au matin,
n’avons reconnu aux parties piquées ni tumeur, ni rougeur. A cause de
quoi nous disons telles marques insensibles en rendant point d’humidité
étant piquées, ne pouvoir arriver par aucune maladie du cuir précédante,
et tel faisons notre rapport ce 10 mars, 1611. _Fontaine_, _Grassy_,
médecins; _Mérindol_, _Bontemps_, chirurgiens.
So great was the importance attached to the discovery of a witch-mark
upon the body of the accused that when the above medico-legal report was
read in court, Father Sebastian Michaelis, a learned Dominican, who was
acting as consultor in the case, horror-struck, involuntarily exclaimed:
“Good sooth, were we at Avignon this man would be executed to-morrow!”
Gaufridi confessed: “J’advoue que les dites marques sont faites pour
protestation qu’on sera toujours bon et fidèle serviteur du diable toute
la vie.” (I confess that these marks were made as a sign that I shall be
a good and faithful servant to the Devil all my life long.)
[60] Pitcairn, _Records of Justiciary_. In 1663 Kincaid was thrown into
jail, where he lay nine weeks for “pricking” without a magistrate’s
warrant. He was only released owing to his great age and on condition
that he would “prick” no more.
[61] This shaving of the head and body was the usual procedure before
the search for the devil-mark. We find it recorded in nearly every case.
Generally a barber was called in to perform the operation: e.g. the
trials of Gaufridi and Grandier, where the details are very ample.
[62] _The Wardlaw Manuscript_, p. 446. Scottish History Society
publication, Edinburgh.
[63] _The Witch-Cult in Western Europe_, p. 86.
[64] Angelica in _Love for Love_ (1695), II, mocking her superstitious
old uncle, Foresight, and the Nurse, cries: “Look to it, Nurse; I can
bring Witness that you have a great unnatural Teat under your Left Arm,
and he another; and that you Suckle a young Devil in the shape of a
Tabby-Cat by turns, I can.”
[65] _The most wonderfull ... storie of a ... Witch named Alse
Gooderidge._ London. 1597.
[66] Goodcole’s _Wonderfull Discoverie of Elizabeth Sawyer_, London,
1621. There is an allusion in Ford and Dekker’s drama, IV:
_Sawyer._ My dear _Tom-boy_, welcome ...
Comfort me: thou shalt haue the teat anon.
_Dog._ Bow, wow! I’ll haue it now.
[67] W. B. Gerish. _The Devil’s Delusions_, Bishops Stortford, 1914.
[68] _Prodigious and Tragicall Histories_, London, 1652.
[69] W. B. Gerish, _Relation of Mary Hall of Gadsden_, 1912.
[70] T. B. Howell, _State Trials_, London, 1816.
[71] Cotton Mather, _Wonders of the Invisible World_.