X. and of Adrian VI., in 1521 and 1523, seemed to close the dispute in

favor of the witch-hunters.

The forty years of lull[59] that followed marked no decline of faith
in this field. Whatever else Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and
Calvinist, might wrangle over, there remained the most edifying
unanimity as to the activity of the Devil; and each party vied with the
others in showing its innocence of complicity with him by hatred toward
his peculiar servants, the witches. From the close of the previous
century, the growing influence of the Roman law, the spread of written
procedure, the substitution of public for private prosecution in
criminal cases, and the introduction of torture from the ecclesiastical
into the secular courts had been quietly smoothing the way for the
persecution; and the written codes, which one by one embodied the
new juristic attitude, gave ever fresh emphasis to witchcraft as a
crime.[60] Quietly but steadily, as the religious fever waned and the
zeal of revolution gave place to the timorous lassitude of reaction,
the witchcraft panic and the horrors of the attendant persecution
spread through the lands which had been torn by the struggle.

The first voice raised against it was that of the Rhenish physician
Johann Weyer,[61] whose noble book “De praestigiis daemonum” saw the
light in 1563. It ushered in a second era of controversy. Slowly, here
and there, the burning words of Weyer stirred up a disciple, more or
less ardent: Ewich[62] and Neuwaldt[63] and Witekind[64] and Loos[65]
and Godelmann[66] and Anten[67] in Germany, Reginald Scot[68] and
Gifford[69] and Harsnet[70] and Cotta[71] in England. But they stirred
up adversaries tenfold more numerous and influential: Daneau[72] in
Switzerland, Bodin[73] and Crespet[74] and De l’Ancre[75] in France,
Erastus[76] and Bishop Binsfeld[77] and Scribonius[78] in Germany,
Remy[79] in Lorraine, Boguet[80] in Franche-Comté, Delrio[81] in the
Netherlands, Torreblanca[82] in Spain, and in Great Britain Bishop
Jewell and Perkins[83] and the royal inquisitor, James of Scotland
and of England,[84] with a multitude everywhere of lesser note or
later date. It was the golden age of the witchcraft literature, as
of witchcraft itself. Enterprising publishers sought in vain to sate
the public appetite by throwing together, in awkward folios or fat
duodecimos, all the books they could find on the subject.[85] The
news-letters and _Neue Zeitungen_, printed or written, which had
taken the place of the sermons and satires of the Reformation, as
the newspaper was soon in turn to take their own, carried to every
fireside, in rude rhyme and ruder wood-cut, the tale of the countless
burnings which planted charred stakes like shade-trees before city and
hamlet of the Continent, or of the prickings and swimmings and wakings
with which English and Scottish procedure consoled themselves for the
want of the rack. The murmur of protest, ever fainter, had all but died
out.[86] In France, where alone doubt throve, skeptics like Montaigne
and Charron were far too wise in their generation to embody their
incredulity in monographs; and even Gabriel Naudé, who in 1625 dealt
the superstition a sharp blow by the publication of his “Apologie pour
les grands personnages qui ont été faussement soupçonnés de magie,” had
the prudence to confine himself strictly to times at a safe distance
from the present. But, in 1631, the brave young Jesuit poet, Friedrich
von Spee--saint and martyr by a higher canonization than that of the
Church--dared to publish, though without his name and unknown to his
superiors, the eloquent “Cautio criminalis” which once more gave the
persecution pause. Based on his own experience as a confessor to the
witches, and attacking not the theory but only the procedure, it won
attention in quarters unreachable by polemic.

There followed an age of better omen. Steadily, but almost as quietly
as it had gathered strength during the Reformation, the delusion now
faded before the advance of that more Christian spirit of mingled
science and humanity which the world has too long stigmatized as
rationalism. In one territory after another the flames died out.
Jurists and theologians remained conservative, and such literature, of
sermon and opinion, as was devoted to witchcraft, was mainly on the
side of the superstition. From the universities a host of academic
dissertations, in law and theology, echoed the orthodox tenets of
the teachers--if, indeed, they were not the product of their pens.
But it was apparent that they were now on the defensive. Not less
significant as a symptom was the rapid growth of that literature
which found in the superstition only a means of selfish profit or
amusement: the collections of witch stories and devil stories which
pandered to popular curiosity and love of horror. In 1657 even the
older church herself, which had steadily put on her index of forbidden
books the works written against the persecution, found herself
constrained to issue a tardy _Instructio_[87] urging her inquisitors to
circumspection. In England alone, where Puritan bibliolatry had ensured
the dogma a longer tenure, and had found it an unexpected advocate in
Joseph Glanvill,[88] was the struggle for a moment serious and the
result doubtful; but the assaults of a Gaule,[89] a Filmer,[90] an
Ady,[91] a Wagstaffe,[92] a Webster,[93] were fast letting in the purer
daylight; and even Presbyterian Scotland was sure, however slowly, to
wake to it in due time. The New England panic at Salem was but a last
bright flicker of the ghastly glare which had so long made hideous the
European night.[94] Already, even before Spee, the Dutchman Greve[95]
had struck a blow at the root of the superstition on the Continent by
attacking the use of the torture, and now, in 1691, his countryman,
Balthasar Bekker, aimed one yet more deadly at its very heart by
denying, in his “Betooverde Wereld,” the personal agency of the Devil
in human affairs. And its period of silent decay came sharply to an
end, just at the close of the century, when, in 1701, the free-thinking
Halle professor, Christian Thomas (or Thomasius, as his Latin-writing
contemporaries preferred to call him), published in the name of a
student his pungent “Theses de crimine magiae.”[96]

So began for witchcraft the age of the “Aufklärung.” For a moment
its defenders, thus brought to bay, fought with tooth and nail. But,
as the taunts and jeers of its assailants grew ever louder and more
confident, they slunk back into obscurity. Only now and then, as
the century advanced, did some stranded theologian mutter in print
his grouty protest, or some over-hasty reformer stir up a buzz of
pamphlets by obtruding his rationalism into a last snoozing-place of
orthodoxy. The witch burnings and hangings grew fewer and fewer and
disappeared altogether, and with them the need of their justification.
The publishers of the witch stories learned to appeal to readers of
ever lower grades of intelligence or to throw into their tone a banter
which flattered the vanity of the class that gloats over the errors
of its fellows. A mass of lesser superstitions, galvanized into fresh
life by scribbling adventurers, gave refuge to those enlightened before
their time. And at last the storm of the French Revolution, destroying
torture-chamber and code as it swept over Europe, buried in their ruins
the witch-persecution and its literature, and did somewhat to clear the
air for that new scientific study of its psychology and history which
was to be the task of the nineteenth century.

Already, in 1712, Thomasius had devoted a thesis to the origin of the
persecution,[97] and before his death he was able to welcome the more
elaborate history by the English clergyman, Hutchinson,[98] whose
retrospect was, however, almost wholly confined to his own land and her
colonies. Before the middle of the eighteenth century, the Lutheran
divine, Hauber, had gathered what still remains the richest body of
materials for the study of the subject,[99] and in 1784 another German
pastor, Schwager, published the first volume of a general history of
the witch-trials.[100] Yet these were but beginnings. I could have
wished to close this hasty survey of the growth of the literature of
witchcraft with a more careful discussion of what our own century has
done towards its study; but my paper is already too long. I may barely
mention the bibliography of Grässe, which, with all its omissions and
inaccuracies, is still the best we have; the comprehensive narratives
attempted by Horst, and Scheltema, and Scott, and Scholtz, and Soldan,
and Wright, and Michelet, and Heppe; the more partisan contributions
of Görres, and Scherr, and Diefenbach, and Längin; the light thrown
upon it by the brilliant work in neighboring fields of Wächter,
and Maury, and Roskoff, and Buchmann, and Rydberg, and Conway, and
Baissac, and Meyer, and Lea. But of the histories of its career in
single lands, districts, towns, by a myriad of patient students, whose
researches will furnish the most precious of all stores for the future
historian,--of the biographies, all too few, of the heroes of the
struggle,--of the valuable chapters scattered through periodicals, and
proceedings, and local histories, and histories of civilization or
theology or law or medicine or literature or natural science, I cannot
so much as speak.

Yet, much as has been written on the subject, it is amazing how small
a proportion of it has been serious in aim or in method. Perhaps no
province of history has been so largely the domain of the sciolist and
the charlatan. From the “Formicarius” of Nider to the just-published
hodge-podge of Davenport Adams, it has been the prey of writers who
have sought to entertain more than to enlighten. As was pointed out
more than a decade ago by Friedrich Nippold,[101] there has been as
yet not an attempt at an exhaustive investigation of the history of
the witch-persecution. Even the noble book of Soldan-Heppe, which is
still beyond question the most thorough, makes little effort to utilize
other than printed sources, and of the latter it is for German lands
alone that the author’s material approached completeness. Of the origin
and nature of the delusion, we know perhaps enough; but of the causes
and paths of its spread, of the extent of its ravages, of its exact
bearing upon the intellectual and religious freedom of its times,
of the soul-stirring details of the costly struggle by which it was
overborne, we are lamentably ill-informed. The archives and libraries
of Europe--aye, and of many parts of America as well--abound in still
unpublished documents which would throw light upon these problems. The
labors of local antiquaries are every day opening fresh mines for a
more exhaustive history of witchcraft. When that history comes to be
written, may the collection which has suggested my paper be not without
its use; and may it aid in making clear to future generations why the
literature of witchcraft belongs not to folk-lore, but to theology.




FOOTNOTES:

[1] I need not say that the President White Library does not possess
them all; its lacunæ are many, and not unimportant. It has, however,
the largest collection, private or public, with which I am acquainted.
My estimate is a guess, based partly upon it, partly upon the
“Bibliotheca magica” of Grässe, partly upon my notes as to the gaps in
each; but it is hard to discriminate between books treating mainly of
witchcraft and those treating only largely or ostensibly of it.

[2] Notably out of the poetic opening verses of the sixth chapter of
Genesis, which always remained the proof-passage for the demonologic
system of the Church. On it had been based that mystical “book of
Enoch,” which exercised so striking an influence upon Jewish thought
during the centuries just before and just after the Christian era, and
indeed upon the writers of the New Testament themselves (Jude, for
example, cites it largely and by name), and which was treated by the
early Christians as wholly canonical. Hence came the legend of the fall
of the angels, so familiar to us through Milton, and a commonplace
in the older day. Of even more lasting influence was the demonologic
romance of Tobias, or Tobit, which is now classed by Protestants as
apocryphal, but which was cited by the earliest Christian writers with
the same freedom as any part of the Old Testament, and still retains
its place in the Catholic Bible. No book was so largely quoted by the
later Christian writers on diabolism and witchcraft. The whole theory
of exorcism indeed is mainly based on it; and, still more, the horrible
belief in _incubi_. Of importance also (besides all that could be
found in the books of our canon) were the demonologic passages of the
apocryphal “Wisdom of Solomon” and “Ecclesiasticus.” Tertullian cites
the latter, like any other book of Scripture, with the solemn “as
it is written” (_sicut scriptum est_). See Diestel, “Geschichte des
Alten Testaments in der christlichen Kirche”; Reuss, “Geschichte des
Alten Testaments”; and Emanuel Deutsch, “The Talmud” (in his “Literary
remains”).

[3] This impulse must have been powerfully aided by the current
translation of a familiar passage in the Psalms. Where we read
(Ps. xcvi, 5): “All the gods of the nations are idols,” the early
Church read: “All the gods of the nations are devils.” The passage
is constantly cited by the Fathers in this sense. Even Wiclif
translates: “Alle the goddis of hethene men ben feendis [fiends].”

[4] What could be more vivid than the story of the old hermit who
prayed God that he might see the demons, and would not be denied;
“and God opened his eyes, and he saw them, for just like bees do they
surround man, grating their teeth over him.”--“Verba Seniorum,” lib.
vi., libel. i., c. 11 (“Vitæ Patrum,” ii.).

[5] Only Archbishop Agobard, of Lyons (779-c. 841), a man in many ways
before his time, went so far as to write a book--what we should call a
pamphlet--upon the absurdity of the popular superstitions: his “Liber
contra insulsam vulgi opinionem de grandine et tonitruis.” The essay
“De magicis artibus” (perhaps the first Christian monograph on the
subject) by his learned contemporary and colleague, Archbishop Hrabanus
Maurus, of Mainz, is far more credulous, and, like most of that great
teacher’s work, mainly a compilation. Not forgotten by him are the
Scripture texts against witchcraft, beginning with the terrible “Thou
shalt not suffer a witch to live.” He treats the same theme in similar
fashion in his encyclopædic “De universo” and in his “Penitentiale.” It
was later in the same century that another great Frankish archbishop,
Hincmar of Rheims, found himself brought face to face with the problem
of magic, in his legal response on the divorce of King Lothaire (“De
divortio Lotharii regis et Tetbergae reginae”), three of the thirty
questions asked him involving it. He discussed the subject at much
length, and, though credulously enough, in the main sensibly.

[6] The source of the canon is, indeed, now a riddle. Its ascription
to the synod of Ancyra, which the Middle Age never questioned, is now
known to be a mere blunder. But, from its first appearance, in the
collection of Regino at the close of the ninth century, it became the
recognized dictum of the Canon Law upon this subject, and remained
unimpeached, even by those who devoted chapters to explaining it away,
until after the Reformation. It surely was no accident that it came to
light at the end of the same century in which Agobard wrote. Bishop
Burchard, of Worms (d. 1025), who followed Regino as a collector of
ecclesiastical law, and gave a whole book of his “Decreta” to decisions
“De incantatoribus et auguribus,” sets the canon _Episcopi_ at its
head. But this prominence in order it lost in the later compositions.

[7] It is true that the long discourse, put into Antony’s mouth (c.
15-20), on the power and wiles of the Devil and the way to resist him,
which may almost be called the first Christian monograph on diabolism,
may possibly be an interpolation; but it breathes the very spirit of
the Fathers, and the whole narrative is full of the Devil’s doings.
The popularity of the book throughout the Christian world is attested
by what Augustine tells us in his “Confessions,” and the part there
ascribed to it in his own conversion must have tended to increase
its influence. What a favorite its story was with the sculptors and
painters of the later Middle Ages we all know.

[8] True, Augustine taught, and the Church after him, that Satan could
do nothing save by the tacit consent of God; but the limitation was
scarcely more than nominal, since against sinners he was believed to be
given free hand, and only the immediate and incessant protection of the
Church could ensure safety. The carnal mind was powerless to recognize
him: did not the Scripture itself say that he could appear as an angel
of light? Nay, he often took the form of Christ himself, as more than
one hermit had testified.

[9] Chrysostom’s monograph, “De imbecilitate Diaboli,” is too
metaphysical to be reckoned here at all, as likewise is Anselm’s
“Dialogus de casu Diaboli” of a half-dozen centuries later.

[10] For illustration of this, one has but to open the “Vitae Patrum”
at random. Of the “Collationes” of Cassian, a book of the greatest
influence throughout the Middle Ages, especially in the monasteries,
“Collatio VII.,” “quae est prima abbatis Sereni,” and “Collatio VIII.,”
“quae est secunda abbatis Sereni,” deal mainly with diabolism and are
full of anecdote.

[11] Notably, of course, the famous one of Theophilus, ostensibly
written by one Eutychianus in the sixth century, but known to the
West through a Latin version made by a Naples deacon named Paulus,
probably toward the close of the ninth century. (It may be found, with
the metrical paraphrase ascribed to Bishop Marbod, in the Bollandist
“Acta Sanctorum” for 4th February. Better known in our day, though
not in hers, is its dramatization by the nun Hroswitha--one of many.)
Another, scarcely less popular in the Middle Ages, though strangely
overlooked by later writers, was the tale (first told in the “Life of
Basil” ascribed apocryphally to his contemporary, Bishop Amphilochius
of Iconium) of the senator’s valet who fell in love with his master’s
daughter, won her by signing away his soul to the Devil, and was
saved only through the aid of St. Basil, who forced the fiend to
surrender the contract. I find the story (it is a long one) first
told in the West by Hincmar of Rheims (d. 882) in his response “De
divortio Lotharii,” who credits it to Amphilochius. Its influence in
the Occident would seem, therefore, to be of about the same age as that
of the Theophilus legend, which, in several respects, is less like
the later witch-stories. After Hincmar the anecdote appears often. Of
modern writers on witchcraft, Roskoff alone mentions it, on the basis
of a vague allusion of Schwager’s; and Schwager had evidently sought
for it in vain, misunderstanding it to be in Basil’s “Dialogues.”
Amphilochius’ “Vita Basilii” may be found in the “Vitae Patrum,” and in
the Bollandist “Acta Sanctorum” (June, vol. iii.).

[12] In his “De septem donis,” tit. vii., cap. 34, sp. 5.

[13] In his “Dialogus miraculorum,” distinctio v.

[14] In his “Bonum universale de apibus,” cap. 54-56. The first of
these chapters is “De diabolo transfigurantis se in angelum lucis”; the
last, “De demonibus aërem perturbantibus.” Thomas was a Dominican, and
wrote, as he himself here tells us, in 1258.

[15] His “Liber revelationum de insidiis et versutiis daemonum adversus
homines” (in Pez, “Thesaurus,” I., ii.).

[16] _E.g._, Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, or John of Winterthur
(Vitoduranus).

[17] Of Vincent it is especially the “Speculum Historiale” that thus
abounds. To this great compilation the earliest writers on witchcraft
owed their precedents almost as largely as they owed their arguments to
Thomas Aquinas.

[18] “De draconibus” is the usual, but misleading, form of its Latin
title.

[19] “De operatione daemonum” it is entitled in the Latin translation
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.

[86] True, there was still, in many quarters, an unreconciled
public sentiment, and even now and then an open though unpublished
deprecation. It has long struck the attention of historians that,
even in witch-ridden Germany, the great imperial city of Nuremberg
seems free from the persecution. Its criminal code was the Carolina;
yet a contemporary manuscript copy of its executioner’s records,
from 1600 to 1692, in the possession of the President White Library,
shows not a single execution for witchcraft proper. I hold in my
hand a document--so far as I know unprinted, and certainly unknown
to the historians of witchcraft--which may partially explain this.
It is a manuscript, in a sixteenth century hand, on whose cover I
read, “Der Nürnbergischen Theologen Ainhellige Antwort, über etliche
Puncten, die Unhulden betreffent”; and at the head of its first page,
more explicitly, “Ainhellige Antwort der Hochgelerten Theologi unnd
Predicanten zu Nürnberg: auff die Suplication des Raths zu Weisenburg
an die Eltern herren dess geheimen Raths alhie zu Nürnberg: umb
unterichtung: Wie sie sich mit iren Hexen undt Unhulden verhalden
sollen, unnd wass in Göttlicher heiliger Schrifft darvon gegründett
sey.” At the end are the signatures of the six pastors of Nuremberg,
and the date--1590. Through thirty weary pages the city clergy wrestle
with the problem set them; and superstitious enough seems their answer.
They believe fully in witchcraft and in its punishment--nay, they
establish both in all their horrible detail out of Holy Writ. And yet
(the influence of the canon _Episcopi_ is clearly not dead, even for
Protestants) they deny that the witches can transform themselves, or
ride through the air, or cause wind or hail-storm; all this is mere
illusion. And so do they fence about the prescribed procedure with
their cautions against trusting the testimony of the witches themselves
or the word of the executioner or charges against persons of else
unblemished reputation; that, seeing the most prolific sources of the
spread of the persecution thus cut off, one no longer wonders, if such
were the spirit of even her theologians, at Nuremberg’s own immunity.

[87] “Instructio pro formandis processibus in causis strigum,
sortilegiorum, et maleficiorum,” Rome, 1657.

[88] In his “Philosophical considerations touching witches and
witchcraft,” 1666, which, enlarged, was reprinted (1668) as “A blow at
modern sadducism,” and (1681) as “Sadducismus triumphatus.”

[89] In his “Select cases of conscience touching witches and
witchcraft,” 1646. I have not seen the book, and copy its title from
Wright (“Narratives of sorcery and witchcraft”).

[90] In his “An advertisement to the jurymen of England, touching
witches,” London, 1653.

[91] In his “A candle in the dark; or, A treatise concerning the nature
of witches and witchcraft,” London, 1656.

[92] In his “The question of witchcraft debated; or, A discourse
against their opinion that affirm witches,” London, 1669.

[93] In his “The displaying of supposed witchcraft,” London, 1677.

[94] And if it surprise any that, in a paper before the American
Historical Association, I say nothing of the literature of American
witchcraft, I can reply only that it seemed to me a work of
supererogation, if not an impertinence, to treat that literature in
this presence with the brevity its place in the history of the delusion
would demand.

[95] In his “Tribunal reformatum,” Hamburg, 1624.

[96] That Thomasius was himself their author was, indeed, clearly
stated in a letter appended to the “Theses,” wherein he says to
the respondent: ...“_In chartam conjeci breves has Theses, quae in
perlectione prolixioris dissertationis Tuae in mentem venerunt._”...
They were published the next year (and often thereafter) in German
translation, under his own name, as “Kurtze Lehr-Sätze von dem Laster
der Zauberey.” But this was only a beginning of Thomasius’ share in
the crusade. He gathered, or led his students to gather, all that
could be found written against the persecution (among the rest Spee’s
book) and issued it afresh in German; he translated, with preface of
his own, every new book upon it that appeared abroad; he encouraged
his pupils to discuss it in their dissertations, or did so in their
names; he assailed it in lecture and review and editorial; and he kept
up the warfare till his death. An utterance of his even earlier than
the “Theses” I find in his “Dissertatio ad Petri Poireti libros de
Eruditione,” 1694 (reprinted in his “Programmata Thomasiana,” 1724),
where he already takes strong ground against the persecution, though
not wholly against the superstition.

[97] “Disputatio juris canonici de origine ac progressu processus
inquisitorii contra sagas, quam ... praeside Dn. Christiano Thomasio
... subjicit ... Johannes Paulus Ipsen.” That Thomasius, and not
Ipsen, is its author, is abundantly clear from internal evidence; and
Thomasius himself claims it as his own in subsequent writings. We have,
by the way, from Thomasius’s own lips (in his “Programma invitatorium”
to “Dodecas quaestionum promiscuarum,” Halle, 1694--cited by A.
Roquette in the _Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, 1887), an ironical
discussion of this prevalent fashion of writing for one’s pupils
disputations which one afterward collected and published under one’s
own name. “Neque falsum committitur,” he thinks, “dum quis se auctorem
scribit disputationis, cujus nec lineam saepius elaboravit, saepius nec
intelligit.”

[98] “An historical essay concerning witchcraft,” London, 1718.

[99] “Bibliotheca, acta et scripta magica: Gründliche Nachrichten und
Urtheile von solchen Büchern und Handlungen, welche die Macht des
Teufels in leiblichen Dingen betreffen,” Lemgo, 1739-45.

[100] “Versuch einer Geschichte der Hexenprozesse,” i., Berlin, 1784.
It unfortunately remained a fragment--in fact, as the author himself
calls it, only an introduction.

[101] In the “literarisch-kritischer Anhang über die Quellen und
Bearbeitungen der Hexenprozesse,” appended to his little study on “Die
gegenwärtige Wiederbelebung des Hexenglaubens” (Berlin, 1875).




Transcriber’s Note:


The footnotes have been relocated to the end of the main text and
renumbered to better fit the ebook format.

Spelling and hyphenation in common use at the time of publication have
been kept as is. Obvious typos have been corrected.

The following change has been made:

- In footnote 75: sortilége to sortilège